30350 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

1Under 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. 

§ 52.820 Identification of plan 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED IOWA SOURCE-SPECIFIC ORDERS/PERMITS

Name of source Order/Permit No. State effective 

date EPA approval date Explanation 

*******

(29) Grain Processing 

Corporation.

Administrative Consent Order No. 

2014–AQ–A1.

1/16/17 12/1/14, 79 FR 71025; amendment approved 6/28/18 [Insert 

Federal Register citation].

The last sentence of Paragraph 5, Section 

III and Section VI are not approved by 

EPA as part of the SIP. 

*******

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2018–13857 Filed 6–27–18; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

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, rau.matthew@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 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. 

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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 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: 

• 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 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where 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 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES
30352 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 

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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. In § 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: 

§ 52.1220 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA—APPROVED MINNESOTA NONREGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area 

State 

submittal 

date/ 

effective 

date 

EPA approved date Comments 

*******

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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0386; FRL–9979– 

85—Region 7] 

Approval of Nebraska Air Quality 

Implementation Plans; Adoption of a 

New Chapter Under the Nebraska 

Administrative Code 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking final action to 

approve the State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) revision submitted by the state of 

Nebraska on November 14, 2011. 

Nebraska is adding a new chapter titled 

‘‘Visibility Protection’’ which provides 

Nebraska authority to implement 

Federal regulations relating to Regional 

Haze and Best Available Retrofit 

Technology (BART). The new chapter 

incorporates EPA’s Guidelines for BART 

Determinations under the Regional Haze 

Rule. The revision to the SIP meets the 

visibility component of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). 

DATES: This final rule is effective on July 

30, 2018. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R07–OAR–2017–0386. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the https://www.regulations.gov 

website. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through https://

www.regulations.gov or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Greg 

Crable, Environmental Protection 

Agency, Air Planning and Development 

Branch, 11201 Renner Boulevard, 

Lenexa, Kansas 66219 at (913) 551– 

7391, or by email at crable.gregory@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ 

and ‘‘our’’ refer to EPA. This section 

provides additional information by 

addressing the following: 

I. Background 

II. What is being addressed in this document? 

III. Have the requirements for approval of a 

SIP revision been met? 

IV. EPA’s Response to Comments 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Incorporation by Reference 

VII. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

EPA received Nebraska’s November 8, 

2011, SIP submission. On October 5, 

2017, EPA proposed to approve the SIP 

submission from the State of Nebraska. 

See 82 FR 46433. In conjunction with 

the October 5, 2017 notice of proposed 

rulemaking (NPR), EPA issued a direct 

final rule (DFR) approving the same SIP 

submission. See 82 FR 46415. However, 

in the DFR, EPA stated that if EPA 

received adverse comments by 

November 6, 2017, the action would be 

withdrawn and not take effect. EPA 

received one set of adverse comments 

prior to the close of the comment 

period. EPA withdrew the DFR on 

November 27, 2017. See 82 FR 55951. 

The revision to title 129, adding 

chapter 43, Visibility Protection, 

addressed in this action was originally 

proposed and approved during the 

September 8, 2006, Environmental 

Quality Council (ECQ) meeting. 

However, the revision was not approved 

by Attorney General’s office. On August 

17, 2007, an amended package was resubmitted to the EQC, at which time it 

was approved by both the EQC and the 

Attorney General’s office. After the 

Governor’s signature, the revision 

adding chapter 43 became effective on 

February 6, 2008. Chapter 43 was 

submitted to the EPA, as part of a larger 

SIP package on November 8, 2011. Some 

of the revisions submitted in November 

2011, were withdrawn by the State for 

various reasons. The remaining 

revisions to title 129, except for 


amozie on DSK3GDR082PROD with RULES