[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47385-47393]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21948]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0389; FRL-9969-23--Region 4]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a South 
Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, 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 December 28, 2012, SIP revision (``Progress Report'') 
addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') and EPA's 
rules that require states 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 is 
finalizing approval of South Carolina's Progress Report on the basis 
that it addresses the progress report and adequacy determination 
requirements for the first implementation period for regional haze.

DATES: This rule will be effective November 13, 2017.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket 
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0389. All documents in the docket 
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the 
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e., 
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure 
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted 
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available 
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are 
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard 
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section (formerly Regulatory 
Development 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. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the 
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for 
further information. The Regional Office's official hours of business 
are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal 
holidays.

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 at (404) 562-9031 and by 
electronic mail at <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#b9d7d6cdd8cbd0d8d7d7d097d4d0dad1dcd5dcf9dcc9d897ded6cf"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="9ef0f1eaffecf7fff0f0f7b0f3f7fdf6fbf2fbdefbeeffb0f9f1e8">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background

    States are required to submit progress reports that evaluate 
progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I Federal area 
within the state and in each mandatory Class I Federal area outside the 
state which may be affected by emissions from within the state. See 40 
CFR 51.308(g). States are also required to submit, at the same time as 
the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's 
existing regional haze plan. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress 
report is due five years after submittal of the initial regional haze 
plan and must be in the form of a SIP revision. On December 17, 2007, 
SC DHEC submitted the State's first regional haze plan in accordance 
with 40 CFR 51.308(b).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On June 28, 2012, EPA finalized a limited approval of South 
Carolina's regional haze plan to address the first implementation 
period for regional haze. See 77 FR 38509. In a separate action, 
published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), EPA finalized a limited 
disapproval of the South Carolina regional haze plan because of the 
State's reliance on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to meet 
certain regional haze requirements, which EPA replaced in August 
2011 with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48208 
(Aug. 8, 2011)). In the June 7, 2012, action, EPA finalized a 
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for South Carolina to replace the 
State's reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR. CAIR created 
regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions in 27 eastern states (and the District of 
Columbia), including Alabama, that contributed to downwind 
nonattainment or interfered with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour 
ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM<INF>2.5</INF> NAAQS. EPA approved South 
Carolina's regulations implementing CAIR as part of the Federally 
enforceable South Carolina SIP on October 16, 2009. 74 FR 53167. 
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.

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

[[Page 47386]]

    On December 28, 2012, SC DHEC submitted, in the form of a revision 
to South Carolina's SIP, a report on the progress made in the first 
implementation period towards RPGs for Class I areas in the State and 
for Class I areas outside the State that are affected by emissions from 
sources within South Carolina. The Progress Report and the accompanying 
cover letter also include a determination that the State's regional 
haze plan is sufficient in meeting the requirements outlined in EPA's 
Regional Haze Rule (RHR).\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \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 regulations 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 most recently revised the RHR on January 10, 2017. 
See 82 FR 3078.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 17, 2014 (79 FR 3147), EPA published a notice of 
proposed rulemaking (NPRM) proposing to approve South Carolina's 
Progress Report on the basis that it satisfies the requirements of 40 
CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h). On August 17, 2017, EPA published a 
supplemental NPRM (SNPRM) to address the potential effects on EPA's 
proposed approval of two decisions by the courts. See 82 FR 39079. The 
first was the decision by the United States Supreme Court (Supreme 
Court) in EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 
(2014), remanding CSAPR to the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) for further proceedings. 
The second was the decision of the D.C. Circuit following the Supreme 
Court's remand.\3\ EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 
(D.C. Cir. 2015).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See the SNPRM and Response 5, below, for discussion 
regarding the CSAPR litigation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received two sets of comments during the public comment period 
on its January 17, 2014, NPRM. Specifically, EPA received comments from 
GreenLaw, on behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association and 
Sierra Club, and from one member of the general public (these 
commenters are hereinafter collectively referred to as the 
``Commenter''). The comments are provided in the docket for today's 
final action. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are 
provided below. EPA did not receive any comments on the SNPRM. Detailed 
background information and additional rationale is provided in the NPRM 
and SNPRM. See 79 FR 3147 and 82 FR 39079.
    Comment 1: The Commenter contends that the State's declaration 
under 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1) that no revisions to the regional haze plan 
are needed at this time is improper and that the regional haze plan is 
inadequate because it ``fails to result in emissions reductions 
sufficient to achieve reasonable progress towards natural conditions'' 
at nine Class I areas and because visibility at the Cape Romain Class I 
area has ``actually gotten worse on the annual 20 percent best days.'' 
Accordingly, the Commenter states that EPA must disapprove South 
Carolina's declaration and require the State to revise its regional 
haze plan within one year and to work with other states in the 
Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast 
(VISTAS) regional planning organization to more adequately limit haze-
causing pollution. The Commenter also contends that South Carolina 
focused its report on sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>) reductions at 
point sources within and outside of the State rather than directly 
addressing visibility data at Cape Romain and that these reductions are 
not sufficient to make reasonable progress at this Class I area.
    Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. As discussed in the 
NPRM, South Carolina's declaration under 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1) and 
assessment of regional haze plan sufficiency is based on its following 
findings: Visibility has improved since 2000 at Cape Romain, the only 
Class I area within South Carolina; SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from the 
State's sources have decreased beyond original projections for 2012; 
additional electric generating unit (EGU) control measures beyond those 
relied upon in the State's regional haze plan have occurred or will 
occur in the first implementation period; SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from 
EGUs in South Carolina are already below the levels projected for 2018 
in the regional haze plan; and the SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from EGUs 
in South Carolina and the other VISTAS states are expected to continue 
to trend downward over the remainder of the first implementation 
period. Based on these findings and visibility data for Cape Romain 
that has become available since the State developed its Progress 
Report, EPA agrees with South Carolina's conclusion under 40 CFR 
51.308(h) that its regional haze plan is sufficient in meeting the 
requirements of the RHR and that no further changes to its regional 
haze plan are needed at this time.
    The Commenter supports its contention that EPA must disapprove the 
State's declaration by relying solely on regional haze monitoring data 
for Cape Romain from 2005-2009 and its belief that the State focused on 
SO<INF>2</INF> reductions that ``are not sufficient to make reasonable 
progress at Cape Romain.'' The Commenter ignores EPA's discussion of 
more recent visibility data in the NPRM as well as the other analyses 
and findings supporting the declaration and fails to explain why the 
SO<INF>2</INF> reductions are not sufficient to make reasonable 
progress when these reductions are greater than those projected to be 
achieved by 2018 in the regional haze plan. In the NPRM, EPA identified 
the 0.7 deciview (dv) degradation in visibility for the 20-percent best 
days at Cape Romain when comparing the baseline to the 2005-2009 
average and noted that additional Interagency Monitoring of Protected 
Visual Environments (IMPROVE) visibility data had become available 
since the State developed its Progress Report. EPA reviewed the most 
current visibility data at the time of the NPRM for Cape Romain (2007-
2011) from the IMPROVE monitoring network \4\ and noted that the five-
year average of visibility conditions is 24.6 dv for the 20-percent 
worst days and 14.1 dv for the 20-percent best over the 2007-2011 time 
period, resulting in a visibility improvement from baseline of 1.9 dv 
and 0.2 dv, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ This data is available at: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/Results/HazePlanning.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Additional IMPROVE visibility data is now available for the 2011-
2015 five-year period. Visibility conditions for the 2011-2015 time 
period, expressed as a five-year average, are 21.4 dv for the 20-
percent worst days and 12.8 dv for the 20-percent best days, resulting 
in a

[[Page 47387]]

visibility improvement from baseline of 5.1 dv and 1.5 dv, 
respectively. The 2015 annual visibility values are 19.3 dv for the 20-
percent worst days and 12.2 dv for the 20-percent best days. These 
values are below the 2018 RPGs of 22.7 dv for the 20-percent worst days 
and 12.7 dv for the 20-percent best days in South Carolina's regional 
haze plan.
    The SO<INF>2</INF> emissions data reported in the Progress Report 
also supports South Carolina's declaration. As discussed in the NPRM, 
South Carolina documented significant reductions in SO<INF>2</INF> in 
its Progress Report, and EPA believes that the State's emphasis on 
SO<INF>2</INF> is appropriate because SO<INF>2</INF> reductions from 
South Carolina EGUs are the key element of the State's regional haze 
strategy. The State's regional haze plan focused on SO<INF>2</INF>, and 
as noted in the Federal Register notices associated with the limited 
approval of South Carolina's regional haze plan, EPA agreed with this 
focus because emissions sensitivity analyses documented in the State's 
regional haze plan predicted that reductions in SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions from EGUs and industrial point sources would result in the 
greatest improvements in visibility in the VISTAS region, compared with 
other visibility-impairing pollutants, during the first implementation 
period. See 77 FR 11894, 11903-04 (February 28, 2012). In its Progress 
Report, South Carolina notes that the actual SO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
from EGUs within the State in 2011 (66,131 tons) are already below the 
level of emissions projected in the regional haze plan for those EGUs 
in 2018 (76,291 tons), with further decreases expected. South Carolina 
and EPA expect that the reduction of SO<INF>2</INF> emissions during 
the first implementation period will be even greater than originally 
anticipated in its regional haze plan, particularly for the EGU sector. 
The State notes that the emissions reductions already achieved from 
2007 to 2011 and the additional reductions not accounted for in the 
original regional haze plan further support the State's conclusion that 
the regional haze plan's elements and strategies are sufficient to meet 
the RPGs for Class I areas affected by South Carolina emissions. The 
Commenter did not provide any basis for its assertion that these 
SO<INF>2</INF> reductions are inadequate for reasonable progress, other 
than citing to the 2005-2009 visibility data discussed above.
    EPA finds that South Carolina's conclusion regarding the 
sufficiency of the regional haze plan is appropriate because of the 
measured visibility improvement and the significant downward trend in 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from EGUs in the State.
    Comment 2: The Commenter states that the Areas of Influence (AoIs) 
identified in the Progress Report correspond to 100 kilometer (km) 
radii whereas the AoIs identified in the regional haze plan are 200 km 
radii. The Commenter requests clarification that it was not the State's 
intent to modify the AoIs through the Progress Report.
    Response 2: The AoIs that South Carolina relied upon in its 
regional haze plan are non-circular geographic areas surrounding Cape 
Romain and other Class I areas potentially impacted by South Carolina 
sources and do not correspond to the 100 km radii circles shown in the 
Progress Report (labeled as Figure 0-1 on page 9) or the 100 km or 200 
km radii circles shown in Figure 1.4-1 on page 16 in the regional haze 
plan. South Carolina relied on AoIs developed by VISTAS based on an 
analysis of the particle frequency, residence times, and trajectory 
modeling over an area. The trajectory modeling is based on meteorology 
and IMPROVE data.\5\ In the Progress Report, the State did not modify 
its AoIs, the AoI methodology, or the set of sources evaluated for 
reasonable progress in the regional haze plan for the first 
implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ For illustrations of the AoIs and further detail on South 
Carolina's AoI methodology, see pages 70-77 of Section 7.5 of the 
South Carolina regional haze plan narrative and pages H-25--H-33 of 
Section 4 in Appendix H of the State's regional haze plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 3: The Commenter contends that the description of the 
status of control measures under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) fails to show that 
the State is making reasonable progress and does not include any 
discussion as to how its sources are impacting ``some Class I areas 
outside of the State.'' The Commenter also asserts that the submittal 
lacks information necessary for EPA to find that the implementation 
measures are in effect and notes, as an example, that the descriptions 
of mobile source fuel changes describe ``each type of sources' 
reductions'' but do not include estimates of the total number of mobile 
sources. Hence, the Commenter asserts that EPA cannot find that there 
has actually been a reduction in SO<INF>2</INF> from these mobile 
sources on a fleet-wide basis.
    Response 3: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. As discussed in 
Response 12, the Progress Report shows that the control measures in 
South Carolina's regional haze plan are sufficient to enable the State 
and other states with Class I areas affected by emissions from South 
Carolina sources to meet their RPGs for 2018. Furthermore, the State 
provides a significant amount of information regarding the status of 
measures relied upon in its regional haze SIP, including the status of 
Federal programs and consent decrees. For example, the State identifies 
installation dates and expected installation dates for SO<INF>2</INF> 
controls on South Carolina coal-fired power plants and provides the 
status of two state EGU control strategies in North Carolina and 
Georgia that were included in its regional haze plan.
    Not only does the State identify the status of the control measures 
included in its regional haze plan, it also documents significant 
reductions in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from South Carolina EGUs and 
reiterates the conclusion from its regional haze plan that reducing 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from EGUs and industrial point sources are the 
most effective means to improve visibility during the first 
implementation period. As further discussed in the responses below, EPA 
finds that the regional haze plan is sufficient to enable affected 
Class I areas to meet their RPGs based on the significant reductions in 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions and the visibility improvement observed at 
Cape Romain between 2002 and 2015.
    Regarding the comment concerning mobile sources, EPA notes that the 
State quantified SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from five source 
classifications, including on-road and non-road mobile sources, in the 
emissions inventories presented in the Progress Report and identified 
the status of the Federal mobile source measures included in the 
regional haze plan. Although a progress report must describe the 
implementation status of all measures included in the relevant regional 
haze plan, there is no requirement that the report must identify the 
number of mobile sources affected by each mobile source measure 
included in that plan.
    Comment 4: The Commenter states that the section of the Progress 
Report addressing 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) does not discuss progress in 
implementing Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART), noting that the 
State has not recommended additional controls for its 21 BART-eligible 
sources and that the State found CAIR sufficient for BART at two EGUs.
    Response 4: In its regional haze plan, South Carolina demonstrated 
that 19 of the 21 BART-eligible sources in the State modeled below the 
State's BART contribution threshold, and thus, are not subject to BART. 
For this reason, the State did not recommend any additional controls 
for 19 of the 21 BART-eligible sources. Although the Commenter 
correctly notes that the two BART-subject sources (SCE&G Wateree and 
Williams stations) relied on CAIR to

[[Page 47388]]

satisfy BART for nitrogen oxides (NO<INF>X</INF>) and SO<INF>2</INF>, 
the Commenter incorrectly claims that the State did not discuss 
progress in implementing BART. South Carolina discusses the status of 
CAIR and CSAPR as of the date of Progress Report submission, identifies 
the SO<INF>2</INF> emission controls for these EGUs and the status of 
implementation for these controls, and compares CAIR and CSAPR budgets 
with 2011 actual emissions from EGUs in the State. For the two BART-
subject sources, South Carolina notes that these sources began 
operating flue gas desulfurization controls in 2010. As discussed in 
the SNPRM and in Response 5, below, EPA finds that it is appropriate to 
rely on CAIR emission reductions for purposes of assessing the adequacy 
of South Carolina's Progress Report because CAIR remained effective and 
provided the requisite emission reductions during the timeframe 
evaluated by the State.
    Comment 5: The Commenter asserts that EPA cannot approve South 
Carolina's Progress Report because it relies on CAIR for ``a number of 
fundamental aspects that include both modeling assumptions and 
control.'' The Commenter states that CAIR has been ``struck down'' by 
the D.C. Circuit and is only in place until EPA designs a replacement 
rule. The Commenter notes that South Carolina did not modify any of the 
modeling assumptions in its regional haze plan that relied on CAIR, did 
not propose any additional reductions other than CAIR, continues to 
rely on CAIR to satisfy BART requirements, and did not assess the 
effect of the vacatur with respect to CAIR. The Commenter also cites 
previous EPA actions related to regional haze plans, including South 
Carolina's regional haze plan, in support of the contention that EPA 
cannot rely on CAIR for sources subject to BART and that the five-year 
progress report is the appropriate time to address any changes to the 
RPG demonstration and the long-term strategy. The Commenter also states 
that EPA does not address CAIR in the NPRM, except to point out that it 
has provided a limited disapproval of South Carolina's regional haze 
plan as it relies on CAIR to replace BART, and that EPA cannot rely on 
a regional cap-and-trade program with yearly averaging to ``address a 
specific source with effects that change on an hourly basis on a 
specific Class I area.'' As a result, the Commenter asserts that EPA's 
approval of South Carolina's Progress Report is inconsistent with prior 
EPA position and is arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law.
    Response 5: EPA disagrees with the Commenter that EPA cannot 
approve South Carolina's Progress Report because it relies on emission 
reductions from CAIR. On June 28, 2012, EPA finalized a limited 
approval of South Carolina's December 17, 2007, regional haze plan to 
address the first implementation period for regional haze (77 FR 
38509).\6\ In a separate action, published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 
33642), EPA finalized a limited disapproval of the South Carolina 
regional haze plan because of the State's reliance on CAIR to meet 
certain regional haze requirements. In the SNPRM, EPA described the 
litigation history and status of CAIR, including the fact that CAIR was 
replaced with CSAPR after South Carolina had developed and submitted 
its regional haze plan. On January 1, 2015, EPA sunset CAIR and began 
implementing CSAPR after the D.C. Circuit lifted the stay on CSAPR 
following the Supreme Court's decision upholding CSAPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Although EPA gave limited approval to South Carolina's 
regional haze plan due to the State's reliance on CAIR (77 FR 
38509), a limited approval results in approval of the entire 
submittal, even of those parts that are deficient and prevent EPA 
from granting a full approval pursuant to sections 301(a) and 
110(k)(6) of the CAA and EPA's long-standing guidance. See 
Processing of State Implementation Plan (SIP) Revisions, EPA 
Memorandum from John Calcagni, Director, Air Quality Management 
Division, OAQPS, to Air Division Directors, EPA Regional Offices I-
X, September 7, 1992, (1992 Calcagni Memorandum) located at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/caaa/t1/memoranda/siproc.pdf. Thus, the limited 
approval status of South Carolina's regional haze plan does not 
impact EPA's approval of the Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As explained in detail in the SNPRM and here in summary fashion, 
EPA does not believe that the status of CAIR or CSAPR affects the 
approvability of the Progress Report for several reasons. First, CAIR 
was in effect during the 2007-2011 time period addressed by the 
Progress Report. Therefore, South Carolina appropriately evaluated and 
relied on CAIR reductions of NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> to 
demonstrate the State's progress towards meeting its RPGs.\7\ EPA's 
intention in requiring progress reports pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g) 
was for the states to demonstrate progress achieved during the current 
implementation period addressed by the regional haze plan. Thus, South 
Carolina appropriately relied upon CAIR reductions for demonstrating 
progress towards RPGs from 2007-2011. As explained in the SNPRM, given 
that CAIR was in place until 2015, it is appropriate to rely on CAIR 
emission reductions during this period for purposes of assessing the 
adequacy of the State's Progress Report pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g) 
and (h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In the NPRM, EPA discussed the significance of 
SO<INF>2</INF> reductions as South Carolina and VISTAS identified 
SO<INF>2</INF> as the largest contributor pollutant to visibility 
impairment in South Carolina specifically and in the VISTAS region 
generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the State's regional haze program now includes reliance on 
CSAPR for SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> reductions, at least 
throughout the remainder of this first implementation period. EPA 
issued FIPs to implement CSAPR in South Carolina and the other CSAPR-
subject states (CSAPR FIP).\8\ In its June 7, 2012 regional haze FIP, 
EPA replaced South Carolina's reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR 
to meet certain regional haze requirements, including the 
SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> BART requirements for its EGUs. In a 
separate action, EPA signed a final rule approving a SIP revision 
submitted by South Carolina 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Because the RHR's requirements for progress reports refer to 
``implementation plans,'' which are defined in the visibility program 
to include approved SIPs or FIPs, EPA considered measures in its June 
7, 2012 regional haze FIP as well as in the State's regional haze plan 
in assessing the Progress Report for 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). EPA 
explained in the SNPRM that the requirements of the regional haze 
program are fully addressed in South Carolina through its regional haze 
plan and the FIP issued by EPA. As also discussed in the SNPRM, EPA 
expects the SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions reductions at 
EGUs in the State to continue through the remainder of the first 
implementation period due to the implementation of CSAPR.
    Finally, the RHR provides for continual evaluation and assessment 
of a state's reasonable progress towards achieving the national goal of 
natural visibility conditions. South Carolina has the opportunity to 
reassess its RPGs and the adequacy of its regional haze plan, including 
reliance upon CSAPR for emission reductions from EGUs, when it prepares 
and submits its second regional haze plan to cover the next 
implementation period. However, as evaluated for the Progress Report, 
emissions of SO<INF>2</INF> from EGUs are below the projections for 
2018 in the regional haze plan, visibility data shows that the Class I 
areas impacted by sources in the State are on track to achieve their 
RPGs, and EPA expects SO<INF>2</INF> emission reductions in the State 
to continue through CSAPR, EGU retirements, and other measures. These 
continued emission reductions will assist South

[[Page 47389]]

Carolina in making reasonable progress towards natural visibility 
conditions. As further measures will be needed to make continued 
progress towards the national visibility goal, the State has the 
opportunity to include such measures in subsequent SIPs for future 
implementation periods. See Commonwealth of Virginia, et al., v. EPA, 
108 F.3d 1397, 1410 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (citing Natural Resources Defense 
Council, Inc. v. Browner, 57 F.3d 1122, 1123 (D.C. Cir.1995)) 
(discussing that states have primary responsibility for determining an 
emission reductions program for its areas subject to EPA approval). For 
these reasons, EPA disagrees with Commenter that our approval of the 
Progress Report is inconsistent with EPA's prior position, unsupported 
by the facts, or arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law.
    EPA also disagrees with the Commenter's statements concerning the 
validity of using of an emissions trading program, such as CAIR or 
CSAPR, to meet certain regional haze requirements such as BART. CAIR 
was specifically upheld as an alternative to BART in accordance with 
the requirements of section 169A of the CAA by the D.C. Circuit in 
Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C. Cir. 2006). 
The use of CSAPR as an alternative to BART is currently under review by 
the D.C. Circuit.\9\ More importantly, however, EPA disagrees with the 
Commenter that compliance with the BART requirements are relevant to 
the assessment of a state's progress report. A state is not required to 
demonstrate in its progress report that the BART requirements have been 
met. As described above, EPA took action in 2012 on South Carolina's 
regional haze plan, including issuance of a FIP addressing the BART 
requirements for the State's EGUs. The opportunity for new challenges 
to that FIP has expired.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ In a separate action, EPA found that CSAPR is ``Better than 
BART.'' See 77 FR 33641 (June 7, 2012). 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 6: The Commenter declares that the State's reliance on CAIR 
is ``especially problematic when South Carolina avoids discussion of 
the status of BART at Georgia Power's Plant McIntosh.'' This facility 
is located in Savannah, Georgia, within the AoI of Cape Romain, and 
operates without Flue Gas Desulfurization. The Commenter states that 
the only constraint on Plant McIntosh is a total heat input limit that 
will apply in 2018. The Commenter also asserts that South Carolina is 
required to consult with Georgia for enforceable emissions reductions 
from Georgia EGUs.
    Response 6: Plant McIntosh was included in the VISTAS modeling used 
to develop the reasonable progress glide path and 2018 visibility 
estimates for South Carolina's regional haze plan. Emissions estimates 
used in that modeling for this facility assumed that it would continue 
operating without SO<INF>2</INF> controls. As discussed in the 
rulemaking notice proposing a limited approval of South Carolina's 
regional haze plan, the State sent a letter to Georgia identifying the 
emissions units, including Georgia Power Plant McIntosh unit 1, that 
South Carolina believed contributed one percent or more to visibility 
impairment at Cape Romain, and South Carolina opted not to rely on any 
additional reductions from these units to achieve reasonable progress 
during the first implementation period. See 77 FR 11912. In reviewing 
South Carolina's regional haze plan, EPA determined that the State's 
consultation with Georgia adequately addressed the consultation 
requirements in the RHR. See Id. Additional consultation with Georgia 
in developing a progress report is not necessary because the facility 
is operating as assumed in the regional haze plan and further control 
of Plant McIntosh is not necessary to achieve reasonable progress at 
Cape Romain at this time.
    Comment 7: In the section of its comments devoted to 40 CFR 
51.308(g)(1), the Commenter states that EPA should not ``approve a 
reasonable progress determination that does not provide an analysis 
between emissions reductions and actual visibility.'' The Commenter 
also asserts that South Carolina and VISTAS focused reasonable progress 
evaluations on potential SO<INF>2</INF> emissions controls from point 
sources and that the Progress Report does not discuss progress on 
controls for NO<INF>X</INF> or particulate matter (PM) or contain an 
analysis as to how emissions reductions are on track to reducing 
visibility impairment at Cape Romain or other Class I areas as modeled. 
According to the Commenter, South Carolina cannot demonstrate that 
emissions reductions are on track to reduce visibility impairment 
because visibility ``for the worst days has not been in line with 
projections and visibility on the best days is actually worse.'' The 
Commenter acknowledges that VISTAS modeling showed that controlling 
anthropogenic SO<INF>2</INF> would create the greatest visibility 
improvement but believes that additional NO<INF>X</INF> and PM controls 
should be included in the SIP and that EPA should require other VISTAS 
states to consider additional controls for these pollutants. The 
Commenter also states that EPA should require South Carolina to further 
reduce SO<INF>2</INF> emissions and to consult with other VISTAS states 
to require similar reductions.
    Response 7: As noted by the Commenter and as discussed in Response 
1 and in South Carolina's regional haze plan and Progress Report, 
SO<INF>2</INF> was determined to be the largest contributor to 
visibility impairment in the VISTAS states. Because sulfate levels on 
the 20 percent worst days account for 60-70 percent of the visibility 
impairment at these Class I areas, reducing SO<INF>2</INF> emissions is 
the most effective means to improve visibility during the first 
implementation period.\10\ Furthermore, 91 percent of the 2002 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in South Carolina were attributable to EGUs 
and industrial point sources.\11\ Based on this analysis, South 
Carolina concluded, and EPA agreed in reviewing its regional haze plan, 
that controlling SO<INF>2</INF> emissions was the appropriate step in 
addressing the reasonable progress assessment for 2018 and that the 
focus should be on industrial point source SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, 
not PM and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, during the first implementation 
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ See South Carolina's regional haze plan Narrative, chapter 
2.4, Pollutant Contributions To Visibility Impairment (2000-2004 
Baseline Data).
    \11\ See id. at chapters 2.4 and 4.2, Assessment of Relative 
Contributions from Specific Pollutants and Sources Categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA believes that the SO<INF>2</INF> reductions identified in the 
Progress Report have contributed to the visibility improvement observed 
between baseline and the 2007-2011 period, as reported in the NPRM, and 
between baseline and the 2011-2015 period, as discussed in Response 1 
of this notice. The Commenter relies on visibility conditions that 
precede most of the emissions reductions reported by the State and does 
not provide any further explanation as to why the SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions reductions reported by South Carolina are insufficient to 
achieve reasonable progress. Given the visibility improvement observed 
between baseline and the time periods identified above along with the 
significant reductions in SO<INF>2</INF> reported in the Progress 
Report, EPA agrees with South Carolina that the State is on track to 
achieve its RPGs, that no changes to the regional haze plan are 
necessary at this time, and that it is not necessary for South Carolina 
to further consult with other states at this time to seek additional 
controls.

[[Page 47390]]

    Comment 8: The Commenter contends that South Carolina must show 
progress at all Class I areas that its sources impact, including areas 
that may not have an AoI in South Carolina, and identifies the 
Brigantine Wilderness Area as one such area. The Commenter makes this 
comment in connection with 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1).
    Response 8: It is not clear what analyses the Commenter considers 
deficient. In South Carolina's regional haze plan, the State concluded 
that emissions from South Carolina potentially impact visibility at 
five Class I areas outside of the State (Wolf Island and Okefenokee 
Wilderness Areas in Georgia; and Joyce Kilmer, Shining Rock, and 
Swanquarter Wilderness Areas in North Carolina) and do not reasonably 
contribute to visibility impairment at the Brigantine Wilderness Area 
in New Jersey.\12\ See 77 FR 11911. The State also documented its 
consultation with these states in its regional haze plan. For the 
reasons described in Response 12, EPA finds that South Carolina 
provided sufficient information regarding the sources impacting 
visibility in the Class I areas affected by emissions from the State 
and a satisfactory qualitative assessment that its regional haze plan 
is sufficient to enable these areas to meet their RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ VISTAS provided assessments that took into account the 
latest data and information available, including the reductions from 
CAA and state programs that will be in effect in 2018. Based on 
these analyses, SC DHEC notified New Jersey that these assessments 
do not indicate that South Carolina facility emissions have an 
impact on visibility at any Class I area outside of the VISTAS 
region, and that SC DHEC thus concluded that emissions from South 
Carolina do not reasonably contribute to visibility impairment at 
Brigantine. See 77 FR 11912.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 9: The Commenter contends that the section of the Progress 
Report that addresses 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) does not properly summarize 
emissions reductions. The Commenter asserts that because the data that 
South Carolina provides are ``simply annual summaries of SO<INF>2</INF> 
reductions, EPA cannot reasonably rely on this information to inform a 
decision as to how SO<INF>2</INF> reductions are impacting the worst 
days of visibility at Class I areas.'' The Commenter also contends that 
because visibility is measured in one-hour averaging times rather than 
monthly or yearly averages, annual reductions across a fleet-wide basis 
provide no assurances that SO<INF>2</INF> emissions impacting Class I 
areas' 20 percent worst days have been reduced. The Commenter states 
that had South Carolina provided information ``as to the reductions 
from each point source within an AoI, as well as a summary of their 
emissions for each hour on the 20 percent worst days for each Class I 
area, perhaps EPA could then approve this determination.'' The 
Commenter also alleges that the Progress Report did not include a 
summary of NO<INF>X</INF> or PM emissions reductions and that EPA 
should require the State to include a discussion of NO<INF>X</INF> and 
PM reductions as this ``would ensure that emissions of these pollutants 
have not increased, offsetting any reductions in SO<INF>2</INF>.''
    Response 9: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. Regarding the use of 
yearly averaging for calculating reasonable progress for regional haze 
purposes, it is important to consider the metrics by which regional 
haze is evaluated. Visibility is averaged across 20 percent of the days 
in the year with the worst visibility and 20 percent of the days in a 
year with the best visibility. These days represent 40 percent of the 
days in the year (i.e., 146 days) that are spread throughout the year. 
In addition, these annual averages are further averaged into five-year 
rolling averages. Hence, the use of annual emissions inventories are an 
appropriate means of evaluating the potential impacts of control 
strategies on regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas. 
While hourly EGU SO<INF>2</INF> emissions are available for any day 
since 2002 from the EPA Clean Air Markets Division acid rain 
database,\13\ the Commenter does not explain how South Carolina or EPA 
should use this hourly data to evaluate reasonable progress. Regarding 
the comment concerning fleetwide averages, South Carolina did provide 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions reductions for individual EGUs within the 
State consistent with the State's regional haze plan.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ See http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/.
    \14\ See Tables 10 and 11 of the Progress Report, pages 34-35.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the comments regarding NO<INF>X</INF> and PM 
emissions reduction summaries, South Carolina did provide 
NO<INF>2</INF> emissions data for EGUs in South Carolina and in the 
VISTAS states showing an overall downward trend in these emissions in 
the section of its Progress Report addressing 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2). 
Although the State did not provide PM reductions or additional 
NO<INF>X</INF> reductions resulting from the measures included in the 
regional haze plan within this section of its submittal, EPA believes 
that it is appropriate for South Carolina to focus its emissions 
reductions summary on SO<INF>2</INF> because the State demonstrated 
that reductions in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions from industrial point 
sources result in the greatest improvements in visibility within the 
State and the VISTAS region. It is also important to note that in the 
section of its report addressing 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), South Carolina 
presented emissions data from a statewide emissions inventory developed 
for the year 2007 for volatile organic compounds, NO<INF>X</INF>, fine 
PM, coarse PM, ammonia, and SO<INF>2</INF> and compared this data to 
data from its regional haze plan, a baseline emissions inventory for 
2002, an actual emissions inventory for 2007, and an estimated 
emissions inventory for 2018 (as updated and provided by VISTAS to the 
State in 2008). The emissions inventories included data for stationary 
point and area sources, non-road and on-road mobile sources, and 
biogenic sources which indicates that emissions of the key visibility-
impairing pollutants for South Carolina are decreasing.
    Comment 10: The Commenter reproduces the visibility data presented 
by South Carolina in the section of its Progress Report addressing 40 
CFR 51.308(g)(3) for the five-year averages representing baseline 
conditions and conditions over the 2005-2009 timeframe and disagrees 
with EPA's ``conclu[sion] that these numbers are sufficient to show 
current reasonable progress towards natural visibility at Cape Romain'' 
because visibility for the 20 percent best days has ``worsened by 0.7 
dv.'' The Commenter also refers to this visibility data to support its 
contention that the five-year averages are not on target for the 2005-
2009 time period according to the glidepaths. The Commenter states that 
these glidepaths ``established a goal for Cape Romain to achieve a 0.6 
dv improvement . . . by 2005-2009 for the 20 percent best days.'' For 
these reasons, the Commenter contends that the Progress Report does not 
show reasonable progress for the 20 percent best or 20 percent worst 
days and that EPA must therefore disapprove the submission. The 
Commenter also implies that EPA should require South Carolina to 
reevaluate its emissions reduction strategies because of the 
degradation in best day conditions observed from 2005-2009.
    Response 10: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. As discussed in 
Response 1, the Commenter ignores EPA's discussion of the more recent 
visibility data in the NPRM. EPA identified the 0.7 dv in degradation 
in visibility for the 20-percent best days at Cape Romain when 
comparing the baseline to the 2005-2009 average and evaluated 
additional visibility data (2007-2011) available at the time of the 
NPRM. Visibility improved by 1.9 dv and 0.2 dv for the 20 percent worst 
days and 20 percent best days, respectively, between

[[Page 47391]]

baseline and the 2007-2011 period. A five-year average using 2015 data 
(2011-2015) shows an improvement of 3.1 dv and 0.5 dv for the 20 
percent worst days and 20 percent best days best days, respectively, 
when compared to baseline. It is not appropriate for the Commenter to 
focus solely on visibility data from 2005-2009 for Cape Romain because 
it precedes most of the emissions reductions reported in the Progress 
Report and because EPA provided more recent data in the NPRM. It is not 
unexpected that the 2005-2009 data would show limited progress because 
many of the measures that provide for the greatest progress were 
implemented after 2009.
    Regarding the Commenter's assertion that South Carolina has not met 
its glidepath ``goals,'' the RHR requires each state to develop a long-
term strategy to achieve RPGs established for Class I areas affected by 
emissions from the state. The goals are established for each area in 
10-year intervals reflecting the 10-year implementation periods 
established under the RHR. The current regional haze plans cover the 
first implementation period ending in 2018 and are therefore designed 
to achieve the RPGs set for 2018. The progress reports submitted during 
this first implementation period must evaluate progress toward the 2018 
RPGs, and South Carolina has appropriately evaluated progress toward 
these RPGs. Neither the RHR nor South Carolina's regional haze plan set 
interim goals or targets between the beginning and end of the 
implementation period.
    EPA believes that the visibility data indicates that the State is 
making reasonable progress and agrees with South Carolina's 
determination that the elements and strategies outlined in its regional 
haze plan are sufficient to enable South Carolina and other neighboring 
states to meet their RPGs. As summarized in the Progress Report, the 
emissions projections for EGUs further support the determination that 
these elements and strategies are sufficient to meet the established 
RPGs. South Carolina notes that actual 2011 EGU emissions are already 
below the SO<INF>2</INF> emissions projections for 2018 in the regional 
haze plan with further decreases expected.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ See Table 6 of South Carolina's Progress Report, pp. 21-22.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 11: In its comments regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), the 
Commenter states that there have been significant changes in the 
anthropogenic emissions that affect Cape Romain and that the conclusion 
that the State is on track to meet RPGs for 2018 and that no changes to 
the regional haze plan are needed is ``not supported by the facts.'' 
The Commenter alleges that South Carolina is not making reasonable 
progress toward natural visibility and claims that the expected 
retirements of emissions units identified in the Progress Report 
submission must be included in the regional haze plan to make them 
enforceable because South Carolina and EPA are ``relying on `expected' 
retirements in order to be on track to meet 2018 goals.''
    Response 11: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. None of the changes 
in anthropogenic emissions identified in South Carolina's Progress 
Report were adverse to visibility improvement, and the Commenter did 
not identify any significant increases in anthropogenic emissions over 
the five-year period at issue or any significant expected reductions in 
anthropogenic emissions that did not occur. As discussed in Response 
10, there was an overall decrease in visibility impairing pollutants in 
South Carolina during the five-year period at issue.
    Regarding expected retirements, South Carolina identified sources 
that were in included in the VISTAS modeling but that have subsequently 
chosen to retire prior to the end of the first implementation period. 
The emissions reductions from these retirements are therefore in excess 
of those planned for in the regional haze plan and should provide an 
additional margin of visibility improvement. The emissions rates in the 
regional haze plan for which the estimates for reasonable progress were 
derived were based on enforceable measures in the plan, and EPA 
believes that these enforceable measures contributed to the significant 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions reductions documented in the Progress Report 
and to the visibility improvement indicated by monitoring data. For 
these reasons, EPA finds that the State properly concluded that there 
were no changes in anthropogenic emissions that limited or impeded 
progress and finds that no changes to the regional haze plan or 
Progress Report are necessary to address this comment.
    Comment 12: In its comments regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6), the 
Commenter states that EPA cannot approve South Carolina's Progress 
Report because it ``doesn't contain information necessary to determine 
whether its SIP is sufficient to meet reasonable progress goals in all 
Class I areas.'' The Commenter asserts that the Progress Report fails 
to provides a comprehensive list of all of the Class I areas that 
emissions from the State impact; does not provide information as to how 
sources, other than BART-eligible sources in South Carolina, may be 
impacting visibility in Class I areas within Georgia or North Carolina; 
and does not provide information as to how South Carolina sources are 
impacting Class I areas in other states affected by emissions from 
South Carolina; or discusses visibility trends in Class I areas located 
in states other than South Carolina.
    Response 12: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's position that EPA 
cannot approve South Carolina's Progress Report on the grounds that it 
does not contain information necessary to determine whether its 
regional haze plan is sufficient to meet RPGs in affected Class I 
areas. On the contrary, the Progress Report contains the information 
necessary to assess whether the measures and strategies in its regional 
haze plan are sufficient to enable the State and other states with 
Class I areas affected by emissions from South Carolina sources to meet 
their RPGs for 2018. In the qualitative assessment under the section of 
the Progress Report devoted to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6), the State refers to 
its evaluation of visibility conditions and changes at Cape Romain and 
to the emissions reductions documented earlier in the Progress Report. 
EPA does not agree that it is necessary for South Carolina to evaluate 
visibility data for the Class I areas outside of the State that are 
affected by emissions from South Carolina, as suggested by the 
Commenter, because SO<INF>2</INF> is the primary driver of visibility 
impairment in these areas and the emissions reductions in 
SO<INF>2</INF> documented in the Progress Report are already greater 
than those anticipated by 2018 in the regional haze plan. EPA believes 
that South Carolina has met its regional haze obligations to address 
visibility impacts at Cape Romain and other potentially impacted Class 
I areas because the State reviewed the visibility data for Cape Romain 
and the emissions data for South Carolina sources potentially impacting 
Cape Romain and other Class I areas outside of the State, and has met 
the consultation requirements.
    EPA also disagrees with the Commenter's belief that South Carolina 
did not list all Class I areas outside of the State that are affected 
by emissions from South Carolina sources. As discussed in the proposed 
rulemaking notice associated with the limited approval of the State's 
regional haze plan, VISTAS conducted screening assessments for the 
VISTAS states to assist these states in determining the potential 
impact of their sources' emissions on Class I areas outside of

[[Page 47392]]

each state because other states outside of the VISTAS region had not 
yet completed this type of assessment for their Class I area(s). See 77 
FR at 11911. Each state with a Class I area determines what methodology 
it will use to identify sources outside the state contributing to 
visibility impairment at its Class I area(s). Based on these screening 
assessments using the generic VISTAS AoI methodology developed for the 
VISTAS states, South Carolina determined that emissions from South 
Carolina potentially impact five Class I areas outside of the State: 
Wolf Island and Okefenokee Wilderness Areas in Georgia, and Joyce 
Kilmer, Shining Rock, and Swanquarter Wilderness Areas in North 
Carolina. See id. The Progress Report identifies these five Class I 
areas, in addition to Cape Romain, which were addressed in the State's 
regional haze plan and identifies the emissions units affecting these 
areas.
    South Carolina consulted with Georgia and North Carolina regarding 
requests for the State to consider adding several of its sources' 
emissions units to the State's final reasonable progress control 
evaluation list. See Id. at 11912. In 2007, the Mid-Atlantic/Northeast 
Visibility Union (also commonly referred to as MANE-VU) states of New 
Jersey and New Hampshire notified South Carolina of their belief that 
emissions from South Carolina affected Brigantine Wilderness Area in 
New Jersey and Lye Brook Wilderness Area in New Hampshire.\16\ South 
Carolina consulted with New Jersey and New Hampshire when developing 
its regional haze plan and notified them of South Carolina's conclusion 
that emissions from the State do not reasonably contribute to 
visibility impairment in those states based on VISTAS modeling. See Id.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Appendix J of South Carolina's regional haze plan for 
further details.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    South Carolina provided sufficient information regarding the 
sources impacting visibility in the Class I areas affected by emissions 
from the State. Tables 1 and 2 in the Progress Report list point 
sources in South Carolina that Georgia and North Carolina identified as 
potentially impacting visibility at Georgia and North Carolina's Class 
I areas, respectively. It is not clear what other sources the Commenter 
believes should have been addressed by South Carolina for Class I areas 
outside of the State. The assessment of individual sources and their 
impact on affected Class I both within and outside South Carolina is 
contained in South Carolina's regional haze plan and discussed in the 
rulemaking notices associated with that plan.
    EPA agrees with South Carolina's assessment that the regional haze 
plan is sufficient to enable affected Class I areas to meet their RPGs 
and believes that the Progress Report contains sufficient information 
to support this assessment. The State referenced improving visibility 
trends in Cape Romain and emissions reductions from its sources 
indicating that Class I areas affected by emissions from South Carolina 
sources are on track to meet their RPGs.
    Comment 13: The Commenter states that standard deviations for the 
groups of 20-percent best and worst days for Cape Romain are needed to 
perform a ``t-test'' because ``the information given does not support 
statistical significance.'' However, the Commenter notes that in any 
case, the improvements point away from the conclusion that visibility 
is worsening and that the progress in increasing visibility is 
encouraging.
    Response 13: EPA does not believe that a ``t-test'' is necessary 
because the assessment of reasonable progress is based on more than 
statistical inference from the visibility monitoring data. The 
monitoring data is supplemented by estimates of expected changes in 
emissions and modeling analyses of the impact of these changes that are 
included in the State's regional haze plan as well as actual and 
projected emissions reductions of visibility impairing pollutants 
documented in the Progress Report. Considered together, these analyses 
indicate that Cape Romain will achieve its RPGs for the first 
implementation period by 2018. Although the 2005-2009 visibility data 
did not show substantial improvement, more recent monitoring data and 
the projected emissions data in the Progress Report are consistent with 
the modeling results and the expectation of reasonable progress.

III. Final Action

    EPA is finalizing approval of South Carolina's December 28, 2012, 
SIP revision on the basis that it addresses the progress report and 
adequacy determination requirements for the first implementation period 
for regional haze as set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).

IV. 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 
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this 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 mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 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 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, the SIP does not have Tribal implications as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 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.'' However, EPA has determined that because this rule does 
not have substantial direct effects on an Indian

[[Page 47393]]

Tribe because, as noted above, this action is not approving any 
specific rule, but rather approving a SIP revision that evaluates the 
sufficiency of South Carolina's already approved regional haze plan in 
meeting certain CAA requirements. EPA notes today's action will not 
impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal 
law.
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by December 11, 2017. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: September 29, 2017.
Onis ``Trey'' Glenn, III,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart PP--South Carolina

0
2. Section 52.2120(e) is amended by adding an entry for ``December 2012 
Regional Haze Progress Report'' at the end of the table to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.2120   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                              EPA-Approved South Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           State
              Provision               effective date     EPA approval date                Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
December 2012 Regional Haze Progress      12/28/2012  10/12/2017 [Insert
 Report.                                               citation of
                                                       publication]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2017-21948 Filed 10-11-17; 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>