[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 51 (Thursday, March 15, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15329-15335]
[FR Doc No: 2012-6274]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0696; A-1-FRL-9647-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Maine; Reasonably Available Control Technology (RACT) for the 1997 8-
Hour Ozone Standard

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to approve several State Implementation
Plan (SIP) revisions submitted by the State of Maine Department of
Environmental Protection. These SIP revisions consist of a
demonstration that Maine meets the requirements of reasonably available
control technology (RACT) for oxides of nitrogen (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOCs) set forth by the Clean Air Act (CAA)
with respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone standard as well as several new
and revised VOC regulations. The intended effect of this action is to
propose approval of Maine's RACT demonstration for satisfying the
State's RACT SIP revision obligation as of September 15, 2006 and to
propose approval of Maine's other submitted SIP regulations. This
action is being taken in accordance with the CAA.

DATES: Written comments must be received on or before April 16, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
R01-OAR-2009-0696 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: ``Docket Identification Number EPA-R01-OAR-2009-0696,''
Anne Arnold, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England
Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem Protection, Air Quality Planning
Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100, (Mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA
02109-3912.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Anne Arnold,
Manager, Air Quality Planning Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
(mail code OEP05-2), Boston, MA 02109-3912. Such deliveries are only
accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The
Regional Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding legal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R01-OAR-
2009-0696. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided,
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Do not submit through www.regulations.gov, or
email, information that you consider to be CBI or otherwise protected.
The www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system,
which means EPA will not know your identity or contact information
unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email
comment directly

to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov your email address
will be automatically captured and included as part of the comment that
is placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If
you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your
name and other contact information in the body of your comment and with
any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI 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 in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional Office, Office of Ecosystem
Protection, Air Quality Planning Unit, 5 Post Office Square--Suite 100,
Boston, MA. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
contact 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
legal holidays.
    In addition, copies of the state submittal are also available for
public inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the
State Air Agency: the Bureau of Air Quality Control, Department of
Environmental Protection, First Floor of the Tyson Building, Augusta
Mental Health Institute Complex, Augusta, ME 04333-0017.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ariel Garcia, Air Quality Planning
Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA New England Regional
Office, 5 Post Office Square, Suite 100 (mail code: OEP05-2), Boston,
MA 02109-3912, telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER>, fax number (617) 918-
0660, email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.
    Organization of this document. The following outline is provided to
aid in locating information in this preamble.

I. Background and Purpose
II. Summary of Maine's SIP Revisions
III. EPA's Evaluation of Maine's SIP Revisions
IV. Proposed Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background and Purpose

    In 1997, EPA revised the health-based NAAQS for ozone, setting it
at 0.08 parts per million (ppm) averaged over an 8-hour time frame.\1\
EPA set the 8-hour ozone standard based on scientific evidence
demonstrating that ozone causes adverse health effects at lower ozone
concentrations and over longer periods of time than was understood when
the pre-existing 1-hour ozone standard was set. EPA determined that the
8-hour ozone standard would be more protective of human health,
especially with regard to children and adults who are active outdoors,
and individuals with a pre-existing respiratory disease, such as
asthma.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Today's action is in respect to the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard and does not address the 2008 ozone standard.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On April 30, 2004 (69 FR 23857), EPA finalized its attainment/
nonattainment designations for areas across the country with respect to
the 8-hour ozone standard. These designations became effective on June
15, 2004. In Maine, EPA designated two areas as 8-hour ozone
nonattainment based on air quality monitoring data from 2001-2003. One
area, the Portland nonattainment area located in southern Maine
consisted of 57 coastal towns and cities located in York County
(partial), Cumberland County (partial), Sagadahoc County (full) along
with Durham, Maine, a town in Androscoggin County. The other area, the
Midcoast area was located north of the Portland area and consists of 55
coastal towns and islands in Hancock, Knox, Lincoln, and Waldo Counties
(all are partial Counties).
    Subsequently, on August 3, 2006, Maine requested redesignation to
attainment for the 8-hour ozone standard for the both areas. The
redesignation request included three years of complete, quality-assured
data for the period of 2003 through 2005, indicating the 8-hour NAAQS
for ozone had been achieved for the both areas. On December 11, 2006
(71 FR 71489), EPA approved ME DEP's redesignation request and as such
the entire state was then designated attainment for the 1997 8-hour
NAAQS.
    Additionally, the entire State of Maine is part of the Ozone
Transport Region (OTR) under Section 184(a) of the CAA. Section 184 of
the CAA requires states in the OTR to submit a revision to their
applicable State Implementation Plan (SIP) to include provisions that
require the implementation of reasonably available control technology
(RACT) for sources covered by a Control Techniques Guideline (CTG) and
for all major sources. A CTG is a document issued by EPA which
establishes a ``presumptive norm'' for RACT for a specific VOC source
category.
    EPA requires under the 8-hour ozone NAAQS that states meet the CAA
RACT requirements, either through a certification that previously
adopted RACT controls in their SIP approved by EPA under the 1-hour
ozone NAAQS represent adequate RACT control levels for 8-hour
attainment purposes, or through the establishment of new or more
stringent requirements that represent RACT control levels. See ``Final
Rule To Implement the 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standard--Phase 2.'' 70 FR 71612 (Nov. 29, 2005). EPA has determined
that States that have RACT provisions approved in their SIPs for the 1-
hour ozone standard have several options for fulfilling the RACT
requirements for the 8-hour ozone NAAQS. If a State meets certain
conditions, it may certify that previously adopted 1-hour ozone RACT
controls in the SIP continue to represent RACT control levels for
purposes of fulfilling 8-hour ozone RACT requirements. Alternatively, a
State may establish new or more stringent requirements that represent
RACT control levels, either in lieu of or in conjunction with a
certification. In addition, a State may submit a negative declaration
if there are no CTG sources or major sources of VOC and NOX
emissions in lieu of or in addition to a certification.
    As noted in the Phase 2 Rule, the RACT submittal for the 1997 8-
hour ozone standard was due from Maine on September 15, 2006. On March
24, 2008 (73 FR 15416), EPA issued Maine a finding of failure to submit
for the 1997 8-hour ozone RACT requirement, essentially determining
that Maine had failed to submit by the September 15, 2006 deadline a
SIP revision demonstrating that sources specified under the CAA were
subject to RACT. This finding started an 18-month sanctions clock, as
well as a 24 month Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) clock. Maine
submitted its SIP revision on August 27, 2009, and EPA determined the
submittal to be complete on September 18, 2009, stopping the 18-month
finding sanctions clock. Pursuant

to a consent decree entered in Sierra Club v. Jackson in the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia (Civ. No. 1:11-cv-
00035-GK), EPA shall, no later than May 31, 2012, sign a notice of the
Agency's final rule promulgating a FIP addressing the RACT requirements
for VOCs and NOX as they relate to the 1997 8-hour ozone
NAAQS for Maine (except for the NOX RACT requirement in
Northern Maine) addressing any VOC and NOX RACT SIP revision
for which the State was required to submit to EPA by the September 15,
2006 deadline and for which EPA has not signed an approval notice by
May 31, 2012. The approvals proposed here with respect to Maine's RACT
SIP revision obligation as of September 15, 2006, once finalized, will
accomplish Condition 5 of the consent decree.
    In addition, on October 5, 2006, EPA issued four new CTGs which
states were required to address by October 5, 2007 (71 FR 58745). Also,
on October 9, 2007, EPA issued three new CTGs which states were
required to address by October 9, 2008 (72 FR 57215). Furthermore, on
October 7, 2008, EPA issued four new CTGs which states were required to
address by October 7, 2009 (73 FR 58841).

II. Summary of Maine's SIP Revision

    On August 27, 2009, Maine submitted a SIP revision documenting RACT
requirements for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard. In this SIP revision,
Maine certifies that RACT requirements are being met for all non-CTG
major stationary sources of VOCs and NOX (those sources
exceeding 50 tons per year (tpy) of VOCs, and 100 tpy of
NOX), and all pre-2006 CTGs with the exception of one
category, cutback asphalt.\2\ Maine's submittal states that the Maine
regulations which have been approved by EPA as RACT for the 1-hour
ozone standard also represent RACT for the 8-hour ozone standard,
including any subsequent revisions to the ozone standard that maintain
an 8-hour averaging period. The CTG categories, Maine's regulations
including Code of Maine Rules citation, and the citations to EPA's
prior approval of these rules are shown in Table 1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Maine subsequently submitted a SIP revision on September 11,
2009 consisting of amendments to CMR Chapter 131, Cutback Asphalt
and Emulsified Asphalt, and EPA is proposing approval of the revised
rule in today's action.

                                        Table 1--Maine RACT Certification
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 CTG                        Maine regulation                    EPA approval citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design Criteria for Stage 1 Vapor     CMR Chapter 118, Gasoline     60 FR 33730; June 25, 1995.
 Control Systems--Gasoline Service     Dispensing Facilities Vapor
 Stations (November 1975, no EPA       Control.
 number).
Control of Volatile Organic           CMR Chapter 129, Surface      59 FR 31154; June 17, 1994.
 Emissions From Existing Stationary    Coating Facilities.
 Sources--Volume II: Surface Coating
 of Cans, Paper, and Fabrics (May
 1977, EPA-450/2-77-008).
                                      CMR Chapter 123, Paper        57 FR 3946; February 3, 1992.
                                       Coating Regulation.
Control of Volatile Organic           CMR Chapter 130, Solvent      70 FR 30367; May 26, 2005.
 Emissions from Solvent Metal          Cleaners.
 Cleaning (November 1977, EPA-450/2-
 77-022).
Control of Volatile Organic           CMR Chapter 129, Surface      59 FR 31154; June 17, 1994.
 Emissions from Existing Stationary    Coating Facilities.
 Sources--Volume VI: Surface Coating
 of Miscellaneous Metal Parts and
 Products (June 1978, EPA-450/2-78-
 015).
Control of Volatile Organic           CMR Chapter 129, Surface      59 FR 31154; June 17, 1994.
 Emissions from Existing Stationary    Coating Facilities.
 Sources--Volume VII: Factory
 Surface Coating of Flat Wood
 Paneling (June 1978, EPA-450/2-78-
 032).
Control of Hydrocarbons from Tank     CMR Chapter 112, Bulk         61 FR 53636; October 15, 1996.
 Truck Gasoline Loading Terminals      Terminal Petroleum Liquid
 (October 1977, EPA-450/2-77-026).     Transfer Requirements.
Control of Volatile Organic           CMR Chapter 129, Surface      59 FR 31154; June 17, 1994.
 Emissions from Existing Stationary    Coating Facilities.
 Sources--Volume III: Surface
 Coating of Metal Furniture
 (December 1977, EPA-450/2-77-032).
Control of Volatile Organic           CMR Chapter 132, Graphic      59 FR 31154; June 17, 1994.
 Emissions from Existing Stationary    Arts-Rotogravure and
 Sources--Volume VIII: Graphic Arts-   Flexography.
 Rotogravure and Flexography
 (December 1978, EPA-450/2-78-033).
Control of Volatile Organic           CMR Chapter 133, Petroleum    60 FR 33730; June 29, 1995.
 Emissions from Bulk Gasoline Plants   Liquids Transfer Vapor
 (December 1977, EPA-450/2-77-035).    Recovery at Bulk Gasoline
                                       Plants.
Control of Volatile Organic           CMR Chapter 111, Petroleum    57 FR 3946; February 3, 1992.
 Emissions from Storage of Petroleum   Liquid Storage Vapor
 Liquids in Fixed-Roof Tanks           Control.
 (December 1977, EPA-450-2-77-036).
Control of Volatile Organic           CMR Chapter 120, Gasoline     60 FR 33730; June 29, 1995.
 Compounds Leaks from Gasoline Tank    Tank Truck Tightness Self-
 Trucks and Vapor Collection Systems   Certification.
 (December 1978, EPA-450/2-78-051).
Control Techniques Guidelines for     CMR Chapter 134, Reasonably   65 FR 20749; April 18, 2000.
 Shipbuilding and Ship Repair          Available Control
 Operations (61 FR 44050, August 27,   Technology for Facilities
 1996).                                That Emit Volatile Organic
                                       Compounds.
                                      Addressed by single source    65 FR 20749; April 18, 2000.
                                       SIPs for Portsmouth Naval
                                       Shipyard.
                                      Addressed by single source    67 FR 35439; May 20, 2002.
                                       SIPs for Bath Iron Works.

Control of Volatile Organic           CMR Chapter 134, Reasonably   65 FR 20749; April 18, 2000.
 Compounds Emissions from Wood         Available Control
 Furniture Manufacturing Operations    Technology for Facilities
 (April 1996, EPA-453/R-96-007).       That Emit Volatile Organic
                                       Compounds.
                                      Addressed by single source    67 FR 35439; May 20, 2002.
                                       SIPs for Moosehead
                                       Manufacturing's Facilities
                                       in Dover-Foxcroft and
                                       Monson.
Control of Volatile Organic Compound  CMR Chapter 134, Reasonably   65 FR 20749; April 18, 2000.
 Emissions from Coating Operations     Available Control
 at Aerospace Manufacturing and        Technology for Facilities
 Rework Operations (December 1997,     That Emit Volatile Organic
 EPA-453/R-97-004).                    Compounds.
                                      Addressed by a single source  67 FR 35439; May 20, 2002.
                                       SIP for Pratt and Whitney.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Regarding non-CTG sources, Maine is also certifying that the
State's adopted VOC RACT regulation, CMR Chapter 134, Reasonably
Available Control Technology for Facilities That Emit Volatile Organic
Compounds, approved into the Maine SIP on April 18, 2000 (65 FR 20749)
represents RACT for major non-CTG sources under the 1997 8-Hour ozone
standard. For major sources of NOx, Maine is certifying that the
State's adopted NOx RACT regulations CMR Chapter 138, Reasonably
Available Technology for Facilities That Emit Nitrogen Oxides, approved
into the Maine SIP on September 9, 2002 (67 FR 57148), represent RACT
for major NOx sources under the 1997 8-hour ozone standard, and that
CMR Chapter 148, Emissions From Smaller-Scale Electric Generating
Resources, approved into the Maine SIP on May 26, 2006 (70 FR 30376),
represents NOx RACT for the subject sources under the 1997 8-hour ozone
standard.
    Maine's August 27, 2009 SIP submittal also states that the State
has determined that there are no applicable stationary sources of VOC
in Maine and makes a negative declaration for the following CTG
categories identified by EPA in CTG documents issued prior to 2006:
    1. Surface Coating of Coils (May 1977, EPA-450/2-77-008)
    2. Surface Coating for Insulation of Magnet Wire (December 1977,
EPA-450/2-77-033)
    3. Surface Coating of Automobiles and Light Duty Trucks (May 1977,
EPA-450/2-77-008)
    4. Surface Coating of Large Appliances (December 1977, EPA-450/2-
77-034)
    5. Refinery Vacuum Producing Systems, Wastewater Separators, and
Process Unit Turnarounds (October 1977, EPA-450/2-77-025)
    6. Manufacture of Synthesized Pharmaceutical Products (December
1978, EPA-450/2-78-029)
    7. Large Petroleum Dry Cleaners (September 1982, EPA-450/3-82-009)
    8. Leaks from Synthetic Organic Chemical and Polymer Manufacturing
Equipment (March 1984, EPA-450/3-83-006)
    9. Air Oxidation Processes in Synthetic Organic Chemical
Manufacturing Industry (December 1984, EPA-450/3-84-015)
    10. Reactor Processes and Distillation Operations in Synthetic
Organic Chemical Manufacturing Industry (August 1993, EPA-450/4-91-031)
    11. Petroleum Refinery Equipment (June 1978, EPA-450/2-78-036)
    12. Petroleum Liquid Storage in External Floating Roof Tanks
(December 1978, EPA-450/2-78-047)
    13. Manufacture of Vegetable Oils (June 1978, EPA-450/2-78-035)
    14. Manufacture of Pneumatic Rubber Tires (December 1978, EPA-450/
2-78-030)
    15. Equipment Leaks from Natural Gas/Gasoline Processing Plants
(December 1983, EPA-450/2-83-007)
    16. Manufacture of High-Density Polyethylene, Polypropylene, and
Polystyrene Resins (November 1983, EPA-450/3-83-008).
    In addition to the items discussed above, Maine's August 27, 2009
SIP submittal included a list of Maine's major sources of VOC and
NOX and the source's applicable RACT regulations. Maine has
determined that all major sources of VOC and NOX are meeting
RACT. The submittal also included, as a single-source VOC RACT SIP, an
amendment (A-459-71-D-A, also referred to as ``Amendment 2'')
to the Air Emission License A-459-72-B-R issued to the McCain Foods
USA, Inc., Tatermeal facility (Tatermeal) for incorporation into the
Maine SIP. Amendment 2 incorporates by reference the
conditions found in the Air Emission License A-459-72-B-R and amendment
A-459-71-C-M to that License, which were issued to the Tatermeal
facility by Maine pursuant to an EPA-approved SIP permitting program.
While Maine's August 27, 2009 SIP submittal did not include copies of
the Tatermeal Air Emission License A-459-72-B-R and amendment A-459-71-
C-M to that License as elements of the State's SIP revision, EPA has
added them to the administrative record supporting this proposed
action.
    On September 11, 2009, Maine submitted adopted amendments to CMR
Chapter 131, Cutback Asphalt and Emulsified Asphalt, to EPA as a SIP
revision. The amendments to CMR Chapter 131 were based on control
measures recommended by the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC). Maine has
determined that the amended CMR Chapter 131 was the only regulation
required to be amended to fulfill Maine's RACT requirements for the
1997 8-hour ozone standard.
    In addition to the items discussed above, Maine has also adopted
several regulations based on model rules developed by the OTC. Maine
believes these regulations establish a benchmark for RACT for the
relevant source categories. EPA has previously approved the following
regulations into the Maine SIP: (1) CMR Chapter 151, Control of VOC
emissions from Architectural and Industrial Maintenance (AIM) Coatings,
approved into the Maine SIP on March 17, 2006 (71 FR 13767); (2) CMR
Chapter 153, Control of VOC emissions from Mobile Equipment Repair and
Refinishing, approved into the Maine SIP on May 26, 2005 70 FR 30367);
and (3) CMR Chapter 155, Control of VOC emissions from Portable Fuel
Containers, approved into the Maine SIP on February 7, 2005 (70 FR
6352). Maine has determined that these regulations, as previously
approved into the Maine SIP, still constitute as RACT for the
respective source categories. Another such regulation, CMR Chapter 152,
Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Consumer Products,
previously

approved into the Maine SIP on October 24, 2005 (70 FR 61382), has been
determined to no longer represent RACT, and thus has been amended and
was submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on February 28, 2008.
Furthermore, Maine has made SIP submittals addressing some of the
eleven new CTGs that have been issued since 2006.
    In this rulemaking, EPA is acting on Maine's submittal for the
purpose of determining the State's compliance with its RACT SIP
revision obligation as of September 15, 2006 in relation to the 1997 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. In addition, EPA is acting on the following received
SIP submittals: \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA's March 24, 2008 failure to submit finding did not
address Maine's obligation to submit RACT SIP revisions addressing
the Metal Furniture Coating CTG and the Paper, Film, Foil Coating
CTG (which were due October 9, 2008) nor the Lithographic Printing
Materials and Letterpress Printing Materials CTG and the Flat Wood
Paneling Coatings CTG (which were due October 5, 2007). Thus, EPA's
actions regarding these CTGs today are in addition to EPA's action
regarding Maine's submittal for the purpose of meeting the State's
RACT SIP revision obligation as of September 15, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    1. On June 1, 2010, Maine submitted amendments to CMR Chapter 123,
Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Paper, Film and Foil Coating
Operations, which addresses the Paper, Film, and Foil Coatings CTG
(September 2007, EPA-453/R-07-003);
    2. On October 26, 2010, Maine submitted newly adopted regulation
CMR Chapter 161, Graphic Arts--Lithography and Letterpress Printing,
which addresses the Offset Lithographic Printing and Letterpress
Printing CTG (September 2006, EPA-453/R-06-002); and
    3. On May 3, 2011, Maine submitted amendments to CMR Chapter 129,
Surface Coating Facilities, which addresses the Flat Wood Paneling
Coatings CTG (September 2006, EPA-453/R-06-004) and the Metal Furniture
Coatings CTG (September 2007, EPA-453/R-07-005).

III. EPA's Evaluation of Maine's SIP Revision

    EPA has evaluated Maine's VOC and NOX regulations which
the state certifies as meeting RACT for the 1997 8-hour ozone standard,
and has found that they are generally consistent with the respective
EPA guidance documents, and/or OTC model rules, referenced above. EPA
previously approved the Maine rules, with the exception of the revised
asphalt paving regulation, as meeting RACT for the 1-hour ozone
standard (see 57 FR 3946, 59 FR 31154 and 60 FR 33730). In the absence
of any information to the contrary, EPA agrees with Maine's
determination that these rules continue to meet RACT for the 1997 ozone
standard with the exception of the asphalt paving category.
    Maine's Chapter 131, Cutback Asphalt and Emulsified Asphalt,
initially incorporated the requirements of the Cutback Asphalt CTG
(December 1977, EPA-450/2-77-037) and prohibited the use of cutback
asphalt on public roads during the ozone season, but allowed for a
number of exemptions. EPA previously approved Maine's Chapter 131 into
the SIP on June 17, 1994 (59 FR 31154). Maine's revisions to Chapter
131 limit the VOC content of cutback and emulsified asphalt, eliminate
exempted uses of cutback asphalt, and extend the scope of the
regulation to all asphalt paving activities. The amendments to CMR
Chapter 131 were based on control measures recommended by the OTC. EPA
has evaluated Maine's rule and has found that it is consistent with
EPA's 1977 cutback asphalt CTG, similar regulations adopted by other
states in the region, and the recommended control measures of the OTC
for emulsified and cutback asphalt paving. Therefore, EPA finds the
revised Chapter 131 constitutes RACT for the 1997 ozone standard. Also,
because the revised Chapter 131 rule is more stringent than the
previously approved cutback and emulsified asphalt VOC requirements,
the revised regulation satisfies the section 110(l) anti-backsliding
requirements of the CAA.
    EPA has evaluated Amendment 2, the single-source VOC RACT
Air Emission License amendment for the McCain Foods USA, Inc.,
Tatermeal facility (Tatermeal) that Maine submitted for incorporation
into the State's SIP. EPA finds that Amendment 2 is consistent
with EPA guidance for major stationary sources of VOC (see EPA-450/2-
78-022, May 1978 and EPA-453/R-95-010, April 1995). The Tatermeal
permit covers the potato waste drying operations at the McCain Foods
USA, Inc., Tatermeal facility in Presque Isle, ME. The air pollution
sources at the facility consist of three dryers that dehydrate potato
wastes to produce a material for use as a binder and nutritional
supplement in animal feed. These dryers combust 6 fuel oil, a
process that generates minimal VOC emissions. The drying of the potato
waste, in contrast, generates a significant amount of VOC emissions,
over 205 tons per year. Maine also estimates that a small amount of VOC
emission results from the use of VOC-based solvent degreasers for
cleaning equipment. The Tatermeal facility uses no more than 50 gallons
of such solvent per year, which Maine has determined would result in
approximately 0.2 tons of VOC per year. The Tatermeal facility is
subject to the requirements of Maine's CMR Chapter 134, due to
Tatermeal's potential to emit more than the CMR Chapter 134
applicability threshold of 40 tons of VOC per calendar year. The
Tatermeal facility is meeting the RACT requirements of CMR Chapter 134
Section 3(A)(3) Option C, which consists of an examination of the
technical and economical feasibility of control device equipment and
pollution prevention options capable of reducing VOC emissions
equivalent to or greater than a VOC reduction achieved by CMR Chapter
134 Section 3(A)(1) or Section 3(A)(2) and implementation of a program
pursuant to CMR Chapter 134 Section 3(B)(3). As part of this
examination, various VOC control options were considered, including a
number of methods of incineration, condensation, wet and dry scrubbing,
and biological treatment. All of the incineration methods considered
were found to be technically or economically unfeasible. For example,
the analysis performed by McCain Foods concluded that for incineration
using a regenerative thermal oxidizer, the cost effectiveness would be
almost $18,000 per ton of VOC removed. Similarly, the various methods
of condensation, wet and dry scrubbing, and biological treatment
considered were all found to be either technically or economically
infeasible, with cost effectiveness ranging from about $8,600 to about
$23,000 per ton of VOC removed. EPA agrees with Maine's determination
that the installation and operation of add-on control equipment is not
cost-effective for the potato drying operation.
    Amendment 2 of the Tatermeal Air Emission License A-459-
72-B-R restricts the facility's total annual VOC emissions to 208 tons
per year on a twelve-month rolling total basis and limits the annual
fuel use to 2,628,000 gallons of 6 fuel oil, with a sulfur
content of no greater than 2.0% sulfur by weight, based on a twelve-
month rolling total. Given that the installation of add-on control
equipment is not cost-effective for the potato drying operation, EPA
agrees that the provisions in Amendment 2 of the Tatermeal Air
Emission License A-459-72-B-R constitute RACT for the Tatermeal
facility.
    As with the other SIP revisions in Maine's submittals that we
propose to approve today, Amendment 2 satisfies EPA's
enforceability analysis. We note, in particular, that although
Amendment 2 incorporates two documents that

were not included in Maine's August 27, 2009 SIP submittal, Air
Emission License A-459-72-B-R and Amendment A-459-71-C-M, EPA's
evaluation of these documents indicates that they are consistent with
the terms of Amendment 2. Additionally, although Amendment
2 only restricts the total annual amount and not the type of
fuel oil combusted by the Tatermeal facility, enforceability of the VOC
emission limitation in Amendment 2 is not affected because
Tatermeal is required to use only 6 fuel oil under Condition
12(f) of Air Emission License A-459-72-B-R--a condition derived from a
Best Practicable Treatment determination made pursuant to an EPA-
approved SIP permitting program.
    With respect to the CTGs issued in 2006 and later, Maine has
submitted a number of regulations addressing some of these 11 CTGs. In
this rulemaking, EPA is proposing to approve two amended regulations
and one newly adopted regulation, covering a total of four of the 11
CTGs issued since 2006. The state must still address the remaining
seven CTGs. EPA's evaluation of these regulations is presented below.
    1. Maine's CMR Chapter 123, Paper Coating Regulation, was approved
into the Maine SIP on February 3, 1992 (57 FR 3946), as meeting the May
1977 CTG requirements for controlling VOC emissions from surface
coating of paper (Control of Volatile Organic Emissions from Stationary
Sources--Volume II: Surface Coating of Cans, Coils, Paper, Fabrics,
Automobiles and Light-Duty Trucks, EPA-450/2-77-008). Maine's revised
CMR Chapter 123, Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Paper, Film
and Foil Coating Operations, submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on June
1, 2010, adds VOC emissions control requirements for film and foil
surface coatings, as well as incorporating work practices to minimize
VOC emissions. EPA finds that this regulation is generally consistent
with the relevant EPA guidance (Control Techniques Guideline for Paper,
Film, and Foil Coatings; September 2007, EPA-453/R-07-003). Also,
because the revised Chapter 123 rule is more stringent than the
previously approved paper, film, and foil coating operations VOC
requirements, the revised regulation satisfies the section 110(l) anti-
backsliding requirements of the CAA.
    2. Maine's newly adopted CMR Chapter 161, Graphic Arts--Offset
Lithography and Letterpress Printing, submitted on October 26, 2010,
requires offset lithography and letterpress printing operations to
control VOC emissions from inks, fountain solutions, and cleaning
materials used in graphic arts. EPA finds that the emission limits,
work practices, test methods, record keeping, and monitoring
requirements in the rule are consistent with the relevant EPA guidance
(Control Techniques Guideline for Offset Lithographic Printing and
Letterpress Printing, September 2006, EPA-453/R-06-002).
    3. Maine's CMR Chapter 129, Surface Coating Facilities, was
approved into the Maine SIP on June 17, 1994 (59 FR 31154), as meeting
RACT requirements under the 1-hour ozone standard for several CTG
surface coating categories. CMR Chapter 129 addressed the requirements
of the June 1978 flat wood paneling CTG (June 1978, EPA-450/2-78-032)
and the requirements of the December 1977 metal furniture coatings CTG
(December 1977, EPA-450/2-77-032). The amended CMR Chapter 129 rule was
submitted to EPA as a SIP revision on May 3, 2011 to address the
updated Flat Wood Paneling Coatings CTG, issued in September 2006
(September 2006, EPA-453/R-06-004), by expanding the type of paneling
regulated, covering exterior siding and tileboard, lowering the
applicability threshold of the rule, and clarifying the units of
measurements by which VOC emission limits are expressed. The amended
CMR Chapter 129 also addresses the Metal Furniture Coatings CTG, issued
in September 2007 (September 2007, EPA-453/R-07-005), by specifying VOC
limits for eight types of coatings used on metal furniture and lowering
the applicability threshold of the rule. EPA finds that Maine's amended
CMR Chapter 129 regulation is consistent with the updated CTGs for flat
wood paneling and metal furniture coatings. Also, because the revised
Chapter 129 rule is more stringent than the previously approved flat
wood paneling and metal furniture coatings VOC requirements, the
revised regulation satisfies the section 110(l) anti-backsliding
requirements of the CAA.
    EPA has also evaluated Maine's amended CMR Chapter 152 regulation,
Control of VOC emissions from Consumer Products. CMR Chapter 152, as
approved on October 24, 2005 (70 FR 61382), was based on an OTC model
rule developed in 2001. This regulation initially limited the VOC
content of consumer products in approximately 80 categories. The
amended CMR Chapter 152 regulation reflects a more recent model rule
developed by the OTC in 2006, which includes 18 additional categories
of regulated consumer products, places limits on certain toxic
compounds in some consumer products, streamlines the reporting
requirements, and clarifies the sell-through period for products
manufactured prior to the rule's effective date. EPA finds that the
amended CMR Chapter 152 rule is consistent with EPA guidance and the
2006 OTC model rule for consumer products. In addition, because the
revised Chapter 152 rule is more stringent than the previously approved
consumer products VOC requirements, the revised regulation satisfies
the anti-backsliding requirements of the CAA section 110(l).

IV. Proposed Action

    EPA's review of Maine's SIP revisions indicates that these
regulations and Amendment 2 of the Tatermeal Air Emission
License A-459-72-B-R constitute RACT. EPA is proposing to approve
Maine's RACT demonstration for meeting the State's SIP revision
obligation as of September 15, 2006 in relation to the 1997 8-hour
ozone standard. EPA is also proposing to approve the following Maine
regulations and incorporate them into the Maine SIP: revised CMR
Chapter 131, Cutback Asphalt and Emulsified Asphalt Regulation; revised
CMR Chapter 123, Control of Volatile Organic Compounds from Paper, Film
and Foil Coating Operations; revised CMR Chapter 129, Surface Coating
Facilities; revised CMR Chapter 152, Control of Volatile Organic
Compounds from Consumer Products; and newly adopted CMR Chapter 161,
Graphic Arts--Lithography and Letterpress Printing. Finally, EPA is
proposing to approve Amendment 2 of the Air Emission License
A-459-72-B-R for the Tatermeal facility and incorporate Amendment
2 into the Maine SIP.
    EPA is soliciting public comments on the issues discussed in this
notice or on other relevant matters. These comments will be considered
before taking final action. Interested parties may participate in the
Federal rulemaking procedure by submitting written comments to the EPA
New England Regional Office listed in the ADDRESSES section of this
Federal Register.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 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 Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this proposed 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 proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     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 (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 Clean Air 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 rule does not have tribal implications as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in
the state, and EPA notes that it 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, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

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

    Dated: March 8, 2012.
H. Curtis Spalding,
Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1.
[FR Doc. 2012-6274 Filed 3-14-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 12 (Friday, January 17, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3147-3153]
[FR Doc No: 2014-00940]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0389; FRL-9905-58-Region 4]

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing
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 December 28, 2012, SIP revision
(``progress report SIP'') addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act
(CAA or ``the 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 SIP''). EPA is proposing approval of South Carolina's
progress report SIP on the basis that it addresses the progress report
and adequacy determination requirements for the first implementation
period for regional haze.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before February 18, 2014.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2013-0389 by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
    2. Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    4. Mail: EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0389, Regulatory Development Section, Air
Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960.
    5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Ms. Lynorae Benjamin, Chief,
Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides
and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Such
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's normal hours
of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of business are
Monday through Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. ``EPA-R04-OAR-
2013-0389.'' EPA's policy is that all comments received will be
included in the public docket without change and may be made available
online at www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit through
www.regulations.gov or email, information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The www.regulations.gov Web site is an

``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your
identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of
your comment. If you send an email comment directly to EPA without
going through www.regulations.gov, your email address will be
automatically captured and included as part of the comment that is
placed in the public docket and made available on the Internet. If you
submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you include your name
and other contact information in the body of your comment and with any
disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your comment due to
technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA
may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic files should avoid
the use of special characters, any form of encryption, and be free of
any defects or viruses. For additional information about EPA's public
docket visit the EPA Docket Center homepage at http://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
    Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., CBI 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 in www.regulations.gov or
in hard copy at the Regulatory Development Section, Air Planning
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 to 4:30, excluding
federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michele Notarianni, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4, 61
Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303-8960. Michele Notarianni can
be reached at telephone number<PHONE_NUMBER> and by electronic mail at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
II. What are the requirements for the regional haze progress report
SIPs and adequacy determinations?
III. What is EPA's analysis of South Carolina's progress report SIP
and adequacy determination?
IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

    States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a
SIP revision every five years that evaluates 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. 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
SIP. 40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report SIP is due five years
after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP. On December 17, 2007,
SC DHEC submitted the State's first regional haze SIP in accordance
with 40 CFR 51.308(b).\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On June 28, 2012, EPA finalized a limited approval of South
Carolina's December 17, 2007, regional haze SIP to address the first
implementation period for regional haze (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 SIP because
of the State's reliance on the Clean Air Interstate Rule 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 aforementioned 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.
Following these EPA actions, the DC Circuit issued a decision in EME
Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA (hereinafter referred to as ``EME
Homer City''), 696 F.3d 7 (D.C. Cir. 2012), cert. granted 570 U.S.
---- (June 24, 2013) (No. 12-1182) vacating CSAPR and keeping CAIR
in place pending the promulgation of a valid replacement rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On December 28, 2012, SC DHEC submitted, in the form of a revision
to South Carolina's SIP, a report on progress made in the first
implementation period towards RPGs for Class I areas in the State and
Class I areas outside the State that are affected by emissions from
South Carolina's sources. This progress report SIP and accompanying
cover letter also included a determination that the State's existing
regional haze SIP requires no substantive revision to achieve the
established regional haze visibility improvement and emissions
reduction goals for 2018. EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's
progress report SIP on the basis that it satisfies the requirements of
40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).

II. What are the requirements for the regional haze progress report
SIPs and adequacy determinations?

A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIP

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must submit a regional haze progress
report as a SIP revision every five years and must address, at a
minimum, the seven elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). As described in
further detail in section III below, 40 CFR 51.308(g) requires a
description of the status of measures in the approved regional haze
SIP; a summary of emissions reductions achieved; an assessment of
visibility conditions for each Class I area in the state; an analysis
of 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 progress in
Class I areas impacted by the state's sources; an assessment of the
sufficiency of the approved regional haze SIP; and a review of the
state's visibility monitoring strategy.

B. Adequacy Determinations of the Current Regional Haze SIP

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to submit, at the same
time as the progress report SIP, a determination of the adequacy of
their existing regional haze SIP and to take one of four possible
actions based on information in the progress report. As described in
further detail in section III below, 40 CFR 51.308(h) requires states
to either: (1) Submit a negative declaration to EPA that no further
substantive revision to the state's existing regional haze SIP is
needed; (2) provide notification to EPA (and other state(s) that
participated in the regional planning process) if the state determines
that its existing regional haze SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure
reasonable progress at one or more Class I areas due to emissions from
sources in other state(s) that participated in the regional planning
process, and collaborate with these other state(s) to develop
additional strategies to address deficiencies; (3) provide notification
with supporting information to EPA if the state determines that its
existing regional haze SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable
progress at one or more Class I areas due to emissions from sources in
another country; or (4) revise its regional haze SIP to address
deficiencies within one year if the state determines that its existing
regional

haze SIP is or may be inadequate to ensure reasonable progress in one
or more Class I areas due to emissions from sources within the state.

III. What is EPA's analysis of South Carolina's regional haze progress
report and adequacy determination?

    On December 28, 2012, SC DHEC submitted a revision to South
Carolina's regional haze SIP to address progress made towards RPGs of
Class I areas in the State and Class I areas outside the State that are
affected by emissions from South Carolina's sources. This progress
report SIP also included a determination of the adequacy of the State's
existing regional haze SIP. South Carolina has one Class I area within
its borders: the Cape Romain Wilderness Area (Cape Romain). SC DHEC
also identified, through an area of influence modeling analysis based
on back trajectories, five Class I areas in two neighboring states
potentially impacted by South Carolina sources: Wolf Island and
Okefenokee Wilderness Areas in Georgia; and Joyce Kilmer, Shining Rock,
and Swanquarter Wilderness Areas in North Carolina. 77 FR 11911.

A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs

    The following sections summarize: (1) Each of the seven elements
that must be addressed by the progress report under 40 CFR 51.308(g);
(2) how South Carolina's progress report SIP addressed each element;
and (3) EPA's analysis and proposed determination as to whether the
State satisfied each element.
1. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1)
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) requires a description of the status of
implementation of all measures included in the regional haze SIP for
achieving RPGs for Class I areas both within and outside the state.
    The State evaluated the status of all measures included in its 2007
regional haze SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). Specifically,
in its progress report SIP, South Carolina summarizes the status of the
emissions reduction measures that were included in the final iteration
of the Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the
Southeast (VISTAS) regional haze emissions inventory and RPG modeling.
The State also discusses the status of those measures that were not
included in the final VISTAS emissions inventory and were not relied
upon in the initial regional haze SIP to meet RPGs. The State notes
that the emissions reductions from these measures, which are relied
upon by South Carolina for reasonable progress, will help ensure Class
I areas impacted by South Carolina sources achieve their RPGs. The
measures include applicable Federal programs (e.g., mobile source
rules, Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, Federal
and state consent agreements, and Federal and state control strategies
for electric generating units (EGUs)). This summary includes a
discussion of the benefits associated with each measure.
    In instances where implementation of a measure did not occur on
schedule, information is provided on the source category and the
measure's relative impact on the overall future year emissions
inventories. In aggregate, as noted in section III.A.2 and III.A.6 of
this action, the emissions reductions from the identified measures are
expected to result in lower emissions than originally projected in
South Carolina's regional haze SIP. South Carolina states that it does
not expect reasonable progress to be adversely impacted in any of the
Class I areas in South Carolina or neighboring states by any of the
changes to the emissions reductions projected.
    EPA proposes to find that South Carolina's analysis adequately
addresses 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). The State documents the implementation
status of measures from its regional haze SIP in addition to describing
additional measures not originally accounted for in the final VISTAS
emissions inventory used by the State that came into effect since the
VISTAS analyses for the regional haze SIP were completed. South
Carolina's progress report also describes significant measures
resulting from EPA regulations other than the regional haze program as
they pertain to the State's sources. The progress report SIP highlights
the effect of several Federal control measures both nationally and in
the VISTAS region, and when possible, in the State. For example, the
SIP provides a copy of the Federal consent decree with Santee Cooper, a
South Carolina utility, and summarizes the emissions effects of this
decree.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ The consent decree required a reduction of 37,500 tpy of
SO2 from existing units by 2013, declining SO2
emissions caps, and declining ``system'' SO2 emissions
rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State's progress report discusses the status of key control
measures that the State relied upon in the first implementation period
to make reasonable progress. In its regional haze SIP, South Carolina
identified sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from coal-fired
EGUs as a key contributor to regional haze in the VISTAS region, with
the EGU sector as a major contributor to visibility impairment at all
Class I areas in the VISTAS region. The State's progress report SIP
provides additional information on EGU control strategies and the
status of existing and future expected controls for South Carolina's
EGUs, with updated actual SO2 emissions data for the years
2009 and 2011 reflecting reductions of SO2 in 2009 and 2011.
In its regional haze SIP, South Carolina determined that no additional
controls of non-EGU sources were reasonable for the first
implementation period.
    Regarding the status of BART and reasonable progress control
requirements for sources in the State, South Carolina's progress report
SIP reviews the status of the State's 21 BART-eligible sources,
including two sources--SCE&G-Williams and SCE&G-Wateree--found to be
subject to BART. The progress report SIP indicates that flue gas
desulfurization systems have been installed on these two BART-subject
sources and are currently operating. Additionally, South Carolina
summarized its reasonable progress control determinations from its
regional haze SIP. Because the State found no additional controls to be
reasonable for the first implementation period for sources evaluated
for reasonable progress in South Carolina, no further discussion of the
status of controls was necessary in the progress report SIP.
    EPA proposes to conclude that South Carolina has adequately
addressed the status of control measures in its regional haze SIP as
required by 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1). The State describes the implementation
status of measures from its regional haze SIP, including the status of
control measures to meet BART and reasonable progress requirements, the
status of significant measures resulting from EPA regulations and
certain Federally-enforceable consent decrees, as well as measures that
came into effect since the VISTAS analyses for the regional haze SIP
were completed.
2. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2)
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) requires a summary of the emissions reductions
achieved in the state through the measures subject to 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1).
    In its regional haze SIP and progress report SIP, South Carolina
focuses its assessment on SO2 emissions from EGUs because
VISTAS determined that sulfate 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.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See section 7.7 of South Carolina's regional haze SIP
narrative, page 79, for more detail.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Overall, SO2 emissions have decreased in South
Carolina.\4\ South Carolina states that the large reductions in
SO2 emissions from EGUs in the State resulted from many
process and operational changes, including control installations,
emissions units switching to cleaner fuels, load shifting from higher
emitting units to lower emitting units, and a temporary decrease in
power generation in 2009. Using utility emissions data from 2002
through 2011 as reported to EPA by the utilities, South Carolina
indicates that reductions in SO2 emissions appear to be
sustained through 2011, and notes that reductions in these emissions
were achieved in 2010 and 2011, despite increased electricity
generation by these EGUs between 2002 and 2011.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See also sections III.A.4 and III.A.6 of this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Between 2002 and 2011, heat input to these EGUs increased from
approximately 418,577,515 million British thermal units (MMBtu) to
443,900,798 MMBtu. However, actual SO2 emissions from these
units decreased from 199,118 tons in 2002 to 66,166 tons in 2011, a 67
percent reduction. The average SO2 emissions rate from these
units also decreased from 0.95 lbs SO2/MMBtu in 2002 to 0.30
lbs SO2/MMBtu in 2011, a 69 percent reduction. According to
the State, the reductions in emissions demonstrate that even with an
increase in demand for power, as evidenced by the increased heat input
to these units, a significant reduction in overall SO2
emissions occurred due to the installation of controls and the use of
cleaner burning fuels.
    South Carolina states that a comparison of 2009 and 2011 data for
these EGUs shows similar results. Emissions fell from 93,941 tons of
SO2 in 2009 to 66,166 tons of SO2 in 2011, and
the emissions rate dropped from 0.46 lbs SO2/MMBtu to 0.30
lbs SO2/MMBtu. The State expects that the overall EGU
emissions rate will continue to drop in 2012 due to the start-up of
additional scrubbing capacity and fuel switching.
    South Carolina also identifies specific additional EGU
SO2 emissions reductions not included in the VISTAS
projections that are due to the installation of additional
SO2 controls, planned or announced retirements, and
conversion to natural gas. These additional reductions (estimated to be
60,065 tons per year of SO2 emissions based on 2011
emissions) will further help to ensure that Cape Romain will achieve
its RPGs for visibility improvement by 2018.
    South Carolina also submitted data for the entire VISTAS region
showing similar trends in SO2 EGU emissions in the
neighboring states that contribute to visibility impairment at Cape
Romain. Because sulfates have been shown to be the predominant species
of concern to visibility impairment at Cape Romain during the first
round of regional haze planning and because SO2 EGU
emissions are trending downward, South Carolina concludes in its
progress report that visibility improvements at Cape Romain should
continue into the future from the reduced sulfate contribution even if
heat input to these EGUs may increase.
    EPA proposes to conclude that South Carolina has adequately
addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2). The State provides estimates, and where
available, actual emissions reductions of SO2 from EGUs in
South Carolina that have occurred since the State submitted its
regional haze SIP. The State appropriately focused on SO2
emissions from its EGUs in its progress report SIP because the State
had previously identified these emissions as the most significant
contributors to visibility impairment at Cape Romain and those areas
that South Carolina sources impact. Given the large SO2
reductions at EGUs that have actually occurred, further analysis of
SO2 from other sources or other pollutants, such as nitrogen
oxides (NOX), was ultimately unnecessary in this first
implementation period. Also, in the corresponding section of the
progress report SIP addressing 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1), the State provides
estimates, and where available, actual emissions reductions for certain
non-EGU control measures that were accounted for in the projected
VISTAS emissions inventories for 2009 and 2018. Because no additional
controls were found to be reasonable for reasonable progress for the
first implementation period for evaluated sources in South Carolina,
EPA proposes to find that no further discussion of emissions reductions
from controls was necessary in the progress report SIP.
3. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3)
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) requires that states with Class I areas provide
the following information for the most impaired and least impaired days
for each area, with values expressed in terms of five-year averages of
these annual values: \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ The ``most impaired days'' and ``least impaired days'' in
the regional haze rule refers to the average visibility impairment
(measured in deciviews) for the twenty percent of monitored days in
a calendar year with the highest and lowest amount of visibility
impairment, respectively, averaged over a five-year period. 40 CFR
51.301.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (i) Current visibility conditions;
    (ii) the difference between current visibility conditions and
baseline visibility conditions; and
    (iii) the change in visibility impairment over the past five years.
    The State provides figures with the latest supporting data
available at the time that it developed the progress report SIP that
address the three requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) for Cape Romain.
For the first regional haze SIPs, ``baseline'' conditions were
represented by the 2000-2004 time period.\6\ Baseline visibility
conditions at Cape Romain are 26.5 deciviews (dv) for the most impaired
(20-percent worst) days and 14.3 dv for the least impaired (20-percent
best) days. Current visibility conditions (for the five-year period
from 2005-2009) are 26.4 dv for the 20-percent worst days and 15.0 dv
for the 20-percent best days. The difference between current visibility
and baseline visibility conditions for the 20-percent worst days is 0.1
dv of improvement (i.e., 26.5-26.4 dv). The difference between current
visibility and baseline visibility conditions for the 20-percent best
days is 0.7 dv of degradation (i.e., 14.3-15.0 dv). South Carolina
concludes that visibility on the most impaired days at Cape Romain has
improved since 2000 and that visibility conditions for the most
impaired days are on track to meet the 2018 RPGs for the affected time
period, particularly in light of the downward trend in SO2
emissions from the State's EGUs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ 64 FR 35730.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to conclude that South Carolina has adequately
addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3). The State provides the information
regarding visibility conditions and changes necessary to meet the
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3). The progress report SIP includes
current conditions based on the latest available Interagency Monitoring
of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring data for the
years 2005-2009, the difference between current visibility conditions
and baseline visibility conditions, and the change in visibility
impairment over the most recent five-year period for which data were
available at the time of progress report SIP development (i.e., 2005-
2009).

4. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4)
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) requires an analysis tracking emissions changes
of visibility-impairing pollutants from the state's sources by type or
category over the past five years based on the most recent updated
emissions inventory.
    In its progress report SIP, South Carolina presents data from a
statewide emissions inventory developed for the year 2007 and compares
this data to three sets of data from its initial regional haze SIP: a
baseline emissions inventory for 2002 and estimated emissions
inventories for the future years of 2009 and 2018 (as updated and
provided by VISTAS to the State in 2008).\7\ The pollutants inventoried
include volatile organic compounds, NOx, fine particulate matter,
coarse particulate matter, ammonia, and SO2. The emissions
inventories include the following source classifications: stationary
point and area sources, off-road and on-road mobile sources, and
biogenic sources. The comparison of emissions inventory data shows that
emissions of the key visibility-impairing pollutant for the southeast,
SO2, continued to drop from 2002 to 2007 (from 284,935 to
228,053 tons of SO2).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ VISTAS improved model performance for the 2002 base year
emissions inventory used by South Carolina in its original regional
haze SIP, resulting in updates to the 2002 inventory and the 2009
and 2018 projection inventories. VISTAS provided the final iteration
of these inventories to the states in 2008. South Carolina used
these updated data for the years 2002, 2009, and 2018 in its
progress report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, South Carolina augments the statewide 2007 actual
emissions inventory data with more recent emissions data and control
summary information for the years 2007 to 2011 for the EGU sector,
which is the key source of SO2 in the State. As discussed in
section III.A.2 of this action, South Carolina documents changes in EGU
emissions that already have occurred and changes to future emissions
projections that are expected by 2018. South Carolina expects the
overall EGU SO2 emissions to continue to drop beyond the
reductions projected in the State's regional haze SIP due to the
installation of additional SO2 emissions controls at EGUs
and additional fuel switches not previously projected. As noted in
section III.A.2 of this action, South Carolina expects the overall EGU
SO2 emissions to continue to drop beyond the reductions
projected in the State's regional haze SIP due to the installation of
additional SO2 emissions controls at EGUs and additional
fuel switches not previously projected.
    EPA proposes to conclude that South Carolina has adequately
addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4). While ideally the five-year period to be
analyzed for emissions inventory changes is the time period since the
current regional haze SIP was submitted, there is an inevitable time
lag in developing and reporting complete emissions inventories once
quality-assured emissions data becomes available. Therefore, EPA
believes that there is some flexibility in the five-year time period
that states can select. South Carolina tracked changes in emissions of
visibility-impairing pollutants using an updated emissions inventory
for 2007 that the State believes is more robust than the 2008 National
Emissions Inventory pertaining to the State, the most recent updated
inventory of actual emissions for the State at the time that it
developed the progress report SIP. EPA believes that the State's use of
the five-year period from 2002-2007 understates the actual reductions
because substantial additional SO2 emissions reductions are
expected to occur from 2007-2012. South Carolina also analyzed trends
in annual SO2 emissions from EGUs in the State for 2002-
2011, the most current quality-assured data available for these units
at the time of progress report SIP development (see, e.g., Figure 3 and
Table 9 of the progress report SIP).
5. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5)
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) requires an assessment of any significant
changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that
have occurred over the past five years that have limited or impeded
progress in reducing pollutant emissions and improving visibility in
Class I areas impacted by the state's sources.
    In its progress report SIP, South Carolina states that sulfates
continue to be the biggest single contributor to regional haze at Cape
Romain. Accordingly, South Carolina first focused its analysis on
addressing large SO2 emissions from point sources. While
there have been significant changes in the anthropogenic emissions from
EGUs, South Carolina stated that these changes have not impeded
progress in reducing emissions and improving visibility. Rather, the
State concluded that the EGU controls already adopted or planned,
coupled with planned shut downs or fuel conversions, will result in
greater improvements in visibility than those originally projected in
South Carolina's regional haze SIP for the first implementation period.
    In addressing the requirements at 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), South
Carolina further examined other potential pollutants of concern
affecting visibility at Cape Romain. After ammonium sulfate (64.1
percent), primary organic matter (POM) (14.4 percent) is the next
largest contributor to visibility impairment at Cape Romain. To further
examine spikes in POM monitoring data, the State conducted an analysis
to determine potential contributors. This analysis indicated that fires
reported within and/or outside the State appear to have contributed to
visibility impairment on days exhibiting uncharacteristically high
levels of POM.
    EPA proposes to conclude that South Carolina has adequately
addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5). The State performed additional analyses
to confirm its decision to focus on SO2 emissions for
reasonable progress for the remainder of the implementation period and
demonstrated that there are no significant changes in anthropogenic
emissions of SO2 that have impeded progress in reducing
emissions and improving visibility in Class I areas impacted by South
Carolina sources. The State referenced its analyses in the progress
report SIP identifying an overall downward trend in these emissions
from 2002 to 2011. Further, the progress report SIP shows that the
State is on track to meeting its 2018 RPGs for Cape Romain.
6. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6)
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) requires an assessment of whether the current
regional haze SIP is sufficient to enable the state, or other states,
to meet the RPGs for Class I areas affected by emissions from the
state.
    In its progress report SIP, South Carolina states that it believes
that the elements and strategies outlined in its original regional haze
SIP are sufficient to enable South Carolina and other neighboring
states to meet all the established RPGs. To support this conclusion,
South Carolina notes that the actual 2011 EGU emissions of 66,131 tons
of SO2 are already below the 2018 projected emissions of
76,291 tons of SO2, with further decreases expected. South
Carolina expects that the reduction of SO2 emissions will in
fact be even greater than originally anticipated in its regional haze
SIP, particularly for the EGU sector as discussed in section III.A.6.
of this action. In particular, the State notes that the emissions
reductions already achieved in the 2007 to 2011 period and the
additional reductions not accounted for in the original regional haze
SIP (as discussed previously for purposes of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1))
further support the State's conclusion that the regional haze SIP's
elements and strategies are sufficient to meet the established RPGs.

    In its regional haze SIP, South Carolina established a RPG for the
20-percent best days that would result in a 1.4 deciview reduction in
visibility impairment to 12.7 dv. After South Carolina submitted its
regional haze SIP on December 17, 2007, VISTAS made several
modifications to the original emissions inventory to improve model
performance and reassess the RPGs for the VISTAS states. The final
model simulation of the updated/revised VISTAS emissions inventory
results in a slight change in the calculation of the Cape Romain RPG
for the 20-percent best days from 12.7 to 12.8 dv. South Carolina
requests that EPA acknowledge this update to the RPG as a revision to
the State's regional haze SIP. EPA proposes to approve this revised RPG
for the 20-percent best days for Cape Romain because it reflects the
updated VISTAS baseline inventory used to generate the RPGs
incorporated into the regional haze SIPs for the other VISTAS states.
    EPA proposes to conclude that South Carolina has adequately
addressed 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6). EPA views this requirement as a
qualitative assessment that should evaluate emissions and visibility
trends and other readily available information, including expected
emissions reductions associated with measures with compliance dates
that have not yet become effective. The State referenced the improving
visibility trends and the downward emissions trends in the State, with
a focus on SO2 emissions from South Carolina EGUs, that
support the State's determination that the State's regional haze SIP is
sufficient to meet RPGs for Class I areas within and outside the State
impacted by South Carolina sources. In addition, because additional
IMPROVE visibility data has become available since the State developed
its progress report SIP, EPA has also reviewed the most current data
for Cape Romain for the years 2007-2011 from the IMPROVE monitoring
network.\8\ For the 2007-2011 time period, the visibility conditions
for the 20-percent worst days are 24.6 dv and for the 20-percent best
days are 14.1 dv. Using this latest available data, the visibility
improvement from the baseline conditions is 1.9 dv for the 2007-2011
period on the 20-percent worst days and 0.2 dv on the 20-percent best
days. Despite the degradation of 0.7 dv on the 20-percent best days at
Cape Romain over the 2005-2009 period, identified in Section III.A.3 of
this action, EPA believes that South Carolina's conclusion regarding
the sufficiency of the regional haze SIP is appropriate because of the
calculated visibility improvement using the latest available data and
the downward trend in SO2 emissions from EGUs in the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ This data is available at: http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/tss/Results/HazePlanning.aspx.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

7. 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7)
    40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) requires a review of the state's visibility
monitoring strategy and an assessment of whether any modifications to
the monitoring strategy are necessary. In its progress report SIP,
South Carolina summarizes the existing monitoring network at Cape
Romain and the State's intended continued reliance on the IMPROVE
monitoring network for its visibility planning. South Carolina also
expresses its continued commitment to operate monitors supporting
regional haze investigations where appropriate and when support is
available. South Carolina is also encouraging VISTAS and the other
regional planning organizations to maintain support of the existing
data management system or an equivalent to facilitate availability
analysis of the IMPROVE and visibility-related data. South Carolina
concludes that the existing network is adequate and that no
modifications to the State's visibility monitoring strategy are
necessary at this time.
    EPA proposes to conclude that South Carolina has adequately
addressed the sufficiency of its monitoring strategy as required by 40
CFR 51.308(g)(7). The State reaffirmed its continued reliance upon the
IMPROVE monitoring network and discussed its additional continuous
sulfate monitors and fine particulate matter network used to further
understand visibility trends in the State. South Carolina also
explained the importance of the IMPROVE monitoring network for tracking
visibility trends at Cape Romain and identified no expected changes in
this network. The State did note that certain special monitoring
studies that VISTAS performed in South Carolina during 2002-2005 will
not be continued due to lack of funds; however, the discontinuance of
these additional, specialized studies do not affect the adequacy of the
State's current monitoring strategy.

B. Determination of Adequacy of Existing Regional Haze Plan

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to take one of four
possible actions based on the information gathered and conclusions made
in the progress report SIP. The following section summarizes: (1) The
action taken by South Carolina under 40 CFR 51.308(h); (2) South
Carolina's rationale for the selected action; and (3) EPA's analysis
and proposed determination regarding the State's action.
    In its progress report SIP, South Carolina took the action provided
for by 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1), which allows a state to submit a negative
declaration to EPA if the state determines that the existing regional
haze SIP requires no further substantive revision at this time to
achieve the RPGs for Class I areas affected by the state's sources. The
basis for the State's negative declaration is the findings from the
progress report (as discussed in section III.A of this action),
including the findings that: Visibility has improved at Cape Romain;
SO2 emissions from the State's sources have decreased beyond
original projections; additional EGU control measures not relied upon
in the State's regional haze SIP 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 SIP and are expected to continue to trend downward for
the next five years, as will the SO2 emissions from EGUs in
the other VISTAS states. Based on these findings, EPA proposes to agree
with South Carolina's conclusion under 40 CFR 51.308(h) that no further
substantive changes to its regional haze SIP are required at this time.

IV. What action is EPA proposing to take?

    EPA is proposing approval of a revision to the South Carolina SIP,
submitted by the State of South Carolina on December 28, 2012, as
meeting the applicable regional haze requirements as set forth in 40
CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).

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. 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 CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed 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 proposed action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

     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 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR43255, 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, EPA has preliminarily determined that this proposed
rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because there are no
``substantial direct effects'' on an Indian Tribe as a result of this
action and because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country
located in the state, and EPA notes that it has preliminarily
determined that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law. The Catawba Indian Nation and
Reservation (Catawba Indian Nation) is located in Rock Hill, 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.'' Thus, the South Carolina SIP applies to the Catawba
Reservation. On May 15, 2013, EPA offered consultation on South
Carolina's progress report SIP to the Catawba Indian Nation and that
same day, the Catawba Indian Nation declined formal consultation on
South Carolina's progress report SIP.

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.

    Dated: January 7, 2014.
A. Stanley Meiburg,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2014-00940 Filed 1-16-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P