Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Regional Haze Progress Report, 25375-25378 [2018-11566]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;
33 CFR 1.05–1, 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;
Department of Homeland Security Delegation
No. 0170.1.
2. Add § 165.T09–0477 to read as
follows:
■
§ 165.T09–0477 Safety Zone; Offshore
Barrier Test, Lake Huron, North Lakeport,
MI.
(a) Location. A safety zone is
established to include all U.S. navigable
waters of Lake Huron, North Lakeport,
MI, within on a 2000 yard radius of
position 43°08.7″ N, 082°26.5″ W (NAD
83).
(b) Enforcement period. The regulated
area described in paragraph (a) of this
section will be enforced daily from 7
a.m. until 4 p.m. from May 30, 2018
until June 2, 2018.
(c) Regulations. (1) No vessel or
person may enter, transit through, or
anchor within the safety zone unless
authorized by the Captain of the Port
Detroit (COTP), or his on-scene
representative.
(2) The safety zone is closed to all
vessel traffic, except as may be
permitted by the COTP or his on-scene
representative.
(3) The ‘‘on-scene representative’’ of
COTP is any Coast Guard
commissioned, warrant or petty officer
or a Federal, State, or local law
enforcement officer designated by or
assisting the Captain of the Port Detroit
to act on his behalf.
(4) Vessel operators shall contact the
COTP or his on-scene representative to
obtain permission to enter or operate
within the safety zone. The COTP or his
on-scene representative may be
contacted via VHF Channel 16 or at
(313) 568–9464. Vessel operators given
permission to enter or operate in the
regulated area must comply with all
directions given to them by the COTP or
his on-scene representative.
Dated: May 23, 2018.
Jeffrey W. Novak,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Detroit.
The U.S. Copyright Office is
amending its regulation governing the
deposit of published copies or
phonorecords for the Library of
Congress to correct an inadvertent error.
DATES: Effective June 1, 2018.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert J. Kasunic, Associate Register of
Copyrights and Director of Registration
Policy and Practice, or Erik Bertin,
Deputy Director of Registration Policy
and Practice, by telephone at 202–707–
8040, or by email at rkas@loc.gov and
ebertin@loc.gov; or Anna Bonny
Chauvet, Assistant General Counsel, by
telephone at 202–707–8350, or by email
at achau@loc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
January 17, 2018, the Office published
a final rule regarding the deposit
requirements for certain types of literary
works and musical compositions. 83 FR
2371 (Jan. 17, 2018) (‘‘Deposit
Requirements Final Rule’’). Among
other things, the Deposit Requirements
Final Rule amended 37 CFR 202.19. On
January 30, 2018, the Office published
a final rule regarding the group
registration of newspapers. 83 FR 4144
(Jan. 30, 2018 (‘‘Group Newspaper
Registration Final Rule’’). The Group
Newspaper Registration Final Rule also
amended 37 CFR 202.19, but the
amendments inadvertently eliminated a
provision that had been added by the
Deposit Requirements Final Rule. The
Deposit Requirements Final Rule went
into effect February 16, 2018. The Group
Newspaper Registration Final Rule went
into effect March 1, 2018.
Thus, the Copyright Office is
amending 37 CFR 202.19 to correct this
error.
SUMMARY:
List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 202
Copyright.
Final Regulation
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, the Copyright Office amends
37 CFR part 202, as follows:
[FR Doc. 2018–11646 Filed 5–31–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
PART 202—PREREGISTRATION AND
REGISTRATION OF CLAIMS TO
COPYRIGHT
LIBRARY OF CONGRESS
■
1. The authority citation for part 202
continues to read as follows:
Copyright Office
Authority: 17 U.S.C. 408(f), 702.
2. Amend § 202.19 as follows:
a. Redesignate paragraph (d)(2)(ix) as
paragraph (d)(2)(x).
■ b. Add a new paragraph (d)(2)(ix) to
read as follows:
■
■
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
37 CFR Part 202
[Docket No. 2018–5]
Group Registration of Newspapers
U.S. Copyright Office, Library
of Congress.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:47 May 31, 2018
Jkt 244001
§ 202.19 Deposit of published copies or
phonorecords for the Library of Congress.
*
PO 00000
*
*
Frm 00027
*
Fmt 4700
*
Sfmt 4700
25375
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(ix) In the case of published literary
monographs, the deposit of one
complete copy of the best edition of the
work will suffice in lieu of the two
copies required by paragraph (d)(1) of
this section, unless the Copyright Office
issues a demand for a second copy
pursuant to 17 U.S.C. 407(d).
*
*
*
*
*
Dated: May 21, 2018.
Karyn A. Temple,
Acting Register of Copyrights and Director
of the U.S. Copyright Office.
Approved by:
Carla D. Hayden,
Librarian of Congress.
[FR Doc. 2018–11841 Filed 5–31–18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 1410–30–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0058; FRL–9978–
61—Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Regional
Haze Progress Report
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving the 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 provided
a determination of the adequacy of its
regional haze plan with the progress
report.
SUMMARY:
This final rule is effective on July
2, 2018.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA–R05–OAR–2016–0058. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website.
Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available,
i.e., Confidential Business Information
(CBI) or other information whose
disclosure is restricted by statute.
Certain other material, such as
copyrighted material, is not placed on
the internet and will be publicly
available only in hard copy form.
Publicly available docket materials are
available either through
www.regulations.gov or at the
Environmental Protection Agency,
DATES:
E:\FR\FM\01JNR1.SGM
01JNR1
25376
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We
recommend that you telephone Gilberto
Alvarez, Environmental Scientist, at
(312) 886–6143 before visiting the
Region 5 office.
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. What is EPA’s response to the comments?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
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
partially approved Michigan’s regional
haze plan into its SIP on December 3,
2012 (77 FR 71533).
As part of this action, EPA found that
the State’s submittal appropriately
addressed the best available retrofit
technology (BART) requirements for
some sources but failed to satisfy BART
for two sources, namely St. Marys
Cement (SMC) and Escanaba Paper
Company. EPA promulgated a Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) that included
nitrogen oxide emission (NOx) limits for
these two sources and sulfur dioxide
emission limits for SMC to satisfy these
requirements on December 3, 2012 (77
FR 71533).
In order to satisfy the requirements for
BART for certain taconite ore processing
facilities in Minnesota and Michigan,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:47 May 31, 2018
Jkt 244001
EPA promulgated a taconite FIP on
February 6, 2013 (78 FR 8706), and
revised the taconite FIP on April 9, 2015
(81 FR 21672). In Michigan, the taconite
facility impacted by this FIP is the
Tilden Mining Company.
Michigan submitted its five-year
progress report on January 12, 2016. The
State submitted its determination of
adequacy with the progress report.
The emission reductions from several
Federal programs are contributing 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 also
relied, in part, on the Clean Air
Interstate Rule (CAIR) to meet certain
regional haze requirements. EPA issued
a limited disapproval of Michigan’s
regional haze SIP based on its reliance
on CAIR and issued a FIP on June 11,
2012 replacing reliance on CAIR with
reliance on the Cross State Air Pollution
Rule (CSAPR) (77 FR 33642).
EPA published a direct final rule
(DFR) on October 18, 2017 (82 FR
48435), approving the Michigan regional
haze progress report as a revision to the
Michigan SIP, along with a proposed
rule (82 FR 48473), that provided a 30day public comment period.
The DFR states that if EPA received
adverse comments, EPA would publish
a timely withdrawal of the DFR in the
Federal Register informing the public
that the rule will not take effect. EPA
received adverse comments during the
comment period, and the October 18,
2017 DFR approving the Michigan
regional haze progress report was
withdrawn on December 8, 2017 (82 FR
57836). The adverse comments received
are addressed below.
EPA evaluated the Michigan submittal
assessing the state’s progress in
implementing its regional haze plan
during the first half of the first
implementation period, as well as the
statutory and regulatory background for
Michigan’s regional haze plan. The DFR
also provided a description of the
regional haze requirements addressed in
the Michigan progress report.
II. What is EPA’s response to the
comments?
EPA received four comments on the
DFR (82 FR 48435). In the first
comment, New Jersey expressed
concern over sources in Michigan
impacting Class I areas in the northeast.
The second and third comments were
anonymous and dealt with Federal
Implementation Plans (FIPs) and
regional trading programs, respectively.
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
A fourth comment was not relevant to
the rulemaking. We will address the
comments here.
Comment #1—EPA received a
comment from the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection
(NJDEP) stating that EPA cannot
approve the Michigan regional haze 5year progress report because it is
unclear how the State has addressed the
request from the Mid-Atlantic Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE–VU) states to
reduce emissions from several electric
generating units in Michigan. NJDEP
noted that two of the facilities in
Michigan identified by MANE–VU—
Trenton Channel (Unit 9A) and Saint
Clair (Unit 7)—have not reduced sulfur
dioxide emissions and thus remain large
uncontrolled sources of sulfur dioxide
that adversely impact visibility in the
MANE–VU region.
EPA’s Response—Michigan is a
member of the Midwest Regional
Planning Organization (Midwest RPO), a
collaborative effort of state governments
and federal agencies to coordinate
activities associated with the
management of regional haze, visibility,
and other air quality issues in the
Midwest. During the first planning
period of the regional haze program, the
Midwest RPO and other regional
planning organizations facilitated
consultations between states to help in
the determination of appropriate control
strategies for regional haze. The
adequacy of Michigan’s consultation
with other states and its responses to
other states’ requests for specific
emissions reductions were reviewed in
EPA’s assessment of its regional haze
SIP submitted in 2010. EPA approved
Michigan’s decision to not require
source-specific controls at Trenton
Channel (Unit 9A) and Saint Clair (Unit
7) at that time. Given this, NJDEP’s
comments regarding Michigan’s
response to the request from MANE–VU
fall outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
We do note, however, that the two
sources specifically mentioned in
NJDEP’s comment, Trenton Channel
Unit 9A and Saint Clair Unit 7, owned
by DTE Energy, are tentatively
scheduled to be shut down 1 in 2023.
1 According to testimony by DTE before the
Michigan Public Service Commission, DTE
‘‘tentatively plans’’ to retire Trenton Channel Unit
9 and St Clair Unit 7. ‘‘Qualifications and Direct
Testimony of Franklin D. Warren; DTE Electric
Company’s Application Proposed Notice of
Hearing, Direct Testimony and Exhibits before the
Michigan Public Service Commission’’ (April 17,
2017). The company has subsequently indicated
that the coal fired power plant units will be
replaced with a natural gas facility.
E:\FR\FM\01JNR1.SGM
01JNR1
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
EPA concludes that Michigan has
adequately addressed the provisions
under 40 CFR 51.308(h).
Comment #2—EPA received an
anonymous comment that argued that
EPA cannot approve the Michigan
regional haze 5-year progress report
because Michigan relies on FIPs which
cannot be enforced by the public.
EPA’s Response—We do not agree
with the comment that measures
contained in FIPs are not federally
enforceable. Emission standards or
limitations in a FIP are potentially
subject to enforcement through action
by citizens in the district courts of the
United States. 42 U.S.C. 7604.
Comment #3—EPA received an
anonymous comment that argued that
EPA cannot approve the Michigan
regional haze 5-year progress report
because EPA should not be allowed to
use regional trading programs to achieve
BART reductions.
EPA’s Response—The regulations
governing progress reports do not
include a requirement for states (or
EPA) to ensure that all applicable
regional haze requirements for the first
planning period have been met by the
existing plan. As such, this comment
raises issues outside the scope of this
rulemaking. We do note, however, that
EPA’s determination that states may rely
on CSAPR, a regional trading program,
to meet the BART requirements has
been upheld by the Court of Appeals for
the District of Columbia Circuit. Utility
Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 885 F.3d
714 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
In summary, EPA disagrees that the
points raised by the commenters
prevent approval of the progress report.
EPA finds that Michigan’s progress
report satisfies 40 CFR 51.308.
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is approving the Michigan
regional haze progress report under the
CAA as a revision to the Michigan SIP.
EPA finds that Michigan has satisfied
the progress report requirements of the
Regional Haze Rule. EPA also finds that
Michigan has met the requirements for
a determination of the adequacy of its
regional haze plan with its negative
declaration submitted with the progress
report.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is
required to approve a SIP submission
that complies with the provisions of the
CAA and applicable Federal regulations.
42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a).
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions,
EPA’s role is to approve state choices,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
14:47 May 31, 2018
Jkt 244001
provided that they meet the criteria of
the CAA. Accordingly, this action
merely approves state law as meeting
Federal requirements and does not
impose additional requirements beyond
those imposed by state law. For that
reason, this action:
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget under
Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
January 21, 2011);
• Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
action because SIP approvals are
exempted under Executive Order 12866;
• Does not impose an information
collection burden under the provisions
of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
• Is certified as not having a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
• Does not contain any unfunded
mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described
in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
• Does not have Federalism
implications as specified in Executive
Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
1999);
• Is not an economically significant
regulatory action based on health or
safety risks subject to Executive Order
13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
• Is not a significant regulatory action
subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001);
• Is not subject to requirements of
Section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Does not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved
to apply on any Indian reservation land
or in any other area where EPA or an
Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
Indian country, the rule does not have
tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal
governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5
U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
25377
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 July 31, 2018. 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. 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, Ozone, Particulate
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile
organic compounds.
Dated: May 16, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52—APPROVAL AND
PROMULGATION OF
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
1. The authority citation for part 52
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. In § 52.1170, 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) * * *
E:\FR\FM\01JNR1.SGM
01JNR1
*
*
25378
Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
EPA—APPROVED MICHIGAN NONREGULATORY AND QUASI-REGULATORY PROVISIONS
Name of nonregulatory SIP provision
Applicable
geographic or
nonattainment
area
*
*
Regional Haze Progress Report ..................
*
Statewide ..........
*
*
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0738; FRL–9978–
57—Region 3]
Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;
Emissions Statement Rule Certification
for the 2008 Ozone National Ambient
Air Quality Standard
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is approving a state
implementation plan (SIP) revision
formally submitted by the
Commonwealth of Virginia (Virginia or
the Commonwealth). Under the Clean
Air Act (CAA), states’ SIPs must require
stationary sources in ozone
nonattainment areas classified as
marginal or above to report annual
emissions of nitrogen oxides (NOX) and
volatile organic compounds (VOC). This
emissions statement requirement also
applies to stationary sources located in
the Ozone Transport Region (OTR) that
emit or have the potential to emit at
least 50 tons per year (tpy) of VOC or
100 tpy of NOX. The SIP revision
provides Virginia’s certification that its
existing emissions statement program
satisfies the emissions statement
requirements of the CAA for the 2008
ozone National Ambient Air Quality
Standards (NAAQS). EPA is approving
Virginia’s emissions statement program
certification for the 2008 ozone NAAQS
as a SIP revision in accordance with the
requirements of the CAA.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July
2, 2018.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a
docket for this action under Docket ID
Number EPA–R03–OAR–2017–0738. All
documents in the docket are listed on
the https://www.regulations.gov
jstallworth on DSKBBY8HB2PROD with RULES
SUMMARY:
14:47 May 31, 2018
*
1/12/2016
*
[FR Doc. 2018–11566 Filed 5–31–18; 8:45 am]
VerDate Sep<11>2014
State
submittal
date
Jkt 244001
EPA approval date
*
*
6/1/2018, [insert Federal Register citation]
*
*
website. 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 https://
www.regulations.gov, or please contact
the person identified in the FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section for
additional availability information.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sara
Calcinore, (215) 814 2043, or by email
at calcinore.sara@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Under the CAA, EPA establishes
NAAQS for criteria pollutants in order
to protect human health and the
environment. In response to scientific
evidence linking ozone exposure to
adverse health effects, EPA promulgated
the first ozone NAAQS, the 0.12 part per
million (ppm) 1-hour ozone NAAQS, in
1979. See 44 FR 8202 (February 8,
1979). The CAA requires EPA to review
and reevaluate the NAAQS every 5
years in order to consider updated
information regarding the effects of the
criteria pollutants on human health and
the environment. On July 18, 1997, EPA
promulgated a revised ozone NAAQS,
referred to as the 1997 ozone NAAQS,
of 0.08 ppm averaged over eight hours.
62 FR 38855. This 8-hour ozone NAAQS
was determined to be more protective of
public health than the previous 1979 1hour ozone NAAQS. In 2008, EPA
strengthened the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
from 0.08 to 0.075 ppm. The 0.075 ppm
standard is referred to as the 2008 ozone
NAAQS. See 73 FR 16436 (March 27,
2008).
On May 21, 2012 and June 11, 2012,
EPA designated nonattainment areas for
the 2008 ozone NAAQS. 77 FR 30088
and 77 FR 34221. Effective July 20,
2012, the Washington, DC–MD–VA area
was designated as marginal
nonattainment for the 2008 ozone
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Comments
Sfmt 4700
*
*
*
NAAQS. The Virginia portion of the
Washington, DC–MD–VA
nonattainment area is comprised of
Arlington County, Fairfax County,
Loudoun County, Prince William
County, Alexandria City, Fairfax City,
Falls Church City, Manassas City, and
Manassas Park City. See 40 CFR 81.347.
Section 182 of the CAA identifies
additional plan submissions and
requirements for ozone nonattainment
areas. Specifically, section 182(a)(3)(B)
of the CAA requires that states develop
and submit, as a revision to their SIP,
rules which establish annual reporting
requirements for certain stationary
sources. Sources that are within
marginal or above ozone nonattainment
areas must annually report the actual
emissions of NOX and VOC to the state.
However, states may waive sources that
emit under 25 tpy of NOX and VOC if
the state provides an inventory of
emissions from such class or category of
sources as required by CAA sections 172
and 182. See CAA section
182(a)(3)(B)(ii).
Additionally, portions of Virginia are
included in the ozone transport region
(OTR) established by Congress in
section 184 of the CAA. The OTR is
comprised of the states of Connecticut,
Delaware, Maine, Maryland,
Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New
Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and the
Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical
Area that includes the District of
Columbia and portions of Virginia. The
areas designated as in the Virginia
portion of the OTR are as follows:
Arlington County, Fairfax County,
Loudoun County, Prince William
County, Stafford County, Alexandria
City, Fairfax City, Falls Church City,
Manassas City, and Manassas Park
City.1
Pursuant to section 184(b)(2), any
stationary source located in the OTR
that emits or has the potential to emit
at least 50 tpy of VOC shall be
considered a major stationary source
1 See, e.g. ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of Air
Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia; NSR in the
Ozone Transport Region’’, 71 FR 39570 (July 13,
2006) and 71 FR 890 (January 6, 2006).
E:\FR\FM\01JNR1.SGM
01JNR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 106 (Friday, June 1, 2018)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 25375-25378]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2018-11566]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0058; FRL-9978-61--Region 5]
Air Plan Approval; Michigan; Regional Haze Progress Report
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the
regional haze progress report under the Clean Air Act (CAA) as a
revision to the Michigan state implementation plan (SIP). Michigan has
satisfied the progress report requirements of the Regional Haze Rule.
Michigan has also provided a determination of the adequacy of its
regional haze plan with the progress report.
DATES: This final rule is effective on July 2, 2018.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2016-0058. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
through www.regulations.gov or at the Environmental Protection Agency,
[[Page 25376]]
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We recommend
that you telephone Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental Scientist, at (312)
886-6143 before visiting the Region 5 office.
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,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section is arranged as follows:
I. Background
II. What is EPA's response to the comments?
III. What action is EPA taking?
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I Background
States are required to submit a progress report every five years
that evaluates progress towards the Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs)
for each mandatory Class I Federal area 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
partially approved Michigan's regional haze plan into its SIP on
December 3, 2012 (77 FR 71533).
As part of this action, EPA found that the State's submittal
appropriately addressed the best available retrofit technology (BART)
requirements for some sources but failed to satisfy BART for two
sources, namely St. Marys Cement (SMC) and Escanaba Paper Company. EPA
promulgated a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that included nitrogen
oxide emission (NOx) limits for these two sources and sulfur dioxide
emission limits for SMC to satisfy these requirements on December 3,
2012 (77 FR 71533).
In order to satisfy the requirements for BART for certain taconite
ore processing facilities in Minnesota and Michigan, EPA promulgated a
taconite FIP on February 6, 2013 (78 FR 8706), and revised the taconite
FIP on April 9, 2015 (81 FR 21672). In Michigan, the taconite facility
impacted by this FIP is the Tilden Mining Company.
Michigan submitted its five-year progress report on January 12,
2016. The State submitted its determination of adequacy with the
progress report.
The emission reductions from several Federal programs are
contributing 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 also relied,
in part, on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) to meet certain
regional haze requirements. EPA issued a limited disapproval of
Michigan's regional haze SIP based on its reliance on CAIR and issued a
FIP on June 11, 2012 replacing reliance on CAIR with reliance on the
Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) (77 FR 33642).
EPA published a direct final rule (DFR) on October 18, 2017 (82 FR
48435), approving the Michigan regional haze progress report as a
revision to the Michigan SIP, along with a proposed rule (82 FR 48473),
that provided a 30-day public comment period.
The DFR states that if EPA received adverse comments, EPA would
publish a timely withdrawal of the DFR in the Federal Register
informing the public that the rule will not take effect. EPA received
adverse comments during the comment period, and the October 18, 2017
DFR approving the Michigan regional haze progress report was withdrawn
on December 8, 2017 (82 FR 57836). The adverse comments received are
addressed below.
EPA evaluated the Michigan submittal assessing the state's progress
in implementing its regional haze plan during the first half of the
first implementation period, as well as the statutory and regulatory
background for Michigan's regional haze plan. The DFR also provided a
description of the regional haze requirements addressed in the Michigan
progress report.
II. What is EPA's response to the comments?
EPA received four comments on the DFR (82 FR 48435). In the first
comment, New Jersey expressed concern over sources in Michigan
impacting Class I areas in the northeast. The second and third comments
were anonymous and dealt with Federal Implementation Plans (FIPs) and
regional trading programs, respectively. A fourth comment was not
relevant to the rulemaking. We will address the comments here.
Comment #1--EPA received a comment from the New Jersey Department
of Environmental Protection (NJDEP) stating that EPA cannot approve the
Michigan regional haze 5-year progress report because it is unclear how
the State has addressed the request from the Mid-Atlantic Northeast
Visibility Union (MANE-VU) states to reduce emissions from several
electric generating units in Michigan. NJDEP noted that two of the
facilities in Michigan identified by MANE-VU--Trenton Channel (Unit 9A)
and Saint Clair (Unit 7)--have not reduced sulfur dioxide emissions and
thus remain large uncontrolled sources of sulfur dioxide that adversely
impact visibility in the MANE-VU region.
EPA's Response--Michigan is a member of the Midwest Regional
Planning Organization (Midwest RPO), a collaborative effort of state
governments and federal agencies to coordinate activities associated
with the management of regional haze, visibility, and other air quality
issues in the Midwest. During the first planning period of the regional
haze program, the Midwest RPO and other regional planning organizations
facilitated consultations between states to help in the determination
of appropriate control strategies for regional haze. The adequacy of
Michigan's consultation with other states and its responses to other
states' requests for specific emissions reductions were reviewed in
EPA's assessment of its regional haze SIP submitted in 2010. EPA
approved Michigan's decision to not require source-specific controls at
Trenton Channel (Unit 9A) and Saint Clair (Unit 7) at that time. Given
this, NJDEP's comments regarding Michigan's response to the request
from MANE-VU fall outside the scope of this rulemaking.
We do note, however, that the two sources specifically mentioned in
NJDEP's comment, Trenton Channel Unit 9A and Saint Clair Unit 7, owned
by DTE Energy, are tentatively scheduled to be shut down \1\ in 2023.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ According to testimony by DTE before the Michigan Public
Service Commission, DTE ``tentatively plans'' to retire Trenton
Channel Unit 9 and St Clair Unit 7. ``Qualifications and Direct
Testimony of Franklin D. Warren; DTE Electric Company's Application
Proposed Notice of Hearing, Direct Testimony and Exhibits before the
Michigan Public Service Commission'' (April 17, 2017). The company
has subsequently indicated that the coal fired power plant units
will be replaced with a natural gas facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 25377]]
EPA concludes that Michigan has adequately addressed the provisions
under 40 CFR 51.308(h).
Comment #2--EPA received an anonymous comment that argued that EPA
cannot approve the Michigan regional haze 5-year progress report
because Michigan relies on FIPs which cannot be enforced by the public.
EPA's Response--We do not agree with the comment that measures
contained in FIPs are not federally enforceable. Emission standards or
limitations in a FIP are potentially subject to enforcement through
action by citizens in the district courts of the United States. 42
U.S.C. 7604.
Comment #3--EPA received an anonymous comment that argued that EPA
cannot approve the Michigan regional haze 5-year progress report
because EPA should not be allowed to use regional trading programs to
achieve BART reductions.
EPA's Response--The regulations governing progress reports do not
include a requirement for states (or EPA) to ensure that all applicable
regional haze requirements for the first planning period have been met
by the existing plan. As such, this comment raises issues outside the
scope of this rulemaking. We do note, however, that EPA's determination
that states may rely on CSAPR, a regional trading program, to meet the
BART requirements has been upheld by the Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia Circuit. Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 885
F.3d 714 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
In summary, EPA disagrees that the points raised by the commenters
prevent approval of the progress report. EPA finds that Michigan's
progress report satisfies 40 CFR 51.308.
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is approving the Michigan regional haze progress report under
the CAA as a revision to the Michigan SIP. EPA finds that Michigan has
satisfied the progress report requirements of the Regional Haze Rule.
EPA also finds that Michigan has met the requirements for a
determination of the adequacy of its regional haze plan with its
negative declaration submitted with the progress report.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices,
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this
action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and
does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state
law. For that reason, this action:
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2,
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under
Executive Order 12866;
Does not impose an information collection burden under the
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
Is certified as not having a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
Does not have Federalism implications as specified in
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
Is not an economically significant regulatory action based
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR
19885, April 23, 1997);
Is not a significant regulatory action subject to
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent
with the CAA; and
Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
In addition, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by July 31, 2018. 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. 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, Ozone,
Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.
Dated: May 16, 2018.
Cathy Stepp,
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. 52.1170, 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:
Sec. 52.1170 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
[[Page 25378]]
EPA--Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name of nonregulatory SIP Applicable geographic State
provision or nonattainment area submittal date EPA approval date Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Regional Haze Progress Report. Statewide............. 1/12/2016 6/1/2018, [insert .....................
Federal Register
citation].
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 2018-11566 Filed 5-31-18; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
