[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 125 (Thursday, June 28, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 30350-30352]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-13825]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0034; FRL-9980-09--Region 5]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Minnesota; Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving 
Minnesota's regional haze progress report under the Clean Air Act (CAA) 
as a revision to the Minnesota State Implementation Plan (SIP). 
Minnesota has satisfied the progress report requirements of the 
Regional Haze Rule. Minnesota also provided a determination of the 
adequacy of its plan in addressing regional haze with its negative 
declaration, submitted with the progress report, that no revisions are 
needed to its plan.

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 30, 2018.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2015-0034. 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 Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 886-6524 
before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, 
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6524, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#d8aab9adf6b5b9acacb0bdaf98bda8b9f6bfb7ae"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="790b180c5714180d0d111c0e391c0918571e160f">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 are EPA's responses to the comments?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    States are required to submit a progress report every five years 
that evaluates progress towards the reasonable progress goals (RPGs) 
for each mandatory Class I Federal area \1\ (Class I area) within the 
state and in each Class I area outside the state which may be affected 
by emissions from within the state. 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. 40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report SIP is due five years 
after submittal of the initial regional haze SIP.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under the CAA, a Class I Federal area is one in which 
visibility is protected more stringently than under the national 
ambient air quality standards. Class I Federal areas include 
national parks, wilderness areas, monuments, and other areas of 
special national and cultural significance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Minnesota submitted its regional haze plan to EPA on December 30, 
2009, with a supplement submitted on May 8, 2012. Correspondingly, 
Minnesota submitted its five-year progress report and its determination 
of adequacy on December 30, 2014. Minnesota made no substantive 
revisions to its regional haze plan as it determined that the existing 
SIP is sufficient to achieve the 2018 reasonable progress goals for the 
Class I areas impacted by Minnesota emissions and thus further revision 
to the SIP was unnecessary. EPA is approving Minnesota's progress 
report on the basis that it satisfies the applicable requirements of 40 
CFR 51.308.
    In order to satisfy the requirements for Best Available Retrofit 
Technology (BART) for certain taconite ore processing facilities in 
Minnesota, EPA promulgated a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for 
taconite on February 6, 2013, (78 FR 8706) and revised the taconite FIP 
on April 12, 2016, (81 FR 21672). Minnesota elected to use the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) to satisfy BART for its electric 
generating units.
    Two Class I areas are located in Minnesota, the Boundary Waters 
Canoe Wilderness Area (Boundary Waters) and the Voyageurs National Park 
(Voyageurs). Further, Minnesota emissions contribute to visibility 
impairment at a Class I area located out of state, the Isle Royale 
National Park (Isle Royale) in Michigan.
    A direct final rule (DFR) approving the Minnesota regional haze 
progress report published on October 18, 2017 (82 FR 48425), along with 
a proposed rule (82 FR 48472) that provided a 30-day public comment 
period. The DFR evaluated the Minnesota submission by 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

[[Page 30351]]

Minnesota's regional haze plan. The DFR also provided a description of 
the regional haze requirements addressed in the Minnesota progress 
report. The DFR serves as the detailed basis for this final rule.

II. What are EPA's responses to the comments?

    Comments were received on the DFR (82 FR 48425). The two anonymous 
commenters both expressed concern over CSAPR issues. The comments 
pertain to issues that were addressed in earlier Federal rulemakings.
    Comments: One commenter claims that Minnesota's submission cannot 
be approved because CSAPR is a FIP and Minnesota cannot rely on a FIP 
to demonstrate that its SIP is adequate. The commenter also claims that 
CSAPR has been rescinded as a program and is no longer in force. The 
commenter states that, as a result, Minnesota cannot rely on CSAPR for 
its long term goals.
    The other commenter contends that EPA cannot approve progress 
reports that rely on CSAPR or any other regional trading program to 
satisfy the BART requirements because BART is required on a source-by-
source basis. The commenter claims that BART needs to evaluated based 
on the impacts on each national park from each source, not as a 
holistic multi-source or multi-park evaluation.
    Response: 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 CSAPR to satisfy the BART requirement raises issues outside the 
scope of this rulemaking. We do note, however, that 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) 
allows a state to rely on participation in a CSAPR FIP to address the 
BART requirements for electric generating units (EGUs). Consistent with 
this rule, EPA approved Minnesota's regional haze plan in 2012 as 
satisfying the applicable BART requirements in 40 CFR 51.308 for the 
subject EGUs through participation in CSAPR (77 FR 34801 (June 12, 
2012)).
    EPA's approval of Minnesota's reliance on CSAPR to satisfy the BART 
requirements for these sources rather than requiring source by source 
BART was upheld by the 8th Circuit. National Parks Conservation Ass'n 
v. McCarthy, 816 F.3d.989, 994 (8th Cir. 2016). More broadly, EPA's 
regulations that allow for the comparison of average visibility 
improvements across multiple Class I areas in assessing regional 
trading programs as alternatives to BART has also been upheld as 
reasonable by the D.C. Circuit. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 
471 F.3d 1333, 1340-41 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (upholding CAIR as a BART 
alternative); Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 885 F.3d 714, 721 
(D.C. Cir. 2018) (upholding CSAPR as a BART alternative). We also note 
that CSAPR has not been rescinded and remains in force. Finally, the 
regional haze rule defines ``implementation plan'' to include approved 
SIPs or FIPs. Given this, states may rely on FIPs in their progress 
reports to demonstrate the adequacy of a plan to achieve reasonable 
progress goals.
    In summary, EPA disagrees that the points raised by the commenters 
prevent approval of the progress report. Thus, EPA finds that 
Minnesota's progress report satisfies 40 CFR 51.308.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the regional haze progress report that Minnesota 
submitted on December 30, 2014, under the CAA as a revision to the 
Minnesota SIP. EPA finds that Minnesota has satisfied the progress 
report requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. EPA also finds that 
Minnesota has 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:
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> 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.);
    <bullet> 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);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
    <bullet> 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, 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 27, 2018. Filing a petition for 
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not

[[Page 30352]]

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, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: June 18, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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


0
2. In Sec.  52.1220, the table in paragraph (e) is amended by adding an 
entry for ``Regional Haze Progress Report'' to follow the entry titled 
``Regional Haze Plan'' to read as follows:


Sec.  52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                EPA--Approved Minnesota Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                               State
   Name of nonregulatory SIP      Applicable  geographic     submittal
           provision             or  nonattainment  area       date/       EPA approved date       Comments
                                                          effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Regional Haze Progress Report..  statewide..............      12/30/2014  6/28/2018, [insert  ..................
                                                                           Federal Register
                                                                           citation].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2018-13825 Filed 6-27-18; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>