State of Wisconsin DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES 101 S. Webster Street Box 7921 Madison WI 53707-7921

March 12,2014

Ms.Susan Hedman USEPA-Region V (R-19J) 77 West Jackson Boulevard Chicago IL 60604-3507

Subject: Wisconsin SIP Revision- Major Modification

Dear Ms. Hedman: Scott Walker, Governor Cathy Stepp, Secretary

Telephone 608-266-2621 Toll Free 1-888-936-7463 TTY Access via relay- 711

The information contained in this SIP Revision request serves to address several issues for which Wisconsin's PM 25 and ozone Infrastructure SIPs were partially disapproved.

In a June 17, 2009 letter, EPA notified the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) that the definition of the term "major modification" ins. NR 405.02 was inadequate because it failed to identify permits issued under federal authority. Wisconsin's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program was approved into its SIP on June 28, 1999. Before that, PSD construction permits were issued under federal authority. When s. NR 405.02 (21) (b) 5 ., was written, the references to federal authority were inadvertently omitted. Because the federal citations were omitted from the rule, USEPA identified that in a very limited situation, the current state definition would allow a source to make a change to use a different fuel or raw material without undergoing major
new source permit review for the change, even though the change could be prohibited under a federal permit.

In the June 15, 2012 Federal Register (77 FR 35870), EPA disapproved narrow pmtions of Wisconsin's SIP related to the definition of major modification discussed above and identification ofNOx as a precursor to ozone under the PSD permit program. In the October 29,2012 Federal Register (77 FR 65478), EPA disapproved pmtions of Wisconsin's 2006 PM 2 5 infrastructure SIP related to identifying PM 25 precursors and PM 25 

### I PM 10 condensables in the PSD program. In the Federal Register notices, EPA stated that it was under obligation to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) addressing the disapproved pmtions of the Wisconsin SIP within 2 years. The Federal Register notice states that the FIP will not be promulgated if WDNR rectifies the deficiencies within the 2 year timeframe.
The WDNR in DNR Board Order AM-21-12 is completing rulemaking to address the EPA major modification concerns, identify precursors for both ozone and PM 25 , and account for PM 25 

### I PM 10 condensab1es in the PSD program. The sections of AM-21-12 that address the deficiencies noted above include:
• Section 2, amending NR 400.02(123m) and ( 124);
• Section 3, amendingNR405.02(2l)(b)5.a. and b. and 6;
• Section 4, amending NR 405.02(25i)(a);
• Section 5, creating NR 405.02(25i)(ag) and (ar);
• Section 6, amending NR 408.02 (20) (e) 5. a. and b. and 6.
Wisconsin requests a SIP revision for only these sections of Board Order AM-21-12. AM-21-12 also contains other amendments to rule language for ch. NR 408, Wisconsin's nonattainment new source review program, and repeal of several code references to indirect sources. Under advisement of EPA staff, Wisconsin is not requesting

dnr.wLgov wisconsin.gov 

### Naturally 

## WISCONSIN



# ~' **"'"~"**

**~·** _- ONAECYCLED PAPCR

--a SIP revision for proposed rule changes related to PM2
. 5 nonattainment area new source re view or indirect so urces at this time. Page 2

Because the changes to chs. NR 400, NR 405, and 408 Wis. Adm. Code, have not been published in the Wisconsin Regi ster and are not yet official, we are requesting that EPA begin parallel processing of this SIP revision concurrently with the processing of the AM-21-12 rule package. We believe that the parallel processing will assist Wisconsin in meeting the 2-yea r timeframe to recti fY the noted deficiencies. We are submitting attachments to this letter to assist EPA staff, which include s a promulgation sc hedule for th e final rules. We will supply EPA additional information when AM-21-12 is finalized.
We appreciate the willingness of your staff to address this issue through the parallel processing procedure. In addition to th e paper copy of the SIP documents, an electronic copy of these documents is provided on an enclosed CD. Please contact Ralph Patterson at 608-267-7546 if you have any que stions. Sincerely,

# ~~ Bart Sponseller, Director, Bureau of Air Management
Cc: Doug Aburano, USEPA-Region V (AR-18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard , Chicago, IL 60604-3507 Ralph Patterson , WDNR Kristin Hatt, WDNR

Attachments (all items also included on CD)
I. The January 2014 Natura l Resources Rule Package (also known as the Green S heet Package) containing a background memo, fiscal estimate and economic impact analy s is, and rule AM -2 1-12 2. Rule AM-21-12 3. SIP Checklist 4. AM-21-12 Public Hearing noti ce
- DNR did n ot receive any comments o n AM-21-12 at the November 5 , 2013 public hearin g 5. Newspaper tare s h eet s howing Class 1 public hearing notice 6. SIP certification 7. Schedule for Final Adoption of AM-21-12Form 1100-001 P (Rev. 11/13) Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources 

### Natural Resources Board Agenda Item Item No. 3 • A. 2 •

SUBJECT: Request that the Board adopt Board Order AM-21-12, proposed rules affecting chs. NR 400 , 405,408, and 410 related to consistency with federal major source permit review requirements and**clean~up** of rules related to the former indirect source permit program. FOR: January 2014 Board meeting
PRESENTER'S NAME AND TITLE: Gail Good, Air Monitoring Section Chief
SUMMARY: The main focus of the proposed rules is to correct deficiencies in chs. NR 405 and 408 identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). These corrections are necessary to ensure that the Department implements its major new source review permit programs consistent with the Clean Air Act and USEPA requirements. These deficiencies have resulted in disapproval of portions of the Department's state implemenation plan and could result in the issuance of a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) by the USEPA if not corrrected. A FIP is a plan promulagated by USEPA, used when a state is unable

. to develop an adequate plan.
The Department is also proposing to make changes of a clean-up nature to chs. NR 400 and 410 relating to the former indirect source permit program. The Department previously operated an indirect source permit program under ch. NR 411, as previously authorized ins. 285

. 60, Stats. Chapter NR 411 was repealed through legislative action under 2011 Wisconsin Act 121

. The Department is proposing to repeal rules in chs. NR 400 and 410 which previously had the sole purpose of supporting the indirect source permit program.
These proposed rules are not expected to be controversial or to have an economic impact on small business. The Board last saw this item in September when it authorized the hearing associated with the proposed rule package.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Board adopt Board Order AM-21-12.
LIST OF ATTACHED MATERIALS (check all that are applicable): [81 background memo [81 Fiscal estimate and economic impact analysis (EIA) fonn 

### 0 Response summary

_ 

### 0 Attachments to background memo 

### 0 Environmental assessment or impact statement [81 Board order/rule
Approved by Signature Date·
Bart Sponseller, Bureau Director

Pat Stevens, Division Administrator
Cathy Stepp, Secretary

cc : Board Liaison

- AD/8 Department rule coordinator

- LS/8

### State of Wisconsin rORRli'

... PONnli'.Nrli'./Mli'.MOR A NnTTM

------------------



### DATE: December 17, 2013
TO: All Members of the Natural Resources Board
FROM: Cathy Stepp, Secretary
SUBJECT: Background memo on Board Order AM-21-12, relating to adoption

1. Why is the rule being proposed? This rule is being proposed to maintain consistency with federal requirements and defmitions. Additionally, a portion of the rule package is being proposed to repeal portions of the Wisconsin Administrative Code related to the repealed indirect source program.
2. Summary ofthe rule. The proposed rule package addresses items identified by USEPA as being deficient with portions of Wisconsin's State Implementation Plans. Specifically, the changes pertain to the fuel 

### use prohibition that is pmt of the defmition of'major modification' and the clarifications of precursors and condensables in chs. NR 405 and 408. Additionally, the proposed rule package seeks to repeal the definitions and fees in chs. NR 400 and 410 associated with a program that Wisconsin is no longer operating by legislative order.
3. How does this proposal affect existing policy? The proposed rules do not affect existing policy because they do not represent a change in operation of Wisconsin's permit prograiO, but rather language changes to ensure consistency with federal definitions. The portion of the proposed rule package related to the indirect source program does not affect existing policy because Wisconsin no longer operates the indirect source program.
4. Hearing Synopsis A hearing for the proposed rule was held on November 5, 2013 in Room 713 of the Natural Resources Building in Madison, Wisconsin. There was one appearance at the meeting from a person representing WE Energies who attended 'as interests may appear'.
The public comment period for the proposed rule ended on November 8, 2013. One comment was received via email during the comment period, but it was not relevant to the rule package proposal.
Comments submitted by the Legislative Council Rules Clearinghouse were generally of a nonsubstantive nature. Changes specifically suggested by the Clearinghouse to be included in the final rule are included, except for two suggested changes. The first that was not included was addressed in section 2.c. of the report and recommended removal of a reference to a definition created, as part of the proposed rule package, in ch. NR 400. This reference is left in the proposed final rule in chs. NR 405.02 (25i) (ag) and NR 408.02 (29m) (d) to address concerns by USEPA. The second recommended change by the Clearinghouse that was not included in the proposed final rule package is found in section 2.g. of the report and recommended defining the term 'EPA' in the rule language. 'EPA' is defined inch. NR 400.03 (4) (f) and therefore its usage in the proposed rule language is appropriate.
5. Information on environmental analysis, if needed. Under s. NR 150.03(3), Wis. Adm. Code, an environmental analysis is not needed because this proposal is considered a Type lJI 

### Action. A Type III Action is one that normally does not have the Page 1 of2 Printed on**R~ycko.l** Paperpotential to cause significant environmental effects, normally does not significantly affect energy usage, and normally does not involve unresolved conflicts in the use of available resources. 

### 6. Soliciting public input for economic impact analysis. In order to prepare the fiscal estimate and economic impact analysis, WDNR requested information and advice on the economic impact of the proposed rule in a solicitation made on August 26, 2013. Responders to the request had until September 9, 2013 to submit information. Three companies responded that they had no input because they believed the proposed rules would not have an economic impact on them.
One commenter responded that the proposed rule provided economic benefit and asked the WDNR to consider providing an analysis of the benefit. Additionally, the commenter felt that the proposed mles addressed broader policy issues whose economic benefits should be analyzed. WDNR does not believe the proposed mles provide economic benefit. Any economic benefit from the repeal of ch. NR 411 occurred when the chapter was repealed through legislative action and is not due to this clean-up action. Testimony, including an estimate of the costs associated with implementing the former indirect source permit program, was given at the time the legislature was considering the repeal of this program. The portions of the rule package associated with the major new source review program found in chs. NR 405 and 408 are amendments to ensure that the rules align with current practice as well as USEPA policy and do not represent changes in implementation. The economic impact analysis speaks to the economic impacts ofthe proposed rules, not the underlying statutes that give WDNR the authority for mlemaking.


### 7. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis. The proposed rules will not have an impact on small business because they are addressing USEPA identified SIP deficiencies by aligning rules to current practice.

Page 2 of2STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA-2049 {R03/2012)


### ADMINISTRATIVE RULES DIVISION OF EXECUTIVE BUDGET AND FINANCE 101 EAST WILSON STREET, 10TH FLOOR P.O. BOX 7864 MADISON, WI 53707-7864 FAX: {608) 267-0372 

### Fiscal Estimate & Economic Impact Analysis

1. Type of Estimate and Analysis 

### 1Zl Original 

### D Updated Ocorrected 2. Administrative Rule Chapter, Title and Number NR 400 Air Pollution Control Defmitions, NR 405 Prevention of Significant Deterioration, NR 408 Construction Pennits for Direct Major Sources in Nonattairnnent Areas, and NR 410 Air Permit, Emission, and Inspection Fees 3. Subject Proposed rules relating to consistency with federal major source permit review requirements and clean-up of rules related to the former indirect source permit rogram. 4. Fund Sources Affected 5. Chapter 20, Slats. Appropriations Affected 

### 0 GPR 

### 0 FED 

### 0 PRO 

### 0 PRS 

### 0 SEG 

### 0 SEG-S
6. Fiscal Effect of Implementing the Rule 

## 181 No Fiscal Effect 

## D Increase Existing Revenues 

### 0 Indeterminate 

### D Decrease Existing Revenues

7. The Rule Will Impact the Following (Check All That Apply) 

### D Increase Costs 

### D Could Absorb Within Agency's Budget 

### 0 Decrease Cost 

### D State's Economy 

### fZ1 Specific Businesses/Sectors 

### D Local Government Units 

### D Public Utility Rate Payers 

### D Small Businesses (if checked, complete Attachment A) 8. Would Implementation and Compliance Costs Be Greater Than $20 million? 

### DYes 1Z1 No 9. Policy Problem Addressed by the Rule The DNR is proposing to amend definitions in chs. NR 400, 405, and 408, Wis. Adm. Code, related to the major new source permit review program for both attainment and nonattainment areas. Definitions proposed to be amended include PM2.5 emissions, PMlO emissions, major modification, and regulated New Source Review (NSR) air contaminant. These changes do not represent a policy problem, but are being proposed in response to deficiencies identified by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and are necessary to maintain approval of the state implementation plan.
The DNR is also proposing to repeal several rule provisions whose purpose was in support of an indirect source permit program. This permit program was previously implemented through ch. NR 411, which was repealed through legislative action. The provisions include several definitions and permit fees in chs. NR 400 and 410, Wis. Adm. Code, respectively. These proposed changes do not represent a policy problem, but are appropriate since the purpose of the rules affected was only related to ch. NR 411. 10. Summary of the businesses, business sectors, associations representing business, local governmental units, and individuals that may be affected by the proposed rule that were contacted for comments. The businesses that were contacted for comment were all those listed as major sources by the DNR. Additionally, Wisconsin Manufacturers and Commerce, Wisconsin Paper Council, and the Wisconsin Utilities Association were contacted. 11. Identify the local governmental units that participated in the development of this EIA. None 12. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Specific Businesses, Business Sectors, Public Utility Rate Payers, Local Governmental Units and the State's Economy as a Whole (Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred) The proposed changes to the new source review program are being made to ensure consistency with federal regulations and implementation policy governing this permit program. DNR believes that the proposed rule changes will not have an economic impact on any of the entities listed or on the state's economy as a whole because there wiJJ be no change from 

### 1STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA-2049 (R03/2012)


### ADMINISTRATIVE RULES DIVISION OF EXECUTIVE BUDGET AND FINANCE 101 EAST WILSON STREET, 10TH FLOOR P.O. BOX 7864 MADISON, WI 53707-7864 FAX: (608) 267.()372 

### Fiscal Estimate & 

### Economic Impact Analysis

the way DNR currently implements the requirements. In response to a request for information on the economic impacts of the proposed rules, three companies responded that they had no input because they believed the proposed rules would not have an economic impact on them. One commenter responded that the proposed rule provided ec.onomic benefit and asked the DNR to consider providing an analysis of the benefit Additionally, the commenter felt that the proposed rules addressed broader policy issues whose economic benefits should be analyzed. DNR does not believe the proposed rules provide economic benefit The economic benefit from the repeal of ch. NR 411 occmTed when the chapter was repealed through legislative action and is not due to the clean-up action. Testimony, including an estimate of the costs associated with the indirect source penn it program, was given at the time of the legislative action. The portions of the rule package associated with the major new source review program found in chs. NR 405 and 408 are amendments to ensure that the rules align with current practice as well as USEPA policy and do not represent changes in implementation. The economic impact analysis speaks to the economic impacts of the proposed rules, not the underlying statutes that give DNR the authority for rulemaking. 13. Benefits of Implementing the Rule and Alternative(s) to Implementing the Rule The alternative to this rule action is to keep the rules as they are which USEPA has already identified as an inconsistency with the major source permit program. In the Federal Register, USEPA stated that they are under obligation to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) addressing the disapproved portions of the associated state implementation plan within 2 years. The Federal Register states that the FIP will not be promulgated ifDNR rectifies the deficiencies within the 2 year timeframe. Not repealing sections of chs. NR 400 and 410 in response to the repeal ofNR 411 by the legislature would potentially create confusion and perpetuate an inconsistency between DNR rules and state statute. 14. Long Range Implications of Implementing the Rule The proposed rule changes to the new source review program do not represent changes in operation by DNR, so there are no long term implications. The proposed rule changes to the indirect source fee structure are of a clean-up nature and also have no long term im lications. 15. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Federal Government The purpose of the proposed changes related to the major souce permit program is to ensure state rules are consistent with federal regulations. The federal government does not have regulations for an indirect source permit program. 16. Compare With Approaches Being Used by Neighboring States (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota) Illinois and Minnesota are states delegated by the USEPA to implement the federal air pollution program, so they are directly implementing the federal program. Iowa and Michigan, similar to Wisconsin, are SIP-approved states, so they are also implementing a federal program, but through their own state rules and regulations. It is the goal of SIP-approved states to implement federal programs in accordance with federal regulations. The majority of this rule package addresses changes necessary to comply with federal regulations. Those changes not dictated by federal regulations are associated with the repeal of fees related to the indirect source program which is no longer existing in Wisconsin, thereby addressing a current internal inconsistenc 17. Contact Name 18. Contact Phone Number Gail Good (608) 266-1058 This document can be made available in alternate formats to individuals with disabilities upon request.



### 2STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION DOA-2049 (R03/2012)


### ADMINISTRATIVE RULES DIVISION OF EXECUTIVE BUDGET AND FINANCE 101 EAST WILSON STREET, 10TH FLOOR P.O. BOX 7864 MADISON, WI 53707-7864 FAX: (608) 267-()372 

### Fiscal Estimate 

### & Economic Impact Analysis

ATTACHMENT A

1. Summary of Rule's Economic and Fiscal Impact on Small Businesses (Separately for each Small Business Sector, Include Implementation and Compliance Costs Expected to be Incurred)

2. Summary of the data sources used to measure the Rule's impact on Small Businesses

3. Did the agency consider the following methods to reduce the impact of the Rule on Small Businesses? D Less Stringent Compliance or Reporting Requirements D Less Stringent Schedules or Deadlines for Compliance or Reporting D Consolidation or Simplification of Reporting Requirements D Establishment of performance standards in lieu of Design or Operational Standards D Exemption of Small Businesses from some or all requirements D Other, describe:

4. Describe the methods incorporated into the Rule that will reduce its impact on Small Businesses

5. Describe the Rule's Enforcement Provisions

6. Did the Agency prepare a Cost Benefit Analysis (if Yes, attach to form) DYes D No



### 3ORDER OF TIIE STATE OF WISCONSIN NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD REPEALING, AMENDING, AND CREATING RULES

The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board adopts an order to repeal NR 400.02 (101) and (106), and 410.03 (3); to amend NR 400.02 (123m) and (124), 405.02 (21) (b) 5. a. and b. and 6., and (25i) (a), 408.02 (20) (e) 5. a. and b. and 6., 408.02 (29m) (c), and 408.06 (I) (a); and to create NR 405.02 (25i) (ag) and (ar), and 408.02 (29m) (d), relating to revisions to air pollution control rules in chs. NR 405 and 408, necessary to maintain consistency with federal requirements, as well as in chs. NR 400 and 410, related to the repeal ofch. NR411.

AM-21-12 Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources


### 1. Statute interpreted: Section 285.11 (I) and (6), Stats. The State Implementation Plan developed under
s. 285.11 (6), Stats., is revised.
2. Statutory authority: Sections 227.11 (2)(a), 285.11 (1), (16), and (17), and 285.60 (!!)(b).
3. Explanation of agency authority: Section 227.11 (2) (a), Slats., gives state agencies general rulemaking authority. Section 285.11 (!), Stats., gives the Wisconsin Department ofNatural Resources (WDNR) the authority to promulgate rules implementing and consistent with ch. 285, Stats. Section 285.11 (6), Stats., requires WDNR to develop a plan for the prevention, abatement, and control of air pollution. The plan must conform with the Clean Air Act and is necessary for new source review implementation. Section 285.11 (16), Slats., requires WDNR to promulgate rules that may limit the classification of a major source to specified air contaminants. Section 285.11 (17), Stats., requires WDNR to promulgate rules, consistent with the federal Clean Air Act, that modifY the term 'modification' as it relates to specific categories of stationary sources. Section 285.60 (II) (b), Stats., establishes that the WDNR may not require a permit for an indirect source under ch. 285, Stats.
4. Related statute or rule: There are no related statutes that are not identified above.
5. Plain language analysis: The objective of this rule package is to revise language in chs. NR 400, 405, and 408 to maintain consistency with federal requirements and definitions. Additionally, sections of chs. NR 400 and 41 0 need to be repealed due to the repeal of ch. NR 411.
In May 2006, WDNR requested approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) of rules promulgated by Wisconsin to incorporate federal New Source Review Reform requirements as a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The USEPA approved the SIP revisions, but subsequently requested, through a narrow disapproval, changes to language in chs. NR 405 and 408. The changes pertain to the fuel use prohibition that is part of the definition of"major modification".
Section NR 405.02 (25i) defines "Regulated NSR air contaminant" and specifically identifies volatile organic compounds as a precursor for ozone. USEPA has requested inclusion of nitrogen oxides (NO,) in the definition for clarification purposes. Similarly USEPA requires, through its 2008 New Source Review Rule, explicit identification ofNOx and sulfur dioxide (S0 2 ) as precursors to particulate matter with a diameter of2.5 micrometers or less (PM 2 . 5) within the definition of"Regulated NSR air contaminant". WDNR has also amended the definition of"Regulated NSR air contaminant" ins. NR 408.02 (29m) to specifically address precursor pollutants in nonattainment areas. Additionally, WDNR will amend the

1definitions ofPM 2 .s and particulate matter with a diameter of I 0 micrometers or less (PM 10 ) to address a USEPA-identified SIP deficiency. The definitions as currently written do not specifically mention condensables as required in the federal2008 New Source Review Rule.
On April27, 2011, the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) adopted a motion under s. 227.26 (2) (d), Slats., suspending ch. NR 411. Subsequent passage of legislation introduced by JCRAR in support of the suspension (see 2011 Wisconsin Act 121 ), resulted in the repeal of ch. NR 411. The primary purpose of ch. NR 411 had been to control carbon monoxide emissions from indirect sources through conditions established in construction and operation permits. Therefore the WDNR proposes to repeal rules whose only purpose is in support of ch. NR 411. Rules proposed for repeal include ss. NR 400.02 (101) and (106), and 410.03 (3). Sections NR 400.02 (101) and (106) define 'modified indirect source' and 'new indirect source' respectively. Section NR 410.03 (3) establishes fees for the application and issuance of permits to construct or modify an indirect source.
6. Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal statutes and regulations: In a letter dated June 17, 2009, the USEPA notified the WDNR that the definition of the term "major modification" ins. NR 405.02 was inadequate because it failed to identify permits issued under federal authority. Wisconsin's Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program was approved into its SIP
on June 28, 1999. Before that, PSD construction permits were issued under federal authority. When s. NR 405.02 (21) (b) 5. was written, the references to federal authority were inadvertently omitted. Because the federal citations were omitted from the rule, USEPA identified that in a very limited situation, the current state definition would allow a source to make a change to use a different fuel or raw material without undergoing major new source permit review for the change, even though the change could be prohibited under a federal permit. The WDNR will amend this definition to ensure that it is consistent with USEPA rule and policy and recognizes all federally-issued permits. WDNR is likewise amending the definition of "major modification" at s. NR 408.02 (20) for nonattainment area new source review.
The alternative to this rule action is to keep the rules as they are which USEPA has already identified as an inconsistency with federal rules. However, in a Federal Register filed June 15, 2012, US EPA disapproved
narrow portions of the SIP pertaining to permit requirements in chs. NR 405 and 408 that would be addressed with this rulemaking. In the Federal Register, USEPA stated that they are under obligation to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (PIP) addressing the disapproved portions of the SIP within 2 years. The Federal Register states that the PIP will not be promulgated ifWDNR rectifies the deficiencies within the 2 year timefrarne.
The clarifications of NO, as a precursor to ozone and NO, and S0 2 as precursors to PM2 .s. as well as the clarification of accounting for PM 2 .s and PM 10 condensables as a portion ofPM 2
. 5 and PM 10 emissions are not policy changes nor do they change how WDNR currently implements chs. NR 405 and 408 requirements. On June 15,2012, USEPA disapproved a narrow portion of Wisconsin's SIP for the 1997
ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard pertaining to air construction permitting. This was done because NO, was not explicitly identified as a precursor to ozone as part of PSD permit program requirements. The final disapproval triggered a requirement that USEPA promulgate a PIP addressing the deficiency no later than 2 years from the date of disapproval. USEPA published a proposed disapproval of Wisconsin's submittal on December 18,2012, because the submittal did not meet the 2008 PM 2 .s SIP requirements. Specifically, the revisions submitted did not explicitly define the precursors of PM 2 .s, nor did they contain the prescribed language to ensure that gases that condense to form particulate matter (PM), known as condensables, are regulated as part ofPM 2 .s and PM ofless than 10 micrometer (PM 10 ) emissions. Final disapproval to portions of the SIP relating to identifying precursors of PM 2
. 5 will also result in the promulgation of a PIP unless the deficiencies are addressed.

2Not repealing sections of cbs. NR 400 and 410 in response to the repeal ofNR 411 by the legislature would potentially create confitsion and perpetuate an inconsistency between WDNR mles and state statute.

7. Comparison with similar rules in adjacent states (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota): Illinois and Minnesota are delegated states, so they are directly implementing the federal program and not implementing their programs through a State Implementation Plan (SIP), as Wisconsin does. Iowa and Michigan, similar to Wisconsin, are SIP approved states, so they are also implementing a federal program, but through their own state rules and regulations. It is the goal of SIP-approved states to implement federal programs in accordance with the regulations set out in federal code. The majority of this rule package addresses changes necessary to comply with federal regulations. Those changes not dictated by federal regulations are associated with the repeal of fees related to the indirect source program which is no longer existing in Wisconsin, thereby addressing a current internal inconsistency.

8. Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies used and how any related findings support the regulatory approach chosen: The WDNR did not use any factual data or analytical methodologies in developing the proposed rules. The changes proposed in this rule package are based on deficiencies in the rules identified by the USEPA and a comparison of the current state rules to the federal rules.

9. Analysis and supporting documents used to determine the effect on small business or in preparation of an economic impact analysis: The proposed changes to the new source permit review programs only affect major sources which typically do not include small businesses. The WDNR relied on experience in implementation of the new source permit review program to conclude that small businesses would not be affected by the proposed changes. No supporting documents or other analyses were used. The proposed changes related to the former indirect source permit program will not have any effect on small businesses since the indirect permit program has been repealed and the proposed changes are of a clean-up nature only.
10. Effect on small business: WDNR does not believe that the proposed rule revisions will affect small businesses.
11. Agency contact person: Gail Good; P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707-7921; Telephone number (608) 266-1058; email address: gail.good@wisconsin.gov.

SECTION 1. NR 400.02 (101) and (106) are repealed.

SECTION 2. NR 400.02 (123m) and (124) are amended to read: NR 400.02 (123m) "PM 2 . 5 emissions" means PM2
. 5 emitted to the ambient air as measured by an applicable reference method or an equivalent or alternative method specified by the department. PM 25 emissions include filterable emissions and gaseous emissions from a source or activity that condense to form particulate matter at ambient temperatures. (124) "PM 10 emissions" means finely divided solid or liquid material, with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal I 0 micrometers, emitted to the ambient air as measured by an applicable reference method or an equivalent or alternative method specified by the department. PMlQ

3emissions include filterable emissions and gaseous emissions from a source or activity that condense to form particulate matter at ambient temperatures.

SECTION 3. NR 405.02 (21) (b) 5. a. and b. and 6. are amended to read: NR 405.02 (21) (b) 5. a. The source was capable of accommodating the alternative fuel or raw material before January 6, 1975, unless the change would be prohibited under any federally enforceable permit condition which was established after January 6, 197 5 pursuant to this chapter or ch. NR 406 or 408 or under an operation penni! issued pursuant to ch. NR 407, or pursuant to a permit issued under 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix S, 40 CFR 52.21, or regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR Part 51 subpart I. b. The source is approved to use the alternative fuel or raw material under any permit issued under this chapter or ch. NR 406, 407, or 408, or pursuant to a permit issued under 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix S, 40 CFR 52.21, or regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR Part 51 subpart I. 6. An increase 

### in the hours of operation or in the production rate, unless the change would be prohibited under any federally enforceable permit condition which was established after January 6, 197 5; pursuant to this chapter, ch. NR 406, or 408 er 

### qg CPR 52.21 or under an operation permit issued pursuant
to ch. NR 407, or pursuant to a permit issued under 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix S, 40 CFR Part 52.21, or regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR Part 51 subpart I.

SECTION 4. NR 405.02 (25i) (a) is amended to read:
NR 405.02 (25i) (a) Any air contaminant for which a national ambient air quality standard has been promulgated alia fill)' eeBstituellts er rreeursers fur the air eeBtamillaBts idelltified by the admiHistrater, e.g., velatile ergaHie eemreuads are rreemsers fur ezeHe. (Nate)**~!itregell** ellides have aeell idelltified by the admiHistrater as rreeursers fur ezeHe.

SECTION 5. NR 405.02 (25i) (ag) and (ar) are created to read:
NR 405.02 (25i) (ag) PM 25 emissions and PM 10 emissions. As defmed ins. NR 400.02 (123m) and (124), respectively, these terms include filterable emissions and gaseous emissions from a source or activity which condense to form particulate matter at ambient temperatures. (ar) Any air contaminant that is identified under this paragraph as a precursor to an air contaminant for which a national ambient air quality standard has been promulgated by the EPA, or that the EPA has determined to be a constituent or precursor to an air contaminant for which a national ambient air quality standard has been promulgated by the EPA. The precursors identified by the administrator are as follows:

41. Volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides are precursors to ozone in all attainment and unclassifiable areas. 2. Sulfur dioxide is a precursor to PM 25 in all attainment and unclassifiable areas. 3. Nitrogen oxides are precursors to PM2 . 5 in all attainment and unclassifiable areas, unless the department demonstrates to the administrator's satisfaction or the EPA demonstrates that emissions of nitrogen oxides from sources in a specific area are not a significant contributor to the area's ambient PM25 concentrations.

SECTION 6. NR 408.02 (20) (e) 5. a. and b. and 6. are amended to read: NR 408.02 (20) (e) 5. a. The source was capable of accommodating before December 21, 1976, unless the change would be prohibited under any federally enforceable permit condition which was established after December 21, 1976 pursuant to this chapter or ch. NR 405 or 406 or under an operation permit issued pursuant to ch. NR 407, or pursuant to a permit issued under 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix S. 40 CFR 52.21, or regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR Part 51 subpart I. b. The source is approved to use an alternative fuel or raw material under any permit issued under this chapter or ch. NR 405, 406, or 407. or pursuant to a permit issued under 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix S, 40 CFR 52.21, or regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR Part 51 subpart I. 6. An increase in the hours of operation or in the production rate, unless the change would be prohibited under any federally enforceable permit condition which was established after December 21, 1976 pursuant to this chapter, ch. NR 405, or 406 er tll.is ell.aJ3ter, or under operation permits issued pursuant to ch. NR 407. or pursuant to a permit issued under 40 CFR Pmt 51 Appendix S, 40 CFR 52.21,

or regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR Pmt 51 subpart I.

SECTION 7. NR 408.02 (29m) (c) is amended to read: NR 408.02 (29m) (c) Any air contaminant that is identified under this paragraph as a eenstirueflt

er precursor of a general air contaminant listed under par. (a) or (b), or that the EPA has determined to be a constituent or precursor of a general air contaminant listed under par. (a) or (b), provided that a constituent

or precursor pollutant may only be regulated under this chapter er eli. NR 405 as part of regulation of the general air contaminant. The precursors identified by the administrator are as follows:
I. Volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides are precursors to ozone in all ozone nonattainment areas. 2. Sulfi.u dioxide is a precursor to PM 2
. 5 in all PM 25 nonattainment areas. 3. Nitrogen oxides are presumed to be precursors to PM 2 5 in all PM 2 5 nonattainment areas, unless

5the department demonstrates to the administrator's satisfaction or the EPA demonstrates that emissions of nitrogen oxides from sources in a specific area are not a significant contributor to the area's ambient PM, 5 concentrations.

SECTION 8. NR 408.02 (29m) (d) is created to read:
NR 408.02 (29m) (d) PM 25 emissions and PM 10 emissions. As defined ins. NR 400.02 (123m) and (124), respectively, these terms include filterable emissions and gaseous emissions from a source or activity which condense to fonu particulate matter at ambient temperatures.

SECTION 9. NR 408.06 (I) (a) is amended to read: NR 408.06 (1) (a) G&ets Except as provided 

### in par. (em), offsets shall be of the same air contaminant class, that is, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, or lead.

SECTION 10. NR 410.03 (3) is repealed.

SECTION 11. EFFECTIVE DATE. This rule shall take effect on the first day of the month following publication in the Wisconsin administrative register as provided ins. 227.22 (2) (intra.), Slats.

SECTION 12. BOARD ADOPTION. This rule was approved and adopted by the State of Wisconsin Natural Resources Board on

_________ _

Dated at Madison, Wisconsin

_______________ .

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

By

________________________ __ Cathy Stepp, Secretary (SEAL)

6

### ORDER OF THE STATE OF WISCONSIN NATURAL RESOURCES BOARD REPEALING , AMENDING , AND CREATING RULES

The Wisconsin Natural Resources Board adopts an order to repeal NR 400.02 (101) and (106) , and 410.03 (3); to amend NR 400.02 (123m) and (124), 405.02 (21) (b) 5. a. and b. and 6., and (25i) (a), 408.02 (20) (e) 5. a. and b. and 6., 408.02 (29m) (c), and 408.06 (1) (a) ; and to create NR 405.02 (25i) (ag) and (ar), and 408.02 (29m) (d), relating to revisions to air pollution control rules in chs. NR 405 and 408 , necessary to maintain consistency with federal requirements, as well as in chs. NR 400 and 410, related to the repeal of ch. NR 411

. AM
- 21
- 12 Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources 1. Statute interpreted: Section 285.11 (1) and (6), Stats. The State Implementation Plan developed under s. 285.11 (6), Stats., is revised. 2. Statutory authority: Sections 227.11 (2) (a), 285.11 (1), (16) , and (17), and 285.60 (11) (b)

. 3. Explanation of agency authority: Section 227.11 (2) (a), Stats., gives state agencies general rule

making authority. Section 285.11 (1), Stats., gives the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) the authority to promulgate rules implementing and consistent with ch. 285, Stats

. Section 285.11 (6), Stats., requires WDNR to develop a plan for the prevention, abatement, and control of air pollution. The plan must conform with the Clean Air Act and is necessary for new source review implementation. Section 285.11 (16) , Stats., requires WDNR to promulgate rules that may limit the classification of a major source to specified air contaminants. Section 285.11 (17) , Stats., requires WDNR to promulgate rules, consistent with the federal Clean Air Act, that modify the term ‘modification’ as it relates to specific categorie s of stationary sources. Section 285.60 (11) (b), Stats ., establishes that the WDNR may not require a permit for an indirect source under ch. 285, Stats

. 4. Related statute or rule: There are no related statutes that are not identified above.
5. Plain language analysis: The objective of this rule package is to revise language in chs. NR 400, 405 , and 408 to maintain consistency with federal requirements and definitions. Additionally, sections of chs. NR 400 and 410 need to be repealed due to the repeal of ch. NR 411. In May 2006, WDNR requested approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) of rules promulgated by Wisconsin to incorporate federal New Source Review Reform requirements as a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The USEPA approved the SIP revisions, but subsequently requested , through a narrow disapproval, changes to language in chs. NR 405 and 408. The changes pertain to the fuel use prohibition that is part of the definition of “major modification”.
Section NR 405. 02 (25i) defines “Regulated NSR air contaminant” and specifically identifies volatile organic compounds as a precursor for ozone. USEPA has requested inclusion of nitrogen oxides (NO x

### ) in the definition for clarification purposes. Similarly USEPA requires, through its 2008 New Source Review Rule, explicit identification of NO x 

### and sulfur dioxide (SO 2

### ) as precursors to particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM 2.5 

### ) within the definition of “Regulated NSR air contaminant”. WDNR has als o amended the definition of “Regulated NSR air contaminant” in s. NR 408.02 (29m) to specifically address precursor pollutants in nonattainment areas. Additionally, WDNR will amend the



### 1

### definitions of PM 2.5 

### and particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM 10

### ) to address a USEPA

-identified SIP deficiency. The definitions as currently written do not specifically mention condensables as required in the federal 2008 New Source Review Rule. On April 27, 2011, the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) adopted a motion under s. 227.26 (2) (d), Stats., suspending ch. NR 411. Subsequent passage of legislation introduced by JCRAR in support of the suspension (see 2011 Wisconsin Act 121 ), resulted in the repeal of ch. NR 411. The primary purpose of ch. NR 411 had been to control carbon monoxide emissions from indirect sources through conditions established in construction and operation permits. Therefore the WDNR proposes to repeal rules whose only purpose is in support of ch. NR 411. Rules proposed for repeal include ss. NR 400.02 (101) and (106), and 410.03 (3). Sections NR 400.02 (101) and (106) define ‘modified indirect source’ and ‘new indirect source’ respectively. Section NR 410.03 (3) establishes fees for the application and issuance of permits to construct or modify an indirect source

. 6. Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal statutes and regulations: In a letter dated June 17, 2009, the USEPA notified the WDNR that the definition of the term “major modification” in s. NR 405.02 was inadequate because it failed to identify permits issued under federal authority. Wisconsin’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program was approved into its SIP on June 28, 1999. Before that, PSD construction permits were issued under federal authority. When s . NR 405.02 (21) (b) 5

. was written, the references to federal authority were inadvertently omitted . Because the federal citations were omitted from the rule, USEPA identified that in a very limited situation, the current state definition would allow a source to make a change to use a different fuel or raw material without undergoing major new source permit review for the change, even t hough the change could be prohibited under a federal permit. The WDNR will amend this definition to ensure that it is consistent with USEPA rule and policy and recognizes all federally

-issued permits. WDNR is likewise amending the definition of “major modification” at s. NR 408.02 (20) for nonattainment area new source review. The alternative to this rule action is to keep the rules as they are which USEPA has already identified as an inconsistency with federal rules. However, in a Federal Register filed June 15, 2012, USEPA disapproved narrow portions of the SIP pertaining to permit requirements in chs. NR 405 and 408 that would be addressed with this rulemaking. In the Federal Register, USEPA stated that they are under obligation to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) addressing the disapproved portions of the SIP within 2 years. The Federal Register states that the FIP will not be promulgated if WDNR rectifies the deficiencies within the 2 year timeframe.
The clarifications of NO x 

### as a precursor to ozone and NO x 

### and SO 2 

### as precursors to PM 2.5, 

### as well as the clarification of accounting for PM 2.5 

### and PM 10 

### condensables as a portion of PM 2.5 

### and PM 10 

### emissions are not policy changes nor do they change how WDNR currently implements ch s
. NR 405 and 408 requirements . On June 15, 2012, USEPA disapproved a narrow portion of Wisconsin’s SIP for the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard pertaining to air construction permitting. This was done because NO x 

### was not explicitly identified as a precursor to ozone as part of PSD permit program requirements. The final disapproval triggered a requirement that USEPA promulgate a FIP addressing the deficiency no later than 2 years from the date of disapproval. US EPA published a proposed disapproval of Wi sconsin's submittal on December 18, 2012, because the submittal did not meet the 2008 PM 2.5 

### SIP requirements. Specifically, the revisions submitted did not explicitly define the precursors of PM 2.5 

### , nor did they contain the prescribed language to ensure that gases that condense to form particulate matter (PM), known as condensables, are regulated as part of PM 2.5 

### and PM of less than 10 micrometer (PM 10

### ) emissions

. Final disapproval to portions of the SIP relating to identifying precursors of PM 2.5 

### will also result in the promulgation of a FIP unless the deficiencies are addressed.



### 2

### Not repealing sections of chs. NR 400 and 410 in response to the repeal of NR 411 by the legislature would potentially create confusion and perpetuate an inconsistency between WDNR rules and state statute

. 7. Comparison with similar rules in adjacent states (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota): Illinois and Minnesota are delegated states, so they are directly implementing the federal program and not implementing their programs through a State Implementation Plan (SIP), as Wisconsin does. Iowa and Michigan, similar to Wisconsin, are SIP approved states, so they are also implementing a federal program, but through their own state rules and regulations. It is the goal of SIP

- approved states to implement federal programs in accordance with the regulations set out in federal code. The majority of this rule package addresses changes necessary to comply with federal regulations. Those changes not dictated by federal regulations are as sociated with the repeal of fees related to the indirect source program which is no longer existing in Wisconsin, thereby addressing a current internal inconsistency. 8. Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies used and how any related findings support the regulatory approach chosen: The WDNR did not use any factual data or analytical methodologies in developing the proposed rules. The changes proposed in this rule package are based on deficiencies in the rules identified by the USEPA and a comparison of the current state rules to the federal rules. 9. Analysis and supporting documents used to determine the effect on small business or in preparation of an economic impact analysis : The proposed changes to the new source permit review programs only affect major sources which typically do not include small businesses. The WDNR relied on experience in implementation of the new source permit review program to conclude that small businesses would not be affected by the proposed changes. No supporting documents or other analyses were used. The proposed changes related to the former indirect source permit program will not have any effect on small businesses since the indirect permit program has been repealed and the proposed changes are of a clean

-up nature only.
10. Effect on small business: WDNR does not believe that the proposed rule revisions will affect small businesses. 11. Agency contact person: Gail Good; P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707

- 7921; Telephone number (608) 266

- 1058; email address: gail.good@wisconsin.gov

. SECTION 1. NR 400.02 (101) and (106) are repealed.

SECTION 2. NR 400.02 (123 m) and (124) are amended to read: NR 400.02 (123m ) “ PM 2.5 

### emissions” means PM 2.5 

### emitted to the ambient air as measured by an applicable reference method or an equivalent or alternative method specified by the department. PM 2.5 

### emissions include filterable emissions and gaseous emissions from a source or activity that condense to form particulate matter at ambient temperatures. (124) “PM 10 

### emissions” means finely divided solid or liquid material, with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers, emitted to the ambient air as measured by an applicable reference method or an equivalent or alternative method specified by the department. PM 10



### 3

### emissions include filterable emissions and gaseous emissions from a source or activity that condense to form particulate matter at ambient temperatures.

SECTION 3
. NR 405.02 (21) (b) 5. a

. and b. and 6. are amended to read: NR 405.02 (21) (b) 5. a. The source was capable of accommodating the alternative fuel or raw material before January 6, 1975, unless the change would be prohibited under any federally enforceable permit condition which was established after January 6, 1975 pursuant to this chapter or ch. NR 406 or 408 or under an operation permit issued pursuant to ch. NR 407 , or pursuant to a permit issued under 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix S , 40 CFR 52.21 , or regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR Part 51 subpart I

. b. The source is approved to use the alternative fuel or raw material under any permit issued under this chapter or ch. NR 406, 407 , or 408 , or pursuant to a permit issued under 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix S , 40 CFR 52.21 , or regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR Part 51 subpart I

. 6. An increase in the hours of operation or in the production rate, unless the change would be prohibited under any federally enforceable permit condition which was established after January 6, 1975 , pursuant to thi s chapter, ch. NR 406 , or 408 or 40 CFR 52.21 or under an operation permit issued pursuant to ch. NR 407 , or pursuant to a permit issued under 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix S , 40 CFR Part 52.21 , or regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR Part 51 subpart I

.

SECT ION 4
. NR 405 .02 (25i) (a) is amended to read: NR 405.02 (25i) (a) Any air contaminant for which a national ambient air quality standard has been promulgated and any constituents or precursors for the air contaminants identified by the administrator, e.g., volatile organic compounds are precursors for ozone

. (Note) Nitrogen oxides have been identified by the administrator as precursors for ozone.

SECTION 5
. NR 405.02 (25i) (ag ) and (ar) are created to read: NR 405.02 (25i) (ag ) PM 2.5 

### emissions and PM 10 

### emi ssions

. A s defined in s. NR 400.02 (123m) and (124), respectively, these terms include filterable emissions and gaseous emissions from a source or activity which condense to form particulate matter at ambient temperatures

. (ar) Any air contaminant that is identified under this paragraph as a precursor to an air contaminant for which a national ambient air quality standard has been promulgated by the EPA , or that the EPA has determined to be a constituent or precursor to an air contaminant for which a national ambient air quality standard has been promulgated by the EPA . The precursors identified by the administrator are as follows :



### 4

### 1 . Volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides are precursors to ozone in all attainment and unclassifiable areas. 2 . Sulfur dioxide i s a precursor to PM 2.5 

### in all attainment and unclassifiable areas. 3 . Nitrogen oxides are precursors to PM 2.5 

### in all attainment and unclassifiable areas, unless the department demonstrates to the administrator’s satisfaction or the EPA demonstrate s that emissions of nitrogen oxides from sources in a specific area are not a significant contributor to the area’s ambient PM 2.5 

### concentrations.

SECTION 6
. NR 408.02 (20) (e) 5. a. and b. and 6. are amended to read: NR 408.02 (20) (e) 5. a. The source was capable of accommodating before December 21, 1976, unless the change would be prohibited under any federally enforceable permit condition which was established after December 21, 1976 pursuant to this chapter or ch. NR 405 or 406 or under an operation permit issued pursuant to ch. NR 407 , or pursuant to a permit issued under 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix S , 40 CFR 52.21, or regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR Part 51 subpart I

. b

. The source is approved to use an alternative fuel or raw material under any p ermit issued under this chapter or ch. NR 405, 406 , or 407 , or pursuant to a permit issued under 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix S , 40 CFR 52.21, or regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR Part 51 subpart I

. 6

. An increase in the hours of operation or in the production rate, unless the change would be prohibited under any federally enforceable permit condition which was established after December 21, 1976 pursuant to this chapter, ch. NR 405 , or 406 or this chapter, or under operation permits issued pursuant to ch. NR 407 , or pursuant to a permit issued under 40 CFR Part 51 Appendix S, 40 CFR 52.21, or regulations approved pursuant to 40 CFR Part 51 subpart I

.

SECTION 7
. NR 408.02 (29m) (c) is amended to read: NR 40 8 .02 (29m ) (c ) Any air contaminant that is identif ied under this paragraph as a constituent

or precursor of a general air contaminant listed under par . (a) or (b), or that the EPA has determined to be a constituent or precursor of a general air contaminant listed under par. (a) or (b), provided that a con stituent or precursor pollutant may only be regulated under this chapter or ch. NR 405 as part of regulation of the general air contaminant. The precursors identified by the administrator are as follows: 1. Volatile organic compounds and nitrogen oxides are precursors to ozone in all ozone nonattainment areas. 2. Sulfur dioxide is a precursor to PM 2.5 

### in all PM 2.5 

### nonattainment areas. 3. Nitrogen oxides are presumed to be precursors to PM 2.5 

### in all PM 2.5 

### nonattainment areas, unles s



### 5

### the department demonstrates to the administrator’s satisfaction or the EPA demonstrates that emissions of nitrogen oxides from sources in a specific area are not a significant contributor to the area’s ambient PM 2.5 

### concentrations.

SECTION 8
. NR 408.02 (29m) (d) is created to read: NR 408.02 (29m) (d) PM 2.5 

### emissions and PM 10 

### emissions . A s defined in s. NR 400.02 (123m) and (124), respectively, these terms include filterable emissions and gaseous emissions from a source or activity which condense to form particulate matter at ambient temperatures

.

SECTION 9
. NR 408.06 (1) (a) is amended to read: NR 408.06 (1) (a) Offsets Except as provided in par. (cm), offsets shall be of the same air contaminant class, that is, volatile organic compounds, particulate matter, carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide , or lead.

SECTION 10
. NR 410.03 (3) is repealed.

SECTION 1 1
. EFFECTIVE DATE. This rule shall take effect on the first day of the month following publication in the Wisconsin administrative register as provided in s. 227.22 (2) (intro.), Stats.

SECTION 1 2
. BOARD ADOPTION. This rule was approved and adopted by the State of Wisconsin Natural Resources Board on January 22, 2014

.

Dated at Madison, Wisconsin _________________________________.

STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

By__________________________________ Cathy Stepp , Secretary (SEAL)



### 6

# EPA Region V 

# Wisconsin SIP Submittal Completeness Review
Submittal Letter
1. Signed by Governor’s Designee (Bart Sponseller)? Yes _x__ No ___ 2. Date of Submittal _March 12, 2014_____________________________________ 3. WDNR Person in charge of SIP submittal. Name _Ralph Patterson_______________ Telephone __608-267-7546__________ FAX Number __608-267-0560_____________ E-MAIL Address____ralph.patterson@wisconsin.gov__________________________ 4. WDNR Technical Person in charge of answering questions on SIP Submittal Name _Kristin Hart_______________ Telephone _608-266-6876___________ FAX Number ___608-267-0560____________ E-MAIL Address____kristin.hart@wisconsin.go__________________________ 

# Incorporation Into Wisconsin Administrative Code

5. Is evidence that the State incorporated the revision into the Wisconsin Administrative Code supplied in this SIP package? Yes __ No_X_ if No explain. WDNR issubmitting this SIP revision for EPA parallel processing. DNR will supply additional information when the ruleis published in the Wisconsin Register. 6. The effective date of the regulation is or was ____________________. This rule is not yet finalized. 7. Are test methods/rules incorporated by reference correctly? (Has approval been obtained from the state Attorney General Yes_______ No_______ Not applicable _x______ For No and Not applicable explain answer.

8. Has WDNR provided evidence that it has necessary legal authority under State law to adopt and implement the revision? Yes __x_____ No _______ Additional Explanation (if necessary). DNR has statutory authority under Sections 227.11(2)(a), 285.11(1),(16), and (17), and 285.60(11)(b), Wis. Stats

9. Did the State include a copy of the actual regulation or document for USEPA review? Yes _x___ No_____ Additional Explanation (if necessary).2

10. Did the State provide evidence that it followed all of the requirements of its Administrative Procedures Act (ch. 227, Wis. Stats., Administrative Procedure and Review) in conducting and completing adoption/issuance of the revision? Yes_x___ No______ Additional Explanation (if necessary)
11. Did the State include evidence that Public Notice was given of the revision, including date of publication? Yes_x___ No ____ Additional Explanation (if necessary)

12. Did the State provide a copy of the certification that public hearings were held in accordance with the information provided in the public notice (copy of notarized Class I paper proof). Yes_x__ No___ Additional Explanation (if necessary).

13. Does the submittal contain a compilation of public comments and the State’s response? Yes____ No_x___ Additional Explanation (if necessary). DNR did not receive any publiccomments specific to AM-21-12 at the public hearing or during the 30 day public comment period



# Technical Issues
14. Name the all the regulated pollutants affected by the revision? ____ _______ The submittal addresses EPA concerns regarding new source permitting. 15. Does the submittal identify the designation, status of the attainment plan and attainment date for the area(s) Yes____ No__ ___ Additional Explanation (if necessary) - Not applicable

16. Does the submittal identify the location and types of affected sources? Yes_____ No__x___ Additional Explanation (if necessary) The submittal acknowledges the change may affect any source having a fuel use prohibition in a new source permit.3

17. Does the submittal quantify the changes in SIP-allowable emissions and estimate or quantify the changes in actual emissions from affected sources? Yes___ No__ Additional explanation (if necessary) – Not applicable

18. Has the State demonstrated that the NAAQS/PSD Increment/RFP demonstration/visibility will be protected if the revision is approved and implemented? Yes____ No____ Additional explanation (if necessary). – Not applicable

19. Has the State provided modeling information to support the revision. Yes___ No____ Unnecessary__x__ 20. Has the State provided evidence that emission limitations are based on continuous emission reduction technology? Yes____ No____ Additional explanation (if necessary). Not applicable 21. Has the State provided evidence that the revision contains emission limitations, work practice standards and record keeping/reporting requirements where necessary, to ensure emission levels? Yes___ No____ Additional explanation (if necessary). Not applicable

22. Does the submittal contain enforcement/compliance strategies including how compliance will be determined in practice, and at what frequency? Yes___ No___ Additional explanation (if necessary).- Not applicable4



# STATE APPROVABILITY CHECKLISTENFORCEABILITY
USEPA USE ONLY SIP Package Number ___________ Date Received by USEPA ________________ Date Due_____________________________ State: WISCONSIN5 

# WDNR Information
Subject Matter: Approval of NR 405.02(21) (b)5.a. and b. and 6. in AM-21-12



## Applicability

USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response What sources are being regulated? Clear discussion 

### Sources that could make a change to use a different fue of raw material without undergoingma j or new sour permit review for the chang under NR 405.02(21)(b)5., Wis. Adm. Code. This rule section addresses EPA concerns contained in 77 F R 35870 regarding “major modification”. This definitional change will not allow sources to make fuel changes without going through new source permit review.. What are criteria for exemption? Clear discussion 

### None Is calculation procedure for exemption clearly specified? Supply example calculation or clear explanation of how to determine exemption (line by line, etc.) 

### Not applicable

Is emission inventory listed in the background document of the attainment demonstration? Inventory including allowable and actual emissions in source category should be included, for enforcement purposes and independent of any Clean Air Act requirements, in the attainment demonstration if such data is necessary for determining baselines in regulations. 

### Not applicable

Is the averaging time(s) used in the rule different from that of the ambient standard? The averaging time in the rule must be consistent with protecting the ambient standard in question. Normally, it should be equal to or shorter than the time associated with the standard. Longer term averaging is available only in limited instances provided that the ambient standard is not compromised. 

### Not applicable

What are the units of compliance (lbs VOC per gallon of solids applied less water, grains per standard cubic foot?) Clearly stated in the rule. 

### Not applicable6

Is bubbling or averaging of any type allowed? If yes, state criteria. Could a USEPA inspector independently determine if the criteria were met?? Does USEPA have to approve each case? Explicit description of how averaging, bubbling, or equivalency is to be determined. VOC equivalency must be on a “solids applied” basis. Any method must be independently reproducible. Provision must be explicit as to whether USEPA case-by-case approval is required. If provision intended to be “generic” then USEPA bubble policy must be met. 

### Not applicable

If there is a redesignation, will this change the emission limitations? If yes, which ones and how? Regulation may not automatically allow for self nullification upon redesignation of area to attainment. New maintenance demonstration required to order to drop regulation. 

### Not applicable



## Compliance Dates
USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response What is the compliance date? The compliance date must not be later than the approved or about to be approved date of attainment unless emission reductions are not necessary for attainment. In some cases, it will be necessary for the regulation to specify dates in compliance schedules that are required to be submitted by source to state. 

### Not applicable

What is the attainment date? Clearly defined. 

### Not applicable 

## Specificity of conduct USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response What test method is required? Test method must be explicitly stated. 

### Not applicable What is the averaging time in the compliance test method? Averaging time and application of limit must be explicit. 

### Not applicable Is a compliance calculation or evaluation required? (i.e., daily weighted average for VOC). Clearly defined. 

### Not applicable

If a compliance calculation is necessary, list the formula, period of compliance, and/or evaluation method. Formula must be explicit. 

### Not applicable



## Incorporation by reference USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response What is the state authority for rulemaking. Clearly stated. DNR has rule making statutory authority under Sections 227.11(2)(a), 285.11(1),(16), and (17), and 285.60(11)(b), Wis. Stats7

Are methods/rules incorporated by reference in the right manner? Clearly stated. 

### Not applicable


## Record keeping USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response What records are required to determine compliance? Clearly stated. 

### Not applicable In what form or units (lbs/gal, gr/dscf, etc.) must the records be kept? On what time basis (instantaneously, hourly daily)? Records to be kept must be consistent with units of compliance in the performance requirements, including the applicable time period . 

### Not applicable

Does the rule affirmatively require the records be kept? There must be clearly defined and distinguishable from what constitutes a violation. 

### Not applicable



## Exemptions USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response List any exemptions allowed. Must be clearly defined and distinguishable from what constitutes a violation. 

### Not applicable

Is the criteria for application clear? Clearly stated. 

### Not applicable 

## Malfunction Provisions USEPA Question USEPA Requirement State Response Are there any malfunction provisions in the rule? Rule must specify what exceedances may be excused, how the standard is to be applied, and who makes the determination. 

### Not applicableBEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Natural Resources Board Order AM

- 21

- 12 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN T hat pursuant to s s. 227.16 , 227.17 , and 285.11, Wis. Stats , the Department of Natural Resources, hereinafter the Department , will hold a public hearing to consider the proposed changes to chs. NR 400, 405, 408, and 410 related to consistency with federal major source permit review requirements and clean

- up of rules related to the former indirect source program on the date and at the time and location listed below.
NOTICE I S FURT H ER GIVEN that t he proposed revisions relate to issues for State Implementation Plan approvability, and the State Implementation Plan developed under s. 285.11(6), Stats. will be revised. The Department will also be accepting comment at this hearing on the submittal to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency of final rules promulgated under this rulemaking as part of a revision to Wisconsin’s State Implementation Plan

. Hearing Information
**Date and Tim e**  **Location** Tuesday, November 5, 201 3 , 1 :00 to 2 :00 PM Natural Resources Building, Room 713, 101 S. Webster St. , Madison
R easonable accommodations, including the provision of informational material in an alternative format, will be provided for qualified i ndividuals with disabilities upon request. Contact Robert Eckdale in writing at t he D epartment of Natural Resources , Bureau of Air Management (AM/7) , 101 S

. Webster St. , Madison, WI 5370 3 ; by e mail to Rob ert.Eckdale@wisconsin.gov ; or by calling (608) 266

- 2856. A request must include specific information and be received at least 10 days before the date of the scheduled hearing. Availability of the P roposed R ules and the F iscal E stimate and Economic Impact Analysis T he proposed rule and supporting documents, including the fiscal estimate and economic impact analysis , may be viewed and downloaded from the Administrative Rules System Website at https://health.wisconsin.gov/admrules/public/Rmo?nRmoId=13843

. If you do not have i nternet access, a printed copy of the proposed rule and supporting documents, including the fiscal estimate and economic impact analysis , may be obtained free of charge by contacting Robert Eckdale, Department of Natural Resources , Bureau of Ai r Management (AM/7 ) , 101 S. Webster St

. , Madison , WI, 53703, or by calling ( 608 ) 266

- 2856. Submitting Comments Comments on the proposed rule must be received on or before November 8 , 2013

. Written comments may be submitted by U.S. mail, fax, e mail, or through the i nternet and will have the same weight and effect as oral statements presented at the public hearing. Written comments and any questions on the proposed rules sho uld be submitted to:
Gail Good D epartment of Natural Resources Bureau of Air Management (AM/7) 101 S Webster St, Madison, WI 53703
Phone: (608) 266

- 1058 Fax: ( 608 ) 267

- 0560 E

- mail: gail.good@wisco nsin.gov Internet: Use the page for this rulemaking on Ad ministrative Rules System Website (requires registration to comment ) at https://health.wisconsin.gov/admrules/public/Rmo?nRmoId=13843 Analysis Prepared by the Department of Natu ral Resources

### Statute interpreted: Section 285.11 (1) and (6), Stats. The State Implementation Plan developed under s. 285.11 (6), Stats., is revised. Statutory authority: Sections 227.11 (2) (a), 285.11 (1), (16) and (17), and 285.60 (11) (b) Explanation of agency authority: Section 227.11 (2) (a), Stats., gives state agencies general rule

-making authority. Section 285.11 (1), Stats., gives the Department the authority to promulgate rules implementing and consistent with, ch. 285, Stats

. Section 285.11 ( 6), Stats., requires the Department to develop a plan for the prevention, abatement, and control of air pollution. The plan must conform with the Clean Air Act and is necessary for new source review implementation. Section 285.11 (16) requires the Department to promulgate rules that may limit the classification of a major source to specified air contaminants. Section 285.11 (17) requires the Department to promulgate rules, consistent with the federal Clean Air Act, that modify the term ‘modification’ as it relates to specific categories of stationary sources. Section 285.60 (11) (b), Stats ., establishes that the Department may not require a permit for an indirect source under ch. 285, Stats
Related statute or rule: There are no related statutes that are not identified above. Plain language analysis: The objective of this rule package is to revise language in chs. NR 400, 405, and 408 to maintain consistency with federal requirements and definitions. Additionally, sections of chs. NR 400 and 410 need to be repealed due to the repeal of ch. NR 411. In May 2006, the Department requested approval by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) of rules promulgated by Wisconsin to incorporate federal New Source Review Reform requirements as a revision to the State Implementation Plan (SIP). The USEPA approved the SIP revisions, but subsequently requested changes to language in chs. NR 405 and 408. The changes pertain to the fuel use prohibition that is part of the definition of “major modification”.
Section NR 405.02 (25i) defines “Regulated NSR air contaminant” and specifically identifies volatile organic compounds as a precursor for ozone. USEPA has requested inclusion of nitrogen oxides (NO x

### ) in the definition for clarification purposes. Similarly USEPA requires, through its 2008 New Source Review Rule, explicit identification of NO x 

### and sulfur dioxide (SO 2

### ) as precursors to particulate matter with a diameter of 2.5 micrometers or less (PM 2.5 

### ) within the definition of “Regulated NSR air contaminant”. The Department has also amended the definition of “Regulated NSR air contaminant” in s. NR 408.02 (29m) to specifically address precursor pollutants in nonattainment areas. Additionally, the Department will amend the definitions of PM 2.5 

### and particulate matter with a diameter of 10 micrometers or less (PM 10

### ) to address a USEPA

-identified SIP deficiency. The definitions as currently written do not specifically mention condensables as required in the federal 2008 New Source Review Rule. On April 27, 2011, the J oint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) adopted a motion under s. 227.26 (2) (d), Wis. Stats., suspending ch. NR 411. Subsequent passage of legislation introduced by JCRAR in support of the suspension (see 2011 Wisconsin Act 121 ), resulted in the repeal of ch. NR 411. The primary purpose of ch. NR 411 had been to control carbon monoxide emissions from indirect sources through conditions established in construction and operation permits. Therefore the Department proposes to repeal rules whose only purpose is in support of ch. NR 411. Rules proposed for repeal include ss. NR 400.02 (101) and (106), and 410.03 (3). Section NR 400.02 (101) and (106) define ‘modified indirect source’ and ‘new indirect source’ respectively. Section NR 410.03 (3) establishes fees for the application and issuance of permits to construct or modify an indirect source

. Summary of, and comparison with, existing or proposed federal statutes and regulations: In a letter dated June 17, 2009, the USEPA notified the Department that the definition of the term “major modification” in s. NR 405.02 was inadequate because it failed to identify permits issued under federal authority. Wisconsin’s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) program was approved into its SIP on June 28, 1999. Before that, PSD construction permits were issued under federal authority. When s . NR

### 405.02 (21) (b) (5) was written, the references to federal authority were inadvertently omitted . Because the federal citations were omitted from the rule, USEPA identified that in a very limited situation, the current state definition would allow a source to make a change to use a different fuel or raw material without undergoing major new source permit review for the change, even though the change could be prohibited under a federal permit. The Department will amend this definition to ensure that it is consistent with USEPA rule and policy and recognizes all federally

-issued permits. The Department is likewise amending the definition of “major modification” at s. NR 408.02 (20) for nonattainment area new source review. The alternative to this rule action is to keep the rules as they are , which USEPA has already identified as an inconsistency with federal rules. However, in a Federal Register filed June 15, 2012, USEPA disapproved narrow portions of the SIP pertaining to permit requirements in chs. NR 405 and 408 that would be addressed with this rulemaking. In the Federal Register, USEPA stated that they are under obligation to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) addressing the disapproved portions of the SIP within 2 years. The Federal Register states that the FIP will not be promulgated if Department rectifies the deficiencies within the 2 year timeframe.
The clarifications of NO x 

### as a precursor to ozone and NO x 

### and SO 2 

### as precursors to PM 2.5 , 

### a s well as the clarification of accounting for PM 2.5 

### and PM 10 

### condensables as a portion of PM 2.5 

### and PM 10 

### emissions are not policy changes nor do they change how Department currently implements ch s
. NR 405 and 408 requirements . On June 15, 2012, USEPA disapproved a narrow portion of Wisconsin’s SIP for the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard pertaining to air construction permitting. This was done because NO x 

### was not explicitly identified as a precursor to ozone as part of PSD permit program requirements. The final disapproval triggered a requirement that USEPA promulgate a FIP addressing the deficiency no later than 2 years f rom the date of disapproval. US EPA published a proposed disapproval of Wisconsin's submittal on December 18, 2012, because the submittal did not meet the 2008 PM 2.5 

### SIP requirements. Specifically, the revisions submitted did not explicitly define the precursors of PM 2.5 

### , nor did they contain the prescribed language to ensure that gases that condense to form particulate matter (PM), known as condensables are regulated as part of PM 2.5 

### and PM of less than 10 micrometer (PM 10

### ) emission s
. Final disapproval to portions of the SIP relating to identifying precursors of PM 2.5 

### will also result in the promulgation of a FIP unless the deficiencies are addressed. Not repealing sections of chs. NR 400 and 410 in response to the repeal of ch. NR 411 by the legislature would potentially create confusion and perpetuate an inconsistency with Department rules. Comparison with similar rules in adjacent states (Illinois, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota): Illinois and Minnesota are delegated states, so they are directly implementing the federal program and not implementing their programs through a State Implementation Plan (SIP), as Wisconsin does. Iowa and Michigan, similar to Wisconsin, are SIP approved states, so they are also implementing a federal program, but through their own state rules and regulations. It is the goal of SIP

- approved states to implement federal programs in accordance with the regulations set out in federal code. The majority of this rule package addresses changes necessary to comply with federal regulations. Those changes not dictated by federal regulations are associated with the repeal of fees related to the indirect source program which no longer exists in Wisconsin, thereby addressing a current internal inconsistency. Summary of factual data and analytical methodologies used and how any related findings support the regulatory approach chosen: The Department did not use any factual data or analytical methodologies in developing the proposed rules. The changes proposed in this rule package are based on deficiencies in the rules identified by the USEPA and a comparison of the current state rules to the federal rules. Analysis and supporting documents used to determine the effect on small business or in preparation of an economic impact analysis : The propo sed changes to the new source permit review programs only affect major sources which typically do not include small businesses. The proposed

### changes related to the former indirect source permit program will not have any effect on small businesses since the indirect permit program has been repealed and the proposed changes are of a clean

-up nature only. The Department did not use existing documentation in determining the effect on small business or in preparation of the economic impact analysis.
Effect on small business (initial regulatory flexibility analysis): The Department does not believe that the proposed rule revisions will have an economic impact on small businesses. The Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be contacted at SmallBusiness@dnr.state.wi.us , or by calling (608) 266

- 1959. Agency contact person: Gail Good; P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707

-7921; Telephone number (608) 266

- 1058; email address: gail.good13@wisconsin.gov
Environmental Analysis The Department has made a preliminary determination that adoption of the proposed rules would not involve significant adverse environmental effects and would not need an environmental analysis under ch. NR 150, Wis. Adm. Code. However, based on c omments received, an environmental analysis may be prepared before proceeding

. This analysis would summarize the Department ’s consideration of the impacts of the proposal and any reasonable alternatives.
Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact Analysis Summary The Department believes the proposed rules will have no fiscal effect. The changes being proposed either amend rules to match current practice and maintain consistency with federal requirements and definitions, or eliminate definitions and fees for a pro gram no longer used in Wisconsin.
The Department solicited information and advice on the economic impacts of the proposed rules from those who potentially could be affected or who might likely be interested . Most responders to the solicitation indicated t hat they had no input because they believe the proposed rules will have no economic impact on them. One responder felt there was economic benefit from the proposed rules and asked the Department to quantify that benefit. Additionally, the commenter felt th at the proposed rules addressed broader policy issues whose economic benefits should be analyzed. The Department does not believe the proposed rules provide economic benefit. The economic benefit from the repeal of ch. NR 411 occurred when the chapter was repealed through legislative action and is not due to the clean

- up of related rules proposed . Testimony, including an estimate of the costs associated with the indirect source permit program, was given at the time of the legislative action. The portions of the rule package associated with the major new source review program found in chs. NR 405 and 408 are amendments to ensure that the rules align with current Department practice as well as USEPA policy and do not represent changes in implementation. The ec onomic impact analysis speaks to the economic impacts of the proposed rules, not the underlying statutes that give the Department authority for rulemaking. There were no revisions to the Economic Impact Analysis

.

Dated at Madiso n, Wisconsin: September 27 , 2013 STATE OF WISCONSIN D EPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES

By ____________________ Cathy Stepp , SecretaryBEFORE THE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING

· -- - - N-al

-ural Resources Boa rd Order AM

-21 -1 2 

# ...

**~OTICE** IS HEREBY GIVEN That pursuant toss

. 227. 16, 227.17 , and 285

. 11, Wis

. >lals, _the Department of Natural Resou rces, he reinafter the Department , will hold 1 pubhc heanng to.cons1der the propos e d c h anges to chs. NR 400 , 405, 408, and 110 related to consistency w1th fed e r al m a jor source permit review requiremenls and

**;~:n~~~ r'.Jc~\~~**  **~;:!~b~~**
**~e** form e r i n dire ct source program on the date and at the

**~O ICE**  IS FURTHER GIVEN tnat the prop os ed revisions relate to issues for State mplemenlalion Plan

**approv~bllity,** and the State lmp lementalion Plan developed mder s. 285

. 11(6), Slats

. Will be

**r~v1se**
**d.** T h e Department w1ll also be accepting :omment at th1s heanng on the subm!ltal to th e U. S

. Environmental Protection Agency >f fina l rule s promulgaled under th1s rulemakmg as part of a revision to Wiscon s in's l tat

e l mplemenlation P l an. iearlng lnfonnatlon 'ate and Time ruesday, November 5, 2013, 1:00 lo 2:00PM Location Nalura l Resources Building, Room 713, 101 S

. Webster St., Madison

**~easonab**

**e** accommodations, including the provision of inform ational material in m

**a~ernalive** format, will be provided for q ua l ified individuals with

**disabil~ies** upon equesl. Contact Robert Eckdale in wri t ing at.the Department of Natural Resources, lureau of Air Ma emelit (AMf7), 101 S. Webster Sl., Madison, WI 53703; by email o

**~** d n s n

. o ; or by calling (608) 266-2856

. A request musl nclude specifi n and be received at leas I 10 days before the date of the 1cheduled hearing

.

**~vallabllity** of the Proposed Rules and the Fiscal Estimate and Economic Impact

**~n lysl** 
**s** rhe proposed rule and supporting documents, including the fiscal estimate and !conom i c impact analysis, may be viewed and downloaded from the Administrative

**~ul**

**s** System Website at http s: //he a lth.wi s consin.gov/admrules/public/

**~mo**

**nR old=13843** 

**.** If xou do not hav7 internet access , a print ed copy of the >reposed rule and supportmg documenls, 1 nclud1ng the fiscal estimate and economic mpact analysis, may be obtained free of charge by contacting Robert Eckdale, )epartment of i'latural Resources , Bureau of Air Management (AMn) , 101 S

. Webster lt. , Madison, WI, 53703, or by calling (608) 266-2856

. lubmlttlng Comment.. :ommenls on the proposed rule mu st be received on or before November 8, 201 3

. IVritte n comment s may be

**~ubmitted** by U.S. mail, fax , e mail, or through the Internet md Will have the same we1ght and effect as oral statemenls presented at the public 1earing

. Written comments and any questions on the proposed rules should be ; ubmitted to: 3ail Good )apartment of Natural Resources lureau of Air Management (AM/7) 1 01 S Webster St, Madison, WI 53703 'hone : (608) 266-1058
' a x: (608) 267-0560 : - mail : gail.good@wiscosnsin

.gov ntern et: Use th e_ pag _e for this rulemaking on Administ rative Rules System

**IV**

**e** (requ1res regiStration to comment) at

**htt ps**  **//h ea**  **~h wisconsln** 
**gov/ dmrul** 

**es**
**/** >ublic/Rm o ?nRmol d =1 3843 Inalysis Prepared by the Department of Natural Resources ' ltatute Interpreted: Section 285.11 (1) and (6), Slats

. The State Implementation Plan leve loped under s. 285

. 11 (6), Slats., is revised. ltatutory authority: Sections 227.11 (2) (a), 285.11 (1), (16) and (17) and 285.60 11) (b) ; ' :Xplanati9n of agency authority: Section 227

. 11 (2) (a), Slats

. , gives state agencies 1eneral rule-making authority. Section 285

. 11 (1), Slats

. , gives the Department the 1uthority to promulgate rules Implementing and

**consistentw~h**

**.** ch

. 285, Slals

. Section

**85 11**  (6), Stals., requires the Department to develop a plan for the prevention, 1batement, and control of air po lluti on

. The p la n must conform with the C lean Air \ct and is nece s sary for new source review implementation

. Section 285

. 11 (16) eqUires the DeP.artment to promulgate rules th at may

**lim~** the cl a ssification of a major

. ource to spec i fied air contaminants

. Section 285.11 (17) requires the Department o promulgate rules, consistent with the federal Clean Air Act , that modify the term nodification'

**as~** relates to spec i fic categories of stationary sources. Sect1on 285.60 11) (b), Slats., establishes that the Department may not r equire a permit for an indirect

. ource under ch

. 285, Stals lelated s tatute or rule: There are no related statutes that are not identified above. 'lain language analysis: The objective of this ru l e package is to revise language 1 chs

. NR 400, 405, and 408 to mainlai n consi stency with federal requiremenls and lefinitions

. Additionally, sections of chs

. NR 400 and 410 need to be repealed due to ne repeal of ch

. NR 4 11

. n May 2006, the D e partment requested approval by the U

. S

. Environmenta l Protection 1g e ncy (USEPA) of rules promu l gated by Wiscon s in to i n corporate federal New iource R e view R e form requirements as a revision to the Slate I mp l ementation P l an SIP)

. The U SEPA approve d th e SIP revi s ions, but sub s equently requested changes o l anguage 1n chs. NR 405 and 408. The change s pertain to the fuel use prohibition 1at is part of the definition of "major modification ". iec

t ion NR 405

. 02 (25i) defines "Regulated NSR air conlaminanr and specifically lentifies volatile organic compounds as a precursor for ozone. US EPA has requested 1clusion of nitrogen oxides (NO ) in the definition for clarification purposes

. Similarly jSEPA requires, through its 2Q(f8 N ew Source Rev i ew Rule, explicit identification of 10, and su l fur dioxide

**(SO~)** as precursors to

**parti~ulate** matter with a

. diameter of 2

. 5 :1crom eters or less (PM 2_,1 w 1thm the definition of 'Regu l ated NSR a1r contaminant". he Department h a s a ls o amended the definition of "Regul ated NSR air contaminant " 1 s

. NR 408

. 02 (29m) to specifically address pre c ur s or pollutan ls in non attainment t reas. Addrtion a lly, th e De partment wil l amend th e d efinition s of PM ,_ and particulat e

- 1atter

**w~h** a diam e te r of 10 mi c rom e ters or l e ss (PM,) to add re ss a uS EPA

- id e ntifi e d liP d e fi c i e n cy

. Th e d e finition s a s currently writte n do not spe cifically mention <>nd e n sa bl es a s re qui re d in th e fe d e r a l 2008 New Source R eview Rul e. ln April27, 2011, the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR) tdopted a motion under s. 227

. 26 (2) (d), Wis. Slats

. , suspend in g ch. NR 411. >ubsequent passage of legislation introduced by JCRAR in support of the suspension see 2011 Wi sc on s in Act 121), re s ulted in the repeal of cti

. NR 411

. The primary • Urpo se of ch

. NR 41 1 h ad been to contro l carbon monoxide em i ssions from indirect ources through conditions established in construction and operation permits. " h e refore the Department propose s to repea l rul e s whose only purpose is in support • f ch

. NR 411

. Rules proposed for repeal include ss

. NR 400

. 02 (101) and (106),

,nd 410

. 03 (3)

. S e ction NR 400

. 02 (101) and (106) define 'modified indirect source' .nd 'new in dir ect source' re s pective ly

. Section NR 410.0 3 (3) e sta blish e s fe e s for the pplication a nd i ss u a n ce of p e rmits to construct or modify a n in direct source

. i ummary of, and comparison with, exi sting or propos ed federal statutes and a gulatio ns: In a l ett e r d a ted Jun e 17, 2009, th e U SE PA notified th e Departm e nt th at the definition of the term " major modification " ins. NR 405.02 wes inad equate because rt failed to Identify permrts issued under federal authority

. Wisconsin ' s Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) pr"llram was approved

**into~** SIP on June 28 , 1999

. Before that, PSD construction

**perm~s** were issued under federal authority

. When s. NR 405

. 02 (21) (b) (5) was written, the references to federal authority were inadvertently omitted

. Because the federal crtations were omitted from the rule, USEPA identified that in a very limited situation, the current state

**defin~ion** would allow a source to make a change to use a diff<in!nt fuel or raw material wrthout undergoing major new source permit review for the change, even though the chan11e could be prohibited under a federal permrt. The Department will amend this definrtion to ensure that rt is consistent w i th US EPA rule and policy and recognizes all federally-issued

**perm~.** The Department is likewise amending the

**defin~ion** of "major modification " at s
. NR 408 .02 (20) for nonattainment area new source review. The alternative to this rule action is to keep the rules as they are, which USEPA has already identified as an 1ncons1 stency With federal rules

. However, in a Federal Register filed June 15, 2012, USEPAdisapproved narrow portions ofthe SIP f."'rlalnlng to permrt requirements in chs. NR 405 and 408 that would be addressed

**w~h** this rulemaking

. In the Federal Reg1ster, USEPA stated that

**t~ey** are

**~nder** obligation to promulgate a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) addressing the disapproved portions of the SIP with in 2 years

. The Federal Register slates that the FIP will not be promulgated ff Department rectifies the deficiencies within the 2 year timeframe. The clarifications of N 0 as a precursor to ozone and NO and SO as precursors to PM , as well as the clanfication of accounting for PMu

**a~d** PM, ciJndensables as a por/ioh of PM 2 , and PM, emissions are not policy changes nor &o they change how Department currentiy implements chs

. NR 405 and 408 requlremenls. On June 15 2012, USEPA disapproved a narrow portion of Wisconsin's SIP for the 1997 ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standard pertaining to air construction

**perm~ng.** This was done because NO, was not explicitiy Identified as a precursor to ozone as part of PSD permit program requirements. The final disapproval triggered a requirement that USEPA promulgate a FIP addressing the deficiency no later than 2 years from the date of disapproval. USEPA published a proposed disapproval of Wisconsin's submittal on December 18 , 2012, because the submittal did not meet the 2008 PM SIP requiremenls

. Specifically, the revisions submitted did not explicitly define

**t~~** precursors of PM,_., nor did they conlain the prescribed language to ensure that gases that condense to rorm particulate matter (PM), known as condensables are regulated as part of PM'
·! and PM of

**l~ ss**  tha_n 10 micrometer (PM,,) emissions. Final disapproval to port1ons or he SIP relating to 1den!lfymg precursors of PM will also

**resu~** in the promulgation of a FIP unless the deficiencies are addressed

. '
·' Not repealing sections of chs

. NR 4 00 and 410 in response to the repeal of ch. NR 411 by the legislature would potenllally create confusion and perpetuate an inconsistency with Department rules. Comparison with similar rules In adjacent etatea (Illino i s, Iowa, Michigan and Minnesota) : Il linois and Minnesola are de l egated slates, so they are directty implementing the federal program and not implementing their programs through a State Implementation Plan (S IP ), as Wisconsin does. Iowa and Michigan, similar to Wisconsin, are SIP approved states, so they are also implementing a federal program, but through their own state rules and regu l ations. It is the goal of SIP-approved states to implement federa l programs in a ccordan ce with the regulatio ns set out in federal code. The majority of this rule package addresses changes necessary to comply with federal regulations

. Those changes not dictated by federal regulations are associated wHh the repeal of fees related to the indirect source program which no longer exisls in Wisconsm, thereby addressing a current internal inconsistency

. Summary offactual data and analytical methodologies used and how any relatad findings support the regulatory approach chosen: 

# RECEIVE D OCT .., 

## 8 

# 2013 

# I R



# MANAGEMENT

Th e Departme nt did not use any factual data or analytical methodologies In developing the proposed rules. The chaJes

**J:ro~osed** In this rule package are based on

**~~~i~~~~~s f~~;.,**  **ru~~:;dentifi** by e SEPA and a comparison of the currents late 

# t Analysi s and supporting document.. used to detarmlne lhs effect on small business or In preparaUor\ of an economic Impact analysis : The proposed changes to the new source permH review programs only affect major sources which typically do not include small busi!'esses

. The proposed changes related to the former

**1nd~re ct**  source

**perm~** program Will not have any effect on small businesses since the indirect permit program has been repealed and lhe proposed changes are of a cleanup natur e only

. The Department did not use existing documenlation In determining the effect on small business or in preparation of the economic impact analysis

. Effect on small business (Initial regulatory

**nexlblll~** analysis): The Department

**~~~~~ ~~~i~~~~~~-that**  the proposed rule revisions will ave an economic impact on The Small Business Regulatory Coordinator may be conlacted at SmaiiBusjness@ dnr

. state. wi.us, or by calling (608) 266

- 1959

. Agency contact person: Gail Good ; P.O. Box 7921, Madison, WI 53707-7921· Telephone number (608) 266-1058; email address: gall.good13@wiscofllin.gov ' Envoronmental Analysis The Department has made a preliminary determination that adoption of the proposed rules would not involve significant adverse e nvironm enta l effects and would not need an environmental analysis under ch

. NR 150, Wis

. Adm. Code

. However, based on comments received , an environmental analysis may be prepared before proceeding. This analysis would summarize the Department's consideration of the impacts of the proposal and any reasonable a lternatives. Fiscal Estimate and Economic ImpactAnalysis Summary The Department believes the proposed rules will have no fiscal effect. The changes b e ing proposed

**e~her** ame n d rules to match current practice and ma i nlain consistency wHh fed e ral requiremenls and d e finrtions , or e limin ate

**defin~ions** and fees for a program no longer used in Wi s consin

. The Department solicited Information and advice on the economic imp acts of the proposed rules from those who potentially could be affected or who might lik e ly be interested

. Most responders to the

**sohc~ation** indicat ed that they had no input because they believe the proposed rules will have no economic imr.act on them. One responder felt there was economic benefit from the proposed rues and asked the Department to quantify that benefit. Additionally, the commenter felt that the proposed rules addressed broader policy i ssues whose economic benefits should be analyzed

. The D e partment does not believe the proposed rules provide economic benefit. The economic benefit from the repeal of ch

. NR 411 occurred when the chapter was repealed through l egis l ative action and is not due to the clean

- up of related rul e s propos ed. Testimony, includin g an estimate of the costs associated with the indirect s ource permit program, w as given at the time of the legi s l ative action

. The portions of the ru l e package associated w1th the major new source ravlew program found in ch s

. NR 405 and 408 are amendmenls to ensure that the rules alig n

**w~h** current Department practice as well as USEPA po licy and do not represent changes in impl ementation

. The economic impact analysis speaks to the economic impacts of the proposed rules, not the underlying slatutes that give the Department authority for rulemaking

.There were no r evisions to th e Economic Impact Analysis. Dated at Madison, Wisconsin : September 27, 2013 STATE OF WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES By /s/ Cathy Stepp, Secrelary

My Commission expires July 31st, 2017

### WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
BUREAU OF AIR MANAGEMENT

STATE IMPLEMENTATION PLAN REVISION CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to the requirements of 40 CFR s. 51.1 02(f), I hereby certify that the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources held the hearing described below; that the hearing was held in accordance with the public notice (copy attached), as required by 40 CFR s. 51.1 02( d); and that I was the presiding officer at the hearing. Subject:
Revisions to SIP to ensure consistency with federal major source permit review requirements Hearing held: Tuesday November 5, 2013 in Madison, Wisconsin.
Written comments were received until November 8, 20 l3.



# ~~ **~. :i,£)~'Qf1**  Kendra L. 

### Fisher BUREAU OF LEGAL SERVICES

### Three possible effective date s for AM

- 21

- 12 based on legislative review process assumptions

Step# Step Description Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 27 Report and notice from step 18A referred to standing committees in each house of the legislature. Feb 10, 14 Feb 10, 14 Feb 10, 14
2 8 Standing committees’ review period expired. Mar 12, 14 Apr 11, 14 Apr 11, 14 2 9 Board order referred to the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules (JCRAR). Mar 24, 14 Apr 21, 14 Apr 21,14
30 JCRAR review period expired. Apr 25, 14 May 21, 14 Jun 20, 14 ∞ RULE PROMULGATION ∞ 31 Board order signed by the secretary and filed with LRB. May 5, 14 Jun 2, 14 Jun 30, 14 32 Rule proof received, reviewed and returned. Accounted for in dates for step 33 33 Rule published by LRB and becomes effective. Jul 1, 14 Aug 1, 14 Sep 3 , 14 

### Option 1: Assumes standing committees in the senate and assembly and JCRAR do not publish or post notice that the committee will hold a meeting or hearing, or take other actions that would delay promulgation. Option 2: Assumes either standing committee in the Senate or Assembly does publish or post notice that the committee will hold a meeting or hearing, but does not take any action subsequent to the meeting or hearing that would delay promulgation

. Assumes JCRAR does not publish or post notice that it will hold a meeting or hearing. Option 3: Same as Option 2, but assumes that JCRAR does publish or post notice that the committee will hold a meeting or hearing, but does not take any action subsequent to the meeting or hearing that would delay promulgation

.