[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