[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 200 (Wednesday, October 18, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48435-48439]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22510]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[email protected]. 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,
[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. 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
[[Page 48436]]
(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 non-road 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 five-year 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
[[Page 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 five-year 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 one-third 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.
[[Page 48438]]
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
[[Page 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
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) * * *
EPA-Approved Michigan Nonregulatory and Quasi-Regulatory Provisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Applicable
Name of nonregulatory SIP geographic or State EPA approval date Comments
provision nonattainment area submittal date
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
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