Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules 39079 

1Areas 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. 

2EPA 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. 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The 

telephone number is (404) 562–9222. 

Ms. Sheckler can also be reached via 

electronic mail at sheckler.kelly@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the 

Final Rules Section of this Federal 

Register, EPA is approving the State’s 

implementation plan revision as a direct 

final rule without prior proposal 

because the Agency views this as a 

noncontroversial submittal and 

anticipates no adverse comments. A 

detailed rationale for the approval is set 

forth in the direct final rule. If no 

adverse comments are received in 

response to this rule, no further activity 

is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse 

comments, the direct final rule will be 

withdrawn and all public comments 

received will be addressed in a 

subsequent final rule based on this 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this 

document. Any parties interested in 

commenting on this document should 

do so at this time. 

Dated: August 4, 2017. 

V. Anne Heard, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2017–17239 Filed 8–16–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 notarianni.michele@epa.gov. 

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. 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
39080 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

3 In its regional haze plan and Progress Report, 

South Carolina focused its assessment on SO2

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 SO2 point source emissions in 

2018 represent more than 95 percent of the total 

SO2 emissions inventory. In its Progress Report, 

South Carolina states that sulfates continue to be 

the biggest single contributor to regional haze at 

Cape Romain. 

4CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to 

reduce SO2 and NOX 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 (PM2.5) NAAQS. See 70 FR 25162 

(May 12, 2005). 

5CSAPR requires 27 Eastern states to limit their 

statewide emissions of SO2 and/or NOX 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 PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5

NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The 

CSAPR emissions limitations are defined in terms 

of maximum statewide budgets for emissions of 

annual SO2, annual NOX, and/or ozone-season NOx 

by each covered state’s large EGUs. 

6Legal challenges to the CSAPR Better-thanBART 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). 

7After 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. 

51.308(g) and (h). EPA’s proposed 

conclusions in the 2014 NPRM 

regarding South Carolina’s Progress 

Report are briefly summarized below. 

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 (SO2) 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 

SO2 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 SO2

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). 

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 SO2 and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) 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. 

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. 

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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules 39081 

8On 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 NOX

budgets. The update withdraws the remanded 

ozone-season NOX budgets, sets new Phase 2 

CSAPR ozone season NOX emissions budgets for 

eight of the eleven states with remanded budgets, 

and removes the other three states from the CSAPR 

ozone season NOX trading program. 

(D.C. Cir. 2015). The remanded budgets 

include the Phase 2 SO2 emissions 

budget and ozone-season NOX 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. 

On May 26, 2017, South Carolina 

submitted a draft SIP revision for 

parallel processing that adopts 

provisions for participation in the 

CSAPR annual NOX and annual SO2

trading programs, including annual NOX

and annual SO2 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 federallyestablished Phase 2 SO2 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 SO2

budget.8

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 PM2.5 NAAQS in which states 

relied on CAIR as an ‘‘enforceable 

measure.’’ See 77 FR 76415 (December 

28, 2012) (redesignation of HuntingdonAshland, 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 fiveyear 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 SO2 and NOX

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, SO2

and NOX 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 

SO2 and NOX 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 NOX

and SO2 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 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
39082 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules 

9EPA 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). 

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 SO2 and NOX

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 

SO2 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

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: 

• 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); 

• does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

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

• is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

• does not contain any unfunded 

mandates or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Act; and 

• does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, 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. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules 39083 

1EPA’s regulations governing the implementation 

of NSR permitting programs are contained in 40 

CFR 51.160–.166; 52.21, .24; and part 51, Appendix 

S. The CAA NSR program is composed of three 

separate programs: prevention of significant 

deterioration (PSD), nonattainment new source 

review (NNSR), and Minor NSR. PSD is established 

in part C of title I of the CAA and applies to major 

stationary sources in areas that meet the national 

ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)— 

‘‘attainment areas’’—as well as areas where there is 

insufficient information to determine if the area 

meets the NAAQS—‘‘unclassifiable areas.’’ The 

NNSR program is established in part D of title I of 

the CAA and applies to major stationary sources in 

areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS— 

‘‘nonattainment areas.’’ The Minor NSR program 

applies to stationary sources that do not require 

PSD or NNSR permits. Together, these programs are 

referred to as the NSR programs. 

2 In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve 

or disapprove revisions to any existing emission 

limitations that apply during start up, shut down 

and malfunction events. 

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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0359; FRL–9966–48– 

Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; South Carolina: 

Minor Source Permit Program 

Revisions 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

changes to South Carolina’s State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) to revise 

minor new source review (NSR) 

regulations. EPA is proposing to 

approve portions of SIP revisions 

modifying these regulations as 

submitted by the State of South 

Carolina, through the South Carolina 

Department of Health and 

Environmental Control (SC DHEC), on 

the following dates: October 1, 2007, 

July 18, 2011, June 17, 2013, August 8, 

2014, January 20, 2016, and July 27, 

2016. This action is being proposed 

pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or 

Act). 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before September 18, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2017–0359 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: D. 

Brad Akers, 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. Akers 

can be reached via telephone at (404) 

562–9089 or via electronic mail at 

akers.brad@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. What action is EPA proposing? 

On October 1, 2007, July 18, 2011, 

June 17, 2013, August 8, 2014, January 

20, 2016, and July 27, 2016, SC DHEC 

submitted SIP revisions to EPA for 

approval that involve changes to South 

Carolina’s minor source permitting 

regulations to clarify and streamline the 

State’s federally-approved 

preconstruction and operating 

permitting program. This program 

requires minor stationary sources 

planning to construct or modify sources 

of air pollutants to first obtain a 

construction permit and to obtain and 

maintain operating permits in 

accordance with the South Carolina 

Code of Regulations Annotated (S.C. 

Code Ann. Regs.) at Regulation 61–62.1, 

Section II—‘‘Permit Requirements.’’ The 

portion of the SIP-approved permitting 

program covering construction permits 

is generally referred to as the minor 

source permitting program or the minor 

NSR program to distinguish it from 

additional permitting requirements for 

major sources of air pollutants.1 The 

portion of the SIP-approved permitting 

program covering minor source 

operating permits is referred to as the 

federally enforceable state operating 

permit (FESOP) program. The changes 

made in these submittals clarify the 

applicability, streamline the permitting 

process, provide more options for the 

minor source permitting program, and 

generally reduce the overall burden on 

the state permitting program and the 

regulated community. The changes 

addressed in this proposed rulemaking 

also correct typographical errors, make 

internal references consistent, and 

recodify sections of the existing rules. In 

this action, EPA is proposing to approve 

certain portions of these SIP 

submissions that make changes to South 

Carolina’s minor NSR regulations and 

FESOP requirements. 

EPA is not acting on a portion of the 

revisions to Regulation 61–62.1, Section 

II—‘‘Permit Requirements.’’ 

Specifically, EPA is not acting on the 

renumbering and minor administrative 

language changes to paragraph G.6.— 

‘‘Emergency Provisions,’’ in the October 

1, 2007, submittal, nor the minor 

additional language changes to this 

portion of the minor source permitting 

regulations included in the August 8, 

2014, submittal.2

At this time, EPA is not acting on the 

following changes included in the 

October 1, 2007, submittal: Regulation 

61–62.5, Standard No. 4—‘‘Emissions 

from Process Industries’’; and 

Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 5.2— 

‘‘Control of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX).’’ 

EPA is also not acting on changes in 

the July 18, 2011, submittal to the 

following regulations in South 

Carolina’s SIP: Regulation 61–62.1, 

Section I—‘‘Definitions’’; Regulation 

61–62.3—‘‘Air Pollution Episodes’’; 

Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 1— 

‘‘Emissions from Fuel Burning 

Operations’’; Regulation 61–62.5, 

Standard No. 4—‘‘Emissions from 

Process Industries’’; Regulation 61–62.5, 

Standard No. 6—‘‘Alternative Emission 

Limitation Options (Bubble)’’; 

Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 7— 

‘‘Prevention of Significant 

Deterioration’’; and Regulation 61–62.5, 

Standard No. 7.1—‘‘Nonattainment New 

Source Review.’’ EPA approved the 

changes to Regulation 61–62.5, Standard 

No. 2—‘‘Ambient Air Quality 

Standards,’’ included in the July 18, 

2011, submittal, on April 3, 2013 (78 FR 

19994). 

EPA is not acting on the changes 

included in the June 17, 2013, submittal 

to the following regulations: Regulation 

61–62.1, Section I—‘‘Definitions’’; 

Regulation 61–62.1, Section IV— 

‘‘Source Tests’’; Regulation 61–62.3— 

‘‘Air Pollution Episodes’’; Regulation 

61–62.5, Standard No. 4—‘‘Emissions 

from Process Industries’’; and 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS