Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Carolina; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards, 49736-49745 [2014-20039]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
49736
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules
such immunity would not be consistent
with Federal law, which is one of the
criteria for immunity.’’
Therefore, EPA has determined that
Virginia’s Privilege and Immunity
statutes will not preclude the
Commonwealth from enforcing its
program consistent with the Federal
requirements. In any event, because
EPA has also determined that a state
audit privilege and immunity law can
affect only state enforcement and cannot
have any impact on Federal
enforcement authorities, EPA may at
any time invoke its authority under the
CAA, including, for example, Sections
113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the
requirements or prohibitions of the state
plan, independently of any state
enforcement effort. In addition, citizen
enforcement under Section 304 of the
CAA is likewise unaffected by this, or
any, state audit privilege or immunity
law.
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA 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 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);
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Aug 21, 2014
Jkt 232001
• 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, this proposed rule, which
satisfies certain infrastructure
requirements of Section 110(a)(2) of the
CAA for the 2010 SO2 NAAQS for the
Commonwealth of Virginia, 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.
Air Act (CAA or the Act) infrastructure
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone
national ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS). The CAA requires that each
state adopt and submit a SIP for the
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of each NAAQS
promulgated by EPA, which is
commonly referred to as an
‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP. SC DHEC certified
that the South Carolina SIP contains
provisions that ensure the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS is implemented,
enforced, and maintained in South
Carolina (hereafter referred to as an
‘‘infrastructure SIP submission’’). With
the exception of provisions pertaining to
prevention of significant deterioration
(PSD) permitting, interstate transport,
and visibility protection requirements,
EPA is proposing to determine that
South Carolina’s infrastructure SIP
submission, provided to EPA on July 17,
2012, addresses the required
infrastructure elements for the 2008 8hour ozone NAAQS.
DATES: Written comments must be
received on or before September 22,
2014.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
ADDRESSES:
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 5, 2014.
William C. Early,
Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III.
[FR Doc. 2014–20032 Filed 8–21–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0694; FRL–9915–64–
Region 4]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; South Carolina;
Infrastructure Requirements for the
2008 8-Hour Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standards
Environmental Protection
Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
the July 17, 2012, State Implementation
Plan (SIP) submission, provided by the
South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control (SC DHEC)
for inclusion into the South Carolina
SIP. This proposal pertains to the Clean
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04–
OAR–2012–0694, by one of the
following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the on-line instructions for submitting
comments.
2. Email: R4–RDS@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562–9019.
4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012–
0694,’’ 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: 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012–
0694. EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Do not submit through https://
www.regulations.gov or email,
information that you consider to be CBI
or otherwise protected. The https://
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 https://
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 https://
www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the
electronic docket are listed in the https://
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 https://
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 a.m. to
4:30 p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nacosta C. Ward, Regulatory
Development Section, Air Planning
Branch, Air, Pesticides and Toxics
Management Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Aug 21, 2014
Jkt 232001
Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW.,
Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. The
telephone number is (404) 562–9140.
Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic
mail at ward.nacosta@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background and Overview
II. What elements are required under sections
110(a)(1) and (2)?
III. What is EPA’s approach to the review of
infrastructure SIP submissions?
IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how South
Carolina addressed the elements of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2)
‘‘infrastructure’’ provisions?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Overview
On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated
a revised NAAQS for ozone based on 8hour average concentrations. EPA
revised the level of the 8-hour ozone
NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million. See
77 FR 16436. Pursuant to section
110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required
to submit SIPs meeting the applicable
requirements of section 110(a)(2) within
three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS or within such
shorter period as EPA may prescribe.
Section 110(a)(2) requires states to
address basic SIP elements such as
requirements for monitoring, basic
program requirements and legal
authority that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. States were required to submit
such SIPs for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS to EPA no later than March
2011.1
Today’s action is proposing to
approve South Carolina’s infrastructure
SIP submission for the applicable
requirements of the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS, with the exception of the PSD
permitting requirements for major
sources of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J),
the interstate transport requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs
1 through 4), and the visibility
requirements of 110(a)(2)(J). With
respect to South Carolina’s
infrastructure SIP submission related to
the provisions pertaining to the PSD
1 In these infrastructure SIP submissions States
generally certify evidence of compliance with
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA through a
combination of state regulations and statutes, some
of which have been incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP. In addition, certain federallyapproved, non-SIP regulations may also be
appropriate for demonstrating compliance with
sections 110(a)(1) and (2). Throughout this
rulemaking, unless otherwise indicated, the term
‘‘Regulation’’ indicates that the cited regulation has
been approved into South Carolina’s federallyapproved SIP. The term ‘‘S.C. Code Ann.’’ indicates
cited South Carolina state statutes, which are not
a part of the SIP unless otherwise indicated.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49737
permitting requirements for major
sources of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J),
the interstate transport requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II), and the
visibility requirements of 110(a)(2)(J),
EPA is not proposing any action today
regarding these requirements. EPA will
act on these portions of the submission
in a separate action. Further, this action
is not approving any specific rule, but
rather proposing that South Carolina’s
already approved SIP meets certain
CAA requirements.
II. What elements are required under
sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires
states to submit SIPs to provide for the
implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement of a new or revised
NAAQS within three years following
the promulgation of such NAAQS, or
within such shorter period as EPA may
prescribe. Section 110(a) imposes the
obligation upon states to make a SIP
submission to EPA for a new or revised
NAAQS, but the contents of that
submission may vary depending upon
the facts and circumstances. In
particular, the data and analytical tools
available at the time the state develops
and submits the SIP for a new or revised
NAAQS affects the content of the
submission. The contents of such SIP
submissions may also vary depending
upon what provisions the state’s
existing SIP already contains. In the
case of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS,
states typically have met the basic
program elements required in section
110(a)(2) through earlier SIP
submissions in connection with the
1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
More specifically, section 110(a)(1)
provides the procedural and timing
requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2)
lists specific elements that states must
meet for the ‘‘infrastructure’’ SIP
requirements related to a newly
established or revised NAAQS. As
mentioned above, these requirements
include basic SIP elements such as
requirements for monitoring, basic
program requirements and legal
authority that are designed to assure
attainment and maintenance of the
NAAQS. The requirements that are the
subject of this proposed rulemaking are
summarized below and in EPA’s
September 13, 2013, memorandum
entitled ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure
State Implementation Plan (SIP)
Elements under Clean Air Act Sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).’’ 2
2 Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are
not governed by the three year submission deadline
of section 110(a)(1) because SIPs incorporating
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
Continued
22AUP1
49738
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules
• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and
Other Control Measures
• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality
Monitoring/Data System
• 110(a)(2)(C): Programs for
Enforcement of Control Measures and
for Construction or Modification of
Stationary Sources 3
• 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate
Pollution Transport
• 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution
Abatement and International Air
Pollution
• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources
and Authority, Conflict of Interest, and
Oversight of Local Governments and
Regional Agencies
• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source
Monitoring and Reporting
• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers
• 110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions
• 110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for
Nonattainment Areas 4
• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with
Government Officials, Public
Notification, and Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and
Visibility Protection
• 110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling
and Submission of Modeling Data
• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees
• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and
Participation by Affected Local Entities
III. What is EPA’s approach to the
review of infrastructure SIP
submissions?
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
EPA is acting upon the SIP
submission from South Carolina that
addresses the infrastructure
requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2) for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. The requirement for states to
make a SIP submission of this type
arises out of CAA section 110(a)(1).
Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states
must make SIP submissions ‘‘within 3
years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the
promulgation of a national primary
ambient air quality standard (or any
revision thereof),’’ and these SIP
necessary local nonattainment area controls are not
due within three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the
nonattainment area plan requirements are due
pursuant to section 172. These requirements are: (1)
submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C) to the
extent that subsection refers to a permit program as
required in part D Title I of the CAA; and (2)
submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(I) which
pertain to the nonattainment planning requirements
of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today’s proposed
rulemaking does not address infrastructure
elements related to section 110(a)(2)(I) or the
nonattainment planning requirements of
110(a)(2)(C).
3 This rulemaking only addresses requirements
for this element as they relate to attainment areas.
4 As mentioned above, this element is not
relevant to today’s proposed rulemaking.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Aug 21, 2014
Jkt 232001
submissions are to provide for the
‘‘implementation, maintenance, and
enforcement’’ of such NAAQS. The
statute directly imposes on states the
duty to make these SIP submissions,
and the requirement to make the
submissions is not conditioned upon
EPA’s taking any action other than
promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of
specific elements that ‘‘[e]ach such
plan’’ submission must address.
EPA has historically referred to these
SIP submissions made for the purpose
of satisfying the requirements of CAA
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) as
‘‘infrastructure SIP’’ submissions.
Although the term ‘‘infrastructure SIP’’
does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses
the term to distinguish this particular
type of SIP submission from
submissions that are intended to satisfy
other SIP requirements under the CAA,
such as ‘‘nonattainment SIP’’ or
‘‘attainment plan SIP’’ submissions to
address the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D of title I of the
CAA, ‘‘regional haze SIP’’ submissions
required by EPA rule to address the
visibility protection requirements of
CAA section 169A, and nonattainment
new source review permit program
submissions to address the permit
requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing
and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions, and
section 110(a)(2) provides more details
concerning the required contents of
these submissions. The list of required
elements provided in section 110(a)(2)
contains a wide variety of disparate
provisions, some of which pertain to
required legal authority, some of which
pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain
to requirements for both authority and
substantive program provisions.5 EPA
therefore believes that while the timing
requirement in section 110(a)(1) is
unambiguous, some of the other
statutory provisions are ambiguous. In
particular, EPA believes that the list of
required elements for infrastructure SIP
submissions provided in section
110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for
inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submission.
5 For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides
that states must provide assurances that they have
adequate legal authority under state and local law
to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C) provides
that states must have a SIP-approved program to
address certain sources as required by part C of title
I of the CAA; and section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that
states must have legal authority to address
emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
The following examples of
ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and
section 110(a)(2) requirements with
respect to infrastructure SIP
submissions for a given new or revised
NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is
that section 110(a)(2) requires that
‘‘each’’ SIP submission must meet the
list of requirements therein, while EPA
has long noted that this literal reading
of the statute is internally inconsistent
and would create a conflict with the
nonattainment provisions in part D of
title I of the Act, which specifically
address nonattainment SIP
requirements.6 Section 110(a)(2)(I)
pertains to nonattainment SIP
requirements and part D addresses
when attainment plan SIP submissions
to address nonattainment area
requirements are due. For example,
section 172(b) requires EPA to establish
a schedule for submission of such plans
for certain pollutants when the
Administrator promulgates the
designation of an area as nonattainment,
and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to
two years, or in some cases three years,
for such designations to be
promulgated.7 This ambiguity illustrates
that rather than apply all the stated
requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a
strict literal sense, EPA must determine
which provisions of section 110(a)(2)
are applicable for a particular
infrastructure SIP submission.
Another example of ambiguity within
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) with
respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to
whether states must meet all of the
infrastructure SIP requirements in a
single SIP submission, and whether EPA
must act upon such SIP submission in
a single action. Although section
110(a)(1) directs states to submit ‘‘a
plan’’ to meet these requirements, EPA
interprets the CAA to allow states to
make multiple SIP submissions
separately addressing infrastructure SIP
elements for the same NAAQS. If states
elect to make such multiple SIP
submissions to meet the infrastructure
SIP requirements, EPA can elect to act
6 See, e.g., ‘‘Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport
of Fine Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air
Interstate Rule); Revisions to Acid Rain Program;
Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,’’ 70 FR
25162, at 25163–65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining
relationship between timing requirement of section
110(a)(2)(D) versus section 110(a)(2)(I)).
7 EPA notes that this ambiguity within section
110(a)(2) is heightened by the fact that various
subparts of part D set specific dates for submission
of certain types of SIP submissions in designated
nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note,
e.g., that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates
for submission of emissions inventories for the
ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific dates are
necessarily later than three years after promulgation
of the new or revised NAAQS.
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
on such submissions either individually
or in a larger combined action.8
Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to
allow it to take action on the individual
parts of one larger, comprehensive
infrastructure SIP submission for a
given NAAQS without concurrent
action on the entire submission. For
example, EPA has sometimes elected to
act at different times on various
elements and sub-elements of the same
infrastructure SIP submission.9
Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2) may also arise with
respect to infrastructure SIP submission
requirements for different NAAQS.
Thus, EPA notes that not every element
of section 110(a)(2) would be relevant,
or as relevant, or relevant in the same
way, for each new or revised NAAQS.
The states’ attendant infrastructure SIP
submissions for each NAAQS therefore
could be different. For example, the
monitoring requirements that a state
might need to meet in its infrastructure
SIP submission for purposes of section
110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for
different pollutants because the content
and scope of a state’s infrastructure SIP
submission to meet this element might
be very different for an entirely new
NAAQS than for a minor revision to an
existing NAAQS.10
EPA notes that interpretation of
section 110(a)(2) is also necessary when
EPA reviews other types of SIP
submissions required under the CAA.
Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP
submissions, EPA also has to identify
and interpret the relevant elements of
section 110(a)(2) that logically apply to
8 See, e.g., ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to
the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of
Significant Deterioration (PSD) and Nonattainment
New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,’’ 78 FR
4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action
approving the structural PSD elements of the New
Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately to
meet the requirements of EPA’s 2008 PM2.5 NSR
rule), and ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; New Mexico;
Infrastructure and Interstate Transport
Requirements for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ (78 FR
4337) (January 22, 2013) (EPA’s final action on the
infrastructure SIP for the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS).
9 On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee,
through the Tennessee Department of Environment
and Conservation, made a SIP revision to EPA
demonstrating that the State meets the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action
for infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on
January 23, 2012 (77 FR 3213) and took final action
on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On April 16,
2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR
42997), EPA took separate proposed and final
actions on all other section 110(a)(2) infrastructure
SIP elements of Tennessee’s December 14, 2007
submittal.
10 For example, implementation of the 1997 PM
2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of
new monitors to measure ambient levels of that new
indicator species for the new NAAQS.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Aug 21, 2014
Jkt 232001
these other types of SIP submissions.
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires
that attainment plan SIP submissions
required by part D have to meet the
‘‘applicable requirements’’ of section
110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment
plan SIP submissions must meet the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
regarding enforceable emission limits
and control measures and section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency
resources and authority. By contrast, it
is clear that attainment plan SIP
submissions required by part D would
not need to meet the portion of section
110(a)(2)(C) that pertains to the PSD
program required in part C of title I of
the CAA, because PSD does not apply
to a pollutant for which an area is
designated nonattainment and thus
subject to part D planning requirements.
As this example illustrates, each type of
SIP submission may implicate some
elements of section 110(a)(2) but not
others.
Given the potential for ambiguity in
some of the statutory language of section
110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA
believes that it is appropriate to
interpret the ambiguous portions of
section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2)
in the context of acting on a particular
SIP submission. In other words, EPA
assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP
submission, regardless of the NAAQS in
question or the history of SIP
development for the relevant pollutant,
would meet each of the requirements, or
meet each of them in the same way.
Therefore, EPA has adopted an
approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submissions against
the list of elements in section 110(a)(2),
but only to the extent each element
applies for that particular NAAQS.
Historically, EPA has elected to use
guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for
infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on
newly arising issues and in some cases
conveying interpretations that have
already been developed and applied to
individual SIP submissions for
particular elements.11 EPA most
recently issued guidance for
infrastructure SIPs on September 13,
2013 (2013 Guidance).12 EPA developed
11 EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA
requires EPA to provide guidance or to promulgate
regulations for infrastructure SIP submissions. The
CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions,
regardless of whether or not EPA provides guidance
or regulations pertaining to such submissions. EPA
elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
states, as appropriate.
12 ‘‘Guidance on Infrastructure State
Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements under Clean
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49739
this document to provide states with upto-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs
for any new or revised NAAQS. Within
this guidance, EPA describes the duty of
states to make infrastructure SIP
submissions to meet basic structural SIP
requirements within three years of
promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. EPA also made
recommendations about many specific
subsections of section 110(a)(2) that are
relevant in the context of infrastructure
SIP submissions.13 The guidance also
discusses the substantively important
issues that are germane to certain
subsections of section 110(a)(2).
Significantly, EPA interprets sections
110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) such that
infrastructure SIP submissions need to
address certain issues and need not
address others. Accordingly, EPA
reviews each infrastructure SIP
submission for compliance with the
applicable statutory provisions of
section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii)
is a required element of section
110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP
submissions. Under this element, a state
must meet the substantive requirements
of section 128, which pertain to state
boards that approve permits or
enforcement orders and heads of
executive agencies with similar powers.
Thus, EPA reviews infrastructure SIP
submissions to ensure that the state’s
implementation plan appropriately
addresses the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The
2013 Guidance explains EPA’s
interpretation that there may be a
variety of ways by which states can
appropriately address these substantive
statutory requirements, depending on
the structure of an individual state’s
permitting or enforcement program (e.g.,
whether permits and enforcement
orders are approved by a multi-member
board or by a head of an executive
agency). However they are addressed by
the state, the substantive requirements
of section 128 are necessarily included
in EPA’s evaluation of infrastructure SIP
Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2),’’
Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13,
2013.
13 EPA’s September 13, 2013, guidance did not
make recommendations with respect to
infrastructure SIP submissions to address section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the
DC Circuit decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7
(D.C. Cir. 2012) which had interpreted the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light of
the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA
elected not to provide additional guidance on the
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that
time. As the guidance is neither binding nor
required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide
guidance on a particular section has no impact on
a state’s CAA obligations.
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49740
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules
submissions because section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that
the state satisfy the provisions of section
128.
As another example, EPA’s review of
infrastructure SIP submissions with
respect to the PSD program
requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the
structural PSD program requirements
contained in part C and EPA’s PSD
regulations. Structural PSD program
requirements include provisions
necessary for the PSD program to
address all regulated sources and new
source review (NSR) pollutants,
including greenhouse gas (GHGs). By
contrast, structural PSD program
requirements do not include provisions
that are not required under EPA’s
regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are
merely available as an option for the
state, such as the option to provide
grandfathering of complete permit
applications with respect to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter
optional provisions are types of
provisions EPA considers irrelevant in
the context of an infrastructure SIP
action.
For other section 110(a)(2) elements,
however, EPA’s review of a state’s
infrastructure SIP submission focuses
on assuring that the state’s SIP meets
basic structural requirements. For
example, section 110(a)(2)(C) includes,
among other things, the requirement
that states have a program to regulate
minor new sources. Thus, EPA
evaluates whether the state has an EPAapproved minor new source review
program and whether the program
addresses the pollutants relevant to that
NAAQS. In the context of acting on an
infrastructure SIP submission, however,
EPA does not think it is necessary to
conduct a review of each and every
provision of a state’s existing minor
source program (i.e., already in the
existing SIP) for compliance with the
requirements of the CAA and EPA’s
regulations that pertain to such
programs.
With respect to certain other issues,
EPA does not believe that an action on
a state’s infrastructure SIP submission is
necessarily the appropriate type of
action in which to address possible
deficiencies in a state’s existing SIP.
These issues include: (i) existing
provisions related to excess emissions
from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction that may be
contrary to the CAA and EPA’s policies
addressing such excess emissions
(‘‘SSM’’); (ii) existing provisions related
to ‘‘director’s variance’’ or ‘‘director’s
discretion’’ that may be contrary to the
CAA because they purport to allow
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Aug 21, 2014
Jkt 232001
revisions to SIP-approved emissions
limits while limiting public process or
not requiring further approval by EPA;
and (iii) existing provisions for PSD
programs that may be inconsistent with
current requirements of EPA’s ‘‘Final
NSR Improvement Rule,’’ 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72
FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (‘‘NSR
Reform’’). Thus, EPA believes it may
approve an infrastructure SIP
submission without scrutinizing the
totality of the existing SIP for such
potentially deficient provisions and may
approve the submission even if it is
aware of such existing provisions.14 It is
important to note that EPA’s approval of
a state’s infrastructure SIP submission
should not be construed as explicit or
implicit re-approval of any existing
potentially deficient provisions that
relate to the three specific issues just
described.
EPA’s approach to review of
infrastructure SIP submissions is to
identify the CAA requirements that are
logically applicable to that submission.
EPA believes that this approach to the
review of a particular infrastructure SIP
submission is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the
general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in
110(a)(2) as requiring review of each
and every provision of a state’s existing
SIP against all requirements in the CAA
and EPA regulations merely for
purposes of assuring that the state in
question has the basic structural
elements for a functioning SIP for a new
or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as
statutory and regulatory requirements
under the CAA have evolved, they may
include some outmoded provisions and
historical artifacts. These provisions,
while not fully up to date, nevertheless
may not pose a significant problem for
the purposes of ‘‘implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement’’ of a
new or revised NAAQS when EPA
evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure
SIP submission. EPA believes that a
better approach is for states and EPA to
focus attention on those elements of
section 110(a)(2) of the CAA most likely
to warrant a specific SIP revision due to
the promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS or other factors.
For example, EPA’s 2013 Guidance
gives simpler recommendations with
14 By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to
include a new provision in an infrastructure SIP
submission that contained a legal deficiency, such
as a new exemption for excess emissions during
SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that
provision for compliance against the rubric of
applicable CAA requirements in the context of the
action on the infrastructure SIP.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
respect to carbon monoxide than other
NAAQS pollutants to meet the visibility
requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon
monoxide does not affect visibility. As
a result, an infrastructure SIP
submission for any future new or
revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide
need only state this fact in order to
address the visibility prong of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Finally, EPA believes that its
approach with respect to infrastructure
SIP requirements is based on a
reasonable reading of sections 110(a)(1)
and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides
other avenues and mechanisms to
address specific substantive deficiencies
in existing SIPs. These other statutory
tools allow EPA to take appropriately
tailored action, depending upon the
nature and severity of the alleged SIP
deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes
EPA to issue a ‘‘SIP call’’ whenever the
Agency determines that a state’s
implementation plan is substantially
inadequate to attain or maintain the
NAAQS, to mitigate interstate transport,
or to otherwise comply with the CAA.15
Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to
correct errors in past actions, such as
past approvals of SIP submissions.16
Significantly, EPA’s determination that
an action on a state’s infrastructure SIP
submission is not the appropriate time
and place to address all potential
existing SIP deficiencies does not
preclude EPA’s subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of
the basis for action to correct those
deficiencies at a later time. For example,
although it may not be appropriate to
require a state to eliminate all existing
inappropriate director’s discretion
provisions in the course of acting on an
infrastructure SIP submission, EPA
believes that section 110(a)(2)(A) may be
among the statutory bases that EPA
relies upon in the course of addressing
15 For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to
address specific existing SIP deficiencies related to
the treatment of excess emissions during SSM
events. See ‘‘Finding of Substantial Inadequacy of
Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,’’ 74 FR 21639
(April 18, 2011).
16 EPA has used this authority to correct errors in
past actions on SIP submissions related to PSD
programs. See ‘‘Limitation of Approval of
Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in
State Implementation Plans; Final Rule,’’ 75 FR
82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has previously
used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to
remove numerous other SIP provisions that the
Agency determined it had approved in error. See,
e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR 34641
(June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa,
Arizona, California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69
FR 67062 (November 16, 2004) (corrections to
California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3,
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules
such deficiency in a subsequent
action.17
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
IV. What is EPA’s analysis of how
South Carolina addressed the elements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2)
‘‘Infrastructure’’ provisions?
The South Carolina infrastructure SIP
submission addresses the provisions of
sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described
below.
1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and
other control measures: Several
regulations within South Carolina’s SIP
are relevant to air quality control
regulations. The regulations described
below have been federally approved in
the South Carolina SIP and include
enforceable emission limitations and
other control measures. Regulation 61–
62.5, Standard No. 2, Ambient Air
Quality Standards and Regulation 61–
62.1, Definitions and General
Requirements, provide enforceable
emission limits and other control
measures, means, and techniques.
Section 48–1–50(23) of the 1976 South
Carolina Code of Laws, as amended,
(‘‘S.C. Code Ann.’’) provides the SC
DHEC with the authority to ‘‘[a]dopt
emission and effluent control
regulations standards and limitations
that are applicable to the entire State,
that are applicable only within specified
areas or zones of the State, or that are
applicable only when a specified class
of pollutant is present.’’ EPA has made
the preliminary determination that the
provisions contained in these
regulations and South Carolina’s
practices are adequate to protect the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the State.
In this action, EPA is not proposing to
approve or disapprove any existing
State provisions with regard to excess
emissions during SSM of operations at
a facility. EPA believes that a number of
states have SSM provisions which are
contrary to the CAA and existing EPA
guidance, ‘‘State Implementation Plans:
Policy Regarding Excess Emissions
During Malfunctions, Startup, and
Shutdown’’ (September 20, 1999), and
the Agency plans to address such state
regulations in a separate action.18 In the
17 See, e.g., EPA’s disapproval of a SIP submission
from Colorado on the grounds that it would have
included a director’s discretion provision
inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344
(July 21, 2010) (proposed disapproval of director’s
discretion provisions); 76 FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011)
(final disapproval of such provisions).
18 On February 22, 2013, EPA published a
proposed action in the Federal Register entitled,
‘‘State Implementation Plans: Response to Petition
for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial
Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions
Applying to Excess Emissions During Periods of
Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction; Proposed
Rule.’’
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Aug 21, 2014
Jkt 232001
meantime, EPA encourages any state
having a deficient SSM provision to take
steps to correct it as soon as possible.
Additionally, in this action, EPA is
not proposing to approve or disapprove
any existing State rules with regard to
director’s discretion or variance
provisions. EPA believes that a number
of states have such provisions which are
contrary to the CAA and existing EPA
guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24,
1987)), and the Agency plans to take
action in the future to address such state
regulations. In the meantime, EPA
encourages any state having a director’s
discretion or variance provision which
is contrary to the CAA and EPA
guidance to take steps to correct the
deficiency as soon as possible.
2. 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient air quality
monitoring/data system: South
Carolina’s Air Pollution Control
Regulations, Regulation 61–62.5,
Standard No. 7, Prevention of
Significant Deterioration, along with the
South Carolina Network Description
and Ambient Air Network Monitoring
Plan, provide for an ambient air quality
monitoring system in the State. S.C.
Code Ann. § 48–1–50(14) provides the
Department with the necessary
authority to ‘‘[c]ollect and disseminate
information on air and water control.’’
Annually, States develop and submit to
EPA for approval statewide ambient
monitoring network plans consistent
with the requirements of 40 CFR Parts
50, 53, and 58. The annual network plan
involves an evaluation of any proposed
changes to the monitoring network,
includes the annual ambient monitoring
network design plan and a certified
evaluation of the agency’s ambient
monitors and auxiliary support
equipment.19 On July 3, 2013, South
Carolina submitted its plan to EPA. On
November 6, 2013, EPA approved South
Carolina’s monitoring network plan.
South Carolina’s approved monitoring
network plan can be accessed at
www.regulations.gov using Docket ID
No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0694. EPA
has made the preliminary determination
that South Carolina’s SIP and practices
are adequate for the ambient air quality
monitoring and data system related to
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
3. 110(a)(2)(C) Programs for
enforcement of control measures and for
construction or modification of
stationary sources: In this action, EPA is
proposing to approve South Carolina’s
infrastructure SIP for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS with respect to the
19 On occasion, proposed changes to the
monitoring network are evaluated outside of the
network plan approval process in accordance with
40 CFR Part 58.
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49741
general requirement in section
110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the
SIP that regulates new and modified
sources of emissions that contribute to
ozone concentrations and the
enforcement of nitrogen oxide (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs)
emission limits to assist in the
protection of air quality in
nonattainment, attainment or
unclassifiable areas. Regulation 61–62.5,
Standard No. 7, Prevention of
Significant Deterioration, and
Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 7.1,
Nonattainment New Source Review, of
South Carolina’s SIP pertains to the
construction of any new major
stationary source or any modification at
an existing major stationary source in an
area designated as nonattainment,
attainment or unclassifiable.
Enforcement: SC DHEC’s abovedescribed, SIP-approved regulations
provide for enforcement of VOC and
NOX emission limits and control
measures and construction permitting
for new or modified stationary sources.
Preconstruction PSD permitting for
major sources: With respect to South
Carolina’s infrastructure SIP submission
related to the preconstruction PSD
permitting requirements for major
sources of section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA is
not proposing any action today
regarding these requirements and
instead will act on this portion of the
submission in a separate action.
Regulation of minor sources and
modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C) also
requires the SIP to include provisions
that govern the minor source preconstruction program that regulates
emissions of the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Regulation 61–62.1, Section II,
Permit Requirements governs the
preconstruction permitting of
modifications and construction of minor
stationary sources.
EPA has made the preliminary
determination that South Carolina’s SIP
and practices are adequate for program
enforcement of control measures and
regulation of minor sources and
modifications related to the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) Interstate
pollution transport: Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two components;
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and 110(a)(2)(D)(II).
Each of these components have two
subparts resulting in four distinct
components, commonly referred to as
‘‘prongs,’’ that must be addressed in
infrastructure SIP submissions. The first
two prongs, which are codified in
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are provisions
that prohibit any source or other type of
emissions activity in one state from
contributing significantly to
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49742
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another
state (‘‘prong 1’’), and interfering with
maintenance of the NAAQS in another
state (‘‘prong 2’’). The third and fourth
prongs, which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that
prohibit emissions activity in one state
interfering with measures required to
prevent significant deterioration of air
quality in another state (‘‘prong 3’’), or
to protect visibility in another state
(‘‘prong 4’’). With respect to South
Carolina’s infrastructure SIP submission
related to the interstate transport
requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I)
and 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prongs 1 through
4), EPA is not proposing any action
today regarding these requirements and
instead will act on these portions of the
submission in a separate action.
5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate pollution
abatement and international air
pollution: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii)
requires SIPs to include provisions
insuring compliance with sections 115
and 126 of the Act, relating to interstate
and international pollution abatement.
With regard to the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), South Carolina
does not have any pending obligation
under sections 115 and 126 of the CAA.
Additionally, Regulation 61–62.5,
Standards 7 and 7.1 (q)(2)(iv), Public
Participation, requires SC DHEC to
notify air agencies ‘‘whose lands may be
affected by emissions’’ from each new or
modified major source if such emissions
may significantly contribute to levels of
pollution in excess of a NAAQS in any
air quality control region outside of the
South Carolina. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that South
Carolina’s SIP and practices are
adequate for insuring compliance with
the applicable requirements relating to
interstate and international pollution
abatement for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
6. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate personnel,
funding, and authority: Section
110(a)(2)(E) requires that each
implementation plan provide (i)
necessary assurances that the State will
have adequate personnel, funding, and
authority under state law to carry out its
implementation plan, (ii) that the State
comply with the requirements
respecting State Boards pursuant to
section 128 of the Act, and (iii)
necessary assurances that, where the
State has relied on a local or regional
government, agency, or instrumentality
for the implementation of any plan
provision, the State has responsibility
for ensuring adequate implementation
of such plan provisions. EPA is
proposing to approve South Carolina’s
SIP as meeting the requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(E). EPA’s rationale for
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Aug 21, 2014
Jkt 232001
today’s proposal respecting each
requirement of section 110(a)(2)(E) is
described in turn below.
With respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(i)
and (iii), SC DHEC develops,
implements and enforces EPA-approved
SIP provisions in the State. S.C. Code
Ann. Section 48, Title 1, as referenced
in SC DHEC’s infrastructure SIP
submission, provides the Department’s
general legal authority to establish a SIP
and implement related plans.
Specifically, S.C. Code Ann. § 48–1–
50(12) grants SC DHEC the statutory
authority to ‘‘[a]ccept, receive and
administer grants or other funds or gifts
for the purpose of carrying out any of
the purposes of this chapter; [and to]
accept, receive and receipt for Federal
money given by the Federal government
under any Federal law to the State of
South Carolina for air or water control
activities, surveys or programs.’’ S.C.
Code Ann. Section 48, Title 2 grants SC
DHEC statutory authority to establish
environmental protection funds, which
provide resources for SC DHEC to carry
out its obligations under the CAA.
Additionally, Regulation 61–30,
Environmental Protection Fees, provides
SC DHEC with the ability to access fees
for environmental permitting programs.
SC DHEC implements the SIP in
accordance with the provisions of S.C.
Code Ann § 1–23–40 (the
Administrative Procedures Act) and S.C.
Code Ann. Section 48, Title 1.
The requirements of 110(a)(2)(E)(i)
and (iii) are further confirmed when
EPA performs a completeness
determination for each SIP submittal.
This provides additional assurances that
each submittal provides evidence that
adequate personnel, funding, and legal
authority under State Law has been
used to carry out the State’s
implementation plan and related issues.
This information is included in all
prehearings and final SIP submittal
packages for approval by EPA.
EPA also notes that annually, states
update grant commitments based on
current SIP requirements, air quality
planning, and applicable requirements
related to the NAAQS, including the
ozone NAAQS. On March 11, 2014, EPA
submitted a letter to South Carolina
outlining 105 grant commitments and
current status of these commitments for
fiscal year 2013. The letter EPA
submitted to South Carolina can be
accessed at www.regulations.gov using
Docket ID No. EPA–R04–OAR–2012–
0694. There were no outstanding issues,
therefore South Carolina’s grants were
finalized and closed out.
With respect to 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), South
Carolina satisfies the requirements of
CAA section 128(a)(1) for the SC Board
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
of Health and Environmental Control,
which is the ‘‘board or body which
approves permits and enforcement
orders’’ under the CAA in South
Carolina, through S.C. Code Ann.
Section 8–13–730. S.C. Code Ann.
Section 8–13–730 provides that
‘‘[u]nless otherwise provided by law, no
person may serve as a member of a
governmental regulatory agency that
regulates business with which that
person is associated,’’ and S.C. Code
Ann. Section 8–13–700(A) which
provides in part that ‘‘[n]o public
official, public member, or public
employee may knowingly use his
official office, membership, or
employment to obtain an economic
interest for himself, a member of his
immediate family, an individual with
whom he is associated, or a business
with which he is associated.’’ S.C. Code
Ann. Section 8–13–700(B)(1)–(5)
provides for disclosure of any conflicts
of interest by public official, public
member or public employee, which
meets the requirement of CAA Section
128(a)(2) that ‘‘any potential conflicts of
interest . . . be adequately disclosed.’’
These state statutes—S.C. Code Ann.
Sections 8–13–730, 8–13–700(A), and
8–13–700(B)(1)–(5)—have been
approved into the South Carolina SIP as
required by CAA section 128. EPA has
made the preliminary determination
that South Carolina has adequate
resources for implementation of the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
7. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary source
monitoring system: SC DHEC’s
infrastructure SIP submission describes
the establishment of requirements for
compliance testing by emissions
sampling and analysis, and for
emissions and operation monitoring to
ensure the quality of data in the State.
SC DHEC uses these data to track
progress towards maintaining the
NAAQS, develop control and
maintenance strategies, identify sources
and general emission levels, and
determine compliance with emission
regulations and additional EPA
requirements. These SIP requirements
are codified at Regulation 61–62.1,
Definitions and General Requirements,
which provides for an emission
inventory plan that establishes reporting
requirements of the South Carolina SIP.
SC DHEC’s SIP requires owners or
operators of stationary sources to
monitor emissions, submit periodic
reports of such emissions and maintain
records as specified by various
regulations and permits, and to evaluate
reports and records for consistency with
the applicable emission limitation or
standard on a continuing basis over
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules
time. The monitoring data collected and
records of operations serve as the basis
for a source to certify compliance, and
can be used by SC DHEC as direct
evidence of an enforceable violation of
the underlying emission limitation or
standard. Accordingly, EPA is unaware
of any provision preventing the use of
credible evidence in the South Carolina
SIP.
Additionally, South Carolina is
required to submit emissions data to
EPA for purposes of the National
Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI is
EPA’s central repository for air
emissions data. EPA published the Air
Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on
December 5, 2008, which modified the
requirements for collecting and
reporting air emissions data (73 FR
76539). The AERR shortened the time
states had to report emissions data from
17 to 12 months, giving states one
calendar year to submit emissions data.
All states are required to submit a
comprehensive emissions inventory
every three years and report emissions
for certain larger sources annually
through EPA’s online Emissions
Inventory System. States report
emissions data for the six criteria
pollutants and their associated
precursors—NOx, sulfur dioxide,
ammonia, lead, carbon monoxide,
particulate matter, and VOC. Many
states also voluntarily report emissions
of hazardous air pollutants. South
Carolina made its latest update to the
2011 NEI on April 8, 2014. EPA
compiles the emissions data,
supplementing it where necessary, and
releases it to the general public through
the Web site https://www.epa.gov/ttn/
chief/eiinformation.html. EPA has made
the preliminary determination that
South Carolina’s SIP and practices are
adequate for the stationary source
monitoring systems related to the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS. Accordingly,
EPA is proposing to approve South
Carolina’s infrastructure SIP submission
with respect to section 110(a)(2)(F).
8. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency powers:
This section requires that states
demonstrate authority comparable with
section 303 of the CAA and adequate
contingency plans to implement such
authority. Regulation 61–62.3, Air
Pollution Episodes, provides for
contingency measures when an air
pollution episode or exceedance may
lead to a substantial threat to the health
or persons in the state or region. S.C.
Code Ann. Section 48–1–290 provides
SC DHEC, with concurrent notice to the
Governor, the authority to issue an order
recognizing the existence of an
emergency requiring immediate action
as deemed necessary by SC DHEC to
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Aug 21, 2014
Jkt 232001
protect the public health or property.
Any person subject to this order is
required to comply immediately.
Additionally, S.C. Code Ann. Section 1–
23–130 provides the Department with
the authority to establish emergency
regulations. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that South
Carolina’s SIP, state laws and practices
are adequate for emergency powers
related to the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing
to approve South Carolina’s
infrastructure SIP submission with
respect to section 110(a)(2)(G).
9. 110(a)(2)(H) Future SIP revisions:
As previously discussed, SC DHEC is
responsible for adopting air quality
rules and revising SIPs as needed to
attain or maintain the NAAQS. South
Carolina has the ability and authority to
respond to calls for SIP revisions, and
has provided a number of SIP revisions
over the years for implementation of the
NAAQS. Additionally, S.C. Code Ann.
Section 48, Title 1, provides SC DHEC
with the necessary authority to revise
the SIP to accommodate changes in the
NAAQS and thus revise the SIP as
appropriate. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that South
Carolina adequately demonstrates a
commitment to provide future SIP
revisions related to the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS when necessary.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to
approve South Carolina’s infrastructure
SIP submission with respect to section
110(a)(2)(H).
10. 110(a)(2)(J) Consultation with
government officials, public
notification, and PSD and visibility
protection: EPA is proposing to approve
South Carolina’s infrastructure SIP
submission for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS with respect to the general
requirement in section 110(a)(2)(J) to
include a program in the SIP that
provides for meeting the applicable
consultation requirements of section
121, the public notification
requirements of section 127. With
respect to South Carolina’s
infrastructure SIP submission related to
the preconstruction PSD permitting and
visibility protection requirements, EPA
is not proposing any action today
regarding these requirements and
instead will act on these portions of the
submission in a separate action. EPA’s
rationale for applicable consultation
requirements of section 121 and the
public notification requirements of
section 127 is described below.
110(a)(2)(J) (121 consultation)
Consultation with government officials:
Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 7,
Prevention of Significant Deterioration,
as well as the State’s Regional Haze
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49743
Implementation Plan (which allows for
consultation between appropriate state,
local, and tribal air pollution control
agencies as well as the corresponding
Federal Land Managers), provide for
consultation with government officials
whose jurisdictions might be affected by
SIP development activities. South
Carolina adopted state-wide
consultation procedures for the
implementation of transportation
conformity. These consultation
procedures were developed in
coordination with the transportation
partners in the State and are consistent
with the approaches used for
development of mobile inventories for
SIPs. Implementation of transportation
conformity as outlined in the
consultation procedures requires SC
DHEC to consult with federal, state and
local transportation and air quality
agency officials on the development of
motor vehicle emissions budgets. EPA
has made the preliminary determination
that South Carolina’s SIP and practices
adequately demonstrate consultation
with government officials related to the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS when
necessary. Accordingly, EPA is
proposing to approve South Carolina’s
infrastructure SIP submission with
respect to section 110(a)(2)(J)
consultation with government officials.
110(a)(2)(J) (127 public notification)
Public notification: 61–62.3, Air
Pollution Episodes, requires that SC
DHEC notify the public of any air
pollution episode or NAAQS violation.
Regulation 61–62.5, Standard 7.1 (q),
Public Participation, notifies the public
by advertisement in a newspaper of
general circulation in each region in
which a proposed plant or
modifications will be constructed of the
degree of increment consumption that is
expected from the plant or modification,
and the opportunity for comment at a
public hearing as well as written public
comment. An opportunity for a public
hearing for interested persons to appear
and submit written or oral comments on
the air quality impact of the plant or
modification, alternatives to the plant or
modification, the control technology
required, and other appropriate
considerations is also offered.
EPA also notes that SC DHEC
maintains a Web site that provides the
public with notice of the health hazards
associated with ozone NAAQS
exceedances, measures the public can
take to help prevent such exceedances,
and the ways in which the public can
participate in the regulatory process.
See https://www.scdhec.gov/
HomeAndEnvironment/Air/
MostCommonPollutants/Ozone/. EPA
has made the preliminary determination
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
49744
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules
that South Carolina’s SIP and practices
adequately demonstrate the State’s
ability to provide public notification
related to the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly,
EPA is proposing to approve South
Carolina’s infrastructure SIP submission
with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J)
public notification.
11. 110(a)(2)(K) Air quality and
modeling/data: Regulations 61–62.5,
Standards No. 2, Ambient Air Quality
Standards, and Regulation 61–62.5,
Standard No. 7, Prevention of
Significant Deterioration, of the South
Carolina SIP specify that required air
modeling be conducted in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W
‘‘Guideline on Air Quality Models,’’ as
incorporated into the South Carolina
SIP. These standards demonstrate that
South Carolina has the authority to
provide relevant data for the purpose of
predicting the effect on ambient air
quality of the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Additionally, South Carolina
supports a regional effort to coordinate
the development of emissions
inventories and conduct regional
modeling for several NAAQS, including
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, for the
southeastern states. Taken as a whole,
South Carolina’s air quality regulations
and practices demonstrate that SC
DHEC has the authority to provide
relevant data for the purpose of
predicting the effect on ambient air
quality of any emissions of any
pollutant for which a NAAQS had been
promulgated, and to provide such
information to the EPA Administrator
upon request. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that South
Carolina’s SIP and practices adequately
demonstrate the State’s ability to
provide for air quality and modeling,
along with analysis of the associated
data, related to the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing
to approve South Carolina’s
infrastructure SIP submission with
respect to section 110(a)(2)(K).
12. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting fees: This
section requires the SIP to direct the
owner or operator of each major
stationary source to pay to the
permitting authority, as a condition of
any permit required under the CAA, a
fee sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable
costs of reviewing and acting upon any
application for such a permit, and (ii) if
the owner or operator receives a permit
for such source, the reasonable costs of
implementing and enforcing the terms
and conditions of any such permit (not
including any court costs or other costs
associated with any enforcement
action), until such fee requirement is
superseded with respect to such sources
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Aug 21, 2014
Jkt 232001
by the Administrator’s approval of a fee
program under title V.
Section 48–2–50 of the South Carolina
Code prescribes that SC DHEC charge
fees for environmental programs it
administers pursuant to federal and
state law and regulations including
those that govern the costs to review,
implement and enforce PSD and NNSR
permits. Regulation 61–30,
Environmental Protection Fees 20
prescribes fees applicable to applicants
and holders of permits, licenses,
certificates, certifications, and
registrations, establishes procedures for
the payment of fees, provides for the
assessment of penalties for nonpayment,
and establishes an appeals process for
refuting fees. This regulation may be
amended as needed to meet the funding
requirements of the state’s permitting
program. Additionally, South Carolina
has a federally-approved title V
program, Regulation 61–62.70, Title V
Operating Permit Program 21, which
implements and enforces the
requirements of PSD and nonattainment
NSR for facilities once they begin
operating. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that South
Carolina’s SIP and practices adequately
provide for permitting fees related to the
2008 8-hour NAAQS when necessary.
Accordingly, EPA is proposing to
approve South Carolina’s infrastructure
SIP submission with respect to section
110(a)(2)(L).
13. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/
participation by affected local entities:
Regulation 61–62.5, Standard No. 7,
Prevention of Significant Deterioration,
of the South Carolina SIP requires that
SC DHEC notify the public of an
application, preliminary determination,
the activity or activities involved in the
permit action, any emissions change
associated with any permit
modification, and the opportunity for
comment prior to making a final
permitting decision. By way of example,
SC DHEC has recently worked closely
with local political subdivisions during
the development of its Transportation
Conformity SIP, Regional Haze
Implementation Plan, and Early Action
Compacts. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that South
Carolina’s SIP and practices adequately
demonstrate consultation with affected
local entities related to the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is
proposing to approve South Carolina’s
20 This regulation has not been incorporated into
the federally-approved SIP.
21 Title V program regulations are federallyapproved but not incorporated into the federallyapproved SIP.
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
infrastructure SIP submission with
respect to section 110(a)(2)(M).
V. Proposed Action
As described above, with the
exception of the PSD permitting
requirements for major sources of
section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the
interstate transport requirements of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) (prongs
1 through 4), and the visibility
requirements of 110(a)(2)(J), EPA is
proposing to approve South Carolina’s
July 12, 2012, SIP submission to
incorporate provisions into the South
Carolina SIP to address infrastructure
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. EPA is proposing to approve
these portions of South Carolina’s
infrastructure submission for the 2008
8-hour ozone NAAQS because this
submission is consistent with section
110 of the CAA.
VI. 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 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 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);
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 163 / Friday, August 22, 2014 / Proposed Rules
• 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, this proposed action for
the state of South Carolina 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 proposed 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 proposing that South
Carolina’s already approved SIP meets
certain CAA requirements. EPA notes
today’s action will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal
governments or preempt Tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 11, 2014.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2014–20039 Filed 8–21–14; 8:45 am]
tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:10 Aug 21, 2014
Jkt 232001
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 300
[Docket No. 130703588–4658–01]
RIN 0648–BD44
International Fisheries; Western and
Central Pacific Fisheries for Highly
Migratory Species; Fishing
Restrictions regarding the Oceanic
Whitetip Shark, the Whale Shark, and
the Silky Shark
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Proposed rule; request for
comments.
AGENCY:
NMFS proposes regulations
under authority of the Western and
Central Pacific Fisheries Convention
Implementation Act (WCPFC
Implementation Act) to implement
decisions of the Commission for the
Conservation and Management of
Highly Migratory Fish Stocks in the
Western and Central Pacific Ocean
(Commission or WCPFC) on fishing
restrictions related to the oceanic
whitetip shark (Carcharhinus
longimanus), the whale shark
(Rhincodon typus), and the silky shark
(Carcharhinus falciformis). The
regulations would apply to owners and
operators of U.S. fishing vessels used for
commercial fishing for highly migratory
species (HMS) in the area of application
of the Convention on the Conservation
and Management of Highly Migratory
Fish Stocks in the Western and Central
Pacific Ocean (Convention). The
regulations for oceanic whitetip sharks
and silky sharks would prohibit the
retention, transshipment, storage, or
landing of oceanic whitetip sharks or
silky sharks and would require the
release of any oceanic whitetip shark or
silky shark as soon as possible after it
is caught, with as little harm to the
shark as possible. The regulations for
whale sharks would prohibit setting a
purse seine on a whale shark and would
specify certain measures to be taken and
reporting requirements in the event a
whale shark is encircled in a purse seine
net. This action is necessary for the
United States to satisfy its obligations
under the Convention, to which it is a
Contracting Party.
DATES: Comments must be submitted in
writing by October 6, 2014.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this proposed rule, identified by
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
49745
NOAA–NMFS–2014–0086, and the
regulatory impact review (RIR) prepared
for this proposed rule, by either of the
following methods:
• Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=NOAA-NMFS-20140086, click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
• Mail: Submit written comments to
Michael D. Tosatto, Regional
Administrator, Pacific Islands Regional
Office, NOAA Inouye Regional Center,
1845 Wasp Blvd., Building 176,
Honolulu, HI 96818.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, might not be
considered by NMFS. All comments
received are a part of the public record
and will generally be posted for public
viewing on www.regulations.gov
without change. All personal identifying
information (e.g., name and address),
confidential business information, or
otherwise sensitive information
submitted voluntarily by the sender will
be publicly accessible. NMFS will
accept anonymous comments (enter
‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish
to remain anonymous). Attachments to
electronic comments will be accepted in
Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF
file formats only.
An initial regulatory flexibility
analysis (IRFA) prepared under
authority of the Regulatory Flexibility
Act is included in the Classification
section of the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this proposed
rule.
Copies of the RIR and the
Environmental Assessment (EA) are
available at www.regulations.gov or may
be obtained from Michael D. Tosatto,
NMFS PIRO (see address above).
Written comments regarding the
burden-hour estimates or other aspects
of the collection-of-information
requirements contained in this proposed
rule may be submitted to Michael D.
Tosatto, Regional Administrator, NMFS
PIRO (see address above) and by email
to OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or
fax to 202–395–7285.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rini
Ghosh, NMFS PIRO, 808–725–5033.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background on the Convention
A map showing the boundaries of the
area of application of the Convention
(Convention Area), which comprises the
majority of the western and central
E:\FR\FM\22AUP1.SGM
22AUP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 79, Number 163 (Friday, August 22, 2014)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 49736-49745]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-20039]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0694; FRL-9915-64-Region 4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South
Carolina; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2008 8-Hour Ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve the July 17, 2012, State Implementation Plan (SIP) submission,
provided by the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control (SC DHEC) for inclusion into the South Carolina SIP. This
proposal pertains to the Clean Air Act (CAA or the Act) infrastructure
requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS). The CAA requires that each state adopt and submit a
SIP for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of each NAAQS
promulgated by EPA, which is commonly referred to as an
``infrastructure'' SIP. SC DHEC certified that the South Carolina SIP
contains provisions that ensure the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS is
implemented, enforced, and maintained in South Carolina (hereafter
referred to as an ``infrastructure SIP submission''). With the
exception of provisions pertaining to prevention of significant
deterioration (PSD) permitting, interstate transport, and visibility
protection requirements, EPA is proposing to determine that South
Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission, provided to EPA on July 17,
2012, addresses the required infrastructure elements for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS.
DATES: Written comments must be received on or before September 22,
2014.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R04-
OAR-2012-0694, by one of the following methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for
submitting comments.
2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (404) 562-9019.
4. Mail: ``EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0694,'' 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: 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 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-
2012-0694. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at
https://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information
provided, unless the comment includes information
[[Page 49737]]
claimed to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit
through https://www.regulations.gov or email, information that you
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected. The https://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 https://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 https://www.epa.gov/epahome/dockets.htm.
Docket: All documents in the electronic docket are listed in the
https://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 https://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 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nacosta C. Ward, 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. The telephone number
is (404) 562-9140. Ms. Ward can be reached via electronic mail at
ward.nacosta@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background and Overview
II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP
submissions?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of how South Carolina addressed the
elements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``infrastructure''
provisions?
V. Proposed Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background and Overview
On March 27, 2008, EPA promulgated a revised NAAQS for ozone based
on 8-hour average concentrations. EPA revised the level of the 8-hour
ozone NAAQS to 0.075 parts per million. See 77 FR 16436. Pursuant to
section 110(a)(1) of the CAA, states are required to submit SIPs
meeting the applicable requirements of section 110(a)(2) within three
years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS or within such
shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section 110(a)(2) requires states
to address basic SIP elements such as requirements for monitoring,
basic program requirements and legal authority that are designed to
assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. States were required to
submit such SIPs for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS to EPA no later than
March 2011.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In these infrastructure SIP submissions States generally
certify evidence of compliance with sections 110(a)(1) and (2) of
the CAA through a combination of state regulations and statutes,
some of which have been incorporated into the federally-approved
SIP. In addition, certain federally-approved, non-SIP regulations
may also be appropriate for demonstrating compliance with sections
110(a)(1) and (2). Throughout this rulemaking, unless otherwise
indicated, the term ``Regulation'' indicates that the cited
regulation has been approved into South Carolina's federally-
approved SIP. The term ``S.C. Code Ann.'' indicates cited South
Carolina state statutes, which are not a part of the SIP unless
otherwise indicated.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Today's action is proposing to approve South Carolina's
infrastructure SIP submission for the applicable requirements of the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, with the exception of the PSD permitting
requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the
interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
(II) (prongs 1 through 4), and the visibility requirements of
110(a)(2)(J). With respect to South Carolina's infrastructure SIP
submission related to the provisions pertaining to the PSD permitting
requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the
interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
(II), and the visibility requirements of 110(a)(2)(J), EPA is not
proposing any action today regarding these requirements. EPA will act
on these portions of the submission in a separate action. Further, this
action is not approving any specific rule, but rather proposing that
South Carolina's already approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements.
II. What elements are required under sections 110(a)(1) and (2)?
Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit SIPs to provide
for the implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of a new or
revised NAAQS within three years following the promulgation of such
NAAQS, or within such shorter period as EPA may prescribe. Section
110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to
EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, but the contents of that submission may
vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the
data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and
submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the
submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary
depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already
contains. In the case of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, states typically
have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2)
through earlier SIP submissions in connection with the 1997 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
More specifically, section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and
timing requirements for SIPs. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements
that states must meet for the ``infrastructure'' SIP requirements
related to a newly established or revised NAAQS. As mentioned above,
these requirements include basic SIP elements such as requirements for
monitoring, basic program requirements and legal authority that are
designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The
requirements that are the subject of this proposed rulemaking are
summarized below and in EPA's September 13, 2013, memorandum entitled
``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan (SIP) Elements
under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2).'' \2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not
governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1)
because SIPs incorporating necessary local nonattainment area
controls are not due within three years after promulgation of a new
or revised NAAQS, but rather due at the time the nonattainment area
plan requirements are due pursuant to section 172. These
requirements are: (1) submissions required by section 110(a)(2)(C)
to the extent that subsection refers to a permit program as required
in part D Title I of the CAA; and (2) submissions required by
section 110(a)(2)(I) which pertain to the nonattainment planning
requirements of part D, Title I of the CAA. Today's proposed
rulemaking does not address infrastructure elements related to
section 110(a)(2)(I) or the nonattainment planning requirements of
110(a)(2)(C).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 49738]]
110(a)(2)(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures
110(a)(2)(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System
110(a)(2)(C): Programs for Enforcement of Control Measures
and for Construction or Modification of Stationary Sources \3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ This rulemaking only addresses requirements for this element
as they relate to attainment areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II): Interstate Pollution
Transport
110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate Pollution Abatement and
International Air Pollution
110(a)(2)(E): Adequate Resources and Authority, Conflict
of Interest, and Oversight of Local Governments and Regional Agencies
110(a)(2)(F): Stationary Source Monitoring and Reporting
110(a)(2)(G): Emergency Powers
110(a)(2)(H): SIP revisions
110(a)(2)(I): Plan Revisions for Nonattainment Areas \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ As mentioned above, this element is not relevant to today's
proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with Government Officials,
Public Notification, and Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD)
and Visibility Protection
110(a)(2)(K): Air Quality Modeling and Submission of
Modeling Data
110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees
110(a)(2)(M): Consultation and Participation by Affected
Local Entities
III. What is EPA's approach to the review of infrastructure SIP
submissions?
EPA is acting upon the SIP submission from South Carolina that
addresses the infrastructure requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. The requirement for states
to make a SIP submission of this type arises out of CAA section
110(a)(1). Pursuant to section 110(a)(1), states must make SIP
submissions ``within 3 years (or such shorter period as the
Administrator may prescribe) after the promulgation of a national
primary ambient air quality standard (or any revision thereof),'' and
these SIP submissions are to provide for the ``implementation,
maintenance, and enforcement'' of such NAAQS. The statute directly
imposes on states the duty to make these SIP submissions, and the
requirement to make the submissions is not conditioned upon EPA's
taking any action other than promulgating a new or revised NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(2) includes a list of specific elements that ``[e]ach
such plan'' submission must address.
EPA has historically referred to these SIP submissions made for the
purpose of satisfying the requirements of CAA sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) as ``infrastructure SIP'' submissions. Although the term
``infrastructure SIP'' does not appear in the CAA, EPA uses the term to
distinguish this particular type of SIP submission from submissions
that are intended to satisfy other SIP requirements under the CAA, such
as ``nonattainment SIP'' or ``attainment plan SIP'' submissions to
address the nonattainment planning requirements of part D of title I of
the CAA, ``regional haze SIP'' submissions required by EPA rule to
address the visibility protection requirements of CAA section 169A, and
nonattainment new source review permit program submissions to address
the permit requirements of CAA, title I, part D.
Section 110(a)(1) addresses the timing and general requirements for
infrastructure SIP submissions, and section 110(a)(2) provides more
details concerning the required contents of these submissions. The list
of required elements provided in section 110(a)(2) contains a wide
variety of disparate provisions, some of which pertain to required
legal authority, some of which pertain to required substantive program
provisions, and some of which pertain to requirements for both
authority and substantive program provisions.\5\ EPA therefore believes
that while the timing requirement in section 110(a)(1) is unambiguous,
some of the other statutory provisions are ambiguous. In particular,
EPA believes that the list of required elements for infrastructure SIP
submissions provided in section 110(a)(2) contains ambiguities
concerning what is required for inclusion in an infrastructure SIP
submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ For example: Section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) provides that states
must provide assurances that they have adequate legal authority
under state and local law to carry out the SIP; section 110(a)(2)(C)
provides that states must have a SIP-approved program to address
certain sources as required by part C of title I of the CAA; and
section 110(a)(2)(G) provides that states must have legal authority
to address emergencies as well as contingency plans that are
triggered in the event of such emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following examples of ambiguities illustrate the need for EPA
to interpret some section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2) requirements
with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions for a given new or
revised NAAQS. One example of ambiguity is that section 110(a)(2)
requires that ``each'' SIP submission must meet the list of
requirements therein, while EPA has long noted that this literal
reading of the statute is internally inconsistent and would create a
conflict with the nonattainment provisions in part D of title I of the
Act, which specifically address nonattainment SIP requirements.\6\
Section 110(a)(2)(I) pertains to nonattainment SIP requirements and
part D addresses when attainment plan SIP submissions to address
nonattainment area requirements are due. For example, section 172(b)
requires EPA to establish a schedule for submission of such plans for
certain pollutants when the Administrator promulgates the designation
of an area as nonattainment, and section 107(d)(1)(B) allows up to two
years, or in some cases three years, for such designations to be
promulgated.\7\ This ambiguity illustrates that rather than apply all
the stated requirements of section 110(a)(2) in a strict literal sense,
EPA must determine which provisions of section 110(a)(2) are applicable
for a particular infrastructure SIP submission.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See, e.g., ``Rule To Reduce Interstate Transport of Fine
Particulate Matter and Ozone (Clean Air Interstate Rule); Revisions
to Acid Rain Program; Revisions to the NOx SIP Call; Final Rule,''
70 FR 25162, at 25163-65 (May 12, 2005) (explaining relationship
between timing requirement of section 110(a)(2)(D) versus section
110(a)(2)(I)).
\7\ EPA notes that this ambiguity within section 110(a)(2) is
heightened by the fact that various subparts of part D set specific
dates for submission of certain types of SIP submissions in
designated nonattainment areas for various pollutants. Note, e.g.,
that section 182(a)(1) provides specific dates for submission of
emissions inventories for the ozone NAAQS. Some of these specific
dates are necessarily later than three years after promulgation of
the new or revised NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another example of ambiguity within sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) with respect to infrastructure SIPs pertains to whether
states must meet all of the infrastructure SIP requirements in a single
SIP submission, and whether EPA must act upon such SIP submission in a
single action. Although section 110(a)(1) directs states to submit ``a
plan'' to meet these requirements, EPA interprets the CAA to allow
states to make multiple SIP submissions separately addressing
infrastructure SIP elements for the same NAAQS. If states elect to make
such multiple SIP submissions to meet the infrastructure SIP
requirements, EPA can elect to act
[[Page 49739]]
on such submissions either individually or in a larger combined
action.\8\ Similarly, EPA interprets the CAA to allow it to take action
on the individual parts of one larger, comprehensive infrastructure SIP
submission for a given NAAQS without concurrent action on the entire
submission. For example, EPA has sometimes elected to act at different
times on various elements and sub-elements of the same infrastructure
SIP submission.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ See, e.g., ``Approval and Promulgation of Implementation
Plans; New Mexico; Revisions to the New Source Review (NSR) State
Implementation Plan (SIP); Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD) and Nonattainment New Source Review (NNSR) Permitting,'' 78 FR
4339 (January 22, 2013) (EPA's final action approving the structural
PSD elements of the New Mexico SIP submitted by the State separately
to meet the requirements of EPA's 2008 PM2.5 NSR rule),
and ``Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
New Mexico; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport Requirements for
the 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,'' (78 FR 4337) (January 22, 2013)
(EPA's final action on the infrastructure SIP for the 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS).
\9\ On December 14, 2007, the State of Tennessee, through the
Tennessee Department of Environment and Conservation, made a SIP
revision to EPA demonstrating that the State meets the requirements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2). EPA proposed action for
infrastructure SIP elements (C) and (J) on January 23, 2012 (77 FR
3213) and took final action on March 14, 2012 (77 FR 14976). On
April 16, 2012 (77 FR 22533) and July 23, 2012 (77 FR 42997), EPA
took separate proposed and final actions on all other section
110(a)(2) infrastructure SIP elements of Tennessee's December 14,
2007 submittal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ambiguities within sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) may also arise
with respect to infrastructure SIP submission requirements for
different NAAQS. Thus, EPA notes that not every element of section
110(a)(2) would be relevant, or as relevant, or relevant in the same
way, for each new or revised NAAQS. The states' attendant
infrastructure SIP submissions for each NAAQS therefore could be
different. For example, the monitoring requirements that a state might
need to meet in its infrastructure SIP submission for purposes of
section 110(a)(2)(B) could be very different for different pollutants
because the content and scope of a state's infrastructure SIP
submission to meet this element might be very different for an entirely
new NAAQS than for a minor revision to an existing NAAQS.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ For example, implementation of the 1997 PM2.5
NAAQS required the deployment of a system of new monitors to measure
ambient levels of that new indicator species for the new NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA notes that interpretation of section 110(a)(2) is also
necessary when EPA reviews other types of SIP submissions required
under the CAA. Therefore, as with infrastructure SIP submissions, EPA
also has to identify and interpret the relevant elements of section
110(a)(2) that logically apply to these other types of SIP submissions.
For example, section 172(c)(7) requires that attainment plan SIP
submissions required by part D have to meet the ``applicable
requirements'' of section 110(a)(2). Thus, for example, attainment plan
SIP submissions must meet the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(A)
regarding enforceable emission limits and control measures and section
110(a)(2)(E)(i) regarding air agency resources and authority. By
contrast, it is clear that attainment plan SIP submissions required by
part D would not need to meet the portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) that
pertains to the PSD program required in part C of title I of the CAA,
because PSD does not apply to a pollutant for which an area is
designated nonattainment and thus subject to part D planning
requirements. As this example illustrates, each type of SIP submission
may implicate some elements of section 110(a)(2) but not others.
Given the potential for ambiguity in some of the statutory language
of section 110(a)(1) and section 110(a)(2), EPA believes that it is
appropriate to interpret the ambiguous portions of section 110(a)(1)
and section 110(a)(2) in the context of acting on a particular SIP
submission. In other words, EPA assumes that Congress could not have
intended that each and every SIP submission, regardless of the NAAQS in
question or the history of SIP development for the relevant pollutant,
would meet each of the requirements, or meet each of them in the same
way. Therefore, EPA has adopted an approach under which it reviews
infrastructure SIP submissions against the list of elements in section
110(a)(2), but only to the extent each element applies for that
particular NAAQS.
Historically, EPA has elected to use guidance documents to make
recommendations to states for infrastructure SIPs, in some cases
conveying needed interpretations on newly arising issues and in some
cases conveying interpretations that have already been developed and
applied to individual SIP submissions for particular elements.\11\ EPA
most recently issued guidance for infrastructure SIPs on September 13,
2013 (2013 Guidance).\12\ EPA developed this document to provide states
with up-to-date guidance for infrastructure SIPs for any new or revised
NAAQS. Within this guidance, EPA describes the duty of states to make
infrastructure SIP submissions to meet basic structural SIP
requirements within three years of promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. EPA also made recommendations about many specific subsections of
section 110(a)(2) that are relevant in the context of infrastructure
SIP submissions.\13\ The guidance also discusses the substantively
important issues that are germane to certain subsections of section
110(a)(2). Significantly, EPA interprets sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2) such that infrastructure SIP submissions need to address
certain issues and need not address others. Accordingly, EPA reviews
each infrastructure SIP submission for compliance with the applicable
statutory provisions of section 110(a)(2), as appropriate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ EPA notes, however, that nothing in the CAA requires EPA to
provide guidance or to promulgate regulations for infrastructure SIP
submissions. The CAA directly applies to states and requires the
submission of infrastructure SIP submissions, regardless of whether
or not EPA provides guidance or regulations pertaining to such
submissions. EPA elects to issue such guidance in order to assist
states, as appropriate.
\12\ ``Guidance on Infrastructure State Implementation Plan
(SIP) Elements under Clean Air Act Sections 110(a)(1) and
110(a)(2),'' Memorandum from Stephen D. Page, September 13, 2013.
\13\ EPA's September 13, 2013, guidance did not make
recommendations with respect to infrastructure SIP submissions to
address section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). EPA issued the guidance shortly
after the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the DC Circuit
decision in EME Homer City, 696 F.3d7 (D.C. Cir. 2012) which had
interpreted the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). In light
of the uncertainty created by ongoing litigation, EPA elected not to
provide additional guidance on the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) at that time. As the guidance is neither binding
nor required by statute, whether EPA elects to provide guidance on a
particular section has no impact on a state's CAA obligations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As an example, section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) is a required element of
section 110(a)(2) for infrastructure SIP submissions. Under this
element, a state must meet the substantive requirements of section 128,
which pertain to state boards that approve permits or enforcement
orders and heads of executive agencies with similar powers. Thus, EPA
reviews infrastructure SIP submissions to ensure that the state's
implementation plan appropriately addresses the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E)(ii) and section 128. The 2013 Guidance explains EPA's
interpretation that there may be a variety of ways by which states can
appropriately address these substantive statutory requirements,
depending on the structure of an individual state's permitting or
enforcement program (e.g., whether permits and enforcement orders are
approved by a multi-member board or by a head of an executive agency).
However they are addressed by the state, the substantive requirements
of section 128 are necessarily included in EPA's evaluation of
infrastructure SIP
[[Page 49740]]
submissions because section 110(a)(2)(E)(ii) explicitly requires that
the state satisfy the provisions of section 128.
As another example, EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions
with respect to the PSD program requirements in sections 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II), and (J) focuses upon the structural PSD program
requirements contained in part C and EPA's PSD regulations. Structural
PSD program requirements include provisions necessary for the PSD
program to address all regulated sources and new source review (NSR)
pollutants, including greenhouse gas (GHGs). By contrast, structural
PSD program requirements do not include provisions that are not
required under EPA's regulations at 40 CFR 51.166 but are merely
available as an option for the state, such as the option to provide
grandfathering of complete permit applications with respect to the 2012
PM2.5 NAAQS. Accordingly, the latter optional provisions are
types of provisions EPA considers irrelevant in the context of an
infrastructure SIP action.
For other section 110(a)(2) elements, however, EPA's review of a
state's infrastructure SIP submission focuses on assuring that the
state's SIP meets basic structural requirements. For example, section
110(a)(2)(C) includes, among other things, the requirement that states
have a program to regulate minor new sources. Thus, EPA evaluates
whether the state has an EPA-approved minor new source review program
and whether the program addresses the pollutants relevant to that
NAAQS. In the context of acting on an infrastructure SIP submission,
however, EPA does not think it is necessary to conduct a review of each
and every provision of a state's existing minor source program (i.e.,
already in the existing SIP) for compliance with the requirements of
the CAA and EPA's regulations that pertain to such programs.
With respect to certain other issues, EPA does not believe that an
action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission is necessarily the
appropriate type of action in which to address possible deficiencies in
a state's existing SIP. These issues include: (i) existing provisions
related to excess emissions from sources during periods of startup,
shutdown, or malfunction that may be contrary to the CAA and EPA's
policies addressing such excess emissions (``SSM''); (ii) existing
provisions related to ``director's variance'' or ``director's
discretion'' that may be contrary to the CAA because they purport to
allow revisions to SIP-approved emissions limits while limiting public
process or not requiring further approval by EPA; and (iii) existing
provisions for PSD programs that may be inconsistent with current
requirements of EPA's ``Final NSR Improvement Rule,'' 67 FR 80186
(December 31, 2002), as amended by 72 FR 32526 (June 13, 2007) (``NSR
Reform''). Thus, EPA believes it may approve an infrastructure SIP
submission without scrutinizing the totality of the existing SIP for
such potentially deficient provisions and may approve the submission
even if it is aware of such existing provisions.\14\ It is important to
note that EPA's approval of a state's infrastructure SIP submission
should not be construed as explicit or implicit re-approval of any
existing potentially deficient provisions that relate to the three
specific issues just described.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ By contrast, EPA notes that if a state were to include a
new provision in an infrastructure SIP submission that contained a
legal deficiency, such as a new exemption for excess emissions
during SSM events, then EPA would need to evaluate that provision
for compliance against the rubric of applicable CAA requirements in
the context of the action on the infrastructure SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA's approach to review of infrastructure SIP submissions is to
identify the CAA requirements that are logically applicable to that
submission. EPA believes that this approach to the review of a
particular infrastructure SIP submission is appropriate, because it
would not be reasonable to read the general requirements of section
110(a)(1) and the list of elements in 110(a)(2) as requiring review of
each and every provision of a state's existing SIP against all
requirements in the CAA and EPA regulations merely for purposes of
assuring that the state in question has the basic structural elements
for a functioning SIP for a new or revised NAAQS. Because SIPs have
grown by accretion over the decades as statutory and regulatory
requirements under the CAA have evolved, they may include some outmoded
provisions and historical artifacts. These provisions, while not fully
up to date, nevertheless may not pose a significant problem for the
purposes of ``implementation, maintenance, and enforcement'' of a new
or revised NAAQS when EPA evaluates adequacy of the infrastructure SIP
submission. EPA believes that a better approach is for states and EPA
to focus attention on those elements of section 110(a)(2) of the CAA
most likely to warrant a specific SIP revision due to the promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS or other factors.
For example, EPA's 2013 Guidance gives simpler recommendations with
respect to carbon monoxide than other NAAQS pollutants to meet the
visibility requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), because carbon
monoxide does not affect visibility. As a result, an infrastructure SIP
submission for any future new or revised NAAQS for carbon monoxide need
only state this fact in order to address the visibility prong of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II).
Finally, EPA believes that its approach with respect to
infrastructure SIP requirements is based on a reasonable reading of
sections 110(a)(1) and 110(a)(2) because the CAA provides other avenues
and mechanisms to address specific substantive deficiencies in existing
SIPs. These other statutory tools allow EPA to take appropriately
tailored action, depending upon the nature and severity of the alleged
SIP deficiency. Section 110(k)(5) authorizes EPA to issue a ``SIP
call'' whenever the Agency determines that a state's implementation
plan is substantially inadequate to attain or maintain the NAAQS, to
mitigate interstate transport, or to otherwise comply with the CAA.\15\
Section 110(k)(6) authorizes EPA to correct errors in past actions,
such as past approvals of SIP submissions.\16\ Significantly, EPA's
determination that an action on a state's infrastructure SIP submission
is not the appropriate time and place to address all potential existing
SIP deficiencies does not preclude EPA's subsequent reliance on
provisions in section 110(a)(2) as part of the basis for action to
correct those deficiencies at a later time. For example, although it
may not be appropriate to require a state to eliminate all existing
inappropriate director's discretion provisions in the course of acting
on an infrastructure SIP submission, EPA believes that section
110(a)(2)(A) may be among the statutory bases that EPA relies upon in
the course of addressing
[[Page 49741]]
such deficiency in a subsequent action.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ For example, EPA issued a SIP call to Utah to address
specific existing SIP deficiencies related to the treatment of
excess emissions during SSM events. See ``Finding of Substantial
Inadequacy of Implementation Plan; Call for Utah State
Implementation Plan Revisions,'' 74 FR 21639 (April 18, 2011).
\16\ EPA has used this authority to correct errors in past
actions on SIP submissions related to PSD programs. See ``Limitation
of Approval of Prevention of Significant Deterioration Provisions
Concerning Greenhouse Gas Emitting-Sources in State Implementation
Plans; Final Rule,'' 75 FR 82536 (December 30, 2010). EPA has
previously used its authority under CAA section 110(k)(6) to remove
numerous other SIP provisions that the Agency determined it had
approved in error. See, e.g., 61 FR 38664 (July 25, 1996) and 62 FR
34641 (June 27, 1997) (corrections to American Samoa, Arizona,
California, Hawaii, and Nevada SIPs); 69 FR 67062 (November 16,
2004) (corrections to California SIP); and 74 FR 57051 (November 3,
2009) (corrections to Arizona and Nevada SIPs).
\17\ See, e.g., EPA's disapproval of a SIP submission from
Colorado on the grounds that it would have included a director's
discretion provision inconsistent with CAA requirements, including
section 110(a)(2)(A). See, e.g., 75 FR 42342 at 42344 (July 21,
2010) (proposed disapproval of director's discretion provisions); 76
FR 4540 (Jan. 26, 2011) (final disapproval of such provisions).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. What is EPA's analysis of how South Carolina addressed the elements
of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) ``Infrastructure'' provisions?
The South Carolina infrastructure SIP submission addresses the
provisions of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) as described below.
1. 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures:
Several regulations within South Carolina's SIP are relevant to air
quality control regulations. The regulations described below have been
federally approved in the South Carolina SIP and include enforceable
emission limitations and other control measures. Regulation 61-62.5,
Standard No. 2, Ambient Air Quality Standards and Regulation 61-62.1,
Definitions and General Requirements, provide enforceable emission
limits and other control measures, means, and techniques. Section 48-1-
50(23) of the 1976 South Carolina Code of Laws, as amended, (``S.C.
Code Ann.'') provides the SC DHEC with the authority to ``[a]dopt
emission and effluent control regulations standards and limitations
that are applicable to the entire State, that are applicable only
within specified areas or zones of the State, or that are applicable
only when a specified class of pollutant is present.'' EPA has made the
preliminary determination that the provisions contained in these
regulations and South Carolina's practices are adequate to protect the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS in the State.
In this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any
existing State provisions with regard to excess emissions during SSM of
operations at a facility. EPA believes that a number of states have SSM
provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance,
``State Implementation Plans: Policy Regarding Excess Emissions During
Malfunctions, Startup, and Shutdown'' (September 20, 1999), and the
Agency plans to address such state regulations in a separate
action.\18\ In the meantime, EPA encourages any state having a
deficient SSM provision to take steps to correct it as soon as
possible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ On February 22, 2013, EPA published a proposed action in
the Federal Register entitled, ``State Implementation Plans:
Response to Petition for Rulemaking; Findings of Substantial
Inadequacy; and SIP Calls to Amend Provisions Applying to Excess
Emissions During Periods of Startup, Shutdown, and Malfunction;
Proposed Rule.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additionally, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or
disapprove any existing State rules with regard to director's
discretion or variance provisions. EPA believes that a number of states
have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA
guidance (52 FR 45109 (November 24, 1987)), and the Agency plans to
take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the
meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or
variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to
take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.
2. 110(a)(2)(B) Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: South
Carolina's Air Pollution Control Regulations, Regulation 61-62.5,
Standard No. 7, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, along with the
South Carolina Network Description and Ambient Air Network Monitoring
Plan, provide for an ambient air quality monitoring system in the
State. S.C. Code Ann. Sec. 48-1-50(14) provides the Department with
the necessary authority to ``[c]ollect and disseminate information on
air and water control.'' Annually, States develop and submit to EPA for
approval statewide ambient monitoring network plans consistent with the
requirements of 40 CFR Parts 50, 53, and 58. The annual network plan
involves an evaluation of any proposed changes to the monitoring
network, includes the annual ambient monitoring network design plan and
a certified evaluation of the agency's ambient monitors and auxiliary
support equipment.\19\ On July 3, 2013, South Carolina submitted its
plan to EPA. On November 6, 2013, EPA approved South Carolina's
monitoring network plan. South Carolina's approved monitoring network
plan can be accessed at www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-
R04-OAR-2012-0694. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
South Carolina's SIP and practices are adequate for the ambient air
quality monitoring and data system related to the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ On occasion, proposed changes to the monitoring network are
evaluated outside of the network plan approval process in accordance
with 40 CFR Part 58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. 110(a)(2)(C) Programs for enforcement of control measures and
for construction or modification of stationary sources: In this action,
EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's infrastructure SIP for the
2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in
section 110(a)(2)(C) to include a program in the SIP that regulates new
and modified sources of emissions that contribute to ozone
concentrations and the enforcement of nitrogen oxide (NOX)
and volatile organic compounds (VOCs) emission limits to assist in the
protection of air quality in nonattainment, attainment or
unclassifiable areas. Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7, Prevention of
Significant Deterioration, and Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7.1,
Nonattainment New Source Review, of South Carolina's SIP pertains to
the construction of any new major stationary source or any modification
at an existing major stationary source in an area designated as
nonattainment, attainment or unclassifiable.
Enforcement: SC DHEC's above-described, SIP-approved regulations
provide for enforcement of VOC and NOX emission limits and
control measures and construction permitting for new or modified
stationary sources.
Preconstruction PSD permitting for major sources: With respect to
South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission related to the
preconstruction PSD permitting requirements for major sources of
section 110(a)(2)(C), EPA is not proposing any action today regarding
these requirements and instead will act on this portion of the
submission in a separate action.
Regulation of minor sources and modifications: Section 110(a)(2)(C)
also requires the SIP to include provisions that govern the minor
source pre-construction program that regulates emissions of the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS. Regulation 61-62.1, Section II, Permit Requirements
governs the preconstruction permitting of modifications and
construction of minor stationary sources.
EPA has made the preliminary determination that South Carolina's
SIP and practices are adequate for program enforcement of control
measures and regulation of minor sources and modifications related to
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
4. 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and (II) Interstate pollution transport:
Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i) has two components; 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
110(a)(2)(D)(II). Each of these components have two subparts resulting
in four distinct components, commonly referred to as ``prongs,'' that
must be addressed in infrastructure SIP submissions. The first two
prongs, which are codified in section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), are
provisions that prohibit any source or other type of emissions activity
in one state from contributing significantly to
[[Page 49742]]
nonattainment of the NAAQS in another state (``prong 1''), and
interfering with maintenance of the NAAQS in another state (``prong
2''). The third and fourth prongs, which are codified in section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II), are provisions that prohibit emissions activity in
one state interfering with measures required to prevent significant
deterioration of air quality in another state (``prong 3''), or to
protect visibility in another state (``prong 4''). With respect to
South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission related to the
interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) (prongs 1 through 4), EPA is not proposing any
action today regarding these requirements and instead will act on these
portions of the submission in a separate action.
5. 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) Interstate pollution abatement and
international air pollution: Section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii) requires SIPs to
include provisions insuring compliance with sections 115 and 126 of the
Act, relating to interstate and international pollution abatement. With
regard to the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(ii), South Carolina
does not have any pending obligation under sections 115 and 126 of the
CAA. Additionally, Regulation 61-62.5, Standards 7 and 7.1 (q)(2)(iv),
Public Participation, requires SC DHEC to notify air agencies ``whose
lands may be affected by emissions'' from each new or modified major
source if such emissions may significantly contribute to levels of
pollution in excess of a NAAQS in any air quality control region
outside of the South Carolina. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that South Carolina's SIP and practices are adequate for
insuring compliance with the applicable requirements relating to
interstate and international pollution abatement for the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS.
6. 110(a)(2)(E) Adequate personnel, funding, and authority: Section
110(a)(2)(E) requires that each implementation plan provide (i)
necessary assurances that the State will have adequate personnel,
funding, and authority under state law to carry out its implementation
plan, (ii) that the State comply with the requirements respecting State
Boards pursuant to section 128 of the Act, and (iii) necessary
assurances that, where the State has relied on a local or regional
government, agency, or instrumentality for the implementation of any
plan provision, the State has responsibility for ensuring adequate
implementation of such plan provisions. EPA is proposing to approve
South Carolina's SIP as meeting the requirements of section
110(a)(2)(E). EPA's rationale for today's proposal respecting each
requirement of section 110(a)(2)(E) is described in turn below.
With respect to section 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii), SC DHEC
develops, implements and enforces EPA-approved SIP provisions in the
State. S.C. Code Ann. Section 48, Title 1, as referenced in SC DHEC's
infrastructure SIP submission, provides the Department's general legal
authority to establish a SIP and implement related plans. Specifically,
S.C. Code Ann. Sec. 48-1-50(12) grants SC DHEC the statutory authority
to ``[a]ccept, receive and administer grants or other funds or gifts
for the purpose of carrying out any of the purposes of this chapter;
[and to] accept, receive and receipt for Federal money given by the
Federal government under any Federal law to the State of South Carolina
for air or water control activities, surveys or programs.'' S.C. Code
Ann. Section 48, Title 2 grants SC DHEC statutory authority to
establish environmental protection funds, which provide resources for
SC DHEC to carry out its obligations under the CAA. Additionally,
Regulation 61-30, Environmental Protection Fees, provides SC DHEC with
the ability to access fees for environmental permitting programs. SC
DHEC implements the SIP in accordance with the provisions of S.C. Code
Ann Sec. 1-23-40 (the Administrative Procedures Act) and S.C. Code
Ann. Section 48, Title 1.
The requirements of 110(a)(2)(E)(i) and (iii) are further confirmed
when EPA performs a completeness determination for each SIP submittal.
This provides additional assurances that each submittal provides
evidence that adequate personnel, funding, and legal authority under
State Law has been used to carry out the State's implementation plan
and related issues. This information is included in all prehearings and
final SIP submittal packages for approval by EPA.
EPA also notes that annually, states update grant commitments based
on current SIP requirements, air quality planning, and applicable
requirements related to the NAAQS, including the ozone NAAQS. On March
11, 2014, EPA submitted a letter to South Carolina outlining 105 grant
commitments and current status of these commitments for fiscal year
2013. The letter EPA submitted to South Carolina can be accessed at
www.regulations.gov using Docket ID No. EPA-R04-OAR-2012-0694. There
were no outstanding issues, therefore South Carolina's grants were
finalized and closed out.
With respect to 110(a)(2)(E)(ii), South Carolina satisfies the
requirements of CAA section 128(a)(1) for the SC Board of Health and
Environmental Control, which is the ``board or body which approves
permits and enforcement orders'' under the CAA in South Carolina,
through S.C. Code Ann. Section 8-13-730. S.C. Code Ann. Section 8-13-
730 provides that ``[u]nless otherwise provided by law, no person may
serve as a member of a governmental regulatory agency that regulates
business with which that person is associated,'' and S.C. Code Ann.
Section 8-13-700(A) which provides in part that ``[n]o public official,
public member, or public employee may knowingly use his official
office, membership, or employment to obtain an economic interest for
himself, a member of his immediate family, an individual with whom he
is associated, or a business with which he is associated.'' S.C. Code
Ann. Section 8-13-700(B)(1)-(5) provides for disclosure of any
conflicts of interest by public official, public member or public
employee, which meets the requirement of CAA Section 128(a)(2) that
``any potential conflicts of interest . . . be adequately disclosed.''
These state statutes--S.C. Code Ann. Sections 8-13-730, 8-13-700(A),
and 8-13-700(B)(1)-(5)--have been approved into the South Carolina SIP
as required by CAA section 128. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that South Carolina has adequate resources for
implementation of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
7. 110(a)(2)(F) Stationary source monitoring system: SC DHEC's
infrastructure SIP submission describes the establishment of
requirements for compliance testing by emissions sampling and analysis,
and for emissions and operation monitoring to ensure the quality of
data in the State. SC DHEC uses these data to track progress towards
maintaining the NAAQS, develop control and maintenance strategies,
identify sources and general emission levels, and determine compliance
with emission regulations and additional EPA requirements. These SIP
requirements are codified at Regulation 61-62.1, Definitions and
General Requirements, which provides for an emission inventory plan
that establishes reporting requirements of the South Carolina SIP. SC
DHEC's SIP requires owners or operators of stationary sources to
monitor emissions, submit periodic reports of such emissions and
maintain records as specified by various regulations and permits, and
to evaluate reports and records for consistency with the applicable
emission limitation or standard on a continuing basis over
[[Page 49743]]
time. The monitoring data collected and records of operations serve as
the basis for a source to certify compliance, and can be used by SC
DHEC as direct evidence of an enforceable violation of the underlying
emission limitation or standard. Accordingly, EPA is unaware of any
provision preventing the use of credible evidence in the South Carolina
SIP.
Additionally, South Carolina is required to submit emissions data
to EPA for purposes of the National Emissions Inventory (NEI). The NEI
is EPA's central repository for air emissions data. EPA published the
Air Emissions Reporting Rule (AERR) on December 5, 2008, which modified
the requirements for collecting and reporting air emissions data (73 FR
76539). The AERR shortened the time states had to report emissions data
from 17 to 12 months, giving states one calendar year to submit
emissions data. All states are required to submit a comprehensive
emissions inventory every three years and report emissions for certain
larger sources annually through EPA's online Emissions Inventory
System. States report emissions data for the six criteria pollutants
and their associated precursors--NOx, sulfur dioxide, ammonia, lead,
carbon monoxide, particulate matter, and VOC. Many states also
voluntarily report emissions of hazardous air pollutants. South
Carolina made its latest update to the 2011 NEI on April 8, 2014. EPA
compiles the emissions data, supplementing it where necessary, and
releases it to the general public through the Web site https://www.epa.gov/ttn/chief/eiinformation.html. EPA has made the preliminary
determination that South Carolina's SIP and practices are adequate for
the stationary source monitoring systems related to the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's
infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(F).
8. 110(a)(2)(G) Emergency powers: This section requires that states
demonstrate authority comparable with section 303 of the CAA and
adequate contingency plans to implement such authority. Regulation 61-
62.3, Air Pollution Episodes, provides for contingency measures when an
air pollution episode or exceedance may lead to a substantial threat to
the health or persons in the state or region. S.C. Code Ann. Section
48-1-290 provides SC DHEC, with concurrent notice to the Governor, the
authority to issue an order recognizing the existence of an emergency
requiring immediate action as deemed necessary by SC DHEC to protect
the public health or property. Any person subject to this order is
required to comply immediately. Additionally, S.C. Code Ann. Section 1-
23-130 provides the Department with the authority to establish
emergency regulations. EPA has made the preliminary determination that
South Carolina's SIP, state laws and practices are adequate for
emergency powers related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Accordingly,
EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's infrastructure SIP
submission with respect to section 110(a)(2)(G).
9. 110(a)(2)(H) Future SIP revisions: As previously discussed, SC
DHEC is responsible for adopting air quality rules and revising SIPs as
needed to attain or maintain the NAAQS. South Carolina has the ability
and authority to respond to calls for SIP revisions, and has provided a
number of SIP revisions over the years for implementation of the NAAQS.
Additionally, S.C. Code Ann. Section 48, Title 1, provides SC DHEC with
the necessary authority to revise the SIP to accommodate changes in the
NAAQS and thus revise the SIP as appropriate. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that South Carolina adequately demonstrates a
commitment to provide future SIP revisions related to the 2008 8-hour
ozone NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to approve
South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to section
110(a)(2)(H).
10. 110(a)(2)(J) Consultation with government officials, public
notification, and PSD and visibility protection: EPA is proposing to
approve South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission for the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS with respect to the general requirement in section
110(a)(2)(J) to include a program in the SIP that provides for meeting
the applicable consultation requirements of section 121, the public
notification requirements of section 127. With respect to South
Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission related to the preconstruction
PSD permitting and visibility protection requirements, EPA is not
proposing any action today regarding these requirements and instead
will act on these portions of the submission in a separate action.
EPA's rationale for applicable consultation requirements of section 121
and the public notification requirements of section 127 is described
below.
110(a)(2)(J) (121 consultation) Consultation with government
officials: Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7, Prevention of
Significant Deterioration, as well as the State's Regional Haze
Implementation Plan (which allows for consultation between appropriate
state, local, and tribal air pollution control agencies as well as the
corresponding Federal Land Managers), provide for consultation with
government officials whose jurisdictions might be affected by SIP
development activities. South Carolina adopted state-wide consultation
procedures for the implementation of transportation conformity. These
consultation procedures were developed in coordination with the
transportation partners in the State and are consistent with the
approaches used for development of mobile inventories for SIPs.
Implementation of transportation conformity as outlined in the
consultation procedures requires SC DHEC to consult with federal, state
and local transportation and air quality agency officials on the
development of motor vehicle emissions budgets. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that South Carolina's SIP and practices
adequately demonstrate consultation with government officials related
to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is
proposing to approve South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission
with respect to section 110(a)(2)(J) consultation with government
officials.
110(a)(2)(J) (127 public notification) Public notification: 61-
62.3, Air Pollution Episodes, requires that SC DHEC notify the public
of any air pollution episode or NAAQS violation. Regulation 61-62.5,
Standard 7.1 (q), Public Participation, notifies the public by
advertisement in a newspaper of general circulation in each region in
which a proposed plant or modifications will be constructed of the
degree of increment consumption that is expected from the plant or
modification, and the opportunity for comment at a public hearing as
well as written public comment. An opportunity for a public hearing for
interested persons to appear and submit written or oral comments on the
air quality impact of the plant or modification, alternatives to the
plant or modification, the control technology required, and other
appropriate considerations is also offered.
EPA also notes that SC DHEC maintains a Web site that provides the
public with notice of the health hazards associated with ozone NAAQS
exceedances, measures the public can take to help prevent such
exceedances, and the ways in which the public can participate in the
regulatory process. See https://www.scdhec.gov/HomeAndEnvironment/Air/MostCommonPollutants/Ozone/. EPA has made the preliminary determination
[[Page 49744]]
that South Carolina's SIP and practices adequately demonstrate the
State's ability to provide public notification related to the 2008 8-
hour ozone NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is proposing to
approve South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to
section 110(a)(2)(J) public notification.
11. 110(a)(2)(K) Air quality and modeling/data: Regulations 61-
62.5, Standards No. 2, Ambient Air Quality Standards, and Regulation
61-62.5, Standard No. 7, Prevention of Significant Deterioration, of
the South Carolina SIP specify that required air modeling be conducted
in accordance with 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix W ``Guideline on Air
Quality Models,'' as incorporated into the South Carolina SIP. These
standards demonstrate that South Carolina has the authority to provide
relevant data for the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air
quality of the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Additionally, South Carolina
supports a regional effort to coordinate the development of emissions
inventories and conduct regional modeling for several NAAQS, including
the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS, for the southeastern states. Taken as a
whole, South Carolina's air quality regulations and practices
demonstrate that SC DHEC has the authority to provide relevant data for
the purpose of predicting the effect on ambient air quality of any
emissions of any pollutant for which a NAAQS had been promulgated, and
to provide such information to the EPA Administrator upon request. EPA
has made the preliminary determination that South Carolina's SIP and
practices adequately demonstrate the State's ability to provide for air
quality and modeling, along with analysis of the associated data,
related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing
to approve South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission with respect
to section 110(a)(2)(K).
12. 110(a)(2)(L) Permitting fees: This section requires the SIP to
direct the owner or operator of each major stationary source to pay to
the permitting authority, as a condition of any permit required under
the CAA, a fee sufficient to cover (i) the reasonable costs of
reviewing and acting upon any application for such a permit, and (ii)
if the owner or operator receives a permit for such source, the
reasonable costs of implementing and enforcing the terms and conditions
of any such permit (not including any court costs or other costs
associated with any enforcement action), until such fee requirement is
superseded with respect to such sources by the Administrator's approval
of a fee program under title V.
Section 48-2-50 of the South Carolina Code prescribes that SC DHEC
charge fees for environmental programs it administers pursuant to
federal and state law and regulations including those that govern the
costs to review, implement and enforce PSD and NNSR permits. Regulation
61-30, Environmental Protection Fees \20\ prescribes fees applicable to
applicants and holders of permits, licenses, certificates,
certifications, and registrations, establishes procedures for the
payment of fees, provides for the assessment of penalties for
nonpayment, and establishes an appeals process for refuting fees. This
regulation may be amended as needed to meet the funding requirements of
the state's permitting program. Additionally, South Carolina has a
federally-approved title V program, Regulation 61-62.70, Title V
Operating Permit Program \21\, which implements and enforces the
requirements of PSD and nonattainment NSR for facilities once they
begin operating. EPA has made the preliminary determination that South
Carolina's SIP and practices adequately provide for permitting fees
related to the 2008 8-hour NAAQS when necessary. Accordingly, EPA is
proposing to approve South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission
with respect to section 110(a)(2)(L).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ This regulation has not been incorporated into the
federally-approved SIP.
\21\ Title V program regulations are federally-approved but not
incorporated into the federally-approved SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. 110(a)(2)(M) Consultation/participation by affected local
entities: Regulation 61-62.5, Standard No. 7, Prevention of Significant
Deterioration, of the South Carolina SIP requires that SC DHEC notify
the public of an application, preliminary determination, the activity
or activities involved in the permit action, any emissions change
associated with any permit modification, and the opportunity for
comment prior to making a final permitting decision. By way of example,
SC DHEC has recently worked closely with local political subdivisions
during the development of its Transportation Conformity SIP, Regional
Haze Implementation Plan, and Early Action Compacts. EPA has made the
preliminary determination that South Carolina's SIP and practices
adequately demonstrate consultation with affected local entities
related to the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS. Accordingly, EPA is proposing
to approve South Carolina's infrastructure SIP submission with respect
to section 110(a)(2)(M).
V. Proposed Action
As described above, with the exception of the PSD permitting
requirements for major sources of section 110(a)(2)(C) and (J), the
interstate transport requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) and
(II) (prongs 1 through 4), and the visibility requirements of
110(a)(2)(J), EPA is proposing to approve South Carolina's July 12,
2012, SIP submission to incorporate provisions into the South Carolina
SIP to address infrastructure requirements for the 2008 8-hour ozone
NAAQS. EPA is proposing to approve these portions of South Carolina's
infrastructure submission for the 2008 8-hour ozone NAAQS because this
submission is consistent with section 110 of the CAA.
VI. 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 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 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);
[[Page 49745]]
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, this proposed action for the state of South Carolina
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 proposed 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 proposing that South Carolina's already
approved SIP meets certain CAA requirements. EPA notes today's action
will not impose substantial direct costs on Tribal governments or
preempt Tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: August 11, 2014.
Heather McTeer Toney,
Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2014-20039 Filed 8-21-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
