[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 81 (Thursday, April 26, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 24845-24857]
[FR Doc No: 2012-8988]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

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

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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

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

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

DATES: This rule is effective May 29, 2012.

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

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gail Fallon, Air Program, Mailcode 8P-
AR, Environmental Protection Agency, Region 8, 1595 Wynkoop Street,
Denver, Colorado 80202-1129,<PHONE_NUMBER>, or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Definitions

    For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain
words or initials as follows:
     The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the
Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.
     The initials BACT mean or refer to best available control
technology.
     The initials BART mean or refer to best available retrofit
technology.
     The initials CAMD mean or refer to EPA's Clean Air Markets
Database.
     The initials CO2 mean or refer to carbon dioxide.
     The initials DENR mean or refer to the South Dakota
Department of Natural Resources.
     The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United
States Environmental Protection Agency.
     The initials FGD or scrubber mean or refer to flue gas
desulfurization.
     The initials FIP mean or refer to Federal Implementation
Plan.
     The initials FLM mean or refer to Federal Land Manager.
     The initials LNB mean or refer to low NOX
burners.
     The initials NOX mean or refer to nitrogen oxides.
     The initials NPCA mean or refer to the National Parks
Conservation Association.
     The initials NPS mean or refer to the National Park
Service.
     The initials NAAQS mean or refer to National Ambient Air
Quality Standards.
     The initials PM mean or refer to particulate matter.
     The initials PM2.5 mean or refer to particulate matter
with an aerodynamic diameter of less than 2.5 micrometers or fine
particulate matter.
     The initials PM10 mean or refer to particulate matter with
an aerodynamic diameter of less than 10 micrometers or fine particulate
matter.
     The initials PSD mean or refer to prevention of
significant deterioration.
     The initials RBLC mean or refer to the RACT/BACT/LAER
Clearinghouse.
     The initials RP mean or refer to reasonable progress.
     The initials RPG mean or refer to reasonable progress
goal.
     The initials SCR mean or refer to selective catalytic
reduction.
     The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation
Plan.
     The initials SNCR mean or refer to selective non-catalytic
reduction.
     The initials SO2 mean or refer to sulfur dioxide.
     The words South Dakota and State mean the State of South
Dakota unless the context indicates otherwise.
     The initials URP mean or refer to uniform rate of
progress.

Table of Contents

I. Background
II. Issues Raised by Commenters and EPA's Responses
    A. General Comments on the Big Stone I BART Determination
    B. Comments on the Big Stone I SO2 BART Determination
    C. Comments on the Big Stone I NOX BART Determination
    D. Comments on Big Stone I PM BART Determination
    E. Startup, Shutdown and Enforceability Comments
    F. Modeling Comments
    G. GCC Dacotah Cement Comments
    H. General Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

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

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

II. Issues Raised by Commenters and EPA's Responses

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

A. General Comments on the Big Stone I BART Determination

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

impacts in terms of pollution reduced. The State must consider varying
levels of pollution control efficiency in its Big Stone BART analyses.
    Response: We agree with the commenter that the Regional Haze Rule
requires states to consider the most stringent level of control.
However, we disagree with the statements that South Dakota's BART
analysis is skewed in favor of low-cost equipment for Big Stone I, and
that the analysis does not evaluate cost impacts in terms of pollution
reduced. South Dakota did describe the range of control efficiencies
possible for the various technically feasible control options in its
BART determinations. While we acknowledge that South Dakota did not
select the highest control efficiency option in every case (e.g., South
Dakota selected semi-dry instead of wet flue gas desulfurization (FGD
or ``scrubber'' controls) for SO2 control), we find the
State was reasonable in its selection of controls considering the five
statutory factors and did not unreasonably reject any control options
based on cost as further explained in our responses to other comments
in this action.

B. Comments on the Big Stone I SO2 BART Determination

    Comment: Two commenters stated that the SO2 emission
limit for Big Stone I is too high as a result of the baseline emission
rate used in the analysis. The commenters stated that Otter Tail Power
Company, the operator of Big Stone, and the State both incorrectly
assumed an uncontrolled SO2 emission rate of 0.86 lb/MMBtu
for the Big Stone I BART determination. Otter Tail claimed this rate
was the highest 24-hour average rate of SO2 emitted by Big
Stone I during 2001-2003. While the BART Guidelines \2\ require use of
the highest daily emissions in the visibility modeling analysis, that
is not an appropriate starting point for setting a BART emission limit.
The Sierra Club believed that this rate should have instead been based
on the highest 30-day average uncontrolled SO2 emission
rate, because BART emission limits apply on a 30-day average basis. The
Sierra Club recommended a baseline emission rate of 0.70 lb/MMBtu,
which is the maximum annual average SO2 emission rate at Big
Stone I over the last ten years, according to EPA's Clean Air Markets
Database (CAMD), or at the very least recommends the highest 30-day
average uncontrolled SO2 emission rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The NPCA stated that it is unclear where the 0.86 lb/MMBtu baseline
originates. The NPCA stated that the highest 30-day rolling period for
SO2 during the baseline period (2001-2003) was 0.82 lbs/
MMBtu, and that no monthly value was higher than 0.81 lbs/MMBtu through
2010.
    The NPCA also noted that the baseline assumes 85% operations, while
the baseline period operations averaged 91%, and averaged 92% from
2003-2010.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

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

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

    States have some flexibility in determining baseline emissions but
should develop a ``realistic depiction of anticipated annual
emissions.'' While the use of the highest 24-hour emission rate to
estimate annual emissions would not likely result in a realistic
estimate of annual emissions, had the State relied on the highest 30-
day rolling average value, it is unlikely that it would have arrived at
a different conclusion regarding BART. First, the baseline emissions
that the State relied on in its calculation of average cost result in
lower estimates of average cost than would have resulted from using the
approach suggest by the commenter. In addition, the primary basis for
the State's BART determination was the visibility benefits that were
based on the 24-hour maximum emissions rates. Moreover, BART emission
limits, which apply at all times, including during startup and shutdown
must allow an adequate margin for compliance.
    In addition, the State assumed baseline emissions of 18,000 tons
per year for its BART analysis. By contrast, emissions data in CAMD
shows that the emissions between 2001 and 2003 were 12,540 tons per
year. Therefore, we find the State did not underestimate the baseline
emissions in its BART analysis.
    Based on our review of all the information, we find that South
Dakota acted reasonably in establishing the SO2 BART
emission limit for Big Stone.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the South Dakota Department of
Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) incorrectly assumed 95%
SO2 control efficiency for wet FGD, which can actually
achieve as high as 99% control efficiency. The commenter gave several
examples of wet scrubbers that have achieved up to 99% removal
efficiency, and included cost estimates for certain technologies to
argue that the costs for some of these systems ``are well within the
range EPA normally considers cost effective'' in best available control
technology (BACT) analyses. In its evaluation of a wet scrubber for
BART, the Big Stone I BART Analysis should have evaluated these levels
of control.
    The commenter also stated that the State incorrectly assumed 90%
SO2 control with a dry scrubber at Big Stone I, and
therefore, proposed an emission limit of 0.09 lb/MMBtu which was too
high. Using the Sierra Club's previously proposed baseline emission
rate of 0.70 lb/MMBtu, the BART emission limit with a 90% efficient dry
scrubber should be 0.07 lb/MMBtu at most. Additionally, other
facilities are currently subject to higher removal efficiency
requirements (up to 95%) with dry scrubbers, and corresponding lower
SO2 BACT limits than the 0.09 lb/MMBtu proposed by the
State. Another commenter stated that more accurate reflections of the
maximum capabilities of wet and dry scrubbers would cut remaining
emissions significantly (75% and 50%, respectively), and requests that
EPA adjust the final emission limits appropriately. This commenter also
quoted the BART Guidelines; ``the list [of available technologies] is
complete if it includes the maximum level of control each technology is
capable of achieving.''
    Response: We agree that, in some cases, wet and dry scrubbers can
achieve greater emission reductions than those assumed by South Dakota.
However, when the sulfur content of the coal is low, a lower control
efficiency is anticipated. Due to the very low sulfur content of the
coal burned at Big Stone I, on average 0.57%, it is unlikely that the
high control efficiencies cited by the

commenter could be achieved.\6\ South Dakota also provided explanatory
information in its response to comments in Appendix E of the SIP that
it considered SO2 inlet concentrations in its estimation of
possible control efficiencies. In addition, BART emission limits, which
apply at all times, including during startup and shutdown must allow an
adequate margin for compliance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Therefore, with regard to the proposed emission limits for dry
scrubbers at Big Stone I, we find that South Dakota's limit of 0.09 lb/
MMBtu is reasonable for dry scrubbers at the facility, and we are
approving it.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the choice of semi-dry FGD over
wet FGD was largely based on modeling results about which EPA noted;
``It is not clear why the model predicted this result; it may relate to
stack parameters.'' 76 FR 76656. The commenter stated that EPA should
not rely on ``unreliable, unexplained, or not logical'' modeling
results.
    Response: We disagree that the model results, upon which the State
and EPA relied for this action, are ``unreliable, unexplained, or not
logical.'' The CALPUFF modeling protocol used for the South Dakota
Regional Haze SIP conforms to the BART Guidelines, and we received no
information to the contrary aside from the general comment directly
above. We also note that the stack parameters used in the model differ
for the two options. Wet FGD results in a cooler plume with less
velocity and thermal buoyancy than dry FGD. This is likely to have
affected the model predictions.
    Comment: One commenter stated that South Dakota's cost
effectiveness calculation of a wet scrubber, $1,699/ton at an
SO2 emission rate of 0.043 lb/MMBtu, is reasonable when
compared to other BART determinations at similar facilities.\7\ South
Dakota, therefore, lacks justification to discount installation of a
wet scrubber based on costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    Comment: One commenter stated that DENR and Otter Tail failed to
adequately evaluate the environmental benefits of a wet scrubber as
opposed to a dry scrubber. First, because wet scrubbers are much more
efficient at controlling SO2, they will be needed to work in
conjunction with likely ``mandated'' future carbon dioxide
(CO2) emission controls, which require SO2
removal efficiency at 98-99%. Second, wet scrubbers are much more
effective than dry scrubbers at controlling emissions of hydrogen
chloride and hydrogen fluoride, and ``provide significant removal of
arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and mercury
from flue gas.'' \9\ Third, decreases in SO2 emissions
translate to lower PM2.5 concentrations because of the
decrease in sulfate formation. Decrease in sulfate can also prevent
damage to certain water bodies and wetlands. Another commenter also
stated that EPA did not adequately take into account the additional
environmental benefits from use of a wet scrubber and the low energy
use associated with some newer models, and asks EPA to revisit this
aspect of the technology section.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Response: We took into account the State's consideration of
environmental impacts when reviewing the Big Stone I SO2
BART determination, as required by the BART Guidelines and evidenced in
our proposal. 76 FR 76656. The CAA requires consideration of energy and
non-air quality environmental impacts; the commenter's concerns relate
primarily to air quality issues. The State did identify non-air quality
environmental impacts in Section 6 of the SIP. South Dakota noted that
the dry scrubber would be installed upstream of the existing baghouse,
resulting in some negligible additional material being collected in the
baghouse. In addition, the energy issue raised by the commenter related
to wet versus dry scrubbing is addressed in the SIP in Table 6-8 where
the State notes that the wet scrubber control option uses more energy
than the dry scrubber option, 9,500 kW versus 3,325 kW. We also note
that Sierra Club's suggestion of future mandates for CO2
emission controls is speculative and that it is premature for us to
consider in this action. Accordingly, our consideration of
environmental impacts was sufficient.

C. Comments on the Big Stone I NOX BART Determination

    Comment: One commenter stated that it is unclear where the baseline
rate of 0.86 lbs/MMBtu for NOX originated, because the
thirty-day rolling values for NOX only reached 0.85 lbs/
MMBtu during the baseline period. The commenter noted that the thirty-
day rolling values for NOX have been at or below 0.71 lbs/
MMBtu since 2007 because of the installation of overfire air. The
commenter asserted that 0.71 lbs/MMBtu should therefore be the starting
point for additional NOX reductions from SCR. The commenter
also noted that the baseline assumes 85% operations, while the baseline
period operations averaged 91%, and averaged 92% from 2003-2010.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Response: See our previous response in this action related to the
SO2 emission rate as it relates to baseline emissions.
Regarding the commenter's concern related to the hours of operation
assumed in the baseline, we note that the State's approach considerably
overestimates the baseline emissions. The State assumed baseline
emissions of 18,000 tons per year for its BART analysis. By contrast,
emissions data in CAMD shows that the emissions between 2001 and 2003
were 15,780 tons per year. Therefore, we find the State did not
underestimate the baseline emissions in its BART analysis.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the NOX BART analysis
at Big Stone I is flawed because it fails to consider the level of
control available with SCR, resulting in an inflated NOX
emission limit. DENR's proposed NOX emission rate of 0.10
lb/MMBtu reflects 85.9% NOX control with the installation of
SCR based on emission data showing that the highest monthly emission
rate of NOX in 2009 was 0.71 lb/MMBtu. SCR systems can
achieve 90% + NOX reductions,

meaning an emission limit of .071 lb/MMBtu is more reflective of SCR
capabilities. The commenter also cited recent SCR retrofits which have
resulted in emission rates lower than 0.05 lb/MMBtu being achieved.
    Response: Because the control efficiency of SCR is dependent on the
NOX inlet concentration, it is more appropriate to assess
the control effectiveness of SCR relative to the performance rate.
Although we acknowledge that other SCR retrofits have resulted in lower
NOX emission levels than 0.10 lb/MMBtu, we find that South
Dakota's limit is reasonable using SCR plus separated overfire air at
Big Stone I. This is particularly true in light of the need to
establish an adequate margin of compliance for BART limits that must
apply at all times including startup and shutdown.

D. Comments on Big Stone I PM BART Determination

    Comment: One commenter stated that DENR's proposed particulate
matter (PM) BART emission limit of 0.012 lb/MMBtu is not reflective of
the limits achievable by fabric filter baghouses, and is inconsistent
with some lower PM limits required as BACT. The commenter cited a
permit for a plant in Atlanta, Plant Washington, with a PM limit of
0.010 lb/MMBtu to argue that Big Stone's PM emission limit should be no
higher than this level.
    Response: As noted in the proposal, the 0.012 lb/MMBtu PM emission
limit ``represents a stringent level of control that is consistent with
recent Best Available Control Technology determinations for PSD
[prevention of significant deterioration] permits.'' 76 FR 76659. Also,
performance test data for the baghouse indicates that the actual
emission rate is 0.011 lb/MMBtu. Therefore, we find the emission limit
set by South Dakota is commensurate with the actual performance of the
control device. Moreover, there is no indication that a more stringent
level of control would lead to meaningful visibility benefits.
    Comment: One commenter asserted that DENR should require a PM
continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) rather than the currently
proposed annual stack test to ensure continuous compliance with BART
limits. If not CEMS, commenter alternatively requested that DENR impose
a 10% opacity limit ``reflective of BART,'' noting that this would
ensure continuous compliance with the BART limit and that Big Stone
already has continuous opacity monitoring. Commenter noted that other
coal plants' permits include opacity limits of 10% or less.
    Response: PM CEMS provides the most robust means of demonstrating
continuous compliance with the PM emission limits. However, we disagree
that their use is required in this case. We find that the monitoring
requirements in the South Dakota Regional Haze SIP are adequate to
demonstrate continuous compliance with the PM emission limits. South
Dakota noted in response to similar comments it received during its
public comment period that the State has the authority to require CEMS
as well as a 10% opacity limit, but that based on its case-by-case
analysis of the facility it believed an annual stack test was adequate
to meet the regional haze requirements. We agree with the State.
    Comment: One commenter stated that the PM BART limit at Big Stone
should be required now because the baghouse has already been installed.
    Response: Normally, we would agree that the PM BART limit should
apply as expeditiously as practical. In this case, South Dakota noted
in its response to a similar comment in Appendix E of the SIP that
since a dry FGD system must be located upstream of the particulate
control device, that demonstrating compliance with the SO2
BART limit affects the compliance demonstration for PM. The commenter
does not provide any explanation to refute South Dakota's response. We
find South Dakota's compliance timeframe is reasonable as noted in
Section 6.4 of the SIP for installation and operation of BART as
expeditiously as practical, but no later than five years from EPA's
approval of the South Dakota Regional Haze Program.

E. Startup, Shutdown and Enforceability Comments

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

F. Modeling Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G. GCC Dacotah Cement Comments

    Comment: Several commenters stated that technical feasibility was
not the basis for South Dakota's decision to eliminate SNCR in its 2003
NOX BACT determination for GCC Dacotah Kiln 6.
Commenters pointed to the ``Statement of Basis'' in support of GCC
Dacotah's 2003 PSD permit, in which DENR considered SNCR to be
technically feasible for Kiln 6, but rejected SNCR as BACT due
to concerns about accidental release of ammonia and ammonia slip. The
NPS provided excerpts from its comments on the 2003 PSD permit in
support of the NPS's comments on this action.
    Response: We are not basing our final approval of South Dakota's
regional haze SIP with regard to GCC Dacotah Kiln 6 on the
basis of any general statements about technical feasibility of SNCR. We
are basing it in part on analysis and information from South Dakota's
2003 BACT determination, which South Dakota relied on in regard to Kiln
6, and information subsequently provided by South Dakota. In
order to clarify the situation and to respond to other comments on Kiln
6, we provide additional detail on the 2003 PSD permit. We
explain in response to other comments our assessment of South Dakota's
reliance on the 2003 BACT determination for Kiln 6.
    On June 23, 1994, Dacotah Cement (the previous owner and operator
of the facility) submitted an application to South Dakota DENR for a
modification to Kiln 6.\13\ Based on information in the
application, South Dakota agreed that the modification was not major
under the PSD program, and the modification was completed. However,
South Dakota later determined that, based on the result of subsequent
stack tests, the modification should have triggered PSD review. South
Dakota entered into a settlement agreement with Dacotah Cement. GCC
Dacotah purchased the facility and submitted applications for PSD
permits for PM, NOX, and carbon monoxide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In its permit application, GCC Dacotah presented a five-step BACT
analysis for NOX controls for Kiln 6. In the first
step, GCC Dacotah presented SNCR as an available technology, and, in
the second step, did not eliminate SNCR (standing alone) as technically
infeasible. Among other control options, the company also presented
staged combustion, in the form of an inline, low-NOX
calciner with riser duct firing, and low NOX burners (LNBs)
with indirect firing, as available and feasible. However, in
considering combinations of control technologies, GCC Dacotah stated
that SNCR was technically infeasible in combination with the proposed
staged combustion system, for reasons including requirements for an
injection location with temperatures between 1600 [deg]F and 2000
[deg]F. The company stated that, due to these reasons, use of SNCR with
the proposed staged combustion system would have a high probability of
ammonia slip and resulting detached plume.
    In its statement of basis for the draft permit, South Dakota
likewise presented SNCR, standing alone, as an available and
technically feasible option for Kiln 6. However, South Dakota
stated that accidental release of ammonia during handling and storage
was an environmental risk. South Dakota also stated that ammonia slip
could result in increased PM10 and PM2.5
emissions, South Dakota viewed this as a concern in Rapid City. Based
on these reasons, South Dakota stated ``SNCR is not considered an
appropriate control device for [NOX] in Rapid City.'' \14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    In the statement of basis for the draft permit, South Dakota also
considered staged combustion as an option. GCC Dacotah proposed a
staged combustion system with a small pre-calciner, with a cost-
effectiveness of $3,888 per ton of NOX removed. GCC Dacotah
initially did not provide costs for a large pre-calciner. South Dakota
agreed with the cost-effectiveness for the small pre-calciner. South
Dakota also stated that the large pre-calciner would not be
economically or physically feasible, as the existing support structure
and equipment location would not accommodate it. Based on review of the
RACT/BACT/LAER Clearinghouse (RBLC), South Dakota proposed as BACT the
controls presented by GCC Dacotah, including the staged combustion
system with the small pre-calciner.
    As noted by the NPS in its comments on this action, the NPS
provided comments on the draft PSD permit, including the rejection of
SNCR for Kiln 6. The NPS argued that South Dakota should
reconsider its decision to eliminate SNCR, in light of the requirement
for SNCR in a permit for a cement kiln at Continental Cement in
Missouri. The NPS also argued that the cost-effectiveness of a large
pre-calciner should be assessed in order to determine whether it might
be BACT.
    In response to the NPS comments, South Dakota reiterated its
concerns with accidental release of ammonia and ammonia slip. In
addition, South Dakota noted that the permit for the Continental Cement
kiln required the replacement of an existing kiln, thereby reducing
NOX and avoiding PSD review. South Dakota also noted that
the NOX emissions limit of 8 lbs/ton of clinker for the
Continental Cement kiln was higher than the emissions limit for GCC
Dacotah Kiln 6 established in the PSD permit. Finally, based
on a cost analysis South Dakota requested from GCC Dacotah, South
Dakota stated that the cost-effectiveness of the large pre-calciner
would be $5,100 per ton of NOX removed, which South Dakota
considered excessive. South Dakota, therefore, finalized its
determination that staged combustion with the small pre-calciner was
BACT for Kiln 6.
    On October 11, 2011, South Dakota provided the email included in
the docket in response to our questions

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

    \15\ We note that these considerations were also presented in
the 2002 GCC Dacotah PSD permit application, in the portion
discussing SNCR in combination with the staged combustion system,
including the small pre-calciner.
    \16\ See also US EPA, Alternative Control Techniques Document
Update -NOX Emissions from New Cement Kilns, EPA-453/R-
07-006, Fig. 8-1 (Nov. 2007). Note that, based on this figure, at
1400 [deg]F, NOX reduction efficiency is at most 10%.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

First, based on the emissions data provided by South Dakota, the
existing controls, including the staged combustion system with the
small pre-calciner, achieve approximately 44% reduction of
NOX emissions. Second, based on GCC Dacotah's estimated
costs in 2003 for a large pre-calciner, the cost-effectiveness of
replacing the small pre-calciner with a large pre-calciner alone would
be (in 2011 dollars) $6,164 per ton of NOX removed, not
including the costs of removing the small pre-calciner and associated
equipment. Based on the emissions data, the incremental cost-
effectiveness, as compared with the existing controls, would be (in
2011 dollars) $280,246 per ton of NOX removed. Third, based
on the above statements by South Dakota regarding appropriate locations
for SNCR, the cost effectiveness of replacing the existing small pre-
calciner with a large pre-calciner and installing SNCR would be (in
2011 dollars) $4,348 per ton of NOX removed, again not
including the costs of removing the small pre-calciner and associated
equipment. Again, based on the emissions data, the incremental cost-
effectiveness, as compared with the existing controls, would be (in
2011 dollars) $20,160 per ton of NOX removed. The cost
estimates for SNCR are conservative, as we use a control efficiency of
50%. Given these costs, we are not prepared to find that South Dakota
was unreasonable in relying on the 2003 BACT determination and not
requiring additional NOX controls for Kiln 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    On the comment that a failure to require adequate emission controls
lacks legal justification, other than issues we have responded to
elsewhere, the commenter did not provide sufficient detail of any
deficiency in our action.
    Comment: The NPS stated that SNCR is a feasible option for cement
kilns. The NPS cited the BART Guidelines explanations of ``available''
and ``applicable'' technology, a report by the Portland Cement
Association, as well as other EPA documents to argue that SNCR has
become routinely applied to preheater/precalciner cement kilns since
South Dakota's 2003 BACT determination. The NPS also stated that it
found three entries for Portland cement plants in the RBLC, all of
which were preheater/precalciners and all of which included SNCR to
reduce NOX to approximately half the rate allowed by DENR.
    Response: As discussed above, at the time of the 2003 BACT
determination, South Dakota considered SNCR as an available and
feasible technology for GCC Dacotah Kiln 6. However, given the
current configuration of Kiln 6, South Dakota's position (as
discussed above) is that site-specific considerations prevent the
effective use of SNCR in Kiln 6 without significant process
modifications. The citation to the RBLC and the other documents does
not convince us that SNCR is routinely applied to existing preheater/
precalciner kilns, regardless of site-specific consideration such as
the current design. Thus, the comments do not give us any basis to find
that the State was unreasonable in relying on the 2003 BACT
determination for Kiln 6.
    Comment: In reference to EPA's proposed action, which states
``South Dakota declined to conduct a four-factor analysis for GCC
Dacotah Kiln 6,'' The NPS asserted that a state cannot simply decline
without good reason and an explanation for the public record. The NPS
stated that DENR's email to EPA Region 8 does not satisfy the BART
Guidelines, which state, ``if you disagree with public comments
asserting that the technology is available, you should provide an
explanation for the public record as to the basis for your
conclusion.'' The NPS does not believe this portion of the BART
Guidelines is satisfied ``because it was not made part of DENR's public
record and appears to simply be a re-statement of DENR's outdated 2003
BACT determination.''
    Response: We disagree. We noted in our proposal that the State
relied on the 2003 BACT determination instead of conducting a four-
factor analysis for Kiln 6. We discuss the State's response to
comments on SNCR for Kiln 6 elsewhere.
    There are two critical principles expressed in our BART guidelines
that are equally relevant to an RP determination. First, as part of a
BART analysis, technically infeasible control options are eliminated
from further review. For BART, EPA's criteria for determining whether a
control option is technically infeasible are substantially the same as
the criteria used for determining technical infeasibility in the BACT
context. 70 FR 39165; EPA's ``New Source Review Workshop Manual,''
pages B.17-B.22. Second, states may often be able to rely on a recent
BACT determination for a source for purposes of determining BART for
that source, unless new technologies have become available or best
control levels for recent retrofits have become more stringent. As a
general rule, the selection of a recent BACT level as BART is the
equivalent of selecting the most stringent level of control, and
consideration of the five statutory BART factors becomes unnecessary.
Given the overlap of the four statutory RP factors with the five
statutory BART factors, we think the same principle applies to RP
determinations.
    Furthermore, as discussed in more detail elsewhere, in this case it
is not just the selection of BACT in the 2003 PSD permit proceeding
that the State relies on, it is specific information from that BACT
determination that is relevant to application of SNCR to Kiln
6 as it exists now. Independently of the selection of BACT in
2003, that information (as explained elsewhere) and South Dakota's
statements regarding site-specific considerations sufficiently explain
the State's action so that EPA is not prepared to determine that South
Dakota was unreasonable.
    Comment: The NPCA stated that SNCR ``likely should have'' been
determined to be BACT in the 2003 PSD permit proceeding.
    Response: The NPCA does not identify any flaw in the 2003 BACT
determination, and none in particular in the information and analyses
in that determination on which we rely. Thus, the comment does not give
us any basis to change our proposed action.
    Comment: The NPCA stated that, should the proposed rate of progress
continue, South Dakota's reasonable progress goals (RPGs) for natural
visibility at Wind Cave and Badlands national parks are, respectively,
172 years and 201 years after the target date of 2064. The NPCA stated
that the uniform rate of progress (URP) will ``egregiously'' not be
met, and that the State must therefore analyze and require RP for BART
and non-BART sources alike based on the statutory factors. EPA is also
required to evaluate the State's RPGs based on the four statutory
factors.\18\ The NPS cited EPA Region 8's proposed rulemaking for North
Dakota's Regional Haze SIP to reiterate that South Dakota must
demonstrate why its RPGs and rejection of RP controls are
reasonable.\19\ The NPCA, therefore, stated that South Dakota and EPA
erroneously declined to analyze and require controls for GCC Dacotah,
which qualifies as ``any potentially affected source'' and
``contributes significantly to visibility impairment at its Class I
areas.'' \20\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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

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

    \21\ EPA calculated Q/D as follows: The total emissions
(SO2 + NOX) in tons per year for a source
divided by the source's distance in kilometers to the nearest Class
I Federal area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Response: For reasons explained elsewhere, we are not prepared to
find that South Dakota was unreasonable in relying on the 2003 BACT
determination to meet the requirements of the Regional Haze rule with
respect to GCC Dacotah Kiln 6. This is true regardless of the
value of Q/D for Kiln 6 alone.
    Comment: The NPS stated that it is incorrect for EPA to conclude
that the visibility benefits from GCC Dacotah would be small. Because
Kiln 6 wasn't modeled, the NPS noted it is inappropriate to
conclude that the modeled benefits are small because the analysis of
those benefits (including specifically the benefits of adding SNCR to
Kiln 6) is incomplete. The NPS further stated that it is
reasonable to conclude that, if emissions from Kiln 6 were
modeled, they might show that Kiln 6 is a significant
contributor to visibility impairment. For this reason, the commenter
stated that EPA is incorrect in stating that South Dakota based its
determination for Kiln 6 on visibility benefits rather than on
a four factor analysis.
    Response: We agree that the State did not provide visibility
modeling, either of baseline impacts or of benefits, for Kiln
6, and did not base its decision regarding Kiln 6 on
visibility modeling. In assessing South Dakota's submittal, we did note
that South Dakota modeled baseline impacts for Kilns 4 and
5 combined and relied on that data, and, in contrast, for Kiln
6 we noted instead that South Dakota relied on the 2003 BACT
determination. (See 76 FR 76665.) For the reasons discussed elsewhere,
we are not prepared to find that reliance unreasonable.
    Comment: The NPS stated that, in this action, EPA is considering
any cost excessive because of its assumption that visibility benefits
would be minimal. The NPS contrasted this action with EPA statements
from other actions regarding cost effectiveness. The NPS stated that if
EPA bases its decision that lack of visibility benefits trumps a four-
factor analysis for a situation in which URP is far from being met, it
should ``conduct a valid modeling analysis to estimate the actual
benefits on which it is basing its decision.'' The NPS stated that this
analysis should be related to the $18 million per deciview average for
NOX control costs, which the NPS stated has become the
``national norm.'' The NPS referred to Colorado's Holcim Cement plant,
a potentially affected source for which Colorado is requiring SNCR for
RP. The NPS argued that GCC Dacotah Cement's total visibility impact
would have been similar or greater than that of Holcim Cement in
Colorado, had Kiln 6 been included in GCC Dacotah's modeling.
The NPS argued that GCC Dacotah Cement should not be given a
competitive advantage over other cement facilities that are also
subject to the Regional Haze program requirements.
    Response: As a general matter, the Regional Haze rule does not
impose uniform numeric standards, such as specific cost effectiveness
or visibility benefit levels, that a State is required to use in
determining whether a control should be imposed at a potentially
affected source for RP. Instead, consistent with the CAA, the rule
requires the State to consider certain factors in determining RP. If
the State's selected controls do not achieve the URP, the State is
required to demonstrate that the State's choice was reasonable and that
it was unreasonable to meet the URP.
    In our review of a state's RP determination for a potentially
affected source, it is our task to determine that the state reasonably
considered the relevant factors. Thus, in approving South Dakota's RP
determination for Kilns 4 and 5, we are not stating a
principle that EPA considers any cost excessive when the visibility
benefits are minimal, or are below some threshold. Instead, we are
finding that the State considered the factors set out in the CAA and
reached a result that we are not prepared to say is unreasonable. We
also do not find it unreasonable for a state to rely on baseline
visibility impacts to assess potential controls. While modeling of the
reductions from controls could give a more precise measure of
visibility benefits, baseline visibility impacts do bear a rational
relation to visibility benefits. At a minimum, visibility benefits are
bounded by baseline visibility impacts.
    Furthermore, what is reasonable is subject to a certain amount of
variation from state to state, from facility to facility, and from
location to location.\22\ EPA, therefore, rejects the notion that the
reasonableness of a state's RP determination should be assessed against
a ``national norm'' based on dollars per deciview.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    EPA also rejects the comparison of South Dakota's determination to
not impose SNCR at Kiln 6 with Colorado's determination to
impose SNCR at the Holcim Florence facility. The details show the
facilities are not similar. In its RP determination for the Holcim
Florence facility, Colorado noted that the existing design of the
facility, in particular the preheater/precalciner vessels, provided
locations with appropriate temperatures for injection of ammonia.
Colorado therefore considered SNCR to be technically and economically
feasible, and derived a cost effectiveness of $2,293 per ton of
NOX removed for SNCR.\23\ In contrast, South Dakota states
that the existing design of Kiln 6 does not provide
appropriate locations for use of SNCR; in other words, that an
effective installation of SNCR would require significant process
modifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    Comment: The NPS stated that DENR and EPA should explain why the
cost estimates for SNCR at Kilns 4 and 5 were so much
higher than average. Commenter also stated that DENR used EPA's Nov.
2007 ``Alternative Control Techniques Document Update--NOX
Emissions from New Cement Kilns'' to

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

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

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

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

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

H. General Comments

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

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

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

statistics for Badlands National Park (977,778) and Wind Cave National
Park (577,141), and noted that similar visitation in 2009 resulted in
$61 million in spending and over 1,000 jobs. The commenter stated that
reduction in visibility could result in decreased visits to Class I
areas. The commenter also stated that installation of pollution control
technologies is a job-creating mechanism.
    Response: We agree with the comment. Although we did not consider
the potential positive benefits to the local and national economies in
making our decision today, we do expect that improved visibility would
have a positive impact on tourism-dependent local economies. Also, some
of these retrofits will create construction projects that we expect may
take several years to complete, and will require well-paid, skilled
labor which can potentially be drawn from the local area, which may
benefit the economy.
    Comment: One commenter stated that haze pollution significantly
impacts human and ecosystem health. Specifically, the commenter
asserted that haze pollution contributes to heart attacks, asthma
attacks, chronic bronchitis and respiratory illness, increased hospital
admissions, lost work and school days, and even premature death. The
commenter also noted the specific haze pollutants NOX,
SO2 and PM, which the commenter stated are all harmful to
the human body.
    The commenter also stated that haze pollution negatively impacts
ecosystem health. The commenter specifically expressed concern for the
effects of haze pollution on waterways, soils, plants and wildlife.
    Response: We appreciate the commenter's concerns regarding the
negative health impacts of emissions from facilities in South Dakota.
We agree that the same PM2.5 emissions that cause visibility
impairment can be inhaled deep into lungs, which can cause respiratory
problems, decreased lung function, aggravated asthma, bronchitis, and
premature death. We also agree that the same NOX emissions
that cause visibility impairment also contribute to the formation of
ground-level ozone, which has been linked with respiratory problems,
aggravated asthma, and even permanent lung damage. We agree that these
pollutants can have negative impacts on plants and ecosystems, damaging
plants, trees and other vegetation, and reducing forest growth and crop
yields, which could have a negative effect on species diversity in
ecosystems. However, for purposes of this action, we are not authorized
to consider these impacts in evaluating the reasonableness of South
Dakota's Regional Haze SIP, and we have not done so.
    Comment: The environmental advocacy group CREDO Action submitted
comments from 225 individuals. Many of these comments were identical,
and most if not all generally requested that EPA strengthen our
proposal, specifically at Big Stone I and GCC Dacotah Cement.
    Response: EPA appreciates the comments, but is approving South
Dakota's Regional Haze SIP as proposed for the reasons stated in the
proposal and in previous responses to comments in this action.
    Comment: South Dakota DENR stated that it believes the South Dakota
Regional Haze SIP will improve visibility in the State's parks and
provide improved visitor experience, and commends those involved in
developing the SIP.
    Response: EPA agrees with the commenter.

III. Final Action

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

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law.
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by
state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it approves a state rule
implementing a Federal standard.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate,

the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the
United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register.
A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. section 804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by June 25, 2012. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

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

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

    40 CFR part 52 is amended to read as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart QQ--South Dakota

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

Sec.  52.2170  Identification of plan.

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

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        State       EPA approval date and
      State citation            Title/subject      effective date       citation \1\            Explanations
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Applicable
    Name of nonregulatory SIP        geographic or      State submittal    EPA approval date     Explanations
            provision             nonattainment area   date/adopted date   and citation \5\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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


[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 233 (Monday, December 5, 2016)]
[Notices]
[Page 87603]
[FR Doc No: 2016-29087]

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

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request

Upon Written Request Copies Available From: Securities and Exchange
Commission, Office of FOIA Services, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC
20549-2736

Extension:
    Regulation S, SEC File No. 270-315, OMB Control No. 3235-0357

    Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the Securities and Exchange
Commission (``Commission'') has submitted to the Office of Management
and Budget this request for extension of the previously approved
collection of information discussed below.
    Regulation S (17 CFR 230.901 through 230.905) sets forth rules
governing offers and sales of securities made outside the United States
without registration under the Securities Act of 1933 (15 U.S.C. 77a et
seq.). Regulation S clarifies the extent to which Section 5 of the
Securities Act applies to offers and sales of securities outside of the
United States. Regulation S is assigned one burden hour for
administrative convenience.
    An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid control number.
    The public may view the background documentation for this
information collection at the following Web site, www.reginfo.gov.
Comments should be directed to: (i) Desk Officer for the Securities and
Exchange Commission, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Office of Management and Budget, Room 10102, New Executive Office
Building, Washington, DC 20503, or by sending an email to:
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>and (ii) Pamela Dyson, Director/Chief
Information Officer, Securities and Exchange Commission, c/o Remi
Pavlik-Simon, 100 F Street NE., Washington, DC 20549 or send an email
to<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Comments must be submitted to OMB within 30
days of this notice.

    Dated: November 23, 2016.
Robert W. Errett,
Deputy Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2016-29087 Filed 12-2-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8011-01-P


MEMORANDUM  SEQ CHAPTER \h \r 1

DATE:		July 29, 2015

TO:		Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants; Docket Id: OAR–2013-0602

FROM:		Lora Strine, EPA

SUBJECT:	July 21, 2015 Phone Call Regarding Proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants

SUMMARY

A phone call was held between EPA and Jennifer Macedonia, Bipartisan Policy Center on July 21, 2015 to discuss the proposed Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants. The Clean Power Plan for Existing Power Plants was proposed on June 2, 2014.

ATTENDEES

Bipartisan Policy Center

Jennifer Macedonia

US EPA

Lora Strine