[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 196 (Thursday, October 12, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47385-47393]
[FR Doc No: 2017-21948]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a South
Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision, submitted by the
State of South Carolina through the South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control (SC DHEC) on December 28, 2012. South
Carolina's December 28, 2012, SIP revision (``Progress Report'')
addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or ``Act'') and EPA's
rules that require states to submit periodic reports describing
progress towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for
regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the State's
existing SIP addressing regional haze (``regional haze plan''). EPA is
finalizing approval of South Carolina's Progress Report on the basis
that it addresses the progress report and adequacy determination
requirements for the first implementation period for regional haze.

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

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket
Identification No. EPA-R04-OAR-2013-0389. All documents in the docket
are listed on the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the
index, some information may not be publicly available, i.e.,
Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure
is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted
material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available
only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are
available either electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard
copy at the Air Regulatory Management Section (formerly Regulatory
Development Section), Air Planning and Implementation Branch, Air,
Pesticides and Toxics Management Division, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., Atlanta, Georgia
30303-8960. EPA requests that if at all possible, you contact the
person listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for
further information. The Regional Office's official hours of business
are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal
holidays.

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

I. Background

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

    \1\ On June 28, 2012, EPA finalized a limited approval of South
Carolina's regional haze plan to address the first implementation
period for regional haze. See 77 FR 38509. In a separate action,
published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR 33642), EPA finalized a limited
disapproval of the South Carolina regional haze plan because of the
State's reliance on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to meet
certain regional haze requirements, which EPA replaced in August
2011 with the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (76 FR 48208
(Aug. 8, 2011)). In the June 7, 2012, action, EPA finalized a
Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for South Carolina to replace the
State's reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR. CAIR created
regional cap-and-trade programs to reduce SO2 and
NOX emissions in 27 eastern states (and the District of
Columbia), including Alabama, that contributed to downwind
nonattainment or interfered with maintenance of the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS or the 1997 PM2.5 NAAQS. EPA approved South
Carolina's regulations implementing CAIR as part of the Federally
enforceable South Carolina SIP on October 16, 2009. 74 FR 53167.
CSAPR requires 27 Eastern states to limit their statewide emissions
of SO2 and/or NOX in order to mitigate
transported air pollution unlawfully impacting other states' ability
to attain or maintain four NAAQS: The 1997 ozone NAAQS, the 1997
annual PM2.5 NAAQS, the 2006 24-hour PM2.5
NAAQS, and the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The CSAPR emissions
limitations are defined in terms of maximum statewide budgets for
emissions of annual SO2, annual NOX, and/or
ozone-season NOX by each covered state's large EGUs.

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

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

    \2\ EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze, the RHR, on
July 1, 1999. See 64 FR 35713. The RHR revised the existing
visibility regulations to integrate into the regulations provisions
addressing regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive
visibility protection program for Class I areas. See 40 CFR 51.308
and 51.309. EPA most recently revised the RHR on January 10, 2017.
See 82 FR 3078.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

II. Response to Comments

    EPA received two sets of comments during the public comment period
on its January 17, 2014, NPRM. Specifically, EPA received comments from
GreenLaw, on behalf of the National Parks Conservation Association and
Sierra Club, and from one member of the general public (these
commenters are hereinafter collectively referred to as the
``Commenter''). The comments are provided in the docket for today's
final action. A summary of the comments and EPA's responses are
provided below. EPA did not receive any comments on the SNPRM. Detailed
background information and additional rationale is provided in the NPRM
and SNPRM. See 79 FR 3147 and 82 FR 39079.
    Comment 1: The Commenter contends that the State's declaration
under 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1) that no revisions to the regional haze plan
are needed at this time is improper and that the regional haze plan is
inadequate because it ``fails to result in emissions reductions
sufficient to achieve reasonable progress towards natural conditions''
at nine Class I areas and because visibility at the Cape Romain Class I
area has ``actually gotten worse on the annual 20 percent best days.''
Accordingly, the Commenter states that EPA must disapprove South
Carolina's declaration and require the State to revise its regional
haze plan within one year and to work with other states in the
Visibility Improvement State and Tribal Association of the Southeast
(VISTAS) regional planning organization to more adequately limit haze-
causing pollution. The Commenter also contends that South Carolina
focused its report on sulfur dioxide (SO2) reductions at
point sources within and outside of the State rather than directly
addressing visibility data at Cape Romain and that these reductions are
not sufficient to make reasonable progress at this Class I area.
    Response 1: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. As discussed in the
NPRM, South Carolina's declaration under 40 CFR 51.308(h)(1) and
assessment of regional haze plan sufficiency is based on its following
findings: Visibility has improved since 2000 at Cape Romain, the only
Class I area within South Carolina; SO2 emissions from the
State's sources have decreased beyond original projections for 2012;
additional electric generating unit (EGU) control measures beyond those
relied upon in the State's regional haze plan have occurred or will
occur in the first implementation period; SO2 emissions from
EGUs in South Carolina are already below the levels projected for 2018
in the regional haze plan; and the SO2 emissions from EGUs
in South Carolina and the other VISTAS states are expected to continue
to trend downward over the remainder of the first implementation
period. Based on these findings and visibility data for Cape Romain
that has become available since the State developed its Progress
Report, EPA agrees with South Carolina's conclusion under 40 CFR
51.308(h) that its regional haze plan is sufficient in meeting the
requirements of the RHR and that no further changes to its regional
haze plan are needed at this time.
    The Commenter supports its contention that EPA must disapprove the
State's declaration by relying solely on regional haze monitoring data
for Cape Romain from 2005-2009 and its belief that the State focused on
SO2 reductions that ``are not sufficient to make reasonable
progress at Cape Romain.'' The Commenter ignores EPA's discussion of
more recent visibility data in the NPRM as well as the other analyses
and findings supporting the declaration and fails to explain why the
SO2 reductions are not sufficient to make reasonable
progress when these reductions are greater than those projected to be
achieved by 2018 in the regional haze plan. In the NPRM, EPA identified
the 0.7 deciview (dv) degradation in visibility for the 20-percent best
days at Cape Romain when comparing the baseline to the 2005-2009
average and noted that additional Interagency Monitoring of Protected
Visual Environments (IMPROVE) visibility data had become available
since the State developed its Progress Report. EPA reviewed the most
current visibility data at the time of the NPRM for Cape Romain (2007-
2011) from the IMPROVE monitoring network \4\ and noted that the five-
year average of visibility conditions is 24.6 dv for the 20-percent
worst days and 14.1 dv for the 20-percent best over the 2007-2011 time
period, resulting in a visibility improvement from baseline of 1.9 dv
and 0.2 dv, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

visibility improvement from baseline of 5.1 dv and 1.5 dv,
respectively. The 2015 annual visibility values are 19.3 dv for the 20-
percent worst days and 12.2 dv for the 20-percent best days. These
values are below the 2018 RPGs of 22.7 dv for the 20-percent worst days
and 12.7 dv for the 20-percent best days in South Carolina's regional
haze plan.
    The SO2 emissions data reported in the Progress Report
also supports South Carolina's declaration. As discussed in the NPRM,
South Carolina documented significant reductions in SO2 in
its Progress Report, and EPA believes that the State's emphasis on
SO2 is appropriate because SO2 reductions from
South Carolina EGUs are the key element of the State's regional haze
strategy. The State's regional haze plan focused on SO2, and
as noted in the Federal Register notices associated with the limited
approval of South Carolina's regional haze plan, EPA agreed with this
focus because emissions sensitivity analyses documented in the State's
regional haze plan predicted that reductions in SO2
emissions from EGUs and industrial point sources would result in the
greatest improvements in visibility in the VISTAS region, compared with
other visibility-impairing pollutants, during the first implementation
period. See 77 FR 11894, 11903-04 (February 28, 2012). In its Progress
Report, South Carolina notes that the actual SO2 emissions
from EGUs within the State in 2011 (66,131 tons) are already below the
level of emissions projected in the regional haze plan for those EGUs
in 2018 (76,291 tons), with further decreases expected. South Carolina
and EPA expect that the reduction of SO2 emissions during
the first implementation period will be even greater than originally
anticipated in its regional haze plan, particularly for the EGU sector.
The State notes that the emissions reductions already achieved from
2007 to 2011 and the additional reductions not accounted for in the
original regional haze plan further support the State's conclusion that
the regional haze plan's elements and strategies are sufficient to meet
the RPGs for Class I areas affected by South Carolina emissions. The
Commenter did not provide any basis for its assertion that these
SO2 reductions are inadequate for reasonable progress, other
than citing to the 2005-2009 visibility data discussed above.
    EPA finds that South Carolina's conclusion regarding the
sufficiency of the regional haze plan is appropriate because of the
measured visibility improvement and the significant downward trend in
SO2 emissions from EGUs in the State.
    Comment 2: The Commenter states that the Areas of Influence (AoIs)
identified in the Progress Report correspond to 100 kilometer (km)
radii whereas the AoIs identified in the regional haze plan are 200 km
radii. The Commenter requests clarification that it was not the State's
intent to modify the AoIs through the Progress Report.
    Response 2: The AoIs that South Carolina relied upon in its
regional haze plan are non-circular geographic areas surrounding Cape
Romain and other Class I areas potentially impacted by South Carolina
sources and do not correspond to the 100 km radii circles shown in the
Progress Report (labeled as Figure 0-1 on page 9) or the 100 km or 200
km radii circles shown in Figure 1.4-1 on page 16 in the regional haze
plan. South Carolina relied on AoIs developed by VISTAS based on an
analysis of the particle frequency, residence times, and trajectory
modeling over an area. The trajectory modeling is based on meteorology
and IMPROVE data.\5\ In the Progress Report, the State did not modify
its AoIs, the AoI methodology, or the set of sources evaluated for
reasonable progress in the regional haze plan for the first
implementation period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Comment 3: The Commenter contends that the description of the
status of control measures under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) fails to show that
the State is making reasonable progress and does not include any
discussion as to how its sources are impacting ``some Class I areas
outside of the State.'' The Commenter also asserts that the submittal
lacks information necessary for EPA to find that the implementation
measures are in effect and notes, as an example, that the descriptions
of mobile source fuel changes describe ``each type of sources'
reductions'' but do not include estimates of the total number of mobile
sources. Hence, the Commenter asserts that EPA cannot find that there
has actually been a reduction in SO2 from these mobile
sources on a fleet-wide basis.
    Response 3: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. As discussed in
Response 12, the Progress Report shows that the control measures in
South Carolina's regional haze plan are sufficient to enable the State
and other states with Class I areas affected by emissions from South
Carolina sources to meet their RPGs for 2018. Furthermore, the State
provides a significant amount of information regarding the status of
measures relied upon in its regional haze SIP, including the status of
Federal programs and consent decrees. For example, the State identifies
installation dates and expected installation dates for SO2
controls on South Carolina coal-fired power plants and provides the
status of two state EGU control strategies in North Carolina and
Georgia that were included in its regional haze plan.
    Not only does the State identify the status of the control measures
included in its regional haze plan, it also documents significant
reductions in SO2 emissions from South Carolina EGUs and
reiterates the conclusion from its regional haze plan that reducing
SO2 emissions from EGUs and industrial point sources are the
most effective means to improve visibility during the first
implementation period. As further discussed in the responses below, EPA
finds that the regional haze plan is sufficient to enable affected
Class I areas to meet their RPGs based on the significant reductions in
SO2 emissions and the visibility improvement observed at
Cape Romain between 2002 and 2015.
    Regarding the comment concerning mobile sources, EPA notes that the
State quantified SO2 emissions from five source
classifications, including on-road and non-road mobile sources, in the
emissions inventories presented in the Progress Report and identified
the status of the Federal mobile source measures included in the
regional haze plan. Although a progress report must describe the
implementation status of all measures included in the relevant regional
haze plan, there is no requirement that the report must identify the
number of mobile sources affected by each mobile source measure
included in that plan.
    Comment 4: The Commenter states that the section of the Progress
Report addressing 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) does not discuss progress in
implementing Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART), noting that the
State has not recommended additional controls for its 21 BART-eligible
sources and that the State found CAIR sufficient for BART at two EGUs.
    Response 4: In its regional haze plan, South Carolina demonstrated
that 19 of the 21 BART-eligible sources in the State modeled below the
State's BART contribution threshold, and thus, are not subject to BART.
For this reason, the State did not recommend any additional controls
for 19 of the 21 BART-eligible sources. Although the Commenter
correctly notes that the two BART-subject sources (SCE&G Wateree and
Williams stations) relied on CAIR to

satisfy BART for nitrogen oxides (NOX) and SO2,
the Commenter incorrectly claims that the State did not discuss
progress in implementing BART. South Carolina discusses the status of
CAIR and CSAPR as of the date of Progress Report submission, identifies
the SO2 emission controls for these EGUs and the status of
implementation for these controls, and compares CAIR and CSAPR budgets
with 2011 actual emissions from EGUs in the State. For the two BART-
subject sources, South Carolina notes that these sources began
operating flue gas desulfurization controls in 2010. As discussed in
the SNPRM and in Response 5, below, EPA finds that it is appropriate to
rely on CAIR emission reductions for purposes of assessing the adequacy
of South Carolina's Progress Report because CAIR remained effective and
provided the requisite emission reductions during the timeframe
evaluated by the State.
    Comment 5: The Commenter asserts that EPA cannot approve South
Carolina's Progress Report because it relies on CAIR for ``a number of
fundamental aspects that include both modeling assumptions and
control.'' The Commenter states that CAIR has been ``struck down'' by
the D.C. Circuit and is only in place until EPA designs a replacement
rule. The Commenter notes that South Carolina did not modify any of the
modeling assumptions in its regional haze plan that relied on CAIR, did
not propose any additional reductions other than CAIR, continues to
rely on CAIR to satisfy BART requirements, and did not assess the
effect of the vacatur with respect to CAIR. The Commenter also cites
previous EPA actions related to regional haze plans, including South
Carolina's regional haze plan, in support of the contention that EPA
cannot rely on CAIR for sources subject to BART and that the five-year
progress report is the appropriate time to address any changes to the
RPG demonstration and the long-term strategy. The Commenter also states
that EPA does not address CAIR in the NPRM, except to point out that it
has provided a limited disapproval of South Carolina's regional haze
plan as it relies on CAIR to replace BART, and that EPA cannot rely on
a regional cap-and-trade program with yearly averaging to ``address a
specific source with effects that change on an hourly basis on a
specific Class I area.'' As a result, the Commenter asserts that EPA's
approval of South Carolina's Progress Report is inconsistent with prior
EPA position and is arbitrary and capricious as a matter of law.
    Response 5: EPA disagrees with the Commenter that EPA cannot
approve South Carolina's Progress Report because it relies on emission
reductions from CAIR. On June 28, 2012, EPA finalized a limited
approval of South Carolina's December 17, 2007, regional haze plan to
address the first implementation period for regional haze (77 FR
38509).\6\ In a separate action, published on June 7, 2012 (77 FR
33642), EPA finalized a limited disapproval of the South Carolina
regional haze plan because of the State's reliance on CAIR to meet
certain regional haze requirements. In the SNPRM, EPA described the
litigation history and status of CAIR, including the fact that CAIR was
replaced with CSAPR after South Carolina had developed and submitted
its regional haze plan. On January 1, 2015, EPA sunset CAIR and began
implementing CSAPR after the D.C. Circuit lifted the stay on CSAPR
following the Supreme Court's decision upholding CSAPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    As explained in detail in the SNPRM and here in summary fashion,
EPA does not believe that the status of CAIR or CSAPR affects the
approvability of the Progress Report for several reasons. First, CAIR
was in effect during the 2007-2011 time period addressed by the
Progress Report. Therefore, South Carolina appropriately evaluated and
relied on CAIR reductions of NOX and SO2 to
demonstrate the State's progress towards meeting its RPGs.\7\ EPA's
intention in requiring progress reports pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g)
was for the states to demonstrate progress achieved during the current
implementation period addressed by the regional haze plan. Thus, South
Carolina appropriately relied upon CAIR reductions for demonstrating
progress towards RPGs from 2007-2011. As explained in the SNPRM, given
that CAIR was in place until 2015, it is appropriate to rely on CAIR
emission reductions during this period for purposes of assessing the
adequacy of the State's Progress Report pursuant to 40 CFR 51.308(g)
and (h).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ In the NPRM, EPA discussed the significance of
SO2 reductions as South Carolina and VISTAS identified
SO2 as the largest contributor pollutant to visibility
impairment in South Carolina specifically and in the VISTAS region
generally.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, the State's regional haze program now includes reliance on
CSAPR for SO2 and NOX reductions, at least
throughout the remainder of this first implementation period. EPA
issued FIPs to implement CSAPR in South Carolina and the other CSAPR-
subject states (CSAPR FIP).\8\ In its June 7, 2012 regional haze FIP,
EPA replaced South Carolina's reliance on CAIR with reliance on CSAPR
to meet certain regional haze requirements, including the
SO2 and NOX BART requirements for its EGUs. In a
separate action, EPA signed a final rule approving a SIP revision
submitted by South Carolina that adopts provisions for participation in
the CSAPR annual NOX and annual SO2 trading
programs, including annual NOX and annual SO2
budgets that are equal to the budgets for South Carolina in EPA's CSAPR
FIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Because the RHR's requirements for progress reports refer to
``implementation plans,'' which are defined in the visibility program
to include approved SIPs or FIPs, EPA considered measures in its June
7, 2012 regional haze FIP as well as in the State's regional haze plan
in assessing the Progress Report for 40 CFR 51.308(g) and (h). EPA
explained in the SNPRM that the requirements of the regional haze
program are fully addressed in South Carolina through its regional haze
plan and the FIP issued by EPA. As also discussed in the SNPRM, EPA
expects the SO2 and NOX emissions reductions at
EGUs in the State to continue through the remainder of the first
implementation period due to the implementation of CSAPR.
    Finally, the RHR provides for continual evaluation and assessment
of a state's reasonable progress towards achieving the national goal of
natural visibility conditions. South Carolina has the opportunity to
reassess its RPGs and the adequacy of its regional haze plan, including
reliance upon CSAPR for emission reductions from EGUs, when it prepares
and submits its second regional haze plan to cover the next
implementation period. However, as evaluated for the Progress Report,
emissions of SO2 from EGUs are below the projections for
2018 in the regional haze plan, visibility data shows that the Class I
areas impacted by sources in the State are on track to achieve their
RPGs, and EPA expects SO2 emission reductions in the State
to continue through CSAPR, EGU retirements, and other measures. These
continued emission reductions will assist South

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

    \9\ In a separate action, EPA found that CSAPR is ``Better than
BART.'' See 77 FR 33641 (June 7, 2012). Legal challenges to the
CSAPR-Better-than-BART rule from state, industry, and other
petitioners are pending. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, No.
12-1342 (D.C. Cir. filed August 6, 2012).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment 6: The Commenter declares that the State's reliance on CAIR
is ``especially problematic when South Carolina avoids discussion of
the status of BART at Georgia Power's Plant McIntosh.'' This facility
is located in Savannah, Georgia, within the AoI of Cape Romain, and
operates without Flue Gas Desulfurization. The Commenter states that
the only constraint on Plant McIntosh is a total heat input limit that
will apply in 2018. The Commenter also asserts that South Carolina is
required to consult with Georgia for enforceable emissions reductions
from Georgia EGUs.
    Response 6: Plant McIntosh was included in the VISTAS modeling used
to develop the reasonable progress glide path and 2018 visibility
estimates for South Carolina's regional haze plan. Emissions estimates
used in that modeling for this facility assumed that it would continue
operating without SO2 controls. As discussed in the
rulemaking notice proposing a limited approval of South Carolina's
regional haze plan, the State sent a letter to Georgia identifying the
emissions units, including Georgia Power Plant McIntosh unit 1, that
South Carolina believed contributed one percent or more to visibility
impairment at Cape Romain, and South Carolina opted not to rely on any
additional reductions from these units to achieve reasonable progress
during the first implementation period. See 77 FR 11912. In reviewing
South Carolina's regional haze plan, EPA determined that the State's
consultation with Georgia adequately addressed the consultation
requirements in the RHR. See Id. Additional consultation with Georgia
in developing a progress report is not necessary because the facility
is operating as assumed in the regional haze plan and further control
of Plant McIntosh is not necessary to achieve reasonable progress at
Cape Romain at this time.
    Comment 7: In the section of its comments devoted to 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1), the Commenter states that EPA should not ``approve a
reasonable progress determination that does not provide an analysis
between emissions reductions and actual visibility.'' The Commenter
also asserts that South Carolina and VISTAS focused reasonable progress
evaluations on potential SO2 emissions controls from point
sources and that the Progress Report does not discuss progress on
controls for NOX or particulate matter (PM) or contain an
analysis as to how emissions reductions are on track to reducing
visibility impairment at Cape Romain or other Class I areas as modeled.
According to the Commenter, South Carolina cannot demonstrate that
emissions reductions are on track to reduce visibility impairment
because visibility ``for the worst days has not been in line with
projections and visibility on the best days is actually worse.'' The
Commenter acknowledges that VISTAS modeling showed that controlling
anthropogenic SO2 would create the greatest visibility
improvement but believes that additional NOX and PM controls
should be included in the SIP and that EPA should require other VISTAS
states to consider additional controls for these pollutants. The
Commenter also states that EPA should require South Carolina to further
reduce SO2 emissions and to consult with other VISTAS states
to require similar reductions.
    Response 7: As noted by the Commenter and as discussed in Response
1 and in South Carolina's regional haze plan and Progress Report,
SO2 was determined to be the largest contributor to
visibility impairment in the VISTAS states. Because sulfate levels on
the 20 percent worst days account for 60-70 percent of the visibility
impairment at these Class I areas, reducing SO2 emissions is
the most effective means to improve visibility during the first
implementation period.\10\ Furthermore, 91 percent of the 2002
SO2 emissions in South Carolina were attributable to EGUs
and industrial point sources.\11\ Based on this analysis, South
Carolina concluded, and EPA agreed in reviewing its regional haze plan,
that controlling SO2 emissions was the appropriate step in
addressing the reasonable progress assessment for 2018 and that the
focus should be on industrial point source SO2 emissions,
not PM and NOX emissions, during the first implementation
period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    EPA believes that the SO2 reductions identified in the
Progress Report have contributed to the visibility improvement observed
between baseline and the 2007-2011 period, as reported in the NPRM, and
between baseline and the 2011-2015 period, as discussed in Response 1
of this notice. The Commenter relies on visibility conditions that
precede most of the emissions reductions reported by the State and does
not provide any further explanation as to why the SO2
emissions reductions reported by South Carolina are insufficient to
achieve reasonable progress. Given the visibility improvement observed
between baseline and the time periods identified above along with the
significant reductions in SO2 reported in the Progress
Report, EPA agrees with South Carolina that the State is on track to
achieve its RPGs, that no changes to the regional haze plan are
necessary at this time, and that it is not necessary for South Carolina
to further consult with other states at this time to seek additional
controls.

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

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

    Comment 9: The Commenter contends that the section of the Progress
Report that addresses 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) does not properly summarize
emissions reductions. The Commenter asserts that because the data that
South Carolina provides are ``simply annual summaries of SO2
reductions, EPA cannot reasonably rely on this information to inform a
decision as to how SO2 reductions are impacting the worst
days of visibility at Class I areas.'' The Commenter also contends that
because visibility is measured in one-hour averaging times rather than
monthly or yearly averages, annual reductions across a fleet-wide basis
provide no assurances that SO2 emissions impacting Class I
areas' 20 percent worst days have been reduced. The Commenter states
that had South Carolina provided information ``as to the reductions
from each point source within an AoI, as well as a summary of their
emissions for each hour on the 20 percent worst days for each Class I
area, perhaps EPA could then approve this determination.'' The
Commenter also alleges that the Progress Report did not include a
summary of NOX or PM emissions reductions and that EPA
should require the State to include a discussion of NOX and
PM reductions as this ``would ensure that emissions of these pollutants
have not increased, offsetting any reductions in SO2.''
    Response 9: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. Regarding the use of
yearly averaging for calculating reasonable progress for regional haze
purposes, it is important to consider the metrics by which regional
haze is evaluated. Visibility is averaged across 20 percent of the days
in the year with the worst visibility and 20 percent of the days in a
year with the best visibility. These days represent 40 percent of the
days in the year (i.e., 146 days) that are spread throughout the year.
In addition, these annual averages are further averaged into five-year
rolling averages. Hence, the use of annual emissions inventories are an
appropriate means of evaluating the potential impacts of control
strategies on regional haze visibility impairment at Class I areas.
While hourly EGU SO2 emissions are available for any day
since 2002 from the EPA Clean Air Markets Division acid rain
database,\13\ the Commenter does not explain how South Carolina or EPA
should use this hourly data to evaluate reasonable progress. Regarding
the comment concerning fleetwide averages, South Carolina did provide
SO2 emissions reductions for individual EGUs within the
State consistent with the State's regional haze plan.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    With respect to the comments regarding NOX and PM
emissions reduction summaries, South Carolina did provide
NO2 emissions data for EGUs in South Carolina and in the
VISTAS states showing an overall downward trend in these emissions in
the section of its Progress Report addressing 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2).
Although the State did not provide PM reductions or additional
NOX reductions resulting from the measures included in the
regional haze plan within this section of its submittal, EPA believes
that it is appropriate for South Carolina to focus its emissions
reductions summary on SO2 because the State demonstrated
that reductions in SO2 emissions from industrial point
sources result in the greatest improvements in visibility within the
State and the VISTAS region. It is also important to note that in the
section of its report addressing 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4), South Carolina
presented emissions data from a statewide emissions inventory developed
for the year 2007 for volatile organic compounds, NOX, fine
PM, coarse PM, ammonia, and SO2 and compared this data to
data from its regional haze plan, a baseline emissions inventory for
2002, an actual emissions inventory for 2007, and an estimated
emissions inventory for 2018 (as updated and provided by VISTAS to the
State in 2008). The emissions inventories included data for stationary
point and area sources, non-road and on-road mobile sources, and
biogenic sources which indicates that emissions of the key visibility-
impairing pollutants for South Carolina are decreasing.
    Comment 10: The Commenter reproduces the visibility data presented
by South Carolina in the section of its Progress Report addressing 40
CFR 51.308(g)(3) for the five-year averages representing baseline
conditions and conditions over the 2005-2009 timeframe and disagrees
with EPA's ``conclu[sion] that these numbers are sufficient to show
current reasonable progress towards natural visibility at Cape Romain''
because visibility for the 20 percent best days has ``worsened by 0.7
dv.'' The Commenter also refers to this visibility data to support its
contention that the five-year averages are not on target for the 2005-
2009 time period according to the glidepaths. The Commenter states that
these glidepaths ``established a goal for Cape Romain to achieve a 0.6
dv improvement . . . by 2005-2009 for the 20 percent best days.'' For
these reasons, the Commenter contends that the Progress Report does not
show reasonable progress for the 20 percent best or 20 percent worst
days and that EPA must therefore disapprove the submission. The
Commenter also implies that EPA should require South Carolina to
reevaluate its emissions reduction strategies because of the
degradation in best day conditions observed from 2005-2009.
    Response 10: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. As discussed in
Response 1, the Commenter ignores EPA's discussion of the more recent
visibility data in the NPRM. EPA identified the 0.7 dv in degradation
in visibility for the 20-percent best days at Cape Romain when
comparing the baseline to the 2005-2009 average and evaluated
additional visibility data (2007-2011) available at the time of the
NPRM. Visibility improved by 1.9 dv and 0.2 dv for the 20 percent worst
days and 20 percent best days, respectively, between

baseline and the 2007-2011 period. A five-year average using 2015 data
(2011-2015) shows an improvement of 3.1 dv and 0.5 dv for the 20
percent worst days and 20 percent best days best days, respectively,
when compared to baseline. It is not appropriate for the Commenter to
focus solely on visibility data from 2005-2009 for Cape Romain because
it precedes most of the emissions reductions reported in the Progress
Report and because EPA provided more recent data in the NPRM. It is not
unexpected that the 2005-2009 data would show limited progress because
many of the measures that provide for the greatest progress were
implemented after 2009.
    Regarding the Commenter's assertion that South Carolina has not met
its glidepath ``goals,'' the RHR requires each state to develop a long-
term strategy to achieve RPGs established for Class I areas affected by
emissions from the state. The goals are established for each area in
10-year intervals reflecting the 10-year implementation periods
established under the RHR. The current regional haze plans cover the
first implementation period ending in 2018 and are therefore designed
to achieve the RPGs set for 2018. The progress reports submitted during
this first implementation period must evaluate progress toward the 2018
RPGs, and South Carolina has appropriately evaluated progress toward
these RPGs. Neither the RHR nor South Carolina's regional haze plan set
interim goals or targets between the beginning and end of the
implementation period.
    EPA believes that the visibility data indicates that the State is
making reasonable progress and agrees with South Carolina's
determination that the elements and strategies outlined in its regional
haze plan are sufficient to enable South Carolina and other neighboring
states to meet their RPGs. As summarized in the Progress Report, the
emissions projections for EGUs further support the determination that
these elements and strategies are sufficient to meet the established
RPGs. South Carolina notes that actual 2011 EGU emissions are already
below the SO2 emissions projections for 2018 in the regional
haze plan with further decreases expected.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Comment 11: In its comments regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5), the
Commenter states that there have been significant changes in the
anthropogenic emissions that affect Cape Romain and that the conclusion
that the State is on track to meet RPGs for 2018 and that no changes to
the regional haze plan are needed is ``not supported by the facts.''
The Commenter alleges that South Carolina is not making reasonable
progress toward natural visibility and claims that the expected
retirements of emissions units identified in the Progress Report
submission must be included in the regional haze plan to make them
enforceable because South Carolina and EPA are ``relying on `expected'
retirements in order to be on track to meet 2018 goals.''
    Response 11: EPA disagrees with the Commenter. None of the changes
in anthropogenic emissions identified in South Carolina's Progress
Report were adverse to visibility improvement, and the Commenter did
not identify any significant increases in anthropogenic emissions over
the five-year period at issue or any significant expected reductions in
anthropogenic emissions that did not occur. As discussed in Response
10, there was an overall decrease in visibility impairing pollutants in
South Carolina during the five-year period at issue.
    Regarding expected retirements, South Carolina identified sources
that were in included in the VISTAS modeling but that have subsequently
chosen to retire prior to the end of the first implementation period.
The emissions reductions from these retirements are therefore in excess
of those planned for in the regional haze plan and should provide an
additional margin of visibility improvement. The emissions rates in the
regional haze plan for which the estimates for reasonable progress were
derived were based on enforceable measures in the plan, and EPA
believes that these enforceable measures contributed to the significant
SO2 emissions reductions documented in the Progress Report
and to the visibility improvement indicated by monitoring data. For
these reasons, EPA finds that the State properly concluded that there
were no changes in anthropogenic emissions that limited or impeded
progress and finds that no changes to the regional haze plan or
Progress Report are necessary to address this comment.
    Comment 12: In its comments regarding 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6), the
Commenter states that EPA cannot approve South Carolina's Progress
Report because it ``doesn't contain information necessary to determine
whether its SIP is sufficient to meet reasonable progress goals in all
Class I areas.'' The Commenter asserts that the Progress Report fails
to provides a comprehensive list of all of the Class I areas that
emissions from the State impact; does not provide information as to how
sources, other than BART-eligible sources in South Carolina, may be
impacting visibility in Class I areas within Georgia or North Carolina;
and does not provide information as to how South Carolina sources are
impacting Class I areas in other states affected by emissions from
South Carolina; or discusses visibility trends in Class I areas located
in states other than South Carolina.
    Response 12: EPA disagrees with the Commenter's position that EPA
cannot approve South Carolina's Progress Report on the grounds that it
does not contain information necessary to determine whether its
regional haze plan is sufficient to meet RPGs in affected Class I
areas. On the contrary, the Progress Report contains the information
necessary to assess whether the measures and strategies in its regional
haze plan are sufficient to enable the State and other states with
Class I areas affected by emissions from South Carolina sources to meet
their RPGs for 2018. In the qualitative assessment under the section of
the Progress Report devoted to 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6), the State refers to
its evaluation of visibility conditions and changes at Cape Romain and
to the emissions reductions documented earlier in the Progress Report.
EPA does not agree that it is necessary for South Carolina to evaluate
visibility data for the Class I areas outside of the State that are
affected by emissions from South Carolina, as suggested by the
Commenter, because SO2 is the primary driver of visibility
impairment in these areas and the emissions reductions in
SO2 documented in the Progress Report are already greater
than those anticipated by 2018 in the regional haze plan. EPA believes
that South Carolina has met its regional haze obligations to address
visibility impacts at Cape Romain and other potentially impacted Class
I areas because the State reviewed the visibility data for Cape Romain
and the emissions data for South Carolina sources potentially impacting
Cape Romain and other Class I areas outside of the State, and has met
the consultation requirements.
    EPA also disagrees with the Commenter's belief that South Carolina
did not list all Class I areas outside of the State that are affected
by emissions from South Carolina sources. As discussed in the proposed
rulemaking notice associated with the limited approval of the State's
regional haze plan, VISTAS conducted screening assessments for the
VISTAS states to assist these states in determining the potential
impact of their sources' emissions on Class I areas outside of

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

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

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

III. Final Action

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

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the Act. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4);
     does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
     is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
     does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP does not have Tribal implications as specified
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The Catawba
Indian Nation Reservation is located within the State of South
Carolina. Pursuant to the Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act, S.C.
Code Ann. 27-16-120, ``all state and local environmental laws and
regulations apply to the [Catawba Indian Nation] and Reservation and
are fully enforceable by all relevant state and local agencies and
authorities.'' However, EPA has determined that because this rule does
not have substantial direct effects on an Indian

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

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart PP--South Carolina

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

Sec.  52.2120   Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                              EPA-Approved South Carolina Non-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                           State
              Provision               effective date     EPA approval date                Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

[FR Doc. 2017-21948 Filed 10-11-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 42 (Tuesday, March 4, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 12131-12133]
[FR Doc No: 2014-04699]

========================================================================
Proposed Rules
                                                Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________

This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.

========================================================================

Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 42 / Tuesday, March 4, 2014 /
Proposed Rules

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

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. FAA-2013-1056; Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-046-AD]
RIN 2120-AA64

Airworthiness Directives; DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).

ACTION: Supplemental notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM); reopening of
the comment period.

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

SUMMARY: We are revising an earlier NPRM for DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH
Models Dornier 228-100, 228-101, 228-200, 228-201, 228-202, and 228-212
airplanes that would supersede AD 2006-11-19. This proposed AD results
from mandatory continuing airworthiness information (MCAI) originated
by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an
unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe
condition as chafed or damaged wiring on the flight deck overhead
panels (5VE and 6VE). We are issuing this proposed AD to require
actions to address the unsafe condition on these products.

DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by April 18, 2014.

ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
     Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
     Mail: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590.
     Hand Delivery: U.S. Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M-30, West Building Ground Floor, Room W12-140, 1200 New
Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
    For service information identified in this proposed AD, contact
RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH, Dornier 228 Customer Support, P.O. Box
1253, 82231 Wessling, Germany; telephone: +49 (0) 8153-30 2220; fax:
+49 (0) 8153-30 4258; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet:
http://www.ruag.com/en/Aviation/Aviation_Home. You may review copies
of the referenced service information at the FAA, Small Airplane
Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For information
on the availability of this material at the FAA, call<PHONE_NUMBER>.

Examining the AD Docket

    You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by searching for and locating Docket Number FAA-
2013-1056; or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9
a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any
comments received, and other information. The street address for the
Docket Office (telephone<PHONE_NUMBER>) is in the ADDRESSES section.
Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer,
FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>; email:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments Invited

    We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or
arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address
listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include ``Docket No. FAA-2013-1056;
Directorate Identifier 2013-CE-046-AD'' at the beginning of your
comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We
will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend
this proposed AD because of those comments.
    We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We
will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we
receive about this proposed AD.

Discussion

    We proposed to amend 14 CFR part 39 with an NPRM for DORNIER
LUFTFAHRT GmbH Models Dornier 228-100, 228-101, 228-200, 228-201, 228-
202, and 228-212 airplanes, which was published in the Federal Register
on December 23, 2013 (78 FR 77380), and proposed to supersede AD 2006-
11-19, Amendment 39-14624 (71 FR 32268; June 5, 2006). The NPRM
proposed to require actions intended to address the unsafe condition
for the products listed above and was based on mandatory continuing
airworthiness information (MCAI) originated by another country. The
MCAI states that:

    RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH issued Time Limits/Maintenance
Checks Manual (TLMCM) TM-TLMCM-090305-ALL, Revision 5 dated 20 March
2011 respectively TM-TLMCM-228-00002-150610, Revision 1 dated 03
March 2011, listing component life limits and describing maintenance
instructions for the Dornier 228 type design. The Document TM-TLMCM-
228-00002-150610 is valid for airplane SN 8300 and up and other
airplane SN modified according to CN-228-247. The instructions
contained in that manual have been identified as mandatory actions
for continued airworthiness.
    In 2005, chafed wiring was found on 5VE Panel due to lost
adhesive of the TY-RAP holder and subsequent vibration of the cable
harness.
    To address this potential unsafe condition, RUAG issued All
Operators Telefax (AOT) No. AOT-228-24-028 and Temporary Revision
(TR) 05-05 of the TLMCM introducing repetitive of the cockpit
overhead panels 5VE and 6VE and, depending on findings, corrective
actions(s). Subsequently, LBA issued AD D-2005-438 (EASA approval
2005-6430) to require those actions.
    Since that AD was issued, the instructions of TR 05-05 have been
incorporated into TM-TLMCM-090305-ALL, Revision 5 dated 20 March
2011 respectively into TM-TLMCM-228-00002-150610, Revision 1 dated
03 March 2011.
    For the reasons described above, this AD retains the
requirements of EASA AD D-2005-438, which is superseded, and
requires the implementation of the life limits and maintenance
actions as specified in the TLMCM (TM-TLMCM-090305-ALL

respectively TM-TLMCM-228-00002-150610) for zone 321 overhead panels
5VE/6VE.

    The MCAI can be found in the AD docket on the Internet at: http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=FAA-2013-1056-0002.
    Since that NPRM was issued, we identified that we inadvertently
omitted the calendar time compliance for the inspections of the wiring
in the flight deck overhead panels. Because the compliance time is
based on ``whichever occurs first,'' adding the calendar time with the
hours time-in-service potentially increases the burden on the public.

Relevant Service Information

    DORNIER LUFTFAHRT GmbH has issued RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH
Dornier 228 TLMCM, TM-TLMCM-090305-ALL, Revision 5, March 20, 2011; and
RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228 Airplane Maintenance Manual,
TM-AMM-228-00014-080184, Revision 3, October 30, 2012. The actions
described in this service information are intended to correct the
unsafe condition identified in the MCAI.

Comments

    We did not receive any comments on the earlier NPRM.

FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD

    This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another
country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant
to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they
have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and
service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because
we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists
and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type
design.
    Certain changes described above expand the scope of the earlier
NPRM. As a result, we have determined that it is necessary to reopen
the comment period to provide additional opportunity for the public to
comment on the proposed AD.

Costs of Compliance

    We estimate that this proposed AD will affect 17 products of U.S.
registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per
product to comply with the basic requirements of this proposed AD. The
average labor rate is $85 per work-hour.
    Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on
U.S. operators to be $2,890 or $170 per product.
    In addition, we estimate that any necessary follow-on actions would
take about 3 work-hours and require parts costing $1,000, for a cost of
$1,255 per product. We have no way of determining the number of
products that may need these actions.

Authority for This Rulemaking

    Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to
issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the
authority of the FAA Administrator. ``Subtitle VII: Aviation
Programs,'' describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's
authority.
    We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in
``Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General
requirements.'' Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with
promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing
regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator
finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within
the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition
that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this
rulemaking action.

Regulatory Findings

    We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism
implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not
have a substantial direct effect on the States, on the relationship
between the national Government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government.
    For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed
regulation:
    (1) Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive
Order 12866,
    (2) Is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT Regulatory Policies
and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979),
    (3) Will not affect intrastate aviation in Alaska, and
    (4) Will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39

    Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.

The Proposed Amendment

    Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES

0
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701.

Sec.  39.13  [Amended]

0
2. The FAA amends Sec.  39.13 by adding the following new AD:

Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH: Docket No. FAA-2013-1056; Directorate
Identifier 2013-CE-046-AD.

(a) Comments Due Date

    We must receive comments by April 18, 2014.

(b) Affected ADs

    This AD supersedes AD 2006-11-19, Amendment 39-14624 (71 FR
32268; June 5, 2006).

(c) Applicability

    This AD applies to Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH Dornier Models 228-
100, 228-101, 228-200, 228-201, 228-202, and 228-212 airplanes, all
serial numbers, certificated in any category.

(d) Subject

    Air Transport Association of America (ATA) Code 5: Time Limits.

(e) Reason

    This AD was prompted by mandatory continuing airworthiness
information (MCAI) originated by an aviation authority of another
country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation
product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as chafed or
damaged wiring on the flight deck overhead panels (5VE and 6VE). We
are
    issuing this AD to prevent chafing and damage to the wiring in
the flight deck overhead panels, which could result in short-
circuiting of related wiring and possibly lead to electrical failure
of affected systems and potential fire in the flight deck.

 (f) Actions and Compliance

    Unless already done, do the following actions in paragraphs
(f)(1) through (f)(3) of this AD:
    (1) Within the next 600 hours time-in-service (TIS) after the
effective date of this AD or within the next 12 months after the
effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first, and repetitively
thereafter at intervals not to exceed 600 hours TIS or 12 months,
whichever occurs first, inspect the wiring in the flight deck
overhead panels, 5VE and 6VE, for chafing, damage, and/or incorrect
installation (wire tie attachment holders). For the inspection,
refer to zone 321 on page 5 in the Zonal Inspection Program in
section 05-22-10 and zone 321 on page 5 in the Low Utilization Zonal
Inspection Program in section 05-26-10 of Chapter 05 in RUAG
Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier 228 Time Limits/Maintenance Checks
Manual (TLMCM), TM-TLMCM-090305-ALL, Revision 5, March 20, 2011; and
subjects 31-

10-07 and 31-10-08, both dated November 25, 2009, of Chapter 31,
Indicating/Recording Systems in RUAG Aerospace Services GmbH Dornier
228 Airplane Maintenance Manual, TM-AMM-228-00014-080184, Revision
3, October 30, 2012.
    (2) If any chafed or damaged wires are found during any
inspection required in paragraph (f)(1) of this AD, before further
flight, repair the affected wire(s) and assure correct installation
of the wiring in the flight deck overhead panels by reattaching or
replacing the wire tie attachment holders and securing any loose
wires to the wire tie attachment holders with plastic wire ties
following subjects 31-10-07 and 31-10-08, both dated November 25,
2009, of Chapter 31, Indicating/Recording Systems in RUAG Aerospace
Services GmbH Dornier 228 Airplane Maintenance Manual, TM-AMM-228-
00014-080184, Revision 3, October 30, 2012.
    (3) To comply with the actions of this AD, you may insert a copy
of this AD or a copy of the required actions of this AD into the
airworthiness limitations section of the FAA-approved maintenance
program (e.g., maintenance manual). This action may be done by an
owner/operator (pilot) holding at least a private pilot certificate
and must be entered into the airplane records showing compliance
with this AD in accordance with 14 CFR 43.9 (a)(1)(4) and 14 CFR
91.417(a)(2)(v). The record must be maintained as required by 14 CFR
91.173 or 135.439.

 (g) Other FAA AD Provisions

    The following provisions also apply to this AD:
    (1) Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs): The Manager,
Standards Office, FAA, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this
AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19. Send
information to ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA,
Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City,
Missouri 64106; telephone:<PHONE_NUMBER>; fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>;
email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Before using any approved AMOC on
any airplane to which the AMOC applies, notify your appropriate
principal inspector (PI) in the FAA Flight Standards District Office
(FSDO), or lacking a PI, your local FSDO.
    (2) Airworthy Product: For any requirement in this AD to obtain
corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these
actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered
FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority
(or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product
is airworthy before it is returned to service.

(h) Related Information

    Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) AD No.:
2013-0244, dated October 4, 2013, for related information. You may
examine the MCAI on the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov by
searching for and locating it in Docket No. FAA-2013-1056. For
service information related to this AD, contact RUAG Aerospace
Services GmbH, Dornier 228 Customer Support, P.O. Box 1253, 82231
Wessling, Germany; telephone: +49 (0) 8153-30 2220; fax: +49 (0)
8153-30 4258; email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Internet:
http://www.ruag.com/en/Aviation/Aviation_Home. You may review
copies of the referenced service information at the FAA, Small
Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Kansas City, Missouri 64106. For
information on the availability of this material at the FAA, call
(816) 329-4148.

    Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on February 25, 2014.
Steven W. Thompson,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-04699 Filed 3-3-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P