Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48435 

immediately following the entry for 

‘‘Regional haze plan’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.720 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED ILLINOIS NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment 

area 

State submittal 

date EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Regional Haze Progress Report .................. Statewide .......... 02/01/17 10/18/17, [Insert Federal Register citation] 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–22502 Filed 10–17–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0058; FRL–9969–61– 

Region 5] 

Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Regional 

Haze Progress Report 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving the 

Michigan regional haze progress report 

under the Clean Air Act (CAA) as a 

revision to the Michigan State 

Implementation Plan (SIP). Michigan 

has satisfied the progress report 

requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. 

Michigan 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 relevant 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–2016–0058 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 Reports 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 their 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. 

Michigan submitted its regional haze 

plan on November 5, 2010. EPA 

approved Michigan’s regional haze plan 

into its SIP on December 3, 2012, 77 FR 

71533. 

In order to satisfy the requirements for 

Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) for certain taconite ore 

processing facilities in Minnesota and 

Michigan, EPA promulgated a Federal 

Implementation Plan (taconite FIP) on 

February 6, 2013, 78 FR 8706. In 

Michigan, the taconite facility impacted 

by this FIP is the Tilden Mining 

Company. The taconite FIP was stayed 

by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 

on June 14, 2013. EPA subsequently 

reached a settlement agreement with 

Cliffs Natural Resources and Arcelor 

Mittal that was fully executed on April 

9, 2015. On April 12, 2016, EPA 

published a final rule that modifies the 

taconite FIP with the settlement 

agreement conditions, 81 FR 21672. 

Michigan submitted its five-year 

progress report on January 12, 2016. The 

State submitted its determination of 

adequacy with the progress report. 

There are two Class I areas in 

Michigan, Isle Royale National Park (Isle 

Royale) located on Lake Superior and 

Seney National Wildlife Refuge (Seney) 

located in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. 

The emission reductions from several 

Federal programs contribute to visibility 

improvement in Michigan. In its 

regional haze plan, Michigan 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. Michigan elected 

to use the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
48436 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

(CSAPR) to satisfy BART for its power 

plant units. 

II. Requirements for the Regional Haze 

Progress Reports and Adequacy of 

Determinations 

Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must 

periodically submit a regional haze 

progress report every five years 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 at 40 CFR 51.308(g). EPA finds 

that Michigan satisfied the 40 CFR 

51.308(g) requirements with its progress 

report. EPA finds that, with its negative 

declaration, Michigan also satisfied the 

requirements for the determination of 

adequacy provided in 40 CFR 51.308(h). 

The following sections discuss the 

information provided by Michigan 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, Michigan 

summarizes the status of the emissions 

reduction measures that were included 

in its 2010 regional haze SIP. 

Specifically, the report addresses the 

status of the on-the-books emissions 

reduction measures. The measures 

include applicable Federal programs 

including: Clean Air Interstate Rule—or 

CAIR; CSAPR; Tier II for on-highway 

mobile sources; heavy-duty diesel 

standards; low sulfur fuel standards; 

and Federal control programs for nonroad mobile sources. Michigan used 

CSAPR to satisfy BART for its subject 

electric generating units (EGUs). Even 

with the delay in implementing CSAPR, 

the EGUs in Michigan subject to BART 

have reduced sulfur dioxide (SO2) and 

nitrogen oxides (NOX) emissions. In the 

progress report, Michigan compares 

2013 state-wide SO2 and NOX emissions 

from EGUs to 2009 emissions. In this 

period, SO2 emissions decreased from 

310,000 tons to 230,109 tons, or by 26 

percent. NOX emissions decreased from 

144,440 tons to 122,653 tons, or by 15 

percent. 

Michigan also expects reductions of 

about 1,400 tons NOX per year, and 300 

tons SO2 per year, from the 

implementation of the taconite FIP. 

In its regional haze plan, Michigan 

noted the additional emission 

reductions expected from several 

Federal programs. Michigan considered 

the reductions from: Tier 2 Gasoline; 

Heavy-duty Highway Diesel; Non-road 

Diesel; and a variety of Maximum 

Achievable Control Technology 

programs. Michigan did not rely on 

additional emissions controls from other 

states in its regional haze strategy. The 

additional emission reductions from the 

programs and other states will not delay 

visibility improvement and may well 

accelerate the improvement. 

Regarding the status of BART and 

reasonable progress control 

requirements for sources in the State, 

Michigan’s progress report provides a 

summary of the five non-EGU sources 

identified in the 2010 Regional Haze SIP 

as subject to BART. These sources 

include the LaFarge Midwest Alpena 

Plant, Escanaba Paper Company, St. 

