Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47385 

1On June 28, 2012, EPA finalized a limited 

approval of South Carolina’s regional haze plan to 

address the first implementation period for regional 

Continued 

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, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart B—Alabama 

■ 2. Section 52.50(c) is amended under 

the heading ‘‘Chapter No. 335–3–17 

Conformity of Federal Actions to State 

Implementation Plans’’ by revising the 

entry for ‘‘Section 335–3–17–.01’’ to 

read as follows: 

§ 52.50 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

EPA APPROVED ALABAMA REGULATIONS

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

Chapter No. 335–3–17 Conformity of Federal Actions to State Implementation Plans 

Section 335–3–17–.01 .................... Transportation Conformity .............. 5/28/2013 10/12/2017 

[Insert citation of publication] ..........

* * * * * * * 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–21930 Filed 10–11–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 

notarianni.michele@epa.gov. 

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


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
47386 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

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 capand-trade programs to reduce SO2 and NOX

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 PM2.5 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 

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. 

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 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. 

3See the SNPRM and Response 5, below, for 

discussion regarding the CSAPR litigation. 

4This data is available at: http://

vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/Results/ 

HazePlanning.aspx. 

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

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). 

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 (SO2) 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; SO2 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; SO2 emissions from EGUs in 

South Carolina are already below the 

levels projected for 2018 in the regional 

haze plan; and the SO2 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 SO2

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 

SO2 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. 

Additional IMPROVE visibility data is 

now available for the 2011–2015 fiveyear 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 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47387 

5For 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. 

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 SO2 emissions data reported in 

the Progress Report also supports South 

Carolina’s declaration. As discussed in 

the NPRM, South Carolina documented 

significant reductions in SO2 in its 

Progress Report, and EPA believes that 

the State’s emphasis on SO2 is 

appropriate because SO2 reductions 

from South Carolina EGUs are the key 

element of the State’s regional haze 

strategy. The State’s regional haze plan 

focused on SO2, 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 SO2 emissions from EGUs 

and industrial point sources would 

result in the greatest improvements in 

visibility in the VISTAS region, 

compared with other visibilityimpairing 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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. 

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 SO2

from these mobile sources on a fleetwide 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 

SO2 controls on South Carolina coalfired 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 SO2

emissions from South Carolina EGUs 

and reiterates the conclusion from its 

regional haze plan that reducing SO2

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 SO2 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 SO2 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 BARTsubject sources (SCE&G Wateree and 

Williams stations) relied on CAIR to 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
47388 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

6Although 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. 

7 In the NPRM, EPA discussed the significance of 

SO2 reductions as South Carolina and VISTAS 

identified SO2 as the largest contributor pollutant 

to visibility impairment in South Carolina 

specifically and in the VISTAS region generally. 8See 76 FR 48208 (August 8, 2011). 

satisfy BART for nitrogen oxides (NOX) 

and SO2, 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 SO2

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 longterm 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 capand-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. 

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 NOX and 

SO2 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). 

Second, the State’s regional haze 

program now includes reliance on 

CSAPR for SO2 and NOX 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 SO2 and NOX 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 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. 

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 SO2 and NOX 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 SO2 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 SO2 emission 

reductions in the State to continue 

through CSAPR, EGU retirements, and 

other measures. These continued 

emission reductions will assist South 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47389 

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-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). 

10See South Carolina’s regional haze plan 

Narrative, chapter 2.4, Pollutant Contributions To 

Visibility Impairment (2000–2004 Baseline Data). 

11See id. at chapters 2.4 and 4.2, Assessment of 

Relative Contributions from Specific Pollutants and 

Sources Categories. 

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. 

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 

SO2 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 SO2 emissions controls from 

point sources and that the Progress 

Report does not discuss progress on 

controls for NOX 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 SO2 would 

create the greatest visibility 

improvement but believes that 

additional NOX 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 SO2 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, 

SO2 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 SO2 emissions is the 

most effective means to improve 

visibility during the first 

implementation period.10 Furthermore, 

91 percent of the 2002 SO2 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 SO2 emissions was the 

appropriate step in addressing the 

reasonable progress assessment for 2018 

and that the focus should be on 

industrial point source SO2 emissions, 

not PM and NOX emissions, during the 

first implementation period. 

EPA believes that the SO2 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 SO2

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 SO2 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. 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
47390 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

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. 

13See http://ampd.epa.gov/ampd/. 

14See Tables 10 and 11 of the Progress Report, 

pages 34–35. 

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. 

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 SO2 reductions, EPA cannot 

reasonably rely on this information to 

inform a decision as to how SO2

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 SO2 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 NOX or PM 

emissions reductions and that EPA 

should require the State to include a 

discussion of NOX and PM reductions as 

this ‘‘would ensure that emissions of 

these pollutants have not increased, 

offsetting any reductions in SO2.’’ 

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 SO2 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 SO2

emissions reductions for individual 

EGUs within the State consistent with 

the State’s regional haze plan.14

With respect to the comments 

regarding NOX and PM emissions 

reduction summaries, South Carolina 

did provide NO2 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 NOX 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 SO2 because the State 

demonstrated that reductions in SO2

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, NOX, fine PM, 

coarse PM, ammonia, and SO2 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 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 47391 

15See Table 6 of South Carolina’s Progress 

Report, pp. 21–22. 

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 

SO2 emissions projections for 2018 in 

the regional haze plan with further 

decreases expected.15

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 

SO2 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 BARTeligible 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 SO2 is the primary 

driver of visibility impairment in these 

areas and the emissions reductions in 

SO2 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 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
47392 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

16See Appendix J of South Carolina’s regional 

haze plan for further details. 

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. 

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: 

• 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 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Public Law 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 CAA; 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, 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 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 196 / Thursday, October 12, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart PP—South Carolina 

■ 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: 

§ 52.2120 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED SOUTH CAROLINA NON-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Provision State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

December 2012 Regional Haze Progress Report .. 12/28/2012 10/12/2017 [Insert citation of publication] 

[FR Doc. 2017–21948 Filed 10–11–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0104; FRL–9969– 

21—Region 4] 

Air Plan Approval; Alabama; Regional 

Haze Plan and Prong 4 (Visibility) for 

the 2012 PM2.5, 2010 NO2, 2010 SO2, 

and 2008 Ozone NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking the following 

four actions regarding the Alabama State 

Implementation Plan (SIP): Approving 

the portion of Alabama’s October 26, 

2015, SIP submittal seeking to change 

reliance from the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) to the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for certain 

regional haze requirements; converting 

EPA’s limited approval/limited 

disapproval of Alabama’s July 15, 2008, 

regional haze SIP to a full approval; 

approving the visibility prong of 

Alabama’s infrastructure SIP submittals 

for the 2012 Fine Particulate Matter 

(PM2.5), 2010 Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2), 

and 2010 Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) National 

Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS); and converting EPA’s 

disapproval of the visibility portion of 

Alabama’s infrastructure SIP submittal 

for the 2008 Ozone NAAQS to an 

approval. 

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– 

2017–0104. 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, 

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 to 

schedule your inspection. 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, 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 by telephone 

at (404) 562–9031 or via electronic mail 

at notarianni.michele@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. Regional Haze SIPs and Their 

Relationship With CAIR and CSAPR 

Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA or Act) requires states to 

submit regional haze SIPs that contain 


jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES