46952 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

(D) In the absence of any 

circumstances identified in paragraph 

(a)(5)(i) of this section, the operation of 

a small Post Office at a deficit. 

(iii) Notice to customers. Local 

management must provide notification 

and questionnaires to customers at the 

USPS-operated retail facility under 

study. Local management may 

determine whether notification is 

appropriate through media outlets. In 

addition, the following customers that 

receive delivery service from the USPSoperated retail facility must receive 

notification and questionnaires by mail: 

(A) Post Office Box customers at the 

USPS-operated retail facility under 

study; 

(B) Customers whose delivery carrier 

is stationed out of the USPS-operated 

retail facility under study; 

(C) Customers in the delivery area of 

the same ZIP Code as the retail facility 

under study, regardless of whether the 

delivery carriers for those customers are 

stationed out of the retail facility under 

study or out of a nearby facility; and 

(D) Customers whom the retail facility 

under study serves for allied delivery 

services such as mail pickup. 

(iv) Initial feasibility study due to 

emergency suspension. Wherever 

possible when an initial feasibility 

study is to be initiated under 

§ 241.3(a)(5)(i)(B) (for example, when it 

is anticipated that a lease or rental 

agreement will be cancelled with no 

suitable alternate quarters available in 

the community), responsible personnel 

should initiate the initial feasibility 

study sufficiently in advance of the 

circumstance prompting the emergency 

suspension to allow a meaningful 

opportunity for public input to be taken 

into account. If public input cannot be 

sought sufficiently in advance of the 

end date of the lease or rental 

agreement, responsible personnel 

should endeavor, to the extent possible, 

to continue operation of the USPSoperated retail facility for the duration 

necessary to gather public input and 

make a more fully informed decision on 

whether to proceed with a 

discontinuance proposal. Customers 

formerly served by the suspended 

facility should receive notice under 

paragraph (a)(5)(iii) of this section, 

including by mail, to the same extent 

that they would have if the facility were 

not in suspended status at the time of 

the initial feasibility study, proposal, or 

final determination. 

* * * * * 

Stanley F. Mires, 

Attorney, Legal Policy & Legislative Advice. 

[FR Doc. 2012–19201 Filed 8–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0059; FRL–9694–9] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Wisconsin; Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving revisions to 

the Wisconsin State Implementation 

Plan (SIP) addressing regional haze for 

the first implementation period, which 

extends through July 31, 2018. 

Wisconsin submitted its regional haze 

plan on January 18, 2012, with a 

supplemental submittal on June 7, 2012. 

EPA received comments on its proposed 

approval, addressing best available 

retrofit technology (BART) for a GeorgiaPacific Consumer Products, L.P. 

(Georgia-Pacific) paper facility and for 

power plants. EPA provides its response 

to these comments, and concludes that 

the Wisconsin regional haze plan 

satisfactorily addresses these 

requirements. Consequently, EPA is 

approving an administrative order 

establishing BART requirements for 

Georgia-Pacific into the Wisconsin SIP. 

More generally, EPA finds that 

Wisconsin has satisfied the applicable 

requirements for the State to remedy 

any existing and to prevent future 

impairment of visibility at mandatory 

Class I areas. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

September 6, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2012–0059. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information whose 

disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

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: This 

supplementary information section is 

arranged as follows: 

I. What was proposed in the proposed rule? 

II. What are the responses to comments? 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. What was proposed in the proposed 

rule? 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (WDNR) submitted its 

regional haze plan on January 18, 2012, 

with a supplemental submittal on June 

7, 2012. This plan was intended to 

address the requirements in Clean Air 

Act section 169A and the regional haze 

rule in Title 40 Code of Federal 

Regulations 51.308 (40 CFR 51.308). 

This plan concluded that the GeorgiaPacific paper mill in Green Bay and 

several electric generating units (EGUs) 

were subject to requirements for BART. 

For Georgia-Pacific, EPA proposed 

action on a draft administrative order 

that establishes a cap on the sum of 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions and of 

nitrogen oxide (NOX) emissions from 

the various boilers at the facility, 

including two boilers subject to the 

BART requirement and multiple other 

boilers not subject to this requirement. 

For the power plants, Wisconsin is 

relying on the Cross-State Air Pollution 

Rule (CSAPR) as a trading program 

alternative to mandating source-specific 

BART, except that Wisconsin addressed 

BART for particulate matter (PM) for 

EGUs by supplementing existing limits 

with a more stringent PM emission limit 

for one plant. 

EPA reviewed Wisconsin’s plan 

according to the regional haze rule as 

promulgated on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 

35713), and subsequently amended on 

July 6, 2005 (70 FR 39156), and on 

October 16, 2006 (70 FR 60631). The 

July 6, 2005, amendment provides 

further guidance on provisions related 

to BART. 

EPA proposed approval of the 

Wisconsin regional haze plan on 

February 28, 2012 (77 FR 11928). The 

proposed rule described the nature of 

the regional haze problem and the 

statutory and regulatory background for 

EPA’s review of Wisconsin’s regional 

haze plan. The proposed rule provided 

a lengthy description of the regional 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 46953 

1Section 110(a)(2)(E) requires that Wisconsin 

have ‘‘authority under State * * * law to carry out 

[its] implementation plan,’’ but does not define 

requirements for individual SIP submissions. 

Nevertheless, the important point here is that the 

Georgia-Pacific administrative order is a fully valid, 

fully enforceable, and approvable document. 

haze plan requirements, including 

mandating BART, consulting with other 

states to establish goals for reasonable 

further progress in mitigating 

anthropogenic visibility impairment, 

and adopting limitations necessary to 

implement a long-term strategy for 

reducing visibility impairment. EPA 

proposed to approve the Wisconsin plan 

as properly identifying the facilities 

subject to BART and mandating 

emission reductions meeting the 

applicable BART requirements. EPA 

also proposed to approve the Wisconsin 

plan as meeting other regional haze 

requirements, such as having a longterm strategy that provides an 

appropriate contribution from 

Wisconsin toward meeting reasonable 

progress goals. 

II. What are the responses to 

comments? 

In response to its proposed rule, EPA 

received comments from the Sierra 

Club, the National Park Service (NPS), 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources (WDNR), Georgia-Pacific, and 

the U.S. Forest Service. The comments 

are included in the docket, EPA–R05– 

OAR–2012–0059. A summary of the 

comments are included below along 

with EPA’s response. 

Comments by Sierra Club 

Comment: Sierra Club submitted 

extensive comments relating to 

Wisconsin’s reliance on CSAPR to 

satisfy the BART requirement for EGUs. 

Sierra Club believes that the Clean Air 

Act requires BART on a source-bysource basis. Even if reliance on a 

trading program is permissible, Sierra 

Club finds that Wisconsin failed to 

make the source-specific BART 

determinations that are required under 

40 CFR 51.308(e)(2) for assessing the 

relative merits of a trading program. In 

the view of Sierra Club, it is not clear 

that CSAPR provides surplus emission 

reductions that are creditable for 

satisfying the BART requirement. Sierra 

Club comments that, ‘‘CSAPR does not 

ensure that emissions reductions will be 

made to help achieve reasonable 

progress goals (RPGs),’’ and in particular 

does not require BART at a plant that is 

within 300 kilometers from Seney, i.e., 

the Pulliam plant. In addition, Sierra 

Club objects to reliance on CSAPR 

because it is presently stayed. Sierra 

Club objects that the annual CSAPR 

programs only limit annual emissions, 

thus allowing shorter-term emission 

variations that could adversely affect 

visibility. Sierra Club believes that 

EPA’s analysis of whether CSAPR 

would provide better visibility 

protection than source-specific 

application of BART limits is flawed, 

because EPA used presumptive BART 

levels to represent BART rather than the 

more stringent BART levels that sourcespecific BART analyses would identify. 

Response: As noted in the proposed 

rule, these comments are addressed in a 

separate rulemaking, published on June 

7, 2012, at 77 FR 33642. The EPA’s 

response to these comments can be 

found in Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OAR– 

2011–0729 at www.regulations.gov. The 

Pulliam plant, which is approximately 

240 kilometers from Seney Wilderness 

Area, is one of many plants in the 

Midwest and beyond that contribute to 

visibility impairment at the Seney 

Wilderness Area. EPA’s conclusion 

regarding satisfaction of BART 

requirements for EGUs is based on a 

finding that controls required under 

CSAPR can be expected to provide 

better visibility protection than would 

be obtained from direct application of 

BART at Pulliam and other subject 

EGUs. 

Comment: Sierra Club asserts that 

EPA cannot approve the administrative 

order that provides the necessary BART 

limits for Georgia-Pacific because the 

State does not have authority to submit 

administrative orders for this purpose. 

