Document ID: EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0672-0025
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Air Quality State Implementation Plans; Approvals and Promulgations: South Dakota; Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan
Posted Date: 2018-12-03T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 232 (Monday, December 3, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 62262-62268]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-26179]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0672; FRL-9986-75-Region 8]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; South Dakota; 
Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report State Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is finalizing 
approval of a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the 
State of South Dakota through the South Dakota Department of 
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) on January 27, 2016. South 
Dakota's January 27, 2016 SIP revision (Progress Report) addresses 
requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and the EPA's rules that 
require each state to submit periodic reports describing progress 
towards reasonable progress goals (RPGs) established for regional haze 
and a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing SIP 
addressing regional haze (regional haze plan). The EPA is finalizing 
approval of South Dakota's determination that the State's regional haze 
plan is adequate to meet these RPGs for the first implementation period 
covering through 2018 and requires no substantive revision at this 
time.

DATES: This rule will be effective January 2, 2019.

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under 
Docket ID No. EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0672. All documents in the docket are 
listed on the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in 
the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or 
other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain 
other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the 
internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. 
Publicly available docket materials are available through http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability 
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kate Gregory, Air Program, 
Environmental Protection Agency, 1595 Wynkoop Street, Denver, Colorado 
80202-1129, (303) 312-6175, or by email at [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document ``we,'' ``us,'' and 
``our'' means the EPA.

I. Background

    States are required to submit a progress report in the form of a 
SIP revision for the first implementation period that evaluates 
progress towards the RPGs for each mandatory Class I federal area\1\ 
(Class I area) within the state and for each Class I area outside the 
state which may be affected by emissions from within the state (40 CFR 
51.308(g)). In addition, the provisions of 40 CFR 51.308(h) require 
states to submit, at the same time as the 40 CFR 51.308(g) progress 
report, a determination of the adequacy of the state's existing 
regional haze plan. The first progress report is due 5 years after 
submittal of the initial regional haze plan. On January 21, 2011, South 
Dakota submitted the State's first regional haze SIP in accordance with 
40 CFR 51.308, which the EPA fully approved.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 7472(a)). 
These areas are listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D.
    \2\ 77 FR 24845 (April 26, 2012). EPA fully approved South 
Dakota's regional haze SIP submittal addressing the requirements of 
the first implementation period for regional haze.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 27, 2016, South Dakota submitted its Progress Report 
which, among other things, detailed the progress made in the first 
period toward implementation of the long-term strategy outlined in the 
State's regional haze plan; the visibility improvement measured at 
Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks, the two Class I areas within 
South Dakota, and at Class I areas outside of the State potentially 
impacted by emissions from South Dakota; and a determination of the 
adequacy of the State's existing regional haze plan.
    In a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) published on March 19, 
2018 (83 FR 11946), the EPA proposed to approve South Dakota's Progress 
Report. The details of South Dakota's submission and the rationale for 
the EPA's actions are explained in the NPRM.

II. Response to Comments

    Comments on the proposed rulemaking were due on or before April 18, 
2018. The EPA received a total of 16 public comment submissions on the 
proposed approval. All public comments received on this rulemaking 
action are available for review by the public and may be viewed by 
following the instructions for access to docket materials as outlined 
in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble. After reviewing the 
comments, the EPA has determined that 15 of the comment submissions are 
outside the scope of our proposed action and/or fail to identify any 
material issue necessitating a response. We received one comment letter 
from the National Parks

[[Page 62263]]

Conservation Association (NPCA), containing two significant comments 
that we are responding to here. Below is a summary of those comments 
and the EPA's responses. Comment: In a comment letter dated April 18, 
2018, the NPCA asserted that South Dakota's Regional Haze 5-Year 
Progress Report and the EPA's analysis of the progress report fail to 
meet 40 CFR 51.308(g)(5) as neither mentions the Gerald Gentleman 
Station in Nebraska. The commenter states that South Dakota's SIP and 
RPGs relied on visibility modeling from the Central Regional Air 
Planning Association (CENRAP) that assumed the installation of 
scrubbers for control of sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from 
the Gerald Gentleman Station, which has a significant impact on South 
Dakota's Class I areas. The commenter suggests that the lack of 
requirements to install scrubbers and limit SO2 emissions 
from the Gerald Gentleman Station constitutes an anthropogenic change 
that impedes visibility progress. Finally, the commenter suggests the 
lack of change in emissions at the Gerald Gentleman Station since the 
baseline period ``impedes visibility progress'' and is a ``significant 
change'' that the EPA's guidance suggests should be discussed to meet 
the requirements of Sec.  51.308(g)(5).
    Response: We acknowledge that the Progress Report from South Dakota 
does not include an assessment of emission changes from the Gerald 
Gentleman Station. However, such an assessment is not required given 
the facts about South Dakota's SIP, emission trends for Gerald 
Gentleman, and visibility trends at the two Class I areas in South 
Dakota. Changes in emissions from the Gerald Gentleman Station are not 
``significant changes'' within the meaning of this section of the 
Regional Haze Rule (RHR). It should be noted that, South Dakota cannot 
regulate emissions from the Gerald Gentleman Station in Nebraska.
    Section 51.308(g)(5) of the RHR requires that periodic progress 
reports contain an assessment of any significant changes in 
anthropogenic emissions within or outside the state that have occurred 
during the implementation period including whether such changes were 
anticipated and whether they have limited or impeded progress in 
reducing emissions and improving visibility. The EPA provided guidance 
that summarized and clarified the requirements for progress reports in 
a document titled General Principles for the 5-Year Regional Haze 
Progress Reports for the Initial Regional Haze State Implementation 
Plans (Intended to Assist States and EPA Regional Offices in 
Development and Review of the Progress Reports).\3\ In relation to 
Sec.  51.308(g)(5), the guidance states that ``[t]his requirement is 
aimed at assessing whether any such significant emissions changes have 
occurred within the state over the 5-year period since the SIP was 
submitted, and whether emissions increases outside the state are 
affecting a Class I area within the state adversely.'' \4\ Further, the 
guidance principles specify that a ``significant change'' that can 
``limit or impede progress'' could be ``either (1) a significant 
unexpected increase in anthropogenic emissions that occurred over the 
5-year period (that is, an increase that was not projected in the 
analysis for the SIP), or (2) a significant expected reduction in 
anthropogenic emissions that did not occur (that is, a projected 
decrease in emissions in the analysis for the SIP that was not 
realized).'' \5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Air Quality 
Planning and Standards Air Quality Policy Division Geographic 
Strategies Group, April 2013.
    \4\ Guidance Priciples, p. 15.
    \5\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The ``significance'' of a change in emissions, if there is a 
change, is evaluated on a case-by-case basis depending on the factual 
context. It is clear from both Sec.  51.308(g)(5) and the guidance that 
significance depends on whether a change in emissions is large enough 
to have limited or impeded progress in improving visibility, with the 
adopted RPGs being important benchmarks for progress.
    In this instance, there have not been significant changes in 
emissions within the meaning of Sec.  51.308(g)(5). First, there has 
not been a ``significant unexpected increase'' in emissions from 
outside South Dakota, i.e., from the Gerald Gentleman Station. While 
this first questions is perhaps more relevant where a new or modified 
source has increased emissions over what was projected in the SIP, we 
nonetheless assess it in respect to Gerald Gentleman Station. A review 
of emissions data submitted to the EPA Air Markets Program Data 
indicates that the annual SO2 emissions from Units 1 and 2 
decreased in the 5-year period from the submittal of the initial SIP. 
In the 5-year period before submittal of the initial SIP, 2006 through 
2010, the annual SO2 emissions from the facility averaged 
30,597 tons per year.\6\ In the following 5-year period, 2011 through 
2016, the annual SO2 emissions averaged 26,696 tons per 
year.\7\ The average annual SO2 emissions between the two 
periods decreased by 3,901 tons per year.\8\ As such, we conclude that 
there has not been a significant unexpected increase in anthropogenic 
emissions from the Gerald Gentleman Station.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Refer to spread sheet in the docket titled ``Gerald 
Gentleman Station Annual Emissions from AMPD.xlsx'' located in the 
docket.
    \7\ Ibid.
    \8\ Because no new SO2 controls have been installed 
at the Gerald Gentleman Station, the reduction in emissions between 
the two time periods, 3,901 tons per year, is primarily due to a 
decrease in heat input.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Second, there was not a significant expected reduction in 
anthropogenic emissions that did not occur. As a preliminary matter, we 
acknowledge that the RPGs for South Dakota's Class I areas are based on 
the assumption that SO2 emissions from the Gerald Gentleman 
Station would be reduced by the application of scrubbers that achieve 
the ``presumptive BART'' emission rate of 0.15 lb/MMBtu.\9\ This 
assumption was built into the projected emission inventory for air 
quality modeling used to establish RPGs.\10\ However, this occurred 
before Nebraska made its BART determination. It also occurred before 
Nebraska completed its consultation with other states, including South 
Dakota, in the development of its emission control strategies.\11\ In 
the Agency's final action on Nebraska's Regional Haze SIP, the EPA 
addressed the disparity between the modeling assumptions for South 
Dakota's RPGs and the SO2 BART emission limit the EPA chose 
for the Gerald Gentleman Station.\12\ In response to comments on this 
issue, the Agency noted that ``South Dakota had the opportunity to 
comment on Nebraska's draft BART permits as well as the overall 
regional haze SIP, and did not ask for additional emission reductions 
from Nebraska.'' \13\ The Agency concluded that ``Nebraska did 
establish a BART limit for the Gerald Gentleman Station and informed 
South Dakota that its BART determination

[[Page 62264]]

deviated from what was included in the modeling [for RPGs], [and] the 
fact that the final BART determination varied from the predictions is 
not grounds for disapproving either SIP.'' \14\ Indeed, the content of 
the long-term strategy (including BART controls) determines the RPGs, 
not the opposite case. If not for the difference in timing between the 
air quality modeling for the RPGs and Nebraska's BART determination, 
South Dakota's RPGs would have reflected Nebraska's BART determination 
for the Gerald Gentleman Station. Put more concisely, the 
SO2 BART requirement for Gerald Gentleman Station is not 
predicated on an assumption that was made in the modeling analysis 
before BART was determined, but rather on the control measures that 
were ultimately agreed upon between Nebraska and South Dakota through 
the requisite consultation process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ For comparison, the SO2 annual emission rate (in 
lb/MMBtu) at the Gerald Gentleman Station was about 0.58 lb/MMBtu 
during 2002, which was the period used as the baseline by Nebraska 
when it developed its SIP. The annual emission rate in lb/MMBtu has 
not changed appreciably since that time.
    \10\ The emissions projected for the Gerald Gentleman Station by 
CENRAP were incorporated into the Western Regional Air Partnership 
(WRAP) reasonable progress modeling for 2018 (referred to as the 
PRP18b scenario). The RPGs for the South Dakota Class I areas were 
determined by the WRAP modeling.
    \11\ 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i) requires that a state consult with 
another state if its emissions are reasonably anticipated to 
contribute to visibility impairment at that state's Class I area(s), 
and that a state consult with other states if those other states' 
emissions are reasonably anticipated to contribute to visibility 
impairment at its Class I areas.
    \12\ 77 FR 40150 (July 6, 2012).
    \13\ Ibid, 40155.
    \14\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Nonetheless, in the Agency's final action for Nebraska, the EPA 
disapproved the SO2 BART determination for the Gerald 
Gentleman Station because the State did not comply with the EPA's 
regulations. The EPA also disapproved Nebraska's long-term strategy 
insofar as it relied on the deficient SO2 BART determination 
at the Gerald Gentleman Station. To address these deficiencies, in the 
same action, the EPA promulgated a Federal Implementation Plan relying 
on the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR, or ``transport rule'') as 
an alternative to BART for SO2 emissions from Gerald 
Gentleman Station,\15\ with the result that the long-term strategy for 
Nebraska does not require that SO2 scrubbers be installed at 
the Gerald Gentleman Station to meet BART. Again, the RPGs are intended 
to reflect the emission reductions in states' long-term strategies. The 
fact that Nebraska's long-term strategy ultimately contains a different 
BART emission limit for the Gerald Gentleman Station than initially 
assumed does not mean that any difference between the two constitutes 
``a significant expected reduction in anthropogenic emissions that did 
not occur.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ 40 CFR 52.143.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The guidance further clarifies that the requirement in Sec.  
51.308(g)(5) is ``aimed at assessing . . . whether emissions increases 
outside the state are affecting a Class I area within the state 
adversely. For those Class I areas where there is a significant overall 
downward trend in both visibility and nearby emissions, we expect that 
this assessment will point to those trends in support of a simple 
negative declaration satisfying this requirement'' (emphasis 
added).\16\ This means that if aggregate emissions influencing the 
affected Class I areas are significantly declining and visibility 
conditions are significantly improving, an upward ``change'' for one 
contributing source relative to expectations is not significant. We 
accordingly turn to the topic of aggregate emissions and visibility 
trends for the Class I areas in South Dakota.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ Principles, p. 15.
    \17\ 83 FR 11949-11950 (March 19, 2018).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the Progress Report, South Dakota compared the most recent 
updated emission inventory data available at the time of Progress 
Report development with the baseline emissions inventory used in the 
modeling for the regional haze plan. The State's comparison showed that 
the statewide emissions of key visibility impairing pollutants, 
including SO2, had declined. For example, between the 
baseline emission inventory and the most recent updated emission 
inventory of 2011, South Dakota found that anthropogenic SO2 
emissions declined by 8,285 tons per year. The emissions trends do not 
suggest any deficiencies in South Dakota's SIP that would affect 
achievement of the RPGs for Wind Cave and Badlands National Parks.
    In the Progress Report, South Dakota provided baseline visibility 
conditions (2000-2004), current conditions based on the most recently 
available visibility monitoring data available at the time of Progress 
Report development, the difference between these current visibility 
conditions and baseline visibility conditions, and the change in 
visibility impairment from 2009-2013.\18\ In order to further assess 
the trend in visibility as it relates to Sec.  51.308(g)(5), the EPA 
has expanded on the analysis of visibility included in South Dakota's 
Progress Report. In addition to the information and analysis provided 
in the Progress Report, Table 1 below presents updated Interagency 
Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments (IMPROVE) monitoring data 
which shows that visibility for the two Class I areas in the State, 
Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks, has continued to improve beyond 
the 2009-2013 period considered by South Dakota. Table 1 shows a 
continued downward trend in visibility impairment (in deciviews) at 
both Badlands and Wind Cave National Parks from the baseline time 
period (2000-2004) to the most current time period (2012-2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ Ibid.
    \19\ IMPROVE Data, Federal Land Manager Environmental Database. 
See `Badlands and Wind Cave IMPROVE Table.xlsx', available in 
docket.
    \20\ 76 FR 76646, 76664 (April 26, 2012).

                                       Table 1--Baseline Visibility, Current Visibility, Visibility Changes, and 2018 RPGs in South Dakota's Class I Areas
                                                                                        [Deciviews] \19\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                    Difference                      Difference                      Difference
                          Class I area                            Baseline (2000- Current (2007-   (baseline vs.   More current    (baseline vs.   Most current    (baseline vs.   2018 RPG \20\
                                                                       2004)           2011)         current)       (2009-2013)    more current)    (2012-2016)    most current)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Badlands National Park
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days..................................................            17.1            16.3            -0.8            15.7            -1.4            14.7            -2.4            16.3
20% Best Days...................................................             6.9             6.6            -0.3             5.8            -1.1             5.5            -1.4             6.6
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                     Wind Cave National Park
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20% Worst Days..................................................            15.8            14.9            -0.9            14.2            -1.6            13.6            -2.2            15.2
20% Best Days...................................................             5.1             4.4            -0.7             4.0            -1.1             3.6            -1.5             5.0
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In Figures 1 and 2 below, in addition to comparing visibility 
improvement to the 2018 RPGs, we also compare monitored visibility (as 
a 5-year rolling average) to the Uniform Rate of Progress (URP). As 
described in the RHR, the URP is the uniform rate of visibility 
improvement that would need to be maintained during each implementation

[[Page 62265]]

period in order to attain natural visibility conditions by the end of 
2064.\21\ While the RHR does not require that states compare monitored 
visibility to the URP as part of their progress reports, the EPA has 
done so here because it is instructive when considering visibility 
trends in the context of Sec.  51.308(g)(5). Figures 1 and 2 show that 
the visibility in recent years for both Badlands and Wind Cave National 
Parks is well below the RPGs. For example, for Badlands National Park, 
the 2011 through 2016 5-year rolling average of the 20% haziest days is 
14.7 deciviews, which is well below the 2018 RPG of 16.3 deciviews. 
Moreover, the visibility for both Class I areas is below the URP in 
recent years; at Badlands National Park, the 5-year rolling average of 
the 20% haziest days is below the URP beginning in 2012 and extending 
through the most recent year of available IMPROVE data (2016). Similar 
trends are apparent for Wind Cave National Park. As with the emissions 
trends, the visibility trends do not suggest any deficiencies in South 
Dakota's SIP that would adversely affect achievement of the RPGs for 
Wind Cave and Badlands National Parks.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(1)(vi)(A).
    \22\ IMPROVE Data, Federal Land Manager Environmental Database. 
See `Badlands and Wind Cave IMPROVE Visibility Trends.xlsx,' 
available in docket.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03DE18.000

[[Page 62266]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR03DE18.001

    As previously stated, progress relative to the adopted RPGs is an 
important benchmark in assessing whether an increase in the Gerald 
Gentleman Station's SO2 emissions relative to the 
expectations inherent in the SIP has ``limited or impeded progress in 
improving visibility.'' While there would likely have been more 
progress if the Gerald Gentleman Station's SO2 emissions had 
been reduced even more over time than they have been, in the context of 
improvements already in the first implementation period relative to the 
RPGs and the URP for both Class I areas in South Dakota, we do not 
consider any lack of emission reductions from the Gerald Gentleman 
Station as having limited or impeded progress in improving visibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \23\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In summary, we find that there has been no significant change in 
anthropogenic emissions relative to what was expected under South 
Dakota's regional haze SIP. Moreover, even if there had been such a 
change, emissions and visibility trends do not suggest any deficiencies 
in South Dakota's SIP that would affect achievement of reasonable 
progress for Wind Cave and Badlands National Parks. Given our 
conclusions regarding Sec.  51.308(g)(5) here, we find that the absence 
of a discussion of the Gerald Gentleman Station is not a failure to 
report on ``significant changes in anthropogenic emissions'' as that 
term is used in Sec.  51.308(g)(5) nor a shortcoming in South Dakota's 
Progress Report that requires our disapproval of the Progress Report. 
Consequently, consistent with the RHR and our guidance principles, we 
are finalizing our finding that South Dakota has met the requirements 
of Sec.  51.308(g)(5).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ Because we are finding that South Dakota has not failed to 
report on ``significant changes in anthropogenic emissions'' as that 
term is used in Sec.  51.308(g)(5), we have not needed to reach a 
conclusion as to whether such a failure in this particular situation 
would be so important that it would require disapproval of the 
Progress Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The NPCA also asserts that ``EPA has previously identified 
the need for consultation between South Dakota and Nebraska in the next 
planning period regarding the impacts of the Gerald Gentleman Station 
on South Dakota's Class I areas,'' and asks the EPA to ``work with 
South Dakota to include a discussion of the Gerald Gentleman Station in 
its progress report.''
    Response: The Progress Report that is the subject of today's action 
addresses the requirements of the first regional haze planning period. 
When adopting long-term strategies and establishing RPGs for the second 
regional haze planning period, extending to 2028, the RHR requires that 
states once again ``consult with those states that are reasonably 
anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment in [ ] 
mandatory Class I area[s].'' \25\ As such, South Dakota will have an 
opportunity to consult with Nebraska regarding SO2 controls 
for the Gerald Gentleman Station in the second planning period. 
Moreover, nothing in this final rule would prevent Nebraska, in 
consultation with South Dakota or other

[[Page 62267]]

states, from assessing the need for SO2 controls at the 
Gerald Gentleman Station as part of its long-term strategy for the 
second planning period.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(ii).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The NPCA also asserts that the EPA does not adequately 
address in the NPRM South Dakota's progress towards investigating and 
developing a smoke management plan.\26\ The NPCA asserts that ``EPA's 
analysis incorrectly states that `The Progress Report presents the 
extensive information collected and analyzed to investigate the impacts 
of a smoke management plan'.'' \27\ The NPCA acknowledges that the 
South Dakota Progress Report discusses the impact of prescribed fire at 
Wind Cave National Park, but asserts that the progress report does not 
mention a smoke management plan specifically. The commenter 
additionally asserts that the progress report does not include an 
``update or information about South Dakota's progress towards 
investigating and developing a smoke management plan.'' \28\ Finally, 
the commenter requests that the EPA work with South Dakota to include 
an update on South Dakota's examination of a smoke management plan as 
the NPCA asserts that 40 CFR 51.308(g)(1) requires that the status of 
all control strategies be included in the SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ National Parks Conservation Association (NPCA) Comment 
Letter, p.2.
    \27\ Ibid.
    \28\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: As this response to comment will show, South Dakota is 
committed to investigating the impacts of prescribed burns and 
wildfires and considering smoke management practices and a smoke 
management plan; however, there is no smoke management plan currently 
included in the SIP. Insofar as the comment implicates the adequacy of 
the State's existing Regional Haze SIP, we note that our review of the 
Progress Report is not a second review of the adequacy of that SIP, as 
the public already had an opportunity to review and comment on it and 
the EPA approved the SIP as meeting the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(v)(E). However, since South Dakota committed to 
investigating these issues, it was appropriate for the State to include 
an update on this investigation in the Progress Report and we find that 
the State did so. Contrary to commenters' assertions, the SIP explains 
that the State will:
     ``[I]nvestigate the impacts that a smoke management plan 
for wild fires and prescribed burns will have on the 20% most impaired 
days'' within the first planning period of 2013'';
     Investigate and determine whether the ``burning of grass 
in and around the Class I areas'' warrants being covered under a smoke 
management plan''; and
     Review IMPROVE data for a recent prescribed fire to see 
what kind of impact the fire had on the organic carbon mass 
concentration and to some extent the ammonia sulfide and ammonia 
nitrate levels.
    Finally, the SIP explains that it is DENR's ``intention'' to
    [I]nvestigate these prescribed burns as well as other wildfires and 
planned prescribed burns to determine at what level (e.g., size of 
burn, distance from the Class I areas, combustible material) should a 
wildfire or prescribed fire be included in the smoke management plan 
and what best management practices can be used to minimize their 
impacts on the 20% most impaired days in the Class I areas. The results 
of this analysis will be adopted in the Regional Haze State 
Implementation Plan as part of our long term strategy. DENR will work 
with the federal land managers, other state agencies, and local 
governments during the development and implementation of the smoke 
management plan.\29\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \29\ 76 FR 76671 (December 8, 2011).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Contrary to the commenter's assertions, the Progress Report, as 
explained in the Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report NPRM, describes 
that the State has taken the following steps so far to investigate the 
impacts of prescribed burns and natural fire on visibility in the first 
planning period. The impacts of prescribed fires on the 20% most 
impaired days at Wind Cave were investigated using the IMPROVE data 
that was presented in their progress report.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \30\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-28, p.31 and Table 3-
29, p. 33.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State also reviewed IMPROVE data for two recent prescribed 
fires to see what kind of impact the fires had on the organic carbon 
mass concentration and to some extent the ammonium sulfide and ammonium 
nitrate levels. This data shows the impact of two prescribed fires 
conducted by the National Park Service (NPS) at Wind Cave National Park 
in 2009 and 2010.\31\ The two examples of the IMPROVE data that show 
that the NPS prescribed fires contributed to high levels of both 
particulate organic mass and elemental carbon on both days.\32\ 
Finally, the Progress Report shows that natural fire has been 
decreasing in its impact.\33\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ South Dakota Progress Report, p. 29.
    \32\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-28, p.31 and Table 3-
29, p. 33.
    \33\ South Dakota Progress Report, Table 3-28, p.31 and Table 3-
29, pp. 17, 19, 20, 21, 24.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Furthermore, regarding the State's intention to develop and 
implement the smoke management plan, since the publication of the NPRM, 
we learned that the State of South Dakota reconfirmed their intention 
regarding the smoke management plan,\34\ as is described in its SIP to 
participate in a Western States Air Resources Council (WESTAR) smoke 
management workgroup.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \34\ Memo to File EPA-R08-OAR-2017-0672, available in docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, as described in South Dakota's progress report and the 
NPRM, the State has worked in coordination with Federal Land Managers 
to mitigate the impacts of prescribed fires. In its Progress Report, 
the State explains that ``DENR and Federal Land Managers in South 
Dakota have improved coordination and communications over the past few 
years and plan to continue that effort to help mitigate the impacts of 
prescribed fires'' at Wind Cave and Badlands National Parks.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ South Dakota Progress Report, pp. 41-42, Appendix B, pp. B-
2--B-3. At the suggestion of the National Park Service, the DENR 
also looked at the Fire Emissions Tracking System and noted that it 
may be a useful tool going forward as the DENR continues to track 
prescribed fires and their impacts on the Class I areas.

In conclusion, as explained above, we find the State has provided an 
adequate description of the status of the State's investigation of 
smoke management measures. The State has investigated both prescribed 
fire and wildfire and the impact of fire on the 20% most impaired days 
at Class I areas, reviewed IMPROVE data, showed continued collaboration 
with Federal Land Managers, and provided a description of their 
intention to investigate, develop and implement and a smoke management 
plan as is described in their SIP. Accordingly, we clarify and confirm 
our proposed finding that South Dakota has adequately addressed its SIP 
commitment.

III. Final Action

    EPA is finalizing without revisions its proposed approval of South 
Dakota's January 27, 2016 Progress Report as meeting the applicable 
regional haze requirements set forth in 40 CFR 51.308(g) and 51.308(h).

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable 
federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, the EPA's role is to approve state choices,

[[Page 62268]]

provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and 
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state 
law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 
2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, described in the Unfunded Mandates 
Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation 
land or in any other area where the EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by February 1, 2019. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect 
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor 
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may 
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or 
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to 
enforce its requirements. See section 307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen oxides, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, 
Volatile organic compounds.

Douglas Benevento,
Regional Administrator, Region 8.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart QQ--South Dakota

0
2. Section 52.2170(e) is amended by adding a new entry for XXIII. 
Regional Haze 5-Year Progress Report in numerical order to read as 
follows:

Sec.  52.2170  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            EPA effective   Final rule citation,
            Rule title               State effective date        date               date             Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
XXIII. Regional Haze 5-Year         Submitted 01/27/2016.        1/2/2019   [Insert Federal
 Progress Report.                                                            Register citation],
                                                                             12/3/2018.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 2018-26179 Filed 11-30-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P