Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48425 

program beyond the secondary 

education level; 

4. 34 CFR 600.52, definition of a 

‘‘foreign institution,’’ paragraph (1)(iv), 

requiring a foreign institution to award 

degrees, certificates, or other recognized 

educational credentials in accordance 

with § 600.54(e) that are officially 

recognized by the country in which the 

institution is located; 

5. 34 CFR 600.52, definition of a 

‘‘foreign institution,’’ paragraph (2), 

requiring that, if an educational 

enterprise enrolls students both within 

a State and outside a State, and the 

number of students who would be 

eligible to receive title IV, HEA program 

funds attending locations outside a State 

is at least twice the number of students 

enrolled within a State, the locations 

outside a State must apply to participate 

as one or more foreign institutions and 

must meet all requirements of the 

definition of a ‘‘foreign institution,’’ and 

the other requirements applicable to 

foreign institutions; 

6. 34 CFR 600.54(d)(1), requiring the 

additional locations of a foreign 

institution to separately meet the 

definition of a ‘‘foreign institution’’ in 

34 CFR 600.52 if the additional location 

is located outside of the country in 

which the main campus is located, 

except as provided for the clinical 

training portion of a program of a 

foreign graduate medical school, 

veterinary school, or nursing school; 

7. 34 CFR 600.55(a)(2)(iii), requiring 

that, as part of its clinical training, a 

foreign graduate medical school does 

not offer more than two electives 

consisting of no more than eight weeks 

per student at a site located in a foreign 

country other than the country in which 

the main campus is located or in the 

United States, unless that location is 

included in the accreditation of a 

medical program accredited by the 

Liaison Committee on Medical 

Education (LCME) or the American 

Osteopathic Association (AOA); 

8. 34 CFR 600.55(b)(1)(i), requiring 

that a foreign graduate medical school 

be approved by an accrediting body that 

is legally authorized to evaluate the 

quality of graduate medical school 

educational programs and facilities in 

the country where the school is located; 

and 

9. 34 CFR 600.55(h), requiring that a 

foreign graduate medical program 

offered to U.S. students: 

• Must be located in the country in 

which the main campus of the school is 

located, except for the clinical training 

portion of the program, and must be in 

a country whose medical school 

accrediting standards are comparable to 

U.S. standards as determined by the 

NCFMEA, except for exempt clinical 

training sites in 34 CFR 600.55(h)(3)(ii), 

or clinical sites located in the United 

States. 

• Unless a clinical training site is an 

exempt clinical training site under 34 

CFR 600.55(h)(3)(ii), for students to be 

eligible to receive Direct Loan funds at 

any part of the clinical training portion 

of the program located in a foreign 

country other than the country where 

the main campus of the foreign graduate 

medical school is located or in the 

United States: (i) The school’s medical 

accrediting agency must have conducted 

an on-site evaluation and approved the 

clinical training site, and (ii) the clinical 

instruction must be offered in 

conjunction with programs offered to 

students enrolled in accredited schools 

located in that approved foreign 

country. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Portable Document Format 

(PDF). To use PDF you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1082, 1088. 

Dated: October 13, 2017. 

Kathleen A. Smith, 

Acting Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary 

Education. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22628 Filed 10–17–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2015–0034; FRL–9969–59– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Minnesota; Regional Haze Progress 

Report 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving a regional 

haze progress report under the Clean Air 

Act as a revision to the Minnesota State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). Minnesota 

has satisfied the progress report 

requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. 

The progress report examines 

Minnesota’s progress in implementing 

its regional haze plan during the first 

half of the first implementation period. 

Minnesota has met the requirements for 

submitting a periodic report describing 

its progress toward reasonable progress 

goals (RPGs) established for regional 

haze. Minnesota also provided a 

determination of the adequacy of its 

plan in addressing regional haze with its 

negative declaration submitted with the 

progress report. Because the state 

addresses the applicable requirements, 

EPA is approving the progress report 

and adequacy determination for the first 

implementation period for regional haze 

as a revision to the Minnesota SIP. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective December 18, 2017, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

November 17, 2017. If adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2015–0034 at https://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

blakley.pamela@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
48426 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

1Under the Clean Air Act (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 area include 

national parks, wilderness areas, monuments, and 

other areas of special national and cultural 

significance. 

2EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. 

Ct. 1584 (2014). 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

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. Requirements for Regional Haze Progress 

Report SIPs and Adequacy 

Determinations 

III. What is EPA’s analysis? 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

States are required to submit a 

progress report every five years that 

evaluates progress towards the RPGs for 

each mandatory Class I Federal area 1

(Class I area). Specifically, the progress 

report evaluates progress toward the 

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 with 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 

under 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. EPA is approving 

Minnesota’s progress report on the basis 

that it satisfies the applicable 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. 

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. 

II. Requirements for Regional Haze 

Progress Report SIPs and Adequacy 

Determinations 

States must periodically submit a 

regional haze progress report that 

addresses the elements found in 40 CFR 

51.308(g). States are required by 40 CFR 

51.308(h) to submit, at the same time as 

the progress report SIP, a determination 

of the adequacy of their existing 

regional haze SIP and to take one of four 

possible actions listed in the rule based 

on information in the progress report. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis? 

A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIP 

The following sections discuss the 

information provided in Minnesota’s 

progress report. Each section describes 

Minnesota’s progress report SIP 

submission and provides EPA’s analysis 

and proposed determination as to 

whether the submission meets the 

applicable requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308. 

1. Status of Implementation of All 

Measures Included in the Regional Haze 

SIP 

In general, the Regional Haze Rule 

features two strategies for reducing 

visibility-impairing pollutants: 

Implementing best available retrofit 

technology (BART) and the long-term 

strategy (LTS). In Minnesota, BART 

applies to electric generating units 

(EGUs) and taconite facilities. 

a. BART for EGUs 

The Minnesota progress report 

described the implementation of 

regional haze controls at EGUs. 

Minnesota’s 2009 Regional Haze SIP 

included source-specific BART 

determinations for subject EGUs. 

Minnesota had intended to rely on the 

Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) EGU 

emissions cap and trade program, 

finalized on May 12, 2005 (70 FR 

25162), which had been determined by 

EPA as ‘‘better than BART.’’ However, 

CAIR was remanded (without vacatur) 

by the Court of Appeals for the District 

of Columbia (D.C.) Circuit in December 

2008, North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d 

1176, 1178 (D.C. Cir. 2008). Therefore, 

Minnesota’s 2009 Regional Haze SIP 

relied on the source-specific BART 

determinations performed by the state. 

EPA finalized the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR), effective 

October 7, 2011 (76 FR 48208). 

Implementation of CSAPR was 

scheduled to begin on January 1, 2012, 

when CSAPR would have superseded 

the CAIR program. However, numerous 

parties filed petitions for review of 

CSAPR, and at the end of 2011, the D.C. 

Circuit issued an order staying CSAPR 

pending resolution of the petitions and 

directing EPA to continue to administer 

CAIR. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. 

v. EPA, D.C. Cir. No. 11–1302 

(December 30, 2011). 

In December 2011, EPA proposed a 

rule to approve CSAPR as an alternative 

to determining source-by-source specific 

BART for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions from 

power plants. 76 FR 82219 (December 

30, 2011). EPA finalized the rule on 

June 7, 2012. 77 FR 33642. Minnesota 

modified its EGU BART strategy, 

replacing source-specific BART 

determinations at subject facilities with 

participation in CSAPR. On January 5, 

2012, Minnesota requested to use 

CSAPR participation to satisfy BART for 

its EGUs, which EPA approved on June 

12, 2012 (77 FR 34801). EPA considers 

CSAPR to satisfy the BART 

requirements for Minnesota EGUs for 

SO2 and NOX. 

On August 21, 2012, the Court of 

Appeals for the D.C. Circuit vacated 

CSAPR, keeping CAIR in effect while 

EPA developed a replacement rule. EPA 

appealed the ruling to the U.S. Supreme 

Court, which upheld CSAPR in a final 

decision issued on April 29, 2014.2 On 

October 23, 2014, the Court of Appeals 

granted EPA’s motion to lift the stay of 

CSAPR and to toll CSAPR’s compliance 

deadlines by three years. On November 

21, 2014, EPA issued a rule that aligns 

the dates in the CSAPR rule text with 

the revised court-ordered schedule, 

including the implementation of Phase 

I in 2015. 79 FR 71663. 

Minnesota used CSAPR to satisfy 

BART for its subject EGUs. The EGUs in 

Minnesota, including both units subject 

to BART and units not subject to BART, 

have reduced SO2 and NOX emissions 

even with the delay in implementing 

CSAPR. In the progress report, 

Minnesota shows that 2013 state-wide 

SO2 emissions from EGUs were 24,366 

tons. That is below the CSAPR budget 

of 41,981 tons and a 76 percent decrease 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48427 

3EPA subsequently reached a settlement 

agreement with Cliffs Natural Resources, Arcelor 

Mittal, and the state of Michigan regarding issues 

raised in their petitions for review and 

reconsideration. Notice of the settlement was 

published in the Federal Register on January 30, 

2015 (80 FR 5111), and the settlement agreement 

was fully executed on April 9, 2015. 

EPA granted partial reconsideration of the 2013 

Taconite FIP based on new information raised in 

the petitions for reconsideration. EPA finalized a 

revision to the taconite BART FIP on April 12, 2016 

(81 FR 21672). EPA revised the SO2 and NOX

emission limitations for some of the taconite 

facilities based on new information that was not 

available when the FIP was originally promulgated. 

However, Cliffs, Arcelor Mittal, and US Steel 

filed petitions for reconsideration and review 

against the April 12, 2016 revised FIP on or about 

June 13, 2016. This matter is also pending before 

the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. 

from 2002 emissions. Minnesota also 

shows that 2013 state-wide NOX

emissions were 24,855 tons from EGUs. 

That is below the 29,572 tons CSAPR 

budget and a 71 percent decrease from 

2002 emissions. 

b. BART for Taconite Facilities 

The Minnesota progress report 

described the implementation of 

regional haze controls at taconite 

facilities. Minnesota’s 2009 Regional 

Haze SIP included source-specific 

BART determinations for subject 

taconite facilities. On February 6, 2013, 

EPA finalized a Federal Implementation 

Plan rule (FIP) with BART 

determinations and enforceable limits 

for Minnesota’s subject taconite 

facilities for control of SO2 and NOX

emissions. 78 FR 8706. 

Compliance deadlines in the FIP 

ranged from a few months (for most SO2

limits) to five years from the SIP’s 

effective date of March 8, 2013. The 

affected facilities, however, as well as 

the state of Michigan, filed petitions for 

reconsideration and review of the FIP 

rule. The Eighth Circuit Court of 

Appeals granted a stay of the rule on 

June 14, 2013. As of the date of 

Minnesota’s progress report, December 

30, 2014, the stay remained in effect 

while the parties sought to resolve the 

litigation.3 Subsequently, the stay was 

lifted on November 15, 2016. 

The FIP provided BART limits for 

taconite furnaces. The delays in 

implementing the taconite FIP extended 

beyond the period Minnesota assessed 

in its progress report. In light of the stay 

of the FIP during the reporting period, 

Minnesota did not include any expected 

visibility improvements that will arise 

from the implementation of the FIP in 

its progress report analysis. Minnesota 

will evaluate visibility benefits from the 

taconite FIP in future regional haze 

plans and progress reports. 

c. Long Term Strategy 

In its progress report, Minnesota 

described its Northeast Minnesota Plan, 

which is part of the LTS in its regional 

haze plan. The Northeast Minnesota 

Plan applies to sources in a six-county 

(Carlton, Cook, Itasca, Koochiching, 

Lake, and Saint Louis counties) area in 

northeastern Minnesota that emit at 

least 100 tons per year of either NOX, 

SO2, or both. The Northeast Minnesota 

Plan sets two targets from the base case 

for reductions in combined NOX and 

SO2 emissions. 

d. ‘‘On-the-Books’’ Modeled Controls 

In its progress report, Minnesota 

noted the additional emission 

reductions expected from several 

Federal programs. Minnesota 

considered the emission reductions 

from the Tier 2 Gasoline, Heavy-duty 

Highway Diesel, Non-road Diesel, and a 

variety of Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology programs in its regional 

haze plan. Minnesota did not rely on 

additional emissions controls from other 

states in its regional haze strategy. 

Additional emission reductions from 

the evaluated programs and from other 

states will not delay visibility 

improvement and may accelerate the 

improvement. 

EPA concludes that Minnesota has 

adequately addressed the status of 

control measures in its regional haze 

SIP. Minnesota describes the 

implementation status of measures from 

its regional haze SIP including the 

status of control measures to meet 

BART, reasonable progress 

requirements, and the status of 

measures from on-the-book controls. 

2. Summary of Emission Reductions 

Achieved in Minnesota Through 

Implementation of Measures 

Minnesota provided its EGUs 

emissions of SO2 and NOX for 2002, 

2009, and 2013, along with its CSAPR 

budgets. As discussed in III.A.1.a. of 

this rule, emissions of the relevant 

pollutants have sharply declined from 

2002 to 2013, and are all below the 

CSAPR budgets. 

EPA expects further SO2 and NOX

emission reductions from EGUs and the 

taconite facilities as CSAPR and the 

taconite FIP are implemented. 

Minnesota should account for these 

future emission reductions in its plan 

for the 2018–2028 implementation 

period. Minnesota will reassess its RPGs 

and the adequacy of its regional haze 

SIP when preparing its second regional 

haze SIP to cover the 2018–2028 

implementation period. That assessment 

will include its reliance upon CSAPR 

for emission reductions from EGUs, 

implementation of controls on its 

taconite facilities, and any other 

applicable emission controls. 

TABLE 1—NORTHEAST MINNESOTA PLAN

Target 

(tons NOX and SO2) 

Emissions 

(tons NOX and SO2) 

2002 (Base) ........................................................................... 95,826 .................................................................................. 95,826 

2012 ....................................................................................... 76,661 (20 percent reduction) ............................................. 52,691 

2018 ....................................................................................... 67,078 (30 percent reduction) ............................................. 1 66,982 

1Projection of 2018 combined emissions that adds permitted new sources, modifications, and potential new sources to the existing area 

sources. 

The Northeast Minnesota Plan sets a 

20 percent reduction target for 2012 and 

a 30 percent reduction target for 2018 of 

combined NOX and SO2 emissions from 

the 2002 base. Minnesota reported that 

the 2012 combined emissions from the 

Northeast Minnesota Plan sources meet 

the 2012 goal. Thus, Minnesota has 

made adequate progress to date in 

achieving emission reductions. 

Although the progress report is an 

evaluation of the progress achieved, 

there are some new sources permitted in 

the Northeast Minnesota Plan area. 

Minnesota made a projection of 2018 

combined emissions that adds permitted 

new sources, modifications, and 

potential new sources to the existing 

area sources that is less than the 2018 

Northeast Minnesota Plan goal. 

EPA finds that the summary of 

emission reductions achieved from 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
48428 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

control strategy implementation meets 

the applicable requirements. 

3. Assessment of Visibility Conditions 

and Changes for Each Mandatory Class 

I Federal Area in the State 

TABLE 2—VISIBILITY PROGRESS AT CLASS I AREAS

Area 2002 

(dv) 

2013 

(dv) 

2018 

(dv) 

Boundary Waters: 

Worst .................................................................................................................................... 19.9 18.9 18.6 

Best ....................................................................................................................................... 6.4 4.8 6.4 

Voyageurs: 

Worst .................................................................................................................................... 19.5 18.2 18.9 

Best ....................................................................................................................................... 7.1 5.3 7.1 

Minnesota reported the 2013 visibility 

conditions for the 20 percent most 

impaired days (worst) and the 20 

percent least impaired days (best) at 

Boundary Waters and Voyageurs. Those 

values indicate progress from the 2002 

baseline toward the 2018 RPGs. 

EPA finds that Minnesota properly 

reported the current visibility 

conditions for the most impaired and 

least impaired days, the difference 

between current conditions and baseline 

conditions for the most impaired and 

least impaired days, and the change in 

visibility for the most impaired and 

least impaired days over the past five 

years. Minnesota’s visibility progress is 

on track as improvement has been 

shown for the 20 percent least impaired 

days and is on track for the 20 percent 

most impaired days at both Class I 

Federal areas, Boundary Waters and 

Voyageurs. 

4. Analysis Tracking Emissions Changes 

of Visibility-Impairing Pollutants 

Minnesota provided its 2002 base 

emissions and projected 2018 emissions 

in its regional haze plan submitted in 

2009. The progress report gives 2011 

annual emissions for SO2, NOX, 

ammonia (NH3), and volatile organic 

compounds (VOC). These emissions can 

be compared to the 2002 base and 2018 

projected emissions to evaluate 

progress. 

TABLE 3—EMISSIONS PROGRESS

SO2

(tons) 

NOX

(tons) 

NH3

(tons) 

VOC 

(tons) 

2002 Emissions ............................................................................................... 163,000 487,000 185,000 361,000 

2011 Emissions ............................................................................................... 62,100 299,000 197,000 273,000 

2018 Goal ........................................................................................................ 108,000 288,000 253,000 279,000 

Minnesota reports 2011 total SO2

emissions of 62,100 tons, lower than the 

2018 goal of 108,000 tons. Minnesota 

noted that SO2 emissions have been 

steadily declining. Point sources 

comprise most of the SO2 emissions, 

and several projects at coal-burning 

EGUs have driven the decline in SO2

emissions. 

Minnesota NOX emissions have 

declined to 299,000 tons in 2011, 

nearing the 2018 goal of 288,000. For 

NOX emissions, mobile sources are the 

main sector, and, as such, 

implementation of mobile source 

programs is expected to continue to 

decrease NOX emissions in Minnesota. 

Potential emission reductions from 

EGUs and taconite facilities, once 

implemented, will provide some further 

assistance. Minnesota appears to be on 

track to meet its 2018 RPG for NOX

emissions given the reductions already 

achieved and further reductions 

expected because of the controls being 

implemented. 

Minnesota projected its NH3

emissions to increase 37 percent from 

2002 to 2018, while by 2011 NH3

emissions increased by 6.5 percent. 

Minnesota noted in its report that so far 

NH3 emissions are increasing at a lower 

rate than predicted, but there still is 

some uncertainly regarding the 

emissions growth rate. Non-point 

source, agricultural livestock manure 

management in particular, are the main 

sector for NH3 emissions in Minnesota. 

Minnesota projects VOC emissions to 

decrease 23 percent from 2002 to 

279,000 tons in 2018. Minnesota reports 

273,000 tons of VOC emissions in 2011. 

Emissions are gradually decreasing from 

implementation of a variety of 

programs. The state’s anthropogenic 

VOC emissions are mainly from mobile 

and non-point sources. 

Minnesota noted that direct fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5) emissions 

have a minimal impact on visibility in 

Boundary Waters and Voyageurs. EPA 

examined the PM2.5 emissions 

inventories and found a downward 

trend in emissions. 

Minnesota appears to be on-track for 

reaching the 2018 emission projections 

in its regional haze plan. EPA finds that 

Minnesota’s analysis tracking emissions 

progress for the current five-year period 

has satisfied the applicable 

requirements. 

5. Assessment of Any Significant 

Changes in Anthropogenic Emissions 

Minnesota provided an assessment of 

its SO2, NOX, and NH3 emissions 

changes and of the five contributing 

states (Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, North 

Dakota, and Wisconsin). 

Minnesota reported 2011 emissions, 

which show a 61 percent SO2 reduction 

from the 2002 base year, a 38 percent 

NOX reduction, and a 6.5 percent 

increase in NH3 emissions. 

Iowa emissions (as indicated in its 

progress report) show a 37,400 ton SO2

reduction from 2002 to 2008, along with 

a 68,100 ton NOX reduction. Minnesota 

reviewed the public comment draft of 

the Missouri progress report. Missouri 

reported a 147,000 ton reduction in SO2

emissions and a 53,200 ton reduction in 

NOX emissions from 2005 to 2011. 

North Dakota provided emission 

information that shows a 67,000 ton, or 

38 percent, SO2 reduction and a 51,000 

ton or 22 percent NOX reduction from 

2002 to 2011. Illinois and Wisconsin 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48429 

had not compiled emission data in time 

for Minnesota to evaluate for the report. 

Minnesota also included emissions 

data from EPA’s Clean Air Markets 

Division that show reductions in both 

SO2 and NOX emissions for each of the 

six states from 2005 to 2013. 

Collectively for the six states, SO2

emissions declined 645,000 tons or 57 

percent decrease, and there was a 

293,000 ton or 53 percent decrease in 

NOX emissions. 

EPA finds that Minnesota properly 

assessed available information for any 

significant changes in anthropogenic 

emissions over the past five years to 

determine whether these changes have 

impeded progress in improving 

visibility. The five contributing states 

are in various stages in assessing 

emissions for progress reports making 

Minnesota’s assessment of contributing 

states’ emissions inconsistent state to 

state. The visibility data available to 

Minnesota indicates that visibility 

improvement is on track. 

Supplementing the data from other 

states, EPA’s Clean Air Markets Division 

data show that significant, wide-spread 

SO2 and NOX emission declines have 

already occurred. Thus, there is no 

evidence that progress in Minnesota is 

being impeded by emissions from other 

states. 

6. Assessment of Whether the SIP 

Elements and Strategies Are Sufficient 

To Meet RPGs 

Minnesota has implemented, or 

expects to implement by 2018, all 

controls from its approved regional haze 

plan. The state noted in the progress 

report that its emissions are on track for 

the 2018 goals, including reductions 

that are ahead of pace for the key 

visibility impairing pollutants, SO2 and 

NOX. Minnesota expects that the 

implementation of CSAPR and other 

Federal programs will address the 

reasonable progress obligations of the 

contributing states. 

Minnesota emissions contribute to 

visibility impairment at Isle Royale. 

Emission reductions from Minnesota 

sources that help visibility improvement 

at Boundary Waters and Voyageurs also 

support visibility improvement at Isle 

Royale. Minnesota has achieved greater 

SO2 emission reductions than predicted 

in both its own and Michigan’s regional 

haze plans. 

EPA finds that Minnesota has 

provided an assessment of the current 

strategy to determine if it is sufficient to 

meet reasonable progress goals at all 

Class I Federal areas impacted by 

Minnesota emissions. The available 

information indicates that Minnesota is 

implementing its controls. The visibility 

progress at both Boundary Waters and 

Voyageurs is on track and thus suggests 

Minnesota’s current strategy is sufficient 

to meet its reasonable progress goals. 

7. Visibility Monitoring Strategy Review 

Minnesota states in its progress report 

that Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments (IMPROVE) sites 

operate at the Class I Federal areas, 

Boundary Waters and Voyageurs, which 

are in northeastern Minnesota. There are 

also two IMPROVE protocol sites in 

southern Minnesota operating near Blue 

Mounds State Park and Great River 

Bluffs State Park. Minnesota will 

continue to operate the IMPROVE 

network monitors based on Federal 

funding. If future reductions to the 

IMPROVE network occur, the state has 

a contingency plan to use the PM2.5

monitoring network. In addition, 

Minnesota commits to meeting the 

reporting requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4)(iv) for its Class I Federal 

areas. 

EPA finds that Minnesota has 

adequately reviewed its visibility 

monitoring strategy, and concurs that it 

appears sufficient. No modifications to 

the monitoring strategy are needed at 

this time. 

B. Determination of the Adequacy of 

Existing Implementation Plan 

The determination of adequacy for the 

regional haze plan is required to be 

submitted at the same time as the 

progress report. The rule at 40 CFR 

51.308(h) requires the state to select 

from four actions based on the state’s 

evaluation of its regional haze plan. 

Minnesota determined that its 

regional haze plan, including the 2012 

supplement as approved into the 

Minnesota SIP, is adequate to meet the 

Regional Haze Rule requirements and 

expects to achieve the RPGs at 

Boundary Waters, Voyageurs, and Isle 

Royale. Thus, Minnesota submitted a 

negative declaration that further 

substantive revision of its regional haze 

plan is not needed at this time. 

EPA finds that the current Minnesota 

regional haze plan is adequate to 

achieve its established goals. The 

reported information indicates that 

Minnesota is on track to meet its 

visibility improvement and emission 

reduction goals. 

C. Public Participation and Federal 

Land Manager Consultation 

Minnesota published a public notice 

in the July 28, 2014, State Register. 

Minnesota offered a public meeting 

upon request. No one requested a public 

meeting. The state provided a public 

comment period of July 28, 2014, to 

August 27 2014, and received eight 

comment letters on its action. The 

comment letters, along with Minnesota’s 

responses, are included in the progress 

report in Appendix F. 

Minnesota consulted with Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) on June 10, 

2014. It provided a draft of the progress 

report to FLMs on June 20, 2014. The 

FLM comments, along with Minnesota’s 

responses, are included in the progress 

report in Appendix F. Minnesota made 

revisions to the progress report based on 

FLM comments. 

EPA finds that Minnesota has 

addressed the applicable public 

participation requirements in 40 CFR 

51.308(i). 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving the regional haze 

progress report that Minnesota 

submitted on December 30, 2014, as a 

revision to the Minnesota SIP. EPA 

finds that Minnesota has satisfied the 

progress report requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(g). EPA also finds that Minnesota 

has met the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(h) for a determination of the 

adequacy of its regional haze plan with 

its negative declaration. 

We are publishing this action without 

prior proposal because we view this as 

a noncontroversial amendment and 

anticipate no adverse comments. 

However, in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register publication, we 

are publishing a separate document that 

will serve as the proposal to approve the 

state plan if relevant adverse written 

comments are filed. This rule will be 

effective December 18, 2017 without 

further notice unless we receive relevant 

adverse written comments by November 

17, 2017. If we receive such comments, 

we will withdraw this action before the 

effective date by publishing a 

subsequent document that will 

withdraw the final action. Relevant 

public comments will then be addressed 

in a subsequent final rule based on the 

proposed action. EPA will not institute 

a second comment period. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this action 

should do so at this time. Please note 

that if EPA receives adverse comment 

on an amendment, paragraph, or section 

of this rule and if that provision may be 

severed from the remainder of the rule, 

EPA may adopt as final those provisions 

of the rule that are not the subject of an 

adverse comment. If we do not receive 

any comments, this action will be 

effective December 18, 2017. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
48430 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

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); 

• 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 December 18, 2017. 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. Parties with 

objections to this direct final rule are 

encouraged to file a comment in 

response to the parallel notice of 

proposed rulemaking for this action 

published in the proposed rules section 

of this Federal Register, rather than file 

an immediate petition for judicial 

review of this direct final rule, so that 

EPA can withdraw this direct final rule 

and address the comment in the 

proposed rulemaking. 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: September 28, 2017. 

Robert A. Kaplan, 

Acting 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’’ 

immediately following the entry 

‘‘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 10/18/2017, [insert Federal Register citation].

* * * * * * * 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48431 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977 (42 U.S.C. 

7472(a)). Listed at 40 CFR part 81, subpart D. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–22505 Filed 10–17–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0082; FRL–9969–64– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Regional 

Haze Progress Report 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct 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 Illinois 

State Implementation Plan (SIP). Illinois 

has satisfied the progress report 

requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. 

Illinois 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. 

DATES: This direct final rule will be 

effective December 18, 2017, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

November 17, 2017. If adverse 

comments are received, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

informing the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2017–0082 at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

blakley.pamela@epa.gov. For comments 

submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. Once submitted, comments 

cannot be edited or removed from 

Regulations.gov. For either manner of 

submission, EPA may publish any 

comment received to its public docket. 

Do not submit electronically any 

information you consider to be 

Confidential Business Information (CBI) 

or other information whose disclosure is 

restricted by statute. Multimedia 

submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be 

accompanied by a written comment. 

The written comment is considered the 

official comment and should include 

discussion of all points you wish to 

make. EPA will generally not consider 

comments or comment contents located 

outside of the primary submission (i.e. 

on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 

system). For additional submission 

methods, please contact the person 

identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the 

full EPA public comment policy, 

information about CBI or multimedia 

submissions, and general guidance on 

making effective comments, please visit 

http://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ 

commenting-epa-dockets. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Hatten, Environmental 

Engineer, Control Strategy Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6031, 

hatten.charles@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. EPA’s Analysis of Illinois’s Regional Haze 

Progress Report and Adequacy 

Determination 

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. 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 

must be submitted in the form of a SIP 

revision and is due five years after the 

submittal of the initial regional haze 

SIP. On June 24, 2011, Illinois 

submitted its first regional haze SIP in 

accordance with the requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308. EPA approved Illinois’ 

regional haze plan into its SIP on July 

6, 2012, 77 FR 39943. 

On February 1, 2017, Illinois 

submitted a SIP revision consisting of a 

report on the progress made in the first 

implementation period towards the 

RPGs for Class I areas outside of Illinois 

(progress report). Illinois does not have 

any Class I areas within its borders. This 

progress report included a 

determination that Illinois’ existing 

regional haze SIP requires no 

substantive revision to achieve the 

established regional haze visibility 

improvement and emissions reduction 

goals for 2018. EPA is approving 

Illinois’ progress report on the basis that 

it satisfies the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308. 

II. EPA’s Analysis of Illinois’s Regional 

Haze Progress Report and Adequacy 

Determination 

On February 1, 2017, Illinois EPA 

submitted the progress report as a 

revision to its regional haze SIP to 

address progress made in the first 

planning period towards RPGs for Class 

I areas that are affected by emissions 

from Illinois’ sources. The progress 

report included a determination of the 

adequacy of the state’s existing regional 

haze SIP. 

Illinois has no Class I areas within its 

borders. In the initial SIP, the following 

Class I areas are identified as sites that 

may be affected by emissions from 

within Illinois: Sipsey Wilderness Area 

(Alabama), Caney Creek Wilderness 

Area and Upper Buffalo Wilderness 

Area (Arkansas), Great Gulf Wilderness 

Area (New Hampshire), Boundary 

Waters Canoe Wilderness Area 

(Minnesota), Brigantine Wilderness 

Area (New Jersey), Great Smoky 

Mountains National Park (North 

Carolina, and Tennessee), Mammoth 

Cave National Park (Kentucky), Acadia 

National Park and Moosehorn 

Wilderness Area (Maine), Isle Royale 

National Park and Seney Wilderness 

Area (Michigan), Hercules-Glades 

Wilderness Area and Mingo Wilderness 

Area (Missouri), Lye Brook Wilderness 

(Vermont), James River Face Wilderness 

and Shenandoah National Park 

(Virginia), and Dolly Sods/Otter Creek 

Wilderness (West Virginia). 

In developing the Long Term Strategy 

(LTS), the original Illinois regional haze 

SIP determined that ‘‘on-the-books’’ 

controls, together with best available 

retrofit technology (BART) controls, 

would constitute the measures 

necessary to address Illinois’ 

contribution to visibility impairment in 

the Class I areas at which emissions 

from Illinois contribute. This was 

supported by modeling assessments 

from the Midwest Regional Planning 

Organization (MRPO) and in 

consultation with other states and 

Regional Planning Organizations. 

A. Regional Haze Progress Report SIP 

Elements 

The following sections discuss the 

information provided by Illinois in the 

progress report. Each section describes 

Illinois’ applicable progress report 

submission along with EPA’s analysis 

and proposed determination as to 

whether the submission met the 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES