83 FR 11946 - Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Dakota; Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 53 (March 19, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 53 (March 19, 2018)
| Page Range | 11946-11952 | |
| FR Document | 2018-05398 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 53 (Monday, March 19, 2018)] [Proposed Rules] [Pages 11946-11952] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-05398] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0672; FRL-9975-47--Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Dakota; Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve South Dakota's regional haze progress report, submitted as a revision to its State Implementation Plan (SIP) by the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). South Dakota's SIP revision addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and the EPA's rules that require states to submit periodic reports describing progress toward reasonable progress goals established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze SIP. South Dakota's progress report explains that South Dakota has implemented the measures in the regional haze SIP due to be in place by the date of the progress report and that visibility in mandatory federal Class I areas affected by emissions from South Dakota sources is improving. The EPA is proposing approval of South Dakota's determination that the State's regional haze SIP is adequate to meet Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) for the first implementation period covering through 2018 and requires no substantive revision at this time. DATES: Comments must be received on or before April 18, 2018. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R08- OAR-2017-0672 at http://www.regulations.gov. Follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from www.regulations.gov. The EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. [[Page 11947]] Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. The EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Gregory, Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6175, or by email at [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Background States are required to submit progress reports that evaluate progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory federal Class I area \1\ (Class I area) within the state and in each Class I area outside the state that may be affected by emissions from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). In addition, the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze SIP. The first progress report must take the form of a SIP revision and is due 5 years after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP. On January 21, 2011, South Dakota submitted the State's first regional haze SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)). Listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D. \2\ 77 FR 24845 (April 26, 2012). EPA fully approved South Dakota's regional haze SIP submittal addressing the requirements of the first implementation period for regional haze. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On January 27, 2016, South Dakota submitted as a revision to its SIP a progress report which detailed the progress made in the first planning period toward implementation of the Long Term Strategy (LTS) outlined in the 2011 regional haze SIP submittal, the visibility improvement measured at Class I areas affected by emissions from South Dakota sources, and a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional haze SIP. The State provided public notice for comment on the Progress Report from December 22, 2015, to January 20, 2015, and received no comment. The EPA is proposing to approve South Dakota's January 27, 2016 SIP submittal. II. EPA's Evaluation of South Dakota's Progress Report and Adequacy Determination A. Regional Haze Progress Report This section includes the EPA's analysis of South Dakota's Progress Report and an explanation of the basis for the Agency's proposed approval. The State's Progress Report evaluates the most recent visibility results against the 2018 Uniform Rate of Progress Goals (URP Goals), instead of the 2018 RPGs specified in the regional haze regulations. South Dakota's Progress Report explains they used the URP Goals because ``South Dakota's Class I areas have exceeded the reasonable progress goals that were established'' and ``[w]ith emissions reductions that are expected from the addition of BART controls at Big Stone and other facilities throughout the region, DENR expects that the improvements will continue and South Dakota's Class I areas will meet the 2018 uniform rate of progress goals.'' \3\ Since the regional haze regulations require an evaluation of visibility progress against the 2018 RPGs, our evaluation of South Dakota's SIP focuses on the RPGs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ South Dakota Progress Report, Appendix B, p. B-2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. Control Measures In its Progress Report, South Dakota summarizes the emissions reduction measures that were relied upon by South Dakota in its regional haze plan for ensuring reasonable progress at the two Class I areas within the State: Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks. The State's regional haze SIP established reasonable progress goals for 2018.\4\ The emission reduction measures include applicable federal programs (e.g., mobile source rules), various existing South Dakota air quality rules, and a plan to ``investigate the impacts of a smoke management plan'' to determine what level of fires and what best management practices should be included in the plan, with the results adopted into the SIP as part of the LTS.\5\ South Dakota also reviewed the status of Best Available Retrofit Technology (BART) requirements for the sole BART-subject source in the state: The Big Stone I coal- fired power plant, owned by Montana-Dakota Utilities Company, NorthWestern Energy, and Otter Tail Power Company, located near Big Stone City, South Dakota. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \4\ 40 CFR 52.2170(c)(1). 77 FR 24845, 25855 (April 26, 2012) (final RH SIP approving South Dakota's Regional Haze SIP, Amendment, Section 7.2, Table 7-1, p. 106). 76 FR 76646, 76664 (December 8, 2011) (proposed RH SIP approval, Tables 20 and 21). \5\ South Dakota's Regional Haze State Implementation Plan: 5- Year Progress Report, p. 6 (``South Dakota Progress Report''). South Dakota SIP. pp. 121-122 (January 18, 2011 submittal). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Progress Report presents the extensive information collected and analyzed to investigate the impacts of a smoke management plan.\6\ In reviewing ``the annual values for the aerosol species at the Wind Cave National Park'' the State ``was concerned about the extremely high value for particulate organic mass and elemental carbon in 2010.'' The report further explained that ``[d]ue to the fact that particulate organic mass and elemental carbons are typically associated with fire, the DENR researched a fire database'' and found that ``[i]n 2010, the National Park Service conducted a 5,500 acre prescribed fire at the Wind Cave National Park just a mile from the monitoring site.'' The Progress Report explains that this fire created two of the 20% most impaired days at the park and the main contributor was particulate organic mass.'' \7\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 9-12, 19-21, 24-27, 29-33, 37, 40-42. \7\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 11. The results of this fire are discussed in more detail in Sections 3.5 and 3.6 of the Report. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In analyzing changes in nitrogen oxide emissions from 2002 through 2011, the Report explained that ``[t]he only real increase in nitrogen oxide emissions was from anthropogenic fires with an increase of 970 tons per year.'' \8\ Notably, during the same timeframe, the Report noted that ``sulfur dioxide emissions in South Dakota decreased by just less than 8,500 tons per year'' and that ``[t]he largest decreases were seen in anthropogenic off-road mobile and point sources with a small decrease in natural fire.'' \9\ The State also looked at primary organic aerosol emissions that ``are produced by both anthropogenic and natural sources but are most commonly associated with fire,'' and found that for 2002-2011 timeframe ``[t]he largest decrease was seen in natural fires at just fewer than 4,000 tons.'' \10\ The Report included information on elemental carbon emissions, noted that natural sources of those emissions include fire. The State explained that while there was a small decrease in natural fire over the 2002-2011 timeframe, the data showed minor [[Page 11948]] increases in anthropogenic fire.\11\ During the same timeframe fine soil emissions decreased, which included decreases in natural fire.\12\ South Dakota also included information in the Report on coarse soil emissions over the 2002-2011 timeframe, and while there was an increase of over 57,000 tons during that timeframe, anthropogenic fire contributed to only 223 tons of those emissions.\13\ Additionally, while the Report shows ammonia emissions increased over the 2002-2011 timeframe by ``just over 9,500 tons,'' emissions from natural fire decreased.\14\ Overall nitrogen dioxide emissions and natural biogenic emissions decreased, however, there were small increases from anthropogenic fires.\15\ The Report shows both volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions decreasing over the 2002-2011 timeframe, despite increases in anthropogenic fire at 9,551 tons and 38,155 tons respectively.\16\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \8\ South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 17-18. \9\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 17. \10\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 19. \11\ South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 20-21. \12\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 22. \13\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 23. \14\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 24. \15\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 24. \16\ South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 25-27. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In its Progress Report, South Dakota provides Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) data which shows the impacts of prescribed fires conducted by the National Park Service (NPS) at Wind Cave National Park in 2009 and 2010.\17\ The Report includes two examples of the IMPROVE data that show that the NPS prescribed fires on both September 3, 2009, and October 20, 2010, contributed high levels of both particulate organic mass and elemental carbon on both days.\18\ Additionally, the Report provides monitoring data which shows that particulate organic matter is ``the second largest contributor [sic?] to visibility extinction at the Badlands National Park during the 20% most impaired days'' and that particulate matter (PM) is typically the product of fire.\19\ South Dakota also provides analysis which shows particulate mass levels on the 20 percent most impaired days without the impacts from the NPS prescribed fires. This analysis shows that ``if Wind Cave National Park would not have experienced the prescribed fires by Federal Land Managers, the Wind Cave's National Park's particulate organic mass levels would be below the Uniform Glide Slope similar to the Badlands National Park Uniform Glide Slope for particulate organic mass''.\20\ Additionally, the State explained that while it was preparing the Progress Report, more prescribed fire events occurred in 2015 that will likely show impacts to the Class I areas.\21\ Finally, in its Progress Report, South Dakota explains that ``DENR and Federal Land Managers in South Dakota have improved coordination and communications over the past few years and plan to continue that effort to help mitigate the impacts of prescribed fires'' at Wind Cave and Badlands National Parks.\22\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \17\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 29. \18\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-28, p. 31 and Table 3-29, p. 33. \19\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-10, pp. 35, 37. \20\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 40 and Figures 3-22, 3-23, p. 41. \21\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 33. \22\ South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 41-42, Appendix B, pp. B- 2--B-3. At the suggestion of the National Park Service, the DENR also looked at the Fire Emissions Tracking System and noted that it may be a useful tool going forward as the DENR continues to track prescribed fires and their impacts on the Class I areas. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In its Progress Report, South Dakota provides an update on the status of the BART determination at the Big Stone I power plant and the subsequent action taken given the determination. The BART determination, which was finalized for Big Stone I on December 7, 2010, was approved by the EPA,\23\ and includes a selective catalytic reduction (SCR) system and separated over-fire-air (SOFA) installed in the power plant's main boiler for nitrogen oxide (NOX ) control, a dry flue gas desulfurization (FGD) system for sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) control, and a fabric filter system for PM control.\24\ In the Progress Report, the State describes the installation and operation of the required BART controls by the end of 2015, as required by the State's Regional Haze Implementation Plan.\25\ The EPA has confirmed installation and operation of the pollution controls the State describes in its Progress Report, and has confirmed that the emissions limits in the SIP were met by the required date of June 28, 2017.\26\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \23\ 76 FR 24845 (April 26, 2012). \24\ 37 SDR 111 (December 7, 2010). \25\ 77 FR 24845 (April 26, 2012). \26\ Big Stone Annual Emissions 2000-2017, information available in the docket. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- As shown in Table 1, BART controls at Big Stone I have resulted in a substantial decrease in both SO2 and NOX emissions (a 94 and 91 percent decrease in emissions from 2013 2014 levels, respectively).\27\ These are larger reductions in emissions than the State estimated in the Progress Report and represent a clear downward trend since BART controls were installed and operational in late 2015.\28\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \27\ Big Stone Annual Emissions 2000-2017. \28\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 7. \29\ Big Stone Annual Emissions 2000-2017. Table 1--Big Stone I Power Plant Emissions Pre and Post BART Control [Actual, average tons] \29\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------ NOX (actual, SO2 (actual, Calendar year average tons) average tons) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2000-2004 (Baseline).................... 13,090.59 16,270.48 2013, 2014 (pre BART)................... 10,860.11 14,592.54 % Emissions Reduction (baseline vs. pre 17% 10% BART )................................. 2016, 2017 (post BART).................. 973.18 836.33 % Emissions Reduction (pre BART vs. post 91% 94% BART).................................. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ EPA proposes to find that South Dakota has adequately addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) regarding the implementation status of control measures because the State's Report provides documentation of the implementation of measures within South Dakota, including BART at the sole BART-subject source in the State and the State's efforts to develop the smoke management plan. 2. Emissions Reductions As discussed above, South Dakota focused its assessment in its regional haze plan and Progress Report on emissions reductions from pollution control strategies that were [[Page 11949]] implemented at the Big Stone I power plant by the end of calendar year 2015. The EPA has confirmed installation and operation of the pollution controls the State describes in their Progress Report. In its Progress Report, South Dakota provides a comparison of Big Stone I's actual SO2 and NOX emission rates to BART limits for the pollutants 2010-2014.\30\ Additionally, South Dakota provides statewide SO2 , NOX and PM (fine and course) emissions data (among other pollutants) from Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) emissions inventories.\31\ The WRAP data shows that there were decreases in emissions of SO2 , NOX and PM (fine and course) over the time period (i.e., 2002, 2008, 2011) of the three emissions inventories listed (Plan02d, 2008 West Jump and 2011WAQDW). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \30\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-1, p. 8. \31\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-2, p. 8. The WRAP's inventories were developed using EPA's National Emissions Inventory (NEI) and other sources (https://www.wrapair2.org/emissions.aspx). The NEI is based primarily upon data provided by state, local, and tribal air agencies (including South Dakota) for sources in their jurisdiction and supplemented by data developed by the EPA. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The EPA proposes to find that South Dakota has adequately addressed the applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(2) regarding emissions reductions achieved because the State identifies emissions reductions for pollutants SO2 , NOX and PM (fine and course) and presents sufficient information and discussion regarding emissions trends during this period. 3. Visibility Conditions In its Progress Report, South Dakota provides information on visibility conditions for the Class I areas within its borders. The Progress Report addressed current visibility conditions and the difference between current visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions, expressed in terms of 5-year averages of these annual values, with values for the most impaired, least impaired and/or clearest days. The period for calculating current visibility conditions is the most recent 5-year period preceding the required date of the progress report for which data were available as of a date 6 months preceding the required date of the progress report. South Dakota's Progress Report provides figures with visibility monitoring data for the two Class I areas within the State: Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks. South Dakota reported current visibility conditions for both the 2007-2011 and 2009-2013 5-year time periods and used the 2000-2004 baseline period for its Class I areas.\32\ Table 2, below, shows the visibility conditions for both the 2007-2011 and 2009- 2013 5-year time periods, the difference between these current visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions, and the 2018 RPGs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \32\ For the first regional haze plans, ``baseline'' conditions were represented by the 2000-2004 time period. See 64 FR 35730 (July 1, 1999). Table 2--Baseline Visibility, Current Visibility, Visibility Changes, and 2018 RPGs in South Dakota's Class I Areas [Deciviews] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Difference Difference Difference Class I area Baseline (2000- Current (2007- (baseline vs. More current (current vs. (baseline vs. SD 2018 RPG 2004) 2011) current) (2009-2013) more current) more current) -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20% Worst Days -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Badlands National Park......... 17.1 16.3 -0.8 15.7 -0.6 -1.4 \33\ 16.30 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20% Best Days -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Badlands National Park......... 6.9 6.5 -0.4 5.8 -0.7 -1.1 \34\ 6.64 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20% Worst Days -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wind Cave National Park........ 15.8 14.9 -0.9 14.1 -0.8 -1.7 \35\ 15.28 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20% Best Days -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wind Cave National Park........ 5.1 4.4 -0.7 3.9 -0.5 -1.2 \36\ 5.02 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- As shown in Table 2, both Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks saw an improvement in visibility between baseline and the 2007-2011 and 2009-2013 time periods.\37\ South Dakota also reported 20 percent worst day and 20 percent best day visibility data for both Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks from 2005-2009 and 2008-2012 for each year in terms of 5-year averages.\38\ This data shows an improvement in visibility at both class 1 areas on the 20 percent [[Page 11950]] best days from 2005-2009 and on the 20 percent worst days from 2008- 2012. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \33\ 76 FR 76646, 76664 (December 8, 2011) (``South Dakota's reasonable progress goals for Badlands for 2018 for the 20% worst days represent a 0.84 deciviews improvement over baseline. . . '' Table 20. 77 FR 24845, 25855 (April 26, 2012) SD SIP pp. 105-106, (September 19, 2011) (``DENR relied on the [WRAP's] results of the CMAQ modeling in determining the reasonable progress achieved by South Dakota surrounding states, and federal regulations in South Dakota's Class I areas.'') South Dakota's SIP is included in the docket for this action). \34\ 76 FR 76646, 76664 (December 8, 2011) (Table 21). 77 FR 24845, 24855 (April 26, 2012). \35\ 76 FR 76646, 76664 (December 8, 2011) (South Dakota's ``. . . reasonable progress goals for Wind Cave for 2018 represent a 0.56 deciviews improvement over baseline.'' Table 20. 