83 FR 62262 - 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 232 (December 3, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 232 (December 3, 2018)
| Page Range | 62262-62268 | |
| FR Document | 2018-26179 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 232 (Monday, December 3, 2018)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 62262-62268] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-26179] ======================================================================= ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0672; FRL-9986-75-Region 8] Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Dakota; Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. ----------------------------------------------------------------------- SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the State of South Dakota through the South Dakota Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) on January 27, 2016. South Dakota's January 27, 2016 SIP revision (Progress Report) addresses requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and the EPA's rules that require each state to submit periodic reports describing progress towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze and a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing SIP addressing regional haze (regional haze plan). The EPA is finalizing approval of South Dakota's determination that the State's regional haze plan is adequate to meet these RPGs for the first implementation period covering through 2018 and requires no substantive revision at this time. DATES: This rule will be effective January 2, 2019. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0672. All documents in the docket are listed on the http://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 http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Gregory, Air Program, Environmental Protection Agency, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6175, or by email at [email protected]. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and ``our'' means the EPA. I. Background States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a SIP revision for the first implementation period that evaluates progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I federal area\1\ (Class I area) within the state and for each Class I area outside the state which may be affected by emissions from within the state (40 CFR 51.308(g)). In addition, the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing regional haze plan. The first progress report is due 5 years after submittal of the initial regional haze plan. On January 21, 2011, South Dakota submitted the State's first regional haze SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308, which the EPA fully approved.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)). These areas are listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D. \2\ 77 FR 24845 (April 26, 2012). EPA fully approved South Dakota's regional haze SIP submittal addressing the requirements of the first implementation period for regional haze. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- On January 27, 2016, South Dakota submitted its Progress Report which, among other things, detailed the progress made in the first period toward implementation of the long-term strategy outlined in the State's regional haze plan; the visibility improvement measured at Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks, the two Class I areas within South Dakota, and at Class I areas outside of the State potentially impacted by emissions from South Dakota; and a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional haze plan. In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on March 19, 2018 (83 FR 11946), the EPA proposed to approve South Dakota's Progress Report. The details of South Dakota's submission and the rationale for the EPA's actions are explained in the NPRM. II. Response to Comments Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before April 18, 2018. The EPA received a total of 16 public comment submissions on the proposed approval. All public comments received on this rulemaking action are available for review by the public and may be viewed by following the instructions for access to docket materials as outlined in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. After reviewing the comments, the EPA has determined that 15 of the comment submissions are outside the scope of our proposed action and/or fail to identify any material issue necessitating a response. We received one comment letter from the National Parks [[Page 62263]] Conservation Association (NPCA), containing two significant comments that we are responding to here. Below is a summary of those comments and the EPA's responses. Comment: In a comment letter dated April 18, 2018, the NPCA asserted that South Dakota's Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report and the EPA's analysis of the progress report fail to meet 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) as neither mentions the Gerald Gentleman Station in Nebraska. The commenter states that South Dakota's SIP and RPGs relied on visibility modeling from the Central Regional Air Planning Association (CENRAP) that assumed the installation of scrubbers for control of sulfur dioxide (SO2 ) emissions from the Gerald Gentleman Station, which has a significant impact on South Dakota's Class I areas. The commenter suggests that the lack of requirements to install scrubbers and limit SO2 emissions from the Gerald Gentleman Station constitutes an anthropogenic change that impedes visibility progress. Finally, the commenter suggests the lack of change in emissions at the Gerald Gentleman Station since the baseline period ``impedes visibility progress'' and is a ``significant change'' that the EPA's guidance suggests should be discussed to meet the requirements of Sec. 51.308(g)(5). Response: We acknowledge that the Progress Report from South Dakota does not include an assessment of emission changes from the Gerald Gentleman Station. However, such an assessment is not required given the facts about South Dakota's SIP, emission trends for Gerald Gentleman, and visibility trends at the two Class I areas in South Dakota. Changes in emissions from the Gerald Gentleman Station are not ``significant changes'' within the meaning of this section of the Regional Haze Rule (RHR). It should be noted that, South Dakota cannot regulate emissions from the Gerald Gentleman Station in Nebraska. Section 51.308(g)(5) of the RHR requires that periodic progress reports contain an assessment of any significant changes in anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have occurred during the implementation period including whether such changes were anticipated and whether they have limited or impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving visibility. The EPA provided guidance that summarized and clarified the requirements for progress reports in a document titled General Principles for the 5-Year Regional Haze Progress Reports for the Initial Regional Haze State Implementation Plans (Intended to Assist States and EPA Regional Offices in Development and Review of the Progress Reports).\3\ In relation to Sec. 51.308(g)(5), the guidance states that ``[t]his requirement is aimed at assessing whether any such significant emissions changes have occurred within the state over the 5-year period since the SIP was submitted, and whether emissions increases outside the state are affecting a Class I area within the state adversely.'' \4\ Further, the guidance principles specify that a ``significant change'' that can ``limit or impede progress'' could be ``either (1) a significant unexpected increase in anthropogenic emissions that occurred over the 5-year period (that is, an increase that was not projected in the analysis for the SIP), or (2) a significant expected reduction in anthropogenic emissions that did not occur (that is, a projected decrease in emissions in the analysis for the SIP that was not realized).'' \5\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards Air Quality Policy Division Geographic Strategies Group, April 2013. \4\ Guidance Priciples, p. 15. \5\ Ibid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The ``significance'' of a change in emissions, if there is a change, is evaluated on a case-by-case basis depending on the factual context. It is clear from both Sec. 51.308(g)(5) and the guidance that significance depends on whether a change in emissions is large enough to have limited or impeded progress in improving visibility, with the adopted RPGs being important benchmarks for progress. In this instance, there have not been significant changes in emissions within the meaning of Sec. 51.308(g)(5). First, there has not been a ``significant unexpected increase'' in emissions from outside South Dakota, i.e., from the Gerald Gentleman Station. While this first questions is perhaps more relevant where a new or modified source has increased emissions over what was projected in the SIP, we nonetheless assess it in respect to Gerald Gentleman Station. A review of emissions data submitted to the EPA Air Markets Program Data indicates that the annual SO2 emissions from Units 1 and 2 decreased in the 5-year period from the submittal of the initial SIP. In the 5-year period before submittal of the initial SIP, 2006 through 2010, the annual SO2 emissions from the facility averaged 30,597 tons per year.\6\ In the following 5-year period, 2011 through 2016, the annual SO2 emissions averaged 26,696 tons per year.\7\ The average annual SO2 emissions between the two periods decreased by 3,901 tons per year.\8\ As such, we conclude that there has not been a significant unexpected increase in anthropogenic emissions from the Gerald Gentleman Station. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \6\ Refer to spread sheet in the docket titled ``Gerald Gentleman Station Annual Emissions from AMPD.xlsx'' located in the docket. \7\ Ibid. \8\ Because no new SO2 controls have been installed at the Gerald Gentleman Station, the reduction in emissions between the two time periods, 3,901 tons per year, is primarily due to a decrease in heat input. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Second, there was not a significant expected reduction in anthropogenic emissions that did not occur. As a preliminary matter, we acknowledge that the RPGs for South Dakota's Class I areas are based on the assumption that SO2 emissions from the Gerald Gentleman Station would be reduced by the application of scrubbers that achieve the ``presumptive BART'' emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu.\9\ This assumption was built into the projected emission inventory for air quality modeling used to establish RPGs.\10\ However, this occurred before Nebraska made its BART determination. It also occurred before Nebraska completed its consultation with other states, including South Dakota, in the development of its emission control strategies.\11\ In the Agency's final action on Nebraska's Regional Haze SIP, the EPA addressed the disparity between the modeling assumptions for South Dakota's RPGs and the SO2 BART emission limit the EPA chose for the Gerald Gentleman Station.\12\ In response to comments on this issue, the Agency noted that ``South Dakota had the opportunity to comment on Nebraska's draft BART permits as well as the overall regional haze SIP, and did not ask for additional emission reductions from Nebraska.'' \13\ The Agency concluded that ``Nebraska did establish a BART limit for the Gerald Gentleman Station and informed South Dakota that its BART determination [[Page 62264]] deviated from what was included in the modeling [for RPGs], [and] the fact that the final BART determination varied from the predictions is not grounds for disapproving either SIP.'' \14\ Indeed, the content of the long-term strategy (including BART controls) determines the RPGs, not the opposite case. If not for the difference in timing between the air quality modeling for the RPGs and Nebraska's BART determination, South Dakota's RPGs would have reflected Nebraska's BART determination for the Gerald Gentleman Station. Put more concisely, the SO2 BART requirement for Gerald Gentleman Station is not predicated on an assumption that was made in the modeling analysis before BART was determined, but rather on the control measures that were ultimately agreed upon between Nebraska and South Dakota through the requisite consultation process. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \9\ For comparison, the SO2 annual emission rate (in lb/MMBtu) at the Gerald Gentleman Station was about 0.58 lb/MMBtu during 2002, which was the period used as the baseline by Nebraska when it developed its SIP. The annual emission rate in lb/MMBtu has not changed appreciably since that time. \10\ The emissions projected for the Gerald Gentleman Station by CENRAP were incorporated into the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP) reasonable progress modeling for 2018 (referred to as the PRP18b scenario). The RPGs for the South Dakota Class I areas were determined by the WRAP modeling. \11\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) requires that a state consult with another state if its emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment at that state's Class I area(s), and that a state consult with other states if those other states' emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility impairment at its Class I areas. \12\ 77 FR 40150 (July 6, 2012). \13\ Ibid, 40155. \14\ Ibid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Nonetheless, in the Agency's final action for Nebraska, the EPA disapproved the SO2 BART determination for the Gerald Gentleman Station because the State did not comply with the EPA's regulations. The EPA also disapproved Nebraska's long-term strategy insofar as it relied on the deficient SO2 BART determination at the Gerald Gentleman Station. To address these deficiencies, in the same action, the EPA promulgated a Federal Implementation Plan relying on the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR, or ``transport rule'') as an alternative to BART for SO2 emissions from Gerald Gentleman Station,\15\ with the result that the long-term strategy for Nebraska does not require that SO2 scrubbers be installed at the Gerald Gentleman Station to meet BART. Again, the RPGs are intended to reflect the emission reductions in states' long-term strategies. The fact that Nebraska's long-term strategy ultimately contains a different BART emission limit for the Gerald Gentleman Station than initially assumed does not mean that any difference between the two constitutes ``a significant expected reduction in anthropogenic emissions that did not occur.'' --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \15\ 40 CFR 52.143. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The guidance further clarifies that the requirement in Sec. 51.308(g)(5) is ``aimed at assessing . . . whether emissions increases outside the state are affecting a Class I area within the state adversely. For those Class I areas where there is a significant overall downward trend in both visibility and nearby emissions, we expect that this assessment will point to those trends in support of a simple negative declaration satisfying this requirement'' (emphasis added).\16\ This means that if aggregate emissions influencing the affected Class I areas are significantly declining and visibility conditions are significantly improving, an upward ``change'' for one contributing source relative to expectations is not significant. We accordingly turn to the topic of aggregate emissions and visibility trends for the Class I areas in South Dakota.\17\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \16\ Principles, p. 15. \17\ 83 FR 11949-11950 (March 19, 2018). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the Progress Report, South Dakota compared the most recent updated emission inventory data available at the time of Progress Report development with the baseline emissions inventory used in the modeling for the regional haze plan. The State's comparison showed that the statewide emissions of key visibility impairing pollutants, including SO2 , had declined. For example, between the baseline emission inventory and the most recent updated emission inventory of 2011, South Dakota found that anthropogenic SO2 emissions declined by 8,285 tons per year. The emissions trends do not suggest any deficiencies in South Dakota's SIP that would affect achievement of the RPGs for Wind Cave and Badlands National Parks. In the Progress Report, South Dakota provided baseline visibility conditions (2000-2004), current conditions based on the most recently available visibility monitoring data available at the time of Progress Report development, the difference between these current visibility conditions and baseline visibility conditions, and the change in visibility impairment from 2009-2013.\18\ In order to further assess the trend in visibility as it relates to Sec. 51.308(g)(5), the EPA has expanded on the analysis of visibility included in South Dakota's Progress Report. In addition to the information and analysis provided in the Progress Report, Table 1 below presents updated Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring data which shows that visibility for the two Class I areas in the State, Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks, has continued to improve beyond the 2009-2013 period considered by South Dakota. Table 1 shows a continued downward trend in visibility impairment (in deciviews) at both Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks from the baseline time period (2000-2004) to the most current time period (2012-2016). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \18\ Ibid. \19\ IMPROVE Data, Federal Land Manager Environmental Database. See `Badlands and Wind Cave IMPROVE Table.xlsx', available in docket. \20\ 76 FR 76646, 76664 (April 26, 2012). Table 1--Baseline Visibility, Current Visibility, Visibility Changes, and 2018 RPGs in South Dakota's Class I Areas [Deciviews] \19\ ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Difference Difference Difference Class I area Baseline (2000- Current (2007- (baseline vs. More current (baseline vs. Most current (baseline vs. 2018 RPG \20\ 2004) 2011) current) (2009-2013) more current) (2012-2016) most current) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Badlands National Park ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 20% Worst Days.................................................. 17.1 16.3 -0.8 15.7 -1.4 14.7 -2.4 16.3 20% Best Days................................................... 6.9 6.6 -0.3 5.8 -1.1 5.5 -1.4 6.6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Wind Cave National Park ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 20% Worst Days.................................................. 15.8 14.9 -0.9 14.2 -1.6 13.6 -2.2 15.2 20% Best Days................................................... 5.1 4.4 -0.7 4.0 -1.1 3.6 -1.5 5.0 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ In Figures 1 and 2 below, in addition to comparing visibility improvement to the 2018 RPGs, we also compare monitored visibility (as a 5-year rolling average) to the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP). As described in the RHR, the URP is the uniform rate of visibility improvement that would need to be maintained during each implementation [[Page 62265]] period in order to attain natural visibility conditions by the end of 2064.\21\ While the RHR does not require that states compare monitored visibility to the URP as part of their progress reports, the EPA has done so here because it is instructive when considering visibility trends in the context of Sec. 51.308(g)(5). Figures 1 and 2 show that the visibility in recent years for both Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks is well below the RPGs. For example, for Badlands National Park, the 2011 through 2016 5-year rolling average of the 20% haziest days is 14.7 deciviews, which is well below the 2018 RPG of 16.3 deciviews. Moreover, the visibility for both Class I areas is below the URP in recent years; at Badlands National Park, the 5-year rolling average of the 20% haziest days is below the URP beginning in 2012 and extending through the most recent year of available IMPROVE data (2016). Similar trends are apparent for Wind Cave National Park. As with the emissions trends, the visibility trends do not suggest any deficiencies in South Dakota's SIP that would adversely affect achievement of the RPGs for Wind Cave and Badlands National Parks. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \21\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi)(A). \22\ IMPROVE Data, Federal Land Manager Environmental Database. See `Badlands and Wind Cave IMPROVE Visibility Trends.xlsx,' available in docket. [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03DE18.000 [[Page 62266]] [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03DE18.001 As previously stated, progress relative to the adopted RPGs is an important benchmark in assessing whether an increase in the Gerald Gentleman Station's SO2 emissions relative to the expectations inherent in the SIP has ``limited or impeded progress in improving visibility.'' While there would likely have been more progress if the Gerald Gentleman Station's SO2 emissions had been reduced even more over time than they have been, in the context of improvements already in the first implementation period relative to the RPGs and the URP for both Class I areas in South Dakota, we do not consider any lack of emission reductions from the Gerald Gentleman Station as having limited or impeded progress in improving visibility. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \23\ Ibid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In summary, we find that there has been no significant change in anthropogenic emissions relative to what was expected under South Dakota's regional haze SIP. Moreover, even if there had been such a change, emissions and visibility trends do not suggest any deficiencies in South Dakota's SIP that would affect achievement of reasonable progress for Wind Cave and Badlands National Parks. Given our conclusions regarding Sec. 51.308(g)(5) here, we find that the absence of a discussion of the Gerald Gentleman Station is not a failure to report on ``significant changes in anthropogenic emissions'' as that term is used in Sec. 51.308(g)(5) nor a shortcoming in South Dakota's Progress Report that requires our disapproval of the Progress Report. Consequently, consistent with the RHR and our guidance principles, we are finalizing our finding that South Dakota has met the requirements of Sec. 51.308(g)(5).\24\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \24\ Because we are finding that South Dakota has not failed to report on ``significant changes in anthropogenic emissions'' as that term is used in Sec. 51.308(g)(5), we have not needed to reach a conclusion as to whether such a failure in this particular situation would be so important that it would require disapproval of the Progress Report. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment: The NPCA also asserts that ``EPA has previously identified the need for consultation between South Dakota and Nebraska in the next planning period regarding the impacts of the Gerald Gentleman Station on South Dakota's Class I areas,'' and asks the EPA to ``work with South Dakota to include a discussion of the Gerald Gentleman Station in its progress report.'' Response: The Progress Report that is the subject of today's action addresses the requirements of the first regional haze planning period. When adopting long-term strategies and establishing RPGs for the second regional haze planning period, extending to 2028, the RHR requires that states once again ``consult with those states that are reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in [ ] mandatory Class I area[s].'' \25\ As such, South Dakota will have an opportunity to consult with Nebraska regarding SO2 controls for the Gerald Gentleman Station in the second planning period. Moreover, nothing in this final rule would prevent Nebraska, in consultation with South Dakota or other [[Page 62267]] states, from assessing the need for SO2 controls at the Gerald Gentleman Station as part of its long-term strategy for the second planning period. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \25\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Comment: The NPCA also asserts that the EPA does not adequately address in the NPRM South Dakota's progress towards investigating and developing a smoke management plan.\26\ The NPCA asserts that ``EPA's analysis incorrectly states that `The Progress Report presents the extensive information collected and analyzed to investigate the impacts of a smoke management plan'.'' \27\ The NPCA acknowledges that the South Dakota Progress Report discusses the impact of prescribed fire at Wind Cave National Park, but asserts that the progress report does not mention a smoke management plan specifically. The commenter additionally asserts that the progress report does not include an ``update or information about South Dakota's progress towards investigating and developing a smoke management plan.'' \28\ Finally, the commenter requests that the EPA work with South Dakota to include an update on South Dakota's examination of a smoke management plan as the NPCA asserts that 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) requires that the status of all control strategies be included in the SIP. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \26\ National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) Comment Letter, p.2. \27\ Ibid. \28\ Ibid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Response: As this response to comment will show, South Dakota is committed to investigating the impacts of prescribed burns and wildfires and considering smoke management practices and a smoke management plan; however, there is no smoke management plan currently included in the SIP. Insofar as the comment implicates the adequacy of the State's existing Regional Haze SIP, we note that our review of the Progress Report is not a second review of the adequacy of that SIP, as the public already had an opportunity to review and comment on it and the EPA approved the SIP as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(E). However, since South Dakota committed to investigating these issues, it was appropriate for the State to include an update on this investigation in the Progress Report and we find that the State did so. Contrary to commenters' assertions, the SIP explains that the State will:``[I]nvestigate the impacts that a smoke management plan for wild fires and prescribed burns will have on the 20% most impaired days'' within the first planning period of 2013''; Investigate and determine whether the ``burning of grass in and around the Class I areas'' warrants being covered under a smoke management plan''; and Review IMPROVE data for a recent prescribed fire to see what kind of impact the fire had on the organic carbon mass concentration and to some extent the ammonia sulfide and ammonia nitrate levels. Finally, the SIP explains that it is DENR's ``intention'' to [I]nvestigate these prescribed burns as well as other wildfires and planned prescribed burns to determine at what level (e.g., size of burn, distance from the Class I areas, combustible material) should a wildfire or prescribed fire be included in the smoke management plan and what best management practices can be used to minimize their impacts on the 20% most impaired days in the Class I areas. The results of this analysis will be adopted in the Regional Haze State Implementation Plan as part of our long term strategy. DENR will work with the federal land managers, other state agencies, and local governments during the development and implementation of the smoke management plan.\29\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \29\ 76 FR 76671 (December 8, 2011). --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Contrary to the commenter's assertions, the Progress Report, as explained in the Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report NPRM, describes that the State has taken the following steps so far to investigate the impacts of prescribed burns and natural fire on visibility in the first planning period. The impacts of prescribed fires on the 20% most impaired days at Wind Cave were investigated using the IMPROVE data that was presented in their progress report.\30\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \30\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-28, p.31 and Table 3- 29, p. 33. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The State also reviewed IMPROVE data for two recent prescribed fires to see what kind of impact the fires had on the organic carbon mass concentration and to some extent the ammonium sulfide and ammonium nitrate levels. This data shows the impact of two prescribed fires conducted by the National Park Service (NPS) at Wind Cave National Park in 2009 and 2010.\31\ The two examples of the IMPROVE data that show that the NPS prescribed fires contributed to high levels of both particulate organic mass and elemental carbon on both days.\32\ Finally, the Progress Report shows that natural fire has been decreasing in its impact.\33\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \31\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 29. \32\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-28, p.31 and Table 3- 29, p. 33. \33\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-28, p.31 and Table 3- 29, pp. 17, 19, 20, 21, 24. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Furthermore, regarding the State's intention to develop and implement the smoke management plan, since the publication of the NPRM, we learned that the State of South Dakota reconfirmed their intention regarding the smoke management plan,\34\ as is described in its SIP to participate in a Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR) smoke management workgroup. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \34\ Memo to File EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0672, available in docket. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Finally, as described in South Dakota's progress report and the NPRM, the State has worked in coordination with Federal Land Managers to mitigate the impacts of prescribed fires. In its Progress Report, the State explains that ``DENR and Federal Land Managers in South Dakota have improved coordination and communications over the past few years and plan to continue that effort to help mitigate the impacts of prescribed fires'' at Wind Cave and Badlands National Parks.\35\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \35\ South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 41-42, Appendix B, pp. B- 2--B-3. At the suggestion of the National Park Service, the DENR also looked at the Fire Emissions Tracking System and noted that it may be a useful tool going forward as the DENR continues to track prescribed fires and their impacts on the Class I areas. In conclusion, as explained above, we find the State has provided an adequate description of the status of the State's investigation of smoke management measures. The State has investigated both prescribed fire and wildfire and the impact of fire on the 20% most impaired days at Class I areas, reviewed IMPROVE data, showed continued collaboration with Federal Land Managers, and provided a description of their intention to investigate, develop and implement and a smoke management plan as is described in their SIP. Accordingly, we clarify and confirm our proposed finding that South Dakota has adequately addressed its SIP commitment. III. Final Action EPA is finalizing without revisions its proposed approval of South Dakota's January 27, 2016 Progress Report as meeting the applicable regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h). IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices, [[Page 62268]] provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action: Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866; Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4); Does not have federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999); Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001); Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the CAA; and Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by February 1, 2019. Filing a petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile organic compounds. Douglas Benevento, Regional Administrator, Region 8. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 0 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart QQ--South Dakota 0 2. Section 52.2170(e) is amended by adding a new entry for XXIII. Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report in numerical order to read as follows: Sec. 52.2170 Identification of plan. * * * * * (e) * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EPA effective Final rule citation, Rule title State effective date date date Comments ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- * * * * * * * XXIII. Regional Haze 5-Year Submitted 01/27/2016. 1/2/2019 [Insert Federal Progress Report. Register citation], 12/3/2018. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [FR Doc. 2018-26179 Filed 11-30-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![62262 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Event name Event location Date of event Latitude Longitude
(typically)
Westport 4th of July ................................................ Westport, WA ................. One day in July .............. 46°54′17″ N 124°05′59″ W
The 4th of July at Pekin Ferry ................................. Ridgefield, WA ................ Saturday before July 4th 45°52′07″ N 122°43′53″ W
Bandon 4th of July .................................................. Bandon, OR .................... One day in July .............. 43°07′29″ N 124°25′05″ W
Garibaldi Days Fireworks ........................................ Garibaldi, OR .................. One day in July .............. 45°33′13″ N 123°54′56″ W
Bald Eagle Days ...................................................... Cathlamet, WA ............... One day in July .............. 46°12′14″ N 123°23′17″ W
Independence Day at the Fort Vancouver .............. Vancouver, WA .............. One day in July .............. 45°36′57″ N 122°40′09″ W
Oregon Symphony Concert Fireworks .................... Portland, OR ................... One day in August or 45°30′42″ N 122°40′14″ W
September.
Astoria Regatta ........................................................ Astoria, OR ..................... One day in August ......... 46°11′34″ N 123°49′28″ W
Leukemia and Lymphoma Light the Night Fire- Portland, OR ................... One day in October ........ 45°30′23″ N 122°40′4″ W
works.
Veterans Day Celebration ....................................... The Dalles, OR ............... One day in November .... 45°36′18″ N 121°10′34″ W
* * * * * ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a submittal of the initial regional haze
Dated: November 27, 2018. docket for this action under Docket ID plan. On January 21, 2011, South Dakota
D.F. Berliner,
No. EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0672. All submitted the State’s first regional haze
documents in the docket are listed on SIP in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Acting Captain
of the Port Columbia River.
the http://www.regulations.gov website. which the EPA fully approved.2
Although listed in the index, some On January 27, 2016, South Dakota
[FR Doc. 2018–26151 Filed 11–30–18; 8:45 am]
information is not publicly available, submitted its Progress Report which,
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
e.g., CBI or other information whose among other things, detailed the
disclosure is restricted by statute. progress made in the first period toward
Certain other material, such as implementation of the long-term
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION copyrighted material, is not placed on strategy outlined in the State’s regional
AGENCY the internet and will be publicly haze plan; the visibility improvement
available only in hard copy form. measured at Badlands and Wind Cave
40 CFR Part 52 Publicly available docket materials are National Parks, the two Class I areas
available through http:// within South Dakota, and at Class I
[EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0672; FRL–9986–75– www.regulations.gov, or please contact areas outside of the State potentially
Region 8] the person identified in the FOR FURTHER impacted by emissions from South
INFORMATION CONTACT section for Dakota; and a determination of the
Approval and Promulgation of additional availability information. adequacy of the State’s existing regional
Implementation Plans; South Dakota; FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate haze plan.
Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report Gregory, Air Program, Environmental In a notice of proposed rulemaking
State Implementation Plan Protection Agency, 1595 Wynkoop (NPRM) published on March 19, 2018
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Street, Denver, Colorado 80202–1129, (83 FR 11946), the EPA proposed to
Agency (EPA). (303) 312–6175, or by email at approve South Dakota’s Progress Report.
gregory.kate@epa.gov. The details of South Dakota’s
ACTION: Final rule.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: submission and the rationale for the
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ EPA’s actions are explained in the
Agency (EPA) is finalizing approval of and ‘‘our’’ means the EPA. NPRM.
a State Implementation Plan (SIP) I. Background II. Response to Comments
revision submitted by the State of South
Dakota through the South Dakota States are required to submit a Comments on the proposed
Department of Environment and Natural progress report in the form of a SIP rulemaking were due on or before April
Resources (DENR) on January 27, 2016. revision for the first implementation 18, 2018. The EPA received a total of 16
South Dakota’s January 27, 2016 SIP period that evaluates progress towards public comment submissions on the
revision (Progress Report) addresses the RPGs for each mandatory Class I proposed approval. All public
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA federal area1 (Class I area) within the comments received on this rulemaking
or Act) and the EPA’s rules that require state and for each Class I area outside action are available for review by the
each state to submit periodic reports the state which may be affected by public and may be viewed by following
describing progress towards reasonable emissions from within the state (40 CFR the instructions for access to docket
progress goals (RPGs) established for 51.308(g)). In addition, the provisions of materials as outlined in the ADDRESSES
regional haze and a determination of the 40 CFR 51.308(h) require states to section of this preamble. After
adequacy of the state’s existing SIP submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR reviewing the comments, the EPA has
addressing regional haze (regional haze 51.308(g) progress report, a determined that 15 of the comment
plan). The EPA is finalizing approval of determination of the adequacy of the submissions are outside the scope of our
South Dakota’s determination that the state’s existing regional haze plan. The proposed action and/or fail to identify
first progress report is due 5 years after
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
State’s regional haze plan is adequate to any material issue necessitating a
meet these RPGs for the first response. We received one comment
1 Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal
implementation period covering letter from the National Parks
areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000
through 2018 and requires no acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks
2 77 FR 24845 (April 26, 2012). EPA fully
substantive revision at this time. exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks
that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. approved South Dakota’s regional haze SIP
DATES: This rule will be effective 7472(a)). These areas are listed at 40 CFR part 81, submittal addressing the requirements of the first
January 2, 2019. subpart D. implementation period for regional haze.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:14 Nov 30, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM 03DER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_62494/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 62263
Conservation Association (NPCA), Assist States and EPA Regional Offices tons per year.7 The average annual SO2
containing two significant comments in Development and Review of the emissions between the two periods
that we are responding to here. Below Progress Reports).3 In relation to decreased by 3,901 tons per year.8 As
is a summary of those comments and § 51.308(g)(5), the guidance states that such, we conclude that there has not
the EPA’s responses. Comment: In a ‘‘[t]his requirement is aimed at assessing been a significant unexpected increase
comment letter dated April 18, 2018, the whether any such significant emissions in anthropogenic emissions from the
NPCA asserted that South Dakota’s changes have occurred within the state Gerald Gentleman Station.
Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report over the 5-year period since the SIP was Second, there was not a significant
and the EPA’s analysis of the progress submitted, and whether emissions expected reduction in anthropogenic
report fail to meet 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) increases outside the state are affecting emissions that did not occur. As a
as neither mentions the Gerald a Class I area within the state preliminary matter, we acknowledge
Gentleman Station in Nebraska. The adversely.’’ 4 Further, the guidance that the RPGs for South Dakota’s Class
commenter states that South Dakota’s principles specify that a ‘‘significant I areas are based on the assumption that
SIP and RPGs relied on visibility change’’ that can ‘‘limit or impede SO2 emissions from the Gerald
modeling from the Central Regional Air progress’’ could be ‘‘either (1) a Gentleman Station would be reduced by
Planning Association (CENRAP) that significant unexpected increase in the application of scrubbers that achieve
assumed the installation of scrubbers for anthropogenic emissions that occurred the ‘‘presumptive BART’’ emission rate
control of sulfur dioxide (SO2) over the 5-year period (that is, an of 0.15 lb/MMBtu.9 This assumption
emissions from the Gerald Gentleman increase that was not projected in the was built into the projected emission
Station, which has a significant impact analysis for the SIP), or (2) a significant inventory for air quality modeling used
on South Dakota’s Class I areas. The expected reduction in anthropogenic to establish RPGs.10 However, this
commenter suggests that the lack of emissions that did not occur (that is, a occurred before Nebraska made its
requirements to install scrubbers and projected decrease in emissions in the BART determination. It also occurred
limit SO2 emissions from the Gerald analysis for the SIP that was not before Nebraska completed its
Gentleman Station constitutes an realized).’’ 5 consultation with other states, including
anthropogenic change that impedes The ‘‘significance’’ of a change in South Dakota, in the development of its
visibility progress. Finally, the emissions, if there is a change, is emission control strategies.11 In the
commenter suggests the lack of change evaluated on a case-by-case basis Agency’s final action on Nebraska’s
in emissions at the Gerald Gentleman depending on the factual context. It is Regional Haze SIP, the EPA addressed
Station since the baseline period clear from both § 51.308(g)(5) and the the disparity between the modeling
‘‘impedes visibility progress’’ and is a guidance that significance depends on assumptions for South Dakota’s RPGs
‘‘significant change’’ that the EPA’s whether a change in emissions is large and the SO2 BART emission limit the
guidance suggests should be discussed enough to have limited or impeded EPA chose for the Gerald Gentleman
to meet the requirements of progress in improving visibility, with Station.12 In response to comments on
§ 51.308(g)(5). the adopted RPGs being important this issue, the Agency noted that ‘‘South
Response: We acknowledge that the benchmarks for progress. Dakota had the opportunity to comment
Progress Report from South Dakota does In this instance, there have not been on Nebraska’s draft BART permits as
not include an assessment of emission significant changes in emissions within well as the overall regional haze SIP,
changes from the Gerald Gentleman the meaning of § 51.308(g)(5). First, and did not ask for additional emission
Station. However, such an assessment is there has not been a ‘‘significant reductions from Nebraska.’’ 13 The
not required given the facts about South unexpected increase’’ in emissions from Agency concluded that ‘‘Nebraska did
Dakota’s SIP, emission trends for Gerald outside South Dakota, i.e., from the establish a BART limit for the Gerald
Gentleman, and visibility trends at the Gerald Gentleman Station. While this Gentleman Station and informed South
two Class I areas in South Dakota. first questions is perhaps more relevant Dakota that its BART determination
Changes in emissions from the Gerald where a new or modified source has
Gentleman Station are not ‘‘significant increased emissions over what was 7 Ibid.
changes’’ within the meaning of this projected in the SIP, we nonetheless 8 Because no new SO controls have been
2
section of the Regional Haze Rule installed at the Gerald Gentleman Station, the
assess it in respect to Gerald Gentleman reduction in emissions between the two time
(RHR). It should be noted that, South Station. A review of emissions data periods, 3,901 tons per year, is primarily due to a
Dakota cannot regulate emissions from submitted to the EPA Air Markets decrease in heat input.
the Gerald Gentleman Station in Program Data indicates that the annual 9 For comparison, the SO annual emission rate
2
Nebraska. (in lb/MMBtu) at the Gerald Gentleman Station was
SO2 emissions from Units 1 and 2 about 0.58 lb/MMBtu during 2002, which was the
Section 51.308(g)(5) of the RHR decreased in the 5-year period from the period used as the baseline by Nebraska when it
requires that periodic progress reports submittal of the initial SIP. In the 5-year developed its SIP. The annual emission rate in lb/
contain an assessment of any significant period before submittal of the initial MMBtu has not changed appreciably since that
changes in anthropogenic emissions time.
SIP, 2006 through 2010, the annual SO2 10 The emissions projected for the Gerald
within or outside the state that have emissions from the facility averaged Gentleman Station by CENRAP were incorporated
occurred during the implementation 30,597 tons per year.6 In the following into the Western Regional Air Partnership (WRAP)
period including whether such changes 5-year period, 2011 through 2016, the reasonable progress modeling for 2018 (referred to
were anticipated and whether they have annual SO2 emissions averaged 26,696 as the PRP18b scenario). The RPGs for the South
limited or impeded progress in reducing Dakota Class I areas were determined by the WRAP
modeling.
emissions and improving visibility. The 3 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of 11 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) requires that a state
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
EPA provided guidance that Air Quality Planning and Standards Air Quality consult with another state if its emissions are
summarized and clarified the Policy Division Geographic Strategies Group, April reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility
requirements for progress reports in a 2013. impairment at that state’s Class I area(s), and that
4 Guidance Priciples, p. 15. a state consult with other states if those other states’
document titled General Principles for 5 Ibid. emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute
the 5-Year Regional Haze Progress 6 Refer to spread sheet in the docket titled to visibility impairment at its Class I areas.
Reports for the Initial Regional Haze ‘‘Gerald Gentleman Station Annual Emissions from 12 77 FR 40150 (July 6, 2012).
State Implementation Plans (Intended to AMPD.xlsx’’ located in the docket. 13 Ibid, 40155.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:14 Nov 30, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM 03DER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_62494/page/2.svg)
![62264 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
deviated from what was included in the Station to meet BART. Again, the RPGs including SO2, had declined. For
modeling [for RPGs], [and] the fact that are intended to reflect the emission example, between the baseline emission
the final BART determination varied reductions in states’ long-term inventory and the most recent updated
from the predictions is not grounds for strategies. The fact that Nebraska’s long- emission inventory of 2011, South
disapproving either SIP.’’ 14 Indeed, the term strategy ultimately contains a Dakota found that anthropogenic SO2
content of the long-term strategy different BART emission limit for the emissions declined by 8,285 tons per
(including BART controls) determines Gerald Gentleman Station than initially year. The emissions trends do not
the RPGs, not the opposite case. If not assumed does not mean that any suggest any deficiencies in South
for the difference in timing between the difference between the two constitutes Dakota’s SIP that would affect
air quality modeling for the RPGs and ‘‘a significant expected reduction in achievement of the RPGs for Wind Cave
Nebraska’s BART determination, South anthropogenic emissions that did not and Badlands National Parks.
Dakota’s RPGs would have reflected occur.’’ In the Progress Report, South Dakota
Nebraska’s BART determination for the The guidance further clarifies that the provided baseline visibility conditions
Gerald Gentleman Station. Put more requirement in § 51.308(g)(5) is ‘‘aimed (2000–2004), current conditions based
concisely, the SO2 BART requirement at assessing . . . whether emissions on the most recently available visibility
for Gerald Gentleman Station is not increases outside the state are affecting monitoring data available at the time of
predicated on an assumption that was a Class I area within the state adversely. Progress Report development, the
made in the modeling analysis before For those Class I areas where there is a difference between these current
BART was determined, but rather on the significant overall downward trend in visibility conditions and baseline
control measures that were ultimately both visibility and nearby emissions, we visibility conditions, and the change in
agreed upon between Nebraska and expect that this assessment will point to visibility impairment from 2009–2013.18
South Dakota through the requisite those trends in support of a simple In order to further assess the trend in
consultation process. negative declaration satisfying this visibility as it relates to § 51.308(g)(5),
Nonetheless, in the Agency’s final requirement’’ (emphasis added).16 This the EPA has expanded on the analysis
action for Nebraska, the EPA means that if aggregate emissions of visibility included in South Dakota’s
disapproved the SO2 BART influencing the affected Class I areas are Progress Report. In addition to the
determination for the Gerald Gentleman significantly declining and visibility information and analysis provided in
Station because the State did not conditions are significantly improving, the Progress Report, Table 1 below
comply with the EPA’s regulations. The an upward ‘‘change’’ for one presents updated Interagency
EPA also disapproved Nebraska’s long- contributing source relative to Monitoring of Protected Visual
term strategy insofar as it relied on the expectations is not significant. We Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring
deficient SO2 BART determination at accordingly turn to the topic of data which shows that visibility for the
the Gerald Gentleman Station. To aggregate emissions and visibility trends two Class I areas in the State, Badlands
address these deficiencies, in the same for the Class I areas in South Dakota.17 and Wind Cave National Parks, has
action, the EPA promulgated a Federal In the Progress Report, South Dakota continued to improve beyond the 2009–
Implementation Plan relying on the compared the most recent updated 2013 period considered by South
Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR, emission inventory data available at the Dakota. Table 1 shows a continued
or ‘‘transport rule’’) as an alternative to time of Progress Report development downward trend in visibility
BART for SO2 emissions from Gerald with the baseline emissions inventory impairment (in deciviews) at both
Gentleman Station,15 with the result used in the modeling for the regional Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks
that the long-term strategy for Nebraska haze plan. The State’s comparison from the baseline time period (2000–
does not require that SO2 scrubbers be showed that the statewide emissions of 2004) to the most current time period
installed at the Gerald Gentleman key visibility impairing pollutants, (2012–2016).
TABLE 1—BASELINE VISIBILITY, CURRENT VISIBILITY, VISIBILITY CHANGES, AND 2018 RPGS IN SOUTH DAKOTA’S CLASS I
AREAS
[Deciviews] 19
Difference Difference Difference
Baseline Current More current Most current
Class I area (baseline vs. (baseline vs. (baseline vs. 2018 RPG 20
(2000–2004) (2007–2011) (2009–2013) (2012–2016)
current) more current) most current)
Badlands National Park
20% Worst Days ............... 17.1 16.3 ¥0.8 15.7 ¥1.4 14.7 ¥2.4 16.3
20% Best Days ................. 6.9 6.6 ¥0.3 5.8 ¥1.1 5.5 ¥1.4 6.6
Wind Cave National Park
20% Worst Days ............... 15.8 14.9 ¥0.9 14.2 ¥1.6 13.6 ¥2.2 15.2
20% Best Days ................. 5.1 4.4 ¥0.7 4.0 ¥1.1 3.6 ¥1.5 5.0
In Figures 1 and 2 below, in addition monitored visibility (as a 5-year rolling URP is the uniform rate of visibility
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
to comparing visibility improvement to average) to the Uniform Rate of Progress improvement that would need to be
the 2018 RPGs, we also compare (URP). As described in the RHR, the maintained during each implementation
14 Ibid. 17 83 FR 11949–11950 (March 19, 2018). 19 IMPROVE Data, Federal Land Manager
15 40 CFR 52.143. 18 Ibid. Environmental Database. See ‘Badlands and Wind
16 Principles, p. 15. Cave IMPROVE Table.xlsx’, available in docket.
20 76 FR 76646, 76664 (April 26, 2012).
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:14 Nov 30, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM 03DER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_62494/page/3.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 62267
states, from assessing the need for SO2 • Investigate and determine whether Furthermore, regarding the State’s
controls at the Gerald Gentleman the ‘‘burning of grass in and around the intention to develop and implement the
Station as part of its long-term strategy Class I areas’’ warrants being covered smoke management plan, since the
for the second planning period. under a smoke management plan’’; and publication of the NPRM, we learned
Comment: The NPCA also asserts that • Review IMPROVE data for a recent that the State of South Dakota
the EPA does not adequately address in prescribed fire to see what kind of reconfirmed their intention regarding
the NPRM South Dakota’s progress impact the fire had on the organic the smoke management plan,34 as is
towards investigating and developing a carbon mass concentration and to some described in its SIP to participate in a
smoke management plan.26 The NPCA extent the ammonia sulfide and Western States Air Resources Council
asserts that ‘‘EPA’s analysis incorrectly ammonia nitrate levels. (WESTAR) smoke management
states that ‘The Progress Report presents Finally, the SIP explains that it is workgroup.
the extensive information collected and DENR’s ‘‘intention’’ to Finally, as described in South
[I]nvestigate these prescribed burns as Dakota’s progress report and the NPRM,
analyzed to investigate the impacts of a
well as other wildfires and planned the State has worked in coordination
smoke management plan’.’’ 27 The
prescribed burns to determine at what with Federal Land Managers to mitigate
NPCA acknowledges that the South
level (e.g., size of burn, distance from the impacts of prescribed fires. In its
Dakota Progress Report discusses the
the Class I areas, combustible material) Progress Report, the State explains that
impact of prescribed fire at Wind Cave should a wildfire or prescribed fire be
National Park, but asserts that the ‘‘DENR and Federal Land Managers in
included in the smoke management South Dakota have improved
progress report does not mention a plan and what best management
smoke management plan specifically. coordination and communications over
practices can be used to minimize their the past few years and plan to continue
The commenter additionally asserts that impacts on the 20% most impaired days
the progress report does not include an that effort to help mitigate the impacts
in the Class I areas. The results of this of prescribed fires’’ at Wind Cave and
‘‘update or information about South analysis will be adopted in the Regional
Dakota’s progress towards investigating Badlands National Parks.35
Haze State Implementation Plan as part
and developing a smoke management In conclusion, as explained above, we
of our long term strategy. DENR will
plan.’’ 28 Finally, the commenter find the State has provided an adequate
work with the federal land managers,
requests that the EPA work with South other state agencies, and local description of the status of the State’s
Dakota to include an update on South governments during the development investigation of smoke management
Dakota’s examination of a smoke and implementation of the smoke measures. The State has investigated
management plan as the NPCA asserts management plan.29 both prescribed fire and wildfire and the
that 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) requires that Contrary to the commenter’s impact of fire on the 20% most impaired
the status of all control strategies be assertions, the Progress Report, as days at Class I areas, reviewed
included in the SIP. explained in the Regional Haze 5-Year IMPROVE data, showed continued
Response: As this response to Progress Report NPRM, describes that collaboration with Federal Land
comment will show, South Dakota is the State has taken the following steps Managers, and provided a description of
committed to investigating the impacts so far to investigate the impacts of their intention to investigate, develop
of prescribed burns and wildfires and prescribed burns and natural fire on and implement and a smoke
considering smoke management visibility in the first planning period. management plan as is described in
practices and a smoke management The impacts of prescribed fires on the their SIP. Accordingly, we clarify and
plan; however, there is no smoke 20% most impaired days at Wind Cave confirm our proposed finding that South
management plan currently included in were investigated using the IMPROVE Dakota has adequately addressed its SIP
the SIP. Insofar as the comment data that was presented in their progress commitment.
implicates the adequacy of the State’s report.30 III. Final Action
existing Regional Haze SIP, we note that The State also reviewed IMPROVE
our review of the Progress Report is not data for two recent prescribed fires to EPA is finalizing without revisions its
a second review of the adequacy of that see what kind of impact the fires had on proposed approval of South Dakota’s
SIP, as the public already had an the organic carbon mass concentration January 27, 2016 Progress Report as
opportunity to review and comment on and to some extent the ammonium meeting the applicable regional haze
it and the EPA approved the SIP as sulfide and ammonium nitrate levels. requirements set forth in 40 CFR
meeting the requirements of 40 CFR This data shows the impact of two 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).
51.308(d)(3)(v)(E). However, since South prescribed fires conducted by the IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Dakota committed to investigating these National Park Service (NPS) at Wind Reviews
issues, it was appropriate for the State Cave National Park in 2009 and 2010.31
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
to include an update on this The two examples of the IMPROVE data
required to approve a SIP submission
investigation in the Progress Report and that show that the NPS prescribed fires
that complies with the provisions of the
we find that the State did so. Contrary contributed to high levels of both
Act and applicable federal regulations.
to commenters’ assertions, the SIP particulate organic mass and elemental
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
explains that the State will: carbon on both days.32 Finally, the
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, the
• ‘‘[I]nvestigate the impacts that a Progress Report shows that natural fire
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
smoke management plan for wild fires has been decreasing in its impact.33
and prescribed burns will have on the
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
34 Memo to File EPA–R08–OAR–2017–0672,
29 76FR 76671 (December 8, 2011).
20% most impaired days’’ within the 30 South
available in docket.
Dakota Progress Report, Table 3–28, p.31
first planning period of 2013’’; and Table 3–29, p. 33.
35 South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 41–42,
Appendix B, pp. B–2—B–3. At the suggestion of the
31 South Dakota Progress Report, p. 29.
National Park Service, the DENR also looked at the
26 National Parks Conservation Association 32 South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3–28, p.31
Fire Emissions Tracking System and noted that it
(NPCA) Comment Letter, p.2. and Table 3–29, p. 33. may be a useful tool going forward as the DENR
27 Ibid. 33 South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3–28, p.31 continues to track prescribed fires and their impacts
28 Ibid. and Table 3–29, pp. 17, 19, 20, 21, 24. on the Class I areas.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 16:14 Nov 30, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM 03DER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_62494/page/6.svg)
![62268 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 232 / Monday, December 3, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
provided that they meet the criteria of Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because Court of Appeals for the appropriate
the CAA. Accordingly, this action application of those requirements would circuit by February 1, 2019. Filing a
merely approves state law as meeting be inconsistent with the CAA; and petition for reconsideration by the
federal requirements and does not • Does not provide EPA with the Administrator of this final rule does not
impose additional requirements beyond discretionary authority to address, as affect the finality of this action for the
those imposed by state law. For that appropriate, disproportionate human purposes of judicial review nor does it
reason, this action: health or environmental effects, using extend the time within which a petition
• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory practicable and legally permissible for judicial review may be filed, and
action’’ subject to review by the Office methods, under Executive Order 12898 shall not postpone the effectiveness of
of Management and Budget under (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). such rule or action. This action may not
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, In addition, the SIP is not approved to be challenged later in proceedings to
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, apply on any Indian reservation land or enforce its requirements. See section
January 21, 2011); in any other area where the EPA or an 307(b)(2).
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
action because SIP approvals are Indian country, the rule does not have Environmental protection, Air
exempted under Executive Order 12866; tribal implications and will not impose pollution control, Incorporation by
• Does not impose an information substantial direct costs on tribal reference, Intergovernmental relations,
collection burden under the provisions governments or preempt tribal law as Nitrogen oxides, Particulate matter,
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 Reporting and recordkeeping
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); FR 67249, November 9, 2000). requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile
• Is certified as not having a The Congressional Review Act, 5 organic compounds.
significant economic impact on a U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
substantial number of small entities Business Regulatory Enforcement Douglas Benevento,
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides Regional Administrator, Region 8.
U.S.C. 601 et seq.); that before a rule may take effect, the 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
• Does not contain any unfunded agency promulgating the rule must
mandate or significantly or uniquely submit a rule report, which includes a PART 52—APPROVAL AND
affect small governments, described in copy of the rule, to each House of the PROMULGATION OF
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of Congress and to the Comptroller General IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); of the United States. The EPA will
• Does not have federalism submit a report containing this action ■ 1. The authority citation for part 52
implications as specified in Executive and other required information to the continues to read as follows:
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
1999); Representatives, and the Comptroller
• Is not an economically significant General of the United States prior to Subpart QQ—South Dakota
regulatory action based on health or publication of the rule in the Federal
safety risks subject to Executive Order Register. A major rule cannot take effect ■ 2. Section 52.2170(e) is amended by
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); until 60 days after it is published in the adding a new entry for XXIII. Regional
• Is not a significant regulatory action Federal Register. This action is not a Haze 5-Year Progress Report in
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C. numerical order to read as follows:
28355, May 22, 2001); 804(2).
• Is not subject to requirements of Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, § 52.2170 Identification of plan.
section 12(d) of the National petitions for judicial review of this * * * * *
Technology Transfer and Advancement action must be filed in the United States (e) * * *
EPA effective
Rule title State effective date Final rule citation, date Comments
date
* * * * * * *
XXIII. Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report ........... Submitted 01/27/2016 ...... 1/2/2019 [Insert Federal Register
citation], 12/3/2018.
[FR Doc. 2018–26179 Filed 11–30–18; 8:45 am] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACTION: Final rule; announcement of
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P AGENCY effective date.
40 CFR Part 68 SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is announcing that the
amendments to the Risk Management
[EPA–HQ–OEM–2015–0725; FRL–9987–23–
OLEM]
Program under the Clean Air Act put
khammond on DSK30JT082PROD with RULES
forward in a final rule published in the
Accidental Release Prevention Federal Register on January 13, 2017 are
Requirements: Risk Management in effect.
Programs Under the Clean Air Act DATES: The rule amending 40 CFR part
68, published at 82 FR 4594 (January 13,
AGENCY: Environmental Protection 2017) and delayed at 82 FR 8499
Agency (EPA). (January 26, 2017), 82 FR 13968 (March
VerDate Sep<11>2014 17:07 Nov 30, 2018 Jkt 247001 PO 00000 Frm 00028 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\03DER1.SGM 03DER1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_62494/page/7.svg)
Document Created: 2018-12-01 00:57:00
Document Modified: 2018-12-01 00:57:00
| 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 | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | This rule will be effective January 2, 2019. | |
| 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 62262 | |
| 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 |
2024 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR