Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Dakota; Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan, 62262-62268 [2018-26179]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
62262
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Event name
(typically)
Event location
Date of event
Westport 4th of July ................................................
The 4th of July at Pekin Ferry .................................
Bandon 4th of July ..................................................
Garibaldi Days Fireworks ........................................
Bald Eagle Days ......................................................
Independence Day at the Fort Vancouver ..............
Oregon Symphony Concert Fireworks ....................
Westport, WA .................
Ridgefield, WA ................
Bandon, OR ....................
Garibaldi, OR ..................
Cathlamet, WA ...............
Vancouver, WA ..............
Portland, OR ...................
46°54′17″
45°52′07″
43°07′29″
45°33′13″
46°12′14″
45°36′57″
45°30′42″
Astoria Regatta ........................................................
Leukemia and Lymphoma Light the Night Fireworks.
Veterans Day Celebration .......................................
Astoria, OR .....................
Portland, OR ...................
One day in July ..............
Saturday before July 4th
One day in July ..............
One day in July ..............
One day in July ..............
One day in July ..............
One day in August or
September.
One day in August .........
One day in October ........
46°11′34″ N
45°30′23″ N
123°49′28″ W
122°40′4″ W
The Dalles, OR ...............
One day in November ....
45°36′18″ N
121°10′34″ W
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: November 27, 2018.
D.F. Berliner,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain
of the Port Columbia River.
[FR Doc. 2018–26151 Filed 11–30–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0672; FRL–9986–75–
Region 8]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; South Dakota;
Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report
State Implementation Plan
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is finalizing approval of
a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of South
Dakota through the South Dakota
Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR) on January 27, 2016.
South Dakota’s January 27, 2016 SIP
revision (Progress Report) addresses
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA
or Act) and the EPA’s rules that require
each state to submit periodic reports
describing progress towards reasonable
progress goals (RPGs) established for
regional haze and a determination of the
adequacy of the state’s existing SIP
addressing regional haze (regional haze
plan). The EPA is finalizing approval of
South Dakota’s determination that the
State’s regional haze plan is adequate to
meet these RPGs for the first
implementation period covering
through 2018 and requires no
substantive revision at this time.
DATES: This rule will be effective
January 2, 2019.
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Nov 30, 2018
Jkt 247001
Latitude
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Longitude
124°05′59″
122°43′53″
124°25′05″
123°54′56″
123°23′17″
122°40′09″
122°40′14″
W
W
W
W
W
W
W
ADDRESSES:
The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0672. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov website.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
e.g., CBI or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available through https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
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:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA.
submittal of the initial regional haze
plan. On January 21, 2011, South Dakota
submitted the State’s first regional haze
SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308,
which the EPA fully approved.2
On January 27, 2016, South Dakota
submitted its Progress Report which,
among other things, detailed the
progress made in the first period toward
implementation of the long-term
strategy outlined in the State’s regional
haze plan; the visibility improvement
measured at Badlands and Wind Cave
National Parks, the two Class I areas
within South Dakota, and at Class I
areas outside of the State potentially
impacted by emissions from South
Dakota; and a determination of the
adequacy of the State’s existing regional
haze plan.
In a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM) published on March 19, 2018
(83 FR 11946), the EPA proposed to
approve South Dakota’s Progress Report.
The details of South Dakota’s
submission and the rationale for the
EPA’s actions are explained in the
NPRM.
I. Background
States are required to submit a
progress report in the form of a SIP
revision for the first implementation
period that evaluates progress towards
the RPGs for each mandatory Class I
federal area1 (Class I area) within the
state and for each Class I area outside
the state which 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 plan. The
first progress report is due 5 years after
II. Response to Comments
1 Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C.
7472(a)). These areas are listed at 40 CFR part 81,
subpart D.
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Comments on the proposed
rulemaking were due on or before April
18, 2018. The EPA received a total of 16
public comment submissions on the
proposed approval. All public
comments received on this rulemaking
action are available for review by the
public and may be viewed by following
the instructions for access to docket
materials as outlined in the ADDRESSES
section of this preamble. After
reviewing the comments, the EPA has
determined that 15 of the comment
submissions are outside the scope of our
proposed action and/or fail to identify
any material issue necessitating a
response. We received one comment
letter from the National Parks
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.
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Conservation Association (NPCA),
containing two significant comments
that we are responding to here. Below
is a summary of those comments and
the EPA’s responses. Comment: In a
comment letter dated April 18, 2018, the
NPCA asserted that South Dakota’s
Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report
and the EPA’s analysis of the progress
report fail to meet 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5)
as neither mentions the Gerald
Gentleman Station in Nebraska. The
commenter states that South Dakota’s
SIP and RPGs relied on visibility
modeling from the Central Regional Air
Planning Association (CENRAP) that
assumed the installation of scrubbers for
control of sulfur dioxide (SO2)
emissions from the Gerald Gentleman
Station, which has a significant impact
on South Dakota’s Class I areas. The
commenter suggests that the lack of
requirements to install scrubbers and
limit SO2 emissions from the Gerald
Gentleman Station constitutes an
anthropogenic change that impedes
visibility progress. Finally, the
commenter suggests the lack of change
in emissions at the Gerald Gentleman
Station since the baseline period
‘‘impedes visibility progress’’ and is a
‘‘significant change’’ that the EPA’s
guidance suggests should be discussed
to meet the requirements of
§ 51.308(g)(5).
Response: We acknowledge that the
Progress Report from South Dakota does
not include an assessment of emission
changes from the Gerald Gentleman
Station. However, such an assessment is
not required given the facts about South
Dakota’s SIP, emission trends for Gerald
Gentleman, and visibility trends at the
two Class I areas in South Dakota.
Changes in emissions from the Gerald
Gentleman Station are not ‘‘significant
changes’’ within the meaning of this
section of the Regional Haze Rule
(RHR). It should be noted that, South
Dakota cannot regulate emissions from
the Gerald Gentleman Station in
Nebraska.
Section 51.308(g)(5) of the RHR
requires that periodic progress reports
contain an assessment of any significant
changes in anthropogenic emissions
within or outside the state that have
occurred during the implementation
period including whether such changes
were anticipated and whether they have
limited or impeded progress in reducing
emissions and improving visibility. The
EPA provided guidance that
summarized and clarified the
requirements for progress reports in a
document titled General Principles for
the 5-Year Regional Haze Progress
Reports for the Initial Regional Haze
State Implementation Plans (Intended to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Nov 30, 2018
Jkt 247001
Assist States and EPA Regional Offices
in Development and Review of the
Progress Reports).3 In relation to
§ 51.308(g)(5), the guidance states that
‘‘[t]his requirement is aimed at assessing
whether any such significant emissions
changes have occurred within the state
over the 5-year period since the SIP was
submitted, and whether emissions
increases outside the state are affecting
a Class I area within the state
adversely.’’ 4 Further, the guidance
principles specify that a ‘‘significant
change’’ that can ‘‘limit or impede
progress’’ could be ‘‘either (1) a
significant unexpected increase in
anthropogenic emissions that occurred
over the 5-year period (that is, an
increase that was not projected in the
analysis for the SIP), or (2) a significant
expected reduction in anthropogenic
emissions that did not occur (that is, a
projected decrease in emissions in the
analysis for the SIP that was not
realized).’’ 5
The ‘‘significance’’ of a change in
emissions, if there is a change, is
evaluated on a case-by-case basis
depending on the factual context. It is
clear from both § 51.308(g)(5) and the
guidance that significance depends on
whether a change in emissions is large
enough to have limited or impeded
progress in improving visibility, with
the adopted RPGs being important
benchmarks for progress.
In this instance, there have not been
significant changes in emissions within
the meaning of § 51.308(g)(5). First,
there has not been a ‘‘significant
unexpected increase’’ in emissions from
outside South Dakota, i.e., from the
Gerald Gentleman Station. While this
first questions is perhaps more relevant
where a new or modified source has
increased emissions over what was
projected in the SIP, we nonetheless
assess it in respect to Gerald Gentleman
Station. A review of emissions data
submitted to the EPA Air Markets
Program Data indicates that the annual
SO2 emissions from Units 1 and 2
decreased in the 5-year period from the
submittal of the initial SIP. In the 5-year
period before submittal of the initial
SIP, 2006 through 2010, the annual SO2
emissions from the facility averaged
30,597 tons per year.6 In the following
5-year period, 2011 through 2016, the
annual SO2 emissions averaged 26,696
3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Air Quality Planning and Standards Air Quality
Policy Division Geographic Strategies Group, April
2013.
4 Guidance Priciples, p. 15.
5 Ibid.
6 Refer to spread sheet in the docket titled
‘‘Gerald Gentleman Station Annual Emissions from
AMPD.xlsx’’ located in the docket.
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
62263
tons per year.7 The average annual SO2
emissions between the two periods
decreased by 3,901 tons per year.8 As
such, we conclude that there has not
been a significant unexpected increase
in anthropogenic emissions from the
Gerald Gentleman Station.
Second, there was not a significant
expected reduction in anthropogenic
emissions that did not occur. As a
preliminary matter, we acknowledge
that the RPGs for South Dakota’s Class
I areas are based on the assumption that
SO2 emissions from the Gerald
Gentleman Station would be reduced by
the application of scrubbers that achieve
the ‘‘presumptive BART’’ emission rate
of 0.15 lb/MMBtu.9 This assumption
was built into the projected emission
inventory for air quality modeling used
to establish RPGs.10 However, this
occurred before Nebraska made its
BART determination. It also occurred
before Nebraska completed its
consultation with other states, including
South Dakota, in the development of its
emission control strategies.11 In the
Agency’s final action on Nebraska’s
Regional Haze SIP, the EPA addressed
the disparity between the modeling
assumptions for South Dakota’s RPGs
and the SO2 BART emission limit the
EPA chose for the Gerald Gentleman
Station.12 In response to comments on
this issue, the Agency noted that ‘‘South
Dakota had the opportunity to comment
on Nebraska’s draft BART permits as
well as the overall regional haze SIP,
and did not ask for additional emission
reductions from Nebraska.’’ 13 The
Agency concluded that ‘‘Nebraska did
establish a BART limit for the Gerald
Gentleman Station and informed South
Dakota that its BART determination
7 Ibid.
8 Because no new SO controls have been
2
installed at the Gerald Gentleman Station, the
reduction in emissions between the two time
periods, 3,901 tons per year, is primarily due to a
decrease in heat input.
9 For comparison, the SO annual emission rate
2
(in lb/MMBtu) at the Gerald Gentleman Station was
about 0.58 lb/MMBtu during 2002, which was the
period used as the baseline by Nebraska when it
developed its SIP. The annual emission rate in lb/
MMBtu has not changed appreciably since that
time.
10 The emissions projected for the Gerald
Gentleman Station by CENRAP were incorporated
into the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP)
reasonable progress modeling for 2018 (referred to
as the PRP18b scenario). The RPGs for the South
Dakota Class I areas were determined by the WRAP
modeling.
11 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) requires that a state
consult with another state if its emissions are
reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment at that state’s Class I area(s), and that
a state consult with other states if those other states’
emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute
to visibility impairment at its Class I areas.
12 77 FR 40150 (July 6, 2012).
13 Ibid, 40155.
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
62264
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
deviated from what was included in the
modeling [for RPGs], [and] the fact that
the final BART determination varied
from the predictions is not grounds for
disapproving either SIP.’’ 14 Indeed, the
content of the long-term strategy
(including BART controls) determines
the RPGs, not the opposite case. If not
for the difference in timing between the
air quality modeling for the RPGs and
Nebraska’s BART determination, South
Dakota’s RPGs would have reflected
Nebraska’s BART determination for the
Gerald Gentleman Station. Put more
concisely, the SO2 BART requirement
for Gerald Gentleman Station is not
predicated on an assumption that was
made in the modeling analysis before
BART was determined, but rather on the
control measures that were ultimately
agreed upon between Nebraska and
South Dakota through the requisite
consultation process.
Nonetheless, in the Agency’s final
action for Nebraska, the EPA
disapproved the SO2 BART
determination for the Gerald Gentleman
Station because the State did not
comply with the EPA’s regulations. The
EPA also disapproved Nebraska’s longterm strategy insofar as it relied on the
deficient SO2 BART determination at
the Gerald Gentleman Station. To
address these deficiencies, in the same
action, the EPA promulgated a Federal
Implementation Plan relying on the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR,
or ‘‘transport rule’’) as an alternative to
BART for SO2 emissions from Gerald
Gentleman Station,15 with the result
that the long-term strategy for Nebraska
does not require that SO2 scrubbers be
installed at the Gerald Gentleman
Station to meet BART. Again, the RPGs
are intended to reflect the emission
reductions in states’ long-term
strategies. The fact that Nebraska’s longterm strategy ultimately contains a
different BART emission limit for the
Gerald Gentleman Station than initially
assumed does not mean that any
difference between the two constitutes
‘‘a significant expected reduction in
anthropogenic emissions that did not
occur.’’
The guidance further clarifies that the
requirement in § 51.308(g)(5) is ‘‘aimed
at assessing . . . whether emissions
increases outside the state are affecting
a Class I area within the state adversely.
For those Class I areas where there is a
significant overall downward trend in
both visibility and nearby emissions, we
expect that this assessment will point to
those trends in support of a simple
negative declaration satisfying this
requirement’’ (emphasis added).16 This
means that if aggregate emissions
influencing the affected Class I areas are
significantly declining and visibility
conditions are significantly improving,
an upward ‘‘change’’ for one
contributing source relative to
expectations is not significant. We
accordingly turn to the topic of
aggregate emissions and visibility trends
for the Class I areas in South Dakota.17
In the Progress Report, South Dakota
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. The State’s comparison
showed that the statewide emissions of
key visibility impairing pollutants,
including SO2, had declined. For
example, between the baseline emission
inventory and the most recent updated
emission inventory of 2011, South
Dakota found that anthropogenic SO2
emissions declined by 8,285 tons per
year. The emissions trends do not
suggest any deficiencies in South
Dakota’s SIP that would affect
achievement of the RPGs for Wind Cave
and Badlands National Parks.
In the Progress Report, South Dakota
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
visibility conditions and baseline
visibility conditions, and the change in
visibility impairment from 2009–2013.18
In order to further assess the trend in
visibility as it relates to § 51.308(g)(5),
the EPA has expanded on the analysis
of visibility included in South Dakota’s
Progress Report. In addition to the
information and analysis provided in
the Progress Report, Table 1 below
presents updated Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual
Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring
data which shows that visibility for the
two Class I areas in the State, Badlands
and Wind Cave National Parks, has
continued to improve beyond the 2009–
2013 period considered by South
Dakota. Table 1 shows a continued
downward trend in visibility
impairment (in deciviews) at both
Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks
from the baseline time period (2000–
2004) to the most current time period
(2012–2016).
TABLE 1—BASELINE VISIBILITY, CURRENT VISIBILITY, VISIBILITY CHANGES, AND 2018 RPGS IN SOUTH DAKOTA’S CLASS I
AREAS
[Deciviews] 19
Class I area
Baseline
(2000–2004)
Difference
(baseline vs.
current)
Current
(2007–2011)
Difference
(baseline vs.
more current)
More current
(2009–2013)
Most current
(2012–2016)
Difference
(baseline vs.
most current)
2018 RPG 20
Badlands National Park
20% Worst Days ...............
20% Best Days .................
17.1
6.9
¥0.8
¥0.3
16.3
6.6
15.7
5.8
¥1.4
¥1.1
14.7
5.5
¥2.4
¥1.4
16.3
6.6
¥1.6
¥1.1
13.6
3.6
¥2.2
¥1.5
15.2
5.0
Wind Cave National Park
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
20% Worst Days ...............
20% Best Days .................
15.8
5.1
¥0.9
¥0.7
14.9
4.4
In Figures 1 and 2 below, in addition
to comparing visibility improvement to
the 2018 RPGs, we also compare
monitored visibility (as a 5-year rolling
average) to the Uniform Rate of Progress
(URP). As described in the RHR, the
14 Ibid.
17 83
15 40
18 Ibid.
CFR 52.143.
16 Principles, p. 15.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Nov 30, 2018
Jkt 247001
14.2
4.0
PO 00000
FR 11949–11950 (March 19, 2018).
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
URP is the uniform rate of visibility
improvement that would need to be
maintained during each implementation
19 IMPROVE Data, Federal Land Manager
Environmental Database. See ‘Badlands and Wind
Cave IMPROVE Table.xlsx’, available in docket.
20 76 FR 76646, 76664 (April 26, 2012).
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
period in order to attain natural
visibility conditions by the end of
2064.21 While the RHR does not require
that states compare monitored visibility
to the URP as part of their progress
reports, the EPA has done so here
because it is instructive when
considering visibility trends in the
context of § 51.308(g)(5). Figures 1 and
2 show that the visibility in recent years
for both Badlands and Wind Cave
21 40
CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi)(A).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Nov 30, 2018
Jkt 247001
62265
National Parks is well below the RPGs.
For example, for Badlands National
Park, the 2011 through 2016 5-year
rolling average of the 20% haziest days
is 14.7 deciviews, which is well below
the 2018 RPG of 16.3 deciviews.
Moreover, the visibility for both Class I
areas is below the URP in recent years;
at Badlands National Park, the 5-year
rolling average of the 20% haziest days
is below the URP beginning in 2012 and
extending through the most recent year
of available IMPROVE data (2016).
Similar trends are apparent for Wind
Cave National Park. As with the
emissions trends, the visibility trends
do not suggest any deficiencies in South
Dakota’s SIP that would adversely affect
achievement of the RPGs for Wind Cave
and Badlands National Parks.
22 IMPROVE Data, Federal Land Manager
Environmental Database. See ‘Badlands and Wind
Cave IMPROVE Visibility Trends.xlsx,’ available in
docket.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
ER03DE18.000</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
As previously stated, progress relative
to the adopted RPGs is an important
benchmark in assessing whether an
increase in the Gerald Gentleman
Station’s SO2 emissions relative to the
expectations inherent in the SIP has
‘‘limited or impeded progress in
improving visibility.’’ While there
would likely have been more progress if
the Gerald Gentleman Station’s SO2
emissions had been reduced even more
over time than they have been, in the
context of improvements already in the
first implementation period relative to
the RPGs and the URP for both Class I
areas in South Dakota, we do not
consider any lack of emission
reductions from the Gerald Gentleman
Station as having limited or impeded
progress in improving visibility.
In summary, we find that there has
been no significant change in
anthropogenic emissions relative to
what was expected under South
Dakota’s regional haze SIP. Moreover,
even if there had been such a change,
emissions and visibility trends do not
23 Ibid.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Nov 30, 2018
Jkt 247001
suggest any deficiencies in South
Dakota’s SIP that would affect
achievement of reasonable progress for
Wind Cave and Badlands National
Parks. Given our conclusions regarding
§ 51.308(g)(5) here, we find that the
absence of a discussion of the Gerald
Gentleman Station is not a failure to
report on ‘‘significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions’’ as that term
is used in § 51.308(g)(5) nor a
shortcoming in South Dakota’s Progress
Report that requires our disapproval of
the Progress Report. Consequently,
consistent with the RHR and our
guidance principles, we are finalizing
our finding that South Dakota has met
the requirements of § 51.308(g)(5).24
Comment: The NPCA also asserts that
‘‘EPA has previously identified the need
for consultation between South Dakota
and Nebraska in the next planning
period regarding the impacts of the
24 Because we are finding that South Dakota has
not failed to report on ‘‘significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions’’ as that term is used in
§ 51.308(g)(5), we have not needed to reach a
conclusion as to whether such a failure in this
particular situation would be so important that it
would require disapproval of the Progress Report.
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Gerald Gentleman Station on South
Dakota’s Class I areas,’’ and asks the
EPA to ‘‘work with South Dakota to
include a discussion of the Gerald
Gentleman Station in its progress
report.’’
Response: The Progress Report that is
the subject of today’s action addresses
the requirements of the first regional
haze planning period. When adopting
long-term strategies and establishing
RPGs for the second regional haze
planning period, extending to 2028, the
RHR requires that states once again
‘‘consult with those states that are
reasonably anticipated to cause or
contribute to visibility impairment in [ ]
mandatory Class I area[s].’’ 25 As such,
South Dakota will have an opportunity
to consult with Nebraska regarding SO2
controls for the Gerald Gentleman
Station in the second planning period.
Moreover, nothing in this final rule
would prevent Nebraska, in
consultation with South Dakota or other
25 40
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii).
03DER1
ER03DE18.001</GPH>
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
62266
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
states, from assessing the need for SO2
controls at the Gerald Gentleman
Station as part of its long-term strategy
for the second planning period.
Comment: The NPCA also asserts that
the EPA does not adequately address in
the NPRM South Dakota’s progress
towards investigating and developing a
smoke management plan.26 The NPCA
asserts that ‘‘EPA’s analysis incorrectly
states that ‘The Progress Report presents
the extensive information collected and
analyzed to investigate the impacts of a
smoke management plan’.’’ 27 The
NPCA acknowledges that the South
Dakota Progress Report discusses the
impact of prescribed fire at Wind Cave
National Park, but asserts that the
progress report does not mention a
smoke management plan specifically.
The commenter additionally asserts that
the progress report does not include an
‘‘update or information about South
Dakota’s progress towards investigating
and developing a smoke management
plan.’’ 28 Finally, the commenter
requests that the EPA work with South
Dakota to include an update on South
Dakota’s examination of a smoke
management plan as the NPCA asserts
that 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) requires that
the status of all control strategies be
included in the SIP.
Response: As this response to
comment will show, South Dakota is
committed to investigating the impacts
of prescribed burns and wildfires and
considering smoke management
practices and a smoke management
plan; however, there is no smoke
management plan currently included in
the SIP. Insofar as the comment
implicates the adequacy of the State’s
existing Regional Haze SIP, we note that
our review of the Progress Report is not
a second review of the adequacy of that
SIP, as the public already had an
opportunity to review and comment on
it and the EPA approved the SIP as
meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v)(E). However, since South
Dakota committed to investigating these
issues, it was appropriate for the State
to include an update on this
investigation in the Progress Report and
we find that the State did so. Contrary
to commenters’ assertions, the SIP
explains that the State will:
• ‘‘[I]nvestigate the impacts that a
smoke management plan for wild fires
and prescribed burns will have on the
20% most impaired days’’ within the
first planning period of 2013’’;
26 National Parks Conservation Association
(NPCA) Comment Letter, p.2.
27 Ibid.
28 Ibid.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:14 Nov 30, 2018
Jkt 247001
• Investigate and determine whether
the ‘‘burning of grass in and around the
Class I areas’’ warrants being covered
under a smoke management plan’’; and
• Review IMPROVE data for a recent
prescribed fire to see what kind of
impact the fire had on the organic
carbon mass concentration and to some
extent the ammonia sulfide and
ammonia nitrate levels.
Finally, the SIP explains that it is
DENR’s ‘‘intention’’ to
[I]nvestigate these prescribed burns as
well as other wildfires and planned
prescribed burns to determine at what
level (e.g., size of burn, distance from
the Class I areas, combustible material)
should a wildfire or prescribed fire be
included in the smoke management
plan and what best management
practices can be used to minimize their
impacts on the 20% most impaired days
in the Class I areas. The results of this
analysis will be adopted in the Regional
Haze State Implementation Plan as part
of our long term strategy. DENR will
work with the federal land managers,
other state agencies, and local
governments during the development
and implementation of the smoke
management plan.29
Contrary to the commenter’s
assertions, the Progress Report, as
explained in the Regional Haze 5-Year
Progress Report NPRM, describes that
the State has taken the following steps
so far to investigate the impacts of
prescribed burns and natural fire on
visibility in the first planning period.
The impacts of prescribed fires on the
20% most impaired days at Wind Cave
were investigated using the IMPROVE
data that was presented in their progress
report.30
The State also reviewed IMPROVE
data for two recent prescribed fires to
see what kind of impact the fires had on
the organic carbon mass concentration
and to some extent the ammonium
sulfide and ammonium nitrate levels.
This data shows the impact of two
prescribed fires conducted by the
National Park Service (NPS) at Wind
Cave National Park in 2009 and 2010.31
The two examples of the IMPROVE data
that show that the NPS prescribed fires
contributed to high levels of both
particulate organic mass and elemental
carbon on both days.32 Finally, the
Progress Report shows that natural fire
has been decreasing in its impact.33
29 76
FR 76671 (December 8, 2011).
Dakota Progress Report, Table 3–28, p.31
and Table 3–29, p. 33.
31 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 29.
32 South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3–28, p.31
and Table 3–29, p. 33.
33 South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3–28, p.31
and Table 3–29, pp. 17, 19, 20, 21, 24.
30 South
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
62267
Furthermore, regarding the State’s
intention to develop and implement the
smoke management plan, since the
publication of the NPRM, we learned
that the State of South Dakota
reconfirmed their intention regarding
the smoke management plan,34 as is
described in its SIP to participate in a
Western States Air Resources Council
(WESTAR) smoke management
workgroup.
Finally, as described in South
Dakota’s progress report and the NPRM,
the State has worked in coordination
with Federal Land Managers to mitigate
the impacts of prescribed fires. In its
Progress Report, the State 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.35
In conclusion, as explained above, we
find the State has provided an adequate
description of the status of the State’s
investigation of smoke management
measures. The State has investigated
both prescribed fire and wildfire and the
impact of fire on the 20% most impaired
days at Class I areas, reviewed
IMPROVE data, showed continued
collaboration with Federal Land
Managers, and provided a description of
their intention to investigate, develop
and implement and a smoke
management plan as is described in
their SIP. Accordingly, we clarify and
confirm our proposed finding that South
Dakota has adequately addressed its SIP
commitment.
III. Final Action
EPA is finalizing without revisions its
proposed approval of South Dakota’s
January 27, 2016 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.
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,
34 Memo to File EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0672,
available in docket.
35 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.
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
62268
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this 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 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, 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
Court of Appeals for the appropriate
circuit by February 1, 2019. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the
Administrator of this final rule does not
affect the finality of this action for the
purposes of judicial review nor does it
extend the time within which a petition
for judicial review may be filed, and
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
such rule or action. This action may not
be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section
307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile
organic compounds.
Douglas Benevento,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart QQ—South Dakota
2. Section 52.2170(e) is amended by
adding a new entry for XXIII. Regional
Haze 5-Year Progress Report in
numerical order to read as follows:
■
§ 52.2170
*
Rule title
State effective date
EPA effective
date
*
*
*
XXIII. Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report ...........
*
Submitted 01/27/2016 ......
*
1/2/2019
[FR Doc. 2018–26179 Filed 11–30–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP 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).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect, the
agency promulgating the rule must
submit a rule report, which includes a
copy of the rule, to each House of the
Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will
submit a report containing this action
and other required information to the
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to
publication of the rule in the Federal
Register. A major rule cannot take effect
until 60 days after it is published in the
Federal Register. This action is not a
‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA,
petitions for judicial review of this
action must be filed in the United States
SUMMARY:
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:07 Nov 30, 2018
Jkt 247001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Comments
*
Final rule; announcement of
effective date.
40 CFR Part 68
AGENCY:
*
*
[Insert Federal Register
citation], 12/3/2018.
ACTION:
Accidental Release Prevention
Requirements: Risk Management
Programs Under the Clean Air Act
*
Final rule citation, date
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
[EPA–HQ–OEM–2015–0725; FRL–9987–23–
OLEM]
Identification of plan.
*
*
(e) * * *
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is announcing that the
amendments to the Risk Management
Program under the Clean Air Act put
forward in a final rule published in the
Federal Register on January 13, 2017 are
in effect.
DATES: The rule amending 40 CFR part
68, published at 82 FR 4594 (January 13,
2017) and delayed at 82 FR 8499
(January 26, 2017), 82 FR 13968 (March
E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM
03DER1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 232 (Monday, December 3, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62262-62268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26179]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0672; FRL-9986-75-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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing
approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of South Dakota through the South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) on January 27, 2016. South
Dakota's January 27, 2016 SIP revision (Progress Report) addresses
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and the EPA's rules that
require each state to submit periodic reports describing progress
towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze
and a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing SIP
addressing regional haze (regional haze plan). The EPA is finalizing
approval of South Dakota's determination that the State's regional haze
plan is adequate to meet these RPGs for the first implementation period
covering through 2018 and requires no substantive revision at this
time.
DATES: This rule will be effective January 2, 2019.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0672. All documents in the docket are
listed on the https://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are available through https://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability
information.
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: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.
I. Background
States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a
SIP revision for the first implementation period that evaluates
progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I federal area\1\
(Class I area) within the state and for each Class I area outside the
state which 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 plan. The first progress report is due 5 years after
submittal of the initial regional haze plan. On January 21, 2011, South
Dakota submitted the State's first regional haze SIP in accordance with
40 CFR 51.308, which the EPA fully approved.\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)).
These areas are 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 its Progress Report
which, among other things, detailed the progress made in the first
period toward implementation of the long-term strategy outlined in the
State's regional haze plan; the visibility improvement measured at
Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks, the two Class I areas within
South Dakota, and at Class I areas outside of the State potentially
impacted by emissions from South Dakota; and a determination of the
adequacy of the State's existing regional haze plan.
In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on March 19,
2018 (83 FR 11946), the EPA proposed to approve South Dakota's Progress
Report. The details of South Dakota's submission and the rationale for
the EPA's actions are explained in the NPRM.
II. Response to Comments
Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before April 18,
2018. The EPA received a total of 16 public comment submissions on the
proposed approval. All public comments received on this rulemaking
action are available for review by the public and may be viewed by
following the instructions for access to docket materials as outlined
in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. After reviewing the
comments, the EPA has determined that 15 of the comment submissions are
outside the scope of our proposed action and/or fail to identify any
material issue necessitating a response. We received one comment letter
from the National Parks
[[Page 62263]]
Conservation Association (NPCA), containing two significant comments
that we are responding to here. Below is a summary of those comments
and the EPA's responses. Comment: In a comment letter dated April 18,
2018, the NPCA asserted that South Dakota's Regional Haze 5-Year
Progress Report and the EPA's analysis of the progress report fail to
meet 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) as neither mentions the Gerald Gentleman
Station in Nebraska. The commenter states that South Dakota's SIP and
RPGs relied on visibility modeling from the Central Regional Air
Planning Association (CENRAP) that assumed the installation of
scrubbers for control of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from
the Gerald Gentleman Station, which has a significant impact on South
Dakota's Class I areas. The commenter suggests that the lack of
requirements to install scrubbers and limit SO2 emissions
from the Gerald Gentleman Station constitutes an anthropogenic change
that impedes visibility progress. Finally, the commenter suggests the
lack of change in emissions at the Gerald Gentleman Station since the
baseline period ``impedes visibility progress'' and is a ``significant
change'' that the EPA's guidance suggests should be discussed to meet
the requirements of Sec. 51.308(g)(5).
Response: We acknowledge that the Progress Report from South Dakota
does not include an assessment of emission changes from the Gerald
Gentleman Station. However, such an assessment is not required given
the facts about South Dakota's SIP, emission trends for Gerald
Gentleman, and visibility trends at the two Class I areas in South
Dakota. Changes in emissions from the Gerald Gentleman Station are not
``significant changes'' within the meaning of this section of the
Regional Haze Rule (RHR). It should be noted that, South Dakota cannot
regulate emissions from the Gerald Gentleman Station in Nebraska.
Section 51.308(g)(5) of the RHR requires that periodic progress
reports contain an assessment of any significant changes in
anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have occurred
during the implementation period including whether such changes were
anticipated and whether they have limited or impeded progress in
reducing emissions and improving visibility. The EPA provided guidance
that summarized and clarified the requirements for progress reports in
a document titled General Principles for the 5-Year Regional Haze
Progress Reports for the Initial Regional Haze State Implementation
Plans (Intended to Assist States and EPA Regional Offices in
Development and Review of the Progress Reports).\3\ In relation to
Sec. 51.308(g)(5), the guidance states that ``[t]his requirement is
aimed at assessing whether any such significant emissions changes have
occurred within the state over the 5-year period since the SIP was
submitted, and whether emissions increases outside the state are
affecting a Class I area within the state adversely.'' \4\ Further, the
guidance principles specify that a ``significant change'' that can
``limit or impede progress'' could be ``either (1) a significant
unexpected increase in anthropogenic emissions that occurred over the
5-year period (that is, an increase that was not projected in the
analysis for the SIP), or (2) a significant expected reduction in
anthropogenic emissions that did not occur (that is, a projected
decrease in emissions in the analysis for the SIP that was not
realized).'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality
Planning and Standards Air Quality Policy Division Geographic
Strategies Group, April 2013.
\4\ Guidance Priciples, p. 15.
\5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The ``significance'' of a change in emissions, if there is a
change, is evaluated on a case-by-case basis depending on the factual
context. It is clear from both Sec. 51.308(g)(5) and the guidance that
significance depends on whether a change in emissions is large enough
to have limited or impeded progress in improving visibility, with the
adopted RPGs being important benchmarks for progress.
In this instance, there have not been significant changes in
emissions within the meaning of Sec. 51.308(g)(5). First, there has
not been a ``significant unexpected increase'' in emissions from
outside South Dakota, i.e., from the Gerald Gentleman Station. While
this first questions is perhaps more relevant where a new or modified
source has increased emissions over what was projected in the SIP, we
nonetheless assess it in respect to Gerald Gentleman Station. A review
of emissions data submitted to the EPA Air Markets Program Data
indicates that the annual SO2 emissions from Units 1 and 2
decreased in the 5-year period from the submittal of the initial SIP.
In the 5-year period before submittal of the initial SIP, 2006 through
2010, the annual SO2 emissions from the facility averaged
30,597 tons per year.\6\ In the following 5-year period, 2011 through
2016, the annual SO2 emissions averaged 26,696 tons per
year.\7\ The average annual SO2 emissions between the two
periods decreased by 3,901 tons per year.\8\ As such, we conclude that
there has not been a significant unexpected increase in anthropogenic
emissions from the Gerald Gentleman Station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Refer to spread sheet in the docket titled ``Gerald
Gentleman Station Annual Emissions from AMPD.xlsx'' located in the
docket.
\7\ Ibid.
\8\ Because no new SO2 controls have been installed
at the Gerald Gentleman Station, the reduction in emissions between
the two time periods, 3,901 tons per year, is primarily due to a
decrease in heat input.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Second, there was not a significant expected reduction in
anthropogenic emissions that did not occur. As a preliminary matter, we
acknowledge that the RPGs for South Dakota's Class I areas are based on
the assumption that SO2 emissions from the Gerald Gentleman
Station would be reduced by the application of scrubbers that achieve
the ``presumptive BART'' emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu.\9\ This
assumption was built into the projected emission inventory for air
quality modeling used to establish RPGs.\10\ However, this occurred
before Nebraska made its BART determination. It also occurred before
Nebraska completed its consultation with other states, including South
Dakota, in the development of its emission control strategies.\11\ In
the Agency's final action on Nebraska's Regional Haze SIP, the EPA
addressed the disparity between the modeling assumptions for South
Dakota's RPGs and the SO2 BART emission limit the EPA chose
for the Gerald Gentleman Station.\12\ In response to comments on this
issue, the Agency noted that ``South Dakota had the opportunity to
comment on Nebraska's draft BART permits as well as the overall
regional haze SIP, and did not ask for additional emission reductions
from Nebraska.'' \13\ The Agency concluded that ``Nebraska did
establish a BART limit for the Gerald Gentleman Station and informed
South Dakota that its BART determination
[[Page 62264]]
deviated from what was included in the modeling [for RPGs], [and] the
fact that the final BART determination varied from the predictions is
not grounds for disapproving either SIP.'' \14\ Indeed, the content of
the long-term strategy (including BART controls) determines the RPGs,
not the opposite case. If not for the difference in timing between the
air quality modeling for the RPGs and Nebraska's BART determination,
South Dakota's RPGs would have reflected Nebraska's BART determination
for the Gerald Gentleman Station. Put more concisely, the
SO2 BART requirement for Gerald Gentleman Station is not
predicated on an assumption that was made in the modeling analysis
before BART was determined, but rather on the control measures that
were ultimately agreed upon between Nebraska and South Dakota through
the requisite consultation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ For comparison, the SO2 annual emission rate (in
lb/MMBtu) at the Gerald Gentleman Station was about 0.58 lb/MMBtu
during 2002, which was the period used as the baseline by Nebraska
when it developed its SIP. The annual emission rate in lb/MMBtu has
not changed appreciably since that time.
\10\ The emissions projected for the Gerald Gentleman Station by
CENRAP were incorporated into the Western Regional Air Partnership
(WRAP) reasonable progress modeling for 2018 (referred to as the
PRP18b scenario). The RPGs for the South Dakota Class I areas were
determined by the WRAP modeling.
\11\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) requires that a state consult with
another state if its emissions are reasonably anticipated to
contribute to visibility impairment at that state's Class I area(s),
and that a state consult with other states if those other states'
emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility
impairment at its Class I areas.
\12\ 77 FR 40150 (July 6, 2012).
\13\ Ibid, 40155.
\14\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Nonetheless, in the Agency's final action for Nebraska, the EPA
disapproved the SO2 BART determination for the Gerald
Gentleman Station because the State did not comply with the EPA's
regulations. The EPA also disapproved Nebraska's long-term strategy
insofar as it relied on the deficient SO2 BART determination
at the Gerald Gentleman Station. To address these deficiencies, in the
same action, the EPA promulgated a Federal Implementation Plan relying
on the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR, or ``transport rule'') as
an alternative to BART for SO2 emissions from Gerald
Gentleman Station,\15\ with the result that the long-term strategy for
Nebraska does not require that SO2 scrubbers be installed at
the Gerald Gentleman Station to meet BART. Again, the RPGs are intended
to reflect the emission reductions in states' long-term strategies. The
fact that Nebraska's long-term strategy ultimately contains a different
BART emission limit for the Gerald Gentleman Station than initially
assumed does not mean that any difference between the two constitutes
``a significant expected reduction in anthropogenic emissions that did
not occur.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ 40 CFR 52.143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The guidance further clarifies that the requirement in Sec.
51.308(g)(5) is ``aimed at assessing . . . whether emissions increases
outside the state are affecting a Class I area within the state
adversely. For those Class I areas where there is a significant overall
downward trend in both visibility and nearby emissions, we expect that
this assessment will point to those trends in support of a simple
negative declaration satisfying this requirement'' (emphasis
added).\16\ This means that if aggregate emissions influencing the
affected Class I areas are significantly declining and visibility
conditions are significantly improving, an upward ``change'' for one
contributing source relative to expectations is not significant. We
accordingly turn to the topic of aggregate emissions and visibility
trends for the Class I areas in South Dakota.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Principles, p. 15.
\17\ 83 FR 11949-11950 (March 19, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the Progress Report, South Dakota 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. The State's comparison showed that
the statewide emissions of key visibility impairing pollutants,
including SO2, had declined. For example, between the
baseline emission inventory and the most recent updated emission
inventory of 2011, South Dakota found that anthropogenic SO2
emissions declined by 8,285 tons per year. The emissions trends do not
suggest any deficiencies in South Dakota's SIP that would affect
achievement of the RPGs for Wind Cave and Badlands National Parks.
In the Progress Report, South Dakota 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 visibility
conditions and baseline visibility conditions, and the change in
visibility impairment from 2009-2013.\18\ In order to further assess
the trend in visibility as it relates to Sec. 51.308(g)(5), the EPA
has expanded on the analysis of visibility included in South Dakota's
Progress Report. In addition to the information and analysis provided
in the Progress Report, Table 1 below presents updated Interagency
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring data
which shows that visibility for the two Class I areas in the State,
Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks, has continued to improve beyond
the 2009-2013 period considered by South Dakota. Table 1 shows a
continued downward trend in visibility impairment (in deciviews) at
both Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks from the baseline time
period (2000-2004) to the most current time period (2012-2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Ibid.
\19\ IMPROVE Data, Federal Land Manager Environmental Database.
See `Badlands and Wind Cave IMPROVE Table.xlsx', available in
docket.
\20\ 76 FR 76646, 76664 (April 26, 2012).
Table 1--Baseline Visibility, Current Visibility, Visibility Changes, and 2018 RPGs in South Dakota's Class I Areas
[Deciviews] \19\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Difference Difference Difference
Class I area Baseline (2000- Current (2007- (baseline vs. More current (baseline vs. Most current (baseline vs. 2018 RPG \20\
2004) 2011) current) (2009-2013) more current) (2012-2016) most current)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Badlands National Park
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days.................................................. 17.1 16.3 -0.8 15.7 -1.4 14.7 -2.4 16.3
20% Best Days................................................... 6.9 6.6 -0.3 5.8 -1.1 5.5 -1.4 6.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Wind Cave National Park
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days.................................................. 15.8 14.9 -0.9 14.2 -1.6 13.6 -2.2 15.2
20% Best Days................................................... 5.1 4.4 -0.7 4.0 -1.1 3.6 -1.5 5.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Figures 1 and 2 below, in addition to comparing visibility
improvement to the 2018 RPGs, we also compare monitored visibility (as
a 5-year rolling average) to the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP). As
described in the RHR, the URP is the uniform rate of visibility
improvement that would need to be maintained during each implementation
[[Page 62265]]
period in order to attain natural visibility conditions by the end of
2064.\21\ While the RHR does not require that states compare monitored
visibility to the URP as part of their progress reports, the EPA has
done so here because it is instructive when considering visibility
trends in the context of Sec. 51.308(g)(5). Figures 1 and 2 show that
the visibility in recent years for both Badlands and Wind Cave National
Parks is well below the RPGs. For example, for Badlands National Park,
the 2011 through 2016 5-year rolling average of the 20% haziest days is
14.7 deciviews, which is well below the 2018 RPG of 16.3 deciviews.
Moreover, the visibility for both Class I areas is below the URP in
recent years; at Badlands National Park, the 5-year rolling average of
the 20% haziest days is below the URP beginning in 2012 and extending
through the most recent year of available IMPROVE data (2016). Similar
trends are apparent for Wind Cave National Park. As with the emissions
trends, the visibility trends do not suggest any deficiencies in South
Dakota's SIP that would adversely affect achievement of the RPGs for
Wind Cave and Badlands National Parks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi)(A).
\22\ IMPROVE Data, Federal Land Manager Environmental Database.
See `Badlands and Wind Cave IMPROVE Visibility Trends.xlsx,'
available in docket.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03DE18.000
[[Page 62266]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03DE18.001
As previously stated, progress relative to the adopted RPGs is an
important benchmark in assessing whether an increase in the Gerald
Gentleman Station's SO2 emissions relative to the
expectations inherent in the SIP has ``limited or impeded progress in
improving visibility.'' While there would likely have been more
progress if the Gerald Gentleman Station's SO2 emissions had
been reduced even more over time than they have been, in the context of
improvements already in the first implementation period relative to the
RPGs and the URP for both Class I areas in South Dakota, we do not
consider any lack of emission reductions from the Gerald Gentleman
Station as having limited or impeded progress in improving visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In summary, we find that there has been no significant change in
anthropogenic emissions relative to what was expected under South
Dakota's regional haze SIP. Moreover, even if there had been such a
change, emissions and visibility trends do not suggest any deficiencies
in South Dakota's SIP that would affect achievement of reasonable
progress for Wind Cave and Badlands National Parks. Given our
conclusions regarding Sec. 51.308(g)(5) here, we find that the absence
of a discussion of the Gerald Gentleman Station is not a failure to
report on ``significant changes in anthropogenic emissions'' as that
term is used in Sec. 51.308(g)(5) nor a shortcoming in South Dakota's
Progress Report that requires our disapproval of the Progress Report.
Consequently, consistent with the RHR and our guidance principles, we
are finalizing our finding that South Dakota has met the requirements
of Sec. 51.308(g)(5).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Because we are finding that South Dakota has not failed to
report on ``significant changes in anthropogenic emissions'' as that
term is used in Sec. 51.308(g)(5), we have not needed to reach a
conclusion as to whether such a failure in this particular situation
would be so important that it would require disapproval of the
Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The NPCA also asserts that ``EPA has previously identified
the need for consultation between South Dakota and Nebraska in the next
planning period regarding the impacts of the Gerald Gentleman Station
on South Dakota's Class I areas,'' and asks the EPA to ``work with
South Dakota to include a discussion of the Gerald Gentleman Station in
its progress report.''
Response: The Progress Report that is the subject of today's action
addresses the requirements of the first regional haze planning period.
When adopting long-term strategies and establishing RPGs for the second
regional haze planning period, extending to 2028, the RHR requires that
states once again ``consult with those states that are reasonably
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in [ ]
mandatory Class I area[s].'' \25\ As such, South Dakota will have an
opportunity to consult with Nebraska regarding SO2 controls
for the Gerald Gentleman Station in the second planning period.
Moreover, nothing in this final rule would prevent Nebraska, in
consultation with South Dakota or other
[[Page 62267]]
states, from assessing the need for SO2 controls at the
Gerald Gentleman Station as part of its long-term strategy for the
second planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: The NPCA also asserts that the EPA does not adequately
address in the NPRM South Dakota's progress towards investigating and
developing a smoke management plan.\26\ The NPCA asserts that ``EPA's
analysis incorrectly states that `The Progress Report presents the
extensive information collected and analyzed to investigate the impacts
of a smoke management plan'.'' \27\ The NPCA acknowledges that the
South Dakota Progress Report discusses the impact of prescribed fire at
Wind Cave National Park, but asserts that the progress report does not
mention a smoke management plan specifically. The commenter
additionally asserts that the progress report does not include an
``update or information about South Dakota's progress towards
investigating and developing a smoke management plan.'' \28\ Finally,
the commenter requests that the EPA work with South Dakota to include
an update on South Dakota's examination of a smoke management plan as
the NPCA asserts that 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) requires that the status of
all control strategies be included in the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) Comment
Letter, p.2.
\27\ Ibid.
\28\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response: As this response to comment will show, South Dakota is
committed to investigating the impacts of prescribed burns and
wildfires and considering smoke management practices and a smoke
management plan; however, there is no smoke management plan currently
included in the SIP. Insofar as the comment implicates the adequacy of
the State's existing Regional Haze SIP, we note that our review of the
Progress Report is not a second review of the adequacy of that SIP, as
the public already had an opportunity to review and comment on it and
the EPA approved the SIP as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR
51.308(d)(3)(v)(E). However, since South Dakota committed to
investigating these issues, it was appropriate for the State to include
an update on this investigation in the Progress Report and we find that
the State did so. Contrary to commenters' assertions, the SIP explains
that the State will:
``[I]nvestigate the impacts that a smoke management plan
for wild fires and prescribed burns will have on the 20% most impaired
days'' within the first planning period of 2013'';
Investigate and determine whether the ``burning of grass
in and around the Class I areas'' warrants being covered under a smoke
management plan''; and
Review IMPROVE data for a recent prescribed fire to see
what kind of impact the fire had on the organic carbon mass
concentration and to some extent the ammonia sulfide and ammonia
nitrate levels.
Finally, the SIP explains that it is DENR's ``intention'' to
[I]nvestigate these prescribed burns as well as other wildfires and
planned prescribed burns to determine at what level (e.g., size of
burn, distance from the Class I areas, combustible material) should a
wildfire or prescribed fire be included in the smoke management plan
and what best management practices can be used to minimize their
impacts on the 20% most impaired days in the Class I areas. The results
of this analysis will be adopted in the Regional Haze State
Implementation Plan as part of our long term strategy. DENR will work
with the federal land managers, other state agencies, and local
governments during the development and implementation of the smoke
management plan.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 76 FR 76671 (December 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contrary to the commenter's assertions, the Progress Report, as
explained in the Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report NPRM, describes
that the State has taken the following steps so far to investigate the
impacts of prescribed burns and natural fire on visibility in the first
planning period. The impacts of prescribed fires on the 20% most
impaired days at Wind Cave were investigated using the IMPROVE data
that was presented in their progress report.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-28, p.31 and Table 3-
29, p. 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State also reviewed IMPROVE data for two recent prescribed
fires to see what kind of impact the fires had on the organic carbon
mass concentration and to some extent the ammonium sulfide and ammonium
nitrate levels. This data shows the impact of two prescribed fires
conducted by the National Park Service (NPS) at Wind Cave National Park
in 2009 and 2010.\31\ The two examples of the IMPROVE data that show
that the NPS prescribed fires contributed to high levels of both
particulate organic mass and elemental carbon on both days.\32\
Finally, the Progress Report shows that natural fire has been
decreasing in its impact.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 29.
\32\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-28, p.31 and Table 3-
29, p. 33.
\33\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-28, p.31 and Table 3-
29, pp. 17, 19, 20, 21, 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, regarding the State's intention to develop and
implement the smoke management plan, since the publication of the NPRM,
we learned that the State of South Dakota reconfirmed their intention
regarding the smoke management plan,\34\ as is described in its SIP to
participate in a Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR) smoke
management workgroup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\34\ Memo to File EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0672, available in docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, as described in South Dakota's progress report and the
NPRM, the State has worked in coordination with Federal Land Managers
to mitigate the impacts of prescribed fires. In its Progress Report,
the State 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.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ 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 conclusion, as explained above, we find the State has provided an
adequate description of the status of the State's investigation of
smoke management measures. The State has investigated both prescribed
fire and wildfire and the impact of fire on the 20% most impaired days
at Class I areas, reviewed IMPROVE data, showed continued collaboration
with Federal Land Managers, and provided a description of their
intention to investigate, develop and implement and a smoke management
plan as is described in their SIP. Accordingly, we clarify and confirm
our proposed finding that South Dakota has adequately addressed its SIP
commitment.
III. Final Action
EPA is finalizing without revisions its proposed approval of South
Dakota's January 27, 2016 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. 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,
[[Page 62268]]
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this 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 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, 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 CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP 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).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 1, 2019. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide,
Volatile organic compounds.
Douglas Benevento,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart QQ--South Dakota
0
2. Section 52.2170(e) is amended by adding a new entry for XXIII.
Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report in numerical order to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.2170 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA effective Final rule citation,
Rule title State effective date date date Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
XXIII. Regional Haze 5-Year Submitted 01/27/2016. 1/2/2019 [Insert Federal
Progress Report. Register citation],
12/3/2018.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2018-26179 Filed 11-30-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
