48766 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

* * * * * 

Approved: September 30, 2017. 

A.S. Janin, 

Captain, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant 

Judge Advocate, General (Admiralty and 

Maritime Law Division). 

Dated: October 10, 2017. 

A.M. Nichols, 

Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate 

General’s Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register 

Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22578 Filed 10–19–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0157; FRL–9969–87– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; 

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 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 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 19, 2017, unless EPA 

receives adverse comments by 

November 20, 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–2017–0157 at http://

www.regulations.gov or via email to 

aburano.douglas@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: 

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. Requirements for the Regional Haze 

Progress Report SIPs and Adequacy of 

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 

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 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. 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. EPA is 

proposing to approve Wisconsin’s 

progress report on the basis that it 

satisfies the applicable requirements of 

the rule at 40 CFR 51.308. 

II. Requirements for the Regional Haze 

Progress Report SIPs and Adequacy of 

Determinations 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must 

periodically (every five years) submit a 

regional haze progress report that 

address the seven elements found in 40 

CFR 51.308(g). 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are 

required to submit, at the same time as 

the progress report, a determination of 

the adequacy of their existing regional 

haze SIP and to take one of four possible 

listed actions based on information in 

the progress report. 

III. What is EPA’s analysis? 

The Regional Haze Rule provides the 

required elements for five-year progress 

reports in 40 CFR 51.308(g). EPA finds 

that Wisconsin satisfied the 40 CFR 

51.308(g) requirements with its progress 

report. EPA finds that, with its negative 

declaration, Wisconsin also satisfied the 

requirements for the determination of 

adequacy provided in 40 CFR 51.308(h). 

The following sections discuss the 

information provided by Wisconsin in 

the progress report submission, along 

with EPA’s analysis and determination 

of whether the submission met the 

applicable requirements of § 51.308. 

1. Status of Implementation of all 

Measures Included in the Regional Haze 

SIP 

In its progress report, Wisconsin 

summarizes the status of the emissions 

reduction measures that were included 

in its 2012 regional haze SIP. 

Specifically, the report addresses the 

status of the on-the-books emissions 

reduction measures. The measures 

include applicable Federal programs 

(e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule—CAIR, 

Cross State Pollution Rule—CSAPR, onand off-highway mobile source rules, 

area source rules, point sources, Title IV 

programs, nitrogen oxides (NOX) SIP 

Call, Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology (MACT) standards, Federal 

and State consent agreements, and 

Federal and State control strategies for 

electric generating units (EGUs)). This 

summary includes a discussion of the 

benefits associated with each measure. 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48767 

The State documents the 

implementation status of measures from 

its regional haze SIP as well as describes 

significant measures resulting from EPA 

regulations other than the regional haze 

program as they pertain to the State’s 

sources. The progress report SIP 

highlights the effect of several Federal 

control measures both nationally and, 

when possible, in the State. EPA finds 

that Wisconsin’s analysis adequately 

addresses the applicable requirements 

of 40 CFR 51.308. 

Regarding the status of BART and 

reasonable progress control 

requirements for sources in the State, 

Wisconsin’s progress report notes that 

two boilers at one facility, Green Bay 

Georgia Pacific, were the only non-EGU 

emission units subject to BART 

requirements in Wisconsin. BART 

requirements at Georgia Pacific reflected 

alternative measures, which were 

incorporated into a federally enforceable 

Administrative Consent Order dated 

July 9, 2013, effective January 1, 2016. 

For sources evaluated for reasonable 

progress in Wisconsin, the State found 

no additional controls (beyond on-thebooks controls) to be reasonable for the 

first implementation period, so no other 

discussion of the status of controls was 

necessary in the progress report SIP. 

Wisconsin describes the 

implementation status of measures from 

its regional haze SIP, including the 

status of control measures to meet BART 

and reasonable progress requirements 

and the status of measures from on-thebook controls. EPA concludes that 

Wisconsin has adequately addressed the 

status of control measures in its regional 

haze SIP. 

2. Summary of Emissions Reductions 

Achieved in the State Through 

Implementation of Measures 

In its regional haze SIP and progress 

report, Wisconsin focuses its assessment 

on NOX and sulfur dioxide (SO2) 

emissions from EGUs as a result of the 

implementation of CAIR/CSAPR, as 

well as emissions from non-EGUs. 

During the period from 2005–2015 SO2

emissions from EGUs and non-EGUs 

decreased in Wisconsin by 74 percent 

according to data from the EPA Clean 

Air Markets Division (CAMD). 

Additionally, NOX emissions decreased 

from EGUs and non-EGUs by 55 percent 

during the same time period. 

The State provides estimates of 

reductions of NOX and SO2 from EGUs 

and non-EGUs in Wisconsin that have 

occurred since Wisconsin submitted its 

regional haze SIP. Given the large NOX

and SO2 reductions that have actually 

occurred, further analysis of emissions 

from other sources or other pollutants, 

was unnecessary in this first 

implementation period. Because no 

additional controls were found to be 

reasonable for reasonable progress for 

the first implementation period for 

evaluated sources in Wisconsin, EPA 

finds that no further discussion of 

emissions reductions from controls was 

necessary in the progress report. EPA 

concludes that Wisconsin has 

adequately addressed the applicable 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. 

3. Assessment of Visibility Conditions 

and Changes for Each Mandatory Class 

I Federal Area in the State 

Wisconsin does not have any Class I 

areas within its boundaries, and as the 

applicable provisions pertain only to 

states containing Class I areas, no 

further analysis is necessary. EPA 

concludes that Wisconsin has 

adequately addressed the applicable 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g). 

4. Analysis Tracking Emissions Changes 

of Visibility-Impairing Pollutants 

In its progress report, Wisconsin 

presents data from a statewide 

emissions inventory developed for the 

year 2005 and compares this with a 

2014 emissions inventory constructed 

by the Lake Michigan Air Directors 

Consortium (LADCO) based on the 

National Emissions Inventory (NEI) 

2011 version 2 (2011 NEIv2) data. For 

both years, pollutants inventoried 

include ammonia (NH3), NOX, coarse 

particulate matter (PM10), fine 

particulate matter (PM2.5), reactive 

organic gases (ROG), and SO2. The 

emissions inventories from both the 

2005 dataset and the 2014 NEIv2 

include all point, area, on-road, off-road, 

animal and marine-aircraft-rail (MAR). 

Table 1 below shows the emissions 

from 2005–2014 versus projected 2018 

emissions from the 2012 Wisconsin 

regional haze SIP submission. SO2 and 

NOX sources are the most impactful in 

terms of visibility improvement. In the 

2005 inventory, SO2 emissions were 

260,556 tons per year (TPY) and were 

projected by 2018 to decrease to 133,039 

TPY. In 2014, SO2 emission had already 

decreased to 89,067 TPY, and achieved 

a 65.8 percent reduction. NOX emissions 

were 349,336 TPY and were projected 

by 2018 to decrease to 172,876 TPY. In 

2014, NOX emission had already 

decreased to 236,568 TPY, and achieved 

a 32.3 percent reduction. Reductions of 

other pollutants exceeded the expected 

2018 emissions. 

PM10 emissions increased from 2005 

to 2014 by 8.4%. In the 2012 Regional 

Haze SIP and the progress report, WI 

predicted this increase, but it was 

deemed insignificant relative to the 

visibility improvements from the large 

reductions of NOX and SO2 emissions 

over those same time periods. NOX and 

SO2 emissions reductions have a much 

greater impact on visibility 

improvement. 

TABLE 1—EMISSION REDUCTIONS: 2005 TO 2014 VS PROJECTED 2018 EMISSIONS (TPY) 

NH3 NOX PM10 PM2.5 ROG SO2

2005 Base from Haze SIP ............................................... 123,260 349,336 60,494 53,143 299,230 260,556 

2014 ................................................................................. 39,642 236,568 65,576 50,278 258,611 89,067 

2018 Target from Haze SIP ............................................. 114,738 172,876 72,231 61,353 228,806 133,039 

% change, 2005–2014 ..................................................... ¥67.8% ¥32.3% 8.4% ¥5.4% ¥13.6% ¥65.8% 

% change, 2005–2018 ..................................................... ¥6.9% ¥50.5% 19.4% 15.4% ¥23.5% ¥48.9% 

The progress report shows that 

emissions are gradually decreasing from 

implementation of a variety of 

programs. EPA finds that Wisconsin has 

satisfied this element requiring an 

analysis tracking emissions progress for 

the current five-year period. Wisconsin 

appears to be on track for reaching its 

2018 emission projections. EPA 

concludes that Wisconsin has 

adequately addressed the applicable 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. 

5. Assessment of Any Significant 

Changes in Anthropogenic Emissions 

As demonstrated in the previous 

section, in its progress report, 

Wisconsin notes that progress has been 

made in reductions in visibilityimpairing pollutants in the last five 

years. Wisconsin found that no changes 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
48768 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

either within or outside the State have 

occurred in the last five years that 

would impede the achievement of 

necessary emission reductions or would 

impede the improvement of visibility. 

Wisconsin indicated that no 

significant changes in anthropogenic 

emissions have impeded progress in 

reducing emissions and improving 

visibility in Class I areas impacted by 

Wisconsin sources. The progress report 

identified an overall downward trend in 

these emissions. Further, the progress 

report indicates that Wisconsin is on 

track to meeting its 2018 emissions 

projections. EPA concludes that 

Wisconsin has adequately addressed the 

applicable requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308. 

6. Assessment of Whether the SIP 

Elements and Strategies Are Sufficient 

To Enable Wisconsin, or Other States, 

To Meet RPGs 

The progress report indicates that the 

elements and strategies outlined in its 

original regional haze SIP are sufficient 

to enable Wisconsin and states where 

Wisconsin contributes to visibility 

impairments to meet all of the 

established RPGs. The original regional 

haze SIP identified several sources in 

Wisconsin that contribute to visibility 

impairment at Seney and Isle Royale 

Class I areas in Michigan. Wisconsin 

determined that implementation of 

control measures at these sources and 

associated significant downward trends 

in emissions, as discussed previously, 

demonstrate that Wisconsin is not 

interfering with the ability of these Class 

I areas to meet reasonable progress 

goals. 

EPA finds that Wisconsin’s 

conclusion regarding the sufficiency of 

the regional haze SIP is supported by 

the progress report from Michigan 

showing improved visibility at the 

Seney and Isle Royale Class I areas. EPA 

concludes that Wisconsin has 

adequately addressed the applicable 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. 

7. Review of the State’s Visibility 

Monitoring Strategy 

Wisconsin’s progress report confirms 

there are no Class I areas within its 

borders. Because Wisconsin does not 

have any Class I areas within its 

borders, Wisconsin is not required to 

address the applicable provisions 

related to review of the State’s visibility 

monitoring strategy. EPA concludes that 

Wisconsin has adequately addressed the 

applicable requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308. 

40 CFR 51.308(h) Determination of the 

Adequacy of Existing Implementation 

Plan 

The rule at 40 CFR 51.308(h) requires 

the State to submit its determination of 

adequacy for the regional haze plan at 

the same time as the progress report. 

The rule requires the State to select from 

four options based on the information 

given in the progress report. 

Wisconsin submitted a negative 

declaration indicating that further 

substantive revision of its regional haze 

plan is not needed at this time. 

Wisconsin determined that its regional 

haze plan is adequate to meet the 

Regional Haze Rule requirements and 

expects to achieve the reasonable 

progress goals at Isle Royale and Seney. 

EPA finds that the current Wisconsin 

regional haze plan is adequate to 

achieve its established goals. Based on 

its progress report, Wisconsin is on 

track to meet the visibility improvement 

and emission reduction goals. 

Public Participation and Federal Land 

Manager Consultation 

On December 12, 2016 Wisconsin 

provided an opportunity for Federal 

Land Managers (FLMs) to review 

Wisconsin’s report on progress made 

during the first implementation period 

toward RPGs for Class I areas outside 

the State that are affected by emissions 

from Wisconsin’s sources. Wisconsin’s 

progress report includes in Appendix 5, 

the FLMs comments and the State’s 

response to comments. 

Wisconsin also published notification 

for a public hearing and solicitation for 

full public comment concerning the 

draft five-year progress report. A public 

hearing was held on February 14, 2017. 

No comments were received and no 

testimony was provided. 

EPA finds that Wisconsin has 

addressed the applicable requirements 

in § 51.308(i) regarding FLM 

consultation. 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving the regional haze 

progress report submitted on March 17, 

2017, as a revision to the Wisconsin SIP. 

EPA finds that Wisconsin has satisfied 

the progress report requirements of 40 

CFR 51.308(g). EPA also finds that 

Wisconsin has met the 40 CFR 51.308(h) 

requirements for a determination of the 

adequacy of its regional haze plan with 

its negative declaration submitted on 

March 17, 2017. 

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 19, 2017 without 

further notice unless we receive relevant 

adverse written comments by November 

20, 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. 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 19, 2017. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act (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); 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48769 

1For details on the EPA’s original FIP and 

additional background, see proposal at 82 FR 

28433. 

• 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). 

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: October 10, 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. 

Subpart YY—Wisconsin 

■ 2. Add § 52.2593 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 § 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 § 51.308. 

[FR Doc. 2017–22705 Filed 10–19–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0271; FRL–9969–85– 

Region 9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Nevada; 

Rescission of Visibility Protection 

Federal Implementation Plan for the 

Mohave Generating Station 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving the Nevada 

Division of Environmental Protection’s 

(NDEP) request to rescind the visibility 

protection Federal Implementation Plan 

(FIP) that we promulgated on February 

8, 2002, to regulate air pollutant 

emissions from the Mohave Generating 

Station (MGS), located in Clark County, 

Nevada. The EPA is approving the 

NDEP’s request because MGS has been 

decommissioned and demolished. 

DATES: This rule is effective November 

20, 2017. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0271. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available through http://

www.regulations.gov, or please contact 

the person identified in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT section for 

additional availability information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Krishna Viswanathan, EPA, Region IX, 

Air Division, Air Planning Office, (520) 

999–7880 or viswanathan.krishna@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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

and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

Period 

II. Final Action 

III. Environmental Justice Considerations 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Proposed Action and Public Comment 

Period 

On June 22, 2017, the EPA proposed 

to rescind the MGS FIP because MGS 

had been decommissioned and 

demolished, as demonstrated by the 

supporting documentation provided by 

the NDEP.1 The EPA’s proposed action 

provided a 45-day public comment 

period. The EPA did not receive any 

comments on the proposal to rescind 

the MGS FIP. 

II. Final Action 

For the reasons explained in our 

proposal, we are approving the NDEP’s 

request to rescind the MGS FIP. 

III. Environmental Justice 

Considerations 

The EPA believes that this action will 

not have potential disproportionately 

high and adverse human health or 

environmental effects on minority, lowincome, or indigenous populations 

because it merely rescinds a FIP that is 

no longer applicable because the subject 

facility has been decommissioned and 

demolished. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Additional information about these 

statutes and Executive Orders can be 

found at http://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. 

A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review and Executive 

Order 13563: Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review 

This action is not a significant 

regulatory action and was therefore not 

submitted to the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) for review. 

B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing 

Regulations and Controlling Regulatory 

Costs 

This action is not an Executive Order 

13771 regulatory action because actions 

such as the Rescission of Visibility 

Protection Federal Implementation Plan 

for the Mohave Generating Station that 

apply to only one source is a Rule of 

Particular Applicability that are 

exempted under Executive Order 12866. 


nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES