[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48425-48431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22505]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#46242a272d2a233f6836272b232a270623362768212930"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="81e3ede0eaede4f8aff1e0ece4ede0c1e4f1e0afe6eef7">[email protected]</span></a>. 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.

[[Page 48426]]

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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#80f2e1f5aeede1f4f4e8e5f7c0e5f0e1aee7eff6"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="651704104b080411110d0012250015044b020a13">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information 
section is arranged as follows:

I. Background
II. 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Under 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 (SO<INF>2</INF>) and nitrogen oxide (NO<INF>X</INF>) 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 
and NO<INF>X</INF>.
    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ EPA v. EME Homer City Generation, L.P., 134 S. Ct. 1584 
(2014).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions even with the delay in implementing CSAPR. In the progress 
report, Minnesota shows that 2013 state-wide SO<INF>2</INF> emissions 
from EGUs were 24,366 tons. That is below the CSAPR budget of 41,981 
tons and a 76 percent decrease

[[Page 48427]]

from 2002 emissions. Minnesota also shows that 2013 state-wide 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> emissions. 78 FR 8706.
    Compliance deadlines in the FIP ranged from a few months (for most 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ EPA 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 SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 
NO<INF>X</INF>, SO<INF>2</INF>, or both. The Northeast Minnesota Plan 
sets two targets from the base case for reductions in combined 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> and 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> 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    Emissions (tons NOX
                                    and SO2)              and SO2)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2002 (Base).................  95,826..............                95,826
2012........................  76,661 (20 percent                  52,691
                               reduction).
2018........................  67,078 (30 percent              \1\ 66,982
                               reduction).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Projection 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 
NO<INF>X</INF> and SO<INF>2</INF> 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

[[Page 48428]]

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 SO<INF>2</INF>, NO<INF>X</INF>, 
ammonia (NH<INF>3</INF>), 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 SO<INF>2</INF> emissions of 62,100 
tons, lower than the 2018 goal of 108,000 tons. Minnesota noted that 
SO<INF>2</INF> emissions have been steadily declining. Point sources 
comprise most of the SO<INF>2</INF> emissions, and several projects at 
coal-burning EGUs have driven the decline in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions.
    Minnesota NO<INF>X</INF> emissions have declined to 299,000 tons in 
2011, nearing the 2018 goal of 288,000. For NO<INF>X</INF> emissions, 
mobile sources are the main sector, and, as such, implementation of 
mobile source programs is expected to continue to decrease 
NO<INF>X</INF> 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 NO<INF>X</INF> emissions given the reductions already achieved 
and further reductions expected because of the controls being 
implemented.
    Minnesota projected its NH<INF>3</INF> emissions to increase 37 
percent from 2002 to 2018, while by 2011 NH<INF>3</INF> emissions 
increased by 6.5 percent. Minnesota noted in its report that so far 
NH<INF>3</INF> 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 NH<INF>3</INF> 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 
(PM<INF>2.5</INF>) emissions have a minimal impact on visibility in 
Boundary Waters and Voyageurs. EPA examined the PM<INF>2.5</INF> 
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 SO<INF>2</INF>, 
NO<INF>X</INF>, and NH<INF>3</INF> emissions changes and of the five 
contributing states (Illinois, Iowa, Missouri, North Dakota, and 
Wisconsin).
    Minnesota reported 2011 emissions, which show a 61 percent 
SO<INF>2</INF> reduction from the 2002 base year, a 38 percent 
NO<INF>X</INF> reduction, and a 6.5 percent increase in NH<INF>3</INF> 
emissions.
    Iowa emissions (as indicated in its progress report) show a 37,400 
ton SO<INF>2</INF> reduction from 2002 to 2008, along with a 68,100 ton 
NO<INF>X</INF> reduction. Minnesota reviewed the public comment draft 
of the Missouri progress report. Missouri reported a 147,000 ton 
reduction in SO<INF>2</INF> emissions and a 53,200 ton reduction in 
NO<INF>X</INF> emissions from 2005 to 2011. North Dakota provided 
emission information that shows a 67,000 ton, or 38 percent, 
SO<INF>2</INF> reduction and a 51,000 ton or 22 percent NO<INF>X</INF> 
reduction from 2002 to 2011. Illinois and Wisconsin

[[Page 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 SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> 
emissions for each of the six states from 2005 to 2013. Collectively 
for the six states, SO<INF>2</INF> emissions declined 645,000 tons or 
57 percent decrease, and there was a 293,000 ton or 53 percent decrease 
in NO<INF>X</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF> 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, SO<INF>2</INF> and NO<INF>X</INF>. 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
PM<INF>2.5</INF> 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

[[Page 48430]]

that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal 
regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 
submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they 
meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves 
state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose 
additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that 
reason, this action:
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
    <bullet> Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
    <bullet> Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
    <bullet> Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
    <bullet> Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
    <bullet> Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
    <bullet> Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
    <bullet> Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
    <bullet> Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and 
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot 
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by 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

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

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

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


Sec.  52.1220  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (e) * * *

                                 EPA-Approved Minnesota Nonregulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             State
   Name of nonregulatory SIP    Applicable  geographic  submittal date/ EPA approved date         Comments
           provision             or nonattainment area  effective date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Regional Haze Progress Report.  statewide.............      12/30/2014  10/18/2017,        .....................
                                                                         [insert Federal
                                                                         Register
                                                                         citation].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 48431]]

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2017-22505 Filed 10-17-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


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