Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 24845 

prior proposal because the Agency 

views this as a noncontroversial 

amendment and anticipates no adverse 

comment. However, in the ‘‘Proposed 

Rules’’ section of today’s Federal 

Register, EPA is publishing a separate 

document that will serve as the proposal 

to approve the SIP revision if adverse 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective on June 25, 2012 without 

further notice unless EPA receives 

adverse comment by May 29, 2012. If 

EPA receives adverse comment, EPA 

will publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that the rule will not take effect. EPA 

will address all public comments in a 

subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed rule. EPA will not institute a 

second comment period on this action. 

Any parties interested in commenting 

must do so at this time. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

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. Section 804, 

however, exempts from section 801 the 

following types of rules: Rules of 

particular applicability; rules relating to 

agency management or personnel; and 

rules of agency organization, procedure, 

or practice that do not substantially 

affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). Because 

this is a rule of particular applicability, 

EPA is not required to submit a rule 

report regarding this action under 

section 801. 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by June 25, 2012. Filing a 

petition for reconsideration by the 

Administrator of this final rule does not 

affect the finality of this action for the 

purposes of judicial review nor does it 

extend the time within which a petition 

for judicial review may be filed, and 

shall not postpone the effectiveness of 

such rule or action. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of today’s Federal Register, rather than 

file an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. 

This action to remove the Transco 

Station 175 operating permit from the 

Virginia SIP 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, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone. 

Dated: April 12, 2012. 

W.C. Early, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for 40 CFR 

part 52 continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart VV—Virginia 

■ 2. In § 52.2420, the table in paragraph 

(d) is amended by removing the entry 

for Transcontinental Pipeline Station 

175. 

[FR Doc. 2012–9973 Filed 4–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

24846 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

1See SIP Section 6 for South Dakota’s analysis. 

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 fallon.gail@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Definitions 

For the purpose of this document, we 

are giving meaning to certain words or 

initials as follows: 

• The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

• The initials BACT mean or refer to 

best available control technology. 

• The initials BART mean or refer to 

best available retrofit technology. 

• The initials CAMD mean or refer to 

EPA’s Clean Air Markets Database. 

• The initials CO2 mean or refer to 

carbon dioxide. 

• The initials DENR mean or refer to 

the South Dakota Department of Natural 

Resources. 

• The words EPA, we, us or our mean 

or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

• The initials FGD or scrubber mean 

or refer to flue gas desulfurization. 

• The initials FIP mean or refer to 

Federal Implementation Plan. 

• The initials FLM mean or refer to 

Federal Land Manager. 

• The initials LNB mean or refer to 

low NOX burners. 

• The initials NOX mean or refer to 

nitrogen oxides. 

• The initials NPCA mean or refer to 

the National Parks Conservation 

Association. 

• The initials NPS mean or refer to 

the National Park Service. 

• The initials NAAQS mean or refer 

to National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. 

• The initials PM mean or refer to 

particulate matter. 

• The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers or 

fine particulate matter. 

• The initials PM10 mean or refer to 

particulate matter with an aerodynamic 

diameter of less than 10 micrometers or 

fine particulate matter. 

• The initials PSD mean or refer to 

prevention of significant deterioration. 

• The initials RBLC mean or refer to 

the RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse. 

• The initials RP mean or refer to 

reasonable progress. 

• The initials RPG mean or refer to 

reasonable progress goal. 

• The initials SCR mean or refer to 

selective catalytic reduction. 

• The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

• The initials SNCR mean or refer to 

selective non-catalytic reduction. 

• The initials SO2 mean or refer to 

sulfur dioxide. 

• The words South Dakota and State 

mean the State of South Dakota unless 

the context indicates otherwise. 

• 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 SO2 BART 

Determination 

C. Comments on the Big Stone I NOX 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 BARTeligible source in Chapter 74:36:21, 

South Dakota intended for the 

provisions of the state rule to apply to 

Big Stone I. 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 24847 

2 40 CFR part 51, appendix Y. 

3The commenter cited EPA’s CAMD for hours of 

operation at Big Stone I. 

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

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

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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2 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 SO2

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 SO2 emission rate. 

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 SO2

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

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, 

‘‘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

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 SO2

BART emission limit for Big Stone. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the South Dakota Department of 

Environment and Natural Resources 

(DENR) incorrectly assumed 95% SO2

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% SO2

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 SO2 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

24848 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

6Cost and Quality of Fuels for Electric Utility 

Plants, 1999 Tables, DOE/EIA–091(99), June 2000, 

Table 21. 

7Commenter referenced an NPS spreadsheet with 

cost information on BART determinations. 

8March 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). 

9Commenter cited http://www.icac.com/i4a/ 

pages/index.cfm?pageid=3401 for quote. 

10Commenter cited EPA’s CAMD for hours of 

operation at Big Stone I. 

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 SO2 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. 

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 SO2 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. 

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. 

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 SO2, they will be needed to 

work in conjunction with likely 

‘‘mandated’’ future carbon dioxide (CO2) 

emission controls, which require SO2

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 SO2

emissions translate to lower PM2.5

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. 

Response: We took into account the 

State’s consideration of environmental 

impacts when reviewing the Big Stone 

I SO2 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 CO2 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 NOX originated, 

because the thirty-day rolling values for 

NOX only reached 0.85 lbs/MMBtu 

during the baseline period. The 

commenter noted that the thirty-day 

rolling values for NOX 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 NOX

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

Response: See our previous response 

in this action related to the SO2

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 NOX BART analysis at Big Stone I 

is flawed because it fails to consider the 

level of control available with SCR, 

resulting in an inflated NOX emission 

limit. DENR’s proposed NOX emission 

rate of 0.10 lb/MMBtu reflects 85.9% 

NOX control with the installation of SCR 

based on emission data showing that the 

highest monthly emission rate of NOX in 

2009 was 0.71 lb/MMBtu. SCR systems 

can achieve 90% + NOX reductions, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 24849 

11NPS comments on Salt River Project’s proposed 

determination for Navajo Generating Station, July 

24, 2009, according to commenter. 

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 

NOX 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 NOX 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 SO2 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 coalfired 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

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

24850 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

12See SIP Table 6–15. 

13South 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. 14 Id., pp. 23–24. 

also stated that FLMs rely on 

cumulative assessments of visibility 

impacts and benefits to determine the 

levels of emission controls that are costeffective 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. 

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 NOX BACT 

determination for GCC Dacotah Kiln #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 #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 #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 #6, and information 

subsequently provided by South Dakota. 

In order to clarify the situation and to 

respond to other comments on Kiln #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 #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 #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, 

NOX, and carbon monoxide. 

In its permit application, GCC 

Dacotah presented a five-step BACT 

analysis for NOX controls for Kiln #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-NOX calciner with riser duct firing, 

and low NOX 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 °F and 2000 °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 

#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 PM10 and PM2.5 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 [NOX] in Rapid City.’’ 14

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 

NOX removed. GCC Dacotah initially 

did not provide costs for a large precalciner. South Dakota agreed with the 

cost-effectiveness for the small precalciner. 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 precalciner. 

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 

#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 NOX

and avoiding PSD review. South Dakota 

also noted that the NOX emissions limit 

of 8 lbs/ton of clinker for the 

Continental Cement kiln was higher 

than the emissions limit for GCC 

Dacotah Kiln #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 precalciner would be $5,100 per ton of NOX

removed, which South Dakota 

considered excessive. South Dakota, 

therefore, finalized its determination 

that staged combustion with the small 

pre-calciner was BACT for Kiln #6. 

On October 11, 2011, South Dakota 

provided the email included in the 

docket in response to our questions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 24851 

15We 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. 

16See also US EPA, Alternative Control 

Techniques Document Update –NOX Emissions 

from New Cement Kilns, EPA–453/R–07–006, Fig. 

8–1 (Nov. 2007). Note that, based on this figure, at 

1400 °F, NOX reduction efficiency is at most 10%. 

17The details of these calculations are provided 

in a memorandum in the docket. 

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 precalciner) selected as BACT for Kiln #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 precalciner would cause ammonia slip. 

South Dakota stated that the large precalciner ‘‘may’’ have had an appropriate 

location for use of SNCR; the State also 

noted, however, that the large precalciner 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, sitespecific considerations prevent the 

effective use of SNCR in Kiln #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 #6 to determine that postcombustion 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 postcombustion 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 #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 #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 #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 #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 fourfactor 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 #4 and 

#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 #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 #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 #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 #6 without 

significant process modifications.15

Among the considerations presented by 

the State is a requirement for a location 

with temperatures from 1600 ° to 

2000 °.16 South Dakota states that the 

existing design, including the staged 

combustion system with the small precalciner, 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. 

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

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

24852 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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).’’ 

20Commenter’s repeated claim that visibility 

impacts from Kiln #6 are ‘‘significant’’ appears to 

have been extrapolated by a comparison of the 

combined impacts from Kilns #4 and #5. 

First, based on the emissions data 

provided by South Dakota, the existing 

controls, including the staged 

combustion system with the small precalciner, achieve approximately 44% 

reduction of NOX emissions. Second, 

based on GCC Dacotah’s estimated costs 

in 2003 for a large pre-calciner, the costeffectiveness of replacing the small precalciner with a large pre-calciner alone 

would be (in 2011 dollars) $6,164 per 

ton of NOX removed, not including the 

costs of removing the small pre-calciner 

and associated equipment. Based on the 

emissions data, the incremental costeffectiveness, as compared with the 

existing controls, would be (in 2011 

dollars) $280,246 per ton of NOX

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 precalciner and installing SNCR would be 

(in 2011 dollars) $4,348 per ton of NOX

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 NOX

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 NOX controls for 

Kiln #6. 

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 NOX 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 #6. However, given 

the current configuration of Kiln #6, 

South Dakota’s position (as discussed 

above) is that site-specific 

considerations prevent the effective use 

of SNCR in Kiln #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 sitespecific 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 #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 #6. We discuss the State’s response 

to comments on SNCR for Kiln #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 

#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

Response: With respect to BART 

sources, generally a source-specific 

BART determination is equivalent to a 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 24853 

21EPA calculated Q/D as follows: The total 

emissions (SO2 + NOX) in tons per year for a source 

divided by the source’s distance in kilometers to the 

nearest Class I Federal area. 

22For 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). 

23Colorado Regional Haze SIP, Appendix D, 

Reasonable Progress (RP) Four-Factor Analysis of 

Control Options for Holcim Portland Plant, 

Florence, Colorado, p. 16. 

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 #4 and #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 #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 #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 

#4 and 5. The NPS therefore believed 

that Kiln #6 is the most significant of 

the sources that should have been 

evaluated under the RP provisions of 

the Regional Haze Rule. 

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 #6. This is true 

regardless of the value of Q/D for Kiln 

#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 #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 #6) is incomplete. The NPS 

further stated that it is reasonable to 

conclude that, if emissions from Kiln #6 

were modeled, they might show that 

Kiln #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 #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 #6, and did not base its decision 

regarding Kiln #6 on visibility 

modeling. In assessing South Dakota’s 

submittal, we did note that South 

Dakota modeled baseline impacts for 

Kilns #4 and #5 combined and relied on 

that data, and, in contrast, for Kiln #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 fourfactor 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 

NOX 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 #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 #4 and #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. 

EPA also rejects the comparison of 

South Dakota’s determination to not 

impose SNCR at Kiln #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 

NOX removed for SNCR.23 In contrast, 

South Dakota states that the existing 

design of Kiln #6 does not provide 

appropriate locations for use of SNCR; 

in other words, that an effective 

installation of SNCR would require 

significant process modifications. 

Comment: The NPS stated that DENR 

and EPA should explain why the cost 

estimates for SNCR at Kilns #4 and #5 

were so much higher than average. 

Commenter also stated that DENR used 

EPA’s Nov. 2007 ‘‘Alternative Control 

Techniques Document Update—NOX

Emissions from New Cement Kilns’’ to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

24854 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

24South Dakota Regional Haze SIP, Table 7–2, 

p. 3. 

25The 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. 

26Federal 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). 

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 #4 and #5 in 

determining that LNB (or any other costeffective controls) were not reasonable. 

Given that and the higher likely costeffectiveness of SNCR for the same 

reductions as LNB, the reasons given in 

our responses for Kiln #6 apply with 

equal force to SNCR for Kilns #4 and #5. 

Comment: The NPS stated that South 

Dakota rejected the results of the fourfactor analyses which show additional 

controls are reasonable on GCC Dacotah 

Cement Kilns #4 and #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 #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 #6. With 

regard to Kilns #4 and #5, South Dakota 

considered the four statutory RP factors. 

South Dakota then considered the 

baseline visibility impacts of Kilns #4 

and #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 #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 #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 #6. 

Comment: The NPS stated that, on 

August 17, 2011, it commented to DENR 

that the RP analysis should evaluate 

controls for Kiln #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 fourfactor 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 #4 and #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 #4 and #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 #6 

as the NPS has stated above. The State 

presented the issue of SNCR for Kiln #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 #6 for RP.25

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 #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

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 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 NOX, SO2 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 PM2.5 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 NOX emissions 

that cause visibility impairment also 

contribute to the formation of groundlevel 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, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

24856 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart QQ—South Dakota 

■ 2. In § 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: 

§ 52.2170 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(1) * * * 

State citation Title/subject State effective 

date EPA approval date and 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 facility defined 12/7/10 4/26/12, [Insert Federal Register 

page number where the document begins.] 

74:36:21:04 ....... Visibility impact analysis ............... 12/7/10 4/26/12, [Insert 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 for a BARTeligible coal-fired power plant.9/19/11 4/26/12, [Insert Federal Register 

page number where the document begins.] 

74:36:21:07 ....... Installation of controls based on 

visibility impact analysis or 

BART determination.

12/7/10 4/26/12, [Insert Federal Register 

page number where the document begins.] 

74:36:21:08 ....... Operation and maintenance of 

controls.

12/7/10 4/26/12, [Insert Federal Register 

page number where the document begins.] 

74:36:21:09 ....... Monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting.9/19/11 4/26/12, [Insert Federal Register 

page 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 BART determination.12/7/10 4/26/12, [Insert Federal Register 

page number where the document begins.] 

74:36:21:12 ....... Federal land manager notification 

and review.

12/7/10 4/26/12, [Insert Federal Register 

page 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) * * * 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 24857 

Name of nonregulatory SIP 

provision 

Applicable geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State submittal date/adopted date EPA approval date and 

citation 5 Explanations 

*******

XII. South Dakota Regional 

Haze State Implementation Plan.

Statewide .......................... Submitted: 1/21/11 ............ 4/26/12, [Insert Federal 

Register page number 

where the document begins.] 

Excluding portions of the 

following: Sections 7.2, 

7.3, 7.4, and 8.5 because these provisions 

were superseded by a 

later submittal. 

XIII. South Dakota Regional Haze State Implementation Plan, Amendment.Statewide .......................... Submitted: 9/19/11 ............ 4/26/12, [Insert Federal 

Register page number 

where the document begins.] 

Including only portions of 

the following: Sections 

7.2, 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2012–0266; FRL–9665–5] 

Interim Final Determination To Stay 

and Defer Sanctions, San Joaquin 

Valley Unified Air Pollution Control 

District 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Interim final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is making an interim 

final determination to stay the 

imposition of offset sanctions and to 

defer the imposition of highway 

sanctions based on a proposed approval 

of revisions to the San Joaquin Valley 

Unified Air Pollution Control District 

(SJVUAPCD) portion of the California 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

published elsewhere in this Federal 

Register. The revisions concern 

SJVUAPCD Rule 4352, Solid Fuel Fired 

Boilers, Steam Generators and Process 

Heaters. 

DATES: This interim final determination 

is effective on April 26, 2012. However, 

comments will be accepted until May 

29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit comments, 

identified by docket number EPA–R09– 

OAR–2012–0266, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line 

instructions. 

2. Email: steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

3. Mail or deliver: Andrew Steckel 

(Air-4), U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, 

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901. 

Instructions: All comments will be 

included in the public docket without 

change and may be made available 

online at www.regulations.gov, 

including any personal information 

provided, unless the comment includes 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Information that 

you consider CBI or otherwise protected 

should be clearly identified as such and 

should not be submitted through 

www.regulations.gov or email. 

www.regulations.gov is an ‘‘anonymous 

access’’ system, and EPA will not know 

your identity or contact information 

unless you provide it in the body of 

your comment. If you send email 

directly to EPA, your email address will 

be automatically captured and included 

as part of the public comment. If EPA 

cannot read your comment due to 

technical difficulties and cannot contact 

you for clarification, EPA may not be 

able to consider your comment. 

Docket: Generally, documents in the 

docket for this action are available 

electronically at www.regulations.gov 

and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, 

California. While all documents in the 

docket are listed at 

www.regulations.gov, some information 

may be publicly available only at the 

hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted 

material, large maps), and some may not 

be publicly available in either location 

(e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy 

materials, please schedule an 

appointment during normal business 

hours with the contact listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Andrew Steckel, EPA Region IX, (415) 

947–4115, steckel.andrew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. 

I. Background 

On October 1, 2010 (75 FR 60623), we 

published a limited approval and 

limited disapproval of SJVUAPCD Rule 

4352 as adopted locally on May 18, 

2006 and submitted by the State on 

October 5, 2006. We based our limited 

disapproval action on certain 

deficiencies in the submittal. This 

disapproval action started a sanctions 

clock for imposition of offset sanctions 

18 months after November 1, 2010 and 

highway sanctions 6 months later, 

pursuant to section 179 of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) and our regulations at 40 

CFR 52.31. Under 40 CFR 52.31(d)(1), 

offset sanctions apply eighteen months 

after the effective date of a disapproval 

and highway sanctions apply six 

months after the offset sanctions, unless 

we determine that the deficiencies 

forming the basis of the disapproval 

have been corrected. 

On December 15, 2011, SJVUAPCD 

adopted revisions to Rule 4352 that 

were intended to correct the 

deficiencies identified in our October 1, 

2010 limited approval and limited 

disapproval action. On February 23, 

2012, the State submitted the revised 

rule to EPA. In the Proposed Rules 

section of today’s Federal Register, we 

are proposing to fully approve this 

revised rule because we believe it 

corrects the deficiencies identified in 

our October 1, 2010 disapproval action. 

Based on today’s proposed approval, we 

are taking this final rulemaking action, 

effective on publication, to stay the 

imposition of the offset sanctions and to 

defer the imposition of the highway 

sanctions that were triggered by our 

October 1, 2010 limited disapproval. 

EPA is providing the public with an 

opportunity to comment on this stay/ 

deferral of sanctions. If comments are 

submitted that change our assessment 

described in this final determination 

and the proposed full approval of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES