76646 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

specified for display on a screen? When 

ICT communicates or produces 

electronic content or retrieves 

information or data, are there additional 

unique limiting features that are not 

adequately addressed in these 

provisions, such as screen and text size 

and battery life, which the Board should 

address? 

Question 7: The 2011 ANPRM has 

retained the approach of addressing 

features of ICT which make the ICT 

accessible and usable to individuals 

with disabilities. Are there some 

features or technologies addressed in 

the ANPRM that are obsolete or that 

have changed in a way that makes the 

proposed requirements irrelevant or 

difficult to apply? If so, commenters 

should recommend revisions to those 

section(s) of the ANPRM that should be 

updated and, if possible, recommend 

specific changes that would address the 

needs of individuals with disabilities 

and the unique characteristics of the 

technology concerned. 

Question 8: Some modern touch 

screen devices, such as versions of some 

smartphones and tablets, have proved 

popular with people who are blind, 

despite not having keys which are 

tactilely discernible. Should the 

provision requiring that input controls 

be tactilely discernible (407.3) be 

revised to allow for such novel input 

methods? Should the Board add an 

exception to 407.3 to allow for input 

controls which are not tactilely 

discernible when access is provided in 

another way? If so, how should access 

be addressed when the controls are not 

tactilely discernible? Should a 

particular technology or method of 

approach be specified? 

Question 9: As discussed above, the 

subsection for WCAG 2.0 conformance 

(E207.2) for user interface components 

and content of platforms and 

applications is intended to set a single 

standard for user interfaces, without 

regard to underlying rendering 

mechanisms, such as web browsers, 

operating systems, or platforms. Is 

applying the WCAG 2.0 Success and 

Conformance criteria to electronic 

documents and applications outside the 

web browser environment sufficient and 

clear to users, or should the Board 

provide further clarification? Are there 

other accessibility standards more 

applicable to user interface components 

and content of platforms and 

applications than WCAG 2.0 that the 

Board should reference? 

Nancy Starnes, 

Chair. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31462 Filed 12–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R08–OAR–2011–0870; FRL–9501–4] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; South Dakota; 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing 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, as 

amended by a submittal received on 

September 19, 2011. This SIP revision 

was submitted to address 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 

wide geographic area (also referred to as 

the ‘‘regional haze program’’). 

DATES: Comments: Comments must be 

received on or before February 6, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R08– 

OAR–2011–0870, by one of the 

following methods: 

• http://www.regulations.gov. Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Email: fallon.gail@epa.gov. 

• Fax: (303) 312–6064 (please alert 

the individual listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section if you are 

faxing comments). 

• Mail: Director, Air Program, 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P–AR, 1595 

Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 

80202–1129. 

• Hand Delivery: Director, Air 

Program, Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA), Region 8, Mailcode 8P– 

AR, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, 

Colorado 80202–1129. Such deliveries 

are only accepted Monday through 

Friday, 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. Special arrangements 

should be made for deliveries of boxed 

information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R08–OAR–2011– 

0870. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through http:// 

www.regulations.gov or e-mail. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, which 

means EPA will not know your identity 

or contact information unless you 

provide it in the body of your comment. 

If you send an e-mail comment directly 

to EPA, without going through http:// 

www.regulations.gov, your e-mail 

address will be automatically captured 

and included as part of the comment 

that is placed in the public docket and 

made available on the Internet. If you 

submit an electronic comment, EPA 

recommends that you include your 

name and other contact information in 

the body of your comment and with any 

disk or CD–ROM you submit. 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. 

Electronic files should avoid the use of 

special characters, any form of 

encryption, and be free of any defects or 

viruses. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30–4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail 

Fallon, EPA Region 8, at (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: 

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA 

mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, 

unless the context indicates otherwise. 

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our 

mean or refer to the United States 

Environmental Protection Agency. 

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to 

State Implementation Plan. 

(iv) The initials NAAQS mean or refer 

to National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards. 

(v) The words South Dakota and State 

mean the State of South Dakota. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

A. Regional Haze 

B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

II. Requirements for Regional Haze SIPs 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76647 

1 Visual range is the greatest distance, in 

kilometers or miles, at which a dark object can be 

viewed against the sky. 

2Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. See CAA 

section 162(a). In accordance with section 169A of 

the CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department 

of Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. See 44 

FR 69122, November 30, 1979. The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. CAA 

section 162(a). Although states and tribes may 

designate as Class I additional areas which they 

consider to have visibility as an important value, 

the requirements of the visibility program set forth 

in section 169A of the CAA apply only to 

‘‘mandatory Class I federal areas.’’ Each mandatory 

Class I Federal area is the responsibility of an FLM. 

See CAA section 302(i). When we use the term 

‘‘Class I area’’ in this action, we mean a ‘‘mandatory 

Class I federal area.’’ 

3EPA’s regional haze regulations require 

subsequent updates to the regional haze SIPs. 40 

CFR 51.308(g)–(i). 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

E. Long-Term Strategy (LTS) 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP 

Requirements 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

III. Our Evaluation of South Dakota’s 

Regional Haze SIP 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural and 

Current Visibility Conditions 

1. Estimating Natural Visibility Conditions 

2. Estimating Baseline Visibility 

Conditions 

3. Natural Visibility Impairment 

4. Uniform Rate of Progress 

C. BART 

1. Identification of BART-Eligible Sources 

2. Identification of Sources Subject to 

BART 

a. Modeling Methodology 

b. Contribution Threshold 

c. Sources Identified by South Dakota as 

Subject to BART 

3. BART Determinations and Federally 

Enforceable Limits 

a. Otter Tail Power Company, Big Stone I 

b. South Dakota’s BART Results and 

Summary 

D. Evaluation of South Dakota’s Reasonable 

Progress Goals 

1. WRAP Visibility Modeling 

2. Reasonable Progress ‘‘Four-Factor’’ 

Analyses 

3. South Dakota’s Conclusions From the 

Four-Factor Analysis 

4. Establishment of the Reasonable 

Progress Goals 

5. Reasonable Progress Consultation 

6. Our Conclusion on South Dakota’s 

Reasonable Progress Goals 

E. LTS 

1. Emissions Inventories 

2. Sources of Visibility Impairment in 

South Dakota Class I Areas 

3. Visibility Projection Modeling 

4. Consultation and Emissions Reductions 

for Other States’ Class I Areas 

5. Mandatory LTS Factors 

a. Reductions Due to Ongoing Air Pollution 

Programs 

b. Measures To Mitigate the Impacts of 

Construction Activities 

c. Emission Limitation and Schedules of 

Compliance 

d. Source Retirement and Replacement 

Schedules 

e. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke 

Management Techniques 

f. Enforceability of South Dakota’s 

Measures 

g. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility Due 

to Projected Changes 

6. Our Conclusion on South Dakota’s LTS 

F. Coordination of RAVI and Regional Haze 

Requirements 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP 

Requirements 

H. FLM Coordination 

I. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

IV. Proposed Action 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

A. Regional Haze 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities which are located 

across a broad geographic area and emit 

particulate matter with a diameter less 

than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, 

nitrates, organic carbon (OC), elemental 

carbon (EC) and soil dust) and its 

precursors (e.g., sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some 

cases, ammonia (NH3) and volatile 

organic compounds (VOCs)). These 

precursors react in the atmosphere to 

form PM2.5. PM2.5 impairs visibility by 

scattering and absorbing light. Visibility 

impairment reduces the clarity, color 

and visible distance that one can see. 

PM2.5 also can cause serious health 

effects and mortality in humans and 

contributes to environmental effects 

such as acid deposition and 

eutrophication. 

Data from the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network show that visibility impairment 

caused by air pollution occurs virtually 

all the time at most national park and 

wilderness areas. The average visual 

range 1 in many Class I areas (i.e., 

national parks, memorial parks, 

wilderness areas and international parks 

meeting certain size criteria) in the 

western United States is 100–150 

kilometers, or about one-half to twothirds of the visual range that would 

exist without anthropogenic air 

pollution. 64 FR 35714, 35715 (July 1, 

1999). In most of the eastern Class I 

areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is less than 30 kilometers, 

or about one-fifth of the visual range 

that would exist under estimated 

natural conditions. Id. 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I federal 

areas 2 which impairment results from 

man-made air pollution.’’ CAA 

§ 169A(a)(1). The terms ‘‘impairment of 

visibility’’ and ‘‘visibility impairment’’ 

are defined in the Act to include a 

reduction in visual range and 

atmospheric discoloration. Id. section 

169A(g)(6). In 1980, we promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

source or small group of sources, i.e., 

‘‘RAVI.’’ 45 FR 80084 (December 2, 

1980). These regulations represented the 

first phase in addressing visibility 

impairment. We deferred action on 

regional haze that emanates from a 

variety of sources until monitoring, 

modeling and scientific knowledge 

about the relationships between 

pollutants and visibility impairment 

had improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues, and we promulgated regulations 

addressing regional haze in 1999. 64 FR 

35714 (July 1, 1999), codified at 40 CFR 

part 51, subpart P. The Regional Haze 

Rule revised the existing visibility 

regulations to integrate into them 

provisions addressing regional haze 

impairment and establish a 

comprehensive visibility protection 

program for Class I areas. The 

requirements for regional haze, found at 

40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included 

in our visibility protection regulations at 

40 CFR 51.300–309. Some of the main 

regional haze requirements are 

summarized in section II of this action. 

The requirement to submit a Regional 

Haze SIP applies to all 50 states, the 

District of Columbia and the Virgin 

Islands. States were required to submit 

a SIP addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment no later than December 17, 

2007.3 40 CFR 51.308(b). 

Few states submitted a Regional Haze 

SIP prior to the December 17, 2007 

deadline, and on January 15, 2009, EPA 

found that 37 states, including South 

Dakota and the District of Columbia, 

and the Virgin Islands, had failed to 

submit SIPs addressing the regional 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

76648 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

4The preamble to the Regional Haze Rule 

provides additional details about the deciview. 64 

FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999). 

5 Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions Under the Regional Haze Rule, 

September 2003, EPA–454/B–03–005, available at 

http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

RegionalHaze _envcurhr_gd.pdf, (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘our 2003 Natural Visibility 

Guidance’’); and Guidance for Tracking Progress 

Under the Regional Haze Rule, (September 2003, 

EPA–454/B–03–004, available at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf, (hereinafter referred to as our 

‘‘2003 Tracking Progress Guidance’’). 

haze requirements. 74 FR 2392. Once 

EPA has found that a state has failed to 

make a required submission, EPA is 

required to promulgate a FIP within two 

years unless the state submits a SIP and 

the Agency approves it within the two 

year period. CAA § 110(c)(1). 

B. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments and various 

Federal agencies. Pollution affecting the 

air quality in Class I areas can be 

transported over long distances, even 

hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, to 

effectively address the problem of 

visibility impairment in Class I areas, 

states need to develop strategies in 

coordination with one another, taking 

into account the effect of emissions from 

one jurisdiction on the air quality in 

another. 

Because the pollutants that lead to 

regional haze can originate from sources 

located across broad geographic areas, 

we have encouraged the states and 

tribes across the United States to 

address visibility impairment from a 

regional perspective. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

formed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their states and tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country, 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce emissions 

of particulate matter (PM) and other 

pollutants leading to regional haze. 

The Western Regional Air Program 

(WRAP) is a collaborative effort of state 

governments, tribal governments and 

various Federal agencies established to 

conduct data analyses, conduct 

pollutant transport modeling and 

coordinate planning activities among 

the western states. Member state 

governments include: Alaska, Arizona, 

California, Colorado, Idaho, Montana, 

New Mexico, North Dakota, Oregon, 

South Dakota, Utah, Washington and 

Wyoming. Tribal members include 

Campo Band of Kumeyaay Indians, 

Confederated Salish and Kootenai 

Tribes, Cortina Indian Rancheria, Hopi 

Tribe, Hualapai Nation of the Grand 

Canyon, Native Village of Shungnak, 

Nez Perce Tribe, Northern Cheyenne 

Tribe, Pueblo of Acoma, Pueblo of San 

Felipe and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribe 

of Fort Hall. 

II. Requirements for Regional Haze 

SIPs 

The following is a summary of the 

requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. 

See 40 CFR 51.308 for further detail 

regarding the requirements of the rule. 

A. The CAA and the Regional Haze Rule 

Regional Haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas. 

Section 169A of the CAA and our 

implementing regulations require states 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. Implementation plans 

must also give specific attention to 

certain stationary sources that were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, but were 

not in operation before August 7, 1962, 

and require these sources, where 

appropriate, to install Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) controls for 

the purpose of eliminating or reducing 

visibility impairment. The specific 

Regional Haze SIP requirements are 

discussed in further detail below. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The Regional Haze Rule establishes 

the deciview (dv) as the principal metric 

for measuring visibility. See 70 FR 

39104, 39118. This visibility metric 

expresses uniform changes in the degree 

of haze in terms of common increments 

across the entire range of visibility 

conditions, from pristine to extremely 

hazy conditions. Visibility is sometimes 

expressed in terms of the visual range, 

which is the greatest distance in 

kilometers or miles at which a dark 

object can just be distinguished against 

the sky. The deciview is a useful 

measure for tracking progress in 

improving visibility, because each 

deciview change is an equal incremental 

change in visibility perceived by the 

human eye. Most people can detect a 

change in visibility of one deciview.4

The deciview is used in expressing 

reasonable progress goals (RPGs) (which 

are interim visibility goals towards 

meeting the national visibility goal), 

defining baseline, current and natural 

conditions, and tracking changes in 

visibility. The Regional Haze SIPs must 

contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by man-made air 

pollution by reducing anthropogenic 

emissions that cause regional haze. The 

national goal is a return to natural 

conditions, i.e., man-made sources of air 

pollution would no longer impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437), and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, states must calculate the 

degree of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class I area at the time of each 

Regional Haze SIP submittal and 

periodically review progress every five 

years midway through each 10-year 

implementation period. To do this, the 

Regional Haze Rule requires states to 

determine the degree of impairment (in 

deciviews) for the average of the 20 

percent least impaired (‘‘best’’) and the 

average of the 20 percent most impaired 

(‘‘worst’’) visibility days over a specified 

time period at each of their Class I areas. 

In addition, states must also develop an 

estimate of natural visibility conditions 

for the purpose of comparing progress 

toward the national goal. Natural 

visibility is determined by estimating 

the natural concentrations of pollutants 

that cause visibility impairment and 

then calculating total light extinction 

based on those estimates. We have 

provided guidance to states regarding 

how to calculate baseline, natural and 

current visibility conditions.5

For the first Regional Haze SIPs that 

were due by December 17, 2007, 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20 percent 

least impaired days and 20 percent most 

impaired days for each calendar year 

from 2000 to 2004. Using monitoring 

data for 2000 through 2004, states are 

required to calculate the average degree 

of visibility impairment for each Class I 

area, based on the average of annual 

values over the five-year period. The 

comparison of initial baseline visibility 

conditions to natural visibility 

conditions indicates the amount of 

improvement necessary to attain natural 

visibility, while the future comparison 

of baseline conditions to the then 

current conditions will indicate the 

amount of progress made. In general, the 

2000–2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76649 

6The ‘‘major stationary sources’’ potentially 

subject to BART are listed in CAA section 

169A(g)(7). 

7BART-eligible sources are those sources that 

have the potential to emit 250 tons or more of a 

visibility-impairing air pollutant, were not in 

operation prior to August 7, 1962, but were in 

existence on August 7, 1977, and whose operations 

fall within one or more of 26 specifically listed 

source categories. 40 CFR 51.301. 

C. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of Regional Haze SIPs from the 

states that establish two reasonable 

progress goals (i.e., two distinct goals, 

one for the ‘‘best’’ and one for the 

‘‘worst’’ days) for every Class I area for 

each (approximately) 10-year 

implementation period. See 40 CFR 

51.308(d), (f). The Regional Haze Rule 

does not mandate specific milestones or 

rates of progress, but instead calls for 

states to establish goals that provide for 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward achieving 

natural (i.e., ‘‘background’’) visibility 

conditions. In setting reasonable 

progress goals, states must provide for 

an improvement in visibility for the 

most impaired days over the 

(approximately) 10-year period of the 

SIP, and ensure no degradation in 

visibility for the least impaired days 

over the same period. Id. 

In establishing reasonable progress 

goals, states are required to consider the 

following factors established in section 

169A of the CAA and in our Regional 

Haze Rule at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): 

(1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time 

necessary for compliance; (3) the energy 

and non-air quality environmental 

impacts of compliance; and (4) the 

remaining useful life of any potentially 

affected sources. States must 

demonstrate in their SIPs how these 

factors are considered when selecting 

the reasonable progress goals for the 

best and worst days for each applicable 

Class I area. In setting the reasonable 

progress goals, states must also consider 

the rate of progress needed to reach 

natural visibility conditions by 2064 

(referred to as the ‘‘uniform rate of 

progress’’ or ‘‘glidepath’’) and the 

emission reduction measures needed to 

achieve that rate of progress over the 10- 

year period of the SIP. Uniform progress 

towards achievement of natural 

conditions by the year 2064 represents 

a rate of progress, which states are to 

use for analytical comparison to the 

amount of progress they expect to 

achieve. If a state establishes a 

reasonable progress goal that provides 

for a slower rate of improvement in 

visibility than the rate that would be 

needed to attain natural conditions by 

2064, the state must demonstrate, based 

on the reasonable progress factors, that 

the rate of progress for the 

implementation plan to attain natural 

conditions by 2064 is not reasonable, 

and that the progress goal adopted by 

the state is reasonable. In setting 

reasonable progress goals, each state 

with one or more Class I areas (‘‘Class 

I state’’) must also consult with 

potentially ‘‘contributing states,’’ i.e., 

other nearby states with emission 

sources that may be affecting visibility 

impairment at the state’s Class I areas. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv). In determining 

whether a state’s goals for visibility 

improvement provide for reasonable 

progress toward natural visibility 

conditions, EPA is required to evaluate 

the demonstrations developed by the 

state pursuant to paragraphs 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i) and (d)(1)(ii). 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iii). 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain larger, often 

uncontrolled, older stationary sources 

with the potential to emit 250 tons or 

more per year of any pollutant in order 

to address visibility impacts from these 

sources. Specifically, section 

169A(b)(2)(A) of the Act requires states 

to revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress towards the natural 

visibility goal, including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources 6 built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install and operate 

BART as determined by the state or by 

EPA in the case of a plan promulgated 

under section 110(c) of the CAA. Under 

the Regional Haze Rule, states are 

directed to conduct BART 

determinations for such ‘‘BARTeligible’’ sources that may be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment in a Class I area. 

Rather than requiring source-specific 

BART controls, states also have the 

flexibility to adopt an emissions trading 

program or other alternative program as 

long as the alternative provides greater 

reasonable progress towards improving 

visibility than BART. 

On July 6, 2005, we published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 (‘‘BART 

Guidelines’’) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. 70 FR 39104. In 

making a BART determination for a 

fossil fuel-fired electric generating plant 

with a total generating capacity in 

excess of 750 megawatts (MW), a state 

must use the approach set forth in the 

BART Guidelines. A state is encouraged, 

but not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other types of 

sources. Regardless of source size or 

type, a state must meet the requirements 

of the CAA and our regulations for 

selection of BART, and the state’s BART 

analysis and determination must be 

reasonable in light of the overarching 

purpose of the regional haze program. 

The process of establishing BART 

emission limitations can be logically 

broken down into three steps: First, 

states identify those sources which meet 

the definition of ‘‘BART-eligible source’’ 

set forth in 40 CFR 51.301 7; second, 

states determine which of such sources 

‘‘emits any air pollutant which may 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any impairment of 

visibility in any such area’’ (a source 

which fits this description is ‘‘subject to 

BART’’); and third, for each source 

subject to BART, states then identify the 

best available type and level of control 

for reducing emissions. 

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility-impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOX and PM. We 

have stated that states should use their 

best judgment in determining whether 

VOC or NH3 compounds impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

Under the BART Guidelines, states 

may select an exemption threshold 

value for their BART modeling, below 

which a BART-eligible source would 

not be expected to cause or contribute 

to visibility impairment in any Class I 

area. The state must document this 

exemption threshold value in the SIP 

and must state the basis for its selection 

of that value. Any source with 

emissions that model above the 

threshold value would be subject to a 

BART determination review. The BART 

Guidelines acknowledge varying 

circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. States should consider the 

number of emission sources affecting 

the Class I areas at issue and the 

magnitude of the individual sources’ 

impacts. Any exemption threshold set 

by the state should not be higher than 

0.5 deciviews. 40 CFR part 51, appendix 

Y, section III.A.1. 

In their SIPs, states must identify 

‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ and ‘‘subjectto-BART sources’’ and document their 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

76650 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

BART control determination analyses. 

The term ‘‘BART-eligible source’’ used 

in the BART Guidelines means the 

collection of individual emission units 

at a facility that together comprises the 

BART-eligible source. In making BART 

determinations, section 169A(g)(2) of 

the CAA requires that states consider 

the following factors: (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source; 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source; and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. See also 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). 

A Regional Haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. Once a state has 

made its BART determination, the 

BART controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of our approval of the 

Regional Haze SIP. CAA section 

169(g)(4) and 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In 

addition to what is required by the 

Regional Haze Rule, general SIP 

requirements mandate that the SIP must 

also include all regulatory requirements 

related to monitoring, recordkeeping, 

and reporting for the BART controls on 

the source. See CAA section 110(a). As 

noted above, the Regional Haze Rule 

allows states to implement an 

alternative program in lieu of BART so 

long as the alternative program can be 

demonstrated to achieve greater 

reasonable progress toward the national 

visibility goal than would BART. 

E. Long Term Strategy (LTS) 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states 

include in their Regional Haze SIP a 10- 

to 15 year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) 

of the Regional Haze Rule requires that 

states include a long term strategy (LTS) 

in their Regional Haze SIPs. The LTS is 

the compilation of all control measures 

a state will use during the 

implementation period of the specific 

SIP submittal to meet applicable 

reasonable progress goals. The LTS must 

include ‘‘enforceable emissions 

limitations, compliance schedules, and 

other measures as necessary to achieve 

the reasonable progress goals’’ for all 

Class I areas within, or affected by 

emissions from, the state. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3). 

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area(s) located in another state or 

states, the Regional Haze Rule requires 

the state to consult with the other 

state(s) in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). Also, a state with a 

Class I area impacted by emissions from 

another state must consult with such 

contributing state, and must also 

demonstrate that it has included in its 

SIP all measures necessary to obtain its 

share of the emission reductions needed 

to meet the reasonable progress goals for 

the Class I area. Id. at (d)(3)(ii). The 

RPOs have provided a forum for 

significant interstate consultation, but 

additional consultations between states 

may be required to sufficiently address 

interstate visibility issues. This is 

especially true where two states belong 

to different RPOs. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile and 

area sources. At a minimum, states must 

describe how each of the following 

seven factors listed below are taken into 

account in developing their LTS: (1) 

Emission reductions due to ongoing air 

pollution control programs, including 

measures to address reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment 

(RAVI); (2) measures to mitigate the 

impacts of construction activities; (3) 

emissions limitations and schedules for 

compliance to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals; (4) source retirement and 

replacement schedules; (5) smoke 

management techniques for agricultural 

and forestry management purposes 

including plans as currently exist 

within the state for these purposes; (6) 

enforceability of emissions limitations 

and control measures; and (7) the 

anticipated net effect on visibility due to 

projected changes in point, area and 

mobile source emissions over the period 

addressed by the LTS. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(v). 

F. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment (RAVI) 

As part of the Regional Haze Rule, we 

revised 40 CFR 51.306(c) regarding the 

LTS for RAVI to require that the RAVI 

plan must provide for a periodic review 

and SIP revision not less frequently than 

every three years until the date of 

submission of the state’s first plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment, which was due December 

17, 2007, in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(b) and (c). On or before this date, 

the state must revise its plan to provide 

for review and revision of a coordinated 

LTS for addressing RAVI and regional 

haze, and the state must submit the first 

such coordinated LTS with its first 

Regional Haze SIP. Future coordinated 

LTS and periodic progress reports 

evaluating progress towards reasonable 

progress goals, must be submitted 

consistent with the schedule for SIP 

submission and periodic progress 

reports set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(f) and 

51.308(g), respectively. The periodic 

review of a state’s LTS must report on 

both regional haze and RAVI and must 

be submitted to us as a SIP revision. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP 

Requirements 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the Regional 

Haze Rule includes the requirement for 

a monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

Federal areas within the state. The 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in section 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

‘‘participation’’ in the IMPROVE 

network, i.e., review and use of 

monitoring data from the network. The 

monitoring strategy is due with the first 

Regional Haze SIP, and it must be 

reviewed every five years. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether reasonable progress 

goals will be met. 

Under section 51.308(d)(4), the SIP 

must also provide for the following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the state; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the state, and where possible, in 

electronic format; 

• Developing a statewide inventory of 

emissions of pollutants that are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. The inventory must 

include emissions for a baseline year, 

emissions for the most recent year for 

which data are available, and estimates 

of future projected emissions. A state 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements, including 

reporting, recordkeeping and other 

measures necessary to assess and report 

on visibility. 

The Regional Haze Rule requires 

control strategies to cover an initial 

implementation period extending to the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76651 

8The visibility and uniform rate of progress 

calculations presented in Table 1 and elsewhere in 

section III.B represent corrections EPA made to 

minor math errors in the visibility results South 

Dakota presented in the SIP and which the State 

agrees will be corrected with the next routine 

revision of the SIP. Our corrections are included in 

the docket in a spreadsheet entitled, EPA–R08– 

OAR–2011–0870 South Dakota Regional Haze 

Proposal Section III.B Visibility Conditions 

Corrections. 

year 2018, with a comprehensive 

reassessment and revision of those 

strategies, as appropriate, every 10 years 

thereafter. Periodic SIP revisions must 

meet the core requirements of section 

51.308(d), with the exception of BART. 

The requirement to evaluate sources for 

BART applies only to the first Regional 

Haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART 

must continue to comply with the BART 

provisions of section 51.308(e). Periodic 

SIP revisions will assure that the 

statutory requirement of reasonable 

progress will continue to be met. 

H. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) 

The Regional Haze Rule requires that 

states consult with Federal land 

managers (FLMs) before adopting and 

submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

States must provide FLMs an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at least 60 days prior to holding any 

public hearing on the SIP. This 

consultation must include the 

opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 

their assessment of impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development 

of the reasonable progress goals and on 

the development and implementation of 

strategies to address visibility 

impairment. Further, a state must 

include in its SIP a description of how 

it addressed any comments provided by 

the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must provide 

procedures for continuing consultation 

between the state and FLMs regarding 

the state’s visibility protection program, 

including development and review of 

SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, 

and the implementation of other 

programs having the potential to 

contribute to impairment of visibility in 

Class I areas. 

III. Our Evaluation of South Dakota’s 

Regional Haze SIP 

The State of South Dakota submitted 

a revision to its SIP to address the 

requirements for regional haze on 

January 21, 2011. On September 19, 

2011, South Dakota submitted an 

amendment to the Regional Haze SIP 

revision for approval into the South 

Dakota SIP. The amendment 

incorporated changes made by the State 

to ensure approvability of the SIP 

revision. The changes incorporated 

detailed monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements for BART 

sources into state regulation, 

Administrative Rules of South Dakota 

(ARSD) Chapter 74:36:21, including 

specifying that BART limits apply at all 

times and clarified compliance test 

methods for particulate matter and 

continuous emission monitoring system 

requirements for SO2 and NOX. In 

addition, South Dakota revised the 

reasonable progress analysis for the GCC 

Dacotah cement plant. The following is 

a discussion of our evaluation of the 

revision. 

A. Affected Class I Areas 

In accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(d), 

South Dakota identified two Class I 

areas within its borders: Badlands 

National Park and Wind Cave National 

Park. South Dakota is responsible for 

developing reasonable progress goals for 

these two Class I areas. South Dakota 

emissions have or may reasonably be 

expected to have impacts at Class I areas 

in other states including: Boundary 

Waters Canoe Area Wilderness Area and 

Voyageurs National Park in Minnesota; 

Medicine Lake National Wildlife Refuge 

Wilderness Area and UL Bend National 

Wildlife Refuge Wilderness Area in 

Montana; Bridger Wilderness Area, 

Fitzpatrick Wilderness Area, Grand 

Teton National Park, Teton Wilderness 

Area, North Absaroka Wilderness Area, 

Washakie Wilderness Area and 

Yellowstone National Park in Wyoming; 

and Theodore Roosevelt National Park 

and Lostwood Wilderness Area in North 

Dakota. South Dakota consulted with 

the appropriate state air quality agency 

in each of these states through their 

involvement with the WRAP and 

worked with other states that are not 

members of WRAP (including 

Minnesota and Nebraska). Assessment 

of South Dakota’s contribution to haze 

in these Class I areas is based on 

technical analyses developed by WRAP. 

B. Determination of Baseline, Natural 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

As required by section 51.308(d)(2)(i) 

of the Regional Haze Rule and in 

accordance with our 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance, South Dakota 

calculated baseline/current and natural 

visibility conditions for its Class I areas, 

Badlands and Wind Cave, on the most 

impaired and least impaired days, as 

summarized below. The natural 

visibility conditions, baseline visibility 

conditions and visibility impact 

reductions needed to achieve the 

uniform rate of progress in 2018 for both 

South Dakota Class I areas are presented 

in Table 1 and further explained in this 

section. More detail is available in 

Section 3 of the South Dakota SIP.8

TABLE 1—VISIBILITY IMPACT REDUCTIONS NEEDED BASED ON BEST AND WORST DAYS BASELINES, NATURAL CONDITIONS

AND UNIFORM RATE OF PROGRESS (URP) GOALS FOR SOUTH DAKOTA CLASS I AREAS

South Dakota 

Class I area 

20% Worst days 20% Best days 

2000–2004 

Baseline 

(dv) 

2018 

URP Goal 

(dv) 

2018 

Reduction 

needed 

(delta dv) 

2064 

Natural 

conditions 

(dv) 

2000–2004 

Baseline 

(dv) 

2064 

Natural 

conditions 

(dv) 

Badlands ..................................................

National Park ........................................... 17.14 15.02 2.12 8.06 6.89 2.86 

Wind Cave ...............................................

National Park ........................................... 15.84 13.94 1.90 7.71 5.14 1.88 

1. Estimating Natural Visibility 

Conditions 

Natural background visibility as 

defined in our 2003 Natural Visibility 

Guidance is estimated by calculating the 

expected light extinction using default 

estimates of natural concentrations of 

fine particle components adjusted by 

site-specific estimates of humidity. This 

calculation uses the IMPROVE equation, 

which is a formula for estimating light 

extinction from the estimated natural 

concentrations of fine particle 

components (or from components 

measured by the IMPROVE monitors). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

76652 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

9The IMPROVE program is a cooperative 

measurement effort governed by a steering 

committee composed of representatives from 

Federal agencies (including representatives from 

EPA and the FLMs) and RPOs. The IMPROVE 

monitoring program was established in 1985 to aid 

the creation of Federal and state implementation 

plans for the protection of visibility in Class I areas. 

One of the objectives of IMPROVE is to identify 

chemical species and emission sources responsible 

for existing anthropogenic visibility impairment. 

The IMPROVE program has also been a key 

participant in visibility-related research, including 

the advancement of monitoring instrumentation, 

analysis techniques, visibility modeling, policy 

formulation and source attribution field studies. 

10The science behind the revised IMPROVE 

equation is summarized in a document entitled, 

Technical Support Document for Technical 

Products Prepared by the Western Regional Air 

Partnership (WRAP) in Support of Western 

Regional Haze Plans, February 28, 2011, 

(hereinafter referred to as EPA WRAP Technical 

Support Document and available in the docket) and 

in numerous published papers. See for example: 

Hand, J.L., and Malm, W.C., 2006, Review of the 

IMPROVE Equation for Estimating Ambient Light 

Extinction Coefficients—Final Report. March 2006. 

Prepared for IMPROVE, Colorado State University, 

Cooperative Institute for Research in the 

Atmosphere, Fort Collins, Colorado, available at 

http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/improve/ 

publications/GrayLit/016_IMPROVEeqReview/ 

IMPROVEeqReview.htmand Pitchford, Marc., 2006, 

Natural Haze Levels II: Application of the New 

IMPROVE Algorithm to Natural Species 

Concentrations Estimates. Final Report of the 

Natural Haze Levels II Committee to the RPO 

Monitoring/Data Analysis Workgroup. September 

2006, available at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/ 

improve/Publications/GrayLit/029_NaturalCondII/ 

naturalhazelevelsIIreport.ppt. 

11The amount of light lost as it travels over one 

million meters. The haze index, in units of dv, is 

calculated directly from the total light extinction, 

bext expressed in inverse megameters (Mm¥1), as 

follows: HI = 10 ln(bext/10). 

As documented in our 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance, EPA allows states 

to use ‘‘refined’’ or alternative 

approaches to this guidance to estimate 

the values that characterize the natural 

visibility conditions of Class I areas. 

One alternative approach is to develop 

and justify the use of alternative 

estimates of natural concentrations of 

fine particle components. Another 

alternative is to use the ‘‘new IMPROVE 

equation’’ that was adopted for use by 

the IMPROVE Steering Committee in 

December 2005.9 The purpose of this 

refinement to the ‘‘old IMPROVE 

equation’’ is to provide more accurate 

estimates of the various factors that 

affect the calculation of light extinction. 

For Badlands and Wind Cave, South 

Dakota opted to use the revised 

IMPROVE equation to calculate natural 

background conditions. This is an 

acceptable approach under our 2003 

Natural Visibility Guidance. EPA has 

found the use of the revised IMPROVE 

equation appropriate for WRAP states.10

For Badlands, the natural visibility 

background for the 20 percent worst 

days is 8.06 deciviews and for the 20 

percent best days is 2.86 deciviews. For 

Wind Cave, the natural visibility result 

for the 20 percent worst days is 7.71 

deciviews and for the 20 percent best 

days is 1.88 deciviews. We have 

reviewed South Dakota’s estimates of 

the natural visibility conditions and as 

the approach used by the State was 

consistent with our 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance we are proposing to 

find them acceptable. 

2. Estimating Baseline Visibility 

Conditions 

As required by section 51.308(d)(2)(i) 

of the Regional Haze Rule, South Dakota 

calculated baseline visibility conditions 

for Badlands and Wind Cave. The 

baseline condition calculation begins 

with the calculation of light extinction 

using the IMPROVE equation. The 

IMPROVE equation sums the light 

extinction 11 resulting from individual 

pollutants, such as sulfates and nitrates. 

As with the natural visibility conditions 

calculation, South Dakota chose to use 

the revised IMPROVE equation. 

The period for establishing baseline 

visibility conditions is 2000–2004, and 

baseline conditions must be calculated 

using available monitoring data. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(2). The South Dakota Regional 

Haze SIP employed visibility 

monitoring data collected by IMPROVE 

monitors located in both South Dakota 

Class I areas for the years 2000 through 

2004 and the resulting baseline 

conditions represent an average for 

2000–2004. South Dakota calculated the 

baseline conditions at Badlands as 17.14 

deciviews on the 20 percent worst days, 

and 6.89 deciviews on the 20 percent 

best days. South Dakota calculated the 

baseline conditions at Wind Cave as 

15.84 deciviews on the 20 percent worst 

days, and 5.14 deciviews on the 20 

percent best days. We have reviewed 

South Dakota’s estimations of baseline 

visibility conditions and propose to find 

these acceptable as the approach the 

State used was consistent with our 2003 

Natural Visibility Guidance. 

3. Natural Visibility Impairment 

To address the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(2)(iv)(A), South Dakota 

also calculated the number of deciviews 

by which baseline conditions exceed 

natural visibility conditions at Badlands 

and Wind Cave. For Badlands, baseline 

conditions exceed natural conditions by 

9.08 deciviews (17.14–8.06) for the 20 

percent worst days and 4.03 deciviews 

(6.89–2.86) for the 20 percent best days. 

For Wind Cave, these figures are 8.13 

(15.84–7.71) and 3.26 deciviews (5.14– 

1.88), respectively. 

4. Uniform Rate of Progress 

In setting the reasonable progress 

goals, South Dakota analyzed and 

determined the uniform rate of progress 

needed to reach natural visibility 

conditions by the year 2064. In so doing, 

South Dakota compared the baseline 

visibility conditions in Badlands and 

Wind Cave to the natural visibility 

conditions in Badlands and Wind Cave 

(as described above) and determined the 

uniform rate of progress needed in order 

to attain natural visibility conditions by 

2064 in both Class I areas. South Dakota 

constructed the uniform rate of progress 

consistent with the requirements of the 

Regional Haze Rule by plotting a 

straight graphical line from the baseline 

level of visibility impairment for 2000– 

2004 to the level of visibility conditions 

representing no anthropogenic 

impairment in 2064 for Badlands and 

Wind Cave. The uniform rates of 

progress are summarized in Table 2 and 

further described below. 

Using a baseline visibility value at 

Badlands of 17.14 deciviews and a 

‘‘refined’’ natural visibility value of 8.06 

deciviews for the 20 percent worst days, 

South Dakota calculated the uniform 

rate of progress to be approximately 

0.151 deciviews per year (deciviews/ 

year or dv/yr). This results in a total 

reduction of 9.08 deciviews to reach the 

natural visibility condition of 8.06 

deciviews in 2064. The uniform rate of 

progress results in a visibility 

improvement of 2.18 deciviews needed 

for the period covered by this SIP 

revision submittal (up to and including 

2018). 

Using a baseline visibility value at 

Wind Cave of 15.84 deciviews and a 

‘‘refined’’ natural visibility value of 7.71 

deciviews for the 20 percent worst days, 

South Dakota calculated the uniform 

rate of progress to be approximately 

0.136 deciviews per year. This results in 

a total reduction of 8.13 deciviews to 

reach the natural visibility condition of 

7.71 deciviews in 2064. The uniform 

rate of progress results in a visibility 

improvement of 1.89 deciviews needed 

for the period covered by this SIP 

revision submittal (up to and including 

2018). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76653 

12Note that our reference to CALPUFF 

encompasses the entire CALPUFF modeling system, 

which includes the CALMET, CALPUFF, and 

CALPOST models and other pre and post 

processors. The different versions of CALPUFF 

have corresponding versions of CALMET, 

CALPOST, etc. which may not be compatible with 

previous versions (e.g., the output from a newer 

version of CALMET may not be compatible with an 

older version of CALPUFF). The different versions 

of the CALPUFF modeling system are available 

from the model developer at http://www.src.com/

verio/download/download.htm. 

TABLE 2—SUMMARY OF UNIFORM RATES OF PROGRESS

Class I area Badlands Wind cave 

Baseline Conditions ...................................................................... 17.14 dv .............................................. 15.84 dv 

Natural Visibility ............................................................................ 8.06 dv ................................................ 7.71 dv 

Total Improvement by 2064 .......................................................... 9.08 dv ................................................ 8.13 dv 

Needed Improvement for this SIP by 2018 .................................. 2.18 dv ................................................ 1.89 dv 

URP .............................................................................................. 0.151 dv/year ...................................... 0.136 dv/year 

We propose to find that South Dakota 

has appropriately calculated the 

uniform rates of progress. 

C. BART 

BART is an element of South Dakota’s 

LTS for the first implementation period. 

As discussed in more detail in section 

II.D of this preamble, the BART 

evaluation process consists of three 

components: (1) An identification of all 

the BART-eligible sources; (2) an 

assessment of whether those BARTeligible sources are in fact subject to 

BART; and (3) a determination of any 

BART controls. South Dakota addressed 

these steps as follows: 

1. Identification of BART-Eligible 

Sources 

The first step of a BART evaluation is 

to identify all the BART-eligible sources 

within the state’s boundaries. The State 

identified the BART-eligible sources in 

South Dakota by utilizing the approach 

set out in the BART Guidelines (70 FR 

39158); this approach provides three 

criteria for identifying BART-eligible 

sources: (1) One or more emission units 

at the facility fit within one of the 26 

categories listed in the BART 

Guidelines; (2) the emission unit(s) 

began operation on or after August 7, 

1962, and was in existence on August 7, 

1977; and (3) potential emissions of any 

visibility-impairing pollutant from 

subject units are 250 tons or more per 

year. South Dakota initially screened its 

emissions inventory and permitting 

database to identify major facilities with 

emission units in one or more of the 26 

BART categories. Following this, South 

Dakota used its databases and records to 

identify facilities in these source 

categories with potential emissions of 

250 tons per year or more for any 

visibility-impairing pollutant from any 

units that were in existence on August 

7, 1977 and began operation on or after 

August 7, 1962. 

The BART Guidelines direct states to 

address SO2, NOX and direct PM 

(including both coarse (PM10) and fine 

(PM2.5) particulate matter emissions as 

visibility-impairing pollutants and to 

exercise their ‘‘best judgment to 

determine whether VOC or NH3

emissions from a source are likely to 

have an impact on visibility in an area.’’ 

See 70 FR 39162. The available 

inventory information indicates VOCs 

in South Dakota overwhelmingly come 

from biogenic sources, and NH3 in 

South Dakota is primarily due to area 

sources, such as livestock and fertilizer 

application. Because these are not point 

sources, they are not subject to BART. 

We have reviewed this information and 

propose to find South Dakota’s focus on 

SO2, NOX, and PM acceptable. 

South Dakota identified BARTeligible sources in South Dakota as 

shown in Table 3. This information is 

presented in Section 6 of South Dakota’s 

SIP. 

TABLE 3—LIST OF BART-ELIGIBLE SOURCES IN SOUTH DAKOTA

BART-eligible source Location BART source category 

(SC) Nearest class I area 

1. Northern States Power Company 

(Units 1, 2, and 3).

Sioux Falls, South Dakota ............... SC 1—fossil fuel steam electric 

plants >250 MMBtu/hr heat input.

N/A.1

2. Otter Tail Power Company, Big 

Stone I (Unit 1).

Near Big Stone City, South Dakota SC 1—fossil fuel steam electric 

plants >250 MMBtu/hr heat input.

Boundary Waters 

431 km. 

3. Pete Lien and Sons, Inc. ............. Rapid City, South Dakota ................ SC 12—lime plants .......................... Wind Cave 

52 km. 

1South Dakota did not analyze the three units at Northern States Power for distance to Class I areas as they have been decommissioned. 

2. Identification of Sources Subject to 

BART 

The second step of the BART 

evaluation is to identify those BARTeligible sources that may reasonably be 

anticipated to cause or contribute to any 

visibility impairment at any Class I area, 

i.e. those sources that are subject to 

BART. The BART Guidelines allow 

states to consider exempting some 

BART-eligible sources from further 

BART review because they may not 

reasonably be anticipated to cause or 

contribute to any visibility impairment 

in a Class I area. 

a. Modeling Methodology 

The BART Guidelines provide that 

states may use the CALPUFF 12

modeling system or another appropriate 

model to predict the visibility impacts 

from a single source on a Class I area 

and to, therefore, determine whether an 

individual source is anticipated to cause 

or contribute to impairment of visibility 

in Class I areas, i.e., ‘‘is subject to 

BART.’’ The BART Guidelines state that 

we find CALPUFF is the best regulatory 

modeling application currently 

available for predicting a single source’s 

contribution to visibility impairment (70 

FR 39162). 

The BART Guidelines also 

recommend that states develop a 

modeling protocol for making 

individual source attributions, and 

suggest that states may want to consult 

with us and their RPO to address any 

issues prior to modeling. South Dakota 

relied on WRAP’s CALPUFF modeling 

for South Dakota BART sources as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

76654 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

13The WRAP modeling protocol is available at 

http://pah.cert.ucr.edu/aqm/308/bart/WRAP_RMC_

BART_Protocol_Aug15_2006.pdf. 

14Although Pete Lien and Sons’ existing Title V 

air quality permit still identifies the vertical kiln as 

a unit, permit condition 1.1 specifies in the footnote 

of Table 1–1 that Pete Lien and Sons is required to 

shutdown and dismantle the vertical kiln before the 

initial startup of Unit #45. Pete Lien and Sons 

fulfilled this commitment by notifying South 

Dakota on March 13, 2009, that the vertical kiln was 

shutdown and dismantled. See SIP Section 6.1.2. 

recommended by the BART 

Guidelines.13 40 CFR part 51, appendix 

Y, section III.A.3. 

To determine if each BART-eligible 

source has a significant impact on 

visibility, South Dakota used WRAP’s 

CALPUFF modeling results to estimate 

daily visibility impacts above estimated 

natural conditions at each Class I area 

within 300 km of any BART-eligible 

facility, based on maximum actual 24- 

hour emissions over a three year period 

(2000–2002). 

b. Contribution Threshold 

For states using modeling to 

determine the applicability of BART to 

single sources, the BART Guidelines 

note that the first step is to set a 

contribution threshold to assess whether 

the impact of a single source is 

sufficient to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at a Class I area. 

The BART Guidelines state that, ‘‘[a] 

single source that is responsible for a 1.0 

deciview change or more should be 

considered to ‘cause’ visibility 

impairment.’’ 70 FR 39104, 39161. The 

BART Guidelines also state that ‘‘the 

appropriate threshold for determining 

whether a source contributes to 

visibility impairment may reasonably 

differ across states,’’ but, ‘‘[a]s a general 

matter, any threshold that you use for 

determining whether a source 

‘contributes’ to visibility impairment 

should not be higher than 0.5 

deciviews.’’ Id. Further, in setting a 

contribution threshold, states should 

‘‘consider the number of emissions 

sources affecting the Class I areas at 

issue and the magnitude of the 

individual sources’ impacts.’’ The 

Guidelines affirm that states are free to 

use a lower threshold if they conclude 

that the location of a large number of 

BART-eligible sources in proximity to a 

Class I area justifies this approach. 

South Dakota used a contribution 

threshold of 0.5 deciviews for 

determining which sources are subject 

to BART. The State’s decision was based 

on the following factors: (1) 0.5 

deciviews equates to the 5% extinction 

threshold for new sources under the 

Prevention of Significant Deterioration 

(PSD) New Source Review rules, (2) 0.5 

deciviews is consistent with the 

threshold selected by other states in the 

west, which all selected 0.5 deciviews, 

and (3) 0.5 deciviews represents the 

limit of perceptible change. Although 

we do not agree that all of the factors 

considered by South Dakota’s 

Department of Environmental and 

Natural Resources are relevant in 

determining whether a source can be 

considered to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment, we propose to 

approve the State’s threshold of 0.5 

deciviews. As the discussion below 

indicates, Big Stone I is the only BARTeligible source in South Dakota in 

operation. Given that and the fact that 

the modeling indicates that Big Stone I 

is reasonably anticipated to have an 

impact over the 0.5 deciview threshold 

at several Class I Areas, it is apparent 

that no BART-eligible sources were 

exempted from review based on the 0.5 

deciviews threshold that could have had 

meaningful impact on visibility in one 

or more Class I areas. We are proposing 

that 0.5 deciviews is a reasonable 

threshold for South Dakota in 

determining whether its BART-eligible 

sources are subject to BART. 

c. Sources Identified by South Dakota as 

Subject to BART 

South Dakota determined that the 

three units at Northern States Power 

were not subject to BART because the 

units have been decommissioned and 

are no longer permitted to operate under 

the facility’s Title V air quality permit. 

Consistent with the BART Guidelines, 

South Dakota requested that WRAP 

model each of its remaining operating 

BART-eligible sources to assess the 

extent of their contribution to visibility 

impairment at surrounding Class I areas. 

The WRAP modeling results 

demonstrated that Pete Lien and Sons, 

Inc. did not cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment at any Class I area. 

After reviewing the modeling inputs, 

South Dakota determined that the 

vertical kiln should be modeled again 

due to several errors. However, before 

additional modeling could be done, Pete 

Lien and Sons, Inc. shut down and 

dismantled the kiln in 2009 per its Title 

V permit.14

The WRAP modeling results for Otter 

Tail Power Company’s Big Stone I are 

summarized in Table 4. The results 

show that Big Stone I’s emissions cause 

visibility impacts that exceed the 0.5 

deciviews threshold at the Badlands 

National Park in South Dakota, 

Theodore Roosevelt National Park in 

North Dakota, and Boundary Waters 

Wilderness and Voyageurs National 

Park in Minnesota. 

TABLE 4—WRAP’S MODELING RESULTS FOR BIG STONE I 

Class I area State 

Minimum distance 

to class I area 

(km) 

98th 

percentile visibility 

impact 

(dv)1

Badlands ......................................................................................................................................... SD 470 0.683 

Boundary Waters ............................................................................................................................ MN 431 1.034 

Bridger ............................................................................................................................................ WY 1,041 0.001 

Fitzpatrick ........................................................................................................................................ WY 1,050 0.001 

Grand Teton .................................................................................................................................... WY 1,112 0.001 

Lostwood ......................................................................................................................................... ND 585 0.263 

Medicine Lake ................................................................................................................................. MT 690 0.256 

North Absaroka ............................................................................................................................... WY 1,013 0.011 

Teton ............................................................................................................................................... WY 1,052 0.004 

Theodore Roosevelt ....................................................................................................................... ND 555 0.687 

UL Bend .......................................................................................................................................... MT 902 0.089 

Voyageurs ....................................................................................................................................... MN 438 0.729 

Washakie ........................................................................................................................................ WY 1,006 0.007 

Wind Cave ...................................................................................................................................... SD 572 0.263 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76655 

15Otter Tail’s costs rely on the CUECost model. 

While we are satisfied with the State’s control 

technology conclusions as further described in this 

section, in general we do not recommend relying on 

the CUECost model. According to the BART 

Guidelines, ‘‘cost estimates should be based on the 

OAQPS Control Cost Manual, where possible’’ ‘‘[i]n 

order to maintain and improve consistency.’’ 70 FR 

39104, 39166. The OAQPS Control Cost Manual is 

now known as The EPA Air Pollution Control Cost 

Manual, EPA/452/B–02–001, 6th Ed., January 2002. 

TABLE 4—WRAP’S MODELING RESULTS FOR BIG STONE I—Continued 

Class I area State 

Minimum distance 

to class I area 

(km) 

98th 

percentile visibility 

impact 

(dv)1

Yellowstone ..................................................................................................................................... WY 1,049 0.009 

1 Modeling results represent the maximum 98th percentile impact over the modeled 3-year meteorological period 2001–2003. 

South Dakota allowed Otter Tail 

Power Company to re-run the modeling 

after the company identified several 

errors in actual emission rates and stack 

parameters. After additional review, 

Otter Tail Power Company developed a 

revised modeling protocol that both the 

State and EPA approved. The modeling 

protocol is included in Appendix A of 

the SIP. The results from Otter Tail’s 

modeling are summarized in Table 5. 

Otter Tail’s modeling report is included 

in Appendix B of the SIP. 

TABLE 5—OTTER TAIL’S MODELING

RESULTS FOR BIG STONE I 

Class I area 

98th 

percentile 

visibility 

impact 

(dv)1

Badlands ............................... 0.5 

Boundary Waters .................. 1.1 

Lostwood .............................. 0.4 

Theodore Roosevelt ............. 0.5 

Voyageurs ............................. 0.7 

Wind Cave ............................ 0.3 

Isle Royale ............................ 0.7 

1 Modeling results represent the maximum 

98th percentile impact over the modeled meteorological years 2002, 2006, and 2007. 

In reviewing Otter Tail’s results, the 

State rounded to one significant figure 

and determined that Big Stone I 

emissions cause visibility impacts that 

exceed the 0.5 deciviews threshold at 

the same Class I areas identified in the 

WRAP modeling in addition to Isle 

Royale in Michigan. South Dakota relied 

on Otter Tail’s modeling, noting that it 

best represented the visibility impacts 

from Big Stone I because the original 

WRAP modeling did not have the 

correct emission rates and stack 

parameters and that the modeling 

protocol adjustments improved the 

accuracy of the model over long 

distances. 

3. BART Determinations and Federally 

Enforceable Limits 

The third step of a BART evaluation 

is to perform the BART analysis. The 

BART Guidelines (70 FR 39164) 

describe the BART analysis as 

consisting of the following five steps: 

• Step 1: Identify All Available 

Retrofit Control Technologies, 

• Step 2: Eliminate Technically 

Infeasible Options, 

• Step 3: Evaluate Control 

Effectiveness of Remaining Control 

Technologies, 

• Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and 

Document the Results, and 

• Step 5: Evaluate Visibility Impacts. 

In determining BART, the State must 

consider the five statutory factors in 

section 169A of the CAA: (1) The costs 

of compliance; (2) the energy and nonair quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source; 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source; and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. See also 40 

CFR 51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). The five-factor 

analysis occurs during steps 4 and 5 of 

the process. 

South Dakota requested that Otter Tail 

Power Company complete a BART 

analysis for Big Stone I and used this 

analysis as a basis for its BART 

determination for this source for NOX, 

SO2 and PM. The Otter Tail BART 

analysis is included in Appendix C of 

the SIP. Otter Tail generally followed 

the five steps contained in the BART 

Guidelines and evaluated the five BART 

factors. In some instances, South Dakota 

identified additional control 

technologies for evaluation and also 

added an analysis of average cost 

effectiveness compared to visibility 

benefit (dollar per deciview) for the 

various multi-pollutant control options. 

We find that South Dakota, through its 

reliance on Otter Tail’s BART analysis, 

reasonably considered the five BART 

factors and arrived at a reasonable 

BART determination for Big Stone I. We 

propose to approve South Dakota’s 

BART determination summarized 

below. 

a. Otter Tail Power Company, Big 

Stone I 

Background 

Big Stone I is a steam electric 

generating plant located near Big Stone 

City, South Dakota with one generating 

unit burning Powder River Basin coal 

and a net electrical output of 475 MW. 

The Otter Tail Power Company is the 

operating agent for the Big Stone Plant 

co-owners: NorthWestern Energy, 

Montana-Dakota Utilities, Co., a 

division of MDU Resources Group, and 

Otter Tail Power Company. The 

generating unit is a Babcock cyclone 

boiler that started operating in 1975. 

The State analyzed each pollutant and 

its effect on the visibility in Class I 

areas. Since Big Stone I does not have 

a total generating capacity greater than 

750 MW, South Dakota was not required 

to follow the BART Guidelines in 

determining BART, but it generally 

followed the approach for determining 

BART set out in the Guidelines. A 

summary of the State’s analyses of 

existing controls and potential BART 

controls for each pollutant is set forth 

below. The State’s BART determination 

for Big Stone I is provided in Section 6 

of the SIP. The visibility and cost 

impacts noted in the following 

assessment are derived from the 

company’s BART analysis provided in 

Appendix B of the SIP.15

Unit 1 Boiler 

SO2 BART Review: Unit 1 has no 

existing SO2 controls. The baseline 

uncontrolled SO2 emissions that South 

Dakota reported in the SIP are 18,000 

tons per year. 

Step 1: Identify All Available 

Technologies. 

The State identified the following SO2

control options as having potential 

application to Unit 1: Fuel switching, 

coal cleaning, coal upgrading (K-Fuel), 

hydrated lime injection, semi-dry flue 

gas desulfurization (FGD), wet FGD, 

Enviroscrub, electro catalytic oxidation 

and the Airborne process. 

Step 2: Eliminate Technically 

Infeasible Options. 

The State eliminated the following 

options as technically infeasible: Coal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

76656 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

cleaning, coal upgrading, hydrated lime 

injection, Enviroscrub, Electro catalytic 

oxidation and the Airborne process. 

Fuel switching is a viable method to 

reduce sulfur dioxide emissions by 

switching to a fuel with lower sulfur 

content. The Big Stone facility’s primary 

fuel source is subbituminous coal 

obtained from the Powder River Basin 

in Wyoming. Powder River Basin 

subbituminous coal has one of the 

lowest sulfur contents available in the 

United States. As such, the State 

concluded that Otter Tail Power 

Company has already implemented fuel 

switching. 

Step 3: Evaluate Control Effectiveness 

of Remaining Control Technology. 

The State considered the control 

efficiencies listed in Table 6. 

TABLE 6—SUMMARY OF BIG STONE I SO2 BART ANALYSIS CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES FOR UNIT 1 BOILER 1

Control option Control efficiency 

(%) 

Emission rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

Emissions 

(tons/yr) 

Emissions 

reduction 

(tons/yr) 

Wet FGD #1 ..................................................................................... 95 0.043 900 17,100 

Wet FGD #2 ..................................................................................... 83 0.15 3,130 14,870 

Semi-Dry FGD #1 ............................................................................ 90 0.09 1,880 16,120 

Semi-Dry FGD #2 ............................................................................ 83 0.15 3,130 14,870 

1South Dakota calculated emissions from a baseline of 18,000 tons per year of SO2. The baseline was derived from the highest average 24- 

hour average emission rate (4,832 pounds per hour) for calendar years 2001 through 2003 and operations occurring 85% of the time or 7,746 

hours per year. 

Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and 

Document Results. 

Factor 1: Costs of compliance. 

The State relied on Otter Tail’s cost 

analysis for SO2 controls and this is 

summarized below in Table 7. The State 

deemed the average cost effectiveness 

reasonable for the two remaining control 

options, semi-dry and wet FGD. 

TABLE 7—SUMMARY OF BIG STONE I SO2 BART COST ANALYSIS FOR UNIT 1 BOILER

Control option 

Total installed 

capital cost 

(MM$) 

Total annual cost 

(MM$) 

Emissions 

reduction 

(tons/yr) 

Cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

Wet FGD #1 ..................................................................................... $171.8 $29.05 17,100 $1,699 

Wet FGD #2 ..................................................................................... 171.8 28.90 14,870 1,944 

Semi-Dry FGD #1 ............................................................................ 141.3 23.57 16,120 1,462 

Semi-Dry FGD #2 ............................................................................ 141.3 23.33 14,870 1,569 

Factor 2: Energy impacts. 

The State noted increased energy 

demand estimates provided by Otter 

Tail of 9,500 kilowatts (2.0 percent of 

generation) for wet FGD and 3,325 

kilowatts (0.7 percent of generation) for 

semi-dry FGD. The State did not 

identify any energy requirements that 

would preclude the selection of either of 

the two alternatives. 

Factor 3: Non-air quality 

environmental impacts. 

The State described the non-air 

quality environmental impacts of the 

two control alternatives including the 

solid and aqueous waste streams. The 

semi-dry FGD system would be installed 

upstream of the existing baghouse. The 

baghouse would be used to collect the 

injected lime and reacted sulfur dioxide 

emissions along with other existing 

particulate matter emissions. Otter Tail 

did not identify how much additional 

particulate matter would be collected by 

the baghouse due to the use of the semidry FGD system. Otter Tail assumed the 

additional material collected in the 

baghouse would be negligible compared 

to the existing collection. Otter Tail 

estimated that the wet FGD system 

would generate an additional 44,700 

tons of gypsum solids which would 

need to be properly disposed. The State 

did not identify any non-air quality 

effects that would preclude the selection 

of either of the two alternatives. 

Factor 4: Remaining useful life. 

The expected remaining useful life of 

the unit is greater than 30 years. 

Factor 5: Evaluate visibility impacts. 

Table 8 presents a comparison of the 

visibility impacts of the two top control 

options, wet FGD and semi-dry FGD. 

The values are derived from modeling 

conducted by Otter Tail. For the cases 

presented, Otter Tail held the emission 

rates for NOX and PM constant but 

varied the SO2 emissions rates in the 

model as noted. In some cases, the 

modeling predicted that the semi-dry 

FGD would produce a greater visibility 

benefit than the wet FGD. It is not clear 

why the model predicted this result; it 

may relate to stack parameters. Based on 

the visibility modeling, the State found 

that there would be no discernible 

visibility benefit from selecting a wet 

FGD over a semi-dry FGD. 

TABLE 8—VISIBILITY IMPACT COMPARISON BETWEEN WET AND SEMI-DRY FGD SO2 CONTROLS 1

[98th Percentile—Deciviews] 

Option 2 Control equipment Class I area 4 2002 2006 2007 

#3 ............. OFA and Semi-dry FGD (0.09 lb/MMBtu) .......................... Boundary Waters .. 0.319 0.534 0.620 

Voyageurs ............ 0.307 0.391 0.450 

Isle Royale ............ 0.363 0.287 0.323 

Badlands ............... 0.219 0.172 0.230 

Theodore Roosevelt.0.087 0.234 0.173 

#4 ............. OFA and Wet FGD (0.043 lb/MMBtu) ................................ Boundary Waters .. 0.350 0.521 0.611 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76657 

16The selected SO2 emission limit of 0.09 lb/ 

MMBtu (30-day rolling average) also happens to be 

well below the presumptive limit for EGU’s without 

existing controls and over the 750 MW generating 

capacity threshold described in the BART 

Guidelines. 

TABLE 8—VISIBILITY IMPACT COMPARISON BETWEEN WET AND SEMI-DRY FGD SO2 CONTROLS 1—Continued 

[98th Percentile—Deciviews] 

Option 2 Control equipment Class I area 4 2002 2006 2007 

Voyageurs ............ 0.312 0.464 0.502 

Isle Royale ............ 0.351 0.250 0.290 

Badlands ............... 0.225 0.191 0.234 

Theodore Roosevelt.0.084 0.230 0.138 

Comparison Review 3 (incremental visibility impact of wet 

FGD (in Option 3) compared to semi-dry FGD (in Option 4)).

Boundary Waters .. 0.031 ¥0.013 ¥0.009 

Voyageurs ............ 0.005 0.073 0.052 

Isle Royale ............ ¥0.012 ¥0.037 ¥0.033 

Badlands ............... 0.006 0.019 0.004 

Theodore Roosevelt.¥0.003 ¥0.004 ¥0.035 

#5a ........... SOFA and Semi-dry FGD (0.09 lb/MMBtu) ....................... Boundary Waters .. 0.250 0.419 0.493 

Voyageurs ............ 0.249 0.306 0.354 

Isle Royale ............ 0.285 0.226 0.256 

Badlands ............... 0.165 0.133 0.180 

Theodore Roosevelt.0.069 0.186 0.141 

#5b ........... SOFA and Wet FGD (0.043 lb/MMBtu) ............................. Boundary Waters .. 0.274 0.407 0.478 

Voyageurs ............ 0.244 0.365 0.393 

Isle Royale ............ 0.274 0.195 0.227 

Badlands ............... 0.174 0.147 0.182 

Theodore Roosevelt.0.066 0.180 0.108 

Comparison Review 3 (incremental visibility impact of wet 

FGD (in Option 5a) compared to semi-dry FGD (in Option 5b)).

Boundary Waters .. 0.024 ¥0.012 ¥0.015 

Voyageurs ............ ¥0.005 0.059 0.039 

Isle Royale ............ ¥0.011 ¥0.031 ¥0.029 

Badlands ............... 0.009 0.014 0.002 

Theodore Roosevelt.¥0.003 ¥0.006 ¥0.033 

1Otter Tail Power Company conducted visibility modeling for both wet and semi-dry FGD options using combined controls with constant emission rates for NOX and PM. Thus, the results shown include the noted SO2 and NOX control options and the existing fabric filter PM control option. 2An explanation of each of the numbered control options and the corresponding emission rates is included in Section 6 of the SIP, Table 6– 

13, p. 94. 3A negative number means the wet FGD had a lower visibility impact than the semi-dry FGD. 

4These are the Class I areas that exceed the 0.5 deciview threshold as listed in Table 5. 

Step 5: Select BART. 

South Dakota determined BART to be 

the second ranked control option, semidry FGD at 90 percent control efficiency 

in Section 6.3.5.2 of the SIP. Even 

though the top ranked control option, 

wet FGD at 95 percent control 

efficiency, reduced the SO2 emissions 

more than the second ranked option, the 

State determined that there is no 

discernible difference between the two 

options when considering visibility 

impacts. South Dakota specified BART 

limits of 505 lb/hour and 0.09 lb/ 

MMBtu (30-day rolling average) that 

apply at all times including periods of 

startup, shutdown and malfunction. The 

estimated cost of the semi-dry FGD 

system was $1,462 per ton ($/ton) of 

SO2 removed, and the capital and 

annualized costs were estimated to be 

$141,300,000 and $23,570,000 per year 

($/year or $/yr), respectively. 

We are proposing to approve the 

State’s SO2 BART determination for Big 

Stone I. The State’s assessment of costs 

and other impacts and its elimination of 

the wet FGD at 95% control efficiency 

was reasonable based on the five-factor 

analysis. While the average cost 

effectiveness values for both wet FGD 

and semi-dry FGD are reasonable, the 

modeling predicted that the use of a wet 

FGD at 95% efficiency rather than a 

semi-dry FGD at 90% efficiency would 

result in minimal, if any, visibility 

benefit. Thus, it was reasonable for the 

State to eliminate a wet FGD at 95% 

efficiency from consideration. The 

installation of a semi-dry FGD at Big 

Stone I will result in a reduction in 

annual SO2 emissions from the plant of 

approximately 16,120 tons.16 The 

visibility benefit for the selected BART 

controls for all pollutants combined is 

provided in the summary in Table 12 in 

section III.C.3.b. below. 

NOX BART Review: Big Stone I is 

already equipped with overfire air 

(OFA) for NOX control. South Dakota 

indicates in the SIP that Unit 1 has 

baseline controlled NOX emissions of 

18,000 tons per year with an emission 

rate of 0.65 lb/MMBtu. 

Step 1: Identify All Available 

Technologies. 

South Dakota identified the following 

control options as having potential 

application as BART: Selective catalytic 

reduction (SCR), oxygen enhanced 

combustion, catalytic absorption/ 

oxidation, gas reburn, Enviroscrub, 

electro-catalytic oxidation, NOXStar, 

Cascade processes, selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR), rich reagent 

injection (RRI), flue gas recirculation 

(FGR), separated over-fire air (SOFA), 

over-fire air (OFA), and low-NOX

burners (LNB). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

76658 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Step 2: Eliminate Technically 

Infeasible Options. 

The State identified the following 

control options as technically infeasible: 

Oxygen enhanced combustion, 

absorption/oxidation, gas reburn, 

Enviroscrub, electro-catalytic oxidation, 

NOXStar, Cascade processes, and LNB. 

The State noted that flue gas 

recirculation is not known to reduce 

nitrogen oxide emissions any further 

when added with an over-fire air 

system. Therefore, the State and Otter 

Tail Power Company did not conduct 

any further review of flue-gas 

recirculation. 

Step 3: Evaluate Control Effectiveness 

of Remaining Control Technology. 

The State considered the control 

efficiencies listed in Table 9. 

TABLE 9—SUMMARY OF BIG STONE I NOX BART ANALYSIS CONTROL TECHNOLOGIES FOR UNIT 1 BOILER 1

Control option 

Control 

efficiency 

(%) 

Emission 

rate 

(lb/MMBtu) 

Emissions 

(tons/yr) 

Emissions 

reduction 

(tons/yr) 

SCR and SOFA ............................................................................... 89 0.10 2,000 16,000 

RRI, SNCR and SOFA .................................................................... 77 0.20 4,090 13,910 

SNCR and SOFA ............................................................................. 60 0.35 7,220 10,780 

SOFA ............................................................................................... 42 0.50 10,360 7,640 

OFA .................................................................................................. 25 0.65 13,490 4,510 

1South Dakota calculated emissions from a baseline of 18,000 tons per year of NOX. The baseline was derived from the highest average 24- 

hour average emission rate (4,855 pounds per hour) for calendar years 2001 through 2003 and operations occurring 85% of the time or 7,746 

hours per year. 

Step 4: Evaluate Impacts and 

Document Results. 

Factor 1: Costs of compliance. 

The State relied on Otter Tail’s cost 

analysis for NOX controls and this is 

summarized below in Table 10. The 

State deemed the average cost 

effectiveness reasonable for all of the 

remaining control options, SCR, SNCR, 

RRI, SOFA, and OFA, as provided by 

Otter Tail. 

TABLE 10—SUMMARY OF BIG STONE I NOX BART COST ANALYSIS FOR UNIT 1 BOILER

Control option 

Total 

installed 

capital cost 

(MM$) 

Total 

Annual 

cost (MM$) 

Emissions 

reduction 

(tons/yr) 

Average cost 

effectiveness 

($/ton) 

SCR and SOFA ............................................................................. $81 .9 $13.21 16,000 $825 

RRI, SNCR and SOFA .................................................................. 16 .2 11.39 13,910 818 

SNCR and SOFA ........................................................................... 11 .9 3.99 10,780 197 

SOFA ............................................................................................. 4 .8 0.65 7,640 85 

OFA ................................................................................................ 0 0.14 4,510 31 

Factor 2: Energy impacts. 

The State noted that all the energy 

impacts were less than one percent of 

the plant’s generating capacity and did 

not identify any energy requirements 

that would preclude the selection of any 

of the alternatives. 

Factor 3: Non-air quality 

environmental impacts. 

The State discussed that the OFA and 

SOFA systems would increase the 

amount of unburned carbon in the 

flyash, which would increase the 

amount of flyash that needs to be 

properly disposed. Otter Tail Power 

Company considers this increase 

negligible compared to the existing 

amount of flyash being properly 

disposed. 

The State noted that the SNCR and 

the SCR systems would generate a small 

amount of unreacted ammonia or urea 

to be emitted. Even though ammonia 

and urea are not considered regulated 

air pollutants, these emissions are 

involved in the formation of ammonium 

sulfates and ammonium nitrates, which 

contribute to the amount of visibility 

impairment. 

The State did not identify any non-air 

quality environmental impacts that 

would preclude the selection of any of 

the control equipment alternatives. 

Factor 4: Remaining useful life. 

The expected remaining useful life of 

the unit is greater than 30 years. 

Factor 5: Evaluate visibility impacts. 

Table 12, below, presents the 

visibility impacts for the State’s selected 

BART controls for all pollutants. The 

values presented come from Otter Tail’s 

modeling. The State found that SCR + 

SOFA would result in greater visibility 

improvement than the other options. 

Step 5: Select BART. 

South Dakota determined BART to be 

SCR + SOFA. South Dakota specified 

BART limits of 561 lb/hour and 0.10 lb/ 

MMBtu (30-day rolling average) that 

apply at all times including periods of 

startup, shutdown, and malfunction. 

The estimated cost of the SCR + SOFA 

controls was $825 per ton ($/ton) of 

NOX removed, and the capital and 

annualized costs were estimated to be 

$81,800,000, and $13,210,000 per year 

($/year or $/yr), respectively. 

We are proposing to approve the 

State’s NOX BART determination for Big 

Stone I. The State’s assessment of costs 

and other impacts was reasonable. The 

installation of SCR and SOFA at Big 

Stone I will result in a reduction in 

annual NOX emissions from the plant of 

approximately 16,000 tons. Table 12, 

below, provides the visibility benefit for 

the selected BART controls for all 

pollutants combined. 

PM BART Review: Big Stone I is 

already equipped with a pulse jet fabric 

filter baghouse for PM which is 

considered the most efficient control 

technology available. The baseline 

controlled PM emissions that South 

Dakota reported in the SIP are 300 tons 

per year with an emission rate of 0.015 

lb/MMBtu. The State identified the 

following PM control options as having 

potential application to the Big Stone I 

boiler: Existing fabric filter baghouse, 

new fabric filter baghouse, compact 

hybrid particulate collector (COHPAC), 

electrostatic precipitator, wet scrubber, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76659 

17The 0.9 deciviews estimated visibility benefit at 

Boundary Waters is calculated by subtracting the 

2007 impact of 0.17 deciviews in Table 12 from the 

baseline impact of 1.1 deciviews in Table 5. Our 

calculations for 54 fewer days above 0.5 deciviews 

are included in the docket. 

and cyclones/multiclones. The State did 

not eliminate any of the control 

technologies as technically infeasible for 

controlling PM emissions from the 

boiler. 

South Dakota determined BART to be 

no additional controls. The State 

reviewed the five BART factors 

generally, but noted no further detailed 

analysis was required since Otter Tail 

has already installed and is operating a 

fabric filter baghouse, which is the top 

particulate control technology. South 

Dakota specified BART limits of 67.3 lb/ 

hour and 0.012 lb/MMBtu (30-day 

rolling average). The latter represents a 

stringent level of control that is 

consistent with recent Best Available 

Control Technology determinations for 

PSD permits. 

We are proposing to approve the 

State’s PM BART determination for Big 

Stone I. The State’s assessment that no 

detailed analysis is required since the 

most stringent control option is already 

in place is consistent with the BART 

Guidelines. (40 CFR 51, appendix Y, 

IV.D.5.) Furthermore, since South 

Dakota’s proposed BART emission 

limits does not explicitly exempt 

emissions during malfunctions, we 

interpret the SIP to require compliance 

with the PM limits at all times 

(including malfunctions). 

b. South Dakota’s BART Results and 

Summary 

We have summarized South Dakota’s 

BART determinations in Table 11 

below. We have summarized the 

visibility impacts at the appropriate 

Class I areas for South Dakota’s selected 

BART controls in Table 12 below. The 

substantial emissions reductions in SO2

and NOX will result in a significant 

improvement in visibility at several 

Class I areas. The visibility 

improvement from reducing both 

pollutants at the most impacted area, 

Boundary Waters, is estimated to be 0.9 

deciviews and 54 fewer days above 0.5 

deciviews.17

South Dakota’s Regional Haze Rule, 

which we are proposing to approve with 

the SIP, requires each source subject to 

BART to install and operate BART no 

later than five years after we approve 

the Regional Haze SIP. Administrative 

Rules of South Dakota (ARSD) Chapter 

74:36:21. Given the scope of the retrofits 

involved, five years represents a 

schedule that is expeditious as 

practicable. This satisfies the 

requirement under 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(1)(iv), that ‘‘each source 

subject to BART be required to install 

and operate BART as expeditiously as 

practicable, but in no event later than 5 

years after approval of the 

implementation plan revision.’’ 

As noted previously, to be 

approvable, the Regional Haze SIP must 

include monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements to ensure that 

the BART limits are enforceable. South 

Dakota has included these requirements 

in ARSD Chapter 74:36:21. We have 

reviewed these requirements and find 

them to be adequate as they relate to the 

BART limits we are proposing to 

approve. In particular, for SO2 and NOX

BART limits, the rule requires the use 

of continuous emission monitoring 

systems (CEMS) to determine 

compliance, generally in accordance 

with 40 CFR part 75. For the filterable 

PM BART limits, the rule requires stack 

testing. Adequate recordkeeping and 

reporting requirements are also 

specified. 

For the reasons discussed above, we 

propose to find that South Dakota 

satisfied the BART requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(e). 

TABLE 11—SOUTH DAKOTA BART DETERMINATIONS FOR BIG STONE I UNIT 1 BOILER

Pollutant 

Baseline 

emissions 

(tons/yr)1

Baseline 

level of 

control 

(% reduction) 

BART 

level of 

control 

(% reduction) 

Control device 

Emissions 

after 

controls 

(tons/yr) 

Emission 

reduction 

(tons/yr) 

Emission limit 

SO2 ............. 18,000 0 90 Semi-dry FGD ............... 1,880 16,120 505 lb/hr, and 0.09 lb/MMBtu, 30-day rolling average. 

NOX ............ 18,000 25 88 SOFA + SCR ................ 2,000 16,000 561 lb/hr, and 0.10 lb/MMBtu, 30-day rolling average. 

PM .............. 300 95–99.9 95–99.9 Existing Fabric Filter ..... .................... .................... 67.3 lb/hr, and 0.012 lb/MMBtu, 30-day rolling 

average. 

1South Dakota calculated baseline emissions for SO2 and NOX by identifying the highest average 24-hour average actual emission rate for the years 2001 through 

2003 and adjusted this to 85% operations level or 7,746 hours per year. 

TABLE 12—VISIBILITY IMPACTS FOR SOUTH DAKOTA’S BART DETERMINATIONS FOR BIG STONE I UNIT 1 BOILER

[98th Percentile—Deciviews] 

Control options Class I area 2002 2006 2007 

SCR, SOFA, and Semi-Dry FGD 1 ........... Boundary Waters ...................................... 0.097 0.136 0.170 

Voyageurs ................................................ 0.086 0.107 0.123 

Isle Royale ................................................ 0.092 0.077 0.098 

Badlands ................................................... 0.079 0.060 0.070 

Theodore Roosevelt ................................. 0.036 0.070 0.064 

1The results reflect the visibility impacts after installation of controls with an SCR at a NOX emissions rate of 0.1 lb/MMBtu, a semi-dry FGD at 

an SO2 emissions rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu, and the existing pulse jet fabric filter baghouse at a PM emissions rate of 0.015 lb/MMBtu. The selected BART emissions limits for SO2 and PM are lower than the modeled values, therefore, the visibility impacts after BART controls are installed will be lower than those presented in this table. See Table 8 for a comparison of visibility impacts for wet and semi-dry FGD. See Table 5 

for baseline visibility impacts. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

76660 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

18We provide a more detailed discussion on the 

WRAP modeling in section IV.E.3 below and in the 

EPA WRAP Technical Support Document available 

in the docket. 

D. Evaluation of South Dakota’s 

Reasonable Progress Goals 

In order to establish reasonable 

progress goals for Badlands and Wind 

Cave and to determine the controls 

needed for the LTS, South Dakota 

followed the process established in the 

Regional Haze Rule. First, South Dakota 

identified the anticipated visibility 

improvement in 2018 in the two South 

Dakota Class I areas using the WRAP 

Community Multi-Scale Air Quality 

(CMAQ) photochemical grid modeling 

results. This modeling identified the 

extent of visibility improvement from 

the baseline by pollutant for each Class 

I area. The modeling relied on projected 

source emission inventories, which 

included enforceable Federal and state 

regulations already in place and 

anticipated BART controls. 

South Dakota then identified, with 

input from EPA, the sources and source 

categories (other than BART sources) in 

South Dakota that are major contributors 

to visibility impairment and considered 

whether these sources should be 

controlled based on a consideration of 

the factors identified in the CAA and 

EPA’s regulations. See CAA 169A(g)(1) 

and 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A). South 

Dakota also computed the baseline 

visibility impacts for these sources 

using their 2002 actual emissions and 

the CALPUFF modeling system. Next, 

based on this analysis, South Dakota set 

the reasonable progress goals for each 

Class I area and compared the 

reasonable progress goals for each area 

to the 2018 uniform rate of progress. 

The SIP includes South Dakota’s 

analysis and conclusion that reasonable 

progress will be made by 2018, 

including an analysis of pollutant 

trends, emission reductions, and 

improvements expected. The reasonable 

progress discussion and analyses are 

included in Section 7 of the SIP. We are 

proposing to approve South Dakota’s 

submitted reasonable progress goals as 

described more fully below. 

1. WRAP Visibility Modeling 

The primary tool WRAP relied upon 

for modeling regional haze 

improvements by 2018, and for 

estimating South Dakota’s Reasonable 

Progress Goals, was the CMAQ model. 

The CMAQ model was used to estimate 

2018 visibility conditions in South 

Dakota and all western Class I areas, 

based on application of anticipated 

regional haze strategies in the various 

states’ regional haze plans, including 

assumed controls on BART sources.18

2. Reasonable Progress ‘‘Four-Factor’’ 

Analysis 

In determining the measures 

necessary to make reasonable progress, 

states must take into account the 

following four factors and demonstrate 

how they were taken into consideration 

in selecting reasonable progress goals 

for a Class I area: 

• Costs of Compliance, 

• Time Necessary for Compliance, 

• Energy and Non-Air Quality 

Environmental Impacts of Compliance, 

and 

• Remaining Useful Life of any 

Potentially Affected Sources. 

CAA 169A(g)(1) and 40 CFR 

308(d)(1)(i)(A). 

As the purpose of the reasonable 

progress analysis is to evaluate the 

potential of controlling certain sources 

or source categories for addressing 

visibility from manmade sources, the 

four-factor analysis conducted by South 

Dakota addresses only anthropogenic 

sources, on the assumption that the 

focus should be on sources that can be 

‘‘controlled.’’ In its evaluation of 

potential sources or source categories 

for reasonable progress, South Dakota 

primarily considered point sources. 

South Dakota determined that the key 

pollutants contributing to visibility 

impairment at the two Class I areas are 

SO2, organic carbon and NOX. South 

Dakota also only considered controls for 

emissions of SO2 and NOX (i.e., sulfate 

and nitrate) which are typically 

associated with anthropogenic sources. 

South Dakota determined the major 

source of organic carbon in the two 

Class I areas is natural fire. By reviewing 

the WRAP modeling results, South 

Dakota determined that PM emissions 

from point sources contribute only a 

minimal amount to visibility 

impairment in the South Dakota Class I 

areas. 

Based on the WRAP CMAQ modeling, 

South Dakota’s contribution of ammonia 

sulfate, organic carbon mass, and 

ammonia nitrate concentrations is 

approximately 1.5% for ammonia 

sulfate, minimal for organic carbon 

mass, and 4% for ammonia nitrate. 

Therefore, South Dakota concluded that 

minimal gain would be achieved from 

further reduction in sulfur dioxide, 

organic carbon mass, and nitrogen oxide 

emissions from point sources within 

South Dakota. More discussion on 

sources of sulfate and nitrate emissions 

and the State’s rationale for focusing on 

point sources is included in Section 7 

of the SIP. South Dakota initially 

asserted that a four-factor analysis was 

not warranted based on its belief that 

Badlands and Wind Cave would both 

achieve the needed reductions to meet 

the uniform rate of progress for both 

Class I areas despite the WRAP 

predictions. This belief was based on 

the State’s conclusion that the emission 

estimates included in the WRAP 

modeling turned out to be too high. The 

emission estimates did not include 

reductions reflecting the BART emission 

limits for Otter Tail Power Company’s 

BigStone I facility but did include 

anticipated emissions from two 

proposed coal-fired power plants—Big 

Stone II and NextGen. The Big Stone II 

facility will not be constructed and the 

NextGen facility is on hold indefinitely. 

However, South Dakota did not 

remodel with revised emissions 

estimates to demonstrate that the 

uniform rate of progress would be met 

for Badlands and Wind Cave. EPA 

therefore requested that South Dakota 

perform a four-factor analysis for three 

facilities, at a minimum: the Black Hills 

Ben French power plant, the GCC 

Dacotah cement plant, and the Pete Lien 

and Sons lime plant. South Dakota did 

perform a four-factor analysis for Black 

Hills Ben French and GCC Dacotah 

based on the WRAP’s report, 

Supplementary Information for FourFactor Analyses for Selected Individual 

Facilities in South Dakota, May 19, 

2009, authored by EC/R (hereinafter 

referred to as the EC/R Report). The EC/ 

R Report is included in Appendix F of 

the SIP. The EC/R report did not address 

the Pete Lien and Sons lime plant. 

During our review of South Dakota’s 

four-factor analysis, we analyzed actual 

emissions data from EPA’s 2002 

National Emissions Inventory database. 

We started with the emissions inventory 

totals for SO2 and NOX then divided the 

actual emissions (Q) in tons per year 

from the sources by their distance (D) in 

kilometers to the nearest Class I Federal 

area. A summary list of the largest 

sources we reviewed in our Q/D 

analysis is included below in Table 13. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76661 

19The relevant language in our BART Guidelines 

reads, ‘‘Based on our analyses, we believe that a 

state that has established 0.5 dv as a contribution 

threshold could reasonably exempt from the BART 

review process sources that emit less than 500 tons 

per year of NOX or SO2 (or combined NOX and SO2), 

as long as these sources are located more than 50 

kilometers from any Class I area; and sources that 

emit less than 1000 tons per year of NOX or SO2

(or combined NOX and SO2) that are located more 

than 100 kilometers from any Class I area.’’ (See 40 

CFR 51, appendix Y, section III, How to Identify 

Sources ‘‘Subject to BART.’’) The values described 

equate to a Q/D of 10. 

TABLE 13—EPA Q/D ANALYSIS FOR SOUTH DAKOTA SOURCES

Source 

SO2 + NOX

2000–2004 

average 

(tons) 

Distance 

to nearest 

Class I area 

(km) 

Q/D to closest 

Class I area 

(tons/km) 

Black Hills, Ben French Power Plant .............................................................................. 1,782 65 27.41

GCC Dacotah .................................................................................................................. 4,465 66 67.66 

John Morrell & Company ................................................................................................. 648 410 1.58 

Merillat Industries Inc. ...................................................................................................... 135 58 2.33 

Pete Lien and Sons, Inc. ................................................................................................. 276 59 4.68 

South Dakota did not undertake a 

reasonable progress analysis of John 

Morrell & Company or Merillat 

Industries, Inc. Given the low Q/D 

values associated with these two 

sources, we are proposing to find that 

South Dakota’s approach was 

reasonable. 

Although Pete Lien and Sons, Inc. 

also had a Q/D of less than 10, the State 

did consider whether controls should be 

required for reasonable progress. South 

Dakota opted, however, not to conduct 

a full four-factor analysis on Pete Lien 

and Sons but did a general review of the 

impacts of this facility. Pete Lien and 

Sons’ SO2 emissions are less than 1 ton/ 

year and so have a de minimus impact 

on visibility in any Class I area. For 

NOX, the State has determined that the 

plant is already required to use what is 

considered Best Available Control 

Technology (BACT), and thus no further 

controls are required. As further 

explanation, the 2002 NOX emissions 

for Pete Lien and Sons were 272 tons/ 

year. In May 2008, the company 

included a BACT analysis for NOX in a 

PSD application for a new preheatertype rotary lime kiln and ancillary 

equipment for this facility. The BACT 

analysis found non-selective catalytic 

reduction and selective catalytic 

reduction to be technically infeasible for 

several reasons including temperatures 

and the location of injection nozzles. 

South Dakota reviewed the application 

at the time and agreed with the 

conclusion that BACT for a lime rotary 

kiln was considered good combustion 

practices. South Dakota conducted a 

further review of EPA’s RACT/BACT/ 

LAER Clearinghouse to determine if any 

new rotary lime kilns had been 

permitted since Pete Lien and Sons’ 

PSD application had been submitted 

with more stringent post-combustion 

BACT controls. There were three 

entries. One occurred in each of the 

states of Texas, Ohio, and Wisconsin. 

The Texas source only involved carbon 

monoxide. In Ohio and Wisconsin, the 

permitting authorities had concluded in 

the BACT analyses for NOX that no 

control technologies were cost effective 

and that good combustion practices 

were considered BACT. The State 

concluded there were no new rotary 

lime kilns that had been required to 

install post-combustion NOX controls 

for BACT. As a result, the State 

concluded that such controls would not 

constitute BART. 

South Dakota also evaluated Pete Lien 

and Sons’ visibility impacts at Badlands 

and Wind Cave by conducting a 

CALPUFF modeling analysis. The 

modeling report is included in 

Appendix I of the SIP. A summary of 

the modeling results is provided below 

in Table 14. 

TABLE 14—SUMMARY OF BASELINE

VISIBILITY IMPACTS FROM REASONABLE PROGRESS SOURCE PETE LIEN

AND SONS

[98th Percentile, dv] 

Year Badlands Wind Cave 

2002 .......... 0.05 0.06 

2006 .......... 0.06 0.05 

2007 .......... 0.07 0.05 

We propose to approve South 

Dakota’s less detailed analysis for Pete 

Lien and conclusion that no controls are 

required. A Q/D value of 10 is generally 

viewed as a conservative threshold for 

identifying facilities that may have 

significant source-specific impacts. We 

consider a Q/D threshold of 10 to be 

reasonable for this planning period 

based on the FLM’s proposed FLAG 

Guidance amendments for initial 

screening criteria, as well as statements 

in EPA’s BART guidelines.19 For Pete 

Lien and Sons, the Q/D of 4.68 is well 

below this threshold; the baseline 

visibility impacts analysis by South 

Dakota in Table 14 confirms that Pete 

Lien and Sons does not have significant 

source-specific impacts. 

South Dakota undertook a more 

detailed analysis of the two sources that 

exceeded a Q/D of 10, Black Hills Ben 

French and GCC Dacotah. These sources 

are further described below in Table 15. 

TABLE 15—SOUTH DAKOTA SOURCES FOR REASONABLE PROGRESS FOUR-FACTOR ANALYSES

Source Unit Type Capacity 

SO2 actual 

average 

emissions 

2002 

(tons/yr) 

NOX actual 

average emissions 2002 

(tons/yr) 

Black Hills, Ben French 

Power Plant.

Unit 1 Boiler .................... EGU ................................ 25 MWe .......................... 785 907 

GCC Dacotah Wet Kiln 4 ....................... Cement Plant .................. 550 tons clinker/day ........ 26 707 

Wet Kiln 5 ....................... Cement Plant .................. 550 tons clinker/day ........ 431 388 

Wet Kiln 6 1 ..................... Cement Plant .................. 2,250 tons clinker/day ..... 885 2,267 

1South Dakota opted not to include Kiln 6 in its four-factor analysis as further described in the State’s conclusions in section III.D.3 below. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

76662 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Four-Factor Analysis 

The control options and costs that 

South Dakota considered were derived, 

in part, from the EC/R report. EPA also 

requested South Dakota consider SNCR 

at GCC Dacotah which was not included 

in the EC/R report. For the Black Hills 

Ben French and GCC Dacotah 

reasonable progress sources, SO2 and 

NOX are uncontrolled, although the 

Black Hills Ben French facility uses 

low-sulfur coal (0.33 wt%) to minimize 

formation of SO2 during combustion. 

Cost of Compliance 

Tables 16 and 17 show the cost of 

compliance for the control technologies 

evaluated for each of the reasonable 

progress sources. 

TABLE 16—CONTROL OPTION COSTS FOR REASONABLE PROGRESS SOURCE BLACK HILLS, BEN FRENCH POWER PLANT 1

Pollutant Control option 2002 Control efficiency Reductions 

Capital 

cost 

($1000) 

Annual 

cost 

($1000) 

Cost effectiveness 

range 

($/ton) 

(tons/yr) % % (tons/yr) (tons/yr) 

High end Low end 

NOX ................................. LNB ................................. 907 30 75 272 680 1,250 195 717 287 

LNB w/OFA ..................... 907 50 65 454 590 1,780 298 656 505 

SNCR .............................. 907 30 75 272 680 1,290 770 2,831 1,132 

SCR ................................ 907 40 90 363 816 3,000 754 2,077 924 

4,250 1,068 2,942 1,309 

SO2 .................................. Dry Sorbent Injection ...... 785 10 40 79 314 4,300 1,700 21,519 5,414 

Spray Dryer Absorber ..... 785 ................ 90 ................ 707 11,600 2,670 ................ 3,777 

Wet FGD ......................... 785 ................ 90 ................ 707 14,600 2,760 ................ 3,904 

1The cost analysis was based on a 30-year equipment life. Black Hills indicated the expected life of the Ben French power plant is 10 years. South Dakota conducted an additional analysis with a 10-year equipment life. The 10-year evaluation resulted in slightly higher average cost effectiveness values but did not change 

the outcome of the analysis. All controls are cost effective with the exception of the dry sorbent injection at the lowest end of the control efficiency range which would 

not reflect the true performance capability of the technology; we consider the high end of the range to be most appropriate. 

TABLE 17—CONTROL OPTION COSTS FOR REASONABLE PROGRESS SOURCE GCC DACOTAH, CEMENT PLANT 1

Pollutant Control option 2002 Control efficiency Reductions 

Capital 

cost 

($1000) 

Annual cost 

($1000) 

Cost effectiveness 

range 

($/ton) 

(tons/yr) % % (tons/yr) (tons/yr) 

High end Low end 

Wet Kiln 4 

NOX ............................... LNB (indirect) ................ 707 30 40 212 283 526 129 608 456 

LNB (direct) ................... 707 ................ 40 ................ 283 1,873 331 ................ 1,170 

Biosolids Injection ......... 707 ................ 23 ................ 163 ................ .................... 2 2

CemStar ........................ 707 20 60 141 424 1,599 299 2,121 705 

Mid-Kiln ......................... 707 20 50 141 354 2,748 ¥315 3 3

LoTOxTM ....................... 707 80 90 566 636 ................ .................... 2 2

SCR ............................... 707 ................ 80 ................ 566 14,813 4,137 ................ 7,309 

SNCR ............................ 707 30 40 212 283 ................ 878 3 4,142 3,102 

SO2 ................................ Wet FGD ....................... 26 90 99 23 26 9,133 1,370 59,565 52,692 

Wet Kiln 5 

NOX ............................... LNB (indirect) ................ 388 30 40 116 155 526 129 1,112 832 

LNB (direct) ................... 388 ................ 40 ................ 155 1,873 331 ................ 2,135 

Biosolids Injection ......... 388 ................ 23 ................ 89 ................ .................... 2 2

CemStar ........................ 388 20 60 78 233 1,599 299 3,833 1,283 

Mid-Kiln ......................... 388 20 50 78 194 2,748 ¥315 3 3

LoTOxTM ....................... 388 80 90 310 349 ................ .................... 2 2

SCR ............................... 388 30 40 116 155 ................ 878 3 7,569 5,665 

SNCR ............................ 388 ................ 80 ................ 310 14,813 4,137 ................ 13,345 

SO2 ................................ Wet FGD ....................... 431 90 99 388 427 9,133 1,370 3,531 3,208 

1South Dakota also did an analysis based on operating scenario with 50% fewer hours based on last five years of actual operations showing all costs would still be 

economical. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76663 

20The National Park Service commented that 

South Dakota’s reasonable progress analysis should 

also include Kiln #6 at GCC Dacotah as the National 

Park Service believes SNCR technology is a feasible 

control option for cement kilns. August 17, 2011 

letter from NPS, John Bunyak to DENR, Rick 

Boddicker. This letter is included in the docket. 

21Email from Rick Boddicker, DENR to Gail 

Fallon, EPA Region 8 (October 11, 2011). This email 

is included in the docket. 

2The EC/R report did not list a cost per ton because it did not identify any capital or annual costs. 

3South Dakota did not list a cost per ton because the annual cost was a negative number. 

Time Necessary for Compliance 

While the State did not provide 

specifics on the time necessary for 

compliance, the EC/R report upon 

which the State relied for other aspects 

of its four-factor analysis found that up 

to 6.5 years after SIP approval would be 

necessary to achieve compliance with 

some of the control options. The State 

did not identify the time necessary for 

compliance as a factor that would 

preclude selection of any of the 

analyzed control options. 

Energy and Non-Air Quality Impacts 

The State did not identify any energy 

or non-air quality impacts that would 

preclude selection of any of the 

analyzed control options. The EC/R 

report upon which the state relied for 

other aspects of its four-factor analysis 

describes the various potential energy 

and non-air quality impacts of various 

control technologies in general terms for 

consideration. 

Remaining Useful Life of the Source 

South Dakota found the remaining 

useful life would be at least 10 years for 

the Black Hills, Ben French Power Plant 

but also considered a 30 year life in its 

cost analysis. South Dakota used a 

remaining useful life of at least 30 years 

for the GCC Dacotah Cement Plant Kiln 

4 and Kiln 5 but generally questioned 

the accuracy of this based on much 

reduced operations over the past five 

years. 

Visibility Improvement 

In addition to evaluating the four 

statutory factors, South Dakota also 

considered the baseline visibility 

impacts for each RP source based on 

maximum 24-hour emission rates for 

meteorological years 2002, 2006, and 

2007 compared to natural background. 

The CALPUFF modeling results for 

Black Hills Ben French and GCC 

Dacotah are summarized in Tables 18 

and 19 below. The modeling reports are 

available in Appendices G and H of the 

SIP. 

TABLE 18—SUMMARY OF BASELINE

VISIBILITY IMPACTS FROM REASONABLE PROGRESS SOURCE BLACK

HILLS BEN FRENCH UNIT 1 BOILER

[98th Percentile, dv] 

Year Badlands Wind Cave 

2002 .......... 0.21 0.22 

2006 .......... 0.23 0.23 

2007 .......... 0.20 0.30 

TABLE 19—SUMMARY OF BASELINE

VISIBILITY IMPACTS FROM REASONABLE PROGRESS SOURCE GCC 

DACOTAH KILNS 4 AND 5 

[98th Percentile, dv] 

Year Badlands Wind Cave 

2002 .......... 0.32 0.36 

2006 .......... 0.32 0.36 

2007 .......... 0.31 0.46 

3. South Dakota’s Conclusions From the 

Four-Factor Analysis 

South Dakota declined to conduct a 

four-factor analysis for GCC Dacotah 

Kiln 6. In addressing a concern raised 

by the National Park Service 20 during 

the public comment period for the GCC 

Dacotah Cement Plant, South Dakota 

provided an explanation in an email to 

EPA regarding its decision not to 

include GCC Dacotah’s Kiln 6 in its 

four-factor analysis for the facility and 

specifically, not to impose SNCR 

controls on that unit. 21 As the State 

explained, GCC Dacotah submitted a 

PSD air quality application for an 

upgrade to Kiln 6 in November 2001. In 

issuing the PSD permit in 2003, South 

Dakota determined NOX BACT for Kiln 

6 was the installation of staged 

combustion with a thermal efficient inline low-NOX calciner complimented by 

a LNB with indirect firing in the kiln; 

South Dakota found that SNCR was not 

technically feasible for Kiln 6. GCC 

Dacotah installed the required NOX

BACT controls. South Dakota also 

determined SO2 BACT for Kiln 6 and 

imposed a corresponding emissions 

limit. 

Based on the baseline visibility 

impacts, the State concluded that 

visibility benefits from controls at Ben 

French and GCC Dacotah would be 

small. Given the small benefits, the 

State concluded that additional controls 

during this planning period would not 

be warranted to achieve reasonable 

progress. The State did not include a 

discussion of its four-factor analyses in 

explaining the basis for its conclusion 

that additional controls are unwarranted 

but instead based its determination on 

the modeling of baseline visibility 

impacts. 

4. Establishment of the Reasonable 

Progress Goals 

40 CFR 308(d)(1) of the Regional Haze 

Rule requires states to ‘‘establish goals 

(in deciviews) that provide for 

reasonable progress towards achieving 

natural visibility conditions’’ for each 

Class I area of the state. These 

reasonable progress goals are interim 

goals that must provide for incremental 

visibility improvement for the most 

impaired visibility days, and ensure no 

degradation for the least impaired 

visibility days. The reasonable progress 

goals for the first planning period are 

goals for the year 2018. 

Based on (1) The results of the WRAP 

CMAQ modeling; (2) the results of the 

four-factor analysis of major South 

Dakota sources; and (3) the emission 

controls on South Dakota BART sources, 

South Dakota established reasonable 

progress goals for the most impaired 

days for both of South Dakota’s Class I 

areas, as identified in Table 20 below. 

Also shown in Table 20 is a comparison 

of the reasonable progress goals to the 

uniform rate of progress for both Class 

I areas. The reasonable progress goals 

for the 20% worst days fall short of the 

uniform rate of progress by 1.28 and 

1.34 deciviews for Badlands and Wind 

Cave, respectively. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

76664 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 20—COMPARISON OF REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS TO UNIFORM RATE OF PROGRESS ON MOST IMPAIRED

DAYS FOR SOUTH DAKOTA CLASS I AREAS

South Dakota class I area 

Visibility conditions on 20% worst days 

(dv) 

Percentage of 

URP achieved 

Average for 

20% worst 

days 

(baseline 

2000–2004) 

2018 URP 

goal 

RPG 

(WRAP 

projection) 

Badlands National Park ................................................................................... 17.14 15.02 16.30 40 

Wind Cave National Park ................................................................................ 15.84 13.94 15.28 29 

South Dakota’s reasonable progress 

goals for Badlands for 2018 for the 20% 

worst days represent a 0.84 deciviews 

improvement over baseline and its 

reasonable progress goals for Wind Cave 

for 2018 represent a 0.56 deciviews 

improvement over baseline. South 

Dakota’s reasonable progress goals 

establish a slower rate of progress than 

the uniform rate of progress. South 

Dakota has calculated that under the 

rate of progress represented by its 

reasonable progress goals, South Dakota 

would attain natural visibility 

conditions in the year 2265 for Badlands 

and 2236 for Wind Cave, or 201 and 172 

years, respectively, beyond 2064. 

Table 21 provides a comparison of 

South Dakota’s reasonable progress 

goals to baseline conditions on the least 

impaired days. This comparison 

demonstrates that South Dakota’s 

reasonable progress goals will result in 

no degradation in visibility conditions 

in the first planning period; instead, for 

the 20% best days, there would be a 

slight improvement in visibility from 

the baseline for both Class I areas. 

TABLE 21—COMPARISON OF REASONABLE PROGRESS GOALS TO BASELINE CONDITIONS ON LEAST IMPAIRED DAYS FOR

SOUTH DAKOTA CLASS I AREAS

South Dakota 

class I area 

Visibility conditions on 20% best 

days (dv) 

Achieved ‘‘no 

degradation’’ 

(Y/N) 

Average for 

20% best days 

(Baseline 

2000–2004) 

RPG 

(WRAP 

projection) 

Badlands National Park ............................................................................................................... 6.89 6.64 Y 

Wind Cave National Park ............................................................................................................ 5.14 5.02 Y 

South Dakota believes the reasonable 

progress goals it established for the 

South Dakota Class I areas are 

reasonable, and that it is not reasonable 

to achieve the glide path in 2018, based 

on the State’s findings from the fourfactor analysis combined with its 

visibility analyses that indicate the 

benefit would be small. 

5. Reasonable Progress Consultation 

In accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(3)(i) and (ii), each state that 

causes or contributes to impairment in 

a Class I area in another state or states 

is required to consult with other states 

and demonstrate that it has included in 

its SIP all measures necessary to obtain 

its share of the emission reductions 

needed to meet the progress goals for 

the Class I area. If the state has 

participated in a regional planning 

process, the state must ensure it has 

included all measures needed to achieve 

its apportionment of emission reduction 

obligations agreed upon through that 

process. 

South Dakota consulted directly with 

neighboring states through the WRAP, 

and relied on the technical tools, policy 

documents, and other products that all 

western states used to develop their 

regional haze plans. Discussions with 

neighboring states included review of 

major contributing sources of air 

pollution, as documented in numerous 

WRAP reports and projects. The focus of 

this review process was interstate 

transport of emissions, major sources 

believed to be contributing, and whether 

any mitigation measures were needed. 

All the states relied upon similar 

emission inventories, results from 

source apportionment studies and 

BART modeling, review of IMPROVE 

monitoring data, existing state smoke 

management programs, and other 

information in assessing the extent to 

which each state contributes to visibility 

impairment other states’ Class I areas. 

The WRAP Implementation Work 

Group was one of the primary 

collaboration mechanisms. South 

Dakota participated in WRAP and 

worked with other states that are not 

members of WRAP (including 

Minnesota and Nebraska) in developing 

its SIP. Otter Tail Power Company’s Big 

Stone I facility is the only source in 

South Dakota that is reasonably 

anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment with visibility impacts 

greater than 0.5 deciviews at a Class I 

area. This facility is predicted to 

contribute to visibility impairment at 

the Badlands National Park in South 

Dakota; Theodore Roosevelt National 

Park in North Dakota; Boundary Waters 

Canoe Area Wilderness and Voyageurs 

National Park in northern Minnesota 

and the Isle Royale National Park in 

Michigan. Otter Tail Power Company 

developed a case-by-case BART analysis 

that South Dakota reviewed to establish 

the BART emission limits for Big Stone 

I. The case-by-case BART analysis and 

South Dakota’s review were submitted 

to the appropriate states for their 

comments. South Dakota established 

BART procedures in the Administrative 

Rules of South Dakota that are 

equivalent to Federal regulation in 40 

CFR part 51 and adopted the BART 

emission limits and monitoring 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements applicable to BARTeligible coal fired power plants (which 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76665 

includes Big Stone I) in the rule. The 

requirements will eventually be adopted 

in Otter Tail Power Company’s Title V 

air quality operating permit for the Big 

Stone I facility. South Dakota believes 

the BART requirements represent South 

Dakota’s fair share of emission 

reductions for Class I areas impacted by 

emissions from South Dakota sources 

and other states provided no adverse 

comments. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) of the Regional 

Haze Rule requires a state to 

demonstrate that its regional haze plan 

includes all measures necessary to 

obtain its fair share of emission 

reductions needed to meet reasonable 

progress goals. Based on the 

consultation described above, South 

Dakota identified no major 

contributions that supported developing 

new interstate strategies, mitigation 

measures, or emission reduction 

obligations. Both South Dakota and 

neighboring states agreed that the 

implementation of BART and other 

existing measures in state regional haze 

plans were sufficient for the states to 

meet the reasonable progress goals for 

their Class I areas, and that future 

consultation would address any new 

strategies or measures needed. 

6. Our Conclusion on South Dakota’s 

Reasonable Progress Goals 

We are proposing to approve South 

Dakota’s conclusion that it is not 

reasonable to meet the uniform rate of 

progress for Badlands and Wind Cave by 

2018. Where a state has established a 

reasonable progress goal that provides 

for a slower rate of improvement in 

visibility than the rate that would be 

needed to attain natural conditions by 

2064, the state must demonstrate, based 

on the four statutory factors that the rate 

of progress for the implementation plan 

to attain natural conditions by 2064 is 

not reasonable and that the progress 

goal adopted by the State is reasonable. 

While South Dakota undertook a fourfactor analyses which it described in its 

SIP, the State made the determination 

not to impose additional controls for 

reasonable progress at the facilities in 

South Dakota most likely to have the 

largest source-specific impacts. The 

State based that determination on the 

modeled baseline visibility impacts for 

the facilities. 

EPA proposes to approve the State’s 

determination that it is not reasonable to 

achieve the uniform rates of progress at 

Badlands and Wind Cave and that the 

reasonable progress goals adopted by 

the State are reasonable based on 

consideration of the following: 

a. Findings from the four-factor 

analysis along with the State’s baseline 

visibility analyses indicate likely 

visibility benefits from the most costeffective controls would be small. 

b. Sources outside South Dakota— 

including other states and Canada— 

contribute most of the visibility 

impairing pollutants at Class I areas in 

South Dakota, with South Dakota’s 

emissions ranging from 2 to 18 percent 

of the total emissions for each type of 

pollutant. 

c. On the 20 percent most impaired 

days, sulfate and organic carbon are the 

two greatest contributors to visibility 

impairment at both Class I areas. The 

four-factor analyses performed by the 

State show the costs for controlling SO2

at these facilities is excessive, given the 

minimal visibility benefits from such 

controls. Much of the organic carbon 

emissions are from natural fires that 

cannot be controlled. 

d. Although, as noted in Table 20 

above, the reasonable progress goals for 

Badlands and Wind Cave fall short of 

the uniform rate of progress, these goals 

are based on the WRAP CMAQ 

modeling and the WRAP 2018 

projections. As South Dakota discussed 

in the SIP, the WRAP 2018 projections 

overestimated emissions of visibilityimpairing pollutants from sources in 

South Dakota. It is therefore likely that 

the actual rate of progress will be closer 

to the uniform rate of progress. 

We also agree with South Dakota’s 

conclusion that it appropriately 

consulted with other states for this 

planning period. We also agree with 

South Dakota’s determination that it 

needed no further controls beyond those 

already contained in the SIP to address 

impacts on Class I areas in other states. 

Finally, we are proposing to approve 

South Dakota’s conclusion that no 

additional controls on non-BART 

sources are needed at this time. We 

expect South Dakota to evaluate 

additional controls for the sources 

below and other sources during the next 

regional haze planning period. 

Below we discuss each reasonable 

progress source and EPA’s conclusions 

regarding the State’s reasonable progress 

determination. 

Black Hills, Ben French Unit 1 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

State’s conclusion that no additional 

SO2 controls are warranted for this unit 

for this planning period. The cost 

effectiveness values range from $3,777 

for a spray dryer absorber to $21,519 per 

ton for the least efficient dry sorbent 

injection option. Based on the cost 

effectiveness values and the minimal 

visibility benefits from controlling this 

unit, we find that South Dakota 

reasonably rejected additional SO2

controls during this planning period. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

State’s conclusion that no additional 

NOX controls are warranted for this unit 

for this planning period. The cost 

effectiveness values range from $287 for 

LNB to $2,942 per ton for SCR. Some of 

these costs are reasonable. However, 

South Dakota also considered the 

visibility impacts—it modeled visibility 

impacts of 0.23 deciviews at Badlands 

and 0.30 deciviews at Wind Cave from 

all emissions from the source—and any 

visibility improvement that would 

result from additional NOX controls 

alone would be significantly less than 

these values. When the costs are 

weighed against visibility improvement, 

South Dakota’s determination that 

additional controls of NOX are not 

warranted in this planning period is 

reasonable, and we are proposing to 

approve it. 

GCC Dacotah Kilns 4, 5, and 6 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

State’s conclusion that no additional 

SO2 controls are warranted for Kilns 4 

and 5 for this planning period. The cost 

effectiveness values for a new wet FGD 

system range from $52,692 to $59,565 

per ton on Kiln 4 and from $3,208 to 

$3,531 per ton on Kiln 5. Based on the 

cost effectiveness values and South 

Dakota’s modeling of baseline visibility 

impacts from Kilns 4 and 5, we find that 

South Dakota reasonably rejected 

additional SO2 controls during this 

planning period. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 

State’s conclusion that no additional 

NOX controls for Kilns 4 and 5 are 

reasonable for this planning period. For 

Kiln 4, the cost effectiveness values 

range from $456 per ton for LNB to 

$7,309 per ton for SCR. For Kiln 5 the 

cost effectiveness values range from 

$832 per ton for LNB to $13,345 per ton 

for SCR. Some of these costs are 

reasonable. However, South Dakota 

modeled the baseline visibility impacts 

from Kilns 4 and 5 combined—0.32 

deciviews at Badlands and 0.46 at Wind 

Cave—and any visibility benefits that 

would result from additional NOX

controls alone would be significantly 

less than these values. We therefore 

propose to find that South Dakota 

reasonably rejected additional NOX

controls during this planning period. 

EPA is also proposing to approve the 

State’s determination that no additional 

NOX or SO2 controls are required on 

Kiln 6. During this planning period, it 

is reasonable for the State to rely on the 

relatively recent NOX and SO2 BACT 

determinations in the 2003 PSD permit 

for Kiln 6. However, during the next 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

76666 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

22These inventories, in addition to being 

available in Section 5 of the SIP, are also available 

at http://vista.cira.colostate.edu/TSS/Results/ 

HazePlanning.aspx. 

planning period, the State should 

reconsider these determinations. 

E. LTS 

As described in section II.E of this 

action, the LTS is a compilation of statespecific control measures relied on by 

the state for achieving its reasonable 

progress goals. The LTS must include 

‘‘enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures as necessary to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals’’ for all Class 

I areas within, or affected by emissions 

from, the state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

South Dakota’s LTS for the first 

implementation period addresses the 

emissions reductions from Federal, state 

and local controls that take effect in the 

state from the end of the baseline period 

starting in 2004 until 2018. The South 

Dakota LTS was developed by South 

Dakota, in coordination with the WRAP, 

through an evaluation of the following 

components: (1) WRAP emission 

inventories for a 2002 baseline and a 

2018 projection (including reductions 

from WRAP member state controls 

required or expected under Federal and 

state regulations (including BART)); (2) 

modeling to determine visibility 

improvement and apportion individual 

state contributions; (3) state 

consultation; and (4) application of the 

LTS factors. The State’s detailed LTS is 

included in Section 8 of the Regional 

Haze SIP. 

1. Emissions Inventories 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iii) requires that 

South Dakota document the technical 

basis, including modeling, monitoring, 

and emissions information, on which it 

relied to determine its apportionment of 

emission reduction obligations 

necessary for achieving reasonable 

progress in each mandatory Class I 

Federal area it affects. South Dakota 

must identify the baseline emissions 

inventory on which its strategies are 

based. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(iv) requires 

that South Dakota identify all 

anthropogenic (human-caused) sources 

of visibility impairment it considered in 

developing its LTS. This includes major 

and minor stationary sources, mobile 

sources, and area sources. In its efforts 

to meet these requirements, South 

Dakota relied on technical analyses 

developed by WRAP and approved by 

all state participants, as described 

below. 

Emissions within South Dakota are 

both naturally occurring and man-made. 

Two primary sources of naturally 

occurring emissions include wildfires 

and windblown dust. In South Dakota, 

the primary sources of anthropogenic 

emissions include electric utility steam 

generating units, energy production and 

processing sources, agricultural 

production and processing sources, 

prescribed burning, and fugitive dust 

sources. The South Dakota inventory 

includes emissions of SO2, NOX, PM2.5, 

PM10, primary organic aerosol, 

elemental carbon, VOCs, NH3, and CO. 

See Section 5 of the SIP. 

An emissions inventory for each 

pollutant was developed by WRAP for 

South Dakota for the baseline year 2002 

and for 2018, which is the first 

reasonable progress milestone.22 The 

2018 emissions inventory was 

developed by projecting 2002 emissions 

and applying reductions expected from 

Federal and state regulations. The 

emission inventories developed by 

WRAP were calculated using approved 

EPA methods. 

There are 10 different emission 

inventory source categories identified in 

the South Dakota regional haze Plan: 

point, area, oil and gas, on-road, offroad, all fire, biogenic, road dust, 

fugitive dust and windblown dust. 

Tables 22 through 30 show the 2002 

baseline emissions, the 2018 projected 

emissions, and net changes of emissions 

for SO2, NOX, primary organic aerosol, 

elemental carbon, PM2.5, PM10, NH3, 

VOC and carbon monoxide (CO) by 

source category in South Dakota. The 

methods that WRAP used to develop 

these emission inventories are described 

in more detail in Section 5 of the SIP 

and in the EPA WRAP Technical 

Support Document (TSD). 

TABLE 22—SOUTH DAKOTA SO2 EMISSION INVENTORY—2002 AND 2018 1

South Dakota Statewide SO2 Emissions 

[Tons/year] 

Source category Baseline 2002 Future 2018 Net change Percent change 

Point ................................................................................................. 14,037 11,996 ¥2,041 ¥15 

Big Stone I 2 ..................................................................................... 11,171 3,425 ¥7,746 ¥69 

All Fire .............................................................................................. 469 465 ¥4 ¥1 

Biogenic ........................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Area ................................................................................................. 1,198 1,789 591 49 

Oil and Gas ...................................................................................... 6 0 ¥6 ¥100 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................................... 922 129 ¥793 ¥86 

Off-Road Mobile ............................................................................... 6,066 199 ¥5,867 ¥97 

Road Dust ........................................................................................ 4 5 1 25 

Fugitive Dust .................................................................................... 24 26 2 8 

Wind Blown Dust ............................................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................................................................................... 22,726 14,609 ¥8,117 ¥36 

1SO2 emissions shown include both gas and particulate. 2Otter Tail Power Company’s Big Stone I emissions are included in the ‘‘Point’’ emissions but separated for comparison. 

In 2018, South Dakota’s sulfate 

contribution switched mainly to point 

and area sources, and like other states 

and regions in the United States, mobile 

source contributions are minimal due to 

new changes in Federal emission 

standards from mobile sources. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76667 

TABLE 23—SOUTH DAKOTA NOX EMISSION INVENTORY—2002 AND 2018 1

South Dakota Statewide NOX Emissions 

[Tons/year] 

Source category Baseline 

2002 

Future 

2018 

Net 

change 

Percent 

change 

Point ................................................................................................. 20,699 30,186 9,487 46 

Big Stone I 2 ..................................................................................... 14,552 15,323 771 5 

All Fire .............................................................................................. 1,713 1,694 ¥19 ¥1 

Biogenic ........................................................................................... 52,852 52,852 0 0 

Area ................................................................................................. 2,903 3,309 406 14 

Oil and Gas ...................................................................................... 361 557 196 54 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................................... 29,224 8,059 ¥21,165 ¥72 

Off-Road Mobile ............................................................................... 39,039 23,785 ¥15,254 ¥39 

Road Dust ........................................................................................ 5 6 1 20 

Fugitive Dust .................................................................................... 27 27 0 0 

Wind Blown Dust ............................................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................................................................................... 146,823 120,475 ¥26,348 ¥18 

1 NOX emissions shown include both gas and particulate. 2Otter Tail Power Company’s Big Stone I emissions are included in the ‘‘Point’’ emissions row but separated for comparison. 

TABLE 24—SOUTH DAKOTA PRIMARY ORGANIC AEROSOL EMISSION INVENTORY—2002 AND 2018 

South Dakota Statewide Primary Organic Aerosol Emissions 

[Tons/year] 

Source category Baseline 

2002 

Future 

2018 

Net 

change 

Percent 

change 

Point ................................................................................................. 10 8 ¥2 ¥20 

Big Stone I 1 ..................................................................................... 0 0 0 ............................

All Fire .............................................................................................. 4,574 4,531 ¥43 ¥1 

Biogenic ........................................................................................... 0 0 0 ............................

Area ................................................................................................. 1,792 1,769 ¥23 ¥1 

Oil and Gas ...................................................................................... 0 0 0 ............................

On-Road Mobile ............................................................................... 278 270 ¥8 ¥3 

Off-Road Mobile ............................................................................... 942 386 ¥556 ¥59 

Road Dust ........................................................................................ 255 325 70 27 

Fugitive Dust .................................................................................... 1,317 1,322 5 0 

Wind Blown Dust ............................................................................. 0 0 0 ............................

Total .......................................................................................... 9,168 8,611 ¥557 ¥6 

1Otter Tail Power Company’s Big Stone I emissions are included in the ‘‘Point’’ emissions but separated for comparison. 

TABLE 25—SOUTH DAKOTA ELEMENTAL CARBON EMISSION INVENTORY—2002 AND 2018 

South Dakota Statewide Elemental Carbon Emissions 

[Tons/year] 

Source category Baseline 

2002 

Future 

2018 

Net 

change 

Percent 

change 

Point ................................................................................................. 0 0 0 0 

All Fire .............................................................................................. 717 715 ¥2 0 

Biogenic ........................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Area ................................................................................................. 306 314 8 0 

Area Oil and Gas ............................................................................. 0 0 0 0 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................................... 339 86 ¥253 ¥75 

Off-Road Mobile ............................................................................... 3,234 1,072 ¥2,162 ¥67 

Road Dust ........................................................................................ 18 23 5 28 

Fugitive Dust .................................................................................... 89 90 1 1 

Wind Blown Dust ............................................................................. 0 89 89 * 

Total .......................................................................................... 4,703 2,389 ¥2,314 ¥49 

* Greater than 100. 

As detailed in Tables 26 and 27, the 

primary sources of PM (both PM2.5 and 

PM10) are road, fugitive and windblown 

dust (agriculture, construction, and 

unpaved and paved roads). 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

76668 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 26—SOUTH DAKOTA PM2.5 EMISSION INVENTORY—2002 AND 2018 

South Dakota Statewide PM2.5 Emissions 

[Tons/year] 

Source category Baseline 

2002 

Future 

2018 

Net 

change 

Percent 

change 

Point ................................................................................................. 216 205 ¥11 ¥5 

Big Stone I 1 ..................................................................................... 209 0 ¥209 ¥100 

All Fire .............................................................................................. 839 821 ¥18 ¥2 

Biogenic ........................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Area ................................................................................................. 1,804 1,920 116 6 

Area Oil and Gas ............................................................................. 0 0 0 0 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Off-Road Mobile ............................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Road Dust ........................................................................................ 4,061 5,190 1,129 28 

Fugitive Dust .................................................................................... 25,220 25,840 620 2 

Wind Blown Dust ............................................................................. 50,274 50,274 0 0 

Total .......................................................................................... 82,414 84,250 ¥11 ¥5 

1Otter Tail Power Company’s Big Stone I emissions are included in the ‘‘Point’’ emissions but separated for comparison. 

TABLE 27—SOUTH DAKOTA PM10 EMISSION INVENTORY—2002 AND 2018 

South Dakota Statewide PM10 Emissions 

[Tons/year] 

Source category Baseline 

2002 

Future 

2018 

Net 

change 

Percent 

change 

Point ................................................................................................. 727 9,847 9,120 * 

Big Stone I 1 ..................................................................................... 209 318 109 52 

All Fire .............................................................................................. 754 751 ¥3 0 

Biogenic ........................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Area ................................................................................................. 156 190 34 22 

Area Oil and Gas ............................................................................. 0 0 0 0 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................................... 169 188 19 0 

Off-Road Mobile ............................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Road Dust ........................................................................................ 38,164 48,773 10,609 28 

Fugitive Dust .................................................................................... 122,914 129,009 6,095 5 

Wind Blown Dust ............................................................................. 452,470 452,470 0 0 

Total .......................................................................................... 615,354 641,228 25,874 4 

1Otter Tail Power Company’s Big Stone I emissions are included in the ‘‘Point’’ emissions but separated for comparison. 

* Greater than 100. 

TABLE 28—SOUTH DAKOTA NH3 EMISSION INVENTORY—2002 AND 2018 

South Dakota Statewide NH3 Emissions 

[Tons/year] 

Source category Baseline 

2002 

Future 

2018 

Net 

change 

Percent 

change 

Point ................................................................................................. 100 102 2 2 

Big Stone I 1 ..................................................................................... 29 0 ¥29 ¥100 

All Fire .............................................................................................. 562 553 ¥9 ¥2 

Biogenic ........................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Area ................................................................................................. 118,877 118,992 115 0 

Area Oil and Gas ............................................................................. 0 0 0 0 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................................... 842 1,075 233 0 

Off-Road Mobile ............................................................................... 25 36 11 0 

Road Dust ........................................................................................ 0 0 0 0 

Fugitive Dust .................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Wind Blown Dust ............................................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................................................................................... 120,406 120,758 352 0 

1Otter Tail Power Company’s Big Stone I emissions are included in the ‘‘Point’’ emissions but separated for comparison. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76669 

TABLE 29—SOUTH DAKOTA VOC EMISSION INVENTORY—2002 AND 2018 

South Dakota Statewide VOC Emissions 

[Tons/year] 

Source category Baseline 

2002 

Future 

2018 

Net 

change 

Percent 

change 

Point ................................................................................................. 2,542 4,510 1,968 77 

Big Stone I 1 ..................................................................................... 107 112 5 5 

All Fire .............................................................................................. 3,853 3,808 ¥45 ¥1 

Biogenic ........................................................................................... 445,241 445,241 0 0 

Area ................................................................................................. 40,511 49,659 9,148 23 

Area Oil and Gas ............................................................................. 33,721 562 ¥33,159 0 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................................... 13,741 5,101 ¥8,640 0 

Off-Road Mobile ............................................................................... 12,764 7,686 ¥5,078 0 

Road Dust ........................................................................................ 0 0 0 0 

Fugitive Dust .................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Wind Blown Dust ............................................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................................................................................... 552,373 516,567 ¥35,806 ¥6 

1Otter Tail Power Company’s Big Stone I emissions are included in the ‘‘Point’’ emissions but separated for comparison. 

TABLE 30—SOUTH DAKOTA CO EMISSION INVENTORY—2002 AND 2018 

South Dakota Statewide CO Emissions 

[Tons/year] 

Source category Baseline 

2002 

Future 

2018 

Net 

change 

Percent 

change 

Point ................................................................................................. 4,700 16,632 11,932 * 

Big Stone I 1 ..................................................................................... 490 509 19 4 

All Fire .............................................................................................. 64,326 63,843 ¥483 ¥1 

Biogenic ........................................................................................... 103,402 103,402 0 0 

Area ................................................................................................. 23,029 23,773 744 3 

Area Oil and Gas ............................................................................. 11 16 5 0 

On-Road Mobile ............................................................................... 221,726 120,041 ¥101,685 0 

Off-Road Mobile ............................................................................... 92,508 95,276 2,768 0 

Road Dust ........................................................................................ 0 0 0 0 

Fugitive Dust .................................................................................... 0 0 0 0 

Wind Blown Dust ............................................................................. 0 0 0 0 

Total .......................................................................................... 509,702 422,983 ¥86,719 ¥17 

1Otter Tail Power Company’s Big Stone I emissions are included in the ‘‘Point’’ emissions but separated for comparison. 

* Greater than 100. 

2. Sources of Visibility Impairment in 

South Dakota Class I Areas 

In order to determine the significant 

sources contributing to haze in South 

Dakota’s Class I areas, South Dakota 

relied upon two source apportionment 

analysis techniques developed by the 

WRAP. The first technique was regional 

modeling using the Comprehensive Air 

Quality Model (CAMx) and the PM 

Source Apportionment Technology 

(PSAT) tool, used for the attribution of 

sulfate and nitrate sources only. The 

second technique was the Weighted 

Emissions Potential (WEP) tool, used for 

attribution of sources of organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, PM2.5 and PM10. The 

WEP tool is based on emissions and 

residence time, not modeling. 

PSAT uses the CAMx air quality 

model to show nitrate-sulfate-ammonia 

chemistry and apply this chemistry to a 

system of tracers or ‘‘tags’’ to track the 

chemical transformations, transport, and 

removal of NOX and SO2. These two 

pollutants are important because they 

tend to originate from anthropogenic 

sources. Therefore, the results from this 

analysis can be useful in determining 

contributing sources that may be 

controllable, both in-state and in 

neighboring states. 

WEP is a screening tool that helps to 

identify source regions that have the 

potential to contribute to haze formation 

at specific Class I areas. Unlike PSAT, 

this method does not account for 

chemistry or deposition. The WEP 

combines emissions inventories, wind 

patterns and residence times of air 

masses over each area where emissions 

occur, to estimate the percent 

contribution of different pollutants. Like 

PSAT, the WEP tool compares baseline 

values (2000–2004) to 2018 values, to 

show the improvement expected by 

2018, for sulfate, nitrate, organic carbon, 

elemental carbon, PM2.5 and PM10. More 

information on the WRAP modeling 

methodologies is available in the EPA 

WRAP TSD. 

The PSAT and WEP results for South 

Dakota are provided in Sections 4 and 

5 of the SIP. See the EPA WRAP TSD 

for details on how the 2018 emissions 

inventory was constructed. WRAP and 

South Dakota used this inventory and 

other states’ 2018 emission inventories 

to construct visibility projection 

modeling for 2018. 

3. Visibility Projection Modeling 

The Regional Modeling Center (RMC) 

at the University of California Riverside, 

under the oversight of the WRAP 

Modeling Forum, performed modeling 

for the regional haze LTS for the WRAP 

member states, including South Dakota. 

The modeling analysis is a complex 

technical evaluation that began with 

selection of the modeling system. The 

RMC primarily used the CMAQ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

76670 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

23 Guidance on the Use of Models and Other 

Analyses for Demonstrating Attainment of Air 

Quality Goals for Ozone, PM2.5, and Regional Haze, 

(EPA–454/B–07–002), April 2007, located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/scram001/guidance/guide/final-03- 

p.m.-rh-guidance.pdf Emissions Inventory 

Guidance for Implementation of Ozone and 

Particulate Matter National Ambient Air Quality 

Standards (NAAQS) and Regional Haze 

Regulations, August 2005, updated November 2005 

(‘‘our Modeling Guidance’’), located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/eidocs/eiguid/index.html, 

EPA–454/R–05–001. 

photochemical grid model to estimate 

2018 visibility conditions in South 

Dakota and all western Class I areas, 

based on application of the regional 

haze strategies in the various state 

plans, including assumed controls on 

BART sources. 

The RMC developed air quality 

modeling inputs, including annual 

meteorology and emissions inventories 

for: (1) A 2002 actual emissions base 

case; (2) a planning case to represent the 

2000–2004 regional haze baseline 

period using averages for key emissions 

categories; and (3) a 2018 base case of 

projected emissions determined using 

factors known at the end of 2005. All 

emission inventories were spatially and 

temporally allocated using the SMOKE 

modeling system. Each of these 

inventories underwent a number of 

revisions throughout the development 

process to arrive at the final versions 

used in CMAQ modeling. The WRAP 

states’ modeling was developed in 

accordance with our guidance.23 A more 

detailed description of the CMAQ 

modeling performed for the WRAP can 

be found in Section 5 of the SIP and in 

the EPA WRAP TSD. 

The photochemical modeling of 

regional haze for the WRAP states for 

2002 and 2018 was conducted on the 

36-km resolution national regional 

planning organization domain that 

covered the continental United States, 

portions of Canada and Mexico, and 

portions of the Atlantic and Pacific 

Oceans along the east and west coasts. 

The RMC examined the model 

performance of the regional modeling 

for the areas of interest before 

determining whether the CMAQ model 

results were suitable for use in the 

regional haze assessment of the LTS and 

for use in the modeling assessment. The 

2002 modeling efforts were used to 

evaluate air quality/visibility modeling 

for a historical episode—in this case, for 

calendar year 2002—to demonstrate the 

suitability of the modeling systems for 

subsequent planning, sensitivity and 

emissions control strategy modeling. 

Model performance evaluation 

compares output from model 

simulations with ambient air quality 

data for the same time period to 

determine whether model performance 

is sufficiently accurate to justify using 

the model to simulate future conditions. 

Once the RMC determined that model 

performance was acceptable, it used the 

model to determine the 2018 reasonable 

progress goals using the current and 

future year air quality modeling 

predictions, and compared the 

reasonable progress goals to the uniform 

rate of progress. 

4. Consultation and Emissions 

Reductions for Other States’ Class I 

Areas 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) requires that 

South Dakota consult with another state 

if its emissions are reasonably 

anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment in that state’s Class I area(s), 

and that South Dakota consult with 

other states if those other states’ 

emissions are reasonably anticipated to 

contribute to visibility impairment at 

Badlands or Wind Cave. South Dakota’s 

consultations with other states are 

described in section III.D.5 above. After 

evaluating whether emissions from 

South Dakota sources contribute to 

visibility impairment in other states’ 

Class I areas, South Dakota concluded 

that Otter Tail Power Company’s Big 

Stone I facility was the only source in 

South Dakota that is reasonably 

anticipated to contribute to visibility 

impairment of a Class I are in another 

state. South Dakota’s evaluation relied 

upon NOX and SO2 BART and 

reasonable progress reductions as 

described in the SIP. South Dakota did 

consult with other states and tribes, 

largely through the WRAP process, in 

order to meet the regulatory 

requirements. South Dakota also worked 

with states that are not members of 

WRAP including Minnesota and 

Nebraska. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii) requires that if 

South Dakota emissions cause or 

contribute to impairment in another 

state’s Class I area, South Dakota must 

demonstrate that it has included in its 

Regional Haze SIP all measures 

necessary to obtain its share of the 

emission reductions needed to meet the 

progress goal for that Class I area. 

Section 51.308(d)(3)(ii) also requires 

that, since South Dakota participated in 

a regional planning process, it must 

ensure it has included all measures 

needed to achieve its apportionment of 

emission reduction obligations agreed 

upon through that process. As we state 

in the Regional Haze Rule, South 

Dakota’s commitments to participate in 

WRAP bind it to secure emission 

reductions agreed to as a result of that 

process, unless it proposes a separate 

process and performs its consultations 

on the basis of that process. See 64 FR 

35735. 

South Dakota accepted and 

incorporated the WRAP-developed 

visibility modeling into its Regional 

Haze SIP, and the Regional Haze SIP 

includes the controls assumed in the 

modeling. South Dakota satisfied the 

Regional Haze Rule’s requirements for 

consultation and included controls in 

the SIP sufficient to address the relevant 

requirements of the Regional Haze Rule 

related to impacts on Class I areas in 

other states. 

5. Mandatory LTS Factors 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v) requires that 

South Dakota, at a minimum, consider 

certain factors in developing its LTS. 

The LTS factors are: (a) Emission 

reductions due to ongoing air pollution 

control programs, including measures to 

address RAVI; (b) measures to mitigate 

the impacts of construction activities; 

(c) emissions limitations and schedules 

for compliance to achieve the 

reasonable progress goals; (d) source 

retirement and replacement schedules; 

(e) smoke management techniques for 

agricultural and forestry management 

purposes including plans as currently 

exist within the state for these purposes; 

(f) enforceability of emissions 

limitations and control measures; and 

(g) the anticipated net effect on visibility 

due to projected changes in point, area 

and mobile source emissions over the 

period addressed by the LTS. 

a. Reductions Due to Ongoing Air 

Pollution Programs 

In addition to its BART 

determinations, South Dakota’s LTS 

incorporates emission reductions due to 

a number of ongoing air pollution 

control programs. 

i. PSD/New Source Review Rules 

The two primary regulatory tools for 

addressing visibility impairment from 

industrial sources are BART and the 

PSD New Source Review rules. The PSD 

rules protect visibility in Class I areas 

from new industrial sources and major 

changes to existing sources. South 

Dakota’s Air Pollution Control Rules 

(ARSD Chapter 74:36) contain 

requirements for visibility impact 

assessment and mitigation associated 

with emissions from new and modified 

major stationary sources. A primary 

responsibility of South Dakota under 

these rules is visibility protection. 

Chapter 74:36:09 and 74:36:10 describes 

mechanisms for visibility impact 

assessment and review by South Dakota, 

as well as impact modeling methods 

and requirements. Typically, this 

modeling is conducted for sources 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76671 

within 300 kilometers of a Class I area. 

South Dakota will not issue an air 

quality permit to any new major source 

or major modification within this 

distance that is found through modeling 

to cause significant visibility 

impairment, unless the impact is 

mitigated. 

ii. South Dakota’s Phase I Visibility 

Protection Program 

EPA implemented a RAVI protection 

program in 1987 with a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP) for South 

Dakota to meet the general visibility 

plan requirements and long-term 

strategies of 40 CFR 51.302 and 51.306, 

respectively. The existing Federal RAVI 

program is compatible with the regional 

haze program and no revisions are 

needed at this time. South Dakota 

indicated in the SIP that it will 

coordinate with EPA to conduct joint 

periodic reviews and revisions of the 

long-term RAVI strategy as required by 

40 CFR 51.306(c). South Dakota noted in 

its Regional Haze Plan that it may 

consider incorporation of the RAVI 

program into South Dakota’s SIP in the 

future. See Section 8.5.1 of the SIP. 

iii. On-Going Implementation of State 

and Federal Mobile Source Regulations 

Mobile source annual emissions show 

a major decrease in NOX in South 

Dakota from 2002 to 2018. See Table 23 

above. This reduction will result from 

numerous ‘‘on the books’’ Federal 

mobile source regulations. This trend is 

expected to provide significant visibility 

benefits. Beginning in 2006, EPA 

mandated new standards for on-road 

(highway) diesel fuel, known as ultralow sulfur diesel. This regulation 

dropped the sulfur content of diesel fuel 

from 500 parts per million (ppm) to 15 

ppm. Ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel 

enables the use of cleaner technology 

diesel engines and vehicles with 

advanced emissions control devices, 

resulting in significantly lower 

emissions. 

Diesel fuel intended for locomotive, 

marine, and non-road (farming and 

construction) engines and equipment 

was required to meet a low sulfur diesel 

fuel maximum specification of 500 ppm 

sulfur in 2007 (down from 5000 ppm). 

By 2010, the ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel 

standard of 15 ppm sulfur applied to all 

non-road diesel fuel. Locomotive and 

marine diesel fuel will be required to 

meet the ultra-low sulfur diesel 

standard beginning in 2012, resulting in 

further reductions of diesel emissions. 

b. Measures To Mitigate the Impacts of 

Construction Activities 

In developing its LTS, South Dakota 

has considered the impact of 

construction activities. Based on general 

knowledge of construction activity in 

the state, and without conducting 

extensive research on the contribution 

of emissions from construction activities 

to visibility impairment in South Dakota 

Class I areas, South Dakota found that 

current state regulations adequately 

address construction activities. Current 

rules addressing impacts from 

construction activities in South Dakota 

include ARSD 74:36:18, which regulates 

fugitive dust emissions for facilities in 

the Rapid City area. 

c. Emission Limitation and Schedules of 

Compliance 

The SIP contains emission limits and 

schedules of compliance for the one 

source subject to BART—Otter Tail 

Power Company’s Big Stone I. The 

schedule for implementation of BART 

for this source is identified in Section 

6.4 of the SIP and in State rule ARSD 

74:36:21 that we are proposing to 

approve with this SIP. 

d. Source Retirement and Replacement 

Schedules 

The State does not anticipate major 

source retirements or replacements. 

Replacement of existing facilities will be 

managed according to the State’s 

existing SIP. The 2018 modeling that 

WRAP conducted included emissions 

from two proposed coal-fired power 

plants and one proposed oil refinery in 

South Dakota. Although the PSD permit 

has been issued for one of the proposed 

coal-fired power plants, the applicant 

notified South Dakota that it is no 

longer going to build the plant. The 

second coal-fired power plant requested 

that South Dakota put its application on 

hold until further notice. Therefore, the 

next modeling exercise for determining 

visibility in 2018 will need to be 

adjusted to reflect these developments, 

and the current modeling results for 

2018 are potentially conservative. 

e. Agricultural and Forestry Smoke 

Management Techniques 

40 CFR 308(d)(3)(v)(E) of the Regional 

Haze Rule requires the LTS to address 

smoke management techniques for 

agricultural and forestry burning. As 

part of the long term strategy, South 

Dakota will investigate the impacts that 

a smoke management plan for wild fires 

and prescribed burns will have on the 

20% most impaired days within the first 

planning period of 2013. Currently very 

little agricultural burning takes place in 

South Dakota and the majority of 

agricultural land lies in the eastern twothirds of the State, while both Class I 

areas are in the western third. In 

addition, South Dakota did not observe 

any of the 20% most impaired days that 

were attributed to agricultural burning 

in the eastern half of South Dakota. 

Therefore, agricultural burning does not 

appear to have much of an impact on 

visibility at South Dakota’s Class I areas. 

However, there is some grass burning in 

and around the Class I areas that South 

Dakota has committed to investigate to 

determine if this practice warrants being 

covered under a smoke management 

plan. See Section 8.5.5 of the SIP. 

Additionally, South Dakota is 

investigating prescribed burns 

conducted by the National Park Service 

and the U.S. Forest Service and the 

impact of prescribed burns on organic 

carbon mass, ammonia sulfide, and 

ammonia nitrate levels. South Dakota 

has observed there is evidence that fires 

contributed to the 20% most impaired 

days during the baseline period. 

South Dakota has taken the initial 

steps in developing a smoke 

management plan by contacting 

appropriate groups that will need to 

collaborate on this effort. South Dakota 

has been in contact with the South 

Dakota Division of Wildland Fire 

Suppression regarding their prescribed 

fire database to begin assessing the 

impacts from such fires on visibility at 

the State’s Class I areas. South Dakota 

will continue working with the FLMs, 

other state agencies, and local 

governments during the development 

and implementation of the smoke 

management plan. 

f. Enforceability of South Dakota’s 

Measures 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v)(F) of the 

Regional Haze Rule requires states to 

ensure that emission limitations and 

control measures used to meet 

reasonable progress goals are 

enforceable. In addition to what is 

required by the Regional Haze Rule, 

general SIP requirements mandate that 

the SIP must also include adequate 

monitoring, recordkeeping, and 

reporting requirements for the regional 

haze emission limits and requirements. 

See CAA section 110(a). As noted, the 

SIP specifies BART emission limits and 

compliance schedules, and South 

Dakota has included such limits and 

compliance schedules in the state 

regional haze rule, ARSD 74:36:21, 

included in the regional haze SIP we are 

proposing to approve. These emission 

limits apply at all times, including 

periods of startup, shutdown, and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

76672 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

24As noted above, with respect to the PM BART 

limits for Big Stone I Unit 1, because the SIP does 

not explicitly exempt emissions during 

malfunctions from the limits, we interpret the SIP 

to require compliance with the PM limits at all 

times (including malfunctions). 

malfunction.24 In addition to specifying 

the limits and compliance schedules, 

the state rule specifies monitoring, 

recordkeeping and reporting 

requirements. South Dakota worked 

closely with EPA in developing these 

requirements. For SO2 and NOX limits, 

South Dakota has required the use of 

CEMS that must be operated and 

maintained in accordance with relevant 

EPA regulations, in particular, 40 CFR 

part 75. For PM limits, the SIP requires 

testing in accordance with EPAapproved test methods. The SIP requires 

that relevant records be kept for five 

years, and that sources report excess 

emissions on a quarterly basis. 

g. Anticipated Net Effect on Visibility 

Due to Projected Changes 

The anticipated net effect on visibility 

due to projected changes in point, area, 

and mobile source emissions during this 

planning period is addressed in sections 

III.E.3 above. 

6. Our Conclusion on South Dakota’s 

LTS 

South Dakota’s LTS satisfies the 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3), 

and we are proposing to approve it. 

F. Coordination of RAVI and Regional 

Haze Requirements 

Our visibility regulations direct states 

to coordinate their RAVI LTS and 

monitoring provisions with those for 

regional haze, as explained in section 

II.F, above. Under our RAVI regulations, 

the RAVI portion of a state SIP must 

address any integral vistas identified by 

the FLMs pursuant to 40 CFR 51.304. 

See 40 CFR 51.302. An integral vista is 

defined in 40 CFR 51.301 as a ‘‘view 

perceived from within the mandatory 

Class I federal area of a specific 

landmark or panorama located outside 

the boundary of the mandatory Class I 

federal area.’’ Visibility in any 

mandatory Class I Federal area includes 

any integral vista associated with that 

area. The FLMs did not identify any 

integral vistas in South Dakota. In 

addition, there have been no 

certifications of RAVI for South Dakota 

Class I areas. The South Dakota Regional 

Haze SIP, in Sections 10.6.1 and 9.0, 

does address the two requirements 

regarding coordination of the regional 

haze LTS and monitoring provisions 

with the RAVI LTS and monitoring 

provisions. As noted in the Regional 

Haze SIP, South Dakota has made a 

commitment to coordinate the South 

Dakota regional haze long term strategy 

with EPA’s RAVI FIP long term strategy. 

See Section 8.5.1 of the SIP. We propose 

to find that the Regional Haze SIP 

appropriately supplements and 

augments the EPA FIP for RAVI 

visibility provisions by updating the 

monitoring and LTS provisions to 

address regional haze. We discuss the 

relevant monitoring provisions further 

below. 

G. Monitoring Strategy and Other SIP 

Requirements 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4) requires that the 

SIP contain a monitoring strategy for 

measuring, characterizing, and reporting 

regional haze visibility impairment that 

is representative of all mandatory Class 

I Federal areas within the state. This 

monitoring strategy must be coordinated 

with the monitoring strategy required in 

40 CFR 51.305 for RAVI. As 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4) notes, compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

participation in the IMPROVE network. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(i) further requires 

the establishment of any additional 

monitoring sites or equipment needed to 

assess whether reasonable progress 

goals to address regional haze for all 

mandatory Class I Federal areas within 

the state are being achieved. Consistent 

with EPA’s monitoring regulations for 

RAVI and regional haze, South Dakota 

indicates in Section 9.0 of the Regional 

Haze SIP that it will rely on the 

IMPROVE network for compliance 

purposes. The IMPROVE monitors at the 

South Dakota Class I Areas also 

described in Section 9.0 of the SIP. We 

propose to find that South Dakota has 

satisfied the requirements in 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4) enumerated in this 

paragraph. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(ii) requires that 

South Dakota establish procedures by 

which monitoring data and other 

information are used in determining the 

contribution of emissions from within 

South Dakota to regional haze visibility 

impairment at mandatory Class I 

Federal areas both within and outside 

the State. The IMPROVE monitoring 

program is national in scope, and other 

states have similar monitoring and data 

reporting procedures, ensuring a 

consistent and robust monitoring data 

collection system. As 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4) indicates, participation in 

the IMPROVE program constitutes 

compliance with this requirement. We 

therefore propose that South Dakota has 

satisfied this requirement. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(iv) requires that 

the SIP provide for the reporting of all 

visibility monitoring data to the 

Administrator at least annually for each 

mandatory Class I Federal area in the 

state. To the extent possible, South 

Dakota should report visibility 

monitoring data electronically. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4)(vi) also requires that the 

SIP provide for other elements, 

including reporting, recordkeeping, and 

other measures, necessary to assess and 

report on visibility. We propose that 

South Dakota’s participation in the 

IMPROVE network ensures that the 

monitoring data is reported at least 

annually and is easily accessible; 

therefore, such participation complies 

with this requirement. 

40 CFR 51.308(d)(4)(v) requires that 

South Dakota maintain a statewide 

inventory of emissions of pollutants that 

are reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any mandatory Class I Federal area. The 

inventory must include emissions for a 

baseline year, emissions for the most 

recent year for which data are available, 

and estimates of future projected 

emissions. The State must also include 

a commitment to update the inventory 

periodically. Please refer to section 

III.E.1, above, where we discuss South 

Dakota’s emission inventory. South 

Dakota states in Section 5.1 of the SIP 

that it intends to update the South 

Dakota statewide emissions inventories 

periodically and review periodic 

emissions information from other states 

and future emissions projections. We 

propose that this satisfies the 

requirement. 

H. FLM Coordination 

Badlands and Wind Cave are both 

managed by the National Park Service, 

the FLM for these South Dakota Class I 

areas. Although the FLMs are very 

active in participating in the regional 

planning organizations, the Regional 

Haze Rule grants the FLMs a special role 

in the review of the regional haze SIPs, 

summarized in section II.H, above. The 

FLMs and the state environmental 

agencies are our partners in the regional 

haze process. 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(i)(2), South 

Dakota was obligated to provide 

National Park Service with an 

opportunity for consultation, in person 

and at least 60 days prior to holding a 

public hearing on the Regional Haze 

SIP. South Dakota sent a draft of its 

Regional Haze SIP to the National Park 

Service and other FLMs on January 15, 

2010. South Dakota held a public 

hearing in front of the Board of Minerals 

and Environment on September 15, 

2010. In July 2011, South Dakota 

provided the FLMs and others a draft of 

proposed amendments to the Regional 

Haze SIP. The FLMs provided 

comments to South Dakota’s amended 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 236 / Thursday, December 8, 2011 / Proposed Rules 76673 

submittal. The State held another public 

hearing on August 18, 2011. 

40 CFR 51.308(i)(3) requires that 

South Dakota provide in its Regional 

Haze SIP a description of how it 

addressed any comments provided by 

the FLMs. The FLMs communicated to 

the State (and EPA) their concerns on 

the January 15, 2010 draft Regional Haze 

SIP. South Dakota responded to the 

FLM’s comments and concerns in 

Appendix D of the Regional Haze SIP. 

The National Park Service commented 

on the Regional Haze SIP amendment 

regarding its concerns pertaining to a 

reasonable progress four-factor analysis 

to evaluate controls at GCC Dacotah’s 

Kiln 6 and additional consultation with 

Nebraska on Gerald Gentleman Station. 

South Dakota provided us with its 

rationale on GCC Dacotah’s Kiln 6 

which we discussed in section III.D.2. 

above. We also noted our agreement 

with the level of consultation with 

Nebraska for this planning period in 

section III.D.6. above. According to the 

Regional Haze Rule, South Dakota 

should consult with Nebraska during 

the next planning period. 

Lastly, 40 CFR 51.308(i)(4) specifies 

the regional haze SIP must provide 

procedures for continuing consultation 

between the state and FLMs on the 

implementation of the visibility 

protection program required by 40 CFR 

51.308, including development and 

review of implementation plan revisions 

and 5-year progress reports, and on the 

implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I Federal areas. South Dakota 

commits in Section 10 of its Regional 

Haze SIP to continue to coordinate and 

consult with the FLMs as required by 40 

CFR 51.308(i)(4). South Dakota states 

that it intends to consult the FLMs in 

the development and review of 

implementation plan revisions; review 

of progress reports; and development 

and implementation of other programs 

that may contribute to impairment of 

visibility at South Dakota and other 

Class I areas. 

We are proposing that the State 

complied with the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(i). 

I. Periodic SIP Revisions and Five-Year 

Progress Reports 

South Dakota commits in Section 11 

of the SIP to complete items required in 

the future by the Regional Haze Rule. 

South Dakota acknowledged its 

obligation under 40 CFR 51.308(f) to 

submit periodic progress reports and 

Regional Haze SIP revisions, with the 

first report due by July 31, 2018 and 

every ten years thereafter. 

South Dakota acknowledged its 

obligation under 40 CFR 51.308(g) to 

submit a progress report in the form of 

a SIP revision to us every five years 

following the initial submittal of the 

Regional Haze SIP. The report will 

evaluate the progress made towards the 

reasonable progress goals for each 

mandatory Class I area located within 

South Dakota and in each mandatory 

Class I area located outside South 

Dakota that may be affected by 

emissions from within South Dakota. 

IV. Proposed Action 

We are proposing to approve South 

Dakota’s Regional Haze SIP revision, 

including ARSD Chapter 74:36:21, that 

was submitted on January 21, 2011 and 

an amendment to this submittal that 

was submitted on September 19, 2011. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

Act and applicable Federal regulations 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

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 it 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. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxides, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur dioxide, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

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

Dated: November 29, 2011. 

Howard M. Cantor, 

Acting Regional Administrator, EPA, Region 

8. 

[FR Doc. 2011–31406 Filed 12–7–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2005–TX–0025; FRL–9502– 

5] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Revisions to the New Source Review 

(NSR) State Implementation Plan (SIP); 

General Definitions; Definition of 

Modification of Existing Facility 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Withdrawal of Proposed 

Disapproval. 

SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing a 

proposed disapproval proposed on 

September 23, 2009, regarding two 

provisions that have been superseded by 

later submitted revisions. EPA is taking 

these actions under section 110 of the 

Clean Air Act. 

DATES: The proposed rule published 

September 23, 2009 (74 FR 48450) is 

withdrawn as of December 8, 2011. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS