[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24845-24857]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8988]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0870; FRL-9658-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Dakota; 
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is taking final action to approve a revision to the South 
Dakota State Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing regional haze 
submitted by the State of South Dakota on January 21, 2011, along with 
an amendment submitted on September 19, 2011. EPA has determined that 
the plan submitted by South Dakota satisfies the requirements of the 
Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and our rules that require states to prevent 
any future and remedy any existing man-made impairment of visibility in 
mandatory Class I areas caused by emissions of air pollutants from 
numerous sources located over a

[[Page 24846]]

wide geographic area (also referred to as the ``Regional Haze 
program'').

DATES: This rule is effective May 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R08-OAR-2011-0870. All documents in the docket are listed on 
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information (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 either 
electronically through www.regulations.gov, or in hard copy at the Air 
Program, Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop 
Street, Denver, Colorado 80202-1129. EPA requests that if at all 
possible, you contact the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT section to view the hard copy of the docket. You 
may view the hard copy of the docket Monday through Friday, 8 a.m. to 4 
p.m., excluding Federal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail Fallon, Air Program, Mailcode 8P-
AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street, 
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129, (303) 312-6281, or <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#0c6a6d60606362226b6d65604c697c6d226b637a"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="97f1f6fbfbf8f9b9f0f6fefbd7f2e7f6b9f0f8e1">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain 
words or initials as follows:
    <bullet> The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the 
Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
    <bullet> The initials BACT mean or refer to best available control 
technology.
    <bullet> The initials BART mean or refer to best available retrofit 
technology.
    <bullet> The initials CAMD mean or refer to EPA's Clean Air Markets 
Database.
    <bullet> The initials CO2 mean or refer to carbon dioxide.
    <bullet> The initials DENR mean or refer to the South Dakota 
Department of Natural Resources.
    <bullet> The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United 
States Environmental Protection Agency.
    <bullet> The initials FGD or scrubber mean or refer to flue gas 
desulfurization.
    <bullet> The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation 
Plan.
    <bullet> The initials FLM mean or refer to Federal Land Manager.
    <bullet> The initials LNB mean or refer to low NO<INF>X</INF> 
burners.
    <bullet> The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.
    <bullet> The initials NPCA mean or refer to the National Parks 
Conservation Association.
    <bullet> The initials NPS mean or refer to the National Park 
Service.
    <bullet> The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air 
Quality Standards.
    <bullet> The initials PM mean or refer to particulate matter.
    <bullet> The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter 
with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers or fine 
particulate matter.
    <bullet> The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate matter with 
an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers or fine particulate 
matter.
    <bullet> The initials PSD mean or refer to prevention of 
significant deterioration.
    <bullet> The initials RBLC mean or refer to the RACT/BACT/LAER 
Clearinghouse.
    <bullet> The initials RP mean or refer to reasonable progress.
    <bullet> The initials RPG mean or refer to reasonable progress 
goal.
    <bullet> The initials SCR mean or refer to selective catalytic 
reduction.
    <bullet> The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation 
Plan.
    <bullet> The initials SNCR mean or refer to selective non-catalytic 
reduction.
    <bullet> The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.
    <bullet> The words South Dakota and State mean the State of South 
Dakota unless the context indicates otherwise.
    <bullet> The initials URP mean or refer to uniform rate of 
progress.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Issues Raised by Commenters and EPA's Responses
    A. General Comments on the Big Stone I BART Determination
    B. Comments on the Big Stone I SO<INF>2</INF> BART Determination
    C. Comments on the Big Stone I NO<INF>X</INF> BART Determination
    D. Comments on Big Stone I PM BART Determination
    E. Startup, Shutdown and Enforceability Comments
    F. Modeling Comments
    G. GCC Dacotah Cement Comments
    H. General Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    We signed our notice of proposed rulemaking on November 29, 2011, 
and it was published in the Federal Register on December 8, 2011. In 
that notice, we proposed approval of the State of South Dakota's 
Regional Haze SIP for the first implementation period (through 2018). 
76 FR 76646. A detailed explanation of the CAA's visibility 
requirements and the Regional Haze Rule as it applies to South Dakota 
was provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking and will not be 
restated here. EPA's rationale for proposing approval of the South 
Dakota SIP revision was described in detail in the proposal, and is 
further described in this final rulemaking.
    South Dakota has one source, Big Stone I Unit 1 (Big Stone I), 
which is subject to the best available retrofit technology (BART) 
requirements.\1\ Big Stone I is a coal-fired power plant. The State has 
identified various BART requirements including emission limits and 
monitoring, recordkeeping and reporting for Big Stone I. In South 
Dakota's Administrative Rules, Chapter 74:36:21 notes these 
requirements apply to a BART-eligible source. Regardless of the generic 
language, wherever a requirement is identified for a BART-eligible 
source in Chapter 74:36:21, South Dakota intended for the provisions of 
the state rule to apply to Big Stone I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See SIP Section 6 for South Dakota's analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Issues Raised by Commenters and EPA's Responses

    This action addresses comments on the South Dakota Regional Haze 
SIP. The publication of EPA's proposed rule on December 8, 2011 
initiated a 60-day public comment period that ended on February 6, 
2012. During the public comment period we received written comments 
from the State of South Dakota, CREDO Action, the National Parks 
Conservation Association (NPCA), the Sierra Club, and the National Park 
Service (NPS). We have reviewed the comments and provided our responses 
below. Full copies of the comment letters are available in the docket 
for this rulemaking.

A. General Comments on the Big Stone I BART Determination

    Comment: One commenter stated that South Dakota is not excused from 
following a reasonable analysis in evaluating BART and setting BART 
emission limits because Big Stone I has a generating capacity less than 
750 MW. South Dakota is still obligated to comply with BART as defined 
at 40 CFR 51.301 and to include controls with the top level of 
pollutant removal efficiency in evaluating the ``best system of 
continuous emission reduction.''
    Because South Dakota did not consider the capabilities of various 
pollution controls in its BART analysis for Big Stone I, its cost 
impact analysis is skewed in favor of low-cost equipment, and does not 
evaluate cost

[[Page 24847]]

impacts in terms of pollution reduced. The State must consider varying 
levels of pollution control efficiency in its Big Stone BART analyses.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the Regional Haze Rule 
requires states to consider the most stringent level of control. 
However, we disagree with the statements that South Dakota's BART 
analysis is skewed in favor of low-cost equipment for Big Stone I, and 
that the analysis does not evaluate cost impacts in terms of pollution 
reduced. South Dakota did describe the range of control efficiencies 
possible for the various technically feasible control options in its 
BART determinations. While we acknowledge that South Dakota did not 
select the highest control efficiency option in every case (e.g., South 
Dakota selected semi-dry instead of wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD 
or ``scrubber'' controls) for SO<INF>2</INF> control), we find the 
State was reasonable in its selection of controls considering the five 
statutory factors and did not unreasonably reject any control options 
based on cost as further explained in our responses to other comments 
in this action.

B. Comments on the Big Stone I SO2 BART Determination

    Comment: Two commenters stated that the SO<INF>2</INF> emission 
limit for Big Stone I is too high as a result of the baseline emission 
rate used in the analysis. The commenters stated that Otter Tail Power 
Company, the operator of Big Stone, and the State both incorrectly 
assumed an uncontrolled SO<INF>2</INF> emission rate of 0.86 lb/MMBtu 
for the Big Stone I BART determination. Otter Tail claimed this rate 
was the highest 24-hour average rate of SO<INF>2</INF> emitted by Big 
Stone I during 2001-2003. While the BART Guidelines \2\ require use of 
the highest daily emissions in the visibility modeling analysis, that 
is not an appropriate starting point for setting a BART emission limit. 
The Sierra Club believed that this rate should have instead been based 
on the highest 30-day average uncontrolled SO<INF>2</INF> emission 
rate, because BART emission limits apply on a 30-day average basis. The 
Sierra Club recommended a baseline emission rate of 0.70 lb/MMBtu, 
which is the maximum annual average SO<INF>2</INF> emission rate at Big 
Stone I over the last ten years, according to EPA's Clean Air Markets 
Database (CAMD), or at the very least recommends the highest 30-day 
average uncontrolled SO<INF>2</INF> emission rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The NPCA stated that it is unclear where the 0.86 lb/MMBtu baseline 
originates. The NPCA stated that the highest 30-day rolling period for 
SO<INF>2</INF> during the baseline period (2001-2003) was 0.82 lbs/
MMBtu, and that no monthly value was higher than 0.81 lbs/MMBtu through 
2010.
    The NPCA also noted that the baseline assumes 85% operations, while 
the baseline period operations averaged 91%, and averaged 92% from 
2003-2010.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The commenter cited EPA's CAMD for hours of operation at Big 
Stone I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: The BART Guidelines describe the process for calculating 
the average cost effectiveness of a control strategy.\4\ As part of 
this calculation, baseline annual emissions must be calculated, and 
section IV.D.4.c of the BART Guidelines describes the calculation of 
baseline emissions. The BART Guidelines state,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section IV.D.4.c.

    ``1. The baseline emissions rate should represent a realistic 
depiction of anticipated annual emissions for the source. In 
general, for the existing sources subject to BART, you will estimate 
the anticipated annual emissions based upon actual emissions from a 
baseline period.
    2. When you project that future operating parameters (e.g., 
limited hours of operation materials or product mix or type) will 
differ from past practice, and if this projection has a deciding 
effect in the BART determination, then you must make these 
parameters or assumptions into enforceable limitations. In the 
absence of enforceable limitations, you calculate baseline emissions 
based upon continuation of past practice.'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y, section IV.D.4.d.

    States have some flexibility in determining baseline emissions but 
should develop a ``realistic depiction of anticipated annual 
emissions.'' While the use of the highest 24-hour emission rate to 
estimate annual emissions would not likely result in a realistic 
estimate of annual emissions, had the State relied on the highest 30-
day rolling average value, it is unlikely that it would have arrived at 
a different conclusion regarding BART. First, the baseline emissions 
that the State relied on in its calculation of average cost result in 
lower estimates of average cost than would have resulted from using the 
approach suggest by the commenter. In addition, the primary basis for 
the State's BART determination was the visibility benefits that were 
based on the 24-hour maximum emissions rates. Moreover, BART emission 
limits, which apply at all times, including during startup and shutdown 
must allow an adequate margin for compliance.
    In addition, the State assumed baseline emissions of 18,000 tons 
per year for its BART analysis. By contrast, emissions data in CAMD 
shows that the emissions between 2001 and 2003 were 12,540 tons per 
year. Therefore, we find the State did not underestimate the baseline 
emissions in its BART analysis.
    Based on our review of all the information, we find that South 
Dakota acted reasonably in establishing the SO<INF>2</INF> BART 
emission limit for Big Stone.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the South Dakota Department of 
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) incorrectly assumed 95% 
SO<INF>2</INF> control efficiency for wet FGD, which can actually 
achieve as high as 99% control efficiency. The commenter gave several 
examples of wet scrubbers that have achieved up to 99% removal 
efficiency, and included cost estimates for certain technologies to 
argue that the costs for some of these systems ``are well within the 
range EPA normally considers cost effective'' in best available control 
technology (BACT) analyses. In its evaluation of a wet scrubber for 
BART, the Big Stone I BART Analysis should have evaluated these levels 
of control.
    The commenter also stated that the State incorrectly assumed 90% 
SO<INF>2</INF> control with a dry scrubber at Big Stone I, and 
therefore, proposed an emission limit of 0.09 lb/MMBtu which was too 
high. Using the Sierra Club's previously proposed baseline emission 
rate of 0.70 lb/MMBtu, the BART emission limit with a 90% efficient dry 
scrubber should be 0.07 lb/MMBtu at most. Additionally, other 
facilities are currently subject to higher removal efficiency 
requirements (up to 95%) with dry scrubbers, and corresponding lower 
SO<INF>2</INF> BACT limits than the 0.09 lb/MMBtu proposed by the 
State. Another commenter stated that more accurate reflections of the 
maximum capabilities of wet and dry scrubbers would cut remaining 
emissions significantly (75% and 50%, respectively), and requests that 
EPA adjust the final emission limits appropriately. This commenter also 
quoted the BART Guidelines; ``the list [of available technologies] is 
complete if it includes the maximum level of control each technology is 
capable of achieving.''
    Response: We agree that, in some cases, wet and dry scrubbers can 
achieve greater emission reductions than those assumed by South Dakota. 
However, when the sulfur content of the coal is low, a lower control 
efficiency is anticipated. Due to the very low sulfur content of the 
coal burned at Big Stone I, on average 0.57%, it is unlikely that the 
high control efficiencies cited by the

[[Page 24848]]

commenter could be achieved.\6\ South Dakota also provided explanatory 
information in its response to comments in Appendix E of the SIP that 
it considered SO<INF>2</INF> inlet concentrations in its estimation of 
possible control efficiencies. In addition, BART emission limits, which 
apply at all times, including during startup and shutdown must allow an 
adequate margin for compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Utility Plants, 1999 
Tables, DOE/EIA-091(99), June 2000, Table 21.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, with regard to the proposed emission limits for dry 
scrubbers at Big Stone I, we find that South Dakota's limit of 0.09 lb/
MMBtu is reasonable for dry scrubbers at the facility, and we are 
approving it.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the choice of semi-dry FGD over 
wet FGD was largely based on modeling results about which EPA noted; 
``It is not clear why the model predicted this result; it may relate to 
stack parameters.'' 76 FR 76656. The commenter stated that EPA should 
not rely on ``unreliable, unexplained, or not logical'' modeling 
results.
    Response: We disagree that the model results, upon which the State 
and EPA relied for this action, are ``unreliable, unexplained, or not 
logical.'' The CALPUFF modeling protocol used for the South Dakota 
Regional Haze SIP conforms to the BART Guidelines, and we received no 
information to the contrary aside from the general comment directly 
above. We also note that the stack parameters used in the model differ 
for the two options. Wet FGD results in a cooler plume with less 
velocity and thermal buoyancy than dry FGD. This is likely to have 
affected the model predictions.
    Comment: One commenter stated that South Dakota's cost 
effectiveness calculation of a wet scrubber, $1,699/ton at an 
SO<INF>2</INF> emission rate of 0.043 lb/MMBtu, is reasonable when 
compared to other BART determinations at similar facilities.\7\ South 
Dakota, therefore, lacks justification to discount installation of a 
wet scrubber based on costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Commenter referenced an NPS spreadsheet with cost 
information on BART determinations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: Neither EPA nor South Dakota discounted the installation 
of a wet scrubber based on costs. As stated in the proposal, ``the 
State deemed the average cost effectiveness reasonable for the two 
remaining control options, semi-dry and wet FGD.'' 76 FR 76656.
    Comment: One commenter noted Otter Tail's BART submittal based its 
costs on the CUE Cost model rather than EPA's Control Cost Manual, 
which contradicts the BART Guidelines and makes comparison with other 
cost effectiveness values difficult.
    Response: As we commented to South Dakota previously,\8\ while we 
are satisfied with the BART conclusions, in general we do not recommend 
relying on the CUE Cost model. We agree with the commenter that 
according to the BART Guidelines, in order to maintain and improve 
consistency, cost estimates should be based on the Control Cost Manual. 
Since South Dakota determined all control options in its BART analysis 
were cost effective, and it relied primarily on visibility benefits in 
its final BART determinations, the use of the CUE Cost model did not 
affect the final result.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ March 12, 2010 letter from EPA Region 8, Callie Videtich to 
DENR, Brian Gustafson, re: EPA Region 8 Comments on January 15, 2010 
Draft Regional Haze SIP (FLM Consultation Version).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: One commenter stated that DENR and Otter Tail failed to 
adequately evaluate the environmental benefits of a wet scrubber as 
opposed to a dry scrubber. First, because wet scrubbers are much more 
efficient at controlling SO<INF>2,</INF> they will be needed to work in 
conjunction with likely ``mandated'' future carbon dioxide 
(CO<INF>2</INF>) emission controls, which require SO<INF>2</INF> 
removal efficiency at 98-99%. Second, wet scrubbers are much more 
effective than dry scrubbers at controlling emissions of hydrogen 
chloride and hydrogen fluoride, and ``provide significant removal of 
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and mercury 
from flue gas.'' \9\ Third, decreases in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
translate to lower PM<INF>2.5</INF> concentrations because of the 
decrease in sulfate formation. Decrease in sulfate can also prevent 
damage to certain water bodies and wetlands. Another commenter also 
stated that EPA did not adequately take into account the additional 
environmental benefits from use of a wet scrubber and the low energy 
use associated with some newer models, and asks EPA to revisit this 
aspect of the technology section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ Commenter cited http://www.icac.com/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageid=3401 for quote.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We took into account the State's consideration of 
environmental impacts when reviewing the Big Stone I SO<INF>2</INF> 
BART determination, as required by the BART Guidelines and evidenced in 
our proposal. 76 FR 76656. The CAA requires consideration of energy and 
non-air quality environmental impacts; the commenter's concerns relate 
primarily to air quality issues. The State did identify non-air quality 
environmental impacts in Section 6 of the SIP. South Dakota noted that 
the dry scrubber would be installed upstream of the existing baghouse, 
resulting in some negligible additional material being collected in the 
baghouse. In addition, the energy issue raised by the commenter related 
to wet versus dry scrubbing is addressed in the SIP in Table 6-8 where 
the State notes that the wet scrubber control option uses more energy 
than the dry scrubber option, 9,500 kW versus 3,325 kW. We also note 
that Sierra Club's suggestion of future mandates for CO<INF>2</INF> 
emission controls is speculative and that it is premature for us to 
consider in this action. Accordingly, our consideration of 
environmental impacts was sufficient.

C. Comments on the Big Stone I NOX BART Determination

    Comment: One commenter stated that it is unclear where the baseline 
rate of 0.86 lbs/MMBtu for NO<INF>X</INF> originated, because the 
thirty-day rolling values for NO<INF>X</INF> only reached 0.85 lbs/
MMBtu during the baseline period. The commenter noted that the thirty-
day rolling values for NO<INF>X</INF> have been at or below 0.71 lbs/
MMBtu since 2007 because of the installation of overfire air. The 
commenter asserted that 0.71 lbs/MMBtu should therefore be the starting 
point for additional NO<INF>X</INF> reductions from SCR. The commenter 
also noted that the baseline assumes 85% operations, while the baseline 
period operations averaged 91%, and averaged 92% from 2003-2010.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ Commenter cited EPA's CAMD for hours of operation at Big 
Stone I.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: See our previous response in this action related to the 
SO<INF>2</INF> emission rate as it relates to baseline emissions. 
Regarding the commenter's concern related to the hours of operation 
assumed in the baseline, we note that the State's approach considerably 
overestimates the baseline emissions. The State assumed baseline 
emissions of 18,000 tons per year for its BART analysis. By contrast, 
emissions data in CAMD shows that the emissions between 2001 and 2003 
were 15,780 tons per year. Therefore, we find the State did not 
underestimate the baseline emissions in its BART analysis.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the NO<INF>X</INF> BART analysis 
at Big Stone I is flawed because it fails to consider the level of 
control available with SCR, resulting in an inflated NO<INF>X</INF> 
emission limit. DENR's proposed NO<INF>X</INF> emission rate of 0.10 
lb/MMBtu reflects 85.9% NO<INF>X</INF> control with the installation of 
SCR based on emission data showing that the highest monthly emission 
rate of NO<INF>X</INF> in 2009 was 0.71 lb/MMBtu. SCR systems can 
achieve 90% + NO<INF>X</INF> reductions,

[[Page 24849]]

meaning an emission limit of .071 lb/MMBtu is more reflective of SCR 
capabilities. The commenter also cited recent SCR retrofits which have 
resulted in emission rates lower than 0.05 lb/MMBtu being achieved.
    Response: Because the control efficiency of SCR is dependent on the 
NO<INF>X</INF> inlet concentration, it is more appropriate to assess 
the control effectiveness of SCR relative to the performance rate. 
Although we acknowledge that other SCR retrofits have resulted in lower 
NO<INF>X</INF> emission levels than 0.10 lb/MMBtu, we find that South 
Dakota's limit is reasonable using SCR plus separated overfire air at 
Big Stone I. This is particularly true in light of the need to 
establish an adequate margin of compliance for BART limits that must 
apply at all times including startup and shutdown.

D. Comments on Big Stone I PM BART Determination

    Comment: One commenter stated that DENR's proposed particulate 
matter (PM) BART emission limit of 0.012 lb/MMBtu is not reflective of 
the limits achievable by fabric filter baghouses, and is inconsistent 
with some lower PM limits required as BACT. The commenter cited a 
permit for a plant in Atlanta, Plant Washington, with a PM limit of 
0.010 lb/MMBtu to argue that Big Stone's PM emission limit should be no 
higher than this level.
    Response: As noted in the proposal, the 0.012 lb/MMBtu PM emission 
limit ``represents a stringent level of control that is consistent with 
recent Best Available Control Technology determinations for PSD 
[prevention of significant deterioration] permits.'' 76 FR 76659. Also, 
performance test data for the baghouse indicates that the actual 
emission rate is 0.011 lb/MMBtu. Therefore, we find the emission limit 
set by South Dakota is commensurate with the actual performance of the 
control device. Moreover, there is no indication that a more stringent 
level of control would lead to meaningful visibility benefits.
    Comment: One commenter asserted that DENR should require a PM 
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) rather than the currently 
proposed annual stack test to ensure continuous compliance with BART 
limits. If not CEMS, commenter alternatively requested that DENR impose 
a 10% opacity limit ``reflective of BART,'' noting that this would 
ensure continuous compliance with the BART limit and that Big Stone 
already has continuous opacity monitoring. Commenter noted that other 
coal plants' permits include opacity limits of 10% or less.
    Response: PM CEMS provides the most robust means of demonstrating 
continuous compliance with the PM emission limits. However, we disagree 
that their use is required in this case. We find that the monitoring 
requirements in the South Dakota Regional Haze SIP are adequate to 
demonstrate continuous compliance with the PM emission limits. South 
Dakota noted in response to similar comments it received during its 
public comment period that the State has the authority to require CEMS 
as well as a 10% opacity limit, but that based on its case-by-case 
analysis of the facility it believed an annual stack test was adequate 
to meet the regional haze requirements. We agree with the State.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the PM BART limit at Big Stone 
should be required now because the baghouse has already been installed.
    Response: Normally, we would agree that the PM BART limit should 
apply as expeditiously as practical. In this case, South Dakota noted 
in its response to a similar comment in Appendix E of the SIP that 
since a dry FGD system must be located upstream of the particulate 
control device, that demonstrating compliance with the SO<INF>2</INF> 
BART limit affects the compliance demonstration for PM. The commenter 
does not provide any explanation to refute South Dakota's response. We 
find South Dakota's compliance timeframe is reasonable as noted in 
Section 6.4 of the SIP for installation and operation of BART as 
expeditiously as practical, but no later than five years from EPA's 
approval of the South Dakota Regional Haze Program.

E. Startup, Shutdown and Enforceability Comments

    Comment: One commenter stated that DENR should not exempt Big Stone 
from BART emission limits during startup and shutdown. First, BART 
emission limits must be met on a continuous basis pursuant to CAA 
section 302(k). Second, startup and shutdown are part of normal 
operations at facilities like Big Stone, and because these emissions 
impact visibility and regional haze, ``DENR's proposed BART limits must 
include periods of startup and shutdown.'' Third, permitting 
authorities have required as stringent and more stringent BACT limits 
at coal-fired boilers without allowing exemptions for startup and 
shutdown. Further, the commenter stated that Otter Tail did not request 
exemptions from emission limits for startup and shutdown related to a 
new facility, Big Stone II, for which it was seeking a permit during a 
2008 contested case hearing.
    Response: As stated in the proposal, all the BART limits (based on 
lb/MMBtu, 30-day rolling average) specified in the South Dakota 
Regional Haze SIP apply at all times, including periods of startup, 
shutdown and malfunction. The lb/MMBtu limits are more restrictive than 
the lb/hr limits that are also specified in the SIP, and therefore, as 
a practical matter, the lb/MMBtu limits take precedence.
    Comment: One commenter stated that DENR's proposed regulation to 
make the BART requirements from the Regional Haze SIP enforceable 
(74:36:21:06-09) fails to specify that Big Stone is subject to the 
regulation's emission limits. The regulation must specify the source 
that is subject to the BART emission limits to ensure that those limits 
are enforceable.
    Response: We disagree. Though somewhat unique in its omission of 
the facility name, we find that the State's regulation provides 
adequate detail to ensure its applicability and enforceability related 
to Big Stone I. We are deferring to the State's constitution and 
legislative process that favors general laws over special, unit-
specific laws. We are basing our approval of South Dakota's Regional 
Haze SIP on the conclusion that the regulation does cover Big Stone I.

F. Modeling Comments

    Comment: One commenter stated that both the cumulative visibility 
impact of a source's emissions and the cumulative benefit of emission 
reductions are necessary considerations as part of the fifth step in a 
BART analysis. The commenter stated that this is particularly important 
for sources in South Dakota because emissions from these sources cause 
or contribute to visibility impairment at multiple Class I areas. The 
commenter supported an argument from an NPS comment letter which 
states:

    ``It simply does not make sense to use the same metric to 
evaluate the effects of reducing emissions from a BART source that 
impacts only the one Class I area as for a BART source that impacts 
multiple Class I areas.'' \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ NPS comments on Salt River Project's proposed determination 
for Navajo Generating Station, July 24, 2009, according to 
commenter.

The commenter provided examples of instances in which consideration of 
cumulative visibility benefits influenced BART decisions, one being EPA 
Region 6's FIP for the San Juan Generating Station in New Mexico. The 
commenter

[[Page 24850]]

also stated that FLMs rely on cumulative assessments of visibility 
impacts and benefits to determine the levels of emission controls that 
are cost-effective and technically feasible. Additionally, the 
commenter stated that cumulative impact assessments also provide more 
accurate depictions of costs on a dollars per deciview basis, which is 
a useful supplement to the $/ton calculation used in BART 
determinations.
    Response: The BART Guidelines list the dollars per deciview ratio 
as an additional cost effectiveness metric that can be employed along 
with $/ton for use in a BART evaluation. However, EPA does not have 
guidelines on how the dollars per deciview metric is to be used. South 
Dakota did include a dollars per deciview metric across multiple Class 
I areas in its evaluation of BART controls based on the combinations of 
controls for which Otter Tail conducted visibility modeling.\12\ The 
dollars per deciview analysis indicated the control options that 
reduced visibility impacts to acceptable levels had comparable dollars 
per deciview results, within approximately 10 percent of each other.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See SIP Table 6-15.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we agree with the commenter that the cumulative visibility 
impact across multiple Class I areas is a useful metric that can 
further inform the BART determination, states can choose how they 
compile this information. We find that South Dakota's evaluation of 
visibility impacts is consistent with the BART guidelines and a 
sufficient basis for choosing control options.

G. GCC Dacotah Cement Comments

    Comment: Several commenters stated that technical feasibility was 
not the basis for South Dakota's decision to eliminate SNCR in its 2003 
NO<INF>X</INF> BACT determination for GCC Dacotah Kiln <greek-i>6. 
Commenters pointed to the ``Statement of Basis'' in support of GCC 
Dacotah's 2003 PSD permit, in which DENR considered SNCR to be 
technically feasible for Kiln <greek-i>6, but rejected SNCR as BACT due 
to concerns about accidental release of ammonia and ammonia slip. The 
NPS provided excerpts from its comments on the 2003 PSD permit in 
support of the NPS's comments on this action.
    Response: We are not basing our final approval of South Dakota's 
regional haze SIP with regard to GCC Dacotah Kiln <greek-i>6 on the 
basis of any general statements about technical feasibility of SNCR. We 
are basing it in part on analysis and information from South Dakota's 
2003 BACT determination, which South Dakota relied on in regard to Kiln 
<greek-i>6, and information subsequently provided by South Dakota. In 
order to clarify the situation and to respond to other comments on Kiln 
<greek-i>6, we provide additional detail on the 2003 PSD permit. We 
explain in response to other comments our assessment of South Dakota's 
reliance on the 2003 BACT determination for Kiln <greek-i>6.
    On June 23, 1994, Dacotah Cement (the previous owner and operator 
of the facility) submitted an application to South Dakota DENR for a 
modification to Kiln <greek-i>6.\13\ Based on information in the 
application, South Dakota agreed that the modification was not major 
under the PSD program, and the modification was completed. However, 
South Dakota later determined that, based on the result of subsequent 
stack tests, the modification should have triggered PSD review. South 
Dakota entered into a settlement agreement with Dacotah Cement. GCC 
Dacotah purchased the facility and submitted applications for PSD 
permits for PM, NO<INF>X</INF>, and carbon monoxide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ South Dakota DENR, Statement of Basis, PSD Preconstruction 
Permit (``2003 PSD Permit SOB''), p. 1 (Apr. 10, 2003). The 2003 
permit files are available in the docket for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In its permit application, GCC Dacotah presented a five-step BACT 
analysis for NO<INF>X</INF> controls for Kiln <greek-i>6. In the first 
step, GCC Dacotah presented SNCR as an available technology, and, in 
the second step, did not eliminate SNCR (standing alone) as technically 
infeasible. Among other control options, the company also presented 
staged combustion, in the form of an inline, low-NO<INF>X</INF> 
calciner with riser duct firing, and low NO<INF>X</INF> burners (LNBs) 
with indirect firing, as available and feasible. However, in 
considering combinations of control technologies, GCC Dacotah stated 
that SNCR was technically infeasible in combination with the proposed 
staged combustion system, for reasons including requirements for an 
injection location with temperatures between 1600 [deg]F and 2000 
[deg]F. The company stated that, due to these reasons, use of SNCR with 
the proposed staged combustion system would have a high probability of 
ammonia slip and resulting detached plume.
    In its statement of basis for the draft permit, South Dakota 
likewise presented SNCR, standing alone, as an available and 
technically feasible option for Kiln <greek-i>6. However, South Dakota 
stated that accidental release of ammonia during handling and storage 
was an environmental risk. South Dakota also stated that ammonia slip 
could result in increased PM<INF>10</INF> and PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
emissions, South Dakota viewed this as a concern in Rapid City. Based 
on these reasons, South Dakota stated ``SNCR is not considered an 
appropriate control device for [NO<INF>X</INF>] in Rapid City.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ Id., pp. 23-24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the statement of basis for the draft permit, South Dakota also 
considered staged combustion as an option. GCC Dacotah proposed a 
staged combustion system with a small pre-calciner, with a cost-
effectiveness of $3,888 per ton of NO<INF>X</INF> removed. GCC Dacotah 
initially did not provide costs for a large pre-calciner. South Dakota 
agreed with the cost-effectiveness for the small pre-calciner. South 
Dakota also stated that the large pre-calciner would not be 
economically or physically feasible, as the existing support structure 
and equipment location would not accommodate it. Based on review of the 
RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC), South Dakota proposed as BACT the 
controls presented by GCC Dacotah, including the staged combustion 
system with the small pre-calciner.
    As noted by the NPS in its comments on this action, the NPS 
provided comments on the draft PSD permit, including the rejection of 
SNCR for Kiln <greek-i>6. The NPS argued that South Dakota should 
reconsider its decision to eliminate SNCR, in light of the requirement 
for SNCR in a permit for a cement kiln at Continental Cement in 
Missouri. The NPS also argued that the cost-effectiveness of a large 
pre-calciner should be assessed in order to determine whether it might 
be BACT.
    In response to the NPS comments, South Dakota reiterated its 
concerns with accidental release of ammonia and ammonia slip. In 
addition, South Dakota noted that the permit for the Continental Cement 
kiln required the replacement of an existing kiln, thereby reducing 
NO<INF>X</INF> and avoiding PSD review. South Dakota also noted that 
the NO<INF>X</INF> emissions limit of 8 lbs/ton of clinker for the 
Continental Cement kiln was higher than the emissions limit for GCC 
Dacotah Kiln <greek-i>6 established in the PSD permit. Finally, based 
on a cost analysis South Dakota requested from GCC Dacotah, South 
Dakota stated that the cost-effectiveness of the large pre-calciner 
would be $5,100 per ton of NO<INF>X</INF> removed, which South Dakota 
considered excessive. South Dakota, therefore, finalized its 
determination that staged combustion with the small pre-calciner was 
BACT for Kiln <greek-i>6.
    On October 11, 2011, South Dakota provided the email included in 
the docket in response to our questions

[[Page 24851]]

regarding the 2003 BACT determination and why SNCR was eliminated. The 
email stated that, in 2003, South Dakota determined that SNCR was not 
technically feasible for use with the controls (including the small 
pre-calciner) selected as BACT for Kiln <greek-i>6. (The email did not 
state that SNCR standing alone had been considered technically 
infeasible.) South Dakota explained that it had determined that the 
small pre-calciner lacked an appropriate location for use of SNCR, and 
that use of it in the small pre-calciner would cause ammonia slip. 
South Dakota stated that the large pre-calciner ``may'' have had an 
appropriate location for use of SNCR; the State also noted, however, 
that the large pre-calciner had been considered to have excessive 
costs.
    We reiterate that we are basing our final action on information and 
analyses in the 2003 BACT determination, together with emissions data 
provided by South Dakota and South Dakota's statements that, at this 
facility, site-specific considerations prevent the effective use of 
SNCR in Kiln <greek-i>6 without significant process modifications. We 
are not basing our final action on any general statement on technical 
feasibility of SNCR. We provide this response in order to clarify the 
record.
    Comment: The NPS disagreed with ``EPA's and DENR's reliance on a 
2003 * * * PSD permit review for Dacotah Cement Kiln <greek-i>6 to 
determine that post-combustion controls were not technically 
feasible.'' First, the NPS stated that it is inconsistent for DENR, in 
analyzing the Pete Lien and Sons lime plant, to review the RBLC to 
determine whether more stringent post-combustion controls had been 
permitted since a 2008 PSD decision on that facility, and not review 
more recent permit requirements after the 2003 PSD decision for Kiln 
<greek-i>6. Second, the two commenters questioned EPA's statement that 
the 2003 BACT determination for Dacotah's PSD permit is ``recent.'' 
Finally, the NPS cited EPA's BART Guidelines which state ``all 
technologies should be considered if available before the close of the 
State's public comment period.'' The NPS stated, and provided 
documentation in support of its statement, that SNCR application to 
preheater/precalciner kilns such as Dacotah's Kiln <greek-i>6 has 
evolved from ``questionable'' to ``well established'' from the 2003 
BACT determination and the close of the State's first Regional Haze SIP 
public comment period in 2010.
    Response: As discussed elsewhere, we are not basing our final 
action on whether SNCR is available or technically feasible for Kiln 
<greek-i>6. We are basing our final action on information and analyses 
in the 2003 BACT determination, together with South Dakota's statements 
that, at this facility, site-specific considerations prevent the 
effective use of SNCR in Kiln <greek-i>6 without significant process 
modifications. These site-specific considerations have not changed 
since 2003, and subsequent developments regarding applicability of SNCR 
to other preheater/precalciner kilns also do not change this.
    With regard to South Dakota's four-factor review of Pete Lien and 
Sons, it appears that the State's review of the RBLC was not the sole 
basis for the State's decision. The State also modeled baseline 
visibility impacts of the facility (as it did for GCC Dacotah Kilns 
<greek-i>4 and <greek-i>5 and Ben French). The modeling showed impacts 
from 0.05 to 0.07 deciviews at Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks. 
In any case, under the BART guidelines (if used for reasonable progress 
(RP) determinations), review of the RBLC would be recommended to 
identify available technologies. As discussed above, in the 2003 PSD 
permit, the State treated SNCR, standing alone, as available and 
technically feasible for GCC Dacotah Kiln <greek-i>6, and did not 
eliminate SNCR as unavailable based on its review of the RBLC at that 
time. A present-day review of the RBLC would not change this. Thus, 
South Dakota's use of the RBLC in analyzing the Pete Lien and Sons 
facility does not give any basis for us to change our proposed 
approval. Similarly, because South Dakota treated SNCR as available in 
the 2003 BACT determination, the comments relating to the BART 
guidelines on determining availability and to subsequent application of 
SNCR to preheater/precalciner kilns do not give us any basis to change 
our proposed approval.
    Comment: Two commenters disagreed with the statement in EPA's 
proposed action that ``In issuing the PSD permit in 2003 * * * South 
Dakota found that SNCR was not technically feasible for Kiln 6.'' 
Further, these commenters stated that the concerns about ammonia slip 
are predictable and solvable in this context, and that there is no 
reason to believe that the accidental release of ammonia slip would be 
any more of a problem at GCC Dacotah than at the numerous other 
facilities cited by the commenter successfully using ammonia in the 
operation of SNCR and SCR. Ammonia slip is typically managed by system 
design and operating parameters, and it likely should have been applied 
in the 2003 BACT determination, and there is no reason to delay 
analysis of SNCR and other feasible technologies until 2018. One 
commenter stated that the failure to require adequate emission controls 
lacks legal justification.
    Response: We disagree with the comments to the extent that they 
conclude that we must disapprove the South Dakota Regional Haze SIP 
with respect to GCC Dacotah Kiln <greek-i>6. As detailed above, in its 
2002 PSD permit application, GCC Dacotah presented SNCR both as a 
stand-alone control option and in combination with the staged 
combustion system, including the small pre-calciner. While the State's 
basis for rejecting SNCR, standing alone, in 2003 may have been solely 
concerns with accidental release of ammonia and ammonia slip, the 
information and analyses in the 2003 BACT determination with regard to 
SNCR in combination with the staged combustion system provide a 
sufficient basis, viewed today, so that we are not prepared to find 
that South Dakota was unreasonable in relying on the 2003 BACT 
determination when considering Kiln <greek-i>6. In evaluating SNCR now, 
it must be considered as applied to the existing design, i.e., a staged 
combustion system, including the small pre-calciner.
    As represented by South Dakota in its October 11, 2011 email, at 
this facility site-specific considerations prevent the effective use of 
SNCR in Kiln <greek-i>6 without significant process modifications.\15\ 
Among the considerations presented by the State is a requirement for a 
location with temperatures from 1600 [deg] to 2000 [deg].\16\ South 
Dakota states that the existing design, including the staged combustion 
system with the small pre-calciner, does not provide an adequate 
location for use of SNCR. South Dakota also states that the same 
system, but with a large pre-calciner, ``may have had an appropriate 
location.'' The State notes (as we have mentioned above) that a staged 
combustion system with a large pre-calciner was rejected in 2003 as 
BACT due to excessive costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ We note that these considerations were also presented in 
the 2002 GCC Dacotah PSD permit application, in the portion 
discussing SNCR in combination with the staged combustion system, 
including the small pre-calciner.
    \16\ See also US EPA, Alternative Control Techniques Document 
Update -NO<INF>X</INF> Emissions from New Cement Kilns, EPA-453/R-
07-006, Fig. 8-1 (Nov. 2007). Note that, based on this figure, at 
1400 [deg]F, NO<INF>X</INF> reduction efficiency is at most 10%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the above statements regarding appropriate locations for 
SNCR, emissions data provided by DENR, and the limited information and 
analyses in the 2003 BACT determination, we note the following.\17\

[[Page 24852]]

First, based on the emissions data provided by South Dakota, the 
existing controls, including the staged combustion system with the 
small pre-calciner, achieve approximately 44% reduction of 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. Second, based on GCC Dacotah's estimated 
costs in 2003 for a large pre-calciner, the cost-effectiveness of 
replacing the small pre-calciner with a large pre-calciner alone would 
be (in 2011 dollars) $6,164 per ton of NO<INF>X</INF> removed, not 
including the costs of removing the small pre-calciner and associated 
equipment. Based on the emissions data, the incremental cost-
effectiveness, as compared with the existing controls, would be (in 
2011 dollars) $280,246 per ton of NO<INF>X</INF> removed. Third, based 
on the above statements by South Dakota regarding appropriate locations 
for SNCR, the cost effectiveness of replacing the existing small pre-
calciner with a large pre-calciner and installing SNCR would be (in 
2011 dollars) $4,348 per ton of NO<INF>X</INF> removed, again not 
including the costs of removing the small pre-calciner and associated 
equipment. Again, based on the emissions data, the incremental cost-
effectiveness, as compared with the existing controls, would be (in 
2011 dollars) $20,160 per ton of NO<INF>X</INF> removed. The cost 
estimates for SNCR are conservative, as we use a control efficiency of 
50%. Given these costs, we are not prepared to find that South Dakota 
was unreasonable in relying on the 2003 BACT determination and not 
requiring additional NO<INF>X</INF> controls for Kiln <greek-i>6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ The details of these calculations are provided in a 
memorandum in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On the comment that a failure to require adequate emission controls 
lacks legal justification, other than issues we have responded to 
elsewhere, the commenter did not provide sufficient detail of any 
deficiency in our action.
    Comment: The NPS stated that SNCR is a feasible option for cement 
kilns. The NPS cited the BART Guidelines explanations of ``available'' 
and ``applicable'' technology, a report by the Portland Cement 
Association, as well as other EPA documents to argue that SNCR has 
become routinely applied to preheater/precalciner cement kilns since 
South Dakota's 2003 BACT determination. The NPS also stated that it 
found three entries for Portland cement plants in the RBLC, all of 
which were preheater/precalciners and all of which included SNCR to 
reduce NO<INF>X</INF> to approximately half the rate allowed by DENR.
    Response: As discussed above, at the time of the 2003 BACT 
determination, South Dakota considered SNCR as an available and 
feasible technology for GCC Dacotah Kiln <greek-i>6. However, given the 
current configuration of Kiln <greek-i>6, South Dakota's position (as 
discussed above) is that site-specific considerations prevent the 
effective use of SNCR in Kiln <greek-i>6 without significant process 
modifications. The citation to the RBLC and the other documents does 
not convince us that SNCR is routinely applied to existing preheater/
precalciner kilns, regardless of site-specific consideration such as 
the current design. Thus, the comments do not give us any basis to find 
that the State was unreasonable in relying on the 2003 BACT 
determination for Kiln <greek-i>6.
    Comment: In reference to EPA's proposed action, which states 
``South Dakota declined to conduct a four-factor analysis for GCC 
Dacotah Kiln 6,'' The NPS asserted that a state cannot simply decline 
without good reason and an explanation for the public record. The NPS 
stated that DENR's email to EPA Region 8 does not satisfy the BART 
Guidelines, which state, ``if you disagree with public comments 
asserting that the technology is available, you should provide an 
explanation for the public record as to the basis for your 
conclusion.'' The NPS does not believe this portion of the BART 
Guidelines is satisfied ``because it was not made part of DENR's public 
record and appears to simply be a re-statement of DENR's outdated 2003 
BACT determination.''
    Response: We disagree. We noted in our proposal that the State 
relied on the 2003 BACT determination instead of conducting a four-
factor analysis for Kiln <greek-i>6. We discuss the State's response to 
comments on SNCR for Kiln <greek-i>6 elsewhere.
    There are two critical principles expressed in our BART guidelines 
that are equally relevant to an RP determination. First, as part of a 
BART analysis, technically infeasible control options are eliminated 
from further review. For BART, EPA's criteria for determining whether a 
control option is technically infeasible are substantially the same as 
the criteria used for determining technical infeasibility in the BACT 
context. 70 FR 39165; EPA's ``New Source Review Workshop Manual,'' 
pages B.17-B.22. Second, states may often be able to rely on a recent 
BACT determination for a source for purposes of determining BART for 
that source, unless new technologies have become available or best 
control levels for recent retrofits have become more stringent. As a 
general rule, the selection of a recent BACT level as BART is the 
equivalent of selecting the most stringent level of control, and 
consideration of the five statutory BART factors becomes unnecessary. 
Given the overlap of the four statutory RP factors with the five 
statutory BART factors, we think the same principle applies to RP 
determinations.
    Furthermore, as discussed in more detail elsewhere, in this case it 
is not just the selection of BACT in the 2003 PSD permit proceeding 
that the State relies on, it is specific information from that BACT 
determination that is relevant to application of SNCR to Kiln 
<greek-i>6 as it exists now. Independently of the selection of BACT in 
2003, that information (as explained elsewhere) and South Dakota's 
statements regarding site-specific considerations sufficiently explain 
the State's action so that EPA is not prepared to determine that South 
Dakota was unreasonable.
    Comment: The NPCA stated that SNCR ``likely should have'' been 
determined to be BACT in the 2003 PSD permit proceeding.
    Response: The NPCA does not identify any flaw in the 2003 BACT 
determination, and none in particular in the information and analyses 
in that determination on which we rely. Thus, the comment does not give 
us any basis to change our proposed action.
    Comment: The NPCA stated that, should the proposed rate of progress 
continue, South Dakota's reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for natural 
visibility at Wind Cave and Badlands national parks are, respectively, 
172 years and 201 years after the target date of 2064. The NPCA stated 
that the uniform rate of progress (URP) will ``egregiously'' not be 
met, and that the State must therefore analyze and require RP for BART 
and non-BART sources alike based on the statutory factors. EPA is also 
required to evaluate the State's RPGs based on the four statutory 
factors.\18\ The NPS cited EPA Region 8's proposed rulemaking for North 
Dakota's Regional Haze SIP to reiterate that South Dakota must 
demonstrate why its RPGs and rejection of RP controls are 
reasonable.\19\ The NPCA, therefore, stated that South Dakota and EPA 
erroneously declined to analyze and require controls for GCC Dacotah, 
which qualifies as ``any potentially affected source'' and 
``contributes significantly to visibility impairment at its Class I 
areas.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iii).
    \19\ 76 FR 183. ``Because the reasonable progress goals fall 
short of the uniform rate of progress, North Dakota must demonstrate 
that its reasonable progress goals and rejection of reasonable 
progress controls is reasonable, based on the four factors. 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(1)(ii).''
    \20\ Commenter's repeated claim that visibility impacts from 
Kiln <greek-i>6 are ``significant'' appears to have been 
extrapolated by a comparison of the combined impacts from Kilns 
<greek-i>4 and <greek-i>5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: With respect to BART sources, generally a source-specific 
BART determination is equivalent to a

[[Page 24853]]

source-specific RP determination. As we are approving South Dakota's 
BART determination for Big Stone, RP requirements for that source are 
satisfied. With respect to the RP sources, and GCC Dacotah Kilns 
<greek-i>4 and <greek-i>5 in particular, we find South Dakota's RP 
determinations reasonable. We also explain above the specific 
information and analyses in the 2003 BACT determination for Kiln 
<greek-i>6 that sufficiently support South Dakota's action so we are 
not prepared to find it unreasonable. The commenters did not identify 
any deficiencies in South Dakota's RP determinations for other 
potentially affected sources, or (aside from comments specifically on 
GCC Dacotah) in the reasons given in our proposal for why South 
Dakota's RPGs were reasonable. The comments therefore give no basis for 
us to change our proposed action.
    Comment: The NPS stated that, if Q/D \21\ were calculated for GCC 
Dacotah's Kiln <greek-i>6, its value of 48 would be double that of the 
next highest evaluated source (Ben French power plant), and more than 
double the combined value of GCC Dacotah's Kilns <greek-i>4 and 5. The 
NPS therefore believed that Kiln <greek-i>6 is the most significant of 
the sources that should have been evaluated under the RP provisions of 
the Regional Haze Rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ EPA calculated Q/D as follows: The total emissions 
(SO<INF>2</INF> + NO<INF>X</INF>) in tons per year for a source 
divided by the source's distance in kilometers to the nearest Class 
I Federal area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: For reasons explained elsewhere, we are not prepared to 
find that South Dakota was unreasonable in relying on the 2003 BACT 
determination to meet the requirements of the Regional Haze rule with 
respect to GCC Dacotah Kiln <greek-i>6. This is true regardless of the 
value of Q/D for Kiln <greek-i>6 alone.
    Comment: The NPS stated that it is incorrect for EPA to conclude 
that the visibility benefits from GCC Dacotah would be small. Because 
Kiln <greek-i>6 wasn't modeled, the NPS noted it is inappropriate to 
conclude that the modeled benefits are small because the analysis of 
those benefits (including specifically the benefits of adding SNCR to 
Kiln <greek-i>6) is incomplete. The NPS further stated that it is 
reasonable to conclude that, if emissions from Kiln <greek-i>6 were 
modeled, they might show that Kiln <greek-i>6 is a significant 
contributor to visibility impairment. For this reason, the commenter 
stated that EPA is incorrect in stating that South Dakota based its 
determination for Kiln <greek-i>6 on visibility benefits rather than on 
a four factor analysis.
    Response: We agree that the State did not provide visibility 
modeling, either of baseline impacts or of benefits, for Kiln 
<greek-i>6, and did not base its decision regarding Kiln <greek-i>6 on 
visibility modeling. In assessing South Dakota's submittal, we did note 
that South Dakota modeled baseline impacts for Kilns <greek-i>4 and 
<greek-i>5 combined and relied on that data, and, in contrast, for Kiln 
<greek-i>6 we noted instead that South Dakota relied on the 2003 BACT 
determination. (See 76 FR 76665.) For the reasons discussed elsewhere, 
we are not prepared to find that reliance unreasonable.
    Comment: The NPS stated that, in this action, EPA is considering 
any cost excessive because of its assumption that visibility benefits 
would be minimal. The NPS contrasted this action with EPA statements 
from other actions regarding cost effectiveness. The NPS stated that if 
EPA bases its decision that lack of visibility benefits trumps a four-
factor analysis for a situation in which URP is far from being met, it 
should ``conduct a valid modeling analysis to estimate the actual 
benefits on which it is basing its decision.'' The NPS stated that this 
analysis should be related to the $18 million per deciview average for 
NO<INF>X</INF> control costs, which the NPS stated has become the 
``national norm.'' The NPS referred to Colorado's Holcim Cement plant, 
a potentially affected source for which Colorado is requiring SNCR for 
RP. The NPS argued that GCC Dacotah Cement's total visibility impact 
would have been similar or greater than that of Holcim Cement in 
Colorado, had Kiln <greek-i>6 been included in GCC Dacotah's modeling. 
The NPS argued that GCC Dacotah Cement should not be given a 
competitive advantage over other cement facilities that are also 
subject to the Regional Haze program requirements.
    Response: As a general matter, the Regional Haze rule does not 
impose uniform numeric standards, such as specific cost effectiveness 
or visibility benefit levels, that a State is required to use in 
determining whether a control should be imposed at a potentially 
affected source for RP. Instead, consistent with the CAA, the rule 
requires the State to consider certain factors in determining RP. If 
the State's selected controls do not achieve the URP, the State is 
required to demonstrate that the State's choice was reasonable and that 
it was unreasonable to meet the URP.
    In our review of a state's RP determination for a potentially 
affected source, it is our task to determine that the state reasonably 
considered the relevant factors. Thus, in approving South Dakota's RP 
determination for Kilns <greek-i>4 and <greek-i>5, we are not stating a 
principle that EPA considers any cost excessive when the visibility 
benefits are minimal, or are below some threshold. Instead, we are 
finding that the State considered the factors set out in the CAA and 
reached a result that we are not prepared to say is unreasonable. We 
also do not find it unreasonable for a state to rely on baseline 
visibility impacts to assess potential controls. While modeling of the 
reductions from controls could give a more precise measure of 
visibility benefits, baseline visibility impacts do bear a rational 
relation to visibility benefits. At a minimum, visibility benefits are 
bounded by baseline visibility impacts.
    Furthermore, what is reasonable is subject to a certain amount of 
variation from state to state, from facility to facility, and from 
location to location.\22\ EPA, therefore, rejects the notion that the 
reasonableness of a state's RP determination should be assessed against 
a ``national norm'' based on dollars per deciview.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \22\ For example, in one notice cited by NPS, we stated that a 
cost effectiveness value was ``well within the range of values we 
have considered reasonable for BART and that states other than North 
Dakota have considered cost effective.'' 76 FR 58570 (Sept. 21, 
2011) (emphasis added).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA also rejects the comparison of South Dakota's determination to 
not impose SNCR at Kiln <greek-i>6 with Colorado's determination to 
impose SNCR at the Holcim Florence facility. The details show the 
facilities are not similar. In its RP determination for the Holcim 
Florence facility, Colorado noted that the existing design of the 
facility, in particular the preheater/precalciner vessels, provided 
locations with appropriate temperatures for injection of ammonia. 
Colorado therefore considered SNCR to be technically and economically 
feasible, and derived a cost effectiveness of $2,293 per ton of 
NO<INF>X</INF> removed for SNCR.\23\ In contrast, South Dakota states 
that the existing design of Kiln <greek-i>6 does not provide 
appropriate locations for use of SNCR; in other words, that an 
effective installation of SNCR would require significant process 
modifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Colorado Regional Haze SIP, Appendix D, Reasonable Progress 
(RP) Four-Factor Analysis of Control Options for Holcim Portland 
Plant, Florence, Colorado, p. 16.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The NPS stated that DENR and EPA should explain why the 
cost estimates for SNCR at Kilns <greek-i>4 and <greek-i>5 were so much 
higher than average. Commenter also stated that DENR used EPA's Nov. 
2007 ``Alternative Control Techniques Document Update--NO<INF>X</INF> 
Emissions from New Cement Kilns'' to

[[Page 24854]]

estimate the cost of an SNCR system, though this document was developed 
for the review of dry kilns and not a wet kiln.
    Response: The State provided its explanation for its derivation of 
costs for SNCR.\24\ In discussing its derivation of costs, South Dakota 
recognized that EPA's November 2007 document was developed for dry 
kilns. South Dakota stated that SNCR had only been used on wet kilns in 
Europe and recently on one wet kiln in the United States. Regardless, 
by any methodology, the cost-effectiveness of SNCR would likely be 
higher than that for LNB, while, based on estimates by the State on 
which the NPS did not comment, both SNCR and LNB would have the same 
control efficiency of 30 to 40%. As explained elsewhere, we are not 
prepared to find that South Dakota was unreasonable in relying on 
baseline visibility impacts for Kilns <greek-i>4 and <greek-i>5 in 
determining that LNB (or any other cost-effective controls) were not 
reasonable. Given that and the higher likely cost-effectiveness of SNCR 
for the same reductions as LNB, the reasons given in our responses for 
Kiln <greek-i>6 apply with equal force to SNCR for Kilns <greek-i>4 and 
<greek-i>5.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ South Dakota Regional Haze SIP, Table 7-2, p. 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The NPS stated that South Dakota rejected the results of 
the four-factor analyses which show additional controls are reasonable 
on GCC Dacotah Cement Kilns <greek-i>4 and <greek-i>5. The NPS asserted 
that EPA ``should conduct a valid four-factor analysis (which includes 
an up-to-date review of SNCR) for all three kilns at GCC Dacotah 
Cement.''
    Response: In this action, it is not EPA's task in the first 
instance to independently conduct its own analysis of the four 
statutory RP factors. As discussed above, it is EPA's task to review 
South Dakota's determination. With regard to GCC Dacotah Kiln 
<greek-i>6, EPA is not prepared to find that South Dakota was 
unreasonable in relying on the 2003 BACT determination with regard to 
GCC Dacotah Kiln <greek-i>6. With regard to Kilns <greek-i>4 and 
<greek-i>5, South Dakota considered the four statutory RP factors. 
South Dakota then considered the baseline visibility impacts of Kilns 
<greek-i>4 and <greek-i>5 combined and decided not to impose controls. 
EPA is not prepared to find that South Dakota was unreasonable in that 
decision.
    Comment: The NPS stated that GCC Dacotah Kiln <greek-i>6 should not 
be allowed to operate until 2018 and beyond ``without current state-of-
the-art emission controls, or even any evaluation of its emission 
controls, while it continues to affect visibility at Wind Cave and 
Badlands national parks.''
    Response: RP does not per se require use of the most current 
emission controls. As discussed elsewhere, various potential controls 
were evaluated in the State's 2003 BACT determination for Kiln 
<greek-i>6. We, therefore, disagree with the statements to the extent 
that they argue we are compelled to disapprove the State's Regional 
Haze SIP with regard to GCC Dacotah Kiln <greek-i>6.
    Comment: The NPS stated that, on August 17, 2011, it commented to 
DENR that the RP analysis should evaluate controls for Kiln <greek-i>6 
and that the NPS believes now, as it did in commenting on the 2003 PSD 
permit, that SNCR is a feasible option for cement kilns. The NPS stated 
a response to this comment should have been made available in the DENR 
public records, and that DENR has not met the requirement of 40 CFR 
51.308(i)(3) to ``provide in its Regional Haze SIP a description of how 
it addressed any comments provided by the FLMs.''
    Response: To assess South Dakota's response to the NPS's comments, 
it is useful to discuss the history of the development of the South 
Dakota Regional Haze SIP. On January 15, 2010, the State provided a 
draft SIP to the FLMs for consultation. The NPS commented generally 
that the SIP was lacking four-factor analyses of potentially affected 
sources for RP. The EPA also made specific suggestions regarding which 
facilities, at a minimum, seemed to warrant four-factor analyses under 
RP.
    On August 23, 2010, South Dakota provided a draft SIP for public 
comment. This draft also did not include four-factor analyses of 
potentially affected sources. The NPS did not comment (nor was it 
required to) on the issue; the EPA commented that the SIP should 
contain the four-factor analyses and again suggested several 
facilities, at a minimum, to be analyzed.
    On January 21, 2011, South Dakota promulgated a final Regional Haze 
SIP. This version included four-factor analyses of some potentially 
affected sources for RP including GCC Dacotah Kilns <greek-i>4 and 
<greek-i>5. The SIP included responses to both FLM and public comments.
    However, the State subsequently amended the SIP to, among other 
things, evaluate an additional control technology, SNCR, at Kilns 
<greek-i>4 and <greek-i>5. As a result, South Dakota provided a draft 
amended SIP on September 19, 2011. During the public comment period, 
the NPS commented on Kiln <greek-i>6 as the NPS has stated above. The 
State presented the issue of SNCR for Kiln <greek-i>6 to the South 
Dakota Board of Minerals and Environment at a hearing on August 18, 
2011. South Dakota stated its reasons for relying on the 2003 BACT 
determination to reject SNCR as a possible control for Kiln <greek-i>6 
for RP.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ The audio of the August 18, 2011 hearing is available on 
the Board's Web site: http://denr.sd.gov/boards/2011/2011sche.aspx. 
We have placed a transcript of the relevant portions in the docket 
for this action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Given these particular circumstances, we think that South Dakota 
has sufficiently met the requirements for FLM coordination and response 
to comments with regard to regional haze requirements for Kiln 
<greek-i>6.

H. General Comments

    Comment: The NPCA stated that South Dakota's SIP is inconsistent in 
that it requires adequate controls for certain facilities and not 
others. The commenter urged EPA to require additional emission 
reductions from South Dakota sources, mirroring the significant 
reductions being required in other States and for other sources 
throughout the country. The commenter referenced other actions in 
Region 6 and Region 8 as examples.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ Federal Implementation Plans for the San Juan Generating 
Station in New Mexico (76 FR 52388) and Oklahoma (76 FR 81727) and 
the proposed Federal Implementation Plan for North Dakota (76 FR 
58570).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: We took into consideration South Dakota's analyses based 
on the statutory factors and determined that these analyses, and the 
control selections they support, were satisfactory to meet the regional 
haze requirements in this planning period. The State imposed stringent 
levels of control on its one BART source, Big Stone I, and provided 
sufficient justification based on its case-by-case analysis for 
emission limits at this source that are slightly above some of the 
examples cited by commenters. We also continue to find that, for GCC 
Dacotah under RP that the State provided sufficient basis for its 
reliance on its 2003 BACT determination as described elsewhere in our 
responses. Finally, as explained in the context of RP determinations in 
our responses elsewhere in this action, the Regional Haze Rule does not 
impose uniform numeric standards across States for emissions 
reductions. Therefore, the examples cited by NPCA are of limited 
utility.
    Comment: One commenter stated that national parks and wilderness 
areas boost their area economies. Specifically, commenter cited 2010 
visitation

[[Page 24855]]

statistics for Badlands National Park (977,778) and Wind Cave National 
Park (577,141), and noted that similar visitation in 2009 resulted in 
$61 million in spending and over 1,000 jobs. The commenter stated that 
reduction in visibility could result in decreased visits to Class I 
areas. The commenter also stated that installation of pollution control 
technologies is a job-creating mechanism.
    Response: We agree with the comment. Although we did not consider 
the potential positive benefits to the local and national economies in 
making our decision today, we do expect that improved visibility would 
have a positive impact on tourism-dependent local economies. Also, some 
of these retrofits will create construction projects that we expect may 
take several years to complete, and will require well-paid, skilled 
labor which can potentially be drawn from the local area, which may 
benefit the economy.
    Comment: One commenter stated that haze pollution significantly 
impacts human and ecosystem health. Specifically, the commenter 
asserted that haze pollution contributes to heart attacks, asthma 
attacks, chronic bronchitis and respiratory illness, increased hospital 
admissions, lost work and school days, and even premature death. The 
commenter also noted the specific haze pollutants NO<INF>X,</INF> 
SO<INF>2</INF> and PM, which the commenter stated are all harmful to 
the human body.
    The commenter also stated that haze pollution negatively impacts 
ecosystem health. The commenter specifically expressed concern for the 
effects of haze pollution on waterways, soils, plants and wildlife.
    Response: We appreciate the commenter's concerns regarding the 
negative health impacts of emissions from facilities in South Dakota. 
We agree that the same PM<INF>2.5</INF> emissions that cause visibility 
impairment can be inhaled deep into lungs, which can cause respiratory 
problems, decreased lung function, aggravated asthma, bronchitis, and 
premature death. We also agree that the same NO<INF>X</INF> emissions 
that cause visibility impairment also contribute to the formation of 
ground-level ozone, which has been linked with respiratory problems, 
aggravated asthma, and even permanent lung damage. We agree that these 
pollutants can have negative impacts on plants and ecosystems, damaging 
plants, trees and other vegetation, and reducing forest growth and crop 
yields, which could have a negative effect on species diversity in 
ecosystems. However, for purposes of this action, we are not authorized 
to consider these impacts in evaluating the reasonableness of South 
Dakota's Regional Haze SIP, and we have not done so.
    Comment: The environmental advocacy group CREDO Action submitted 
comments from 225 individuals. Many of these comments were identical, 
and most if not all generally requested that EPA strengthen our 
proposal, specifically at Big Stone I and GCC Dacotah Cement.
    Response: EPA appreciates the comments, but is approving South 
Dakota's Regional Haze SIP as proposed for the reasons stated in the 
proposal and in previous responses to comments in this action.
    Comment: South Dakota DENR stated that it believes the South Dakota 
Regional Haze SIP will improve visibility in the State's parks and 
provide improved visitor experience, and commends those involved in 
developing the SIP.
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenter.

III. Final Action

    EPA is taking final action to approve the State of South Dakota's 
Regional Haze SIP, submitted by the State on January 21, 2011, along 
with an amendment submitted on September 19, 2011. EPA finds that the 
South Dakota Regional Haze SIP submittal meets all of the applicable 
regional haze requirements set forth in section 169A and 169B of the 
Act and in the Federal regulations codified at 40 CFR 51.300-308, and 
the requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart F and appendix V.

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this 
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
state law, it 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).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule 
implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not 
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate,

[[Page 24856]]

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. section 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 25, 2012. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule 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 dioxide, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: March 29, 2012.
James B. Martin,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart QQ--South Dakota

0
2. In Sec.  52.2170 the table in paragraph (c)(1) is amended by adding 
a new section, 74:36:21 Regional Haze Program, in numerical order and 
the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding entries for XII. South 
Dakota Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, and XIII. South Dakota 
Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, Amendment, in numerical order.
    The amendments read as follows:


Sec.  52.2170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (1) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State       EPA approval date and
      State citation            Title/subject      effective date       citation \1\            Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                         74:36:21 Regional Haze Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
74:36:21:01...............  Applicability........         12/7/10  4/26/12, [Insert
                                                                    Federal Register page
                                                                    number where the
                                                                    document begins.]
74:36:21:02...............  Definitions..........         9/19/11  4/26/12, [Insert
                                                                    Federal Register page
                                                                    number where the
                                                                    document begins.]
74:36:21:03...............  Existing stationary           12/7/10  4/26/12, [Insert
                             facility defined.                      Federal Register page
                                                                    number where the
                                                                    document begins.]
74:36:21:04...............  Visibility impact             12/7/10  4/26/12, [Insert
                             analysis.                              Federal Register page
                                                                    number where the
                                                                    document begins.]
74:36:21:05...............  BART determination...         12/7/10  4/26/12, [Insert
                                                                    Federal Register page
                                                                    number where the
                                                                    document begins.]
74:36:21:06...............  BART determination            9/19/11  4/26/12, [Insert
                             for a BART-eligible                    Federal Register page
                             coal-fired power                       number where the
                             plant.                                 document begins.]
74:36:21:07...............  Installation of               12/7/10  4/26/12, [Insert
                             controls based on                      Federal Register page
                             visibility impact                      number where the
                             analysis or BART                       document begins.]
                             determination.
74:36:21:08...............  Operation and                 12/7/10  4/26/12, [Insert
                             maintenance of                         Federal Register page
                             controls.                              number where the
                                                                    document begins.]
74:36:21:09...............  Monitoring,                   9/19/11  4/26/12, [Insert
                             recordkeeping, and                     Federal Register page
                             reporting.                             number where the
                                                                    document begins.]
74:36:21:10...............  Permit to construct..         12/7/10  4/26/12, [Insert
                                                                    Federal Register page
                                                                    number where the
                                                                    document begins.]
74:36:21:11...............  Permit required for           12/7/10  4/26/12, [Insert
                             BART determination.                    Federal Register page
                                                                    number where the
                                                                    document begins.]
74:36:21:12...............  Federal land manager          12/7/10  4/26/12, [Insert
                             notification and                       Federal Register page
                             review.                                number where the
                                                                    document begins.]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
  Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

[[Page 24857]]



----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicable
    Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or      State submittal    EPA approval date     Explanations
            provision             nonattainment area   date/adopted date   and citation \5\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
XII. South Dakota Regional Haze   Statewide.........  Submitted: 1/21/11  4/26/12, [Insert    Excluding portions
 State Implementation Plan.                                                Federal Register    of the following:
                                                                           page number where   Sections 7.2,
                                                                           the document        7.3, 7.4, and 8.5
                                                                           begins.]            because these
                                                                                               provisions were
                                                                                               superseded by a
                                                                                               later submittal.
XIII. South Dakota Regional Haze  Statewide.........  Submitted: 9/19/11  4/26/12, [Insert    Including only
 State Implementation Plan,                                                Federal Register    portions of the
 Amendment.                                                                page number where   following:
                                                                           the document        Sections 7.2,
                                                                           begins.]            7.3, 7.4, and
                                                                                               8.5; excluding
                                                                                               all other
                                                                                               portions of the
                                                                                               submittal.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ In order to determine the EPA effective date for a specific provision listed in this table, consult the
  Federal Register notice cited in this column for the particular provision.

[FR Doc. 2012-8988 Filed 4-25-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>