77 FR 24845, 24855 (April 26, 2012). \36\ 76 FR 76646, 76664 (December 8, 2011) (Table 21). 77 FR 24845, 24855 (April 26, 2012). \37\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-17 and Table 3-18, p. 16. \38\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-17 and Table 3-18, p. 16. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The EPA proposes to find that South Dakota has adequately addressed the applicable provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(3) regarding assessment of visibility conditions because the State provided baseline visibility conditions (2000-2004), current conditions based on the most recently available visibility monitoring data available at the time of Progress Report development, the difference between these current sets of visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions, and the change in visibility impairment from 2009-2013. 4. Emissions Tracking In its Progress Report, South Dakota presents data from a statewide emissions inventory for 2011 (2011WAQDW) and compares this data to the baseline emissions inventory for 2002 (Plan02d).\39\ The pollutants inventoried include SO2 , NOX , Primary Organic Aerosols (POA), elemental carbon (EC), PM2.5 (fine), PM10 (coarse), NH3 , VOCs and carbon monoxide (CO). The emissions inventories include the following source classifications: Point; area; on-road mobile; off-road mobile; area oil and gas; fugitive and road dust; anthropogenic fire; natural fire; biogenic and wind-blown dust from both anthropogenic and natural sources. Table 3 presents the 2002 and 2011 statewide emission inventories, and includes emissions from Big Stone I. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \39\ WRAP Plan02d represents the State's baseline year (2002) emissions inventory. This emissions inventory was developed for use in the State's original Regional Haze SIP. See 77 FR 24845 (April 26, 2012). The 2011WAQDW emissions inventory is considered the most current inventory for the purposes of this element and was derived from the WRAP's 2011Western Air Quality Data Warehouse project for South Dakota. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Overall, as the table shows, South Dakota's emissions that affect visibility were reduced in all sectors for all pollutants, except for POA and NH3 . Compared to the 2002 emission inventory South Dakota used to model haze (Plan02d), emissions in 2011 (2011WAQDW) were reduced by 38 percent for SO2 , 48 percent for NOX , 4 percent for PM2.5 and 9 percent for PM10 , respectively. There were slight increases in both POA and NH3 as can be seen in Table 3.40 41 Furthermore, the State provides actual SO2 and NOX emissions from Big Stone I, which demonstrates that emissions of both pollutants are trending lower per Table 1 above.\42\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \40\ South Dakota Progress Report, Tables 3-19, 3-20, 3-21, 3- 23, 3-24, 3-25, pp. 17-24. \41\ Many important changes in emissions inventory methodology occurred between 2007 or 2008 and the most current emissions inventory data presented by the State (2011WAQDW). One methodology change was the reclassification of some off-road mobile sources in the area source category, which may have resulted in the increase in NH3 and POA in the above comparison rather than an increase in actual emissions of these pollutants. \42\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-1. Table 3--Changes in South Dakota Total Emissions, Statewide [Tons per year] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2002 (Plan02d) Pollutant (all sources) and RH SIP 2011 Difference \43\ (2011WAQDW) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SO2............................................................. 22,076 13,618 -8,458 NOX............................................................. 146,764 75,560 -71,204 PM2.5........................................................... 82,414 79,058 -3,356 PM10............................................................ 615,345 557,508 -57,837 POA............................................................. 9,168 9,563 395 NH3............................................................. 120,406 129,972 9,566 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The EPA is proposing to find that South Dakota adequately addressed the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) regarding emissions tracking because the State compared the most recent updated emission inventory data available at the time of Progress Report development with the baseline emissions inventory used in the modeling for the regional haze plan. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \43\ 76 FR 76666, 76667, 76668 (December 8, 2011). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5. Assessment of Changes Impeding Visibility Progress South Dakota also provided an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the State that have occurred, which included data collected during the years when there were prescribed fires that may have impeded progress towards reducing emissions or improving visibility.\44\ South Dakota documented that ammonium sulfate continues to be the biggest single contributor to regional haze for the Badlands National Park Class I area in the State.\45\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \44\ South Dakota Progress Report, Figures 3-14, 3-15, p. 32, Table 3-29, p. 33. \45\ South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 9-11. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- South Dakota also determined that particulate matter contributes the most to visibility impairment at Wind Cave National Park.\46\ Additionally, the State presented data that shows that the prescribed fires at Wind Cave National Park conducted by the National Park Service, contributed to high levels of PM at the Class I area and, subsequently, the 20 percent most impaired days at the park in 2009 and 2010, respectively.\47\ Even with the impacts from prescribed fires, the State's most current visibility assessments shows they are on track to meet the 2018 RPGs. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \46\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-10 and p. 29. \47\ South Dakota Progress Report, Tables 3-28 and 3-29, pp. 31, 33. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assessment of South Dakota's contribution to haze in Class I areas outside of the State has shown that South Dakota emissions have, or may reasonably be expected to have, impacts on Class I areas in Minnesota, Montana, Wyoming and North Dakota.\48\ In its Progress Report, the State references the initial Regional Haze SIP and BART analysis for Big Stone I, which indicates Big Stone power plant is the only facility that impacts Class I areas outside of South Dakota.\49\ The BART controls installed and operational in late 2015 at Big Stone decreased NOX and SO2 emissions by 91 and 94 percent, respectively, which is a significant downward trend in these pollutants post BART.\50\ Based on these findings, the EPA proposes to approve the State's conclusion that there have been no significant changes in emissions of [[Page 11951]] visibility-impairing pollutants that have limited or impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving visibility in Class I areas impacted by the State's sources. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \48\ 76 FR 76651 (December 8, 2011). \49\ South Dakota Progress Report, Appendix B, p. B-1. \50\ Big Stone Annual Emissions 2000-2017. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The EPA proposes to find that South Dakota has adequately addressed the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) regarding an assessment of significant changes in anthropogenic emissions. The EPA proposes to agree with South Dakota's conclusion that there have been no significant changes in emissions of visibility-impairing pollutants which have limited or impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving visibility in Class I areas impacted by the State's sources. 6. Assessment of Current Implementation Plan Elements and Strategies In its Progress Report, South Dakota acknowledges the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) to discuss whether the current implementation plan elements and strategies are sufficient to enable the State, or other states with Class I areas affected by emissions from the State, to meet all established reasonable progress goals.\51\ As seen in Table 2, South Dakota's visibility assessment using the most current information available (2009-2013) shows that it is meeting the 2018 RPGs at both national parks, Badlands National Park 15.70 dv (current) versus 16.30 dv (2018 RPG) and Wind Cave National Park 14.10 dv (current) versus 15.28 dv (2018 RPG). The State also includes information regarding the 2018 URP Goals, but since those goals are not part of the 5-year assessment regulations, we do not include that information. The State concludes that no substantive revisions to the existing regional haze plan are necessary as the State is exceeding the 2018 RPGs for Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \51\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 34. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Badlands National Park, the State anticipates that the 2018 visibility data will be lower than what was reported for the most recent data available because BART was fully implemented at Big Stone I by 2015. The reductions from Big Stone are significant and occurred after the most recent data included in the State's SIP. Second, the State explains that BART controls will be completed elsewhere throughout the region after 2013 and by 2018.\52\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \52\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 45. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Based on these findings, the EPA proposes to approve the State's conclusion that visibility at Badlands National Park is anticipated to meet or exceed the RPG for 2018. For Wind Cave National Park, the State's visibility assessment in Table 2 shows that the State is currently meeting the 2018 RPG. Additionally, the emissions reductions from Big Stone I are significant and occurred after the most recent visibility data available. The State expects additional improvements in visibility from these reductions. The State's report concludes, that the current implementation plan is meeting the ``reasonable progress goals.'' \53\ Although the State's visibility assessment demonstrates that it is meeting the 2018 RPGs, the State explains that emission reductions from Big Stone I are significant and occurred after the most recent visibility data was available. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \53\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 45. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The State's SIP explains that particulate organic mass level is the number one contributor to visibility degradation at Wind Cave National Park,\54\ and the level varies depending on the year and the number of the wildfires.\55\ The SIP explains that the despite the spikes in particulate organic mass at Wind Cave, decreases in ammonium sulfate, ammonium nitrate and other aerosol species have led to decreased deciview levels at the Wind Cave National Park. The DENR anticipates this trend will continue and improve as the DENR continues to work with the National Park Service on prescribed fires in the Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks.\56\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \54\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 40. \55\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 38. \56\ South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 41-42. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The EPA proposes to find that South Dakota has adequately addressed the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g) regarding the strategy assessment, including the State's efforts to investigate the impacts of a smoke management plan, and agrees with the State's determination that its regional haze plan is sufficient to meet the RPGs for its Class I areas. 7. Review of Current Monitoring Strategy For progress reports for the first implementation period, the provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(g) (7) require ``a review of the State's visibility monitoring strategy and any modifications to the strategy as necessary.'' In its Progress Report, South Dakota summarizes the existing monitoring network in the State to monitor visibility at Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks, which consists of DENR relying on the national IMPROVE network to meet monitoring and data collection goals.\57\ There are currently IMPROVE sites located in both Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks.\58\ Therefore, the State concludes that no modifications to the existing visibility monitoring strategy are necessary. The State will continue its reliance on the IMPROVE monitoring network. The IMPROVE monitoring network is the primary monitoring network for regional haze, both nationwide and in South Dakota. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \57\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 42. \58\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 2. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The State also explains the importance of the IMPROVE monitoring network for tracking visibility trends at the Class I areas in South Dakota. South Dakota states that in the future the data produced by the IMPROVE monitoring network will be used for preparing the regional haze progress reports and SIP revisions, and thus, the monitoring data from the IMPROVE sites needs to be readily accessible and be kept up-to- date. The Visibility Information Exchange Web System website has been maintained by WRAP and the other Regional Planning Organizations to provide ready access to the IMPROVE data and data analysis tools. In addition, the State operates additional non-IMPROVE monitors in both Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks which help South Dakota characterize air pollution levels in areas across the State, and therefore aid in the analysis of visibility improvement in and near its Class I areas.\59\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \59\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 42. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The EPA proposes to find that South Dakota has adequately addressed the applicable provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(7) regarding monitoring strategy because the State reviewed its visibility monitoring strategy, and determined that no further modifications to the strategy are necessary. B. Determination of Adequacy of the Existing Regional Haze Plan The provisions under 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to determine the adequacy of their existing implementation plan to meet existing goals. South Dakota's Progress Report includes a negative declaration regarding the need for additional actions or emissions reductions in South Dakota beyond those already in place and those to be implemented by 2018 according to South Dakota's regional haze plan.\60\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \60\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 45. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The EPA proposes to conclude that South Dakota has adequately addressed 40 CFR 51.308(h) because the visibility trends at both Class I areas in the State, Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks, indicate that the relevant RPGs [[Page 11952]] will be met via emission reductions already in place. III. Proposed Action The EPA is proposing to approve South Dakota's January 27, 2016, Regional Haze Progress Report as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h). IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this proposed action:Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); Is not expected to be an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because this action is not significant under Executive Order 12866; Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because this action does not involve technical standards; and Does not provide the EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). The SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will it impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law. List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds. Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Dated: March 13, 2018. Douglas H. Benevento, Regional Administrator, Region 8. [FR Doc. 2018-05398 Filed 3-16-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![11946 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules
EPA, May 25, 1988 (the Bluebook, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, Dated: March 2, 2018.
revised January 11, 1990). January 21, 2011); Alexis Strauss,
3. ‘‘Guidance Document for Correcting
Common VOC & Other Rule • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.
Deficiencies,’’ EPA Region 9, August 21, FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory [FR Doc. 2018–05286 Filed 3–16–18; 8:45 am]
2001 (the Little Bluebook). action because SIP approvals are BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
4. ‘‘Control Techniques Guidelines for exempted under Executive Order 12866;
Automobile and Light-Duty Truck • Does not impose an information
Assembly Coatings,’’ (EPA–453/R–08– ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
collection burden under the provisions
006, September 2008). AGENCY
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
B. Does the rule meet the evaluation U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 40 CFR Part 52
criteria? • Is certified as not having a [EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0672; FRL–9975–
This rule is consistent with CAA significant economic impact on a 47—Region 8]
requirements and relevant guidance substantial number of small entities
regarding enforceability, RACT, and SIP under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Approval and Promulgation of
revisions. The TSD has more U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Implementation Plans; South Dakota;
information on our evaluation. • Does not contain any unfunded Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report
C. Public Comment and Proposed mandate or significantly or uniquely State Implementation Plan
Action affect small governments, as described AGENCY: Environmental Protection
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Agency (EPA).
As authorized in section 110(k)(3) of
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); ACTION: Proposed rule.
the Act, the EPA proposes to fully
approve the submitted rule because it • Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
fulfills all relevant requirements. We
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve
will accept comments from the public
1999); South Dakota’s regional haze progress
on this proposal until April 18, 2018. If
report, submitted as a revision to its
we take final action to approve the • Is not an economically significant
State Implementation Plan (SIP) by the
submitted rule, our final action will regulatory action based on health or
South Dakota Department of
incorporate this rule into the federally safety risks subject to Executive Order Environment and Natural Resources
enforceable SIP. 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); (DENR). South Dakota’s SIP revision
III. Incorporation by Reference • Is not a significant regulatory action addresses requirements of the Clean Air
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR Act (CAA) and the EPA’s rules that
In this rule, the EPA is proposing to
28355, May 22, 2001); require states to submit periodic reports
include in a final EPA rule regulatory
text that includes incorporation by • Is not subject to requirements of describing progress toward reasonable
reference. In accordance with section 12(d) of the National progress goals established for regional
requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is Technology Transfer and Advancement haze and a determination of the
proposing to incorporate by reference Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because adequacy of the state’s existing regional
application of those requirements would haze SIP. South Dakota’s progress report
the AVAQMD rule described in Table 1
be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; explains that South Dakota has
of this preamble. The EPA has made,
and implemented the measures in the
and will continue to make, these
regional haze SIP due to be in place by
materials available through • Does not provide the EPA with the
the date of the progress report and that
www.regulations.gov and at the EPA discretionary authority to address
visibility in mandatory federal Class I
Region IX Office (please contact the disproportionate human health or
areas affected by emissions from South
person identified in the FOR FURTHER environmental effects with practical,
Dakota sources is improving. The EPA
INFORMATION CONTACT section of this appropriate, and legally permissible
is proposing approval of South Dakota’s
preamble for more information). methods under Executive Order 12898
determination that the State’s regional
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
IV. Statutory and Executive Order haze SIP is adequate to meet Reasonable
Reviews In addition, the SIP is not approved Progress Goals (RPGs) for the first
to apply on any Indian reservation land implementation period covering
Under the Clean Air Act, the or in any other area where the EPA or
Administrator is required to approve a through 2018 and requires no
an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a substantive revision at this time.
SIP submission that complies with the tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
provisions of the Act and applicable DATES: Comments must be received on
Indian country, the rule does not have or before April 18, 2018.
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); tribal implications and will not impose
40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
substantial direct costs on tribal
submissions, the EPA’s role is to identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08–
governments or preempt tribal law as
approve state choices, provided that OAR–2017–0672 at http://
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
they meet the criteria of the Clean Air www.regulations.gov. Follow the online
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
Act. Accordingly, this proposed action instructions for submitting comments.
merely proposes to approve state law as List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Once submitted, comments cannot be
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
meeting federal requirements and does edited or removed from
not impose additional requirements Environmental protection, Air www.regulations.gov. The EPA may
beyond those imposed by state law. For pollution control, Incorporation by publish any comment received to its
that reason, this proposed action: reference, Intergovernmental relations, public docket. Do not submit
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting electronically any information you
action’’ subject to review by the Office and recordkeeping requirements, consider to be Confidential Business
of Management and Budget under Volatile organic compounds. Information (CBI) or other information
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:06 Mar 16, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00044 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM 19MRP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_11999/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules 11947
Multimedia submissions (audio, video, December 22, 2015, to January 20, 2015, Best Available Retrofit Technology
etc.) must be accompanied by a written and received no comment. The EPA is (BART) requirements for the sole BART-
comment. The written comment is proposing to approve South Dakota’s subject source in the state: The Big
considered the official comment and January 27, 2016 SIP submittal. Stone I coal-fired power plant, owned
should include discussion of all points by Montana-Dakota Utilities Company,
II. EPA’s Evaluation of South Dakota’s
you wish to make. The EPA will NorthWestern Energy, and Otter Tail
Progress Report and Adequacy
generally not consider comments or Power Company, located near Big Stone
Determination
comment contents located outside of the City, South Dakota.
primary submission (i.e., on the web, A. Regional Haze Progress Report The Progress Report presents the
cloud, or other file sharing system). For This section includes the EPA’s extensive information collected and
additional submission methods, the full analysis of South Dakota’s Progress analyzed to investigate the impacts of a
EPA public comment policy, Report and an explanation of the basis smoke management plan.6 In reviewing
information about CBI or multimedia for the Agency’s proposed approval. The ‘‘the annual values for the aerosol
submissions, and general guidance on State’s Progress Report evaluates the species at the Wind Cave National Park’’
making effective comments, please visit most recent visibility results against the the State ‘‘was concerned about the
http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 2018 Uniform Rate of Progress Goals extremely high value for particulate
commenting-epa-dockets. (URP Goals), instead of the 2018 RPGs organic mass and elemental carbon in
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate specified in the regional haze 2010.’’ The report further explained that
Gregory, Air Program, Environmental regulations. South Dakota’s Progress ‘‘[d]ue to the fact that particulate
Protection Agency, 1595 Wynkoop Report explains they used the URP organic mass and elemental carbons are
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, Goals because ‘‘South Dakota’s Class I typically associated with fire, the DENR
(303) 312–6175, or by email at areas have exceeded the reasonable researched a fire database’’ and found
gregory.kate@epa.gov. progress goals that were established’’ that ‘‘[i]n 2010, the National Park
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: and ‘‘[w]ith emissions reductions that Service conducted a 5,500 acre
I. Background are expected from the addition of BART prescribed fire at the Wind Cave
controls at Big Stone and other facilities National Park just a mile from the
States are required to submit progress throughout the region, DENR expects monitoring site.’’ The Progress Report
reports that evaluate progress towards that the improvements will continue explains that this fire created two of the
the RPGs for each mandatory federal and South Dakota’s Class I areas will
Class I area 1 (Class I area) within the 20% most impaired days at the park and
meet the 2018 uniform rate of progress the main contributor was particulate
state and in each Class I area outside the goals.’’ 3 Since the regional haze
state that may be affected by emissions organic mass.’’ 7
regulations require an evaluation of
from within the state. 40 CFR 51.308(g). In analyzing changes in nitrogen
visibility progress against the 2018
In addition, the provisions of 40 CFR oxide emissions from 2002 through
RPGs, our evaluation of South Dakota’s
51.308(h) require states to submit, at the SIP focuses on the RPGs. 2011, the Report explained that ‘‘[t]he
same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) only real increase in nitrogen oxide
progress report, a determination of the 1. Control Measures emissions was from anthropogenic fires
adequacy of the state’s existing regional In its Progress Report, South Dakota with an increase of 970 tons per year.’’ 8
haze SIP. The first progress report must summarizes the emissions reduction Notably, during the same timeframe, the
take the form of a SIP revision and is measures that were relied upon by Report noted that ‘‘sulfur dioxide
due 5 years after submittal of the initial South Dakota in its regional haze plan emissions in South Dakota decreased by
regional haze SIP. On January 21, 2011, for ensuring reasonable progress at the just less than 8,500 tons per year’’ and
South Dakota submitted the State’s first two Class I areas within the State: that ‘‘[t]he largest decreases were seen
regional haze SIP in accordance with 40 Badlands and Wind Cave National in anthropogenic off-road mobile and
CFR 51.308.2 Parks. The State’s regional haze SIP point sources with a small decrease in
On January 27, 2016, South Dakota established reasonable progress goals for natural fire.’’ 9 The State also looked at
submitted as a revision to its SIP a 2018.4 The emission reduction measures primary organic aerosol emissions that
progress report which detailed the include applicable federal programs ‘‘are produced by both anthropogenic
progress made in the first planning (e.g., mobile source rules), various and natural sources but are most
period toward implementation of the existing South Dakota air quality rules, commonly associated with fire,’’ and
Long Term Strategy (LTS) outlined in and a plan to ‘‘investigate the impacts found that for 2002–2011 timeframe
the 2011 regional haze SIP submittal, of a smoke management plan’’ to ‘‘[t]he largest decrease was seen in
the visibility improvement measured at determine what level of fires and what natural fires at just fewer than 4,000
Class I areas affected by emissions from best management practices should be tons.’’ 10 The Report included
South Dakota sources, and a included in the plan, with the results information on elemental carbon
determination of the adequacy of the adopted into the SIP as part of the LTS.5 emissions, noted that natural sources of
State’s existing regional haze SIP. The South Dakota also reviewed the status of those emissions include fire. The State
State provided public notice for explained that while there was a small
comment on the Progress Report from 3 South Dakota Progress Report, Appendix B, p. decrease in natural fire over the 2002–
B–2. 2011 timeframe, the data showed minor
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
1 Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal 4 40 CFR 52.2170(c)(1). 77 FR 24845, 25855 (April
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 26, 2012) (final RH SIP approving South Dakota’s 6 South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 9–12, 19–21,
acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks Regional Haze SIP, Amendment, Section 7.2, Table
exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 7–1, p. 106). 76 FR 76646, 76664 (December 8, 24–27, 29–33, 37, 40–42.
7 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 11. The results
that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 2011) (proposed RH SIP approval, Tables 20 and
7472(a)). Listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D. 21). of this fire are discussed in more detail in Sections
2 77 FR 24845 (April 26, 2012). EPA fully 5 South Dakota’s Regional Haze State 3.5 and 3.6 of the Report.
8 South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 17–18.
approved South Dakota’s regional haze SIP Implementation Plan: 5-Year Progress Report, p. 6
9 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 17.
submittal addressing the requirements of the first (‘‘South Dakota Progress Report’’). South Dakota
implementation period for regional haze. SIP. pp. 121–122 (January 18, 2011 submittal). 10 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 19.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:06 Mar 16, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00045 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM 19MRP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_11999/page/2.svg)
![11948 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules
increases in anthropogenic fire.11 carbon on both days.18 Additionally, the power plant and the subsequent action
During the same timeframe fine soil Report provides monitoring data which taken given the determination. The
emissions decreased, which included shows that particulate organic matter is BART determination, which was
decreases in natural fire.12 South Dakota ‘‘the second largest contributor [sic?] to finalized for Big Stone I on December 7,
also included information in the Report visibility extinction at the Badlands 2010, was approved by the EPA,23 and
on coarse soil emissions over the 2002– National Park during the 20% most includes a selective catalytic reduction
2011 timeframe, and while there was an impaired days’’ and that particulate (SCR) system and separated over-fire-air
increase of over 57,000 tons during that matter (PM) is typically the product of (SOFA) installed in the power plant’s
timeframe, anthropogenic fire fire.19 South Dakota also provides main boiler for nitrogen oxide (NOX)
contributed to only 223 tons of those analysis which shows particulate mass
control, a dry flue gas desulfurization
emissions.13 Additionally, while the levels on the 20 percent most impaired
(FGD) system for sulfur dioxide (SO2)
Report shows ammonia emissions days without the impacts from the NPS
increased over the 2002–2011 timeframe prescribed fires. This analysis shows control, and a fabric filter system for PM
by ‘‘just over 9,500 tons,’’ emissions that ‘‘if Wind Cave National Park would control.24 In the Progress Report, the
from natural fire decreased.14 Overall not have experienced the prescribed State describes the installation and
nitrogen dioxide emissions and natural fires by Federal Land Managers, the operation of the required BART controls
biogenic emissions decreased, however, Wind Cave’s National Park’s particulate by the end of 2015, as required by the
there were small increases from organic mass levels would be below the State’s Regional Haze Implementation
anthropogenic fires.15 The Report shows Uniform Glide Slope similar to the Plan.25 The EPA has confirmed
both volatile organic compound (VOC) Badlands National Park Uniform Glide installation and operation of the
emissions and carbon monoxide (CO) Slope for particulate organic mass’’.20 pollution controls the State describes in
emissions decreasing over the 2002– Additionally, the State explained that its Progress Report, and has confirmed
2011 timeframe, despite increases in while it was preparing the Progress that the emissions limits in the SIP were
anthropogenic fire at 9,551 tons and Report, more prescribed fire events met by the required date of June 28,
38,155 tons respectively.16 occurred in 2015 that will likely show 2017.26
In its Progress Report, South Dakota impacts to the Class I areas.21 Finally, in
provides Interagency Monitoring of As shown in Table 1, BART controls
its Progress Report, South Dakota
Protected Visual Environments explains that ‘‘DENR and Federal Land at Big Stone I have resulted in a
(IMPROVE) data which shows the Managers in South Dakota have substantial decrease in both SO2 and
impacts of prescribed fires conducted by improved coordination and NOX emissions (a 94 and 91 percent
the National Park Service (NPS) at Wind communications over the past few years decrease in emissions from 2013 2014
Cave National Park in 2009 and 2010.17 and plan to continue that effort to help levels, respectively).27 These are larger
The Report includes two examples of mitigate the impacts of prescribed fires’’ reductions in emissions than the State
the IMPROVE data that show that the at Wind Cave and Badlands National estimated in the Progress Report and
NPS prescribed fires on both September Parks.22 represent a clear downward trend since
3, 2009, and October 20, 2010, In its Progress Report, South Dakota BART controls were installed and
contributed high levels of both provides an update on the status of the operational in late 2015.28
particulate organic mass and elemental BART determination at the Big Stone I
TABLE 1—BIG STONE I POWER PLANT EMISSIONS PRE AND POST BART CONTROL
[Actual, average tons] 29
NOX SO2
Calendar year (actual, (actual,
average tons) average tons)
2000–2004 (Baseline) .............................................................................................................................................. 13,090.59 16,270.48
2013, 2014 (pre BART) ........................................................................................................................................... 10,860.11 14,592.54
% Emissions Reduction (baseline vs. pre BART ) .................................................................................................. 17% 10%
2016, 2017 (post BART) .......................................................................................................................................... 973.18 836.33
% Emissions Reduction (pre BART vs. post BART) ............................................................................................... 91% 94%
EPA proposes to find that South provides documentation of the 2. Emissions Reductions
Dakota has adequately addressed the implementation of measures within
applicable provisions under 40 CFR South Dakota, including BART at the As discussed above, South Dakota
51.308(g)(1) regarding the sole BART-subject source in the State focused its assessment in its regional
implementation status of control and the State’s efforts to develop the haze plan and Progress Report on
measures because the State’s Report smoke management plan. emissions reductions from pollution
control strategies that were
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
11 South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 20–21. 20 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 40 and 24 37 SDR 111 (December 7, 2010).
12 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 22. Figures 3–22, 3–23, p. 41. 25 77 FR 24845 (April 26, 2012).
13 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 23. 21 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 33. 26 Big Stone Annual Emissions 2000–2017,
14 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 24. 22 South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 41–42,
information available in the docket.
15 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 24. Appendix B, pp. B–2—B–3. At the suggestion of the 27 Big Stone Annual Emissions 2000–2017.
16 South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 25–27. National Park Service, the DENR also looked at the 28 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 7.
17 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 29. Fire Emissions Tracking System and noted that it
29 Big Stone Annual Emissions 2000–2017.
18 South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3–28, p. may be a useful tool going forward as the DENR
31 and Table 3–29, p. 33. continues to track prescribed fires and their impacts
19 South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3–10, pp. on the Class I areas.
35, 37. 23 76 FR 24845 (April 26, 2012).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:06 Mar 16, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00046 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM 19MRP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_11999/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules 11949
implemented at the Big Stone I power applicable provisions of 40 CFR 5-year period preceding the required
plant by the end of calendar year 2015. 51.308(g)(2) regarding emissions date of the progress report for which
The EPA has confirmed installation and reductions achieved because the State data were available as of a date 6
operation of the pollution controls the identifies emissions reductions for months preceding the required date of
State describes in their Progress Report. pollutants SO2, NOX and PM (fine and the progress report.
In its Progress Report, South Dakota course) and presents sufficient
South Dakota’s Progress Report
provides a comparison of Big Stone I’s information and discussion regarding
actual SO2 and NOX emission rates to emissions trends during this period. provides figures with visibility
BART limits for the pollutants 2010– monitoring data for the two Class I areas
3. Visibility Conditions within the State: Badlands and Wind
2014.30 Additionally, South Dakota
provides statewide SO2, NOX and PM In its Progress Report, South Dakota Cave National Parks. South Dakota
(fine and course) emissions data (among provides information on visibility reported current visibility conditions for
other pollutants) from Western Regional conditions for the Class I areas within both the 2007–2011 and 2009–2013 5-
Air Partnership (WRAP) emissions its borders. The Progress Report year time periods and used the 2000–
inventories.31 The WRAP data shows addressed current visibility conditions 2004 baseline period for its Class I
that there were decreases in emissions and the difference between current areas.32 Table 2, below, shows the
of SO2, NOX and PM (fine and course) visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions for both the 2007–
over the time period (i.e., 2002, 2008, visibility conditions, expressed in terms 2011 and 2009–2013 5-year time
2011) of the three emissions inventories of 5-year averages of these annual periods, the difference between these
listed (Plan02d, 2008 West Jump and values, with values for the most current visibility conditions and
2011WAQDW). impaired, least impaired and/or clearest baseline visibility conditions, and the
The EPA proposes to find that South days. The period for calculating current 2018 RPGs.
Dakota has adequately addressed the visibility conditions is the most recent
TABLE 2—BASELINE VISIBILITY, CURRENT VISIBILITY, VISIBILITY CHANGES, AND 2018 RPGS IN SOUTH DAKOTA’S CLASS I
AREAS
[Deciviews]
Difference Difference Difference SD
Baseline Current More current
Class I area (baseline vs. (current vs. (baseline vs. 2018
(2000–2004) (2007–2011) (2009–2013)
current) more current) more current) RPG
20% Worst Days
Badlands Na-
tional Park 17.1 16.3 ¥0.8 15.7 ¥0.6 ¥1.4 33 16.30
20% Best Days
Badlands Na-
tional Park 6.9 6.5 ¥0.4 5.8 ¥0.7 ¥1.1 34 6.64
20% Worst Days
Wind Cave
National
Park .......... 15.8 14.9 ¥0.9 14.1 ¥0.8 ¥1.7 35 15.28
20% Best Days
Wind Cave
National
Park .......... 5.1 4.4 ¥0.7 3.9 ¥0.5 ¥1.2 36 5.02
As shown in Table 2, both Badlands 2013 time periods.37 South Dakota also from 2005–2009 and 2008–2012 for each
and Wind Cave National Parks saw an reported 20 percent worst day and 20 year in terms of 5-year averages.38 This
improvement in visibility between percent best day visibility data for both data shows an improvement in visibility
baseline and the 2007–2011 and 2009– Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks at both class 1 areas on the 20 percent
30 South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3–1, p. 8. 33 76 FR 76646, 76664 (December 8, 2011) 34 76 FR 76646, 76664 (December 8, 2011) (Table
31 South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3–2, p. 8. (‘‘South Dakota’s reasonable progress goals for 21). 77 FR 24845, 24855 (April 26, 2012).
Badlands for 2018 for the 20% worst days represent 35 76 FR 76646, 76664 (December 8, 2011) (South
The WRAP’s inventories were developed using
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
EPA’s National Emissions Inventory (NEI) and other a 0.84 deciviews improvement over baseline. . . ’’ Dakota’s ‘‘. . . reasonable progress goals for Wind
sources (https://www.wrapair2.org/emissions.aspx). Table 20. 77 FR 24845, 25855 (April 26, 2012) SD Cave for 2018 represent a 0.56 deciviews
SIP pp. 105–106, (September 19, 2011) (‘‘DENR improvement over baseline.’’ Table 20. 77 FR
The NEI is based primarily upon data provided by
24845, 24855 (April 26, 2012).
state, local, and tribal air agencies (including South relied on the [WRAP’s] results of the CMAQ
36 76 FR 76646, 76664 (December 8, 2011) (Table
Dakota) for sources in their jurisdiction and modeling in determining the reasonable progress
21). 77 FR 24845, 24855 (April 26, 2012).
supplemented by data developed by the EPA. achieved by South Dakota surrounding states, and 37 South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3–17 and
32 For the first regional haze plans, ‘‘baseline’’ federal regulations in South Dakota’s Class I areas.’’)
Table 3–18, p. 16.
conditions were represented by the 2000–2004 time South Dakota’s SIP is included in the docket for this 38 South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3–17 and
period. See 64 FR 35730 (July 1, 1999). action). Table 3–18, p. 16.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:06 Mar 16, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM 19MRP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_11999/page/4.svg)
![11950 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules
best days from 2005–2009 and on the 20 emissions inventory for 2011 Overall, as the table shows, South
percent worst days from 2008–2012. (2011WAQDW) and compares this data Dakota’s emissions that affect visibility
The EPA proposes to find that South to the baseline emissions inventory for were reduced in all sectors for all
Dakota has adequately addressed the 2002 (Plan02d).39 The pollutants pollutants, except for POA and NH3.
applicable provisions under 40 CFR inventoried include SO2, NOX, Primary Compared to the 2002 emission
51.308(g)(3) regarding assessment of Organic Aerosols (POA), elemental inventory South Dakota used to model
visibility conditions because the State carbon (EC), PM2.5 (fine), PM10 (coarse), haze (Plan02d), emissions in 2011
provided baseline visibility conditions NH3, VOCs and carbon monoxide (CO). (2011WAQDW) were reduced by 38
(2000–2004), current conditions based
The emissions inventories include the percent for SO2, 48 percent for NOX, 4
on the most recently available visibility
following source classifications: Point; percent for PM2.5 and 9 percent for
monitoring data available at the time of
Progress Report development, the area; on-road mobile; off-road mobile; PM10, respectively. There were slight
difference between these current sets of area oil and gas; fugitive and road dust; increases in both POA and NH3 as can
visibility conditions and baseline anthropogenic fire; natural fire; biogenic be seen in Table 3.40 41 Furthermore, the
visibility conditions, and the change in and wind-blown dust from both State provides actual SO2 and NOX
visibility impairment from 2009–2013. anthropogenic and natural sources. emissions from Big Stone I, which
Table 3 presents the 2002 and 2011 demonstrates that emissions of both
4. Emissions Tracking statewide emission inventories, and pollutants are trending lower per Table
In its Progress Report, South Dakota includes emissions from Big Stone I. 1 above.42
presents data from a statewide
TABLE 3—CHANGES IN SOUTH DAKOTA TOTAL EMISSIONS, STATEWIDE
[Tons per year]
2002
Pollutant (Plan02d) 2011 Difference
(all sources) and (2011WAQDW)
RH SIP 43
SO2 ............................................................................................................................................. 22,076 13,618 –8,458
NOX ............................................................................................................................................. 146,764 75,560 –71,204
PM2.5 ........................................................................................................................................... 82,414 79,058 –3,356
PM10 ............................................................................................................................................ 615,345 557,508 –57,837
POA ............................................................................................................................................ 9,168 9,563 395
NH3 ............................................................................................................................................. 120,406 129,972 9,566
The EPA is proposing to find that documented that ammonium sulfate Assessment of South Dakota’s
South Dakota adequately addressed the continues to be the biggest single contribution to haze in Class I areas
provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(g)(4) contributor to regional haze for the outside of the State has shown that
regarding emissions tracking because Badlands National Park Class I area in South Dakota emissions have, or may
the State compared the most recent the State.45 reasonably be expected to have, impacts
updated emission inventory data on Class I areas in Minnesota, Montana,
South Dakota also determined that
available at the time of Progress Report Wyoming and North Dakota.48 In its
particulate matter contributes the most
development with the baseline Progress Report, the State references the
emissions inventory used in the to visibility impairment at Wind Cave
initial Regional Haze SIP and BART
modeling for the regional haze plan. National Park.46 Additionally, the State analysis for Big Stone I, which indicates
presented data that shows that the Big Stone power plant is the only
5. Assessment of Changes Impeding prescribed fires at Wind Cave National facility that impacts Class I areas
Visibility Progress Park conducted by the National Park outside of South Dakota.49 The BART
South Dakota also provided an Service, contributed to high levels of controls installed and operational in late
assessment of any significant changes in PM at the Class I area and, 2015 at Big Stone decreased NOX and
anthropogenic emissions within or subsequently, the 20 percent most SO2 emissions by 91 and 94 percent,
outside the State that have occurred, impaired days at the park in 2009 and respectively, which is a significant
which included data collected during 2010, respectively.47 Even with the downward trend in these pollutants
the years when there were prescribed impacts from prescribed fires, the post BART.50 Based on these findings,
fires that may have impeded progress State’s most current visibility the EPA proposes to approve the State’s
towards reducing emissions or assessments shows they are on track to conclusion that there have been no
improving visibility.44 South Dakota meet the 2018 RPGs. significant changes in emissions of
39 WRAP Plan02d represents the State’s baseline 41 Many important changes in emissions 44 South Dakota Progress Report, Figures 3–14, 3–
inventory methodology occurred between 2007 or 15, p. 32, Table 3–29, p. 33.
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
year (2002) emissions inventory. This emissions
inventory was developed for use in the State’s 2008 and the most current emissions inventory data 45 South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 9–11.
original Regional Haze SIP. See 77 FR 24845 (April presented by the State (2011WAQDW). One 46 South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3–10 and
methodology change was the reclassification of
26, 2012). The 2011WAQDW emissions inventory is p. 29.
some off-road mobile sources in the area source
considered the most current inventory for the category, which may have resulted in the increase
47 South Dakota Progress Report, Tables 3–28 and
purposes of this element and was derived from the in NH3 and POA in the above comparison rather 3–29, pp. 31, 33.
WRAP’s 2011Western Air Quality Data Warehouse than an increase in actual emissions of these 48 76 FR 76651 (December 8, 2011).
project for South Dakota. pollutants. 49 South Dakota Progress Report, Appendix B,
40 South Dakota Progress Report, Tables 3–19, 3– 42 South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3–1. p. B–1.
20, 3–21, 3–23, 3–24, 3–25, pp. 17–24. 43 76 FR 76666, 76667, 76668 (December 8, 2011). 50 Big Stone Annual Emissions 2000–2017.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:06 Mar 16, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM 19MRP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_11999/page/5.svg)
![11952 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 53 / Monday, March 19, 2018 / Proposed Rules
will be met via emission reductions • Does not provide the EPA with the participants should locate and preserve
already in place. discretionary authority to address, as all fishing related documents. The
appropriate, disproportionate human control date is intended to discourage
III. Proposed Action
health or environmental effects, using speculative entry or fishing activity in
The EPA is proposing to approve practicable and legally permissible the Northeast multispecies charter/party
South Dakota’s January 27, 2016, methods, under Executive Order 12898 fishery while the Council considers how
Regional Haze Progress Report as (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). participation in the fishery may be
meeting the applicable regional haze The SIP is not approved to apply on affected.
requirements set forth in 40 CFR any Indian reservation land or in any DATES: March 19, 2018, shall be known
51.308(g) and 51.308(h). other area where the EPA or an Indian as the ‘‘control date’’ for the Northeast
IV. Statutory and Executive Order tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has multispecies charter/party fishery.
Reviews jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian Written comments must be received on
country, the rule does not have tribal or before April 18, 2018.
Under the CAA, the Administrator is implications as specified by Executive
required to approve a SIP submission ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, on this document, identified by NOAA–
that complies with the provisions of the 2000), nor will it impose substantial
Act and applicable federal regulations. NMFS–2018–0042 by any of the
direct costs on tribal governments or following methods:
See 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). preempt tribal law. D Electronic Submission: Submit all
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 electronic public comments via the
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
Federal e-Rulemaking Portal. Go to
provided that they meet the criteria of Environmental protection, Air www.regulations.gov/
the CAA. Accordingly, this proposed pollution control, Incorporation by #!docketDetail;D=[NOAA-NMFS-2018-
action merely proposes to approve state reference, Intergovernmental relations, 0042], click the ‘‘Comment Now!’’ icon,
law as meeting federal requirements and Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, complete the required fields, and enter
does not impose additional Reporting and recordkeeping or attach your comments.
requirements beyond those imposed by requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile D Mail: Submit written comments to
state law. For that reason, this proposed organic compounds. Michael Pentony, Regional
action: Administrator, National Marine
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
• Is not a significant regulatory action
Dated: March 13, 2018. Fisheries Service, 55 Great Republic
subject to review by the Office of
Drive, Gloucester, MA 01930. Mark the
Management and Budget under Douglas H. Benevento,
outside of the envelope, ‘‘Comments on
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, Regional Administrator, Region 8.
Northeast Multispecies Charter/Party
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, [FR Doc. 2018–05398 Filed 3–16–18; 8:45 am] Control Date.’’
January 21, 2011); BILLING CODE 6560–50–P D Fax: (978) 281–9135; Attn: Spencer
• Is not expected to be an Executive
Talmage.
Order 13771 regulatory action because Instructions: Comments sent by any
this action is not significant under other method, to any other address or
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
Executive Order 12866; individual, or received after the end of
• Does not impose an information National Oceanic and Atmospheric the comment period, may not be
collection burden under the provisions Administration considered by NMFS. All comments
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
received are a part of the public record
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 50 CFR Part 648 and will generally be posted for public
• Is certified as not having a
viewing on www.regulations.gov
significant economic impact on a [Docket No. 180205126–8126–01]
without change. All personal identifying
substantial number of small entities RIN 0648–BH66 information (e.g., name, address, etc.),
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
confidential business information, or
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Control Date for the Northeast
• Does not contain any unfunded otherwise sensitive information
Multispecies Charter/Party Fishery; submitted voluntarily by the sender will
mandate or significantly or uniquely Northeast Multispecies Fishery
affect small governments, as described be publicly accessible. NMFS will
Management Plan accept anonymous comments (enter
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries ‘‘N/A’’ in the required fields if you wish
• Does not have federalism Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and to remain anonymous). Attachments to
implications as specified in Executive Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), electronic comments will be accepted in
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, Commerce. Microsoft Word, Excel, or Adobe PDF
1999); file formats only.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed
• Is not an economically significant rulemaking (ANPR); request for FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
regulatory action based on health or comments. Spencer Talmage, Fishery Management
safety risks subject to Executive Order Specialist, 978–281–9232.
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); SUMMARY: This notice announces a new SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This
• Is not a significant regulatory action control date that may be used to notification establishes March 19, 2018,
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with PROPOSALS
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR determine future participation in the as the new control date for potential use
28355, May 22, 2001); Northeast multispecies charter/party in determining historical or traditional
• Is not subject to requirements of fishery. This notice is necessary to participation in the charter/party
Section 12(d) of the National inform interested parties that the New groundfish fishery. Interested
Technology Transfer and Advancement England Fishery Management Council is participants should locate and preserve
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because considering a future action that may all records that substantiate and verify
this action does not involve technical affect or limit the number of their participation in the charter/party
standards; and participants in this fishery and that groundfish fishery. Consideration of a
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:06 Mar 16, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00050 Fmt 4702 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\19MRP1.SGM 19MRP1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_11999/page/7.svg)
Document Created: 2018-03-17 04:24:42
Document Modified: 2018-03-17 04:24:42
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Proposed Rules | |
| Action | Proposed rule. | |
| Dates | Comments must be received on or before April 18, 2018. | |
| Contact | Kate Gregory, Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6175, or by email at [email protected] | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 11946 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Oxides; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Dioxide and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR