27910 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0157; FRL–9979– 

32—Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; 

Regional Haze Progress Report 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving the regional 

haze progress report under the Clean Air 

Act (CAA) as a revision to the 

Wisconsin state implementation plan 

(SIP). Wisconsin has satisfied the 

progress report requirements of the 

Regional Haze Rule. Wisconsin has also 

provided a determination of the 

adequacy of its regional haze plan with 

the progress report. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 

16, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0157. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov website. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., 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 through 

www.regulations.gov or at the 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Gilberto 

Alvarez, Environmental Scientist, at 

(312) 886–6143 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental 

Scientist, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–6143, 

alvarez.gilberto@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. This supplementary information 

section is arranged as follows: 

I. Background 

II. What is EPA’s response to the comments? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

States are required to periodically 

submit a progress report that evaluates 

progress towards the Reasonable 

Progress Goals (RPGs) for each 

mandatory Class I Federal area within 

the State and in each mandatory Class 

I Federal area outside the State which 

may be affected by emissions from 

within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). 

States are also required to submit, at the 

same time as the progress report, a 

determination of the adequacy of the 

State’s existing regional haze SIP. See 40 

CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report 

is due five years after the submittal of 

the initial regional haze SIP. 

Wisconsin submitted its regional haze 

plan on January 18, 2012. EPA approved 

Wisconsin’s regional haze plan into its 

SIP on August 7, 2012 (77 FR 46952). 

Wisconsin submitted its five-year 

progress report on March 17, 2017. This 

is a report on the implementation of the 

regional haze plan and the progress 

made in the first implementation period 

towards RPGs for Class I areas outside 

of Wisconsin. Wisconsin does not have 

any Class I areas within its borders 

where visibility is an important value. 

This progress report SIP included a 

determination that Wisconsin’s existing 

regional haze SIP requires no 

substantive revision to achieve the 

established regional haze visibility 

improvement and emissions reduction 

goals for 2018 for Class I areas impacted 

by Wisconsin emissions. EPA is 

approving Wisconsin’s progress report 

on the basis that it satisfies the 

applicable requirements of the rule at 40 

CFR 51.308. 

EPA published a direct final rule 

(DFR) on October 20, 2017 (82 FR 

48766), approving the Wisconsin 

regional haze progress report as a 

revision to the Wisconsin SIP, along 

with a proposed rule (82 FR 48780), that 

provided a 30-day public comment 

period. The DFR evaluated the 

Wisconsin submittal assessing its 

progress in implementing its regional 

haze plan during the first half of the first 

implementation period as well as the 

statutory and regulatory background for 

EPA’s review of Wisconsin’s regional 

haze plan. The DFR also provided a 

description of the regional haze 

requirements addressed in the 

Wisconsin progress report. The DFR 

serves as the detailed basis for this 

action. The adverse comments that EPA 

received are addressed below. 

II. What is EPA’s response to the 

comments? 

EPA received two relevant comments 

on the DFR. One commenter supported 

the approval of the regional haze 5-year 

progress report SIP. A second 

commenter expressed concern over 

Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) 

issues and measures not approved into 

the SIP. We address the second 

commenter’s concerns here. 

Comment—The commenter argued 

that EPA cannot approve the Wisconsin 

regional haze 5-year progress report 

because the State must revise its 

regional haze SIP to replace reliance on 

the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and 

CSAPR with reliance on the ‘‘CSAPR 

Update.’’ The commenter stated that as 

CAIR and CSAPR are no longer in effect, 

these rules cannot be relied on for 

achieving reasonable progress goals, and 

that states cannot rely on federal 

implementation plans (FIPs) as 

measures must be contained in the SIP. 

The commenter also claimed that 

Wisconsin is taking credit for consent 

decrees, an Administrative Order on 

Consent for Georgia Pacific that is not 

approved into the SIP, and limits in title 

V permits that are not approved into the 

SIP. The commenter argued that because 

such measures are not federally 

enforceable, Wisconsin cannot take 

credit for them in its regional haze SIP. 

The commenter also argued that EPA 

cannot allow states to rely on trading 

programs to meet the source specific 

requirements for best available retrofit 

technology (BART). 

EPA’s Response—In its regional haze 

SIP, Wisconsin relied on participation 

in CSAPR to satisfy certain of the BART 

requirements for its subject electric 

generating units and to satisfy 

reasonable progress requirements for 

these sources. In its progress report, 

Wisconsin notes that significant 

contribution towards reasonable 

progress has been made through 

implementation of CAIR and CSAPR in 

the State. Although EPA promulgated 

CSAPR on August 8, 2011 (76 FR 

48208), the timing of CSAPR’s 

implementation was impacted by 

several court actions. EPA began 

implementing CSAPR on January 1, 

2015, and CSAPR is now in force. The 

commenter, however, argues that 

because CSAPR has been recently 

modified, ’’CSAPR’’ as referenced in the 

EPA-approved Wisconsin BART SIP 

element is no longer in effect. Similarly, 

the commenter also states that because 

CAIR is no longer in effect, the State 

may not rely on CAIR to achieve 

reasonable progress goals. 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 27911 

EPA disagrees with the commenter for 

several reasons. First, although CAIR is 

no longer in effect, it was in effect 

during part of the time period addressed 

by the progress report. Thus, Wisconsin 

appropriately described reductions from 

CAIR in summarizing the emissions 

reductions achieved during the initial 

years of the first implementation period. 

Second, contrary to the commenter’s 

assertion, CSAPR remains in effect and 

will continue to result in emissions 

reductions in Wisconsin and other 

states subject to the rule. The D.C. 

Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects 

in 2015. EME Homer City Generation, 

L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 

2015). In that decision, the court 

remanded, without vacating, some of 

the CSAPR budgets for a number of 

states. At this point, however, EPA has 

now taken all actions necessary to 

respond to that remand, and Wisconsin 

remains subject to CSAPR following 

EPA’s actions. We also note that on 

September 29, 2017, EPA finalized a 

determination that the changes to the 

scope of CSAPR coverage following our 

actions on the remand do not alter 

EPA’s conclusion that CSAPR remains 

better-than-BART. (82 FR 45481). 

Accordingly, we do not agree that 

Wisconsin erred in relying on CAIR and 

CSAPR in its progress report for 

ensuring the necessary emission 

reductions. 

We also do not agree that States may 

not rely on FIPs in considering whether 

a regional haze implementation plan is 

sufficient to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals for nearby Class I areas. 

The Regional Haze Rule defines 

‘‘implementation plan’’ for purposes of 

the visibility program to mean ‘‘any 

[SIP], [FIP], or Tribal Implementation 

Plan.’’. 40 CFR 51.301. Given this, 

measures in any issued FIP as well as 

those in a state’s regional haze plan may 

be relied on in assessing the adequacy 

of the ‘‘existing implementation plan’’ 

under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) and (h). 

The commenter also stated that 

Wisconsin is inappropriately taking 

credit in its progress report for consent 

decrees, an Administrative Consent 

Order for Georgia Pacific, and title V 

permits, none of which, the commenter 

claimed, are approved into the SIP. 

Again, we disagree with this comment 

for several reasons. First, with respect to 

Georgia Pacific, Wisconsin does 

describe the Administrative Consent 

Order for the source as a key element of 

its regional haze SIP; however, the 

Administrative Consent Order is 

incorporated by reference into the SIP. 

See 40 CFR 52.2570(c)(124)(i)(A). 

Second, it is unclear for which other 

consent decrees or title V permits 

Wisconsin is ‘‘taking credit’’ or in what 

way, but states in general are required 

to consider emission reductions due to 

ongoing air pollution control programs 

in developing a long-term strategy. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). Given this, it is 

appropriate for a state to include a 

discussion in the progress report of the 

status of measures the state relied on in 

developing its long-term strategy. 

Finally, the regulations governing 

progress reports do not include a 

requirement for states (or EPA) to ensure 

that all applicable regional haze 

requirements for the planning period 

have been met by the existing plan. As 

such, the comment raising concerns 

about the reliance on a regional trading 

program to satisfy the BART 

requirement raises issues outside the 

scope of this rulemaking. We do note, 

however, that 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) 

explicitly allows a state to rely on 

participation in a CSAPR FIP to address 

the BART requirements for electric 

generating units (EGUs). See Utility Air 

Regulatory Group v. EPA, 885 F.3d 714, 

721 (D.C. Cir. 2018)(upholding CSAPR 

as a BART alternative); see also 

National Parks Conservation 

Association v. McCarthy, 816 F.3d 989 

(8th Cir. 2016). 

In summary, EPA disagrees that the 

points raised by the commenter prevent 

approval of the progress report EPA 

finds that Wisconsin’s progress report 

satisfies 40 CFR 51.308. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving the Wisconsin 

regional haze progress report under the 

CAA as a revision to the Wisconsin SIP. 

EPA finds that Wisconsin has satisfied 

the progress report requirements of the 

Regional Haze Rule. Wisconsin has also 

met the requirements for a 

determination of the adequacy of its 

regional haze plan with its negative 

declaration submitted with the progress 

report. 

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 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive 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, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

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

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

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

this action does not involve technical 

standards; 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 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. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
27912 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 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 August 14, 2018. 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 dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: June 4, 2018. 

Cathy Stepp, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 52.2593 is added to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2593 Visibility protection. 

(a) Approval. Wisconsin submitted its 

regional haze plan to EPA on January 

18, 2012, supplemented on June 7, 2012. 

The Wisconsin regional haze plan meets 

the requirements of Clean Air Act 

section 169B and the Regional Haze 

Rule in 40 CFR 51.308. 

(b) Approval. Wisconsin submitted its 

five-year progress report on March 17, 

2017. The Progress Report meets the 

requirements of Clean Air Act sections 

169A and 169B and the Regional Haze 

Rule in 40 CFR 51.308. 

[FR Doc. 2018–12810 Filed 6–14–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Parts 405, 417, 422, 423, 460, 

and 498 

[CMS–4182–CN2] 

RIN 0938–AT08 

Medicare Program; Medicare Program; 

Contract Year 2019 Policy and 

Technical Changes to the Medicare 

Advantage, Medicare Cost Plan, 

Medicare Fee-for-Service, the Medicare 

Prescription Drug Benefit Programs, 

and the PACE Program; Correction 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: This document corrects 

technical and typographical errors that 

appeared in the final rule published in 

the Federal Register on April 16, 2018 

titled ‘‘Medicare Program; Contract Year 

2019 Policy and Technical Changes to 

the Medicare Advantage, Medicare Cost 

Plan, Medicare Fee-for-Service, the 

Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit 

Programs, and the PACE Program.’’ 

DATES: Effective Date: This correcting 

document is effective June 15, 2018. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Marie Manteuffel, (410) 786–3447. Lucia 

Patrone, (410) 786–8621. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

In FR Doc. 2018–07179 of April 16, 

2018 (83 FR 16440), there were a 

number of technical and typographical 

errors that are identified and corrected 

in the Correction of Errors section of 

this correcting document. The 

provisions in this correction document 

are effective as if they had been 

included in the document that appeared 

in the April 16, 2018 Federal Register. 

Accordingly, these corrections are 

effective June 15, 2018. 

II. Summary of Errors 

A. Summary of Errors in the Preamble 

On page 16498, in our response to a 

comment regarding default enrollment, 

we made and error in referencing the 

Medicare and Medicaid programs. 

On page 16503, in our response to a 

comment on passive enrollment 

eligibility, we included footnote that 

contains a hyperlink to the document by 

Health Management Associates titled 

‘‘Value Assessment of the Senior Care 

Options (SCO) Program’’ that is no 

longer valid. 

On pages 16679 through 16684, we 

made technical and typographical errors 

in the table numbering and references of 

the stop-loss insurance deductible 

tables. 

On page 16684, in summarizing a 

comment and response regarding stoploss coverage, we inadvertently 

included a response as part of the 

comment and excluded a sentence from 

part of a response. 

On page 16703, in the regulatory 

impact analysis section, we erroneously 

stated the percentages of Medicare 

health plan organizations and Part D 

sponsors that are not-for-profit. In 

addition, we made factual and 

typographical errors in our discussion of 

the percentage of Medicare Advantage 

organizations (MAOs) that meet the 

minimum threshold for classification as 

small businesses. 

On page 16710, in our discussion of 

the percentage of enrollees that are 

receiving services under capitated 

arrangements, we made technical and 

typographical errors in an assumption 

and our terminology. 

B. Summary of Errors in the Regulations 

Text 

On pages 16731 and 16732, in the 

regulations text changes for § 422.208, 

we made technical and typographical 

errors in the table numbering and 

references of the stop-loss insurance 

deductible tables. 

On pages 16735 and 16754, in the 

regulations text for §§ 422.2260 and 

423.2260, respectively, we made 

technical errors in the language and 

paragraph designations for the 

definitions of ‘‘marketing,’’ ‘‘marketing 

materials,’’ and ‘‘materials that do not 

include the following are not considered 

marketing materials.’’ 

On page 16735, in the regulations text 

for § 422.2268 we erroneously indicated 

that we were revising two paragraphs 

instead of indicating that we were 

revising the entire section. 

On page 16738, in the regulations text 

for § 423.120, we made an inadvertent 

typographical error in punctuating the 

end of the paragraph. 

On page 16755, in the regulations text 

for § 423.2262, we inadvertently omitted 

the asterisks before paragraph (d), 

indicating that paragraphs (a) through 

(c) are retained without change. 

III. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking 

and Delay in Effective Date 

Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 

the agency is required to publish a 

notice of the proposed rule in the 

Federal Register before the provisions 

of a rule take effect. Similarly, section 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES