11928 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

revised Section 5–221 ‘‘Prohibition of 

Potentially Polluting Materials in Fuel,’’ 

and incorporate this regulation into the 

Vermont SIP. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the Clean Air Act, the 

Administrator is required to approve a 

SIP submission that complies with the 

provisions of the Act and applicable 

Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 

40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP 

submissions, EPA’s role is to approve 

State choices, provided that they meet 

the criteria of the Clean Air Act. 

Accordingly, this proposed action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this proposed action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; 

and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the State, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Dated: February 13, 2012. 

H. Curtis Spalding, 

Regional Administrator, EPA Region 1. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4683 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0059; FRL–9638–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Wisconsin; Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the Wisconsin State Implementation 

Plan addressing regional haze for the 

first implementation period. Wisconsin 

submitted its regional haze plan on 

January 18, 2012. The Wisconsin 

regional haze plan addresses Clean Air 

Act (CAA) and Regional Haze Rule 

(RHR) requirements to remedy any 

existing and prevent future 

anthropogenic visibility impairment at 

mandatory Class I areas, notably 

including establishing limits requiring 

Best Available Retrofit Technology 

(BART) for the Georgia-Pacific facility in 

Green Bay. We are proposing to approve 

fully the Wisconsin regional haze plan. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0059, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012– 

0059. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or email. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an email 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov, your 

email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. If EPA cannot read your 

comment due to technical difficulties 

and cannot contact you for clarification, 

EPA may not be able to consider your 

comment. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional instructions 

on submitting comments, go to section 

I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11929 

1Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal 

areas consist of national parks exceeding 6000 

acres, wilderness areas and national memorial parks 

exceeding 5000 acres, and all international parks 

that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). In accordance with section 169A of the 

CAA, EPA, in consultation with the Department of 

the Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas where 

visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 

69122 (November 30, 1979). The extent of a 

mandatory Class I area includes subsequent changes 

in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 

7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate 

as Class I additional areas which they consider to 

have visibility as an important value, the 

requirements of the visibility program set forth in 

section 169A of the CAA apply only to ‘‘mandatory 

Class I Federal areas.’’ Each mandatory Class I 

Federal area is the responsibility of a Federal Land 

Manager. 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we use the term 

‘‘Class I area,’’ we mean a ‘‘mandatory Class I 

Federal area.’’ 

2Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico 

must also submit a regional haze SIP to completely 

satisfy the requirements of section 110(a)(2)(D) of 

the CAA for the State of New Mexico under the 

New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74– 

2–4). 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 

886–6524 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control 

Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 

(312) 886–6524, rau.matthew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

III. What are the requirements for regional 

haze State Implementation Plans? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Wisconsin’s 

regional haze plan? 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What should I consider as I prepare 

my comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—EPA may ask 

you to respond to specific questions or 

organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

II. What is the background for EPA’s 

proposed action? 

A. The Regional Haze Problem 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is produced by a multitude of 

sources and activities located across a 

broad geographic area and that emit fine 

particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, 

organic particles, elemental carbon, and 

soil dust) and its precursors—sulfur 

dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides (NOX), 

and in some cases ammonia (NH3) and 

volatile organic compound (VOCs). Fine 

particle precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form fine particulate 

matter. Aerosol PM2.5 impairs visibility 

by scattering and absorbing light. 

Visibility impairment reduces the 

clarity and distance one can see. PM2.5

can also cause serious health effects and 

mortality in humans and contributes to 

environmental effects such as acid 

deposition and eutrophication. 

Data from the existing visibility 

monitoring network, the ‘‘Interagency 

Monitoring of Protected Visual 

Environments’’ (IMPROVE) monitoring 

network, show that visibility 

impairment caused by air pollution 

occurs virtually all the time at most 

national park and wilderness areas. The 

average visual range, the distance at 

which an object is barely discernable, in 

many Class I areas 1 in the Western 

United States is 100–150 kilometers. 

That is about one-half to two-thirds of 

the visual range that would exist 

without anthropogenic air pollution. In 

the Eastern and Midwestern Class I 

areas of the United States, the average 

visual range is generally less than 30 

kilometers, or about one-fifth of the 

visual range that would exist under 

estimated natural conditions. See 64 FR 

35715 (July 1, 1999). 

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA’s 

RHR 

In section 169A of the 1977 

Amendments to the CAA, Congress 

created a program for protecting 

visibility in the nation’s national parks 

and wilderness areas. This section of the 

CAA establishes as a national goal the 

‘‘prevention of any future, and the 

remedying of any existing, impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I 

Federal areas which impairment results 

from manmade air pollution.’’ On 

December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations to address visibility 

impairment in Class I areas that is 

‘‘reasonably attributable’’ to a single 

source or small group of sources known 

as ‘‘reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment’’ (RAVI). 45 FR 80084. 

These regulations represented the first 

phase in addressing visibility 

impairment. EPA deferred action on 

regional haze that emanates from a 

variety of sources until monitoring, 

modeling, and scientific knowledge 

about the relationships between 

pollutants and visibility impairment 

were improved. 

Congress added section 169B to the 

CAA in 1990 to address regional haze 

issues. EPA promulgated a rule to 

address regional haze, the RHR, on July 

1, 1999 (64 FR 35713). The RHR revised 

the existing visibility regulations to 

integrate into the regulation provisions 

addressing regional haze impairment 

and established a comprehensive 

visibility protection program for Class I 

areas. The requirements for regional 

haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 

51.309, are included in EPA’s visibility 

protection regulations at 40 CFR 

51.300–309. Some of the main elements 

of the regional haze requirements are 

summarized in section III, below. The 

requirement to submit a regional haze 

state implementation plan (SIP) applies 

to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, 

and the Virgin Islands.2

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments, and various 

Federal agencies. Pollution affecting the 

air quality in Class I areas can be 

transported over long distances, even 

hundreds of kilometers. Therefore, 

effectively addressing the problem of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11930 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

visibility impairment in Class I areas 

means that states need to develop 

coordinated strategies that take into 

account the effect of emissions from one 

jurisdiction on the air quality in another 

state. 

EPA has encouraged the states and 

tribes to address visibility impairment 

from a regional perspective because the 

pollutants that lead to regional haze can 

originate from sources located across 

broad geographic areas. Five regional 

planning organizations (RPOs) were 

developed to address regional haze and 

related issues. The RPOs first evaluated 

technical information to better 

understand how their states and tribes 

impact Class I areas across the country 

and then pursued the development of 

regional strategies to reduce PM2.5

emissions and other pollutants leading 

to regional haze. 

The RPO for Wisconsin is the 

Midwest RPO (MRPO). The MRPO 

member states are Illinois, Indiana, 

Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The 

MRPO also included tribes and Federal 

land management agencies on 

discussions of regional haze and 

visibility in the Midwest. 

D. The Relationship of the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule and the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule to Regional Haze 

Requirements 

The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) 

required some states to reduce 

emissions of SO2 and NOX that 

contribute to violations of the 1997 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS) for PM2.5 and ozone. 70 FR 

25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR established 

emissions budgets for SO2 and NOX. A 

2006 EPA determination (71 FR 60612, 

October 13, 2006) establishes that states 

opting to participate in the CAIR 

program need not require Best Available 

Retrofit Technology (BART) for SO2 and 

NOX at BART-eligible electric 

generating units (EGUs). Many states 

relied on CAIR as an alternative to 

BART for SO2 and NOX for their subject 

EGUs. 

CAIR was later found to be 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the CAA and the rule was remanded to 

EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 

F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008). The court left 

CAIR in place until replaced by EPA 

with a rule consistent with its opinion. 

See North Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 

1178. 

EPA promulgated the Cross-State Air 

Pollution Rule (CSAPR), to replace 

CAIR in 2011 (76 FR 48208, August 8, 

2011). Wisconsin is subject to the 

requirements of CSAPR. 

In CSAPR, EPA noted that it had not 

conducted a technical analysis at that 

time to determine whether compliance 

with CSAPR would satisfy the 

requirements of the RHR addressing 

alternatives to BART. EPA has since 

conducted such an analysis and 

proposed on December 30, 2011 (76 FR 

2219), that compliance with CSAPR will 

provide for greater reasonable progress 

toward improving visibility than sourcespecific BART controls for EGUs located 

in those states covered by CSAPR. On 

that same day, the DC Circuit issued an 

order addressing the status of CSAPR 

and CAIR in response to motions filed 

by numerous parties seeking a stay of 

CSAPR pending judicial review. In that 

order, the DC Circuit stayed CSAPR 

pending the court’s resolutions of the 

petitions for review of that rule in EME 

Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11– 

1302 and consolidated cases). The court 

also indicated that EPA is expected to 

continue to administer CAIR in the 

interim until the court rules on the 

petitions for review of CSAPR. 

On January 18, 2012, Wisconsin made 

two submissions constituting its 

regional haze plan. Wisconsin’s plan 

includes a statement that it wishes to 

rely on CSAPR to satisfy the BART 

requirements for SO2 and NOX for EGUs 

in the state. 

III. What are the requirements for 

regional haze State Implementation 

Plans? 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress towards the 

national goal of achieving natural 

visibility conditions in Class I areas, the 

reasonable progress goal (RPG). Section 

169A of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require states 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting the RPG. Plans must also give 

specific attention to certain stationary 

sources that were in existence on 

August 7, 1977, but were not in 

operation before August 7, 1962, and 

require those sources to install BART to 

reduce visibility impairment. The 

specific regional haze SIP requirements 

are discussed in further detail below. 

A. Determination of Baseline, Natural, 

and Current Visibility Conditions 

The RHR establishes the deciview 

(dv) as the principal metric or unit for 

expressing visibility impairment. This 

visibility metric expresses uniform 

proportional changes in haziness in 

terms of common increments across the 

entire range of visibility conditions, 

from pristine to extremely hazy 

conditions. Visibility expressed in 

deciviews is determined by using air 

quality measurements to estimate light 

extinction and then transforming the 

value of light extinction using a 

logarithm function. Thus, a change in 

visibility by one deciview reflects a 

fixed proportion by which visibility 

changes, irrespective of the baseline 

from which the change occurred. Most 

people can detect a change in visibility 

at one deciview.3

The deciview is used in expressing 

RPGs, defining baseline, current, and 

natural conditions, and tracking changes 

in visibility. The regional haze SIPs 

must contain measures that ensure 

‘‘reasonable progress’’ toward the 

national goal of preventing and 

remedying visibility impairment in 

Class I areas caused by anthropogenic 

air pollution. The national goal is a 

return to natural conditions such that 

anthropogenic sources of air pollution 

would no longer impair visibility in 

Class I areas. 

To track changes in visibility over 

time at each of the 156 Class I areas 

covered by the visibility program (40 

CFR 81.401–437) and as part of the 

process for determining reasonable 

progress, states must calculate the 

degree of existing visibility impairment 

at each Class I area at the time each 

regional haze SIP is submitted and at 

the progress review every five years, 

midway through each 10-year 

implementation period. The RHR 

requires states with Class I areas (Class 

I states) to determine the degree of 

impairment in deciviews for the average 

of the 20 percent least impaired (best) 

and 20 percent most impaired (worst) 

visibility days over a specified time 

period at each of its Class I areas. Each 

state must also develop an estimate of 

natural visibility conditions for the 

purpose of comparing progress toward 

the national goal. Natural visibility is 

determined by estimating the natural 

concentrations of pollutants that cause 

visibility impairment and then 

calculating total light extinction based 

on those estimates. EPA has provided 

guidance to states regarding how to 

calculate baseline, natural, and current 

visibility conditions in documents 

titled, EPA’s Guidance for Estimating 

Natural Visibility Conditions under the 

Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, 

(EPA–454/B–03–005 located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf) (hereinafter 

referred to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Natural 

Visibility Guidance’’) and Guidance for 

Tracking Progress Under the Regional 

Haze Rule (EPA–454/B–03–004 

September 2003 located at http:// 

www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/ 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11931 

rh_tpurhr_gd.pdf)) (hereinafter referred 

to as ‘‘EPA’s 2003 Tracking Progress 

Guidance’’). 

For the first regional haze SIP, which 

was due December 17, 2007, the 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ were the 

starting points for assessing ‘‘current’’ 

visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 

conditions represent the degree of 

visibility impairment for the 20 percent 

best days and 20 percent worst days for 

each calendar year from 2000 to 2004. 

Using monitoring data for 2000 through 

2004, states are required to calculate the 

average degree of visibility impairment 

for each Class I area, based on the 

average of annual values over the fiveyear period. The comparison of initial 

baseline visibility conditions to natural 

visibility conditions indicates the 

amount of improvement necessary to 

attain natural visibility, while 

comparisons of future conditions 

against baseline conditions will indicate 

the amount of progress made. In general, 

the 2000 to 2004 baseline period is 

considered the time from which 

improvement in visibility is measured. 

B. Determination of Reasonable Progress 

Goals 

The vehicle for ensuring continuing 

progress towards achieving the natural 

visibility goal is the submission of a 

series of regional haze SIPs from the 

states that establish two distinct RPGs, 

one for the best days and one for the 

worst days for every Class I area for each 

approximately 10-year implementation 

period. The RHR does not mandate 

specific milestones or rates of progress, 

but instead calls for states to establish 

goals that provide for ‘‘reasonable 

progress’’ toward achieving natural 

visibility conditions. In setting RPGs, a 

state with a mandatory Class I area 

(Class I state) must provide for an 

improvement in visibility for the worst 

days over the approximately 10-year 

period of the SIP and ensure no 

degradation in visibility for the best 

days. 

Class I states have significant 

discretion in establishing RPGs, but are 

required to consider the following 

factors established in section 169A of 

the CAA and in EPA’s RHR at 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): (1) The costs of 

compliance; (2) the time necessary for 

compliance; (3) the energy and non-air 

quality environmental impacts of 

compliance; and (4) the remaining 

useful life of any potentially affected 

sources. The states must demonstrate in 

their SIPs how these factors are 

considered when selecting the RPGs for 

the best and worst days for each 

applicable Class I area. See EPA’s 

Guidance for Setting Reasonable 

Progress Goals under the Regional Haze 

Program, (‘‘EPA’s Reasonable Progress 

Guidance’’), July 1, 2007, memorandum 

from William L. Wehrum, Acting 

Assistant Administrator for Air and 

Radiation, to EPA Regional 

Administrators, EPA Regions 1–10 (pp. 

4–2, 5–1). In setting the RPGs, states 

must also consider the rate of progress 

needed to reach natural visibility 

conditions by 2064 and the emissions 

reduction needed to achieve that rate of 

progress over the approximately 10-year 

period of the SIP. Each Class I state 

must also consult with potentially 

contributing states, i.e. those states that 

may affect visibility impairment at the 

Class I state’s areas. 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(1)(iv). 

C. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Section 169A of the CAA directs 

states to evaluate the use of retrofit 

controls at certain older large stationary 

sources to address visibility impacts 

from these sources. Specifically, CAA 

section 169A(b)(2)(A) requires states to 

revise their SIPs to contain such 

measures as may be necessary to make 

reasonable progress towards the natural 

visibility goal, including a requirement 

that certain categories of existing major 

stationary sources built between 1962 

and 1977 procure, install, and operate 

BART as determined by the state. The 

set of ‘‘major stationary sources’’ 

potentially subject to BART is listed in 

CAA section 169A(g)(7). The state can 

require source-specific BART controls, 

but it also has the flexibility to adopt an 

alternative such as a trading program if 

the alternate provides greater progress 

towards improving visibility than 

BART. 

On July 6, 2005, EPA published the 

Guidelines for BART Determinations 

Under the Regional Haze Rule at 

Appendix Y to 40 CFR part 51 (BART 

Guidelines) to assist states in 

determining which of their sources 

should be subject to the BART 

requirements and in determining 

appropriate emission limits for each 

applicable source. A state must use the 

approach in the BART Guidelines in 

making a BART determination for a 

fossil fuel-fired EGU with total 

generating capacity in excess of 750 

megawatts. States are encouraged, but 

not required, to follow the BART 

Guidelines in making BART 

determinations for other sources. 

States must address all visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA’s 

guidance provides that states should use 

their best judgment in determining 

whether VOC or NH3 emissions impair 

visibility in Class I areas. 

States may select an exemption 

threshold value for their BART 

modeling under the BART Guidelines, 

below which a BART-eligible source 

may be considered to make a small 

enough contribution to visibility 

impairment in any Class I area to 

warrant being exempted from the BART 

requirement. The state must document 

this exemption threshold value in the 

SIP and must state the basis for its 

selection of that value. The exemption 

threshold set by the state should not be 

higher than 0.5 dv. Any source with 

modeled impacts above the threshold 

value would be subject to a BART 

determination review. The BART 

Guidelines acknowledge varying 

circumstances affecting different Class I 

areas. States should consider the 

number of emission sources affecting 

the Class I areas at issue and the 

magnitude of the individual source’s 

impact. 

The state must identify potential 

BART sources in its SIP, described as 

‘‘BART-eligible sources’’ in the RHR, 

and document its BART control 

determination analyses. In making 

BART determinations, section 

169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires the state 

to consider the following factors: (1) The 

costs of compliance; (2) the energy and 

non-air quality environmental impacts 

of compliance; (3) any existing pollution 

control technology in use at the source; 

(4) the remaining useful life of the 

source; and (5) the degree of 

improvement in visibility which may 

reasonably be anticipated to result from 

the use of such technology. 

A regional haze SIP must include 

source-specific BART emission limits 

and compliance schedules for each 

source subject to BART. The BART 

controls must be installed and in 

operation as expeditiously as 

practicable, but no later than five years 

after the date of EPA approval of the 

state’s regional haze SIP. CAA section 

169(g)(4); 40 CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In 

addition to what is required by the RHR, 

general SIP requirements mandate that 

the SIP must also include all regulatory 

requirements related to monitoring, 

recordkeeping, and reporting for the 

BART controls on the source. 

The RHR also allows states to 

implement an alternative program in 

lieu of BART, so long as the alternative 

program can be demonstrated to achieve 

greater progress toward the national 

visibility goal than implementing BART 

controls. EPA made such a 

demonstration for CAIR under 

regulations issued in 2005 revising the 

regional haze program. 70 FR 39104 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11932 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

(July 6, 2005). EPA’s regulations provide 

that states participating in the CAIR 

trading program under 40 CFR part 96 

pursuant to an EPA-approved CAIR SIP, 

or which remain subject to the CAIR 

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 

CFR part 97 need not require affected 

BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, 

and maintain BART for emissions of 

SO2 and NOX. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). 

CAIR is not applicable to emissions of 

PM, so states are still required to 

conduct a BART analysis for PM 

emissions from EGUs subject to BART 

for that pollutant. 

As described above in section II, the 

DC Circuit found CAIR to be 

inconsistent with the requirements of 

the CAA. The rule was remanded to 

EPA but left in place until the Agency 

replaced it. EPA replaced CAIR with 

CSAPR in August 2011. 

On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed 

to find that the trading programs in 

CSAPR would achieve greater progress 

towards improving visibility than would 

be obtained by implementing BART for 

SO2 and NOX for BART-subject EGUs in 

the area subject to CSAPR (see 76 FR 

82219). Based on that proposed finding, 

EPA also proposed to revise the RHR to 

allow states to meet the requirements of 

BART by participation in the trading 

programs under CSAPR. CSAPR is not 

applicable to emissions of PM, so states 

would still be required to conduct a 

BART analysis for PM emissions from 

EGUs subject to BART for that pollutant. 

EPA has not taken final action on that 

rule. 

D. Long-Term Strategy 

Consistent with the requirement in 

section 169A(b) of the CAA that states 

include in their regional haze SIP a 10 

to 15 year strategy for making 

reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) 

of the RHR requires that states include 

a long-term strategy in their regional 

haze SIPs. The long-term strategy is the 

compilation of all control measures a 

state will use during the 

implementation period of the specific 

SIP submittal to meet applicable RPGs. 

The long-term strategy must include 

enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures as necessary to achieve the 

RPGs for all Class I areas within or 

affected by emissions from the state. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3). 

When a state’s emissions are 

reasonably anticipated to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in a 

Class I area located in another state, the 

RHR requires the impacted state to 

coordinate with the contributing states 

in order to develop coordinated 

emissions management strategies. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the 

contributing state must demonstrate that 

it has included in its SIP all measures 

necessary to obtain its share of the 

emission reductions needed to meet the 

RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs 

have provided forums for significant 

interstate consultation, but additional 

consultations between states may be 

required to address interstate visibility 

issues sufficiently. 

States should consider all types of 

anthropogenic sources of visibility 

impairment in developing their longterm strategy, including stationary, 

minor, mobile, and area sources. At a 

minimum, states must describe how 

each of the following seven factors 

listed below are taken into account in 

developing their long-term strategy. The 

seven factors are: (1) Emission 

reductions due to ongoing air pollution 

control programs, including measures to 

address RAVI; (2) measures to mitigate 

the impacts of construction activities; 

(3) emissions limitations and schedules 

for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) 

source retirement and replacement 

schedules; (5) smoke management 

techniques for agricultural and forestry 

management purposes including plans 

as currently exist within the state for 

these purposes; (6) enforceability of 

emissions limitations and control 

measures; and (7) the anticipated net 

effect on visibility due to projected 

changes in point, area, and mobile 

source emissions over the period 

addressed by the long-term strategy. 40 

CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v). 

E. Coordinating Regional Haze and 

Reasonably Attributable Visibility 

Impairment Long-Term Strategy 

EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c), which 

is a part of the RHR, regarding the longterm strategy for RAVI. The RAVI plan 

must provide for a periodic review and 

SIP revision not less frequently than 

every three years until the date of 

submission of the state’s first plan 

addressing regional haze visibility 

impairment in accordance with 40 CFR 

51.308(b) and (c). The state must revise 

its plan to provide for review and 

revision of a coordinated long-term 

strategy for addressing RAVI and 

regional haze on or before this date. It 

must also submit the first such 

coordinated long-term strategy with its 

first regional haze SIP. Future 

coordinated long-term strategies and 

periodic progress reports evaluating 

progress towards RPGs must be 

submitted consistent with the schedule 

for SIP submission and periodic 

progress reports set forth in 40 CFR 

51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. 

The periodic review of a state’s longterm strategy must be submitted to EPA 

as a SIP revision and must report on 

both RAVI and regional haze 

impairment. 

F. Monitoring Strategy and Other 

Implementation Plan Requirements 

Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR 

includes the requirement for a 

monitoring strategy for measuring, 

characterizing, and reporting of regional 

haze visibility impairment that is 

representative of all mandatory Class I 

Federal areas within the state. The 

strategy must be coordinated with the 

monitoring strategy required in section 

51.305 for RAVI. Compliance with this 

requirement may be met through 

participation in the IMPROVE network, 

meaning that the state reviews and uses 

monitoring data from the network. The 

monitoring strategy must also provide 

for additional monitoring sites if the 

IMPROVE network is not sufficient to 

determine whether RPGs will be met. 

The monitoring strategy is due with the 

first regional haze SIP, and it must be 

reviewed every five years. 

The SIP must also provide for the 

following: 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas 

both within and outside the state; 

• Procedures for using monitoring 

data and other information in a state 

with no mandatory Class I areas to 

determine the contribution of emissions 

from within the state to regional haze 

visibility impairment at Class I areas in 

other states; 

• Reporting of all visibility 

monitoring data to the Administrator at 

least annually for each Class I area in 

the state, to be submitted in electronic 

format, if available; 

• A statewide inventory of emissions 

of pollutants that are reasonably 

anticipated to cause or contribute to 

visibility impairment in any Class I area. 

The inventory must include emissions 

for a baseline year, emissions for the 

most recent year with available data, 

and future projected emissions. A state 

must also make a commitment to update 

the inventory periodically; and 

• Other elements including reporting, 

recordkeeping, and other measures 

necessary to assess and report on 

visibility. 

The RHR requires control strategies to 

cover an initial implementation period 

extending to the year 2018 with a 

comprehensive reassessment and 

revision of those strategies, as 

appropriate, every 10 years thereafter. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11933 

4The 98th percentile of values is compared to the 

contribution threshold. The 98th percentile value 

would exclude about the seven most impaired days 

per years. EPA feels that this does not give undue 

weight to the extreme tail of the modeled 

distribution. EPA judges that this approach 

effectively captures sources contributing to 

visibility impairment, while minimizing the effect 

the highest model impairments that might have 

been caused by model assumptions or unusual 

meteorology. 

Periodic SIP revisions must meet the 

core requirements of section 51.308(d), 

except that BART is only required in the 

initial submittal. The requirement to 

evaluate sources for BART applies only 

to the first regional haze SIP. Facilities 

subject to BART must continue to 

comply with the BART provisions of 

section 51.308(e), as noted above. 

Periodic SIP revisions will assure that 

the statutory requirement of reasonable 

progress will continue to be met. 

G. Consultation With States and Federal 

Land Managers 

The RHR requires that states consult 

with Federal Land Managers (FLMs) 

before adopting and submitting their 

SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). States must 

provide FLMs an opportunity for in 

person consultation at least 60 days 

prior to holding any public hearing on 

the SIP. This consultation must include 

the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss 

their assessment of impairment of 

visibility in any Class I area and to offer 

recommendations on the development 

of the RPGs and on the development 

and implementation of strategies to 

address visibility impairment. Further, a 

state must include in its SIP a 

description of how it addressed any 

comments provided by the FLMs. 

Finally, a SIP must provide procedures 

for continuing consultation between the 

state and FLMs regarding the state’s 

visibility protection program, including 

development and review of SIP 

revisions, five-year progress reports, and 

the implementation of other programs 

having the potential to contribute to 

impairment of visibility in Class I areas. 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of 

Wisconsin’s regional haze plan? 

Wisconsin submitted its regional haze 

plan to EPA in the form of two letters 

on January 18, 2012, addressing the 

BART requirements and the balance of 

the state’s regional haze plan. EPA 

considers the two submissions to be a 

complete regional haze plan and is 

proposing to find that the plan meets 

the relevant CAA requirements and EPA 

regulations and guidance outlined in 

section II, above. A detailed analysis 

follows. 

A. Class I Areas 

States are required to address regional 

haze affecting Class I areas within a 

state and in Class I areas outside the 

state that may be affected by the state’s 

emissions. 40 CFR 51.308(d). Wisconsin 

does not have any Class I areas for 

which visibility is an important value. 

See 40 CFR part 81, subpart D. Rainbow 

Lake Wilderness Area is located in 

Wisconsin but has not been identified 

by the Secretary of the Interior in 

consultation with other FLMs as an area 

where visibility is an important value. 

As Wisconsin has no Class I areas where 

visibility is an important value within 

its borders, Wisconsin is not required to 

address the following regional haze SIP 

elements: (a) Calculation of baseline and 

natural visibility conditions, (b) 

establishment of reasonable progress 

goals, (c) monitoring requirements, and 

d) RAVI requirements. Wisconsin is 

responsible for consulting with other 

states with Class I areas that are affected 

by Wisconsin’s emissions and for 

developing a regional haze SIP which 

addresses Wisconsin’s impact on any 

nearby Class I areas. 

Wisconsin reviewed technical 

analyses conducted by MRPO and other 

RPOs to determine what Class I areas 

outside the state are affected by 

Wisconsin emission sources. 

Wisconsin’s analysis shows that its 

emissions contribute to visibility 

impairment at Isle Royale National Park 

(Isle Royale) and Seney Wilderness Area 

(Seney) in Michigan and Boundary 

Waters Canoe Wilderness Area 

(Boundary Waters) and Voyageurs 

National Park (Voyageurs) in Minnesota. 

These four Class I areas in Michigan and 

Minnesota are collectively referred to as 

the Northern Class I areas. The state also 

noted that MRPO found that Wisconsin 

emission sources also contribute to 

visibility impairment at Upper Buffalo 

Creek in Arkansas and at two Missouri 

Class I areas: Hercules-Glades 

Wilderness Area and Mingo Wilderness 

Area. EPA proposes to find that 

Wisconsin has appropriately identified 

affected Class I areas. 

B. Baseline, Current, and Natural 

Conditions 

The RHR requires Class I states to 

calculate the baseline and natural 

conditions for their Class I areas. 

Wisconsin does not have any Class I 

areas. Therefore, Wisconsin is not 

required to submit such calculations. 

C. Reasonable Progress Goals 

States with Class I areas must set 

RPGs that achieve reasonable progress 

toward achieving natural visibility 

conditions. Wisconsin does not have 

any Class I areas, so it does not need to 

set any RPGs. As discussed in section E, 

Wisconsin did consult with affected 

Class I states to ensure that it achieves 

its share of the overall emission 

reductions necessary to achieve the 

RPGs of Class I areas that it affects. 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

Wisconsin followed a multi-step 

process to identify which sources are 

subject to BART and to determine what 

emission limits satisfy this requirement. 

The first step of this process was to 

identify all the sources in the state that 

are within one of the 26 categories 

established under prevention of 

significant deterioration rules and 

having at least 250 tons per year of 

potential emissions. The second step 

was for the MRPO to conduct modeling 

to assess the impact of each of these 

identified candidate sources. This 

modeling deviated in selected respects 

from EPA’s recommended approach, 

first by evaluating source impacts 

relative to cleanest day visibility rather 

than to average day visibility, and 

second by using meteorological data 

taken directly from the outputs of a 

meteorological model without making 

adjustments (‘‘blending’’) based on local 

observations of actual meteorology. 

However, EPA views the modeling 

analysis overall to be more likely to 

overstate rather than understate source 

impacts, so that LADCO’s modeling 

provided an acceptable test of whether 

sources had sufficient impact to warrant 

being subject to BART. Consistent with 

EPA guidance, Wisconsin elected to 

exempt sources with a 98th percentile 4

impact of less than 0.5 dv. Wisconsin 

concluded that 0.5 dv was an 

appropriate threshold for defining 

significant impact for BART purposes 

because sources are not clustered in the 

same geographic areas and thus are 

unlikely to impact the same Class I areas 

concurrently. 

Based on this process, Wisconsin 

concluded that nine EGU facilities and 

four paper mills warranted being subject 

to BART. However, owners of three of 

the paper mills provided more refined 

modeling showing the facilities have a 

98th percentile impact less than 0.5 dv 

impact. Thus, Wisconsin revised its 

finding to conclude that only the nine 

EGU facilities and one paper mill, in 

particular the paper mill owned by 

Georgia-Pacific and located in Green 

Bay, are subject to the requirement for 

BART. 

To address the BART requirement for 

the EGUs, Wisconsin referenced EPA’s 

proposed finding that CSAPR is an 

acceptable alternative to source-specific 

BART for SO2 and/or NOX for EGUs 

located in the CSAPR region, including 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11934 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

5Wisconsin is not taking credit for the shutdown 

of B24, so it is not necessary for the shutdown to 

be enforceable. If Georgia-Pacific were to resume 

operation of B24, the emissions of B24 would count 

against the collective stack emission limit and thus 

would require compensating reductions from other 

boilers. 

6 ‘‘Draft Economic Incentive Policy Guidance,’’ 

Office of Air and Radiation, September 1999, 

available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/ 

memoranda/eip9–2.pdf 

in Wisconsin. (See 76 FR 82219, 

December 30, 2011.) Therefore, 

Wisconsin has elected to rely on CSAPR 

to satisfy the BART requirement for 

EGUs with respect to SO2 and NOX

emissions. 

EPA has analyzed the benefits of 

CSAPR in relation to the benefits of 

BART on EGUs that are subject to 

CSAPR. On December 30, 2011 (76 FR 

82219), EPA proposed a rule finding 

that CSAPR is more beneficial in 

mitigating visibility impairment than 

application of BART to the affected 

EGUs on a source-specific basis. If the 

proposal is finalized, CSAPR may be 

considered to satisfy the requirement for 

BART for EGUs in Wisconsin for SO2

and NOX. 

For PM, Wisconsin conducted 

extensive analysis of the options for PM 

control at the nine EGU facilities subject 

to BART. Wisconsin found that fabric 

filters, commonly called baghouses, and 

electrostatic precipitators mandated 

under existing regulations generally 

achieve 99 percent or more control of 

PM. Wisconsin found further that few 

opportunities for enhancement of these 

controls are available, that further 

control would likely be expensive, and 

that further controls would generally 

improve visibility by 0.01 dv or less. 

Therefore, Wisconsin concluded, with 

one exception, that existing PM 

limitations on these EGU facilities in 

combination with CSAPR limitations on 

SO2 and NOX emissions represents 

BART. The exception applies to the PM 

limits for Alliant Energy’s Columbia 

facility. This facility has relatively old 

PM control equipment and 

correspondingly higher emission limits 

than apply to other facilities in the state, 

resulting in its PM impacts being the 

highest PM impacts on visibility of any 

facility in the state. On November 11, 

2011, Wisconsin issued a permit to this 

facility that limits PM emissions to 

0.025 and 0.0195 pounds of particulate 

matter per million British Thermal 

Units (lbs/MMBTU) for boilers B21 and 

B22, respectively, representing limits 

similar to or lower than PM limits for 

other facilities in the state. EPA 

proposes to find that the tightened PM 

limits for Alliant Energy’s Columbia 

facility and the existing PM limits for 

other EGUs represent BART for PM for 

EGUs in Wisconsin. 

Wisconsin also determined 

appropriate BART limitations for the 

paper mill in Green Bay owned by 

Georgia-Pacific, based on a particularly 

extensive review of control alternatives. 

In 2004, the facility operated five boilers 

identified as B24, B25, B26, B27, and 

B28. Two of these boilers, B26 and B27, 

began operation between 1962 and 1977 

and are subject to the BART 

requirement; the other boilers are not. 

Wisconsin determined that emissions of 

both SO2 and NOX from both B26 and 

B27 were significant and warranted 

evaluation for control. 

After evaluating the costs, benefits, 

and other characteristics of a number of 

control alternatives, Wisconsin 

determined that BART with respect to 

SO2 emissions for both boilers should be 

defined as wet scrubbing and 

eliminating the use of petroleum coke. 

The control efficiency of the wet 

scrubbing was estimated to be 93 

percent and the overall control 

percentage, also reflecting elimination 

of petroleum coke, was estimated to be 

95.8 percent for B26 and 93.8 percent 

for B27. The difference in percentages 

reflects the difference in baseline 

petroleum coke usage at the two boilers. 

For NOX, Wisconsin determined BART 

to be combustion control using overfire 

air plus post combustion control. For 

B26, a stoker boiler, Wisconsin 

estimated that overfire air would reduce 

emissions by 35 percent and that 

selective noncatalytic reduction would 

reduce the remaining emissions by 50 

percent (including a compliance 

margin) for a net reduction of 68 

percent. For B27, Wisconsin estimated 

that overfire air would reduce emissions 

by 50 percent and that recirculating 

selective catalytic reduction would 

reduce the remaining emissions by 70 

percent for a net reduction of 85 

percent. 

The exhaust gases from GeorgiaPacific’s boilers are combined before 

entering a pair of baghouses, after which 

the exhaust gases are recombined and 

vented out a single stack. Additional 

SO2 and NOX control devices are most 

logically placed after the baghouses, 

controlling exhaust gas originating as a 

combination of emissions from all 

operating boilers. Consequently, the 

company requested that Wisconsin 

develop limits governing the combined 

emissions of all operating boilers. 

Wisconsin determined these limits by 

first finding the sum of the controlled 

emissions for B26 and B27 plus the 

baseline, uncontrolled emissions for 

B25 and B28. In calculating these limits, 

emissions were not allocated for B24, 

because this boiler has been shut down 

for the last several years.5 The final 

limits were determined by then 

subtracting 10 percent of the remaining 

emissions of B26 and B27, providing an 

environmental benefit as called for in 

the economic incentive program 

guidance6 for cases such as this, where 

emissions of multiple units may in 

effect be traded. 

Wisconsin determined emission 

limits both on a 30-day basis and on a 

12-month basis. Wisconsin calculated 

these limits using operating rate 

information from the 2002 to 2004 SIP 

baseline period. Specifically, the 

operating rate used to determine the 30- 

day limit was the maximum 30-day heat 

input for the four boilers being included 

in the limit during the 2002 to 2004 

period. The operating rate used to 

determine the 12-month limit was the 

average heat input for 2002 to 2004 for 

the four boilers. The emission factors 

used in calculating the limits were the 

average emission rates in 2002 to 2004, 

adjusted to reflect emission controls for 

B26 and B27 and further reduced as 

noted above to provide an additional 

margin for environmental benefit. The 

resulting emission limits for SO2 are a 

30-day limit of 268 tons and a 12-month 

limit of 2,340 tons. The limits for NOX

are a 30-day limit of 110 tons and a 12- 

month limit of 977 tons. 

Wisconsin also conducted modeling 

to assess the environmental impact of 

establishing BART alternatives that 

involve less control of NOX emissions 

and correspondingly more control of 

SO2 emissions. The relevant portion of 

the modeling included in Wisconsin’s 

submission reflects simulations in 

which SO2 emissions are reduced 

between 2.1 and 2.2 tons for every ton 

that NOX emissions are increased. Three 

different levels of NOX emission 

increase were assessed. For all of these 

simulations, both the number of days 

with visibility impacts of at least 0.5 dv 

and the 98th percentile magnitude of 

the source’s impact remained 

unchanged or slightly declined with this 

exchange of SO2 and NOX control. 

Further simulations conducted by 

Wisconsin also show environmental 

benefit according to these same 

indicators with SO2 emissions being 

reduced by 2 tons for every ton of NOX

emission increase. 

On this basis, Wisconsin identified 

three alternatives to the BART limits 

described above. These alternatives are 

listed along with the primary BART 

limits in Table 1. Each alternative 

reflects an increase of NOX emissions 

and a corresponding decrease of 2 tons 

of SO2 emissions for each 1 ton of NOX

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11935 

emissions relative to the primary BART 

limits. According to the draft 

administrative order included in 

Wisconsin’s SIP submittal, the primary 

limits shall be enforceable, except that 

Georgia-Pacific may, by July 15, 2013, 

select one of the three specified 

alternatives, in which case the selected 

alternative shall be enforceable. 

Compliance with the applicable limits 

must be by the end of 2015. 

TABLE 1—BART LIMITS AND ALTERNATIVE LIMITS FOR GEORGIA-PACIFIC

Option 

SO2 Limit (tons) NOX Limit (tons) 

Annual 30-day Annual 30-day 

Primary Limits .................................................................................................................. 2,340 268 977 110 

Alternative 1 ..................................................................................................................... 2,150 246 1,072 121 

Alternative 2 ..................................................................................................................... 1,700 195 1,297 147 

Alternative 3 ..................................................................................................................... 1,250 143 1,522 172 

EPA proposes to approve Wisconsin’s 

determinations of BART for GeorgiaPacific. The state has conducted a full 

analysis of control options and has 

defined a control strategy that will 

provide significant reductions in 

emissions of SO2 and NOX. EPA 

proposes to find acceptable the use of a 

collective emission limit governing the 

sum of emissions from the two BART 

boilers as well as from the operating 

non-BART boilers, insofar as the state 

has set limits that can be expected to 

assure that overall emissions will be 

controlled to the same degree as would 

be the case if the emission limits 

applied only to the BART boilers. While 

the establishment of limits governing 

emissions from the full set of operating 

boilers rather than just the BART boilers 

creates some uncertainty as to how 

much the emissions from the BART 

boilers will be controlled, Wisconsin 

has arguably compensated for that 

uncertainty by providing an 

‘‘environmental benefit’’ in the form of 

a reduction of the overall cap by an 

amount equal to 10 percent of the 

emissions of the BART boilers at BART 

control levels. Wisconsin has provided 

adequate justification that the three 

alternative sets of emission limits 

provide equivalent improvement in 

visibility, such that any of the three 

alternatives, like the primary set of 

BART limits, will suffice to satisfy the 

BART requirements for Georgia-Pacific. 

Wisconsin clearly provides for the 

establishment of one set of SO2 and NOX

limits (selected by specified procedure 

by July 15, 2013 among a primary set 

and three equally acceptable alternative 

sets) that will mandate BART controls. 

Wisconsin’s submission contains a 

draft administrative order for imposing 

the emission limits for Georgia-Pacific 

discussed above, along with the 

statement that the state will issue a final 

administrative order once EPA has 

published this proposed rulemaking. 

EPA has concerns about the language of 

the draft administrative order, 

particularly with respect to the clarity 

and enforceability of the alternative 

limits should the company elect one of 

the alternatives. However, EPA expects 

the final administrative order to be 

modified to resolve these concerns. 

EPA can only take final action to 

approve Wisconsin’s plan if the limits 

needed to satisfy BART requirements 

are submitted in a fully adopted, fully 

enforceable form. However, EPA expects 

Wisconsin to issue a clear and 

enforceable final administrative order, 

which will be incorporated into its 

Regional haze SIP, rendering it 

Federally enforceable, before EPA signs 

final rulemaking on Wisconsin’s plan, 

and EPA is proposing approval based on 

this premise. 

In summary, EPA proposes to approve 

Wisconsin’s BART determinations. 

Wisconsin has followed appropriate 

procedures and applied appropriate 

criteria for identifying facilities that are 

subject to BART. EPA in particular finds 

the identification of candidate BART 

sources appropriate, EPA finds the 

screening modeling used appropriately 

defined inputs to identify sources with 

sufficiently low impacts to warrant 

exempting from the BART requirement, 

and EPA agrees that the refined 

modeling appropriately justifies 

exempting three of the four paper mills 

from being subject to the BART 

requirement. 

EPA proposes to approve Wisconsin’s 

BART determinations for GeorgiaPacific as a SIP revision, based on the 

premise that Wisconsin will issue and 

submit a final administrative order that 

provides for clear enforceability of the 

limits identified in the draft 

administrative order in Wisconsin’s 

submittal. 

For EGUs, EPA proposes to approve 

Wisconsin’s reliance on the already 

promulgated CSAPR FIP for EGU 

sources in Wisconsin as an alternative 

to BART for SO2 and NOX for its EGUs. 

Therefore, EPA is proposing that if EPA 

finalizes the rule finding that CSAPR 

satisfies the BART requirement for 

EGUs for SO2 and NOX in the CSAPR 

region, then Wisconsin’s submission 

will satisfy applicable BART 

requirements for SO2 and NOX for 

EGUs. 

We do not believe that the order 

issued by the DC Circuit staying CSAPR 

pending the court’s resolutions of the 

petitions for review of CSAPR in EME 

Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11– 

1302 and consolidated cases) impacts 

our proposed approval of the Wisconsin 

SIP. Under the RHR, an alternative to 

BART does not need to be fully 

implemented until 2018. As that is well 

after we expect the stay to be lifted, EPA 

believes the Agency and Wisconsin may 

still rely on CSAPR as an alternative to 

BART. We note that our proposed 

approval of Wisconsin’s SIP does not 

impact the implementation of CSAPR or 

otherwise interfere with the stay of 

CSAPR. 

EPA also proposes to approve the 

tightened PM limits for Alliant Energy’s 

Columbia facility and the existing PM 

limits for other EGUs as BART. 

E. Long-Term Strategy 

Under section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA 

and 40 CFR 51.308(d), states’ regional 

haze programs must include a long-term 

strategy for making reasonable progress 

toward meeting the national visibility 

goal. Section 51.308(d)(3) requires that 

Wisconsin consult with the affected 

states in order to develop a coordinated 

emission management strategy. As a 

contributing state, Wisconsin must 

demonstrate that it has included in its 

plan all measures necessary to obtain its 

share of the emissions reductions 

needed to meet the RPGs for the Class 

I areas affected by Wisconsin sources. 

As described in section III.E., above, the 

long-term strategy is the compilation of 

all control measures Wisconsin will use 

to meet applicable RPGs. The long-term 

strategy must include enforceable 

emissions limitations, compliance 

schedules, and other measures as 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

11936 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

necessary to achieve the RPGs for the 

affected Class I areas. 

Wisconsin relied on MPRO’s 

modeling and analysis along with its 

emission information in developing a 

LTS. Wisconsin consulted with Class I 

states through its participation in 

MRPO. MRPO facilitated consultations 

with other Midwest states and with 

states in other regions through interRPO processes. Wisconsin consulted 

with Minnesota and Michigan on their 

Class I areas. Wisconsin also 

participated in MRPO’s inter-RPO 

consultations. MANE–VU, the RPO for 

the Northeastern states, facilitated 

consultation between Wisconsin and 

Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, 

and Vermont. Wisconsin also consulted 

with Arkansas and Missouri through 

their RPO. 

At 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), the RHR 

identifies seven factors that a state must 

consider in developing its long-term 

strategy: (A) Emission reductions due to 

ongoing programs, (B) measures to 

mitigate impact from construction, (C) 

emission limits to achieve the RPG, (D) 

replacement and retirement of sources, 

(E) smoke management techniques, (F) 

Federally enforceable emission limits 

and control measures, and (G) the net 

effect on visibility due to projected 

emission changes over the long-term 

strategy period. Wisconsin considered 

the seven factors in developing its longterm strategy. 

Wisconsin relied on MPRO’s 

modeling and analysis along with its 

emission information in developing a 

long-term strategy. Wisconsin consulted 

with Class I states through its 

participation in MRPO. MRPO 

facilitated consultations with other 

Midwest states and with states in other 

regions through inter-RPO processes. 

Wisconsin considered these ongoing 

and expected programs in developing its 

long-term strategy: CAIR; NOX SIP Call; 

BART; inspection and maintenance 

program; reformulated gasoline; Large 

Spark Ignition and Recreational Vehicle 

standards; heavy-duty diesel engine 

standards; low sulfur fuel; non-road 

mobile source control programs; area 

source standards; consent decrees; NOX

Reasonably Available Control 

Technology; and measures taken to 

attain the NAAQS. 

Consistent with EPA guidance at the 

time, Wisconsin, in developing its longterm visibility strategy, initially relied 

on the visibility improvements expected 

to result from controls planned or 

already installed on sources in order to 

meet CAIR provisions. Wisconsin now 

relies on CSAPR. As CSAPR will result 

in greater emission reductions overall 

than CAIR, we anticipate that the 

substitution of CSAPR for CAIR does 

not weaken Wisconsin’s long-term 

strategy and will enable Wisconsin to 

meet its obligations to obtain its share 

of the emissions reductions needed to 

meet the RPGs for the Class I areas 

affected by Wisconsin sources. 

However, we will assess the midcourse 

review of Wisconsin’s SIP to ensure that 

this is so. 

Wisconsin has addressed the 

requirement to consider measures to 

mitigate the impacts of construction 

activities through the general and 

transportation conformity measures that 

are included in the Wisconsin SIP. The 

visibility impacts of new major sources 

will be mitigated using the existing New 

Source Review (NSR) and Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration (PSD) 

programs. The PSD program requires 

sources to install stringent emission 

controls. New and modified sources 

need to consider the potential affect on 

visibility in Class I areas under the NSR 

and PSD programs. 

The state is required to investigate 

whether additional reasonable control 

strategies are available to help meet the 

visibility goal. MRPO studied the 

potential emission reductions from a 

variety of sources. The results are in 

section 5.2 of the MRPO technical 

support document. Electric generating 

units have the largest impact on Class I 

areas, but these sources are already 

being regulated. Reasonable controls can 

potentially be implemented on 

industrial, commercial, and institutional 

boilers. Wisconsin did not include 

additional controls for these sources in 

this plan as additional emission 

reductions are not needed now, but 

Wisconsin committed to reevaluate 

options for achieving emission 

reductions from this category of sources 

if needed in future. For example, 

Wisconsin will be required to conduct 

a midcourse progress review assessing 

whether the program is making 

appropriate progress toward mitigating 

visibility impairment, and EPA expects 

that review to include an assessment as 

to whether emission reductions from 

these sources are necessary to meet the 

state’s obligation to alleviate its impacts 

on pertinent Class I areas. 

Wisconsin will follow the 

requirement to consider source 

retirement and replacement schedules 

with the existing requirements in its 

PSD program. Wisconsin has met its 

obligation to consider smoke 

management during the long-term 

strategy development by developing a 

Smoke Management Plan, included in 

the regional haze SIP as Appendix D. 

Proper management of fire under the 

right meteorological conditions will 

help to protect public safety and will 

prevent deterioration of air quality. 

Wisconsin must also ensure that the 

emission limits and control measures it 

is using to obtain its share of emission 

reductions are Federally enforceable. 

Included in the state’s SIP submittal is 

a draft Administrative Order for its nonEGU source that is subject to BART, i.e., 

Georgia-Pacific, and the state commits 

to issue a final administrative order 

following this proposed approval. Other 

rules that the state is relying on are 

federal rule or are already approved into 

the Wisconsin SIP. EPA believes that 

control measures and emission limits, 

including the final administrative order 

for Georgia-Pacific, will be Federally 

enforceable upon final approval of the 

Wisconsin regional haze plan. 

EPA is proposing to find that 

Wisconsin has addressed the applicable 

requirements for a long-term strategy. 

F. Monitoring Strategy 

The RHR requires a monitoring 

strategy for measuring the various 

pollutants that influence visibility and 

reporting on visibility impairment that 

is representative of all mandatory Class 

I areas. There are no mandatory Class I 

areas in Wisconsin, so the state does not 

operate any IMPROVE monitoring sites. 

Wisconsin does use IMPROVE network 

data from the Class I states. 

Wisconsin operates a monitoring 

network that provides data to analyze 

air quality problems. The monitoring 

network includes Federal Reference 

Method monitors, photochemical 

assessment monitoring, special purpose 

monitors, and ‘‘speciation monitors’’ 

that measure components or 

subcategories of particulate matter. The 

monitoring network measures and 

reports the levels of various pollutants 

throughout Wisconsin, including 

pollutants that contribute to visibility 

impairment. EPA finds that Wisconsin 

meets the monitoring requirements from 

the RHR and that its network of 

monitoring sites is satisfactory to 

measure air quality and assess its 

contribution to regional haze. 

G. Federal Land Manager Consultation 

Wisconsin consulted with the FLMs 

during the development of its regional 

haze plan. Wisconsin submitted a draft 

of its regional haze plan to the FLMs on 

January 13, 2011, and a revised draft on 

July 1, 2011. The Forest Service 

provided comments on July 27, 2011. 

The National Park Service sent a 

comment letter on September 2, 2011. 

Wisconsin later held a public hearing on 

September 13, 2011. The public 

comment period for the Wisconsin 

regional haze plan was from August 11, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 28, 2012 / Proposed Rules 11937 

2011 to September 16, 2011. Wisconsin 

has committed to continue to consult 

with the FLMs as it develops future SIP 

revisions and progress reports. 

H. Comments 

Wisconsin offered the public an 

opportunity to comment on its proposed 

regional haze plan. The public comment 

period for the Wisconsin regional haze 

plan was from August 11, 2011, to 

September 16, 2011. Wisconsin held a 

public meeting on September 13, 2011. 

It also had a public comment period 

from June 28, 2010, to July 29, 2010, 

specifically on the proposed BART for 

Georgia Pacific. A July 29, 2010, public 

hearing concluded the comment period. 

Evidence of the public notices and the 

public hearings were submitted to EPA 

with the regional haze plan. 

Wisconsin summarized the comments 

in its plan and provided its responses to 

the comments. Wisconsin revised its 

proposed BART plan for Georgia Pacific 

following the 2010 and 2011 comment 

periods. Wisconsin has met the 

requirements from 40 CFR part 51, 

Appendix V to provide evidence that it 

gave public notice, took comment, and 

that it compiled and responded to 

comments. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve 

Wisconsin’s SIP addressing regional 

haze for the first implementation period, 

provided Wisconsin adopts and submits 

a clearly enforceable administrative 

order that establishes limits 

representing BART for Georgia Pacific 

consistent with the limits in its draft 

administrative order. Full approval of 

Wisconsin’s use of CSAPR to satisfy the 

BART requirement for the EGUs at nine 

facilities is contingent on EPA’s 

finalization of the rule, proposed on 

December 30, 2011, finding CSAPR as 

an approvable alternative to BART. 

VI. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely proposes to approve state law as 

meeting Federal requirements and does 

not impose additional requirements 

beyond those imposed by state law. For 

that reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

In addition, this rule does not have 

tribal implications as specified by 

Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, 

November 9, 2000), because the SIP is 

not approved to apply in Indian country 

located in the state, and EPA notes that 

it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Intergovernmental 

relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: February 15, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2012–4688 Filed 2–27–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2009–0782–201149, FRL– 

9638–8] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; State of 

Alabama; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval of a revision to the Alabama 

state implementation plan (SIP) 

submitted by the State of Alabama 

through the Alabama Department of 

Environmental Management (ADEM), 

on July 15, 2008, that addresses regional 

haze for the first implementation period. 

This revision addresses the 

requirements of the Clean Air Act (CAA 

or Act) and EPA’s rules that require 

states to prevent any future and remedy 

any existing anthropogenic impairment 

of visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

(national parks and wilderness areas) 

caused by emissions of air pollutants 

from numerous sources located over a 

wide geographic area (also referred to as 

the ‘‘regional haze program’’). States are 

required to assure reasonable progress 

towards the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas. EPA is proposing a limited 

approval of this SIP revision to 

implement the regional haze 

requirements for Alabama on the basis 

that the revision, as a whole, 

strengthens the Alabama SIP. 

Additionally, EPA is proposing to 

rescind the federal regulations 

previously approved into the Alabama 

SIP on November 24, 1987, and to rely 

on the provisions in Alabama’s July 15, 

2008, SIP submittal to meet the longterm strategy (LTS) requirements for 

reasonably attributable visibility 

impairment (RAVI). EPA has previously 

proposed a limited disapproval of the 

Alabama regional haze SIP because of 

deficiencies in the State’s regional haze 

SIP submittal arising from the remand 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit (DC Circuit) 

to EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR). Consequently, EPA is not 

proposing to take action in this 

rulemaking to address the State’s 

reliance on CAIR to meet certain 

regional haze requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS