[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 158 (Thursday, August 17, 2017)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 39079-39083]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-17222]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0389; FRL-9966-16-Region 4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South 
Carolina; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing a 
supplement to its proposed approval of a revision to the South Carolina 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of South 
Carolina through the South Carolina Department of Health and 
Environmental Control (SC DHEC) on December 28, 2012. South Carolina's 
SIP revision (Progress Report) addresses requirements of the Clean Air 
Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that require each state to submit 
periodic reports describing progress towards reasonable progress goals 
(RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination of the 
adequacy of the state's existing SIP addressing regional haze (regional 
haze plan). EPA's proposed approval of South Carolina's Progress Report 
was published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2014. This 
supplemental proposal addresses the potential effects on EPA's proposed 
approval from the April 29, 2014, decision of the United States Supreme 
Court (Supreme Court) remanding to the United States Court of Appeals 
for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) EPA's Cross-State 
Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for further proceedings and the D.C. 
Circuit's July 28, 2015, decision on remand.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2017.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2013-0389 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 submissions, and general 
guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, 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. Ms. Notarianni can be reached via telephone at (404) 562-
9031 and via electronic mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d7b9b8a3b6a5beb6b9b9bef9babeb4bfb2bbb297b2a7b6f9b0b8a1"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6d0302190c1f040c0303044300040e050801082d081d0c430a021b">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    Each state is required to submit a progress report in the form of a 
SIP revision during the first implementation period that evaluates 
progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I federal area 
(Class I area) \1\ within the state and in each mandatory Class I area 
outside the state that may be affected by emissions from within the 
state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition, the provisions under 40 CFR 
51.308(h) require states to submit, at the same time as the progress 
report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing 
regional haze plan. The first progress report is due five years after 
submittal of the initial regional haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). 
These areas are listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    SC DHEC submitted its first regional haze plan on December 17, 
2007, and submitted its Progress Report on December 28, 2012. The 
Progress Report and accompanying cover letter included a determination 
that South Carolina's existing regional haze plan requires no 
substantive revision to achieve the established regional haze 
visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals for 2018. EPA 
proposed to find that the State's Progress Report satisfied the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h) in a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) published on January 17, 2014 (79 FR 3147). Today's 
notice supplements that 2014 NPRM by more fully explaining and 
soliciting comment on the basis for the Agency's proposed approval as 
it relates to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and CSAPR.

II. Summary of South Carolina's Progress Report and EPA's 2014 NPRM

    In accordance with requirements in EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR), 
South Carolina's Progress Report describes the progress made towards 
the RPGs of Class I areas in and outside South Carolina that are 
affected by emissions from South Carolina's sources.\2\ See 40 CFR 
51.308(g). This Progress Report also included an assessment of whether 
South Carolina's existing regional haze plan is sufficient to allow it 
and other nearby states with Class I areas to achieve their RPGs by the 
end of the first implementation period. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). In the 
2014 NPRM, EPA proposed to approve the State's Progress Report as 
adequately addressing 40 CFR

[[Page 39080]]

51.308(g) and (h). EPA's proposed conclusions in the 2014 NPRM 
regarding South Carolina's Progress Report are briefly summarized 
below.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze, the RHR, on 
July 1, 1999. See 64 FR 35713. The RHR revised the existing 
visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions 
addressing regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive 
visibility protection program for Class I areas. See 40 CFR 51.308 
and 51.309. EPA revised the RHR on January 10, 2017. See 82 FR 3078.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    South Carolina's Progress Report included a description of the 
status of measures in its regional haze plan; a summary of the 
emissions reductions achieved; an assessment of the visibility 
conditions for Cape Romain Wilderness Area, the only Class I area in 
the State; an analysis of the changes in emissions from sources and 
activities within the State; an assessment of any significant changes 
in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State that have 
limited or impeded visibility improvement progress in Class I areas 
impacted by the State's sources; an assessment of the sufficiency of 
the regional haze plan to enable South Carolina and states affected by 
South Carolina's sources to meet the RPGs for their Class I areas; and 
a review of the State's visibility monitoring strategy. As explained in 
the 2014 NPRM, EPA proposed to find that South Carolina's Progress 
Report adequately addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 
51.308(g).
    In addition, South Carolina simultaneously submitted a 
determination pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h) that its regional haze plan 
is sufficient to enable the State and states affected by South 
Carolina's sources to achieve the RPGs for Class I areas affected by 
South Carolina's sources. The State also declared that further revision 
of the existing regional haze plan was not needed at that time. As 
explained in detail in the 2014 NPRM, EPA proposed to determine that 
South Carolina had adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h) because 
visibility has improved at Cape Romain; sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) 
emissions from the State's sources have decreased beyond original 
projections; \3\ additional electric generating unit (EGU) control 
measures not relied upon in the State's regional haze plan have 
occurred or will occur in the implementation period; and the 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from EGUs in South Carolina are already below 
the levels projected for 2018 in the regional haze plan and are 
expected to continue to trend downward, as will the SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions from EGUs in the other VISTAS states. In the 2014 NPRM, EPA 
proposed to approve South Carolina's Progress Report SIP as meeting the 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ In its regional haze plan and Progress Report, South 
Carolina focused its assessment on SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from 
EGUs because the regional planning organization, the Visibility 
Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS), 
determined that sulfates accounted for more than 70 percent of the 
visibility-impairing pollution in the Southeast and that 
SO<INF>2</INF> point source emissions in 2018 represent more than 95 
percent of the total SO<INF>2</INF> emissions inventory. In its 
Progress Report, South Carolina states that sulfates continue to be 
the biggest single contributor to regional haze at Cape Romain.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

III. Impact of CAIR and CSAPR on South Carolina's Progress Report

    Decisions by the courts regarding EPA rules addressing the 
interstate transport of pollutants have had a substantial impact on 
EPA's review of the regional haze plans of many states. In 2005, EPA 
issued regulations allowing states to rely on CAIR to meet certain 
requirements of the RHR. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).\4\ Like many 
other states subject to CAIR, South Carolina relied on CAIR in its 
regional haze plan to meet certain requirements of the RHR, including 
the criteria for alternatives to the best available retrofit technology 
(BART) requirements for emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and nitrogen oxides 
(NO<INF>X</INF>) from certain EGUs in the State. This reliance was 
consistent with EPA's regulations. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). 
However, in 2008, the D.C. Circuit remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur 
to preserve the environmental benefits provided by the rule. North 
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 
2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA 
promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR and issued Federal Implementation 
Plans (FIPs) to implement the rule in CSAPR-subject states.\5\ 
Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when 
CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR program. However, numerous parties 
filed petitions for review of CSAPR, and at the end of 2011, the D.C. 
Circuit issued an order staying CSAPR pending resolution of the 
petitions and directing EPA to continue to administer CAIR. Order of 
December 30, 2011, in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. 
No. 11-1302.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ CAIR 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 National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards (NAAQS) and/or the 1997 fine particulate matter 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>) NAAQS. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005).
    \5\ 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 NOx by each covered state's 
large EGUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On June 28, 2012 (77 FR 38509), EPA finalized a limited approval of 
South Carolina's regional haze plan addressing the first implementation 
period for regional haze. In a separate action, published on June 7, 
2012 (77 FR 33642), EPA finalized a limited disapproval of regional 
haze plans from South Carolina and several other states because these 
plans relied on CAIR to meet certain regional haze requirements, and 
also amended the Regional Haze Rule to provide that participation by a 
state's EGUs in a CSAPR trading program for a given pollutant--either a 
CSAPR federal trading program implemented through a CSAPR FIP or an 
integrated CSAPR state trading program implemented through an approved 
CSAPR SIP revision--qualifies as a BART alternative for those EGUs for 
that pollutant.\6\ See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). In that same June 7, 2012, 
action, EPA also finalized FIPs to replace reliance on CAIR with 
reliance on CSAPR to address deficiencies in CAIR-dependent regional 
haze plans of several states, including South Carolina's regional haze 
plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Legal challenges to the CSAPR Better-than-BART rule from 
state, industry, and other petitioners are pending. Utility Air 
Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12-1342 (D.C. Cir. filed August 6, 
2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following these EPA actions, however, the D.C. Circuit issued a 
decision in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. 
Cir. 2012), vacating and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued 
implementation of CAIR pending the promulgation of a valid replacement. 
On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's 
decision on CSAPR and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit to resolve 
remaining issues in accordance with the high court's ruling.\7\ EPA v. 
EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On remand, the 
D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects, but invalidated without 
vacating some of the CSAPR budgets for a number of states. EME Homer 
City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118

[[Page 39081]]

(D.C. Cir. 2015). The remanded budgets include the Phase 2 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions budget and ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> budget 
for South Carolina. The CSAPR litigation ultimately delayed 
implementation of the rule for three years, from January 1, 2012, when 
CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs were originally scheduled to replace the 
CAIR cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 2015. Thus, the rule's Phase 
2 budgets, originally promulgated to begin on January 1, 2014, took 
effect on January 1, 2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ After the Supreme Court's decision, EPA filed a motion to 
lift the stay on CSAPR and asked the D.C. Circuit to toll CSAPR's 
compliance deadlines by three years, so that the Phase 1 emissions 
budgets apply in 2015 and 2016 (instead of 2012 and 2013), and the 
Phase 2 emissions budgets apply in 2017 and beyond (instead of 2014 
and beyond). On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's 
motion. Order of October 23, 2014, in EME Homer City Generation, 
L.P. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11-1302. EPA subsequently issued an 
interim final rule to clarify how EPA would implement CSAPR 
consistent with the D.C. Circuit's order lifting the stay and 
tolling the rule's deadlines. See 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) 
(interim final rulemaking). Pursuant to the interim final 
rulemaking, EPA began implementation of CSAPR on January 1, 2015.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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, 
including annual NO<INF>X</INF> and annual SO<INF>2</INF> budgets that 
are equal to the budgets for South Carolina in EPA's CSAPR FIP. EPA 
signed a NPRM on July 28, 2017 proposing to approve the SIP revision. 
As approval of that SIP revision would eliminate South Carolina's 
remanded federally-established Phase 2 SO<INF>2</INF> budget, it is 
EPA's opinion that finalization of approval of that action would 
address the judicial remand of South Carolina's federally-established 
Phase 2 SO<INF>2</INF> budget.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ On September 7, 2016, EPA finalized an update to the CSAPR 
ozone-season program. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The update 
addresses summertime transport of ozone pollution in the eastern 
United States that crosses state lines to help downwind states and 
communities meet and maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and 
addresses the remanded Phase 2 ozone season NO<INF>X</INF> budgets. 
The update withdraws the remanded ozone-season NO<INF>X</INF> 
budgets, sets new Phase 2 CSAPR ozone season NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions budgets for eight of the eleven states with remanded 
budgets, and removes the other three states from the CSAPR ozone 
season NO<INF>X</INF> trading program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CAIR was in effect at the time that South Carolina submitted its 
Progress Report on December 28, 2012, and the State included an 
assessment of the emission reductions from the implementation of CAIR 
in its report. South Carolina's Progress Report discussed the status of 
the litigation concerning CAIR and CSAPR, but because CSAPR was not at 
that time in effect, South Carolina did not take actual emissions 
reductions from CSAPR into account in assessing its regional haze plan. 
For the same reason, in the 2014 NPRM, EPA did not assess at that time 
the impact of CSAPR nor the CSAPR FIP on the abilities of South 
Carolina and its neighbors to meet their RPGs.
    The purpose of this supplemental proposal is to seek comment on the 
effect of the D.C. Circuit's 2015 decision on the Agency's assessment 
of South Carolina's Progress Report and the State's determination that 
its existing regional haze plan need not be revised at this time. Given 
the complex background summarized above, EPA is proposing to determine 
that South Carolina appropriately took CAIR into account in its 
Progress Report. CAIR was in effect during the 2007-2011 period 
addressed by South Carolina's Progress Report. EPA approved South 
Carolina's regulations implementing CAIR as part of the South Carolina 
SIP on October 16, 2009 (74 FR 53167), and at the time of submission of 
its Progress Report, neither South Carolina nor EPA had taken any 
action to remove CAIR from the South Carolina SIP. See 40 CFR 
52.2120(c). Therefore, EPA proposes to find that South Carolina 
appropriately evaluated and relied on CAIR reductions to demonstrate 
the State's progress towards meeting its RPGs.
    The State's Progress Report also demonstrated that Class I areas in 
other states impacted by South Carolina sources were on track to meet 
their RPGs as discussed in the 2014 NPRM. See 79 FR 3151. EPA's 
intention in requiring the progress reports pursuant to 40 CFR 
51.308(g) was to ensure that emission management measures in the 
regional haze plans are being implemented on schedule and that 
visibility improvement appears to be consistent with the RPGs. See 64 
FR 35713, 35747 (July 1, 1999). CAIR was in effect in South Carolina 
through 2014, providing the emission reductions relied upon in South 
Carolina's regional haze plan. Thus, EPA is proposing to determine that 
South Carolina appropriately took into account CAIR reductions in 
assessing the implementation of measures in the regional haze plan for 
the 2007-2011 timeframe, and EPA believes that it is appropriate to 
rely on CAIR emission reductions for purposes of assessing the adequacy 
of South Carolina's Progress Report demonstrating progress during this 
timeframe because CAIR remained effective and provided the requisite 
emission reductions.
    In addition, EPA also believes that reliance upon CAIR reductions 
to show South Carolina's progress towards meeting its RPGs from 2007-
2011 is consistent with the Agency's prior actions. During the 
continued implementation of CAIR per the direction of the D.C. Circuit 
through October 2014, EPA approved redesignations of areas to 
attainment of the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS in which states relied on 
CAIR as an ``enforceable measure.'' See 77 FR 76415 (December 28, 2012) 
(redesignation of Huntingdon-Ashland, West Virginia); 78 FR 59841 
(September 30, 2013) (redesignation of Wheeling, West Virginia); and 78 
FR 56168 (September 12, 2013) (redesignation of Parkersburg, West 
Virginia). While EPA did previously state in a rulemaking action on the 
Florida regional haze plan that a five-year progress report may be the 
appropriate time to address changes, if necessary, for RPG 
demonstrations and long term strategies, EPA does not believe that the 
implementation of CSAPR impacts the adequacy of the South Carolina 
regional haze plan to address reasonable progress from 2007 through 
2011 or to meet requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h) because CAIR 
was implemented during the time period evaluated by South Carolina for 
its Progress Report. See generally 77 FR 73369, 73371 (December 10, 
2012) (proposed action on the Florida regional haze plan).
    EPA's December 3, 2014, interim final rule sunset CAIR compliance 
requirements on a schedule coordinated with the implementation of CSAPR 
compliance requirements. Because CSAPR should result in greater 
emissions reductions of SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> than CAIR 
throughout the affected region, including in South Carolina and 
neighboring states, EPA expects South Carolina to maintain and continue 
its progress towards its RPGs for 2018 through continued, and 
additional, SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> reductions. See generally 
August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208) (promulgating CSAPR). Although the 
implementation of CSAPR was tolled for three years, the Rule is now 
being implemented, and by 2018, the endpoint for calculating RPGs for 
the first regional haze implementation period, CSAPR will reduce 
emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> from EGUs in South 
Carolina by the same amount assumed by EPA when it issued the CSAPR FIP 
for South Carolina in June 2012. See 76 FR 48208 (CSAPR promulgation), 
and 77 FR 33642 (limited disapproval of South Carolina regional haze 
plan and FIP for South Carolina for certain regional haze 
requirements).
    At the present time, the requirements of CSAPR apply to sources in 
South Carolina under the terms of a FIP. If EPA approves South 
Carolina's May 26, 2017, SIP revision that incorporates the CSAPR 
requirements into its SIP, the requirements of CSAPR for annual 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> emissions will apply to sources in 
the State through its SIP at budget levels equal to those in the CSAPR 
FIP. The RHR requires an assessment of whether the current 
``implementation plan'' is sufficient to enable the states to meet all 
established RPGs under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The term ``implementation

[[Page 39082]]

plan'' is defined for purposes of the RHR to mean ``any [SIP], [FIP], 
or Tribal Implementation Plan.'' See 40 CFR 51.301. EPA is, therefore, 
proposing to determine that the Agency may consider measures in any 
issued FIP as well as those in a state's regional haze plan in 
assessing the adequacy of the ``existing implementation plan'' under 40 
CFR 51.308(g)(6) and (h). Because CSAPR will ensure the control of 
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions relied upon by 
South Carolina and other states in setting their RPGs beginning in 
January 2015 at least through the remainder of the first implementation 
period in 2018, EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's finding 
that there is no need for revision of the existing implementation plan 
for South Carolina to achieve the RPGs for Cape Romain and the Class I 
areas impacted by South Carolina sources.
    EPA notes that the RHR provides for periodic evaluation and 
assessment of a state's reasonable progress towards achieving the 
national goal of natural visibility conditions under the CAA section 
169A(b). The regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 51.308 required states 
to submit initial SIPs in 2007 providing for reasonable progress 
towards the national goal for the first implementation period from 2008 
through 2018. See 40 CFR 51.308(b). Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f), SIP 
revisions reassessing each state's reasonable progress towards the 
national visibility goal are due by July 31, 2021, July 31, 2028, and 
every ten years thereafter. For such subsequent regional haze plans, 40 
CFR 51.308(f) requires each state to reassess its reasonable progress 
and all the elements of its regional haze plan required by 40 CFR 
51.308(d), taking into account improvements in monitors and control 
technology, assessing the state's actual progress and effectiveness of 
its long term strategy, and revising RPGs as necessary. See 40 CFR 
51.308(f)(1)-(3). Therefore, South Carolina has the opportunity to 
reassess its RPGs and the adequacy of its regional haze plan, including 
its reliance first upon CAIR and now upon CSAPR for emission reductions 
from EGUs, when it prepares and submits its second regional haze plan 
to cover the implementation period from 2018 through 2028. As discussed 
in the 2014 NPRM and in South Carolina's Progress Report, emissions of 
SO<INF>2</INF> from EGUs are below original projections for 2018. In 
addition, the visibility data provided by South Carolina show that Cape 
Romain is currently on track to achieve its RPGs.

IV. Summary of Reproposal

    In summary, EPA proposes to approve South Carolina's Progress 
Report. EPA solicits comments on this supplemental proposal, but only 
with respect to the specific issues raised in this notice concerning 
the Agency's interpretation of the term ``implementation plan'' in the 
RHR, and EPA's proposed agreement with South Carolina's assessment that 
the current regional haze plan for South Carolina, in combination with 
EPA's CSAPR FIP or an approved CSAPR SIP, need not be revised at this 
time to achieve the established RPGs for South Carolina and other 
impacted states in light of the status of CAIR through 2014 and CSAPR 
starting in 2015. EPA is not reopening the comment period on any other 
aspect of the January 17, 2014, NPRM as an adequate opportunity to 
comment on those issues has already been provided. The purpose of this 
supplemental proposal is limited to review of South Carolina's Progress 
Report in light of the D.C. Circuit's 2015 ruling on CSAPR. This 
supplemental proposal reflects EPA's desire for public input into how 
it should proceed in light of this decision when acting on the State's 
pending Progress Report, in particular the requirements that the State 
assess whether the current implementation plan is sufficient to ensure 
that RPGs are met. See 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ EPA previously determined that CSAPR (like CAIR before it) 
was ``better than BART'' because it would achieve greater reasonable 
progress toward the national goal than would source-specific BART. 
See 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012). EPA is not taking comment in this 
supplemental proposal on whether the South Carolina regional haze 
plan meets the BART requirements or whether CSAPR is an alternative 
measure to source-specific BART in accordance with 40 CFR 
52.301(e)(2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations. 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 Act. 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 action 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 mandates 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 action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> is not a significant regulatory action 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 Act; 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 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 oxides, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, 
Volatile organic compounds.

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


[[Page 39083]]


    Dated: August 4, 2017.
V. Anne Heard,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2017-17222 Filed 8-16-17; 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>