Marys Cement, Smurfit Stone Container 

Corporation and Tilden Mining 

Company. Three of the five BART 

sources are required to apply additional 

or more stringent controls beyond those 

required in the Michigan BART 

determinations due to USEPA 

disapprovals of the State BART 

determinations and issuance of 

additional FIPs. 

EPA finds the implementation of 

Michigan’s control measures adequate. 

EPA also expects SO2 and NOX emission 

reductions from the taconite facilities— 

most specifically, from the Tilden 

Mining Company in Michigan. 

However, given the implementation 

schedule in the taconite FIP, most of the 

resulting emission reductions will occur 

in the 2018–2028 implementation 

period. 

EPA finds the summary of emission 

reductions achieved from control 

strategy implementation adequate. 

2. Summary of Emissions Reductions 

Achieved in the State Through 

Implementation of Measures 

In its regional haze SIP and progress 

report, Michigan focuses its assessment 

on NOX and SO2 emissions from EGUs 

as a result of the implementation of 

CAIR and CSAPR, as well as emissions 

from non-EGUs. In the progress report, 

Michigan listed emission reductions in 

terms of projected impacts on the two 

affected Class I areas—Isle Royale and 

Seney. Emissions reductions were 

presented based on the top ten in-state 

point sources impacting these two areas. 

For the Isle Royale area, emission 

reduction for the top ten impacting 

point sources combined was 48,000 tons 

for SO2 and 8,400 tons for NOX. For the 

Seney area, emission reduction for the 

top 10 impacting point sources 

combined was 16,000 tons for SO2 and 

2,700 tons for NOX. 

EPA concludes that Michigan has 

adequately addressed the applicable 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. 

Michigan provides estimates of 

reductions of NOX and SO2 from EGUs 

and non-EGUs that have occurred since 

Michigan 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. 

3. Assessment of Visibility Conditions 

and Changes for Each Mandatory 

Class I Federal Area in the State 

Michigan reports that visibility 

conditions at Isle Royale National Park 

have improved to 18.9 deciviews (dv) in 

2013 from its 2000–2004 baseline of 

21.59 dv for the 20 percent most 

impaired days. The State also reports 

that visibility conditions at Seney have 

improved to 20.6 dv in 2013, from its 

2000–2004 baseline of 24.37 dv for the 

20 percent most impaired days. The 

2018 reasonable progress goal is 20.86 

dv for Isle Royale and 23.58 dv for 

Seney. For the 20 percent least impaired 

days at Isle Royale, visibility has 

improved 2.7 dv in 2013, from the 

2000–2004 baseline. At Seney, visibility 

has improved 3.8 dv in 2013, from the 

2000–2004 baseline. 

Michigan provided annual and fiveyear rolling averages for the impaired 

and least impaired days at both Isle 

Royale and Seney from 2000 to 2014. 

EPA finds that Michigan 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. Michigan’s visibility progress is 

on track as improvement has been 

shown for the 20 percent least impaired 

days and is on pace for the 20 percent 

most impaired days at both affected 

Class I areas. 

4. Analysis Tracking Emissions Changes 

of Visibility-Impairing Pollutants 

In its regional haze plan submitted in 

2010, Michigan provided its 2005 base 

emissions and projected 2018 

emissions. In the 2010 plan, Michigan 

compared the base data from 2005 with 

a 2009 emissions inventory constructed 

by the Lake Michigan Air Directors 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48437 

Consortium. The progress report gives 

current annual emissions for ammonia 

(NH3), NOX, SO2, coarse particulate 

matter (PM10), fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5), and reactive organic gases 

(ROG). These figures can be compared 

to the base and 2018 projected 

emissions. The emissions inventories 

from the 2005, 2009 and 2018 datasets 

include all point, nonpoint, on-road, 

non-road, marine-aircraft-rail (MAR), 

and other sources. 

For SO2, Michigan reports 2005 base 

emissions of 439,145 tons, 2009 

emissions of 303,159 tons, and projects 

314,328 tons in 2018, which would be 

a 28 percent reduction from the 2005 

base year. Michigan noted that SO2

emissions have been steadily declining. 

Point sources comprise 93 percent of 

SO2 emissions, so several projects at 

coal-burning EGUs have driven the 

decline in SO2 emissions. 

For NOX, Michigan reports 2005 base 

emissions of 586,482 tons, 2009 

emissions of 447,176 tons, and projects 

309,549 tons in 2018, which would be 

a 47 percent decrease from the 2005 

base year. For NOX emissions, mobile 

sources are the main contributing sector, 

and, as such, implementation of mobile 

source programs will continue to 

decrease NOX emissions in Michigan 

with expected reductions from EGUs 

and taconite facilities providing some 

assistance. 

For PM10, Michigan reports a 2005 

base of 98,181 tons, 2009 emissions of 

105,301 tons, and projects 98,753 tons 

in 2018, which is an increase of less 

than 1% from the 2005 base year. For 

PM2.5, Michigan reports a 2005 base of 

85,839 tons, 2009 emissions of 96,720, 

and projects 90,485 tons in 2018, which 

is an increase of 5.3% from the 2005 

base year. In the 2010 Regional Haze 

SIP, Michigan predicted these 

particulate matter increases, 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 below shows the emissions 

reductions from 2005–2009 versus 

projected 2018 emission reductions 

from the 2010 Michigan regional haze 

SIP submission. 

TABLE 1—EMISSION REDUCTIONS: 2005 TO 2009 VS PROJECTED 2018 REDUCTIONS

[tpy] 

NH3 NOX SO2 PM10 PM2.5 ROG 

2005 to 2018 expected reduction ............ ¥78,156 276,933 124,817 ¥572 ¥4,646 177,622 

2005 to 2009 reduction ............................ ¥5,880 139,306 135,986 ¥7,120 ¥10,881 78,872 

% of reductions achieved ........................ N/A 50% 28% N/A N/A 30% 

For NH3, Michigan reports a 2005 base 

of 67,489 tons, 2009 emissions of 73,369 

tons, and projects 78,156 tons in 2018, 

which is an increase of 15.8% from the 

2005 base year. Non-point source, 

agricultural livestock manure 

management in particular, are the main 

sector for NH3 emissions in Michigan. 

For ROG emissions, Michigan reports 

a 2005 base of 564,643 tons, 2009 

emissions of 485,771 tons, and projects 

396,921 tons in 2018, which is a 

decrease of 30% from the 20005 base 

year. Michigan’s anthropogenic ROG 

emissions are mainly from mobile and 

non-point sources. These emissions are 

gradually decreasing from 

implementation of a variety of 

programs. 

EPA finds that Michigan has satisfied 

the requirement of an analysis tracking 

emissions progress for the current fiveyear period. Michigan appears to be on 

track for reaching its 2018 emission 

projections. 

5. Assessment of Any Significant 

Changes in Anthropogenic Emissions 

Michigan provided an assessment of 

SO2, NOX, and NH3 emissions changes 

in-state and for the three states (Illinois, 

Minnesota and Wisconsin) that 

contribute to visibility impairment at 

Class I areas in Michigan. 

Michigan reported 2009 emissions, 

which show a 28 percent SO2 reduction 

from the 2005 base year, a 50 percent 

NOX reduction, and an eight percent 

increase in NH3 emissions. 

Michigan also included emissions 

data from EPA’s Clean Air Markets 

Division (CAMD) that show reductions 

in both SO2 and NOX emissions for each 

of the three contributing states from 

2009 to 2013. For the Isle Royale Class 

I area, it is evident that the emission 

reduction for the top ten impacting 

point sources combined was largest for 

SO2 with a reduction of almost 48,000 

tons over the 2009–13 period. A 

reduction of NOx for these 10 sources 

combined was determined at 

approximately 8,400 tons. These 

reductions account for more than onethird of statewide point source NOX

emissions reductions and over one-half 

of statewide point source SO2

reductions for the 2009–2013 period. 

The source with by far the largest 

combined NOX and SO2 reductions was 

the DTE Monroe Power Plant with 

combined NOX/SO2 reductions of 

47,000 tons. 

EPA finds that Michigan properly 

assessed available information for 

significant changes in emissions over 

the past five years that have impeded 

progress in improving visibility. The 

three contributing states are still in 

various stages in assessing emissions for 

progress reports. Minnesota’s progress 

report was submitted in December, 

2014. Progress reports for Illinois and 

Wisconsin had not yet been submitted 

as of the date of Michigan’s submittal. 

Thus, Michigan had not completed the 

assessment of contributing states’ 

emissions. Still, Michigan gathered the 

information it could, and the visibility 

data indicates visibility improvement is 

on-track. Supplementing the available 

data, EPA’s CAMD data show 

significant, widespread SO2 and NOX

emission declines have already 

occurred. There is no evidence that 

progress is being impeded. 

6. Assessment of Whether the SIP 

Elements and Strategies Are Sufficient 

To Enable Michigan, or Other States, 

Meet RPGs 

Michigan has implemented, or 

expects to implement by 2018, all 

controls from its approved regional haze 

plan. Michigan 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. Michigan expects that the 

implementation of CSAPR and other 

Federal programs will address the 

reasonable progress obligations of the 

contributing states. 

Emission reductions from Michigan 

sources that help visibility improvement 

at Isle Royale and Seney support 

visibility improvement. Michigan has 

achieved greater SO2 emission 

reductions than predicted in its regional 

haze plan. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
48438 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 

EPA finds that Michigan has provided 

an assessment of the current strategy, 

demonstrating that it is sufficient to 

meet reasonable progress goals at all 

Class I areas impacted by Michigan 

emissions. Michigan is implementing its 

controls. The visibility progress at both 

Isle Royale and Seney is on track and 

suggests that Michigan’s current strategy 

is sufficient to meet its reasonable 

progress goals. 

7. Review of the State’s Visibility 

Monitoring Strategy 

Michigan stated in its progress report 

that Interagency Monitoring of Protected 

Visual Environments (IMPROVE) sites 

operate at both Class I areas, Isle Royale 

and Seney. Michigan will continue to 

operate the IMPROVE network 

monitors, based on Federal funding. The 

State has a contingency plan to use the 

PM2.5 monitoring network if needed due 

to future reductions to the IMPROVE 

network. Michigan commits to meeting 

the reporting requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4)(iv) for its Class I areas. 

EPA finds that Michigan has met the 

visibility monitoring strategy review 

requirements. 

40 CFR 51.308(h) Determination of the 

Adequacy of Existing Implementation 

Plan 

The determination of adequacy for the 

regional haze plan is required to be 

submitted at 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. 

Michigan submitted a negative 

declaration indicating that further 

substantive revision of its regional haze 

plan is not needed at this time. 

Michigan 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 Michigan 

regional haze plan is adequate to 

achieve its established goals. Michigan 

is on track to meet the visibility 

improvement and emission reduction 

goals. 

Public Participation and Federal Land 

Manager Consultation 

Michigan provided an opportunity for 

the public and Federal Land Managers 

(FLMs) to review Michigan’s progress 

report by November 18, 2015. 

Michigan’s progress report includes in 

Appendix B, the FLM’s comments and 

Michigan’s response to those comments. 

Appendix C includes the public 

comments and Michigan’s response to 

those comments. 

Michigan also published notification 

for a public hearing and solicitation for 

full public comment concerning the 

draft five-year progress report in widely 

distributed county publications. No 

public hearing was requested. 

EPA finds that Michigan 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 January 12, 

2016, as a revision to the Michigan SIP. 

We find that Michigan has satisfied the 

progress report requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(g). We find that Michigan has 

also met the 40 CFR 51.308(h) 

requirements for a determination of the 

adequacy of its regional haze plan with 

its negative declaration also submitted 

on January 12, 2016. 

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. 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 

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 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 200 / Wednesday, October 18, 2017 / Rules and Regulations 48439 

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 today’s 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 § 52.1170, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding the entry 

‘‘Regional Haze Progress Report’’ to 

follow the entry titled ‘‘Regional Haze 

Plan’’ to read as follows: 

§ 52.1170 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

EPA-APPROVED MICHIGAN NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS

Name of nonregulatory SIP provision 

Applicable 

geographic or 

nonattainment area 

State 

submittal 

date 

EPA approval date Comments 

*******

Regional Haze Progress Report ............... Statewide ................. 1/12/2016 10/18/2017, [insert Federal Register citation].

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2017–22510 Filed 10–17–17; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2014–0701; FRL–9969–51– 

Region 3] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; District 

of Columbia; Interstate Transport 

Requirements for the 2010 1-Hour 

Sulfur Dioxide Standard 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is taking direct final 

action to approve a state 

implementation plan (SIP) revision 

submitted by the District of Columbia 

(the District). This revision pertains to 

the infrastructure requirement for 

interstate transport of pollution with 

respect to the 2010 1-hour sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) national ambient air 

quality standards (NAAQS). EPA is 

approving this revision in accordance 

with the requirements of the Clean Air 

Act (CAA). 

DATES: This rule is effective on 

December 18, 2017 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives adverse 

written comment by November 17, 

2017. If EPA receives such comments, it 

will publish a timely withdrawal of the 

direct final rule in the Federal Register 

and inform the public that the rule will 

not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R03– 

OAR–2014–0701 at https://

www.regulations.gov, or via email to 

stahl.cynthia@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: 

Joseph Schulingkamp, (215) 814–2021, 

or by email at schulingkamp.joseph@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 

17, 2014, the District of Columbia (the 

District) through the District Department 

of Energy and the Environment 

(DDOEE) submitted a SIP revision 

addressing the infrastructure 

requirements under section 110(a)(2) of 

the CAA for the 2010 1-hour SO2

NAAQS. 


ethrower on DSK3G9T082PROD with RULES