83 FR 27910 - Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Regional Haze Progress Report
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 116 (June 15, 2018)
Federal Register Volume 83, Issue 116 (June 15, 2018)
| Page Range | 27910-27912 | |
| FR Document | 2018-12810 |
[Federal Register Volume 83, Number 116 (Friday, June 15, 2018)] [Rules and Regulations] [Pages 27910-27912] From the Federal Register Online [www.thefederalregister.org] [FR Doc No: 2018-12810] [[Page 27910]] ----------------------------------------------------------------------- ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0157; FRL-9979-32--Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; 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 Wisconsin state implementation plan (SIP). Wisconsin has satisfied the progress report requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. Wisconsin 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 16, 2018. ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0157. 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, 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 periodically submit a progress report that evaluates progress towards the Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area outside the State which may be affected by emissions from within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are also required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional haze SIP. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report is due five years after the submittal of the initial regional haze SIP. Wisconsin submitted its regional haze plan on January 18, 2012. EPA approved Wisconsin's regional haze plan into its SIP on August 7, 2012 (77 FR 46952). Wisconsin submitted its five-year progress report on March 17, 2017. This is a report on the implementation of the regional haze plan and the progress made in the first implementation period towards RPGs for Class I areas outside of Wisconsin. Wisconsin does not have any Class I areas within its borders where visibility is an important value. This progress report SIP included a determination that Wisconsin's existing regional haze SIP requires no substantive revision to achieve the established regional haze visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals for 2018 for Class I areas impacted by Wisconsin emissions. EPA is approving Wisconsin's progress report on the basis that it satisfies the applicable requirements of the rule at 40 CFR 51.308. EPA published a direct final rule (DFR) on October 20, 2017 (82 FR 48766), approving the Wisconsin regional haze progress report as a revision to the Wisconsin SIP, along with a proposed rule (82 FR 48780), that provided a 30-day public comment period. The DFR evaluated the Wisconsin submittal assessing its 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 EPA's review of Wisconsin's regional haze plan. The DFR also provided a description of the regional haze requirements addressed in the Wisconsin progress report. The DFR serves as the detailed basis for this action. The adverse comments that EPA received are addressed below. II. What is EPA's response to the comments? EPA received two relevant comments on the DFR. One commenter supported the approval of the regional haze 5-year progress report SIP. A second commenter expressed concern over Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR) issues and measures not approved into the SIP. We address the second commenter's concerns here. Comment--The commenter argued that EPA cannot approve the Wisconsin regional haze 5-year progress report because the State must revise its regional haze SIP to replace reliance on the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and CSAPR with reliance on the ``CSAPR Update.'' The commenter stated that as CAIR and CSAPR are no longer in effect, these rules cannot be relied on for achieving reasonable progress goals, and that states cannot rely on federal implementation plans (FIPs) as measures must be contained in the SIP. The commenter also claimed that Wisconsin is taking credit for consent decrees, an Administrative Order on Consent for Georgia Pacific that is not approved into the SIP, and limits in title V permits that are not approved into the SIP. The commenter argued that because such measures are not federally enforceable, Wisconsin cannot take credit for them in its regional haze SIP. The commenter also argued that EPA cannot allow states to rely on trading programs to meet the source specific requirements for best available retrofit technology (BART). EPA's Response--In its regional haze SIP, Wisconsin relied on participation in CSAPR to satisfy certain of the BART requirements for its subject electric generating units and to satisfy reasonable progress requirements for these sources. In its progress report, Wisconsin notes that significant contribution towards reasonable progress has been made through implementation of CAIR and CSAPR in the State. Although EPA promulgated CSAPR on August 8, 2011 (76 FR 48208), the timing of CSAPR's implementation was impacted by several court actions. EPA began implementing CSAPR on January 1, 2015, and CSAPR is now in force. The commenter, however, argues that because CSAPR has been recently modified, ''CSAPR'' as referenced in the EPA-approved Wisconsin BART SIP element is no longer in effect. Similarly, the commenter also states that because CAIR is no longer in effect, the State may not rely on CAIR to achieve reasonable progress goals. [[Page 27911]] EPA disagrees with the commenter for several reasons. First, although CAIR is no longer in effect, it was in effect during part of the time period addressed by the progress report. Thus, Wisconsin appropriately described reductions from CAIR in summarizing the emissions reductions achieved during the initial years of the first implementation period. Second, contrary to the commenter's assertion, CSAPR remains in effect and will continue to result in emissions reductions in Wisconsin and other states subject to the rule. The D.C. Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects in 2015. EME Homer City Generation, L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. 2015). In that decision, the court remanded, without vacating, some of the CSAPR budgets for a number of states. At this point, however, EPA has now taken all actions necessary to respond to that remand, and Wisconsin remains subject to CSAPR following EPA's actions. We also note that on September 29, 2017, EPA finalized a determination that the changes to the scope of CSAPR coverage following our actions on the remand do not alter EPA's conclusion that CSAPR remains better-than-BART. (82 FR 45481). Accordingly, we do not agree that Wisconsin erred in relying on CAIR and CSAPR in its progress report for ensuring the necessary emission reductions. We also do not agree that States may not rely on FIPs in considering whether a regional haze implementation plan is sufficient to achieve the reasonable progress goals for nearby Class I areas. The Regional Haze Rule defines ``implementation plan'' for purposes of the visibility program to mean ``any [SIP], [FIP], or Tribal Implementation Plan.''. 40 CFR 51.301. Given this, measures in any issued FIP as well as those in a state's regional haze plan may be relied on in assessing the adequacy of the ``existing implementation plan'' under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) and (h). The commenter also stated that Wisconsin is inappropriately taking credit in its progress report for consent decrees, an Administrative Consent Order for Georgia Pacific, and title V permits, none of which, the commenter claimed, are approved into the SIP. Again, we disagree with this comment for several reasons. First, with respect to Georgia Pacific, Wisconsin does describe the Administrative Consent Order for the source as a key element of its regional haze SIP; however, the Administrative Consent Order is incorporated by reference into the SIP. See 40 CFR 52.2570(c)(124)(i)(A). Second, it is unclear for which other consent decrees or title V permits Wisconsin is ``taking credit'' or in what way, but states in general are required to consider emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control programs in developing a long-term strategy. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). Given this, it is appropriate for a state to include a discussion in the progress report of the status of measures the state relied on in developing its long- term strategy. Finally, the regulations governing progress reports do not include a requirement for states (or EPA) to ensure that all applicable regional haze requirements for the planning period have been met by the existing plan. As such, the comment raising concerns about the reliance on a regional trading program to satisfy the BART requirement raises issues outside the scope of this rulemaking. We do note, however, that 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) explicitly allows a state to rely on participation in a CSAPR FIP to address the BART requirements for electric generating units (EGUs). See Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 885 F.3d 714, 721 (D.C. Cir. 2018)(upholding CSAPR as a BART alternative); see also National Parks Conservation Association v. McCarthy, 816 F.3d 989 (8th Cir. 2016). In summary, EPA disagrees that the points raised by the commenter prevent approval of the progress report EPA finds that Wisconsin's progress report satisfies 40 CFR 51.308. III. What action is EPA taking? EPA is approving the Wisconsin regional haze progress report under the CAA as a revision to the Wisconsin SIP. EPA finds that Wisconsin has satisfied the progress report requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. Wisconsin has also met the requirements for a determination of the adequacy of its regional haze plan with its negative declaration submitted with the progress report. 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 this action does not involve technical standards; 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, [[Page 27912]] 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 August 14, 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: June 4, 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. Section 52.2593 is added to read as follows: Sec. 52.2593 Visibility protection. (a) Approval. Wisconsin submitted its regional haze plan to EPA on January 18, 2012, supplemented on June 7, 2012. The Wisconsin regional haze plan meets the requirements of Clean Air Act section 169B and the Regional Haze Rule in 40 CFR 51.308. (b) Approval. Wisconsin submitted its five-year progress report on March 17, 2017. The Progress Report meets the requirements of Clean Air Act sections 169A and 169B and the Regional Haze Rule in 40 CFR 51.308. [FR Doc. 2018-12810 Filed 6-14-18; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
![27910 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION I. Background II. What is EPA’s response to the
AGENCY II. What is EPA’s response to the comments? comments?
III. What action is EPA taking?
40 CFR Part 52 IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews EPA received two relevant comments
I. Background on the DFR. One commenter supported
[EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0157; FRL–9979– the approval of the regional haze 5-year
32—Region 5]
States are required to periodically progress report SIP. A second
Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; submit a progress report that evaluates commenter expressed concern over
Regional Haze Progress Report progress towards the Reasonable Cross State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR)
Progress Goals (RPGs) for each issues and measures not approved into
AGENCY: Environmental Protection mandatory Class I Federal area within the SIP. We address the second
Agency (EPA). the State and in each mandatory Class commenter’s concerns here.
ACTION: Final rule. I Federal area outside the State which Comment—The commenter argued
may be affected by emissions from that EPA cannot approve the Wisconsin
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection within the state. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). regional haze 5-year progress report
Agency (EPA) is approving the regional States are also required to submit, at the because the State must revise its
haze progress report under the Clean Air same time as the progress report, a regional haze SIP to replace reliance on
Act (CAA) as a revision to the determination of the adequacy of the the Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) and
Wisconsin state implementation plan State’s existing regional haze SIP. See 40 CSAPR with reliance on the ‘‘CSAPR
(SIP). Wisconsin has satisfied the CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report Update.’’ The commenter stated that as
progress report requirements of the is due five years after the submittal of CAIR and CSAPR are no longer in effect,
Regional Haze Rule. Wisconsin has also the initial regional haze SIP. these rules cannot be relied on for
provided a determination of the
Wisconsin submitted its regional haze achieving reasonable progress goals, and
adequacy of its regional haze plan with
plan on January 18, 2012. EPA approved that states cannot rely on federal
the progress report.
Wisconsin’s regional haze plan into its implementation plans (FIPs) as
DATES: This final rule is effective on July SIP on August 7, 2012 (77 FR 46952). measures must be contained in the SIP.
16, 2018. Wisconsin submitted its five-year The commenter also claimed that
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a progress report on March 17, 2017. This Wisconsin is taking credit for consent
docket for this action under Docket ID is a report on the implementation of the decrees, an Administrative Order on
No. EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0157. All regional haze plan and the progress Consent for Georgia Pacific that is not
documents in the docket are listed on made in the first implementation period approved into the SIP, and limits in title
the www.regulations.gov website. towards RPGs for Class I areas outside V permits that are not approved into the
Although listed in the index, some of Wisconsin. Wisconsin does not have SIP. The commenter argued that because
information is not publicly available, any Class I areas within its borders such measures are not federally
i.e., Confidential Business Information where visibility is an important value. enforceable, Wisconsin cannot take
(CBI) or other information whose This progress report SIP included a credit for them in its regional haze SIP.
disclosure is restricted by statute. determination that Wisconsin’s existing The commenter also argued that EPA
Certain other material, such as regional haze SIP requires no cannot allow states to rely on trading
copyrighted material, is not placed on substantive revision to achieve the programs to meet the source specific
the internet and will be publicly established regional haze visibility requirements for best available retrofit
available only in hard copy form. improvement and emissions reduction technology (BART).
Publicly available docket materials are goals for 2018 for Class I areas impacted EPA’s Response—In its regional haze
available either through by Wisconsin emissions. EPA is SIP, Wisconsin relied on participation
www.regulations.gov or at the approving Wisconsin’s progress report in CSAPR to satisfy certain of the BART
Environmental Protection Agency, on the basis that it satisfies the requirements for its subject electric
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 applicable requirements of the rule at 40 generating units and to satisfy
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, CFR 51.308. reasonable progress requirements for
Illinois 60604. This facility is open from EPA published a direct final rule these sources. In its progress report,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through (DFR) on October 20, 2017 (82 FR Wisconsin notes that significant
Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 48766), approving the Wisconsin contribution towards reasonable
recommend that you telephone Gilberto regional haze progress report as a progress has been made through
Alvarez, Environmental Scientist, at revision to the Wisconsin SIP, along implementation of CAIR and CSAPR in
(312) 886–6143 before visiting the with a proposed rule (82 FR 48780), that the State. Although EPA promulgated
Region 5 office. provided a 30-day public comment CSAPR on August 8, 2011 (76 FR
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: period. The DFR evaluated the 48208), the timing of CSAPR’s
Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental Wisconsin submittal assessing its implementation was impacted by
Scientist, Attainment Planning and progress in implementing its regional several court actions. EPA began
Maintenance Section, Air Programs haze plan during the first half of the first implementing CSAPR on January 1,
Branch (AR–18J), Environmental implementation period as well as the 2015, and CSAPR is now in force. The
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West statutory and regulatory background for commenter, however, argues that
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois EPA’s review of Wisconsin’s regional because CSAPR has been recently
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
60604, (312) 886–6143, haze plan. The DFR also provided a modified, ’’CSAPR’’ as referenced in the
alvarez.gilberto@epa.gov. description of the regional haze EPA-approved Wisconsin BART SIP
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: requirements addressed in the element is no longer in effect. Similarly,
Throughout this document whenever Wisconsin progress report. The DFR the commenter also states that because
‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean serves as the detailed basis for this CAIR is no longer in effect, the State
EPA. This supplementary information action. The adverse comments that EPA may not rely on CAIR to achieve
section is arranged as follows: received are addressed below. reasonable progress goals.
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:57 Jun 14, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00022 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JNR1.SGM 15JNR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_28026/page/1.svg)
![Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Rules and Regulations 27911
EPA disagrees with the commenter for Wisconsin is ‘‘taking credit’’ or in what Management and Budget under
several reasons. First, although CAIR is way, but states in general are required Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735,
no longer in effect, it was in effect to consider emission reductions due to October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821,
during part of the time period addressed ongoing air pollution control programs January 21, 2011);
by the progress report. Thus, Wisconsin in developing a long-term strategy. 40 • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82
appropriately described reductions from CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). Given this, it is FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory
CAIR in summarizing the emissions appropriate for a state to include a action because SIP approvals are
reductions achieved during the initial discussion in the progress report of the exempted under Executive Order 12866;
years of the first implementation period. status of measures the state relied on in • Does not impose an information
Second, contrary to the commenter’s developing its long-term strategy. collection burden under the provisions
assertion, CSAPR remains in effect and Finally, the regulations governing of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44
will continue to result in emissions progress reports do not include a U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
reductions in Wisconsin and other requirement for states (or EPA) to ensure • Is certified as not having a
states subject to the rule. The D.C. that all applicable regional haze significant economic impact on a
Circuit affirmed CSAPR in most respects requirements for the planning period substantial number of small entities
in 2015. EME Homer City Generation, have been met by the existing plan. As under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
L.P. v. EPA, 795 F.3d 118 (D.C. Cir. such, the comment raising concerns U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
2015). In that decision, the court about the reliance on a regional trading • Does not contain any unfunded
remanded, without vacating, some of program to satisfy the BART mandate or significantly or uniquely
the CSAPR budgets for a number of requirement raises issues outside the affect small governments, as described
states. At this point, however, EPA has scope of this rulemaking. We do note, in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
now taken all actions necessary to however, that 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4);
respond to that remand, and Wisconsin explicitly allows a state to rely on • Does not have Federalism
remains subject to CSAPR following participation in a CSAPR FIP to address implications as specified in Executive
EPA’s actions. We also note that on the BART requirements for electric Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10,
September 29, 2017, EPA finalized a generating units (EGUs). See Utility Air 1999);
determination that the changes to the Regulatory Group v. EPA, 885 F.3d 714, • Is not an economically significant
scope of CSAPR coverage following our 721 (D.C. Cir. 2018)(upholding CSAPR regulatory action based on health or
actions on the remand do not alter as a BART alternative); see also safety risks subject to Executive Order
EPA’s conclusion that CSAPR remains National Parks Conservation 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);
better-than-BART. (82 FR 45481). Association v. McCarthy, 816 F.3d 989 • Is not a significant regulatory action
Accordingly, we do not agree that (8th Cir. 2016). subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR
Wisconsin erred in relying on CAIR and In summary, EPA disagrees that the 28355, May 22, 2001);
CSAPR in its progress report for points raised by the commenter prevent • Is not subject to requirements of
ensuring the necessary emission approval of the progress report EPA Section 12(d) of the National
reductions. finds that Wisconsin’s progress report Technology Transfer and Advancement
We also do not agree that States may satisfies 40 CFR 51.308. Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
not rely on FIPs in considering whether this action does not involve technical
a regional haze implementation plan is III. What action is EPA taking? standards; and
sufficient to achieve the reasonable EPA is approving the Wisconsin • Does not provide EPA with the
progress goals for nearby Class I areas. regional haze progress report under the discretionary authority to address, as
The Regional Haze Rule defines CAA as a revision to the Wisconsin SIP. appropriate, disproportionate human
‘‘implementation plan’’ for purposes of EPA finds that Wisconsin has satisfied health or environmental effects, using
the visibility program to mean ‘‘any the progress report requirements of the practicable and legally permissible
[SIP], [FIP], or Tribal Implementation Regional Haze Rule. Wisconsin has also methods, under Executive Order 12898
Plan.’’. 40 CFR 51.301. Given this, met the requirements for a (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
measures in any issued FIP as well as determination of the adequacy of its In addition, the SIP is not approved
those in a state’s regional haze plan may regional haze plan with its negative to apply on any Indian reservation land
be relied on in assessing the adequacy declaration submitted with the progress or in any other area where EPA or an
of the ‘‘existing implementation plan’’ report. Indian tribe has demonstrated that a
under 40 CFR 51.308(g)(6) and (h). tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of
The commenter also stated that IV. Statutory and Executive Order Indian country, the rule does not have
Wisconsin is inappropriately taking Reviews tribal implications and will not impose
credit in its progress report for consent Under the CAA, the Administrator is substantial direct costs on tribal
decrees, an Administrative Consent required to approve a SIP submission governments or preempt tribal law as
Order for Georgia Pacific, and title V that complies with the provisions of the specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
permits, none of which, the commenter CAA and applicable Federal regulations. FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
claimed, are approved into the SIP. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). The Congressional Review Act, 5
Again, we disagree with this comment Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small
for several reasons. First, with respect to EPA’s role is to approve state choices, Business Regulatory Enforcement
Georgia Pacific, Wisconsin does provided that they meet the criteria of Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
describe the Administrative Consent the CAA. Accordingly, this action that before a rule may take effect, the
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
Order for the source as a key element of merely approves state law as meeting agency promulgating the rule must
its regional haze SIP; however, the Federal requirements and does not submit a rule report, which includes a
Administrative Consent Order is impose additional requirements beyond copy of the rule, to each House of the
incorporated by reference into the SIP. those imposed by state law. For that Congress and to the Comptroller General
See 40 CFR 52.2570(c)(124)(i)(A). reason, this action: of the United States. EPA will submit a
Second, it is unclear for which other • Is not a significant regulatory action report containing this action and other
consent decrees or title V permits subject to review by the Office of required information to the U.S. Senate,
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:57 Jun 14, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JNR1.SGM 15JNR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_28026/page/2.svg)
![27912 Federal Register / Vol. 83, No. 116 / Friday, June 15, 2018 / Rules and Regulations
the U.S. House of Representatives, and DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND On pages 16679 through 16684, we
the Comptroller General of the United HUMAN SERVICES made technical and typographical errors
States prior to publication of the rule in in the table numbering and references of
the Federal Register. A major rule Centers for Medicare & Medicaid the stop-loss insurance deductible
cannot take effect until 60 days after it Services tables.
is published in the Federal Register. On page 16684, in summarizing a
This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 42 CFR Parts 405, 417, 422, 423, 460, comment and response regarding stop-
defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). and 498 loss coverage, we inadvertently
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, [CMS–4182–CN2] included a response as part of the
petitions for judicial review of this comment and excluded a sentence from
RIN 0938–AT08 part of a response.
action must be filed in the United States
On page 16703, in the regulatory
Court of Appeals for the appropriate Medicare Program; Medicare Program; impact analysis section, we erroneously
circuit by August 14, 2018. Filing a Contract Year 2019 Policy and stated the percentages of Medicare
petition for reconsideration by the Technical Changes to the Medicare health plan organizations and Part D
Administrator of this final rule does not Advantage, Medicare Cost Plan, sponsors that are not-for-profit. In
affect the finality of this action for the Medicare Fee-for-Service, the Medicare addition, we made factual and
purposes of judicial review nor does it Prescription Drug Benefit Programs, typographical errors in our discussion of
extend the time within which a petition and the PACE Program; Correction the percentage of Medicare Advantage
for judicial review may be filed, and
AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & organizations (MAOs) that meet the
shall not postpone the effectiveness of
Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. minimum threshold for classification as
such rule or action. This action may not
ACTION: Final rule; correction. small businesses.
be challenged later in proceedings to
On page 16710, in our discussion of
enforce its requirements. (See section
SUMMARY: This document corrects the percentage of enrollees that are
307(b)(2).)
technical and typographical errors that receiving services under capitated
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 appeared in the final rule published in arrangements, we made technical and
the Federal Register on April 16, 2018 typographical errors in an assumption
Environmental protection, Air titled ‘‘Medicare Program; Contract Year and our terminology.
pollution control, Incorporation by 2019 Policy and Technical Changes to
reference, Intergovernmental relations, B. Summary of Errors in the Regulations
the Medicare Advantage, Medicare Cost
Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate Text
Plan, Medicare Fee-for-Service, the
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit On pages 16731 and 16732, in the
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile Programs, and the PACE Program.’’ regulations text changes for § 422.208,
organic compounds. DATES: Effective Date: This correcting we made technical and typographical
Dated: June 4, 2018. document is effective June 15, 2018. errors in the table numbering and
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
references of the stop-loss insurance
Cathy Stepp,
Marie Manteuffel, (410) 786–3447. Lucia deductible tables.
Regional Administrator, Region 5. On pages 16735 and 16754, in the
Patrone, (410) 786–8621.
regulations text for §§ 422.2260 and
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
423.2260, respectively, we made
PART 52—APPROVAL AND I. Background technical errors in the language and
PROMULGATION OF In FR Doc. 2018–07179 of April 16, paragraph designations for the
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 2018 (83 FR 16440), there were a definitions of ‘‘marketing,’’ ‘‘marketing
number of technical and typographical materials,’’ and ‘‘materials that do not
errors that are identified and corrected include the following are not considered
■ 1. The authority citation for part 52
in the Correction of Errors section of marketing materials.’’
continues to read as follows: On page 16735, in the regulations text
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
this correcting document. The
for § 422.2268 we erroneously indicated
provisions in this correction document
that we were revising two paragraphs
■ 2. Section 52.2593 is added to read as are effective as if they had been
instead of indicating that we were
follows: included in the document that appeared
revising the entire section.
in the April 16, 2018 Federal Register. On page 16738, in the regulations text
§ 52.2593 Visibility protection. Accordingly, these corrections are for § 423.120, we made an inadvertent
effective June 15, 2018. typographical error in punctuating the
(a) Approval. Wisconsin submitted its
regional haze plan to EPA on January II. Summary of Errors end of the paragraph.
18, 2012, supplemented on June 7, 2012. On page 16755, in the regulations text
A. Summary of Errors in the Preamble for § 423.2262, we inadvertently omitted
The Wisconsin regional haze plan meets
the requirements of Clean Air Act On page 16498, in our response to a the asterisks before paragraph (d),
section 169B and the Regional Haze comment regarding default enrollment, indicating that paragraphs (a) through
Rule in 40 CFR 51.308. we made and error in referencing the (c) are retained without change.
Medicare and Medicaid programs.
(b) Approval. Wisconsin submitted its On page 16503, in our response to a III. Waiver of Proposed Rulemaking
sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with RULES
five-year progress report on March 17, comment on passive enrollment and Delay in Effective Date
2017. The Progress Report meets the eligibility, we included footnote that Under 5 U.S.C. 553(b) of the
requirements of Clean Air Act sections contains a hyperlink to the document by Administrative Procedure Act (APA),
169A and 169B and the Regional Haze Health Management Associates titled the agency is required to publish a
Rule in 40 CFR 51.308. ‘‘Value Assessment of the Senior Care notice of the proposed rule in the
[FR Doc. 2018–12810 Filed 6–14–18; 8:45 am] Options (SCO) Program’’ that is no Federal Register before the provisions
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P longer valid. of a rule take effect. Similarly, section
VerDate Sep<11>2014 15:57 Jun 14, 2018 Jkt 244001 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 E:\FR\FM\15JNR1.SGM 15JNR1](https://thefederalregister.org/doc/83_FR_28026/page/3.svg)
Document Created: 2018-11-02 12:01:08
Document Modified: 2018-11-02 12:01:08
| Category | Regulatory Information | |
| Collection | Federal Register | |
| sudoc Class | AE 2.7: GS 4.107: AE 2.106: | |
| Publisher | Office of the Federal Register, National Archives and Records Administration | |
| Section | Rules and Regulations | |
| Action | Final rule. | |
| Dates | This final rule is effective on July 16, 2018. | |
| 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] | |
| FR Citation | 83 FR 27910 | |
| CFR Associated | Environmental Protection; Air Pollution Control; Incorporation by Reference; Intergovernmental Relations; Nitrogen Dioxide; Ozone; Particulate Matter; Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements; Sulfur Oxides and Volatile Organic Compounds |
2025 Federal Register | Disclaimer | Privacy Policy
USC | CFR | eCFR