82 FR 39079 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Carolina; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 158 (August 17, 2017)
Federal Register Volume 82, Issue 158 (August 17, 2017)
| Page Range | 39079-39083 | |
| FR Document | 2017-17222 |
[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 158 (Thursday, August 17, 2017)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 39079-39083] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2017-17222] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0389; FRL-9966-16-Region 4] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Carolina; Regional Haze State Implementation Plan AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is issuing a supplement to its proposed approval of a revision to the South Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of South Carolina through the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) on December 28, 2012. South Carolina's SIP revision (Progress Report) addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and EPA's rules that require each state to submit periodic reports describing progress towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing SIP addressing regional haze (regional haze plan). EPA's proposed approval of South Carolina's Progress Report was published in the Federal Register on January 17, 2014. This supplemental proposal addresses the potential effects on EPA's proposed approval from the April 29, 2014, decision of the United States Supreme Court (Supreme Court) remanding to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (D.C. Circuit) EPA's Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for further proceedings and the D.C. Circuit's July 28, 2015, decision on remand. DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2017. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04- OAR-2013-0389 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached via telephone at (404) 562- 9031 and via electronic mail at [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background Each state is required to submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision during the first implementation period that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I federal area (Class I area) \1\ within the state and in each mandatory Class I area outside the state that may be affected by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition, the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze plan. The first progress report is due five years after submittal of the initial regional haze plan. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). These areas are listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- SC DHEC submitted its first regional haze plan on December 17, 2007, and submitted its Progress Report on December 28, 2012. The Progress Report and accompanying cover letter included a determination that South Carolina's existing regional haze plan requires no substantive revision to achieve the established regional haze visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals for 2018. EPA proposed to find that the State's Progress Report satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h) in a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on January 17, 2014 (79 FR 3147). Today's notice supplements that 2014 NPRM by more fully explaining and soliciting comment on the basis for the Agency's proposed approval as it relates to the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and CSAPR. II. Summary of South Carolina's Progress Report and EPA's 2014 NPRM In accordance with requirements in EPA's Regional Haze Rule (RHR), South Carolina's Progress Report describes the progress made towards the RPGs of Class I areas in and outside South Carolina that are affected by emissions from South Carolina's sources.\2\ See 40 CFR 51.308(g). This Progress Report also included an assessment of whether South Carolina's existing regional haze plan is sufficient to allow it and other nearby states with Class I areas to achieve their RPGs by the end of the first implementation period. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). In the 2014 NPRM, EPA proposed to approve the State's Progress Report as adequately addressing 40 CFR [[Page 39080]] 51.308(g) and (h). EPA's proposed conclusions in the 2014 NPRM regarding South Carolina's Progress Report are briefly summarized below. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\ EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze, the RHR, on July 1, 1999. See 64 FR 35713. The RHR revised the existing visibility regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility protection program for Class I areas. See 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309. EPA revised the RHR on January 10, 2017. See 82 FR 3078. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- South Carolina's Progress Report included a description of the status of measures in its regional haze plan; a summary of the emissions reductions achieved; an assessment of the visibility conditions for Cape Romain Wilderness Area, the only Class I area in the State; an analysis of the changes in emissions from sources and activities within the State; an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State that have limited or impeded visibility improvement progress in Class I areas impacted by the State's sources; an assessment of the sufficiency of the regional haze plan to enable South Carolina and states affected by South Carolina's sources to meet the RPGs for their Class I areas; and a review of the State's visibility monitoring strategy. As explained in the 2014 NPRM, EPA proposed to find that South Carolina's Progress Report adequately addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition, South Carolina simultaneously submitted a determination pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(h) that its regional haze plan is sufficient to enable the State and states affected by South Carolina's sources to achieve the RPGs for Class I areas affected by South Carolina's sources. The State also declared that further revision of the existing regional haze plan was not needed at that time. As explained in detail in the 2014 NPRM, EPA proposed to determine that South Carolina had adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h) because visibility has improved at Cape Romain; sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) emissions from the State's sources have decreased beyond original projections; \3\ additional electric generating unit (EGU) control measures not relied upon in the State's regional haze plan have occurred or will occur in the implementation period; and the SO2 emissions from EGUs in South Carolina are already below the levels projected for 2018 in the regional haze plan and are expected to continue to trend downward, as will the SO2 emissions from EGUs in the other VISTAS states. In the 2014 NPRM, EPA proposed to approve South Carolina's Progress Report SIP as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ In its regional haze plan and Progress Report, South Carolina focused its assessment on SO2 emissions from EGUs because the regional planning organization, the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast (VISTAS), determined that sulfates accounted for more than 70 percent of the visibility-impairing pollution in the Southeast and that SO2 point source emissions in 2018 represent more than 95 percent of the total SO2 emissions inventory. In its Progress Report, South Carolina states that sulfates continue to be the biggest single contributor to regional haze at Cape Romain. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- III. Impact of CAIR and CSAPR on South Carolina's Progress Report Decisions by the courts regarding EPA rules addressing the interstate transport of pollutants have had a substantial impact on EPA's review of the regional haze plans of many states. In 2005, EPA issued regulations allowing states to rely on CAIR to meet certain requirements of the RHR. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005).\4\ Like many other states subject to CAIR, South Carolina relied on CAIR in its regional haze plan to meet certain requirements of the RHR, including the criteria for alternatives to the best available retrofit technology (BART) requirements for emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides (NOX ) from certain EGUs in the State. This reliance was consistent with EPA's regulations. See 70 FR 39104 (July 6, 2005). However, in 2008, the D.C. Circuit remanded CAIR to EPA without vacatur to preserve the environmental benefits provided by the rule. North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). On August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), acting on the D.C. Circuit's remand, EPA promulgated CSAPR to replace CAIR and issued Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) to implement the rule in CSAPR-subject states.\5\ Implementation of CSAPR was scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, when CSAPR would have superseded the CAIR program. However, numerous parties filed petitions for review of CSAPR, and at the end of 2011, the D.C. Circuit issued an order staying CSAPR pending resolution of the petitions and directing EPA to continue to administer CAIR. Order of December 30, 2011, in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11-1302. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ CAIR created regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce SO2 and NOX emissions in 27 eastern states, including South Carolina, that contributed to downwind nonattainment and maintenance of the 1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) and/or the 1997 fine particulate matter (PM2.5 ) NAAQS. See 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). \5\ 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. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On June 28, 2012 (77 FR 38509), EPA finalized a limited approval of South Carolina's regional haze plan addressing the first implementation period for regional haze. In a separate action, published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), EPA finalized a limited disapproval of regional haze plans from South Carolina and several other states because these plans relied on CAIR to meet certain regional haze requirements, and also amended the Regional Haze Rule to provide that participation by a state's EGUs in a CSAPR trading program for a given pollutant--either a CSAPR federal trading program implemented through a CSAPR FIP or an integrated CSAPR state trading program implemented through an approved CSAPR SIP revision--qualifies as a BART alternative for those EGUs for that pollutant.\6\ See 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). In that same June 7, 2012, action, EPA also finalized FIPs to replace reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR to address deficiencies in CAIR-dependent regional haze plans of several states, including South Carolina's regional haze plan. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ Legal challenges to the CSAPR Better-than-BART rule from state, industry, and other petitioners are pending. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, No. 12-1342 (D.C. Cir. filed August 6, 2012). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Following these EPA actions, however, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), vacating and remanding CSAPR to EPA and ordering continued implementation of CAIR pending the promulgation of a valid replacement. On April 29, 2014, the Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit's decision on CSAPR and remanded the case to the D.C. Circuit to resolve remaining issues in accordance with the high court's ruling.\7\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 (2014). On remand, the D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects, but invalidated without vacating some of the CSAPR budgets for a number of states. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 [[Page 39081]] (D.C. Cir. 2015). The remanded budgets include the Phase 2 SO2 emissions budget and ozone-season NOX budget for South Carolina. The CSAPR litigation ultimately delayed implementation of the rule for three years, from January 1, 2012, when CSAPR's cap-and-trade programs were originally scheduled to replace the CAIR cap-and-trade programs, to January 1, 2015. Thus, the rule's Phase 2 budgets, originally promulgated to begin on January 1, 2014, took effect on January 1, 2017. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \7\ After the Supreme Court's decision, EPA filed a motion to lift the stay on CSAPR and asked the D.C. Circuit to toll CSAPR's compliance deadlines by three years, so that the Phase 1 emissions budgets apply in 2015 and 2016 (instead of 2012 and 2013), and the Phase 2 emissions budgets apply in 2017 and beyond (instead of 2014 and beyond). On October 23, 2014, the D.C. Circuit granted EPA's motion. Order of October 23, 2014, in EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11-1302. EPA subsequently issued an interim final rule to clarify how EPA would implement CSAPR consistent with the D.C. Circuit's order lifting the stay and tolling the rule's deadlines. See 79 FR 71663 (December 3, 2014) (interim final rulemaking). Pursuant to the interim final rulemaking, EPA began implementation of CSAPR on January 1, 2015. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On May 26, 2017, South Carolina submitted a draft SIP revision for parallel processing that adopts provisions for participation in the CSAPR annual NOX and annual SO2 trading programs, including annual NOX and annual SO2 budgets that are equal to the budgets for South Carolina in EPA's CSAPR FIP. EPA signed a NPRM on July 28, 2017 proposing to approve the SIP revision. As approval of that SIP revision would eliminate South Carolina's remanded federally-established Phase 2 SO2 budget, it is EPA's opinion that finalization of approval of that action would address the judicial remand of South Carolina's federally-established Phase 2 SO2 budget.\8\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ On September 7, 2016, EPA finalized an update to the CSAPR ozone-season program. See 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016). The update addresses summertime transport of ozone pollution in the eastern United States that crosses state lines to help downwind states and communities meet and maintain the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS and addresses the remanded Phase 2 ozone season NOX budgets. The update withdraws the remanded ozone-season NOX budgets, sets new Phase 2 CSAPR ozone season NOX emissions budgets for eight of the eleven states with remanded budgets, and removes the other three states from the CSAPR ozone season NOX trading program. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- CAIR was in effect at the time that South Carolina submitted its Progress Report on December 28, 2012, and the State included an assessment of the emission reductions from the implementation of CAIR in its report. South Carolina's Progress Report discussed the status of the litigation concerning CAIR and CSAPR, but because CSAPR was not at that time in effect, South Carolina did not take actual emissions reductions from CSAPR into account in assessing its regional haze plan. For the same reason, in the 2014 NPRM, EPA did not assess at that time the impact of CSAPR nor the CSAPR FIP on the abilities of South Carolina and its neighbors to meet their RPGs. The purpose of this supplemental proposal is to seek comment on the effect of the D.C. Circuit's 2015 decision on the Agency's assessment of South Carolina's Progress Report and the State's determination that its existing regional haze plan need not be revised at this time. Given the complex background summarized above, EPA is proposing to determine that South Carolina appropriately took CAIR into account in its Progress Report. CAIR was in effect during the 2007-2011 period addressed by South Carolina's Progress Report. EPA approved South Carolina's regulations implementing CAIR as part of the South Carolina SIP on October 16, 2009 (74 FR 53167), and at the time of submission of its Progress Report, neither South Carolina nor EPA had taken any action to remove CAIR from the South Carolina SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2120(c). Therefore, EPA proposes to find that South Carolina appropriately evaluated and relied on CAIR reductions to demonstrate the State's progress towards meeting its RPGs. The State's Progress Report also demonstrated that Class I areas in other states impacted by South Carolina sources were on track to meet their RPGs as discussed in the 2014 NPRM. See 79 FR 3151. EPA's intention in requiring the progress reports pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g) was to ensure that emission management measures in the regional haze plans are being implemented on schedule and that visibility improvement appears to be consistent with the RPGs. See 64 FR 35713, 35747 (July 1, 1999). CAIR was in effect in South Carolina through 2014, providing the emission reductions relied upon in South Carolina's regional haze plan. Thus, EPA is proposing to determine that South Carolina appropriately took into account CAIR reductions in assessing the implementation of measures in the regional haze plan for the 2007-2011 timeframe, and EPA believes that it is appropriate to rely on CAIR emission reductions for purposes of assessing the adequacy of South Carolina's Progress Report demonstrating progress during this timeframe because CAIR remained effective and provided the requisite emission reductions. In addition, EPA also believes that reliance upon CAIR reductions to show South Carolina's progress towards meeting its RPGs from 2007- 2011 is consistent with the Agency's prior actions. During the continued implementation of CAIR per the direction of the D.C. Circuit through October 2014, EPA approved redesignations of areas to attainment of the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS in which states relied on CAIR as an ``enforceable measure.'' See 77 FR 76415 (December 28, 2012) (redesignation of Huntingdon-Ashland, West Virginia); 78 FR 59841 (September 30, 2013) (redesignation of Wheeling, West Virginia); and 78 FR 56168 (September 12, 2013) (redesignation of Parkersburg, West Virginia). While EPA did previously state in a rulemaking action on the Florida regional haze plan that a five-year progress report may be the appropriate time to address changes, if necessary, for RPG demonstrations and long term strategies, EPA does not believe that the implementation of CSAPR impacts the adequacy of the South Carolina regional haze plan to address reasonable progress from 2007 through 2011 or to meet requirements in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h) because CAIR was implemented during the time period evaluated by South Carolina for its Progress Report. See generally 77 FR 73369, 73371 (December 10, 2012) (proposed action on the Florida regional haze plan). EPA's December 3, 2014, interim final rule sunset CAIR compliance requirements on a schedule coordinated with the implementation of CSAPR compliance requirements. Because CSAPR should result in greater emissions reductions of SO2 and NOX than CAIR throughout the affected region, including in South Carolina and neighboring states, EPA expects South Carolina to maintain and continue its progress towards its RPGs for 2018 through continued, and additional, SO2 and NOX reductions. See generally August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208) (promulgating CSAPR). Although the implementation of CSAPR was tolled for three years, the Rule is now being implemented, and by 2018, the endpoint for calculating RPGs for the first regional haze implementation period, CSAPR will reduce emissions of SO2 and NOX from EGUs in South Carolina by the same amount assumed by EPA when it issued the CSAPR FIP for South Carolina in June 2012. See 76 FR 48208 (CSAPR promulgation), and 77 FR 33642 (limited disapproval of South Carolina regional haze plan and FIP for South Carolina for certain regional haze requirements). At the present time, the requirements of CSAPR apply to sources in South Carolina under the terms of a FIP. If EPA approves South Carolina's May 26, 2017, SIP revision that incorporates the CSAPR requirements into its SIP, the requirements of CSAPR for annual NOX and SO2 emissions will apply to sources in the State through its SIP at budget levels equal to those in the CSAPR FIP. The RHR requires an assessment of whether the current ``implementation plan'' is sufficient to enable the states to meet all established RPGs under 40 CFR 51.308(g). The term ``implementation [[Page 39082]] plan'' is defined for purposes of the RHR to mean ``any [SIP], [FIP], or Tribal Implementation Plan.'' See 40 CFR 51.301. EPA is, therefore, proposing to determine that the Agency may consider measures in any issued FIP as well as those in a state's regional haze plan in assessing the adequacy of the ``existing implementation plan'' under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) and (h). Because CSAPR will ensure the control of SO2 and NOX emissions reductions relied upon by South Carolina and other states in setting their RPGs beginning in January 2015 at least through the remainder of the first implementation period in 2018, EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's finding that there is no need for revision of the existing implementation plan for South Carolina to achieve the RPGs for Cape Romain and the Class I areas impacted by South Carolina sources. EPA notes that the RHR provides for periodic evaluation and assessment of a state's reasonable progress towards achieving the national goal of natural visibility conditions under the CAA section 169A(b). The regional haze regulations at 40 CFR 51.308 required states to submit initial SIPs in 2007 providing for reasonable progress towards the national goal for the first implementation period from 2008 through 2018. See 40 CFR 51.308(b). Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f), SIP revisions reassessing each state's reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal are due by July 31, 2021, July 31, 2028, and every ten years thereafter. For such subsequent regional haze plans, 40 CFR 51.308(f) requires each state to reassess its reasonable progress and all the elements of its regional haze plan required by 40 CFR 51.308(d), taking into account improvements in monitors and control technology, assessing the state's actual progress and effectiveness of its long term strategy, and revising RPGs as necessary. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)-(3). Therefore, South Carolina has the opportunity to reassess its RPGs and the adequacy of its regional haze plan, including its reliance first upon CAIR and now upon CSAPR for emission reductions from EGUs, when it prepares and submits its second regional haze plan to cover the implementation period from 2018 through 2028. As discussed in the 2014 NPRM and in South Carolina's Progress Report, emissions of SO2 from EGUs are below original projections for 2018. In addition, the visibility data provided by South Carolina show that Cape Romain is currently on track to achieve its RPGs. IV. Summary of Reproposal In summary, EPA proposes to approve South Carolina's Progress Report. EPA solicits comments on this supplemental proposal, but only with respect to the specific issues raised in this notice concerning the Agency's interpretation of the term ``implementation plan'' in the RHR, and EPA's proposed agreement with South Carolina's assessment that the current regional haze plan for South Carolina, in combination with EPA's CSAPR FIP or an approved CSAPR SIP, need not be revised at this time to achieve the established RPGs for South Carolina and other impacted states in light of the status of CAIR through 2014 and CSAPR starting in 2015. EPA is not reopening the comment period on any other aspect of the January 17, 2014, NPRM as an adequate opportunity to comment on those issues has already been provided. The purpose of this supplemental proposal is limited to review of South Carolina's Progress Report in light of the D.C. Circuit's 2015 ruling on CSAPR. This supplemental proposal reflects EPA's desire for public input into how it should proceed in light of this decision when acting on the State's pending Progress Report, in particular the requirements that the State assess whether the current implementation plan is sufficient to ensure that RPGs are met. See 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h).\9\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ EPA previously determined that CSAPR (like CAIR before it) was ``better than BART'' because it would achieve greater reasonable progress toward the national goal than would source-specific BART. See 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012). EPA is not taking comment in this supplemental proposal on whether the South Carolina regional haze plan meets the BART requirements or whether CSAPR is an alternative measure to source-specific BART in accordance with 40 CFR 52.301(e)(2). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); does not contain any unfunded mandates or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Act; and does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, this proposed rule for South Carolina does not have Tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because it does not have substantial direct effects on an Indian Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is located within the state of South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code Ann. 27-16-120, ``all state and local environmental laws and regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and authorities.'' EPA notes this action will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or preempt Tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. [[Page 39083]] Dated: August 4, 2017. V. Anne Heard, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. [FR Doc. 2017-17222 Filed 8-16-17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules 39079
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The plan). EPA’s proposed approval of federal area (Class I area) 1 within the
telephone number is (404) 562–9222. South Carolina’s Progress Report was state and in each mandatory Class I area
Ms. Sheckler can also be reached via published in the Federal Register on outside the state that may be affected by
electronic mail at sheckler.kelly@ January 17, 2014. This supplemental emissions from within the state. See 40
epa.gov. proposal addresses the potential effects CFR 51.308(g). In addition, the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the on EPA’s proposed approval from the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h)
Final Rules Section of this Federal April 29, 2014, decision of the United require states to submit, at the same
Register, EPA is approving the State’s States Supreme Court (Supreme Court) time as the progress report, a
implementation plan revision as a direct remanding to the United States Court of determination of the adequacy of the
final rule without prior proposal Appeals for the District of Columbia state’s existing regional haze plan. The
because the Agency views this as a Circuit (D.C. Circuit) EPA’s Cross-State first progress report is due five years
Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) for further after submittal of the initial regional
noncontroversial submittal and
proceedings and the D.C. Circuit’s July haze plan.
anticipates no adverse comments. A
28, 2015, decision on remand. SC DHEC submitted its first regional
detailed rationale for the approval is set haze plan on December 17, 2007, and
forth in the direct final rule. If no DATES: Comments must be received on submitted its Progress Report on
adverse comments are received in or before September 18, 2017. December 28, 2012. The Progress Report
response to this rule, no further activity and accompanying cover letter included
is contemplated. If EPA receives adverse ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
a determination that South Carolina’s
comments, the direct final rule will be identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
existing regional haze plan requires no
withdrawn and all public comments OAR–2013–0389 at http://
substantive revision to achieve the
received will be addressed in a www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
established regional haze visibility
subsequent final rule based on this instructions for submitting comments. improvement and emissions reduction
proposed rule. EPA will not institute a Once submitted, comments cannot be goals for 2018. EPA proposed to find
second comment period on this edited or removed from Regulations.gov. that the State’s Progress Report satisfied
document. Any parties interested in EPA may publish any comment received the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)
commenting on this document should to its public docket. Do not submit and (h) in a notice of proposed
do so at this time. electronically any information you rulemaking (NPRM) published on
Dated: August 4, 2017. consider to be Confidential Business January 17, 2014 (79 FR 3147). Today’s
V. Anne Heard,
Information (CBI) or other information notice supplements that 2014 NPRM by
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. more fully explaining and soliciting
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, comment on the basis for the Agency’s
[FR Doc. 2017–17239 Filed 8–16–17; 8:45 am]
etc.) must be accompanied by a written proposed approval as it relates to the
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
comment. The written comment is Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and
considered the official comment and CSAPR.
should include discussion of all points
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION II. Summary of South Carolina’s
you wish to make. EPA will generally
AGENCY Progress Report and EPA’s 2014 NPRM
not consider comments or comment
40 CFR Part 52 contents located outside of the primary In accordance with requirements in
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or EPA’s Regional Haze Rule (RHR), South
[EPA–R04–OAR–2013–0389; FRL–9966–16– other file sharing system). For Carolina’s Progress Report describes the
Region 4] progress made towards the RPGs of
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy, Class I areas in and outside South
Approval and Promulgation of
information about CBI or multimedia Carolina that are affected by emissions
Implementation Plans; South Carolina;
submissions, and general guidance on from South Carolina’s sources.2 See 40
Regional Haze State Implementation
making effective comments, please visit CFR 51.308(g). This Progress Report also
Plan
http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ included an assessment of whether
AGENCY: Environmental Protection commenting-epa-dockets. South Carolina’s existing regional haze
Agency (EPA). plan is sufficient to allow it and other
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: nearby states with Class I areas to
ACTION: Proposed rule; supplemental.
Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory achieve their RPGs by the end of the
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Management Section, Air Planning and first implementation period. See 40 CFR
Agency (EPA) is issuing a supplement to Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides 51.308(h). In the 2014 NPRM, EPA
its proposed approval of a revision to and Toxics Management Division, U.S. proposed to approve the State’s Progress
the South Carolina State Environmental Protection Agency, Report as adequately addressing 40 CFR
Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
the State of South Carolina through the Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Ms. 1 Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal
South Carolina Department of Health Notarianni can be reached via telephone areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) at (404) 562–9031 and via electronic exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks
on December 28, 2012. South Carolina’s mail at notarianni.michele@epa.gov. that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C.
SIP revision (Progress Report) addresses 7472(a). These areas are listed at 40 CFR part 81,
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: subpart D.
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 2 EPA promulgated a rule to address regional
or Act) and EPA’s rules that require I. Background haze, the RHR, on July 1, 1999. See 64 FR 35713.
each state to submit periodic reports The RHR revised the existing visibility regulations
describing progress towards reasonable Each state is required to submit a to integrate into the regulation provisions
progress goals (RPGs) established for progress report in the form of a SIP addressing regional haze impairment and
revision during the first implementation established a comprehensive visibility protection
regional haze and a determination of the program for Class I areas. See 40 CFR 51.308 and
adequacy of the state’s existing SIP period that evaluates progress towards 51.309. EPA revised the RHR on January 10, 2017.
addressing regional haze (regional haze the RPGs for each mandatory Class I See 82 FR 3078.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:29 Aug 16, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17AUP1.SGM 17AUP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_39237/page/1.svg)
![39082 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules
plan’’ is defined for purposes of the IV. Summary of Reproposal October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
RHR to mean ‘‘any [SIP], [FIP], or Tribal January 21, 2011);
Implementation Plan.’’ See 40 CFR In summary, EPA proposes to approve • does not impose an information
South Carolina’s Progress Report. EPA collection burden under the provisions
51.301. EPA is, therefore, proposing to
solicits comments on this supplemental of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
determine that the Agency may consider
proposal, but only with respect to the U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
measures in any issued FIP as well as
those in a state’s regional haze plan in
specific issues raised in this notice • is certified as not having a
concerning the Agency’s interpretation significant economic impact on a
assessing the adequacy of the ‘‘existing
of the term ‘‘implementation plan’’ in substantial number of small entities
implementation plan’’ under 40 CFR the RHR, and EPA’s proposed agreement
51.308(g)(6) and (h). Because CSAPR under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
with South Carolina’s assessment that U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
will ensure the control of SO2 and NOX the current regional haze plan for South • does not contain any unfunded
emissions reductions relied upon by Carolina, in combination with EPA’s mandates or significantly or uniquely
South Carolina and other states in CSAPR FIP or an approved CSAPR SIP, affect small governments, as described
setting their RPGs beginning in January need not be revised at this time to in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
2015 at least through the remainder of achieve the established RPGs for South of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
the first implementation period in 2018, Carolina and other impacted states in • does not have Federalism
EPA is proposing to approve South light of the status of CAIR through 2014 implications as specified in Executive
Carolina’s finding that there is no need and CSAPR starting in 2015. EPA is not Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
for revision of the existing reopening the comment period on any 1999);
implementation plan for South Carolina other aspect of the January 17, 2014, • is not an economically significant
to achieve the RPGs for Cape Romain NPRM as an adequate opportunity to regulatory action based on health or
and the Class I areas impacted by South comment on those issues has already safety risks subject to Executive Order
Carolina sources. been provided. The purpose of this 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
EPA notes that the RHR provides for supplemental proposal is limited to • is not a significant regulatory action
periodic evaluation and assessment of a review of South Carolina’s Progress subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
state’s reasonable progress towards Report in light of the D.C. Circuit’s 2015 28355, May 22, 2001);
ruling on CSAPR. This supplemental • is not subject to requirements of
achieving the national goal of natural
proposal reflects EPA’s desire for public Section 12(d) of the National
visibility conditions under the CAA
input into how it should proceed in Technology Transfer and Advancement
section 169A(b). The regional haze
light of this decision when acting on the Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
regulations at 40 CFR 51.308 required
State’s pending Progress Report, in application of those requirements would
states to submit initial SIPs in 2007 be inconsistent with the Act; and
providing for reasonable progress particular the requirements that the
State assess whether the current • does not provide EPA with the
towards the national goal for the first discretionary authority to address, as
implementation period from 2008 implementation plan is sufficient to
ensure that RPGs are met. See 40 CFR appropriate, disproportionate human
through 2018. See 40 CFR 51.308(b). health or environmental effects, using
Pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(f), SIP 51.308(g) and (h).9
practicable and legally permissible
revisions reassessing each state’s V. Statutory and Executive Order methods, under Executive Order 12898
reasonable progress towards the Reviews (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
national visibility goal are due by July In addition, this proposed rule for
31, 2021, July 31, 2028, and every ten Under the CAA, the Administrator is South Carolina does not have Tribal
years thereafter. For such subsequent required to approve a SIP submission implications as specified by Executive
regional haze plans, 40 CFR 51.308(f) that complies with the provisions of the Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
requires each state to reassess its Act and applicable federal regulations. 2000), because it does not have
reasonable progress and all the elements See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). substantial direct effects on an Indian
of its regional haze plan required by 40 Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, Tribe. The Catawba Indian Nation
CFR 51.308(d), taking into account EPA’s role is to approve state choices, Reservation is located within the state of
improvements in monitors and control provided that they meet the criteria of South Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba
technology, assessing the state’s actual the Act. Accordingly, this proposed Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C. Code
progress and effectiveness of its long action merely proposes to approve state Ann. 27–16–120, ‘‘all state and local
term strategy, and revising RPGs as law as meeting federal requirements and environmental laws and regulations
necessary. See 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)–(3). does not impose additional apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation]
Therefore, South Carolina has the requirements beyond those imposed by and Reservation and are fully
opportunity to reassess its RPGs and the state law. For that reason, this proposed enforceable by all relevant state and
adequacy of its regional haze plan, action: local agencies and authorities.’’ EPA
including its reliance first upon CAIR • Is not a significant regulatory action notes this action will not impose
and now upon CSAPR for emission subject to review by the Office of substantial direct costs on Tribal
reductions from EGUs, when it prepares Management and Budget under governments or preempt Tribal law.
and submits its second regional haze Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
plan to cover the implementation period
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
from 2018 through 2028. As discussed 9 EPA previously determined that CSAPR (like Environmental protection, Air
in the 2014 NPRM and in South CAIR before it) was ‘‘better than BART’’ because it pollution control, Incorporation by
would achieve greater reasonable progress toward reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Carolina’s Progress Report, emissions of the national goal than would source-specific BART.
SO2 from EGUs are below original See 77 FR 33642 (June 7, 2012). EPA is not taking Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter,
projections for 2018. In addition, the comment in this supplemental proposal on whether Reporting and recordkeeping
visibility data provided by South the South Carolina regional haze plan meets the requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile
BART requirements or whether CSAPR is an organic compounds.
Carolina show that Cape Romain is alternative measure to source-specific BART in
currently on track to achieve its RPGs. accordance with 40 CFR 52.301(e)(2). Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:29 Aug 16, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00034 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17AUP1.SGM 17AUP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_39237/page/4.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 158 / Thursday, August 17, 2017 / Proposed Rules 39083
Dated: August 4, 2017. making effective comments, please visit minor source permitting program, and
V. Anne Heard, http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ generally reduce the overall burden on
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. commenting-epa-dockets. the state permitting program and the
[FR Doc. 2017–17222 Filed 8–16–17; 8:45 am] FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: D. regulated community. The changes
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P Brad Akers, Air Regulatory Management addressed in this proposed rulemaking
Section, Air Planning and also correct typographical errors, make
Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides internal references consistent, and
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION and Toxics Management Division, U.S. recodify sections of the existing rules. In
AGENCY Environmental Protection Agency, this action, EPA is proposing to approve
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., certain portions of these SIP
40 CFR Part 52 Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Mr. Akers submissions that make changes to South
[EPA–R04–OAR–2017–0359; FRL–9966–48– can be reached via telephone at (404) Carolina’s minor NSR regulations and
Region 4] 562–9089 or via electronic mail at FESOP requirements.
akers.brad@epa.gov. EPA is not acting on a portion of the
Air Plan Approval; South Carolina: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: revisions to Regulation 61–62.1, Section
Minor Source Permit Program II—‘‘Permit Requirements.’’
Revisions I. What action is EPA proposing? Specifically, EPA is not acting on the
On October 1, 2007, July 18, 2011, renumbering and minor administrative
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
June 17, 2013, August 8, 2014, January language changes to paragraph G.6.—
Agency (EPA).
20, 2016, and July 27, 2016, SC DHEC ‘‘Emergency Provisions,’’ in the October
ACTION: Proposed rule.
submitted SIP revisions to EPA for 1, 2007, submittal, nor the minor
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection approval that involve changes to South additional language changes to this
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve Carolina’s minor source permitting portion of the minor source permitting
changes to South Carolina’s State regulations to clarify and streamline the regulations included in the August 8,
Implementation Plan (SIP) to revise State’s federally-approved 2014, submittal.2
minor new source review (NSR) preconstruction and operating At this time, EPA is not acting on the
regulations. EPA is proposing to permitting program. This program following changes included in the
approve portions of SIP revisions requires minor stationary sources October 1, 2007, submittal: Regulation
modifying these regulations as planning to construct or modify sources 61–62.5, Standard No. 4—‘‘Emissions
submitted by the State of South of air pollutants to first obtain a from Process Industries’’; and
Carolina, through the South Carolina construction permit and to obtain and Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 5.2—
Department of Health and maintain operating permits in ‘‘Control of Oxides of Nitrogen (NOX).’’
Environmental Control (SC DHEC), on accordance with the South Carolina EPA is also not acting on changes in
the following dates: October 1, 2007, Code of Regulations Annotated (S.C. the July 18, 2011, submittal to the
July 18, 2011, June 17, 2013, August 8, Code Ann. Regs.) at Regulation 61–62.1, following regulations in South
2014, January 20, 2016, and July 27, Section II—‘‘Permit Requirements.’’ The Carolina’s SIP: Regulation 61–62.1,
2016. This action is being proposed portion of the SIP-approved permitting Section I—‘‘Definitions’’; Regulation
pursuant to the Clean Air Act (CAA or program covering construction permits 61–62.3—‘‘Air Pollution Episodes’’;
Act). is generally referred to as the minor Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 1—
DATES: Comments must be received on source permitting program or the minor ‘‘Emissions from Fuel Burning
or before September 18, 2017. NSR program to distinguish it from Operations’’; Regulation 61–62.5,
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, additional permitting requirements for Standard No. 4—‘‘Emissions from
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– major sources of air pollutants.1 The Process Industries’’; Regulation 61–62.5,
OAR–2017–0359 at http:// portion of the SIP-approved permitting Standard No. 6—‘‘Alternative Emission
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online program covering minor source Limitation Options (Bubble)’’;
instructions for submitting comments. operating permits is referred to as the Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 7—
Once submitted, comments cannot be federally enforceable state operating ‘‘Prevention of Significant
edited or removed from Regulations.gov. permit (FESOP) program. The changes Deterioration’’; and Regulation 61–62.5,
EPA may publish any comment received made in these submittals clarify the Standard No. 7.1—‘‘Nonattainment New
to its public docket. Do not submit applicability, streamline the permitting Source Review.’’ EPA approved the
electronically any information you process, provide more options for the changes to Regulation 61–62.5, Standard
consider to be Confidential Business No. 2—‘‘Ambient Air Quality
Information (CBI) or other information 1 EPA’s regulations governing the implementation Standards,’’ included in the July 18,
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. of NSR permitting programs are contained in 40 2011, submittal, on April 3, 2013 (78 FR
CFR 51.160–.166; 52.21, .24; and part 51, Appendix 19994).
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, S. The CAA NSR program is composed of three
etc.) must be accompanied by a written separate programs: prevention of significant EPA is not acting on the changes
comment. The written comment is deterioration (PSD), nonattainment new source included in the June 17, 2013, submittal
considered the official comment and review (NNSR), and Minor NSR. PSD is established to the following regulations: Regulation
in part C of title I of the CAA and applies to major 61–62.1, Section I—‘‘Definitions’’;
should include discussion of all points stationary sources in areas that meet the national
you wish to make. EPA will generally ambient air quality standards (NAAQS)— Regulation 61–62.1, Section IV—
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
not consider comments or comment ‘‘attainment areas’’—as well as areas where there is ‘‘Source Tests’’; Regulation 61–62.3—
contents located outside of the primary insufficient information to determine if the area ‘‘Air Pollution Episodes’’; Regulation
meets the NAAQS—‘‘unclassifiable areas.’’ The 61–62.5, Standard No. 4—‘‘Emissions
submission (i.e. on the web, cloud, or NNSR program is established in part D of title I of
other file sharing system). For the CAA and applies to major stationary sources in from Process Industries’’; and
additional submission methods, the full areas that are not in attainment of the NAAQS—
‘‘nonattainment areas.’’ The Minor NSR program 2 In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve
EPA public comment policy, applies to stationary sources that do not require or disapprove revisions to any existing emission
information about CBI or multimedia PSD or NNSR permits. Together, these programs are limitations that apply during start up, shut down
submissions, and general guidance on referred to as the NSR programs. and malfunction events.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:29 Aug 16, 2017 Jkt 241001 PO 00000 Frm 00035 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\17AUP1.SGM 17AUP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/82_FR_39237/page/5.svg)
Document Created: 2017-08-17 01:42:43
Document Modified: 2017-08-17 01:42:43
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule; supplemental. | |
| Dates | Comments must be received on or before September 18, 2017. | |
| Contact | Michele Notarianni, Air Regulatory Management Section, Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Ms. Notarianni can be reached via telephone at (404) 562- 9031 and via electronic mail at [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 82 FR 39079 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Oxides; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR