Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Dakota; Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan, 11946-11952 [2018-05398]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
11946
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules
EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook,
revised January 11, 1990).
3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting
Common VOC & Other Rule
Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21,
2001 (the Little Bluebook).
4. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck
Assembly Coatings,’’ (EPA–453/R–08–
006, September 2008).
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation
criteria?
This rule is consistent with CAA
requirements and relevant guidance
regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP
revisions. The TSD has more
information on our evaluation.
C. Public Comment and Proposed
Action
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of
the Act, the EPA proposes to fully
approve the submitted rule because it
fulfills all relevant requirements. We
will accept comments from the public
on this proposal until April 18, 2018. If
we take final action to approve the
submitted rule, our final action will
incorporate this rule into the federally
enforceable SIP.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to
include in a final EPA rule regulatory
text that includes incorporation by
reference. In accordance with
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is
proposing to incorporate by reference
the AVAQMD rule described in Table 1
of this preamble. The EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these
materials available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region IX Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this proposed action
merely proposes to approve state law as
meeting federal requirements and does
not impose additional requirements
beyond those imposed by state law. For
that reason, this proposed action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Mar 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act;
and
• Does not provide the EPA with the
discretionary authority to address
disproportionate human health or
environmental effects with practical,
appropriate, and legally permissible
methods under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where the EPA or
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Dated: March 2, 2018.
Alexis Strauss,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
[FR Doc. 2018–05286 Filed 3–16–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0672; FRL–9975–
47—Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; South Dakota;
Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report
State Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
South Dakota’s regional haze progress
report, submitted as a revision to its
State Implementation Plan (SIP) by the
South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural Resources
(DENR). South Dakota’s SIP revision
addresses requirements of the Clean Air
Act (CAA) and the EPA’s rules that
require states to submit periodic reports
describing progress toward reasonable
progress goals established for regional
haze and a determination of the
adequacy of the state’s existing regional
haze SIP. South Dakota’s progress report
explains that South Dakota has
implemented the measures in the
regional haze SIP due to be in place by
the date of the progress report and that
visibility in mandatory federal Class I
areas affected by emissions from South
Dakota sources is improving. The EPA
is proposing approval of South Dakota’s
determination that the State’s regional
haze SIP is adequate to meet Reasonable
Progress Goals (RPGs) for the first
implementation period covering
through 2018 and requires no
substantive revision at this time.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before April 18, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
OAR–2017–0672 at https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments.
Once submitted, comments cannot be
edited or removed from
www.regulations.gov. The EPA may
publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
19MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. The EPA will
generally not consider comments or
comment contents located outside of the
primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate
Gregory, Air Program, Environmental
Protection Agency, 1595 Wynkoop
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129,
(303) 312–6175, or by email at
gregory.kate@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
I. Background
States are required to submit progress
reports that evaluate progress towards
the RPGs for each mandatory federal
Class I area 1 (Class I area) within the
state and in each Class I area outside the
state that may be affected by emissions
from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g).
In addition, the provisions of 40 CFR
51.308(h) require states to submit, at the
same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g)
progress report, a determination of the
adequacy of the state’s existing regional
haze SIP. The first progress report must
take the form of a SIP revision and is
due 5 years after submittal of the initial
regional haze SIP. On January 21, 2011,
South Dakota submitted the State’s first
regional haze SIP in accordance with 40
CFR 51.308.2
On January 27, 2016, South Dakota
submitted as a revision to its SIP a
progress report which detailed the
progress made in the first planning
period toward implementation of the
Long Term Strategy (LTS) outlined in
the 2011 regional haze SIP submittal,
the visibility improvement measured at
Class I areas affected by emissions from
South Dakota sources, and a
determination of the adequacy of the
State’s existing regional haze SIP. The
State provided public notice for
comment on the Progress Report from
1 Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7472(a)). Listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
2 77 FR 24845 (April 26, 2012). EPA fully
approved South Dakota’s regional haze SIP
submittal addressing the requirements of the first
implementation period for regional haze.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Mar 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
December 22, 2015, to January 20, 2015,
and received no comment. The EPA is
proposing to approve South Dakota’s
January 27, 2016 SIP submittal.
II. EPA’s Evaluation of South Dakota’s
Progress Report and Adequacy
Determination
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
This section includes the EPA’s
analysis of South Dakota’s Progress
Report and an explanation of the basis
for the Agency’s proposed approval. The
State’s Progress Report evaluates the
most recent visibility results against the
2018 Uniform Rate of Progress Goals
(URP Goals), instead of the 2018 RPGs
specified in the regional haze
regulations. South Dakota’s Progress
Report explains they used the URP
Goals because ‘‘South Dakota’s Class I
areas have exceeded the reasonable
progress goals that were established’’
and ‘‘[w]ith emissions reductions that
are expected from the addition of BART
controls at Big Stone and other facilities
throughout the region, DENR expects
that the improvements will continue
and South Dakota’s Class I areas will
meet the 2018 uniform rate of progress
goals.’’ 3 Since the regional haze
regulations require an evaluation of
visibility progress against the 2018
RPGs, our evaluation of South Dakota’s
SIP focuses on the RPGs.
1. Control Measures
In its Progress Report, South Dakota
summarizes the emissions reduction
measures that were relied upon by
South Dakota in its regional haze plan
for ensuring reasonable progress at the
two Class I areas within the State:
Badlands and Wind Cave National
Parks. The State’s regional haze SIP
established reasonable progress goals for
2018.4 The emission reduction measures
include applicable federal programs
(e.g., mobile source rules), various
existing South Dakota air quality rules,
and a plan to ‘‘investigate the impacts
of a smoke management plan’’ to
determine what level of fires and what
best management practices should be
included in the plan, with the results
adopted into the SIP as part of the LTS.5
South Dakota also reviewed the status of
3 South Dakota Progress Report, Appendix B, p.
B–2.
4 40 CFR 52.2170(c)(1). 77 FR 24845, 25855 (April
26, 2012) (final RH SIP approving South Dakota’s
Regional Haze SIP, Amendment, Section 7.2, Table
7–1, p. 106). 76 FR 76646, 76664 (December 8,
2011) (proposed RH SIP approval, Tables 20 and
21).
5 South Dakota’s Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan: 5-Year Progress Report, p. 6
(‘‘South Dakota Progress Report’’). South Dakota
SIP. pp. 121–122 (January 18, 2011 submittal).
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11947
Best Available Retrofit Technology
(BART) requirements for the sole BARTsubject source in the state: The Big
Stone I coal-fired power plant, owned
by Montana-Dakota Utilities Company,
NorthWestern Energy, and Otter Tail
Power Company, located near Big Stone
City, South Dakota.
The Progress Report presents the
extensive information collected and
analyzed to investigate the impacts of a
smoke management plan.6 In reviewing
‘‘the annual values for the aerosol
species at the Wind Cave National Park’’
the State ‘‘was concerned about the
extremely high value for particulate
organic mass and elemental carbon in
2010.’’ The report further explained that
‘‘[d]ue to the fact that particulate
organic mass and elemental carbons are
typically associated with fire, the DENR
researched a fire database’’ and found
that ‘‘[i]n 2010, the National Park
Service conducted a 5,500 acre
prescribed fire at the Wind Cave
National Park just a mile from the
monitoring site.’’ The Progress Report
explains that this fire created two of the
20% most impaired days at the park and
the main contributor was particulate
organic mass.’’ 7
In analyzing changes in nitrogen
oxide emissions from 2002 through
2011, the Report explained that ‘‘[t]he
only real increase in nitrogen oxide
emissions was from anthropogenic fires
with an increase of 970 tons per year.’’ 8
Notably, during the same timeframe, the
Report noted that ‘‘sulfur dioxide
emissions in South Dakota decreased by
just less than 8,500 tons per year’’ and
that ‘‘[t]he largest decreases were seen
in anthropogenic off-road mobile and
point sources with a small decrease in
natural fire.’’ 9 The State also looked at
primary organic aerosol emissions that
‘‘are produced by both anthropogenic
and natural sources but are most
commonly associated with fire,’’ and
found that for 2002–2011 timeframe
‘‘[t]he largest decrease was seen in
natural fires at just fewer than 4,000
tons.’’ 10 The Report included
information on elemental carbon
emissions, noted that natural sources of
those emissions include fire. The State
explained that while there was a small
decrease in natural fire over the 2002–
2011 timeframe, the data showed minor
6 South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 9–12, 19–21,
24–27, 29–33, 37, 40–42.
7 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 11. The results
of this fire are discussed in more detail in Sections
3.5 and 3.6 of the Report.
8 South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 17–18.
9 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 17.
10 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 19.
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
19MRP1
11948
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules
increases in anthropogenic fire.11
During the same timeframe fine soil
emissions decreased, which included
decreases in natural fire.12 South Dakota
also included information in the Report
on coarse soil emissions over the 2002–
2011 timeframe, and while there was an
increase of over 57,000 tons during that
timeframe, anthropogenic fire
contributed to only 223 tons of those
emissions.13 Additionally, while the
Report shows ammonia emissions
increased over the 2002–2011 timeframe
by ‘‘just over 9,500 tons,’’ emissions
from natural fire decreased.14 Overall
nitrogen dioxide emissions and natural
biogenic emissions decreased, however,
there were small increases from
anthropogenic fires.15 The Report shows
both volatile organic compound (VOC)
emissions and carbon monoxide (CO)
emissions decreasing over the 2002–
2011 timeframe, despite increases in
anthropogenic fire at 9,551 tons and
38,155 tons respectively.16
In its Progress Report, South Dakota
provides Interagency Monitoring of
Protected Visual Environments
(IMPROVE) data which shows the
impacts of prescribed fires conducted by
the National Park Service (NPS) at Wind
Cave National Park in 2009 and 2010.17
The Report includes two examples of
the IMPROVE data that show that the
NPS prescribed fires on both September
3, 2009, and October 20, 2010,
contributed high levels of both
particulate organic mass and elemental
carbon on both days.18 Additionally, the
Report provides monitoring data which
shows that particulate organic matter is
‘‘the second largest contributor [sic?] to
visibility extinction at the Badlands
National Park during the 20% most
impaired days’’ and that particulate
matter (PM) is typically the product of
fire.19 South Dakota also provides
analysis which shows particulate mass
levels on the 20 percent most impaired
days without the impacts from the NPS
prescribed fires. This analysis shows
that ‘‘if Wind Cave National Park would
not have experienced the prescribed
fires by Federal Land Managers, the
Wind Cave’s National Park’s particulate
organic mass levels would be below the
Uniform Glide Slope similar to the
Badlands National Park Uniform Glide
Slope for particulate organic mass’’.20
Additionally, the State explained that
while it was preparing the Progress
Report, more prescribed fire events
occurred in 2015 that will likely show
impacts to the Class I areas.21 Finally, in
its Progress Report, South Dakota
explains that ‘‘DENR and Federal Land
Managers in South Dakota have
improved coordination and
communications over the past few years
and plan to continue that effort to help
mitigate the impacts of prescribed fires’’
at Wind Cave and Badlands National
Parks.22
In its Progress Report, South Dakota
provides an update on the status of the
BART determination at the Big Stone I
power plant and the subsequent action
taken given the determination. The
BART determination, which was
finalized for Big Stone I on December 7,
2010, was approved by the EPA,23 and
includes a selective catalytic reduction
(SCR) system and separated over-fire-air
(SOFA) installed in the power plant’s
main boiler for nitrogen oxide (NOX)
control, a dry flue gas desulfurization
(FGD) system for sulfur dioxide (SO2)
control, and a fabric filter system for PM
control.24 In the Progress Report, the
State describes the installation and
operation of the required BART controls
by the end of 2015, as required by the
State’s Regional Haze Implementation
Plan.25 The EPA has confirmed
installation and operation of the
pollution controls the State describes in
its Progress Report, and has confirmed
that the emissions limits in the SIP were
met by the required date of June 28,
2017.26
As shown in Table 1, BART controls
at Big Stone I have resulted in a
substantial decrease in both SO2 and
NOX emissions (a 94 and 91 percent
decrease in emissions from 2013 2014
levels, respectively).27 These are larger
reductions in emissions than the State
estimated in the Progress Report and
represent a clear downward trend since
BART controls were installed and
operational in late 2015.28
TABLE 1—BIG STONE I POWER PLANT EMISSIONS PRE AND POST BART CONTROL
[Actual, average tons] 29
NOX
(actual,
average tons)
Calendar year
2000–2004 (Baseline) ..............................................................................................................................................
2013, 2014 (pre BART) ...........................................................................................................................................
% Emissions Reduction (baseline vs. pre BART ) ..................................................................................................
2016, 2017 (post BART) ..........................................................................................................................................
% Emissions Reduction (pre BART vs. post BART) ...............................................................................................
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
EPA proposes to find that South
Dakota has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(1) regarding the
implementation status of control
measures because the State’s Report
11 South
provides documentation of the
implementation of measures within
South Dakota, including BART at the
sole BART-subject source in the State
and the State’s efforts to develop the
smoke management plan.
Dakota Progress Report, pp. 20–21.
Dakota Progress Report, p. 22.
13 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 23.
14 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 24.
15 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 24.
16 South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 25–27.
17 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 29.
18 South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3–28, p.
31 and Table 3–29, p. 33.
19 South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3–10, pp.
35, 37.
12 South
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Mar 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
20 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 40 and
Figures 3–22, 3–23, p. 41.
21 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 33.
22 South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 41–42,
Appendix B, pp. B–2—B–3. At the suggestion of the
National Park Service, the DENR also looked at the
Fire Emissions Tracking System and noted that it
may be a useful tool going forward as the DENR
continues to track prescribed fires and their impacts
on the Class I areas.
23 76 FR 24845 (April 26, 2012).
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
SO2
(actual,
average tons)
13,090.59
10,860.11
17%
973.18
91%
16,270.48
14,592.54
10%
836.33
94%
2. Emissions Reductions
As discussed above, South Dakota
focused its assessment in its regional
haze plan and Progress Report on
emissions reductions from pollution
control strategies that were
24 37
SDR 111 (December 7, 2010).
FR 24845 (April 26, 2012).
26 Big Stone Annual Emissions 2000–2017,
information available in the docket.
27 Big Stone Annual Emissions 2000–2017.
28 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 7.
29 Big Stone Annual Emissions 2000–2017.
25 77
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
19MRP1
11949
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules
implemented at the Big Stone I power
plant by the end of calendar year 2015.
The EPA has confirmed installation and
operation of the pollution controls the
State describes in their Progress Report.
In its Progress Report, South Dakota
provides a comparison of Big Stone I’s
actual SO2 and NOX emission rates to
BART limits for the pollutants 2010–
2014.30 Additionally, South Dakota
provides statewide SO2, NOX and PM
(fine and course) emissions data (among
other pollutants) from Western Regional
Air Partnership (WRAP) emissions
inventories.31 The WRAP data shows
that there were decreases in emissions
of SO2, NOX and PM (fine and course)
over the time period (i.e., 2002, 2008,
2011) of the three emissions inventories
listed (Plan02d, 2008 West Jump and
2011WAQDW).
The EPA proposes to find that South
Dakota has adequately addressed the
5-year period preceding the required
date of the progress report for which
data were available as of a date 6
months preceding the required date of
the progress report.
South Dakota’s Progress Report
provides figures with visibility
monitoring data for the two Class I areas
within the State: Badlands and Wind
Cave National Parks. South Dakota
reported current visibility conditions for
both the 2007–2011 and 2009–2013 5year time periods and used the 2000–
2004 baseline period for its Class I
areas.32 Table 2, below, shows the
visibility conditions for both the 2007–
2011 and 2009–2013 5-year time
periods, the difference between these
current visibility conditions and
baseline visibility conditions, and the
2018 RPGs.
applicable provisions of 40 CFR
51.308(g)(2) regarding emissions
reductions achieved because the State
identifies emissions reductions for
pollutants SO2, NOX and PM (fine and
course) and presents sufficient
information and discussion regarding
emissions trends during this period.
3. Visibility Conditions
In its Progress Report, South Dakota
provides information on visibility
conditions for the Class I areas within
its borders. The Progress Report
addressed current visibility conditions
and the difference between current
visibility conditions and baseline
visibility conditions, expressed in terms
of 5-year averages of these annual
values, with values for the most
impaired, least impaired and/or clearest
days. The period for calculating current
visibility conditions is the most recent
TABLE 2—BASELINE VISIBILITY, CURRENT VISIBILITY, VISIBILITY CHANGES, AND 2018 RPGS IN SOUTH DAKOTA’S CLASS I
AREAS
[Deciviews]
Class I area
Baseline
(2000–2004)
Difference
(baseline vs.
current)
Current
(2007–2011)
More current
(2009–2013)
Difference
(current vs.
more current)
Difference
(baseline vs.
more current)
SD
2018
RPG
20% Worst Days
Badlands National Park
17.1
¥0.8
16.3
15.7
¥0.6
¥1.4
33 16.30
¥0.7
¥1.1
34 6.64
¥0.8
¥1.7
35 15.28
¥0.5
¥1.2
36 5.02
20% Best Days
Badlands National Park
6.9
¥0.4
6.5
5.8
20% Worst Days
Wind Cave
National
Park ..........
15.8
¥0.9
14.9
14.1
20% Best Days
Wind Cave
National
Park ..........
5.1
As shown in Table 2, both Badlands
and Wind Cave National Parks saw an
improvement in visibility between
baseline and the 2007–2011 and 2009–
30 South
Dakota Progress Report, Table 3–1, p. 8.
Dakota Progress Report, Table 3–2, p. 8.
The WRAP’s inventories were developed using
EPA’s National Emissions Inventory (NEI) and other
sources (https://www.wrapair2.org/emissions.aspx).
The NEI is based primarily upon data provided by
state, local, and tribal air agencies (including South
Dakota) for sources in their jurisdiction and
supplemented by data developed by the EPA.
32 For the first regional haze plans, ‘‘baseline’’
conditions were represented by the 2000–2004 time
period. See 64 FR 35730 (July 1, 1999).
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
31 South
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Mar 16, 2018
¥0.7
4.4
Jkt 244001
3.9
2013 time periods.37 South Dakota also
reported 20 percent worst day and 20
percent best day visibility data for both
Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks
from 2005–2009 and 2008–2012 for each
year in terms of 5-year averages.38 This
data shows an improvement in visibility
at both class 1 areas on the 20 percent
33 76 FR 76646, 76664 (December 8, 2011)
(‘‘South Dakota’s reasonable progress goals for
Badlands for 2018 for the 20% worst days represent
a 0.84 deciviews improvement over baseline. . . ’’
Table 20. 77 FR 24845, 25855 (April 26, 2012) SD
SIP pp. 105–106, (September 19, 2011) (‘‘DENR
relied on the [WRAP’s] results of the CMAQ
modeling in determining the reasonable progress
achieved by South Dakota surrounding states, and
federal regulations in South Dakota’s Class I areas.’’)
South Dakota’s SIP is included in the docket for this
action).
34 76 FR 76646, 76664 (December 8, 2011) (Table
21). 77 FR 24845, 24855 (April 26, 2012).
35 76 FR 76646, 76664 (December 8, 2011) (South
Dakota’s ‘‘. . . reasonable progress goals for Wind
Cave for 2018 represent a 0.56 deciviews
improvement over baseline.’’ Table 20. 77 FR
24845, 24855 (April 26, 2012).
36 76 FR 76646, 76664 (December 8, 2011) (Table
21). 77 FR 24845, 24855 (April 26, 2012).
37 South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3–17 and
Table 3–18, p. 16.
38 South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3–17 and
Table 3–18, p. 16.
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
19MRP1
11950
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules
best days from 2005–2009 and on the 20
percent worst days from 2008–2012.
The EPA proposes to find that South
Dakota has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(g)(3) regarding assessment of
visibility conditions because the State
provided baseline visibility conditions
(2000–2004), current conditions based
on the most recently available visibility
monitoring data available at the time of
Progress Report development, the
difference between these current sets of
visibility conditions and baseline
visibility conditions, and the change in
visibility impairment from 2009–2013.
4. Emissions Tracking
In its Progress Report, South Dakota
presents data from a statewide
emissions inventory for 2011
(2011WAQDW) and compares this data
to the baseline emissions inventory for
2002 (Plan02d).39 The pollutants
inventoried include SO2, NOX, Primary
Organic Aerosols (POA), elemental
carbon (EC), PM2.5 (fine), PM10 (coarse),
NH3, VOCs and carbon monoxide (CO).
The emissions inventories include the
following source classifications: Point;
area; on-road mobile; off-road mobile;
area oil and gas; fugitive and road dust;
anthropogenic fire; natural fire; biogenic
and wind-blown dust from both
anthropogenic and natural sources.
Table 3 presents the 2002 and 2011
statewide emission inventories, and
includes emissions from Big Stone I.
Overall, as the table shows, South
Dakota’s emissions that affect visibility
were reduced in all sectors for all
pollutants, except for POA and NH3.
Compared to the 2002 emission
inventory South Dakota used to model
haze (Plan02d), emissions in 2011
(2011WAQDW) were reduced by 38
percent for SO2, 48 percent for NOX, 4
percent for PM2.5 and 9 percent for
PM10, respectively. There were slight
increases in both POA and NH3 as can
be seen in Table 3.40 41 Furthermore, the
State provides actual SO2 and NOX
emissions from Big Stone I, which
demonstrates that emissions of both
pollutants are trending lower per Table
1 above.42
TABLE 3—CHANGES IN SOUTH DAKOTA TOTAL EMISSIONS, STATEWIDE
[Tons per year]
2002
(Plan02d)
and
RH SIP 43
Pollutant
(all sources)
SO2 .............................................................................................................................................
NOX .............................................................................................................................................
PM2.5 ...........................................................................................................................................
PM10 ............................................................................................................................................
POA ............................................................................................................................................
NH3 .............................................................................................................................................
2011
(2011WAQDW)
22,076
146,764
82,414
615,345
9,168
120,406
13,618
75,560
79,058
557,508
9,563
129,972
Difference
–8,458
–71,204
–3,356
–57,837
395
9,566
South Dakota also provided an
assessment of any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or
outside the State that have occurred,
which included data collected during
the years when there were prescribed
fires that may have impeded progress
towards reducing emissions or
improving visibility.44 South Dakota
documented that ammonium sulfate
continues to be the biggest single
contributor to regional haze for the
Badlands National Park Class I area in
the State.45
South Dakota also determined that
particulate matter contributes the most
to visibility impairment at Wind Cave
National Park.46 Additionally, the State
presented data that shows that the
prescribed fires at Wind Cave National
Park conducted by the National Park
Service, contributed to high levels of
PM at the Class I area and,
subsequently, the 20 percent most
impaired days at the park in 2009 and
2010, respectively.47 Even with the
impacts from prescribed fires, the
State’s most current visibility
assessments shows they are on track to
meet the 2018 RPGs.
Assessment of South Dakota’s
contribution to haze in Class I areas
outside of the State has shown that
South Dakota emissions have, or may
reasonably be expected to have, impacts
on Class I areas in Minnesota, Montana,
Wyoming and North Dakota.48 In its
Progress Report, the State references the
initial Regional Haze SIP and BART
analysis for Big Stone I, which indicates
Big Stone power plant is the only
facility that impacts Class I areas
outside of South Dakota.49 The BART
controls installed and operational in late
2015 at Big Stone decreased NOX and
SO2 emissions by 91 and 94 percent,
respectively, which is a significant
downward trend in these pollutants
post BART.50 Based on these findings,
the EPA proposes to approve the State’s
conclusion that there have been no
significant changes in emissions of
39 WRAP Plan02d represents the State’s baseline
year (2002) emissions inventory. This emissions
inventory was developed for use in the State’s
original Regional Haze SIP. See 77 FR 24845 (April
26, 2012). The 2011WAQDW emissions inventory is
considered the most current inventory for the
purposes of this element and was derived from the
WRAP’s 2011Western Air Quality Data Warehouse
project for South Dakota.
40 South Dakota Progress Report, Tables 3–19, 3–
20, 3–21, 3–23, 3–24, 3–25, pp. 17–24.
41 Many important changes in emissions
inventory methodology occurred between 2007 or
2008 and the most current emissions inventory data
presented by the State (2011WAQDW). One
methodology change was the reclassification of
some off-road mobile sources in the area source
category, which may have resulted in the increase
in NH3 and POA in the above comparison rather
than an increase in actual emissions of these
pollutants.
42 South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3–1.
43 76 FR 76666, 76667, 76668 (December 8, 2011).
44 South Dakota Progress Report, Figures 3–14, 3–
15, p. 32, Table 3–29, p. 33.
45 South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 9–11.
46 South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3–10 and
p. 29.
47 South Dakota Progress Report, Tables 3–28 and
3–29, pp. 31, 33.
48 76 FR 76651 (December 8, 2011).
49 South Dakota Progress Report, Appendix B,
p. B–1.
50 Big Stone Annual Emissions 2000–2017.
The EPA is proposing to find that
South Dakota adequately addressed the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4)
regarding emissions tracking because
the State compared the most recent
updated emission inventory data
available at the time of Progress Report
development with the baseline
emissions inventory used in the
modeling for the regional haze plan.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
5. Assessment of Changes Impeding
Visibility Progress
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Mar 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
19MRP1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
visibility-impairing pollutants that have
limited or impeded progress in reducing
emissions and improving visibility in
Class I areas impacted by the State’s
sources.
The EPA proposes to find that South
Dakota has adequately addressed the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5)
regarding an assessment of significant
changes in anthropogenic emissions.
The EPA proposes to agree with South
Dakota’s conclusion that there have
been no significant changes in
emissions of visibility-impairing
pollutants which have limited or
impeded progress in reducing emissions
and improving visibility in Class I areas
impacted by the State’s sources.
6. Assessment of Current
Implementation Plan Elements and
Strategies
In its Progress Report, South Dakota
acknowledges the requirements of 40
CFR 51.308(g)(5) to discuss whether the
current implementation plan elements
and strategies are sufficient to enable
the State, or other states with Class I
areas affected by emissions from the
State, to meet all established reasonable
progress goals.51 As seen in Table 2,
South Dakota’s visibility assessment
using the most current information
available (2009–2013) shows that it is
meeting the 2018 RPGs at both national
parks, Badlands National Park 15.70 dv
(current) versus 16.30 dv (2018 RPG)
and Wind Cave National Park 14.10 dv
(current) versus 15.28 dv (2018 RPG).
The State also includes information
regarding the 2018 URP Goals, but since
those goals are not part of the 5-year
assessment regulations, we do not
include that information. The State
concludes that no substantive revisions
to the existing regional haze plan are
necessary as the State is exceeding the
2018 RPGs for Badlands and Wind Cave
National Parks.
For Badlands National Park, the State
anticipates that the 2018 visibility data
will be lower than what was reported
for the most recent data available
because BART was fully implemented at
Big Stone I by 2015. The reductions
from Big Stone are significant and
occurred after the most recent data
included in the State’s SIP. Second, the
State explains that BART controls will
be completed elsewhere throughout the
region after 2013 and by 2018.52
Based on these findings, the EPA
proposes to approve the State’s
conclusion that visibility at Badlands
National Park is anticipated to meet or
exceed the RPG for 2018.
51 South
Dakota Progress Report, p. 34.
52 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 45.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Mar 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
For Wind Cave National Park, the
State’s visibility assessment in Table 2
shows that the State is currently
meeting the 2018 RPG. Additionally, the
emissions reductions from Big Stone I
are significant and occurred after the
most recent visibility data available. The
State expects additional improvements
in visibility from these reductions. The
State’s report concludes, that the current
implementation plan is meeting the
‘‘reasonable progress goals.’’ 53 Although
the State’s visibility assessment
demonstrates that it is meeting the 2018
RPGs, the State explains that emission
reductions from Big Stone I are
significant and occurred after the most
recent visibility data was available.
The State’s SIP explains that
particulate organic mass level is the
number one contributor to visibility
degradation at Wind Cave National
Park,54 and the level varies depending
on the year and the number of the
wildfires.55 The SIP explains that the
despite the spikes in particulate organic
mass at Wind Cave, decreases in
ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate
and other aerosol species have led to
decreased deciview levels at the Wind
Cave National Park. The DENR
anticipates this trend will continue and
improve as the DENR continues to work
with the National Park Service on
prescribed fires in the Badlands and
Wind Cave National Parks.56
The EPA proposes to find that South
Dakota has adequately addressed the
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)
regarding the strategy assessment,
including the State’s efforts to
investigate the impacts of a smoke
management plan, and agrees with the
State’s determination that its regional
haze plan is sufficient to meet the RPGs
for its Class I areas.
7. Review of Current Monitoring
Strategy
For progress reports for the first
implementation period, the provisions
under 40 CFR 51.308(g) (7) require ‘‘a
review of the State’s visibility
monitoring strategy and any
modifications to the strategy as
necessary.’’ In its Progress Report, South
Dakota summarizes the existing
monitoring network in the State to
monitor visibility at Badlands and Wind
Cave National Parks, which consists of
DENR relying on the national IMPROVE
network to meet monitoring and data
collection goals.57 There are currently
53 South
Dakota Progress Report, p. 45.
Dakota Progress Report, p. 40.
55 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 38.
56 South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 41–42.
57 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 42.
IMPROVE sites located in both
Badlands and Wind Cave National
Parks.58 Therefore, the State concludes
that no modifications to the existing
visibility monitoring strategy are
necessary. The State will continue its
reliance on the IMPROVE monitoring
network. The IMPROVE monitoring
network is the primary monitoring
network for regional haze, both
nationwide and in South Dakota.
The State also explains the
importance of the IMPROVE monitoring
network for tracking visibility trends at
the Class I areas in South Dakota. South
Dakota states that in the future the data
produced by the IMPROVE monitoring
network will be used for preparing the
regional haze progress reports and SIP
revisions, and thus, the monitoring data
from the IMPROVE sites needs to be
readily accessible and be kept up-todate. The Visibility Information
Exchange Web System website has been
maintained by WRAP and the other
Regional Planning Organizations to
provide ready access to the IMPROVE
data and data analysis tools.
In addition, the State operates
additional non-IMPROVE monitors in
both Badlands and Wind Cave National
Parks which help South Dakota
characterize air pollution levels in areas
across the State, and therefore aid in the
analysis of visibility improvement in
and near its Class I areas.59
The EPA proposes to find that South
Dakota has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions of 40 CFR
51.308(g)(7) regarding monitoring
strategy because the State reviewed its
visibility monitoring strategy, and
determined that no further
modifications to the strategy are
necessary.
B. Determination of Adequacy of the
Existing Regional Haze Plan
The provisions under 40 CFR
51.308(h) require states to determine the
adequacy of their existing
implementation plan to meet existing
goals. South Dakota’s Progress Report
includes a negative declaration
regarding the need for additional actions
or emissions reductions in South Dakota
beyond those already in place and those
to be implemented by 2018 according to
South Dakota’s regional haze plan.60
The EPA proposes to conclude that
South Dakota has adequately addressed
40 CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility
trends at both Class I areas in the State,
Badlands and Wind Cave National
Parks, indicate that the relevant RPGs
54 South
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11951
58 South
Dakota Progress Report, p. 2.
Dakota Progress Report, p. 42.
60 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 45.
59 South
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
19MRP1
11952
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules
will be met via emission reductions
already in place.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
III. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve
South Dakota’s January 27, 2016,
Regional Haze Progress Report as
meeting the applicable regional haze
requirements set forth in 40 CFR
51.308(g) and 51.308(h).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
Act and applicable federal regulations.
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed
action merely proposes to approve state
law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional
requirements beyond those imposed by
state law. For that reason, this proposed
action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not expected to be an Executive
Order 13771 regulatory action because
this action is not significant under
Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
this action does not involve technical
standards; and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:06 Mar 16, 2018
Jkt 244001
• Does not provide the 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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where the EPA or an Indian
tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), nor will it impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile
organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 13, 2018.
Douglas H. Benevento,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2018–05398 Filed 3–16–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[Docket No. 180205126–8126–01]
RIN 0648–BH66
Control Date for the Northeast
Multispecies Charter/Party Fishery;
Northeast Multispecies Fishery
Management Plan
National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),
Commerce.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
rulemaking (ANPR); request for
comments.
AGENCY:
This notice announces a new
control date that may be used to
determine future participation in the
Northeast multispecies charter/party
fishery. This notice is necessary to
inform interested parties that the New
England Fishery Management Council is
considering a future action that may
affect or limit the number of
participants in this fishery and that
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
participants should locate and preserve
all fishing related documents. The
control date is intended to discourage
speculative entry or fishing activity in
the Northeast multispecies charter/party
fishery while the Council considers how
participation in the fishery may be
affected.
DATES: March 19, 2018, shall be known
as the ‘‘control date’’ for the Northeast
multispecies charter/party fishery.
Written comments must be received on
or before April 18, 2018.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
on this document, identified by NOAA–
NMFS–2018–0042 by any of the
following methods:
D Electronic Submission: Submit all
electronic public comments via the
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=[NOAA-NMFS-20180042], click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
complete the required fields, and enter
or attach your comments.
D Mail: Submit written comments to
Michael Pentony, Regional
Administrator, National Marine
Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the
outside of the envelope, ‘‘Comments on
Northeast Multispecies Charter/Party
Control Date.’’
D Fax: (978) 281–9135; Attn: Spencer
Talmage.
Instructions: Comments sent by any
other method, to any other address or
individual, or received after the end of
the comment period, may 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, address, etc.),
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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Spencer Talmage, Fishery Management
Specialist, 978–281–9232.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
notification establishes March 19, 2018,
as the new control date for potential use
in determining historical or traditional
participation in the charter/party
groundfish fishery. Interested
participants should locate and preserve
all records that substantiate and verify
their participation in the charter/party
groundfish fishery. Consideration of a
E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM
19MRP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2018)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11946-11952]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-05398]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0672; FRL-9975-47--Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Dakota;
Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to
approve South Dakota's regional haze progress report, submitted as a
revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) by the South Dakota
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). South Dakota's
SIP revision addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the
EPA's rules that require states to submit periodic reports describing
progress toward reasonable progress goals established for regional haze
and a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional
haze SIP. South Dakota's progress report explains that South Dakota has
implemented the measures in the regional haze SIP due to be in place by
the date of the progress report and that visibility in mandatory
federal Class I areas affected by emissions from South Dakota sources
is improving. The EPA is proposing approval of South Dakota's
determination that the State's regional haze SIP is adequate to meet
Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) for the first implementation period
covering through 2018 and requires no substantive revision at this
time.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 18, 2018.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08-
OAR-2017-0672 at https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot
be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any
comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any
information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI)
or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
[[Page 11947]]
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a
written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment
and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA
will generally not consider comments or comment contents located
outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other
file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA
public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions,
and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Gregory, Air Program,
Environmental Protection Agency, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202-1129, (303) 312-6175, or by email at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
States are required to submit progress reports that evaluate
progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory federal Class I area \1\
(Class I area) within the state and in each Class I area outside the
state that may be affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR
51.308(g). In addition, the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require
states to submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress
report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing
regional haze SIP. The first progress report must take the form of a
SIP revision and is due 5 years after submittal of the initial regional
haze SIP. On January 21, 2011, South Dakota submitted the State's first
regional haze SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas consist
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)).
Listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
\2\ 77 FR 24845 (April 26, 2012). EPA fully approved South
Dakota's regional haze SIP submittal addressing the requirements of
the first implementation period for regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On January 27, 2016, South Dakota submitted as a revision to its
SIP a progress report which detailed the progress made in the first
planning period toward implementation of the Long Term Strategy (LTS)
outlined in the 2011 regional haze SIP submittal, the visibility
improvement measured at Class I areas affected by emissions from South
Dakota sources, and a determination of the adequacy of the State's
existing regional haze SIP. The State provided public notice for
comment on the Progress Report from December 22, 2015, to January 20,
2015, and received no comment. The EPA is proposing to approve South
Dakota's January 27, 2016 SIP submittal.
II. EPA's Evaluation of South Dakota's Progress Report and Adequacy
Determination
A. Regional Haze Progress Report
This section includes the EPA's analysis of South Dakota's Progress
Report and an explanation of the basis for the Agency's proposed
approval. The State's Progress Report evaluates the most recent
visibility results against the 2018 Uniform Rate of Progress Goals (URP
Goals), instead of the 2018 RPGs specified in the regional haze
regulations. South Dakota's Progress Report explains they used the URP
Goals because ``South Dakota's Class I areas have exceeded the
reasonable progress goals that were established'' and ``[w]ith
emissions reductions that are expected from the addition of BART
controls at Big Stone and other facilities throughout the region, DENR
expects that the improvements will continue and South Dakota's Class I
areas will meet the 2018 uniform rate of progress goals.'' \3\ Since
the regional haze regulations require an evaluation of visibility
progress against the 2018 RPGs, our evaluation of South Dakota's SIP
focuses on the RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ South Dakota Progress Report, Appendix B, p. B-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Control Measures
In its Progress Report, South Dakota summarizes the emissions
reduction measures that were relied upon by South Dakota in its
regional haze plan for ensuring reasonable progress at the two Class I
areas within the State: Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks. The
State's regional haze SIP established reasonable progress goals for
2018.\4\ The emission reduction measures include applicable federal
programs (e.g., mobile source rules), various existing South Dakota air
quality rules, and a plan to ``investigate the impacts of a smoke
management plan'' to determine what level of fires and what best
management practices should be included in the plan, with the results
adopted into the SIP as part of the LTS.\5\ South Dakota also reviewed
the status of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements
for the sole BART-subject source in the state: The Big Stone I coal-
fired power plant, owned by Montana-Dakota Utilities Company,
NorthWestern Energy, and Otter Tail Power Company, located near Big
Stone City, South Dakota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 40 CFR 52.2170(c)(1). 77 FR 24845, 25855 (April 26, 2012)
(final RH SIP approving South Dakota's Regional Haze SIP, Amendment,
Section 7.2, Table 7-1, p. 106). 76 FR 76646, 76664 (December 8,
2011) (proposed RH SIP approval, Tables 20 and 21).
\5\ South Dakota's Regional Haze State Implementation Plan: 5-
Year Progress Report, p. 6 (``South Dakota Progress Report''). South
Dakota SIP. pp. 121-122 (January 18, 2011 submittal).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Progress Report presents the extensive information collected
and analyzed to investigate the impacts of a smoke management plan.\6\
In reviewing ``the annual values for the aerosol species at the Wind
Cave National Park'' the State ``was concerned about the extremely high
value for particulate organic mass and elemental carbon in 2010.'' The
report further explained that ``[d]ue to the fact that particulate
organic mass and elemental carbons are typically associated with fire,
the DENR researched a fire database'' and found that ``[i]n 2010, the
National Park Service conducted a 5,500 acre prescribed fire at the
Wind Cave National Park just a mile from the monitoring site.'' The
Progress Report explains that this fire created two of the 20% most
impaired days at the park and the main contributor was particulate
organic mass.'' \7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 9-12, 19-21, 24-27, 29-33,
37, 40-42.
\7\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 11. The results of this
fire are discussed in more detail in Sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the
Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In analyzing changes in nitrogen oxide emissions from 2002 through
2011, the Report explained that ``[t]he only real increase in nitrogen
oxide emissions was from anthropogenic fires with an increase of 970
tons per year.'' \8\ Notably, during the same timeframe, the Report
noted that ``sulfur dioxide emissions in South Dakota decreased by just
less than 8,500 tons per year'' and that ``[t]he largest decreases were
seen in anthropogenic off-road mobile and point sources with a small
decrease in natural fire.'' \9\ The State also looked at primary
organic aerosol emissions that ``are produced by both anthropogenic and
natural sources but are most commonly associated with fire,'' and found
that for 2002-2011 timeframe ``[t]he largest decrease was seen in
natural fires at just fewer than 4,000 tons.'' \10\ The Report included
information on elemental carbon emissions, noted that natural sources
of those emissions include fire. The State explained that while there
was a small decrease in natural fire over the 2002-2011 timeframe, the
data showed minor
[[Page 11948]]
increases in anthropogenic fire.\11\ During the same timeframe fine
soil emissions decreased, which included decreases in natural fire.\12\
South Dakota also included information in the Report on coarse soil
emissions over the 2002-2011 timeframe, and while there was an increase
of over 57,000 tons during that timeframe, anthropogenic fire
contributed to only 223 tons of those emissions.\13\ Additionally,
while the Report shows ammonia emissions increased over the 2002-2011
timeframe by ``just over 9,500 tons,'' emissions from natural fire
decreased.\14\ Overall nitrogen dioxide emissions and natural biogenic
emissions decreased, however, there were small increases from
anthropogenic fires.\15\ The Report shows both volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions decreasing
over the 2002-2011 timeframe, despite increases in anthropogenic fire
at 9,551 tons and 38,155 tons respectively.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 17-18.
\9\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 17.
\10\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 19.
\11\ South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 20-21.
\12\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 22.
\13\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 23.
\14\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 24.
\15\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 24.
\16\ South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 25-27.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Progress Report, South Dakota provides Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) data which shows
the impacts of prescribed fires conducted by the National Park Service
(NPS) at Wind Cave National Park in 2009 and 2010.\17\ The Report
includes two examples of the IMPROVE data that show that the NPS
prescribed fires on both September 3, 2009, and October 20, 2010,
contributed high levels of both particulate organic mass and elemental
carbon on both days.\18\ Additionally, the Report provides monitoring
data which shows that particulate organic matter is ``the second
largest contributor [sic?] to visibility extinction at the Badlands
National Park during the 20% most impaired days'' and that particulate
matter (PM) is typically the product of fire.\19\ South Dakota also
provides analysis which shows particulate mass levels on the 20 percent
most impaired days without the impacts from the NPS prescribed fires.
This analysis shows that ``if Wind Cave National Park would not have
experienced the prescribed fires by Federal Land Managers, the Wind
Cave's National Park's particulate organic mass levels would be below
the Uniform Glide Slope similar to the Badlands National Park Uniform
Glide Slope for particulate organic mass''.\20\ Additionally, the State
explained that while it was preparing the Progress Report, more
prescribed fire events occurred in 2015 that will likely show impacts
to the Class I areas.\21\ Finally, in its Progress Report, South Dakota
explains that ``DENR and Federal Land Managers in South Dakota have
improved coordination and communications over the past few years and
plan to continue that effort to help mitigate the impacts of prescribed
fires'' at Wind Cave and Badlands National Parks.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 29.
\18\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-28, p. 31 and Table
3-29, p. 33.
\19\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-10, pp. 35, 37.
\20\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 40 and Figures 3-22, 3-23,
p. 41.
\21\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 33.
\22\ South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 41-42, Appendix B, pp. B-
2--B-3. At the suggestion of the National Park Service, the DENR
also looked at the Fire Emissions Tracking System and noted that it
may be a useful tool going forward as the DENR continues to track
prescribed fires and their impacts on the Class I areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In its Progress Report, South Dakota provides an update on the
status of the BART determination at the Big Stone I power plant and the
subsequent action taken given the determination. The BART
determination, which was finalized for Big Stone I on December 7, 2010,
was approved by the EPA,\23\ and includes a selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) system and separated over-fire-air (SOFA) installed in
the power plant's main boiler for nitrogen oxide (NOX)
control, a dry flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system for sulfur dioxide
(SO2) control, and a fabric filter system for PM
control.\24\ In the Progress Report, the State describes the
installation and operation of the required BART controls by the end of
2015, as required by the State's Regional Haze Implementation Plan.\25\
The EPA has confirmed installation and operation of the pollution
controls the State describes in its Progress Report, and has confirmed
that the emissions limits in the SIP were met by the required date of
June 28, 2017.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ 76 FR 24845 (April 26, 2012).
\24\ 37 SDR 111 (December 7, 2010).
\25\ 77 FR 24845 (April 26, 2012).
\26\ Big Stone Annual Emissions 2000-2017, information available
in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 1, BART controls at Big Stone I have resulted in
a substantial decrease in both SO2 and NOX
emissions (a 94 and 91 percent decrease in emissions from 2013 2014
levels, respectively).\27\ These are larger reductions in emissions
than the State estimated in the Progress Report and represent a clear
downward trend since BART controls were installed and operational in
late 2015.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ Big Stone Annual Emissions 2000-2017.
\28\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 7.
\29\ Big Stone Annual Emissions 2000-2017.
Table 1--Big Stone I Power Plant Emissions Pre and Post BART Control
[Actual, average tons] \29\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX (actual, SO2 (actual,
Calendar year average tons) average tons)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2000-2004 (Baseline).................... 13,090.59 16,270.48
2013, 2014 (pre BART)................... 10,860.11 14,592.54
% Emissions Reduction (baseline vs. pre 17% 10%
BART ).................................
2016, 2017 (post BART).................. 973.18 836.33
% Emissions Reduction (pre BART vs. post 91% 94%
BART)..................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA proposes to find that South Dakota has adequately addressed the
applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) regarding the
implementation status of control measures because the State's Report
provides documentation of the implementation of measures within South
Dakota, including BART at the sole BART-subject source in the State and
the State's efforts to develop the smoke management plan.
2. Emissions Reductions
As discussed above, South Dakota focused its assessment in its
regional haze plan and Progress Report on emissions reductions from
pollution control strategies that were
[[Page 11949]]
implemented at the Big Stone I power plant by the end of calendar year
2015. The EPA has confirmed installation and operation of the pollution
controls the State describes in their Progress Report. In its Progress
Report, South Dakota provides a comparison of Big Stone I's actual
SO2 and NOX emission rates to BART limits for the
pollutants 2010-2014.\30\ Additionally, South Dakota provides statewide
SO2, NOX and PM (fine and course) emissions data
(among other pollutants) from Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP)
emissions inventories.\31\ The WRAP data shows that there were
decreases in emissions of SO2, NOX and PM (fine
and course) over the time period (i.e., 2002, 2008, 2011) of the three
emissions inventories listed (Plan02d, 2008 West Jump and 2011WAQDW).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-1, p. 8.
\31\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-2, p. 8. The WRAP's
inventories were developed using EPA's National Emissions Inventory
(NEI) and other sources (https://www.wrapair2.org/emissions.aspx).
The NEI is based primarily upon data provided by state, local, and
tribal air agencies (including South Dakota) for sources in their
jurisdiction and supplemented by data developed by the EPA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that South Dakota has adequately addressed
the applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) regarding emissions
reductions achieved because the State identifies emissions reductions
for pollutants SO2, NOX and PM (fine and course)
and presents sufficient information and discussion regarding emissions
trends during this period.
3. Visibility Conditions
In its Progress Report, South Dakota provides information on
visibility conditions for the Class I areas within its borders. The
Progress Report addressed current visibility conditions and the
difference between current visibility conditions and baseline
visibility conditions, expressed in terms of 5-year averages of these
annual values, with values for the most impaired, least impaired and/or
clearest days. The period for calculating current visibility conditions
is the most recent 5-year period preceding the required date of the
progress report for which data were available as of a date 6 months
preceding the required date of the progress report.
South Dakota's Progress Report provides figures with visibility
monitoring data for the two Class I areas within the State: Badlands
and Wind Cave National Parks. South Dakota reported current visibility
conditions for both the 2007-2011 and 2009-2013 5-year time periods and
used the 2000-2004 baseline period for its Class I areas.\32\ Table 2,
below, shows the visibility conditions for both the 2007-2011 and 2009-
2013 5-year time periods, the difference between these current
visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions, and the 2018
RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ For the first regional haze plans, ``baseline'' conditions
were represented by the 2000-2004 time period. See 64 FR 35730 (July
1, 1999).
Table 2--Baseline Visibility, Current Visibility, Visibility Changes, and 2018 RPGs in South Dakota's Class I Areas
[Deciviews]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference Difference Difference
Class I area Baseline (2000- Current (2007- (baseline vs. More current (current vs. (baseline vs. SD 2018 RPG
2004) 2011) current) (2009-2013) more current) more current)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Badlands National Park......... 17.1 16.3 -0.8 15.7 -0.6 -1.4 \33\ 16.30
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Best Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Badlands National Park......... 6.9 6.5 -0.4 5.8 -0.7 -1.1 \34\ 6.64
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wind Cave National Park........ 15.8 14.9 -0.9 14.1 -0.8 -1.7 \35\ 15.28
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Best Days
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wind Cave National Park........ 5.1 4.4 -0.7 3.9 -0.5 -1.2 \36\ 5.02
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 2, both Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks saw
an improvement in visibility between baseline and the 2007-2011 and
2009-2013 time periods.\37\ South Dakota also reported 20 percent worst
day and 20 percent best day visibility data for both Badlands and Wind
Cave National Parks from 2005-2009 and 2008-2012 for each year in terms
of 5-year averages.\38\ This data shows an improvement in visibility at
both class 1 areas on the 20 percent
[[Page 11950]]
best days from 2005-2009 and on the 20 percent worst days from 2008-
2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ 76 FR 76646, 76664 (December 8, 2011) (``South Dakota's
reasonable progress goals for Badlands for 2018 for the 20% worst
days represent a 0.84 deciviews improvement over baseline. . . ''
Table 20. 77 FR 24845, 25855 (April 26, 2012) SD SIP pp. 105-106,
(September 19, 2011) (``DENR relied on the [WRAP's] results of the
CMAQ modeling in determining the reasonable progress achieved by
South Dakota surrounding states, and federal regulations in South
Dakota's Class I areas.'') South Dakota's SIP is included in the
docket for this action).
\34\ 76 FR 76646, 76664 (December 8, 2011) (Table 21). 77 FR
24845, 24855 (April 26, 2012).
\35\ 76 FR 76646, 76664 (December 8, 2011) (South Dakota's ``. .
. reasonable progress goals for Wind Cave for 2018 represent a 0.56
deciviews improvement over baseline.'' Table 20. 77 FR 24845, 24855
(April 26, 2012).
\36\ 76 FR 76646, 76664 (December 8, 2011) (Table 21). 77 FR
24845, 24855 (April 26, 2012).
\37\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-17 and Table 3-18, p.
16.
\38\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-17 and Table 3-18, p.
16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that South Dakota has adequately addressed
the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) regarding
assessment of visibility conditions because the State provided baseline
visibility conditions (2000-2004), current conditions based on the most
recently available visibility monitoring data available at the time of
Progress Report development, the difference between these current sets
of visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions, and the
change in visibility impairment from 2009-2013.
4. Emissions Tracking
In its Progress Report, South Dakota presents data from a statewide
emissions inventory for 2011 (2011WAQDW) and compares this data to the
baseline emissions inventory for 2002 (Plan02d).\39\ The pollutants
inventoried include SO2, NOX, Primary Organic
Aerosols (POA), elemental carbon (EC), PM2.5 (fine),
PM10 (coarse), NH3, VOCs and carbon monoxide
(CO). The emissions inventories include the following source
classifications: Point; area; on-road mobile; off-road mobile; area oil
and gas; fugitive and road dust; anthropogenic fire; natural fire;
biogenic and wind-blown dust from both anthropogenic and natural
sources. Table 3 presents the 2002 and 2011 statewide emission
inventories, and includes emissions from Big Stone I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\39\ WRAP Plan02d represents the State's baseline year (2002)
emissions inventory. This emissions inventory was developed for use
in the State's original Regional Haze SIP. See 77 FR 24845 (April
26, 2012). The 2011WAQDW emissions inventory is considered the most
current inventory for the purposes of this element and was derived
from the WRAP's 2011Western Air Quality Data Warehouse project for
South Dakota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Overall, as the table shows, South Dakota's emissions that affect
visibility were reduced in all sectors for all pollutants, except for
POA and NH3. Compared to the 2002 emission inventory South
Dakota used to model haze (Plan02d), emissions in 2011 (2011WAQDW) were
reduced by 38 percent for SO2, 48 percent for
NOX, 4 percent for PM2.5 and 9 percent for
PM10, respectively. There were slight increases in both POA
and NH3 as can be seen in Table 3.40 41
Furthermore, the State provides actual SO2 and
NOX emissions from Big Stone I, which demonstrates that
emissions of both pollutants are trending lower per Table 1 above.\42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\40\ South Dakota Progress Report, Tables 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3-
23, 3-24, 3-25, pp. 17-24.
\41\ Many important changes in emissions inventory methodology
occurred between 2007 or 2008 and the most current emissions
inventory data presented by the State (2011WAQDW). One methodology
change was the reclassification of some off-road mobile sources in
the area source category, which may have resulted in the increase in
NH3 and POA in the above comparison rather than an
increase in actual emissions of these pollutants.
\42\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-1.
Table 3--Changes in South Dakota Total Emissions, Statewide
[Tons per year]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 (Plan02d)
Pollutant (all sources) and RH SIP 2011 Difference
\43\ (2011WAQDW)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SO2............................................................. 22,076 13,618 -8,458
NOX............................................................. 146,764 75,560 -71,204
PM2.5........................................................... 82,414 79,058 -3,356
PM10............................................................ 615,345 557,508 -57,837
POA............................................................. 9,168 9,563 395
NH3............................................................. 120,406 129,972 9,566
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA is proposing to find that South Dakota adequately addressed
the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) regarding emissions tracking
because the State compared the most recent updated emission inventory
data available at the time of Progress Report development with the
baseline emissions inventory used in the modeling for the regional haze
plan.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ 76 FR 76666, 76667, 76668 (December 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress
South Dakota also provided an assessment of any significant changes
in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State that have
occurred, which included data collected during the years when there
were prescribed fires that may have impeded progress towards reducing
emissions or improving visibility.\44\ South Dakota documented that
ammonium sulfate continues to be the biggest single contributor to
regional haze for the Badlands National Park Class I area in the
State.\45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ South Dakota Progress Report, Figures 3-14, 3-15, p. 32,
Table 3-29, p. 33.
\45\ South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 9-11.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Dakota also determined that particulate matter contributes
the most to visibility impairment at Wind Cave National Park.\46\
Additionally, the State presented data that shows that the prescribed
fires at Wind Cave National Park conducted by the National Park
Service, contributed to high levels of PM at the Class I area and,
subsequently, the 20 percent most impaired days at the park in 2009 and
2010, respectively.\47\ Even with the impacts from prescribed fires,
the State's most current visibility assessments shows they are on track
to meet the 2018 RPGs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-10 and p. 29.
\47\ South Dakota Progress Report, Tables 3-28 and 3-29, pp. 31,
33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assessment of South Dakota's contribution to haze in Class I areas
outside of the State has shown that South Dakota emissions have, or may
reasonably be expected to have, impacts on Class I areas in Minnesota,
Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota.\48\ In its Progress Report, the
State references the initial Regional Haze SIP and BART analysis for
Big Stone I, which indicates Big Stone power plant is the only facility
that impacts Class I areas outside of South Dakota.\49\ The BART
controls installed and operational in late 2015 at Big Stone decreased
NOX and SO2 emissions by 91 and 94 percent,
respectively, which is a significant downward trend in these pollutants
post BART.\50\ Based on these findings, the EPA proposes to approve the
State's conclusion that there have been no significant changes in
emissions of
[[Page 11951]]
visibility-impairing pollutants that have limited or impeded progress
in reducing emissions and improving visibility in Class I areas
impacted by the State's sources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\48\ 76 FR 76651 (December 8, 2011).
\49\ South Dakota Progress Report, Appendix B, p. B-1.
\50\ Big Stone Annual Emissions 2000-2017.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that South Dakota has adequately addressed
the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) regarding an assessment of
significant changes in anthropogenic emissions. The EPA proposes to
agree with South Dakota's conclusion that there have been no
significant changes in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants
which have limited or impeded progress in reducing emissions and
improving visibility in Class I areas impacted by the State's sources.
6. Assessment of Current Implementation Plan Elements and Strategies
In its Progress Report, South Dakota acknowledges the requirements
of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) to discuss whether the current implementation
plan elements and strategies are sufficient to enable the State, or
other states with Class I areas affected by emissions from the State,
to meet all established reasonable progress goals.\51\ As seen in Table
2, South Dakota's visibility assessment using the most current
information available (2009-2013) shows that it is meeting the 2018
RPGs at both national parks, Badlands National Park 15.70 dv (current)
versus 16.30 dv (2018 RPG) and Wind Cave National Park 14.10 dv
(current) versus 15.28 dv (2018 RPG). The State also includes
information regarding the 2018 URP Goals, but since those goals are not
part of the 5-year assessment regulations, we do not include that
information. The State concludes that no substantive revisions to the
existing regional haze plan are necessary as the State is exceeding the
2018 RPGs for Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Badlands National Park, the State anticipates that the 2018
visibility data will be lower than what was reported for the most
recent data available because BART was fully implemented at Big Stone I
by 2015. The reductions from Big Stone are significant and occurred
after the most recent data included in the State's SIP. Second, the
State explains that BART controls will be completed elsewhere
throughout the region after 2013 and by 2018.\52\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on these findings, the EPA proposes to approve the State's
conclusion that visibility at Badlands National Park is anticipated to
meet or exceed the RPG for 2018.
For Wind Cave National Park, the State's visibility assessment in
Table 2 shows that the State is currently meeting the 2018 RPG.
Additionally, the emissions reductions from Big Stone I are significant
and occurred after the most recent visibility data available. The State
expects additional improvements in visibility from these reductions.
The State's report concludes, that the current implementation plan is
meeting the ``reasonable progress goals.'' \53\ Although the State's
visibility assessment demonstrates that it is meeting the 2018 RPGs,
the State explains that emission reductions from Big Stone I are
significant and occurred after the most recent visibility data was
available.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State's SIP explains that particulate organic mass level is the
number one contributor to visibility degradation at Wind Cave National
Park,\54\ and the level varies depending on the year and the number of
the wildfires.\55\ The SIP explains that the despite the spikes in
particulate organic mass at Wind Cave, decreases in ammonium sulfate,
ammonium nitrate and other aerosol species have led to decreased
deciview levels at the Wind Cave National Park. The DENR anticipates
this trend will continue and improve as the DENR continues to work with
the National Park Service on prescribed fires in the Badlands and Wind
Cave National Parks.\56\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 40.
\55\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 38.
\56\ South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 41-42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that South Dakota has adequately addressed
the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the strategy assessment,
including the State's efforts to investigate the impacts of a smoke
management plan, and agrees with the State's determination that its
regional haze plan is sufficient to meet the RPGs for its Class I
areas.
7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy
For progress reports for the first implementation period, the
provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) (7) require ``a review of the State's
visibility monitoring strategy and any modifications to the strategy as
necessary.'' In its Progress Report, South Dakota summarizes the
existing monitoring network in the State to monitor visibility at
Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks, which consists of DENR relying
on the national IMPROVE network to meet monitoring and data collection
goals.\57\ There are currently IMPROVE sites located in both Badlands
and Wind Cave National Parks.\58\ Therefore, the State concludes that
no modifications to the existing visibility monitoring strategy are
necessary. The State will continue its reliance on the IMPROVE
monitoring network. The IMPROVE monitoring network is the primary
monitoring network for regional haze, both nationwide and in South
Dakota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 42.
\58\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State also explains the importance of the IMPROVE monitoring
network for tracking visibility trends at the Class I areas in South
Dakota. South Dakota states that in the future the data produced by the
IMPROVE monitoring network will be used for preparing the regional haze
progress reports and SIP revisions, and thus, the monitoring data from
the IMPROVE sites needs to be readily accessible and be kept up-to-
date. The Visibility Information Exchange Web System website has been
maintained by WRAP and the other Regional Planning Organizations to
provide ready access to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools.
In addition, the State operates additional non-IMPROVE monitors in
both Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks which help South Dakota
characterize air pollution levels in areas across the State, and
therefore aid in the analysis of visibility improvement in and near its
Class I areas.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 42.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to find that South Dakota has adequately addressed
the applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) regarding monitoring
strategy because the State reviewed its visibility monitoring strategy,
and determined that no further modifications to the strategy are
necessary.
B. Determination of Adequacy of the Existing Regional Haze Plan
The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to determine
the adequacy of their existing implementation plan to meet existing
goals. South Dakota's Progress Report includes a negative declaration
regarding the need for additional actions or emissions reductions in
South Dakota beyond those already in place and those to be implemented
by 2018 according to South Dakota's regional haze plan.\60\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\60\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 45.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA proposes to conclude that South Dakota has adequately
addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility trends at both Class
I areas in the State, Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks, indicate
that the relevant RPGs
[[Page 11952]]
will be met via emission reductions already in place.
III. Proposed Action
The EPA is proposing to approve South Dakota's January 27, 2016,
Regional Haze Progress Report as meeting the applicable regional haze
requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable
federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory
action because this action is not significant under Executive Order
12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and
Does not provide the 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).
The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or
in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated
that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the
rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order
13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide,
Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Dated: March 13, 2018.
Douglas H. Benevento,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
[FR Doc. 2018-05398 Filed 3-16-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
