Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Dakota; Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Revisions to Administrative Rules, 67653-67660 [2020-21474]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
67653
NEW HAMPSHIRE NONREGULATORY
Name of nonregulatory SIP
provision
Applicable geographic or
nonattainment area
State submittal date/
effective date
*
Submittals to meet Section
110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the
2012 PM2.5 NAAQS.
*
Statewide ........................
*
*
12/22/2015; supplement
submitted 6/8/2016.
*
12/4/2018, 83 FR 62464
*
*
These submittals are approved with respect to the
following CAA requirements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B),
(C), (D), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (L), and (M).
.........................................
12/22/2015 ......................
[Insert Federal Register
citation].
This submittal is conditionally approved with respect to provisions of CAA 110(a)(2)(K). The following previously approved items are corrected
and changed from approval to conditional approval: 110(a)(C) (PSD only), (D)(i)(II) (prong 3
only), and (J) (PSD only).
*
Submittal to meet Section
110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the
2015 Ozone NAAQS.
*
Statewide ........................
*
*
9/5/2018 ..........................
*
[Insert Federal Register
citation].
Request for exemption
from contingency plan
obligation for 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
Merrimack Valley—
Southern New Hampshire AQCR.
9/5/2018 ..........................
[Insert Federal Register
citation].
*
*
This submittal is approved with respect to the following CAA requirements: 110(a)(2)(A), (B), (C)
(except PSD), (D)(i)(II) (except prong 3), (D)(ii),
(E), (F), (G), (H), (J) (except PSD), (L), and (M),
and conditionally approved for the following CAA
requirements: 110(a)(2)(K) and (C) (PSD only),
(D)(i)(II) (prong 3 only), and (J) (PSD only).
State’s request for exemption from contingency
plan obligation, made pursuant to 40 CFR
51.152(d)(1), is granted.
EPA approved date
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
continuous emission monitoring
systems, State facilities in Rapid City
area, construction permits and regional
haze program administrative rules. The
EPA is taking this action pursuant to the
Clean Air Act (CAA).
40 CFR Part 52
DATES:
[EPA–R08–OAR–2019–0642; FRL–10014–
86–Region 8]
ADDRESSES:
[FR Doc. 2020–21809 Filed 10–23–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
Air Quality State Implementation
Plans; Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; South Dakota;
Infrastructure Requirements for the
2015 Ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standards; Revisions to
Administrative Rules
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving the State of
South Dakota’s January 15, 2020, State
Implementation Plan (SIP) submission
that addresses infrastructure
requirements for the 2015 ozone
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
(NAAQS). Additionally, in this action,
we are approving a SIP revision
submitted by the State of South Dakota
on January 3, 2020, that revises the
Administrative Rules of South Dakota
(ARSD), Air Pollution Control Program,
updating the date of incorporation by
reference of federal rules in ARSD
chapters pertaining to definitions,
ambient air quality, air quality episodes,
Prevention of Significant Deterioration
(PSD), new source review, performance
testing, control of visible emissions,
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Oct 23, 2020
Jkt 253001
Explanations
Kate
Gregory, telephone number: (303) 312–
6175, email address: gregory.kate@
epa.gov. Mail can be directed to the Air
and Radiation Division, U.S. EPA,
Region 8, Mail-code 8ARD–QP, 1595
Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado
80202–1129.
I. Background
On March 12, 2008, the EPA
promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone,
revising the levels of primary and
secondary 8-hour ozone standards from
0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075
ppm (73 FR 16436). More recently, on
October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated
and revised the NAAQS for ozone,
further strengthening the primary and
secondary 8-hour standards to 0.070
ppm (80 FR 65292). The October 1, 2015
standards are known as the 2015 ozone
NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA directs
each state to make an infrastructure SIP
submission to the EPA within 3 years of
promulgation of a new or revised
NAAQS. Infrastructure requirements for
SIPs are provided in section 110(a)(1)
and (2) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2)
lists the specific infrastructure elements
that a state’s infrastructure SIP
submission must address, as applicable.
The state’s infrastructure SIP
submission must establish that the
state’s existing SIP meets the applicable
requirements or make revisions to
satisfy those requirements as necessary.
The elements that are the subject of this
action are described in detail in our
notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM)
published on May 19, 2020 (85 FR
29882) for South Dakota’s infrastructure
SIP submission, submitted to the EPA
on January 15, 2020, and SIP revisions
to the ARSD submitted to the EPA on
January 3, 2020.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’
and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA.
II. Response to Comments
Comments on our NPRM were due on
or before June 18, 2020. The EPA
This rule is effective on
November 25, 2020.
The EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R08–OAR–2019–0642. 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:
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\26OCR1.SGM
26OCR1
67654
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
received four comments. The first
comment was supportive of the
proposed action. We summarize and
respond to all other significant adverse
comments below.
Comments: One commenter contends
that our May 19, 2020 South Dakota
infrastructure SIP NPRM is a ‘‘blatantly
illegal rule’’ which should be retracted
and disapproved because the EPA has
ignored ‘‘the courts,’’ specifically the
May 19, 2020 decision of the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals in Maryland v.
EPA.1 The commenter contests the
EPA’s use of 2023 as the analytic year
for evaluation of South Dakota’s ‘‘Good
Neighbor’’ obligations for the 2015
ozone NAAQS,2 which the agency based
on its interpretation of the relevant
holding in Wisconsin v. EPA regarding
the appropriate timeframes for analysis
and implementation of Good Neighbor
obligations.3 Commenter maintains that
the 2021 Marginal attainment year for
the 2015 ozone NAAQS is the correct
analytical year per the Maryland
decision.
Similarly, another commenter alleges
that EPA cannot approve the South
Dakota infrastructure SIP submission
‘‘as it relates to the good neighbor
provision because it relies on the flawed
modeling,’’ and thus the EPA should
disapprove it because the State relied on
the wrong analysis. The commenter
asserts that, ‘‘courts have opined several
times that 2023 is the improper year to
evaluate for downwind contributions’’
and the EPA must disapprove South
Dakota’s SIP submission due to 2021
being the correct analytical year to
evaluate for Good Neighbor downwind
contributions.
The commenter further argues that the
Good Neighbor provision require states
to perform the modeling analysis
themselves, and thus because the EPA
cannot perform the analysis for the
State, that the EPA consequently cannot
supplement South Dakota’s
infrastructure SIP submission with
‘‘new manufactured’’ modeling to
support approval of the proposal. The
commenter also asserts that if the EPA
were to ‘‘fix’’ the modeling for the State,
EPA must then disapprove the State’s
infrastructure SIP submission and
promulgate a Federal Implementation
Plan (FIP).
Response: The commenters are
referring to recent D.C. Circuit court
decisions addressing, in part, the issue
of the relevant analytic year for the
1 Maryland v. EPA, 958 F.3d 1185 (D.C. Cir.
2020).
2 CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is colloquially
referred to as the ‘‘Good Neighbor’’ provision.
3 Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 313–320 (D.C.
Cir. 2019).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Oct 23, 2020
Jkt 253001
purposes of evaluating interstate ozone
transport under the Good Neighbor
provision, CAA section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On September 13,
2019, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision
in Wisconsin v. EPA, remanding the
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule
(‘‘CSAPR’’) Update 4 to the extent that
Good Neighbor FIPs in the CSAPR
Update did not fully eliminate upwind
states’ ‘‘significant contribution’’ by the
next applicable attainment date 5 by
which downwind states must attain the
2008 ozone NAAQS. See 938 F.3d at
313. The EPA had interpreted that
holding as limited to the attainment
dates for Moderate or higher
classifications under CAA section 181
on the basis that Marginal
nonattainment areas have reduced
planning requirements and other
considerations. See, e.g., 85 FR 29882,
29888–89 (May 19, 2020).
On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit in
Maryland v. EPA, applying the
Wisconsin decision, held that the EPA
must assess the impacts of interstate
transport on air quality at the next
downwind attainment date, including
Marginal area attainment dates, in
evaluating the basis for EPA’s denial of
a petition under CAA section 126(b).
958 F.3d at 1203–04. The EPA signed
the NPRM proposing approval of South
Dakota’s Good Neighbor SIP prior to the
D.C. Circuit’s decision in Maryland. In
accordance with the Maryland decision,
the Agency now, in taking this final
action approving the South Dakota SIP,
considers the Marginal area attainment
date 6 as the relevant analytic year for
the purposes of determining whether
sources in South Dakota will
significantly contribute to downwind
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other states.7
EPA disagrees with the commenters’
assertion that this change in analysis
means EPA must disapprove South
Dakota’s infrastructure SIP submission
4 81
FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
CAA 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303.
6 The attainment date for nonattainment areas
classified as Marginal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS
is August 3, 2021. See CAA 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303;
83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
7 We note that the court in Maryland did not have
occasion to evaluate circumstances in which EPA
may determine that an upwind linkage to a
downwind air quality problem exists at steps 1 and
2 of the four-step Good Neighbor framework by a
particular attainment date, but for reasons of
impossibility or profound uncertainty the Agency is
unable to mandate upwind pollution controls by
that date. See 938 F.3d at 319–320. The D.C. Circuit
noted in Wisconsin that upon a sufficient showing,
these circumstances may warrant a certain degree
of flexibility in effectuating the implementation of
the Good Neighbor provision. Id. Such
circumstances are not at issue in the present action.
5 See
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
as it pertains to the Good Neighbor
provision. As an initial matter, in regard
to the comment that South Dakota must
conduct its own air quality analysis,
EPA has authority and indeed an
obligation to take into consideration any
relevant information in the record,
including its own air quality modeling
analysis, to determine how to act on a
SIP submission. Here, the State had
concluded in its infrastructure SIP
submission that it has no emissions
reduction obligations for purposes of
section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), on the basis
that its emissions are not linked to any
nonattainment or maintenance
receptors, remains approvable.
Specifically, relying in part on the same
data that informed its analysis of the
year 2023, the EPA finds it reasonable
to conclude that the impacts from
emissions from South Dakota will not
exceed a contribution threshold of 1
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS to
any downwind nonattainment and
maintenance sites in 2021. This finding
is sufficient basis for EPA to conclude
that South Dakota is not linked to any
downwind receptors at step 2 of the
four-step interstate transport
framework.8
South Dakota’s January 15, 2020
infrastructure SIP submission includes
an interstate ozone transport analysis for
the Good Neighbor provision that
focused on the modeling information
provided in the EPA’s March 2018
memorandum,9 which used 2023 as the
analytic year (corresponding with the
8 Thus, it is not necessary for the EPA to proceed
to evaluate whether the state’s infrastructure SIP
submission may also be approvable using an
alternative contribution threshold of 1 ppb. The
EPA released a memorandum in August 2018 which
indicates that, based on the EPA’s analysis of its
most recent modeling data, the amount of upwind
collective contribution capture using a 1 ppb
threshold is generally comparable, overall, to the
amount captured using a threshold equivalent to 1
percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS. Accordingly,
the EPA indicated that it may be reasonable and
appropriate for states to use a 1 ppb contribution
threshold, as an alternative to the 1 percent
threshold, at step 2 of the four-step Good Neighbor
framework in developing their SIP revisions
addressing the Good Neighbor provision for the
2015 ozone NAAQS. See Analysis of Contribution
Thresholds for Use in Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards,
August 31, 2018, available in the docket for this
action or at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memoand-supplemental-information-regarding-interstatetransport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
9 Information on the Interstate Transport State
Implementation Plan Submissions for the 2015
Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards
under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I),
March 27, 2018, available in the docket for this
action or at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-airpollution-transport/memos-and-notices-regardinginterstate-air-pollution-transport.
E:\FR\FM\26OCR1.SGM
26OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
2024 Moderate area attainment date).10
Based on the contribution modeling
included in the March 2018
memorandum, the EPA concludes that
South Dakota’s largest impact on any
downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptors in 2023 are 0.07
parts per billion (ppb) and 0.05 ppb,
respectively.11 These values are both far
less than 1 percent of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS (0.70 ppb). In response to these
comments and the Maryland decision,
using the best available information
(including the same data that informed
EPA’s 2023 modeling) to analyze South
Dakota’s air quality impacts in the year
2021, the EPA finds it reasonable to
conclude that South Dakota’s impact on
any potential downwind nonattainment
and maintenance receptor in 2021
would be similar to those projected in
2023, and likewise well below 1 percent
of the 2015 ozone NAAQS, as detailed
in the methodology described below.
Therefore, EPA finds that South
Dakota’s infrastructure SIP submission
satisfies the State’s Good Neighbor
obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
The EPA’s analysis of receptors and
contributions in 2021 relies in part on
the 2023 modeling used in the NPRM of
this action, the results of which were
included with the March 2018
memorandum. These data are the most
recent published applicable modeling
data available at the time of this final
action. To estimate South Dakota’s
maximum contribution to a
nonattainment or maintenance receptor
in 2021, EPA developed an
interpolation analysis that evaluates
available modeling, monitoring, and
10 The year 2023 was used as the analytic year
because that year aligns with the expected
attainment year for Moderate ozone nonattainment
areas. The attainment date for nonattainment areas
classified as Moderate for the 2015 ozone NAAQS
is August 3, 2024. See CAA 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303;
83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
11 The EPA’s analysis indicates that South Dakota
will have a 0.07 ppb impact at the nonattainment
receptor in Tarrant County, Texas (Site ID
484392003), which has a 2023 projected average
design value of 72.5 ppb, and a 2023 projected
maximum design value of 74.8 ppb. The EPA’s
analysis further indicates that South Dakota will
have a 0.05 ppb impact at the maintenance
receptors in Allegan, Michigan (Site ID 260050003)
and Queens, New York (Site ID 360810124), which
both had projected 2023 average design values
below the 2015 ozone NAAQS (69.0 and 70.2 ppb,
respectively), and 2023 projected maximum design
values above the NAAQS (71.7 and 72.0 ppb,
respectively). See the March 2018 memorandum,
attachment C.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Oct 23, 2020
Jkt 253001
emissions data to assess air quality in
this year. In general, this analysis
utilizes 2019 measured design values 12
and 2023 modeled design values to
estimate design values at each
monitoring site in 2021. Specifically,
2021 average and maximum design
values were calculated by straight-line
linear interpolation between the 2019
measured data and the 2023 modeled
data. EPA believes that the linear
interpolation methodology using
measured data and 2023 model
projections provides a technically sound
basis for estimation of ozone design
values in 2021 in part because of the
relatively short two-year span between
2021 and 2023.
EPA calculated ozone contributions in
2021 by applying the following two-step
process. First, the contributions (in ppb)
from each state to each monitoring site
in 2023 were converted to a fractional
portion of the 2023 average design value
by dividing the contribution by the 2023
design value. In the second step, the
resulting contribution fractions were
multiplied by the estimated 2021
average design value to produce 2021
contributions from each state to each
monitoring site.13 14
The 2021 design values and
contributions were examined to
determine if South Dakota contributes at
or above the 1 percent of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS threshold (0.70 ppb) to a
downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptor. The data indicate
that the highest contribution in 2021
from South Dakota to a downwind
receptor is 0.14 ppb to the
nonattainment receptor site in Cook
County, Illinois.15 Based on this
analysis, EPA finds it reasonable to
conclude that South Dakota will
contribute less than 1 percent of the
2015 ozone NAAQS to any potential
nonattainment or maintenance receptors
in 2021.
12 The 2019 design values at each monitoring site
nationwide are available at https://www.epa.gov/
air-trends/air-quality-design-values.
13 Note that the method used here for calculating
contributions in 2021 is similar to the method used
by EPA to calculate the 2023 contributions from
2023 air quality modeling.
14 Design values for 2019, 2021, and 2023 along
with the contributions in 2021 and 2023 are
provided in a file in the docket for this rule.
15 This downwind receptor site has Air Quality
System (AQS) monitoring ID #170310001 and is
located in Cook County, Illinois.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
67655
EPA also analyzed ozone precursor
emissions trends in South Dakota to
support the findings from the air quality
analysis. In evaluating emissions trends,
we focused on State-wide emissions of
nitrogen oxides (‘‘NOX’’) and volatile
organic compounds (‘‘VOCs’’) in South
Dakota.16 17 Emissions from mobile
sources, electric generating units
(‘‘EGUs’’), industrial facilities, gasoline
vapors, and chemical solvents are some
of the major anthropogenic sources of
ozone precursors. This evaluation looks
at both past emissions trends, as well as
projected trends.
As shown in Table 1, between 2011
and 2017, annual total NOX and VOC
emissions have declined, by 32 percent
and 9 percent, respectively. The
projected reductions are a result of ‘‘on
the books’’ and ‘‘on the way’’
regulations that will continue to
decrease NOX and VOC emissions in
South Dakota, as indicated by our 2023
projected emissions. The large decrease
in NOX emissions between 2017
emissions and projected 2023 emissions
in South Dakota are primarily driven by
reductions in emissions from on-road
and nonroad vehicles. EPA projects that
the downward trend in both VOC and
NOX emissions from 2011 through 2017
is expected to continue at a steady rate
out to 2023 and further into the future
due to the replacement of higher
emissions vehicles with lower emitting
vehicles as a result of several mobile
source control programs.18 This
downward trend in emissions in South
Dakota adds support to the air quality
analysis presented above, which
indicates that the contributions from
emissions from sources in South Dakota
to ozone in downwind states will
continue to decline and remain below 1
percent of the NAAQS.
16 This is because ground-level ozone is not
emitted directly into the air but is a secondary air
pollutant created by chemical reactions between
ozone precursors, chiefly NOX and non-methane
VOCs, in the presence of sunlight.
17 81 FR 74504, 74513–14.
18 Tier 3 Standards (March 2014), the Light-Duty
Greenhouse Gas Rule (March 2013), Heavy (and
Medium)-Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule (August 2011),
the Renewable Fuel Standard (February 2010), the
Light Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule (April 2010), the
Corporate-Average Fuel Economy standards for
2008–2011 (April 2010), the 2007 Onroad HeavyDuty Rule (February 2009), and the Final Mobile
Source Air Toxics Rule (MSAT2) (February 2007).
E:\FR\FM\26OCR1.SGM
26OCR1
67656
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 1—ANNUAL EMISSIONS OF NOX AND VOC FROM ANTHROPOGENIC EMISSION SOURCES IN SOUTH DAKOTA
[tons]
2011
NOX ..................................
VOC .................................
2012
73,995
66,430
71,438
64,229
Thus, the EPA concludes the air
quality and emission analyses indicate
that emissions from South Dakota will
not significantly contribute to
nonattainment or interfere with
maintenance of the 2015 ozone NAAQS
in any other state in 2021. Therefore,
EPA concludes that South Dakota’s
infrastructure SIP submission satisfies
the State’s Good Neighbor obligations
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Comment: One commenter asserts
that the EPA should not approve South
Dakota’s infrastructure SIP submission
with respect to PSD requirements
because the Agency isn’t required to do
so under current rules. The commenter
seems to allege that South Dakota’s PSD
program is under consideration at the
time of the proposed action and there
will be legal challenges regarding the
approval of construction permits.
Additionally, the commenter alleges
that the EPA should ‘evaluate the
strength of the S.D. permit program and
its financial health.’
Response: The EPA disagrees with the
commenter. The commenters’ concerns
appear to be directed not to whether the
existing SIP for South Dakota meets the
relevant structural requirements for PSD
programs, but rather to whether South
Dakota is in fact faithfully implementing
the existing provisions of its EPAapproved SIP. As the EPA has explained
in other infrastructure SIP actions,
comments like these highlight an
important distinction between whether
an infrastructure SIP submission meets
the applicable requirements of the CAA
on its face (i.e., pertain to the facial
sufficiency of the state’s SIP), and
whether a state is actually complying
with the requirements of that SIP (i.e.,
pertain to adequacy of the state’s
implementation of the SIP).19 This
comment implicates the question of the
degree to which implementation
concerns are relevant in the context of
acting on a state’s infrastructure SIP
submission. In the context of an
infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA
interprets the requirements of section
19 See ‘‘Approval and Disapproval and
Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Texas;
Infrastructure and Interstate Transport
Requirements of the 1997 Ozone and the 1997 and
2006 PM2.5 NAAQS,’’ 76 FR 81371 (Dec. 28, 2011).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Oct 23, 2020
Jkt 253001
2013
68,881
62,028
2014
2015
66,323
59,826
56,548
58,873
110(a)(1) and (2) to require the Agency
to focus on whether the state has a SIP
that provides the requisite legal
framework for implementation,
maintenance and enforcement of the
NAAQS. Generally speaking, the EPA’s
review of infrastructure SIP submissions
is limited to whether, pursuant to CAA
section 110(a)(2), the submission
facially meets the requirements of the
statutory criteria outlined therein, as
applicable. In the case of section
110(a)(2)(C), for example, the statute
requires a state to have a SIP that
‘‘include[s] a program to provide for
. . . regulation of the modification and
construction of any stationary sources
. . . including a permit program as
required in parts C and D of this
subchapter.’’ Thus, the EPA reviews a
state’s infrastructure SIP submission to
assure that the structural elements of the
state’s PSD permitting program meets
current CAA requirements for such
programs.
This is not to say that the EPA has no
role in reviewing whether a state is
faithfully implementing its approved
SIP, or otherwise complying with the
CAA and its implementing regulations.
To the contrary, there are multiple
statutory tools that the EPA can use to
rectify problems with a state’s
implementation of its SIP, and the
existence of these tools is consistent
with the EPA’s interpretation of section
110(a)(2) with respect to the Agency’s
role in reviewing infrastructure SIP
submissions. For example, the CAA
provides the EPA the authority to issue
a SIP call, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(5); make a
finding of failure to implement, id.
sections 7410(m), 7509(a)(4); and take
measures to address specific permits
pursuant to the EPA’s case-by-case
permitting oversight. See, e.g., sections
7475(a)(2); 7477. The appropriateness of
employing these authorities depends on
the nature and extent of the particular
implementation problems at issue.
With respect to South Dakota’s
infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA
analyzed the submission itself, and
evaluated the text of its provisions for
compliance with the relevant elements
of section 110(a)(2). The EPA has
evaluated the State’s submission on a
requirement-by-requirement basis and
explained its views on the adequacy of
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
2016
52,664
57,627
2017
50,590
56,528
Projected
2023
34,096
51,313
the State’s SIP for purposes of meeting
the infrastructure SIP requirements.
The EPA appreciates and takes
seriously the commenters’ assertions
that the Agency should evaluate the
strength of the South Dakota permit
program in the SIP as approved by the
EPA. However, because this action
involves a review of the infrastructure
SIP submission itself, the EPA is not
evaluating the merits of assertions
concerning implementation of the SIP in
the context of this action. At this time,
the EPA is finalizing its proposed
approval of the infrastructure SIP
submission that is currently before the
Agency. If the EPA later determines that
there are indeed concerns with respect
to the implementation of the PSD
program in South Dakota, the Agency
intends to take appropriate action to
ensure those problems are rectified
using whatever statutory tools are
appropriate to the implementation
problem identified.
With respect to the requirements
related to PSD relevant to this approval
of the infrastructure SIP submission, the
EPA has determined that the State’s SIP
as previously approved, meets the
relevant structural requirements for
purposes of PSD in section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II) element 3, and (J). Some
examples of these basic structural SIP
requirements include having state law
authority to implement the SIP, an
overarching permitting program in
place, and a properly deployed
monitoring network. As to the PSD
program in particular, these basic
structural requirements include those
provisions necessary for the permitting
program to address all regulated NSR
pollutants and the proper sources. The
EPA considers action on the
infrastructure SIP submissions required
by section 110(a)(1) and (2) to be an
evaluation of a state’s SIP to assure that
it meets the basic structural
requirements for the new or revised
NAAQS, not a time to address all
potential substantive defects in existing
SIP provisions, or alleged defects in
implementation of the SIP.
The EPA concludes that South
Dakota’s infrastructure SIP submission
satisfies the State’s obligations for the
2015 ozone NAAQS with respect to PSD
program requirements.
E:\FR\FM\26OCR1.SGM
26OCR1
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
III. Final Action
In this rulemaking, we are approving
multiple elements of the infrastructure
SIP requirements for the 2015 ozone
NAAQS for South Dakota along with
approving revisions to the ARSD, Air
Pollution Control Program. The actions
we are approving are contained in Table
1 below.
The EPA is approving South Dakota’s
January 15, 2020 SIP submission that
addresses infrastructure requirements
for the 2015 ozone NAAQS SIP
submission for the following CAA
section 110(a)(2) infrastructure
elements: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I) Prongs 1
and 2, (D)(i)(II) Prong 3, (D)(i)(II) Prong
4, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L),
and (M). Additionally, in this action, we
67657
are approving a SIP revision submitted
by the State of South Dakota on January
3, 2020 that revises the ARSD, Air
Pollution Control Program.
In the table below, the key is as
follows:
A—Approve.
D—Disapprove.
NA—No Action.
TABLE 2—INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENTS THAT THE EPA IS PROPOSING TO ACT ON
2015 Ozone NAAQS Infrastructure SIP Elements: South Dakota
(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures ....................................................................................................................................
(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System .....................................................................................................................................
(C): Program for Enforcement of Control Measures .................................................................................................................................
(D)(i)(I): Prong 1 Interstate Transport—significant contribution ................................................................................................................
(D)(i)(I): Prong 2 Interstate Transport—interference with maintenance ....................................................................................................
(D)(i)(II): Prong 3 Interstate Transport—prevention of significant deterioration ........................................................................................
(D)(i)(II): Prong 4 Interstate Transport—visibility .......................................................................................................................................
(D)(ii): Interstate and International Pollution Abatement ...........................................................................................................................
(E): Adequate Resources ..........................................................................................................................................................................
(F): Stationary Source Monitoring System ................................................................................................................................................
(G): Emergency Episodes .........................................................................................................................................................................
(H): Future SIP revisions ...........................................................................................................................................................................
(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public Notification, PSD and Visibility Protection ...............................................................
(K): Air Quality and Modeling/Data ............................................................................................................................................................
(L): Permitting Fees ...................................................................................................................................................................................
(M): Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities ........................................................................................................................
South Dakota ARSD; revisions to South Dakota’s Air Quality Program; chapters pertaining to definitions, ambient air quality, air
quality episodes, PSD, new source review, performance testing, control of visible emissions, continuous emission monitoring systems, state facilities in Rapid City area, construction permits and regional haze program administrative rules .................................
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is
finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In
accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, the EPA is finalizing the
incorporation by reference of a SIP
revision submitted by the State of South
Dakota on January 3, 2020 that revises
the ARSD, Air Pollution Control
Program, updating the date of
incorporation by reference of federal
rules in ARSD chapters pertaining to
definitions, ambient air quality, air
quality episodes, PSD, new source
review, performance testing, control of
visible emissions, continuous emission
monitoring systems, State facilities in
Rapid City area, construction permits
and regional haze program
administrative rules as is described in
the preamble. The EPA has made, and
will continue to make, these materials
generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA
Region 8 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this
preamble for more information).
Therefore, these materials have been
approved by the EPA for inclusion in
the SIP, have been incorporated by
reference by the EPA into that plan, are
fully federally enforceable under
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Oct 23, 2020
Jkt 253001
sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of
the effective date of the final rulemaking
of the EPA’s approval, and will be
incorporated by reference in the next
update to the SIP compilation.20
V. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the
Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the
provisions of the Act and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k);
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP
submissions, the EPA’s role is to
approve state choices, provided that
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air
Act. Accordingly, this action merely
approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason,
this action:
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ subject to review by the Office
of Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
20 62
PO 00000
FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
Frm 00021
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
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
E:\FR\FM\26OCR1.SGM
26OCR1
67658
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
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 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. 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 Clean
Air Act, petitions for judicial review of
Rule No.
*
this action must be filed in the United
States Court of Appeals for the
appropriate circuit by December 28,
2020. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations,
Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: September 23, 2020.
Debra Thomas,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 8.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
*
*
EPA effective
date
*
■
*
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
State effective
date
2. In § 52.2170:
a. The table in paragraph (c) is
amended by:
■ i. Revising the entries ‘‘74:36:01:01’’,
‘‘74:36:01:05’’, ‘‘74:36:01:19’’,
‘‘74:36:01:20’’, ‘‘74:36:02:02’’,
‘‘74:36:02:03’’, ‘‘74:36:02:04’’,
‘‘74:36:02:05’’, ‘‘74:36:03:01’’,
‘‘74:36:03:02’’, ‘‘74:36:09:02’’,
‘‘74:36:09:03’’, ‘‘74:36:10:02’’,
‘‘74:36:10:03.01’’, ‘‘74:36:10:05’’,
‘‘74:36:10:07’’, ‘‘74:36:10:08’’,
‘‘74:36:11:01’’, ‘‘74:36:11:02’’,
‘‘74:36:11:03’’, ‘‘74:36:11:04’’,
‘‘74:36:12:01’’, ‘‘74:36:12:03’’,
‘‘74:36:13:02’’, ‘‘74:36:13:03’’,
‘‘74:36:13:04’’, ‘‘74:36:13:06’’,
‘‘74:36:13:07’’, ‘‘74:36:18:10’’,
‘‘74:36:20:05’’, ‘‘74:36:21:02’’,
‘‘74:36:21:04’’, ‘‘74:36:21:05’’, and
‘‘74:36:21:09’’ and
■ ii. Adding an entry for ‘‘74:36:21:13’’
in numerical order; and
■ b. The table in paragraph (e) is
amended by adding an entry for ‘‘XXVI.
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure
Requirements for the 2015 8-hour Ozone
NAAQS’’ at the end of the table.
The revisions and additions read as
follows:
■
§ 52.2170
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Rule title
Subpart QQ—South Dakota
Identification of plan.
*
*
(c) * * *
*
Final rule citation, date
*
*
*
Comments
*
74:36:01. Definitions
74:36:01:01 .....................
Definitions .......................
*
74:36:01:05 .....................
*
*
Applicable requirements
of the Clean Air Act defined.
*
74:36:01:19 .....................
*
*
Existing municipal solid
waste landfill defined.
Physical change in or
change in the method
of operation defined.
74:36:01:20 .....................
*
*
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
*
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
*
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
*
*
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
*
*
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
*
*
*
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
*
*
*
*
*
*
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
*
74:36:02. Ambient Air Quality
*
74:36:02:02 .....................
74:36:02:03 .....................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
*
Ambient air quality standards.
Methods of sampling and
analysis.
16:27 Oct 23, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
*
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
Frm 00022
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\26OCR1.SGM
26OCR1
67659
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
Rule No.
74:36:02:04 .....................
74:36:02:05 .....................
State effective
date
Rule title
Ambient air monitoring
network.
Air quality monitoring requirements.
EPA effective
date
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
Final rule citation, date
Comments
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
74:36:03. Air Quality Episodes
74:36:03:01 .....................
74:36:03:02 .....................
*
Air pollution emergency
episode.
Episode emergency contingency plan.
*
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
*
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
*
*
*
*
*
*
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
*
*
*
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
*
74:36:09. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
*
74:36:09:02 .....................
74:36:09:03 .....................
*
*
Prevention of Significant
Deterioration.
Public participation ..........
*
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
74:36:10. New Source Review
*
74:36:10:02 .....................
*
*
Definitions .......................
74:36:10:03.01 ................
New source review
preconstruction permit
required.
New source review
preconstruction permit
required.
74:36:10:05 .....................
*
74:36:10:07 .....................
74:36:10:08 .....................
*
*
*
Determining credit for
emissions Offsets.
Projected actual emissions.
*
*
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
*
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
*
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
*
*
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
*
*
*
*
*
74:36:11. Performance Testing
74:36:11:01 .....................
74:36:11:02 .....................
74:36:11:03 .....................
74:36:11:04 .....................
Stack performance testing or other testing
methods.
Secretary may require
performance tests.
Notice to department of
performance test.
Testing new fuels or raw
materials.
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
74:36:12. Control of Visible Emissions
74:36:12:01 .....................
Restrictions on visible
emissions.
*
74:36:12:03 .....................
*
*
Exceptions granted to alfalfa pelletizers or
dehydrators.
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
*
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
*
*
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
*
74:36:13. Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems
*
74:36:13:02 .....................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
*
*
Minimum performance
specifications for all
continuous emission
monitoring systems.
16:27 Oct 23, 2020
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
*
11/25/2019
Frm 00023
Fmt 4700
11/25/2020
Sfmt 4700
*
*
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
E:\FR\FM\26OCR1.SGM
26OCR1
*
67660
Federal Register / Vol. 85, No. 207 / Monday, October 26, 2020 / Rules and Regulations
State effective
date
EPA effective
date
Rule No.
Rule title
74:36:13:03 .....................
Reporting requirements ..
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
74:36:13:04 .....................
Notice to department of
exceedance.
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
*
74:36:13:06 .....................
*
*
Compliance certification ..
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
74:36:13:07 .....................
Credible evidence ...........
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
*
*
*
*
*
Final rule citation, date
Comments
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
*
*
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
*
*
*
*
*
*
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
*
74:36:18. Regulations for State Facilities in the Rapid City Area
*
74:36:18:10 .....................
*
*
*
Visible emission limit for
construction and continuous operation activities.
*
*
11/25/2019
*
11/25/2020
*
*
*
*
*
*
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
*
74:36:20. Construction Permits for New Sources or Modifications
*
74:36:20:05 .....................
*
*
*
Standard for issuance of
construction permit.
*
*
11/25/2019
*
11/25/2020
*
*
*
*
*
*
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
*
*
*
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
*
*
*
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
*
11/25/2020
*
*
[insert Federal Register
citation], 10/26/2020.
*
11/25/2020
74:36:21. Regional Haze Program
*
74:36:21:02 .....................
*
*
Definitions .......................
11/25/2019
*
74:36:21:04 .....................
*
*
Visibility impact analysis
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
74:36:21:05 .....................
BART determination ........
11/25/2019
11/25/2020
*
74:36:21:09 .....................
*
*
Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.
11/25/2019
*
74:36:21:13 .....................
*
*
Calculate a 30-day rolling
average.
11/25/2019
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
11/25/2020
*
*
*
(e) * * *
State effective date
Rule title
*
*
*
XXVI. Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the
2015 8-hour Ozone NAAQS.
EPA effective date
*
01/15/2020
11/25/2020
Final rule citation, date
*
*
[insert Federal Register citation], 10/26/2020.
[FR Doc. 2020–21474 Filed 10–23–20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:27 Oct 23, 2020
*
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
E:\FR\FM\26OCR1.SGM
26OCR1
Comments
*
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 85, Number 207 (Monday, October 26, 2020)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67653-67660]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2020-21474]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0642; FRL-10014-86-Region 8]
Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approval and Promulgation
of Implementation Plans; South Dakota; Infrastructure Requirements for
the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards; Revisions to
Administrative Rules
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
State of South Dakota's January 15, 2020, State Implementation Plan
(SIP) submission that addresses infrastructure requirements for the
2015 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
Additionally, in this action, we are approving a SIP revision submitted
by the State of South Dakota on January 3, 2020, that revises the
Administrative Rules of South Dakota (ARSD), Air Pollution Control
Program, updating the date of incorporation by reference of federal
rules in ARSD chapters pertaining to definitions, ambient air quality,
air quality episodes, Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD),
new source review, performance testing, control of visible emissions,
continuous emission monitoring systems, State facilities in Rapid City
area, construction permits and regional haze program administrative
rules. The EPA is taking this action pursuant to the Clean Air Act
(CAA).
DATES: This rule is effective on November 25, 2020.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2019-0642. 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, telephone number: (303)
312-6175, email address: [email protected]. Mail can be directed to
the Air and Radiation Division, U.S. EPA, Region 8, Mail-code 8ARD-QP,
1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and
``our'' means the EPA.
I. Background
On March 12, 2008, the EPA promulgated a new NAAQS for ozone,
revising the levels of primary and secondary 8-hour ozone standards
from 0.08 parts per million (ppm) to 0.075 ppm (73 FR 16436). More
recently, on October 1, 2015, the EPA promulgated and revised the NAAQS
for ozone, further strengthening the primary and secondary 8-hour
standards to 0.070 ppm (80 FR 65292). The October 1, 2015 standards are
known as the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Section 110(a)(1) of the CAA directs each state to make an
infrastructure SIP submission to the EPA within 3 years of promulgation
of a new or revised NAAQS. Infrastructure requirements for SIPs are
provided in section 110(a)(1) and (2) of the CAA. Section 110(a)(2)
lists the specific infrastructure elements that a state's
infrastructure SIP submission must address, as applicable. The state's
infrastructure SIP submission must establish that the state's existing
SIP meets the applicable requirements or make revisions to satisfy
those requirements as necessary. The elements that are the subject of
this action are described in detail in our notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) published on May 19, 2020 (85 FR 29882) for South
Dakota's infrastructure SIP submission, submitted to the EPA on January
15, 2020, and SIP revisions to the ARSD submitted to the EPA on January
3, 2020.
II. Response to Comments
Comments on our NPRM were due on or before June 18, 2020. The EPA
[[Page 67654]]
received four comments. The first comment was supportive of the
proposed action. We summarize and respond to all other significant
adverse comments below.
Comments: One commenter contends that our May 19, 2020 South Dakota
infrastructure SIP NPRM is a ``blatantly illegal rule'' which should be
retracted and disapproved because the EPA has ignored ``the courts,''
specifically the May 19, 2020 decision of the D.C. Circuit Court of
Appeals in Maryland v. EPA.\1\ The commenter contests the EPA's use of
2023 as the analytic year for evaluation of South Dakota's ``Good
Neighbor'' obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS,\2\ which the agency
based on its interpretation of the relevant holding in Wisconsin v. EPA
regarding the appropriate timeframes for analysis and implementation of
Good Neighbor obligations.\3\ Commenter maintains that the 2021
Marginal attainment year for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is the correct
analytical year per the Maryland decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maryland v. EPA, 958 F.3d 1185 (D.C. Cir. 2020).
\2\ CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) is colloquially referred to
as the ``Good Neighbor'' provision.
\3\ Wisconsin v. EPA, 938 F.3d 303, 313-320 (D.C. Cir. 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, another commenter alleges that EPA cannot approve the
South Dakota infrastructure SIP submission ``as it relates to the good
neighbor provision because it relies on the flawed modeling,'' and thus
the EPA should disapprove it because the State relied on the wrong
analysis. The commenter asserts that, ``courts have opined several
times that 2023 is the improper year to evaluate for downwind
contributions'' and the EPA must disapprove South Dakota's SIP
submission due to 2021 being the correct analytical year to evaluate
for Good Neighbor downwind contributions.
The commenter further argues that the Good Neighbor provision
require states to perform the modeling analysis themselves, and thus
because the EPA cannot perform the analysis for the State, that the EPA
consequently cannot supplement South Dakota's infrastructure SIP
submission with ``new manufactured'' modeling to support approval of
the proposal. The commenter also asserts that if the EPA were to
``fix'' the modeling for the State, EPA must then disapprove the
State's infrastructure SIP submission and promulgate a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP).
Response: The commenters are referring to recent D.C. Circuit court
decisions addressing, in part, the issue of the relevant analytic year
for the purposes of evaluating interstate ozone transport under the
Good Neighbor provision, CAA section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I). On September
13, 2019, the D.C. Circuit issued a decision in Wisconsin v. EPA,
remanding the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (``CSAPR'') Update \4\ to
the extent that Good Neighbor FIPs in the CSAPR Update did not fully
eliminate upwind states' ``significant contribution'' by the next
applicable attainment date \5\ by which downwind states must attain the
2008 ozone NAAQS. See 938 F.3d at 313. The EPA had interpreted that
holding as limited to the attainment dates for Moderate or higher
classifications under CAA section 181 on the basis that Marginal
nonattainment areas have reduced planning requirements and other
considerations. See, e.g., 85 FR 29882, 29888-89 (May 19, 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ 81 FR 74504 (October 26, 2016).
\5\ See CAA 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On May 19, 2020, the D.C. Circuit in Maryland v. EPA, applying the
Wisconsin decision, held that the EPA must assess the impacts of
interstate transport on air quality at the next downwind attainment
date, including Marginal area attainment dates, in evaluating the basis
for EPA's denial of a petition under CAA section 126(b). 958 F.3d at
1203-04. The EPA signed the NPRM proposing approval of South Dakota's
Good Neighbor SIP prior to the D.C. Circuit's decision in Maryland. In
accordance with the Maryland decision, the Agency now, in taking this
final action approving the South Dakota SIP, considers the Marginal
area attainment date \6\ as the relevant analytic year for the purposes
of determining whether sources in South Dakota will significantly
contribute to downwind nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of
the 2015 ozone NAAQS in any other states.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The attainment date for nonattainment areas classified as
Marginal for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is August 3, 2021. See CAA 181(a);
40 CFR 51.1303; 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
\7\ We note that the court in Maryland did not have occasion to
evaluate circumstances in which EPA may determine that an upwind
linkage to a downwind air quality problem exists at steps 1 and 2 of
the four-step Good Neighbor framework by a particular attainment
date, but for reasons of impossibility or profound uncertainty the
Agency is unable to mandate upwind pollution controls by that date.
See 938 F.3d at 319-320. The D.C. Circuit noted in Wisconsin that
upon a sufficient showing, these circumstances may warrant a certain
degree of flexibility in effectuating the implementation of the Good
Neighbor provision. Id. Such circumstances are not at issue in the
present action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA disagrees with the commenters' assertion that this change in
analysis means EPA must disapprove South Dakota's infrastructure SIP
submission as it pertains to the Good Neighbor provision. As an initial
matter, in regard to the comment that South Dakota must conduct its own
air quality analysis, EPA has authority and indeed an obligation to
take into consideration any relevant information in the record,
including its own air quality modeling analysis, to determine how to
act on a SIP submission. Here, the State had concluded in its
infrastructure SIP submission that it has no emissions reduction
obligations for purposes of section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), on the basis
that its emissions are not linked to any nonattainment or maintenance
receptors, remains approvable. Specifically, relying in part on the
same data that informed its analysis of the year 2023, the EPA finds it
reasonable to conclude that the impacts from emissions from South
Dakota will not exceed a contribution threshold of 1 percent of the
2015 ozone NAAQS to any downwind nonattainment and maintenance sites in
2021. This finding is sufficient basis for EPA to conclude that South
Dakota is not linked to any downwind receptors at step 2 of the four-
step interstate transport framework.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Thus, it is not necessary for the EPA to proceed to evaluate
whether the state's infrastructure SIP submission may also be
approvable using an alternative contribution threshold of 1 ppb. The
EPA released a memorandum in August 2018 which indicates that, based
on the EPA's analysis of its most recent modeling data, the amount
of upwind collective contribution capture using a 1 ppb threshold is
generally comparable, overall, to the amount captured using a
threshold equivalent to 1 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Accordingly, the EPA indicated that it may be reasonable and
appropriate for states to use a 1 ppb contribution threshold, as an
alternative to the 1 percent threshold, at step 2 of the four-step
Good Neighbor framework in developing their SIP revisions addressing
the Good Neighbor provision for the 2015 ozone NAAQS. See Analysis
of Contribution Thresholds for Use in Clean Air Act Section
110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) Interstate Transport State Implementation Plan
Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, August 31, 2018, available in the docket for this action
or at https://www.epa.gov/airmarkets/memo-and-supplemental-information-regarding-interstate-transport-sips-2015-ozone-naaqs.
\9\ Information on the Interstate Transport State Implementation
Plan Submissions for the 2015 Ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards under Clean Air Act Section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I), March 27,
2018, available in the docket for this action or at https://www.epa.gov/interstate-air-pollution-transport/memos-and-notices-regarding-interstate-air-pollution-transport.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
South Dakota's January 15, 2020 infrastructure SIP submission
includes an interstate ozone transport analysis for the Good Neighbor
provision that focused on the modeling information provided in the
EPA's March 2018 memorandum,\9\ which used 2023 as the analytic year
(corresponding with the
[[Page 67655]]
2024 Moderate area attainment date).\10\ Based on the contribution
modeling included in the March 2018 memorandum, the EPA concludes that
South Dakota's largest impact on any downwind nonattainment or
maintenance receptors in 2023 are 0.07 parts per billion (ppb) and 0.05
ppb, respectively.\11\ These values are both far less than 1 percent of
the 2015 ozone NAAQS (0.70 ppb). In response to these comments and the
Maryland decision, using the best available information (including the
same data that informed EPA's 2023 modeling) to analyze South Dakota's
air quality impacts in the year 2021, the EPA finds it reasonable to
conclude that South Dakota's impact on any potential downwind
nonattainment and maintenance receptor in 2021 would be similar to
those projected in 2023, and likewise well below 1 percent of the 2015
ozone NAAQS, as detailed in the methodology described below. Therefore,
EPA finds that South Dakota's infrastructure SIP submission satisfies
the State's Good Neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ The year 2023 was used as the analytic year because that
year aligns with the expected attainment year for Moderate ozone
nonattainment areas. The attainment date for nonattainment areas
classified as Moderate for the 2015 ozone NAAQS is August 3, 2024.
See CAA 181(a); 40 CFR 51.1303; 83 FR 25776 (June 4, 2018).
\11\ The EPA's analysis indicates that South Dakota will have a
0.07 ppb impact at the nonattainment receptor in Tarrant County,
Texas (Site ID 484392003), which has a 2023 projected average design
value of 72.5 ppb, and a 2023 projected maximum design value of 74.8
ppb. The EPA's analysis further indicates that South Dakota will
have a 0.05 ppb impact at the maintenance receptors in Allegan,
Michigan (Site ID 260050003) and Queens, New York (Site ID
360810124), which both had projected 2023 average design values
below the 2015 ozone NAAQS (69.0 and 70.2 ppb, respectively), and
2023 projected maximum design values above the NAAQS (71.7 and 72.0
ppb, respectively). See the March 2018 memorandum, attachment C.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The EPA's analysis of receptors and contributions in 2021 relies in
part on the 2023 modeling used in the NPRM of this action, the results
of which were included with the March 2018 memorandum. These data are
the most recent published applicable modeling data available at the
time of this final action. To estimate South Dakota's maximum
contribution to a nonattainment or maintenance receptor in 2021, EPA
developed an interpolation analysis that evaluates available modeling,
monitoring, and emissions data to assess air quality in this year. In
general, this analysis utilizes 2019 measured design values \12\ and
2023 modeled design values to estimate design values at each monitoring
site in 2021. Specifically, 2021 average and maximum design values were
calculated by straight-line linear interpolation between the 2019
measured data and the 2023 modeled data. EPA believes that the linear
interpolation methodology using measured data and 2023 model
projections provides a technically sound basis for estimation of ozone
design values in 2021 in part because of the relatively short two-year
span between 2021 and 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The 2019 design values at each monitoring site nationwide
are available at https://www.epa.gov/air-trends/air-quality-design-values.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA calculated ozone contributions in 2021 by applying the
following two-step process. First, the contributions (in ppb) from each
state to each monitoring site in 2023 were converted to a fractional
portion of the 2023 average design value by dividing the contribution
by the 2023 design value. In the second step, the resulting
contribution fractions were multiplied by the estimated 2021 average
design value to produce 2021 contributions from each state to each
monitoring site.\13\ \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ Note that the method used here for calculating
contributions in 2021 is similar to the method used by EPA to
calculate the 2023 contributions from 2023 air quality modeling.
\14\ Design values for 2019, 2021, and 2023 along with the
contributions in 2021 and 2023 are provided in a file in the docket
for this rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2021 design values and contributions were examined to determine
if South Dakota contributes at or above the 1 percent of the 2015 ozone
NAAQS threshold (0.70 ppb) to a downwind nonattainment or maintenance
receptor. The data indicate that the highest contribution in 2021 from
South Dakota to a downwind receptor is 0.14 ppb to the nonattainment
receptor site in Cook County, Illinois.\15\ Based on this analysis, EPA
finds it reasonable to conclude that South Dakota will contribute less
than 1 percent of the 2015 ozone NAAQS to any potential nonattainment
or maintenance receptors in 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ This downwind receptor site has Air Quality System (AQS)
monitoring ID #170310001 and is located in Cook County, Illinois.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EPA also analyzed ozone precursor emissions trends in South Dakota
to support the findings from the air quality analysis. In evaluating
emissions trends, we focused on State-wide emissions of nitrogen oxides
(``NOX'') and volatile organic compounds (``VOCs'') in South
Dakota.\16\ \17\ Emissions from mobile sources, electric generating
units (``EGUs''), industrial facilities, gasoline vapors, and chemical
solvents are some of the major anthropogenic sources of ozone
precursors. This evaluation looks at both past emissions trends, as
well as projected trends.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ This is because ground-level ozone is not emitted directly
into the air but is a secondary air pollutant created by chemical
reactions between ozone precursors, chiefly NOX and non-
methane VOCs, in the presence of sunlight.
\17\ 81 FR 74504, 74513-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As shown in Table 1, between 2011 and 2017, annual total
NOX and VOC emissions have declined, by 32 percent and 9
percent, respectively. The projected reductions are a result of ``on
the books'' and ``on the way'' regulations that will continue to
decrease NOX and VOC emissions in South Dakota, as indicated
by our 2023 projected emissions. The large decrease in NOX
emissions between 2017 emissions and projected 2023 emissions in South
Dakota are primarily driven by reductions in emissions from on-road and
nonroad vehicles. EPA projects that the downward trend in both VOC and
NOX emissions from 2011 through 2017 is expected to continue
at a steady rate out to 2023 and further into the future due to the
replacement of higher emissions vehicles with lower emitting vehicles
as a result of several mobile source control programs.\18\ This
downward trend in emissions in South Dakota adds support to the air
quality analysis presented above, which indicates that the
contributions from emissions from sources in South Dakota to ozone in
downwind states will continue to decline and remain below 1 percent of
the NAAQS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ Tier 3 Standards (March 2014), the Light-Duty Greenhouse
Gas Rule (March 2013), Heavy (and Medium)-Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule
(August 2011), the Renewable Fuel Standard (February 2010), the
Light Duty Greenhouse Gas Rule (April 2010), the Corporate-Average
Fuel Economy standards for 2008-2011 (April 2010), the 2007 Onroad
Heavy-Duty Rule (February 2009), and the Final Mobile Source Air
Toxics Rule (MSAT2) (February 2007).
[[Page 67656]]
Table 1--Annual Emissions of NOX and VOC From Anthropogenic Emission Sources in South Dakota
[tons]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Projected
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2023
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOX............................................. 73,995 71,438 68,881 66,323 56,548 52,664 50,590 34,096
VOC............................................. 66,430 64,229 62,028 59,826 58,873 57,627 56,528 51,313
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, the EPA concludes the air quality and emission analyses
indicate that emissions from South Dakota will not significantly
contribute to nonattainment or interfere with maintenance of the 2015
ozone NAAQS in any other state in 2021. Therefore, EPA concludes that
South Dakota's infrastructure SIP submission satisfies the State's Good
Neighbor obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS.
Comment: One commenter asserts that the EPA should not approve
South Dakota's infrastructure SIP submission with respect to PSD
requirements because the Agency isn't required to do so under current
rules. The commenter seems to allege that South Dakota's PSD program is
under consideration at the time of the proposed action and there will
be legal challenges regarding the approval of construction permits.
Additionally, the commenter alleges that the EPA should `evaluate the
strength of the S.D. permit program and its financial health.'
Response: The EPA disagrees with the commenter. The commenters'
concerns appear to be directed not to whether the existing SIP for
South Dakota meets the relevant structural requirements for PSD
programs, but rather to whether South Dakota is in fact faithfully
implementing the existing provisions of its EPA-approved SIP. As the
EPA has explained in other infrastructure SIP actions, comments like
these highlight an important distinction between whether an
infrastructure SIP submission meets the applicable requirements of the
CAA on its face (i.e., pertain to the facial sufficiency of the state's
SIP), and whether a state is actually complying with the requirements
of that SIP (i.e., pertain to adequacy of the state's implementation of
the SIP).\19\ This comment implicates the question of the degree to
which implementation concerns are relevant in the context of acting on
a state's infrastructure SIP submission. In the context of an
infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA interprets the requirements of
section 110(a)(1) and (2) to require the Agency to focus on whether the
state has a SIP that provides the requisite legal framework for
implementation, maintenance and enforcement of the NAAQS. Generally
speaking, the EPA's review of infrastructure SIP submissions is limited
to whether, pursuant to CAA section 110(a)(2), the submission facially
meets the requirements of the statutory criteria outlined therein, as
applicable. In the case of section 110(a)(2)(C), for example, the
statute requires a state to have a SIP that ``include[s] a program to
provide for . . . regulation of the modification and construction of
any stationary sources . . . including a permit program as required in
parts C and D of this subchapter.'' Thus, the EPA reviews a state's
infrastructure SIP submission to assure that the structural elements of
the state's PSD permitting program meets current CAA requirements for
such programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ See ``Approval and Disapproval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Texas; Infrastructure and Interstate Transport
Requirements of the 1997 Ozone and the 1997 and 2006
PM2.5 NAAQS,'' 76 FR 81371 (Dec. 28, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is not to say that the EPA has no role in reviewing whether a
state is faithfully implementing its approved SIP, or otherwise
complying with the CAA and its implementing regulations. To the
contrary, there are multiple statutory tools that the EPA can use to
rectify problems with a state's implementation of its SIP, and the
existence of these tools is consistent with the EPA's interpretation of
section 110(a)(2) with respect to the Agency's role in reviewing
infrastructure SIP submissions. For example, the CAA provides the EPA
the authority to issue a SIP call, 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(5); make a finding
of failure to implement, id. sections 7410(m), 7509(a)(4); and take
measures to address specific permits pursuant to the EPA's case-by-case
permitting oversight. See, e.g., sections 7475(a)(2); 7477. The
appropriateness of employing these authorities depends on the nature
and extent of the particular implementation problems at issue.
With respect to South Dakota's infrastructure SIP submission, the
EPA analyzed the submission itself, and evaluated the text of its
provisions for compliance with the relevant elements of section
110(a)(2). The EPA has evaluated the State's submission on a
requirement-by-requirement basis and explained its views on the
adequacy of the State's SIP for purposes of meeting the infrastructure
SIP requirements.
The EPA appreciates and takes seriously the commenters' assertions
that the Agency should evaluate the strength of the South Dakota permit
program in the SIP as approved by the EPA. However, because this action
involves a review of the infrastructure SIP submission itself, the EPA
is not evaluating the merits of assertions concerning implementation of
the SIP in the context of this action. At this time, the EPA is
finalizing its proposed approval of the infrastructure SIP submission
that is currently before the Agency. If the EPA later determines that
there are indeed concerns with respect to the implementation of the PSD
program in South Dakota, the Agency intends to take appropriate action
to ensure those problems are rectified using whatever statutory tools
are appropriate to the implementation problem identified.
With respect to the requirements related to PSD relevant to this
approval of the infrastructure SIP submission, the EPA has determined
that the State's SIP as previously approved, meets the relevant
structural requirements for purposes of PSD in section 110(a)(2)(C),
(D)(i)(II) element 3, and (J). Some examples of these basic structural
SIP requirements include having state law authority to implement the
SIP, an overarching permitting program in place, and a properly
deployed monitoring network. As to the PSD program in particular, these
basic structural requirements include those provisions necessary for
the permitting program to address all regulated NSR pollutants and the
proper sources. The EPA considers action on the infrastructure SIP
submissions required by section 110(a)(1) and (2) to be an evaluation
of a state's SIP to assure that it meets the basic structural
requirements for the new or revised NAAQS, not a time to address all
potential substantive defects in existing SIP provisions, or alleged
defects in implementation of the SIP.
The EPA concludes that South Dakota's infrastructure SIP submission
satisfies the State's obligations for the 2015 ozone NAAQS with respect
to PSD program requirements.
[[Page 67657]]
III. Final Action
In this rulemaking, we are approving multiple elements of the
infrastructure SIP requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS for South
Dakota along with approving revisions to the ARSD, Air Pollution
Control Program. The actions we are approving are contained in Table 1
below.
The EPA is approving South Dakota's January 15, 2020 SIP submission
that addresses infrastructure requirements for the 2015 ozone NAAQS SIP
submission for the following CAA section 110(a)(2) infrastructure
elements: (A), (B), (C), (D)(i)(I) Prongs 1 and 2, (D)(i)(II) Prong 3,
(D)(i)(II) Prong 4, (D)(ii), (E), (F), (G), (H), (J), (K), (L), and
(M). Additionally, in this action, we are approving a SIP revision
submitted by the State of South Dakota on January 3, 2020 that revises
the ARSD, Air Pollution Control Program.
In the table below, the key is as follows:
A--Approve.
D--Disapprove.
NA--No Action.
Table 2--Infrastructure Elements That the EPA Is Proposing To Act On
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2015 Ozone NAAQS Infrastructure SIP Elements: South Dakota
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A): Emission Limits and Other Control Measures............ A
(B): Ambient Air Quality Monitoring/Data System............ A
(C): Program for Enforcement of Control Measures........... A
(D)(i)(I): Prong 1 Interstate Transport--significant A
contribution..............................................
(D)(i)(I): Prong 2 Interstate Transport--interference with A
maintenance...............................................
(D)(i)(II): Prong 3 Interstate Transport--prevention of A
significant deterioration.................................
(D)(i)(II): Prong 4 Interstate Transport--visibility....... A
(D)(ii): Interstate and International Pollution Abatement.. A
(E): Adequate Resources.................................... A
(F): Stationary Source Monitoring System................... A
(G): Emergency Episodes.................................... A
(H): Future SIP revisions.................................. A
(J): Consultation with Government Officials, Public A
Notification, PSD and Visibility Protection...............
(K): Air Quality and Modeling/Data......................... A
(L): Permitting Fees....................................... A
(M): Consultation/Participation by Affected Local Entities. A
South Dakota ARSD; revisions to South Dakota's Air Quality A
Program; chapters pertaining to definitions, ambient air
quality, air quality episodes, PSD, new source review,
performance testing, control of visible emissions,
continuous emission monitoring systems, state facilities
in Rapid City area, construction permits and regional haze
program administrative rules..............................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this document, the EPA is finalizing regulatory text that
includes incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of
1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of a
SIP revision submitted by the State of South Dakota on January 3, 2020
that revises the ARSD, Air Pollution Control Program, updating the date
of incorporation by reference of federal rules in ARSD chapters
pertaining to definitions, ambient air quality, air quality episodes,
PSD, new source review, performance testing, control of visible
emissions, continuous emission monitoring systems, State facilities in
Rapid City area, construction permits and regional haze program
administrative rules as is described in the preamble. The EPA has made,
and will continue to make, these materials generally available through
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA Region 8 Office (please contact the
person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of
this preamble for more information). Therefore, these materials have
been approved by the EPA for inclusion in the SIP, have been
incorporated by reference by the EPA into that plan, are fully
federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 of the CAA as of the
effective date of the final rulemaking of the EPA's approval, and will
be incorporated by reference in the next update to the SIP
compilation.\20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act.
Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
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
[[Page 67658]]
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 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. 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 Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by December 28, 2020. 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, Carbon monoxide,
Greenhouse gases, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental
relations, Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic
compounds.
Dated: September 23, 2020.
Debra Thomas,
Acting 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. In Sec. 52.2170:
0
a. The table in paragraph (c) is amended by:
0
i. Revising the entries ``74:36:01:01'', ``74:36:01:05'',
``74:36:01:19'', ``74:36:01:20'', ``74:36:02:02'', ``74:36:02:03'',
``74:36:02:04'', ``74:36:02:05'', ``74:36:03:01'', ``74:36:03:02'',
``74:36:09:02'', ``74:36:09:03'', ``74:36:10:02'', ``74:36:10:03.01'',
``74:36:10:05'', ``74:36:10:07'', ``74:36:10:08'', ``74:36:11:01'',
``74:36:11:02'', ``74:36:11:03'', ``74:36:11:04'', ``74:36:12:01'',
``74:36:12:03'', ``74:36:13:02'', ``74:36:13:03'', ``74:36:13:04'',
``74:36:13:06'', ``74:36:13:07'', ``74:36:18:10'', ``74:36:20:05'',
``74:36:21:02'', ``74:36:21:04'', ``74:36:21:05'', and ``74:36:21:09''
and
0
ii. Adding an entry for ``74:36:21:13'' in numerical order; and
0
b. The table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an entry for ``XXVI.
Section 110(a)(2) Infrastructure Requirements for the 2015 8-hour Ozone
NAAQS'' at the end of the table.
The revisions and additions read as follows:
Sec. 52.2170 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State EPA effective Final rule
Rule No. Rule title effective date date citation, date Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74:36:01. Definitions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74:36:01:01.................. Definitions.... 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
Register
citation], 10/
26/2020.
* * * * * * *
74:36:01:05.................. Applicable 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
requirements Register
of the Clean citation], 10/
Air Act 26/2020.
defined.
* * * * * * *
74:36:01:19.................. Existing 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
municipal Register
solid waste citation], 10/
landfill 26/2020.
defined.
74:36:01:20.................. Physical change 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
in or change Register
in the method citation], 10/
of operation 26/2020.
defined.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74:36:02. Ambient Air Quality
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
74:36:02:02.................. Ambient air 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
quality Register
standards. citation], 10/
26/2020.
74:36:02:03.................. Methods of 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
sampling and Register
analysis. citation], 10/
26/2020.
[[Page 67659]]
74:36:02:04.................. Ambient air 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
monitoring Register
network. citation], 10/
26/2020.
74:36:02:05.................. Air quality 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
monitoring Register
requirements. citation], 10/
26/2020.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74:36:03. Air Quality Episodes
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74:36:03:01.................. Air pollution 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
emergency Register
episode. citation], 10/
26/2020.
74:36:03:02.................. Episode 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
emergency Register
contingency citation], 10/
plan. 26/2020.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74:36:09. Prevention of Significant Deterioration
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
74:36:09:02.................. Prevention of 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
Significant Register
Deterioration. citation], 10/
26/2020.
74:36:09:03.................. Public 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
participation. Register
citation], 10/
26/2020.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74:36:10. New Source Review
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
74:36:10:02.................. Definitions.... 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
Register
citation], 10/
26/2020.
74:36:10:03.01............... New source 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
review Register
preconstructio citation], 10/
n permit 26/2020.
required.
74:36:10:05.................. New source 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
review Register
preconstructio citation], 10/
n permit 26/2020.
required.
* * * * * * *
74:36:10:07.................. Determining 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
credit for Register
emissions citation], 10/
Offsets. 26/2020.
74:36:10:08.................. Projected 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
actual Register
emissions. citation], 10/
26/2020.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74:36:11. Performance Testing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74:36:11:01.................. Stack 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
performance Register
testing or citation], 10/
other testing 26/2020.
methods.
74:36:11:02.................. Secretary may 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
require Register
performance citation], 10/
tests. 26/2020.
74:36:11:03.................. Notice to 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
department of Register
performance citation], 10/
test. 26/2020.
74:36:11:04.................. Testing new 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
fuels or raw Register
materials. citation], 10/
26/2020.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74:36:12. Control of Visible Emissions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74:36:12:01.................. Restrictions on 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
visible Register
emissions. citation], 10/
26/2020.
* * * * * * *
74:36:12:03.................. Exceptions 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
granted to Register
alfalfa citation], 10/
pelletizers or 26/2020.
dehydrators.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74:36:13. Continuous Emission Monitoring Systems
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
74:36:13:02.................. Minimum 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
performance Register
specifications citation], 10/
for all 26/2020.
continuous
emission
monitoring
systems.
[[Page 67660]]
74:36:13:03.................. Reporting 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
requirements. Register
citation], 10/
26/2020.
74:36:13:04.................. Notice to 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
department of Register
exceedance. citation], 10/
26/2020.
* * * * * * *
74:36:13:06.................. Compliance 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
certification. Register
citation], 10/
26/2020.
74:36:13:07.................. Credible 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
evidence. Register
citation], 10/
26/2020.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74:36:18. Regulations for State Facilities in the Rapid City Area
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
74:36:18:10.................. Visible 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
emission limit Register
for citation], 10/
construction 26/2020.
and continuous
operation
activities.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74:36:20. Construction Permits for New Sources or Modifications
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
74:36:20:05.................. Standard for 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
issuance of Register
construction citation], 10/
permit. 26/2020.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74:36:21. Regional Haze Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
74:36:21:02.................. Definitions.... 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
Register
citation], 10/
26/2020.
* * * * * * *
74:36:21:04.................. Visibility 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
impact Register
analysis. citation], 10/
26/2020.
74:36:21:05.................. BART 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
determination. Register
citation], 10/
26/2020.
* * * * * * *
74:36:21:09.................. Monitoring, 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
recordkeeping, Register
and reporting. citation], 10/
26/2020.
* * * * * * *
74:36:21:13.................. Calculate a 30- 11/25/2019 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
day rolling Register
average. citation], 10/
26/2020.
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
(e) * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
State EPA effective Final rule citation,
Rule title effective date date date Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
XXVI. Section 110(a)(2) 01/15/2020 11/25/2020 [insert Federal
Infrastructure Requirements for Register citation],
the 2015 8-hour Ozone NAAQS. 10/26/2020.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2020-21474 Filed 10-23-20; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