Sierra Club quotes Wisconsin Statute 

Section 285.14(1): ‘‘[WDNR] may not 

submit a control measure or strategy 

that imposes or may result in regulatory 

requirements to the federal 

environmental protection agency for 

inclusion in a state implementation plan 

under 42 U.S.C. § 7410 unless the 

department has promulgated the control 

measure or strategy as a rule.’’ In Sierra 

Club’s view, this statute requires 

Wisconsin to submit its limitations only 

in the form of state rule. Sierra Club also 

notes that Wisconsin law mandates that 

measures to be submitted must be 

subject to other mandated review 

procedures. Sierra Club believes that the 

State has not met these procedural 

requirements for the administrative 

order for Georgia-Pacific. Thus, Sierra 

Club concludes that Wisconsin does not 

have the authority to submit this 

administrative order to EPA and that 

EPA must disapprove the submission 

because it does not meet the 

requirement in Clean Air Act section 

110(a)(2)(E) that submissions be valid at 

the state level. 

Response: Wisconsin issued a valid 

administrative order in full compliance 

with State law. In its submission, the 

State clarified that it has in fact met the 

requirements of Wisconsin Statute 

285.14(1) by creating Wisconsin 

Administrative Code Natural Resources 

(NR) 433. The statute does not require 

that particular limits be adopted by rule 

or that the rule be the means by which 

the limits are enforced. Instead, in this 

case, Wisconsin first adopted a rule that 

mandates implementation of BART for 

sources determined to be subject to 

provisions in 40 CFR 51.308(e) requiring 

BART. Then, in accordance with NR 

433, Wisconsin defined the specifics of 

the control measure by issuing a 

determination of BART numerical 

limits. The administrative order for 

Georgia-Pacific establishes permanency 

for the BART numerical limits set forth 

in the determination. 

Wisconsin provided multiple 

opportunities for public comment on 

this issue. Wisconsin held a public 

hearing during the adoption of NR 433. 

Since this rule mandated BART and 

defined the process by which particular 

limits would be established, this State 

rulemaking was the most appropriate 

time for Sierra Club to identify its 

concerns regarding the adequacy of NR 

433, specifically, and the State’s BART 

process, generally, to provide the 

rulemaking to satisfy Wisconsin Statute 

285.14. Notably, it appears that Sierra 

Club did not raise this objection during 

the adoption of NR 433. Wisconsin also 

met the other procedural requirements 

for public hearings of concern to Sierra 

Club during the NR 433 adoption 

process. Finally, the State solicited 

public review and responded to 

comments for several iterations of the 

proposed BART numerical emission 

limits that it intended to use as the 

precise numerical definition of BART 

for Georgia-Pacific. The State addressed 

comments in determining final BART 

conditions and fulfilled the procedural 

requirements including public hearings 

necessary under State statutes. 

Consequently, EPA believes that 

Wisconsin has met the applicable 

statutory requirements for requiring 

BART at Georgia-Pacific, and EPA 

believes that the State’s submitted 

administrative order is fully valid at the 

State level and fully approvable under 

section 110.1

Comment: Sierra Club comments on 

discussion in the proposed rule 

expressing EPA’s concerns about the 

enforceability of the language of the 

draft administrative order. Given these 

EPA concerns, Sierra Club objects to the 

procedure EPA is using to act on 

Wisconsin’s plan. In particular, Sierra 

Club objects that EPA’s proposal is 

‘‘based on a ‘premise’ ’’ that the final 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
46954 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

administrative order will include 

revisions that address EPA’s concerns. 

‘‘This circumvents the review process, 

which requires EPA to determine 

whether the state’s submission is 

actually sufficient (not whether possible 

future documents could make the SIP 

sufficient) and requires that the public 

have an opportunity to review and 

comment on the sufficiency of the 

actual submission by the state and the 

EPA’s proposed basis for approval.’’ 

Response: In actions involving 

parallel processing, as authorized under 

40 CFR 51 appendix V section 2.3, EPA 

solicits comments regarding an 

anticipated situation, namely that the 

state will have completed the 

administrative process necessary to 

submit a final SIP submission before 

EPA takes final action. Similarly here, 

EPA solicited comments on the 

anticipated situation in which 

Wisconsin would submit a final 

administrative order using language that 

assures that the limits are fully 

enforceable and Wisconsin would 

submit the order before EPA’s final 

action. 

EPA believes that this approach fully 

satisfies the requirements in the Clean 

Air Act and in the Administrative 

Procedures Act for soliciting public 

comment on Wisconsin’s plan and 

EPA’s proposed action. These statutes 

do not mandate that EPA wait for 

administrative orders to be issued in 

final form before proposing action. 

Instead, EPA may propose action on 

draft administrative orders, so long as 

the proposal provides sufficient 

information regarding the prospective 

administrative order (and other 

elements of the State submission) and 

EPA’s intended action on the 

prospective order for commenters to 

have suitable opportunity to comment 

on significant issues pertinent to the 

State material and EPA’s proposed 

approval. 

Notably, Sierra Club did not express 

any concerns of its own regarding the 

language of the administrative order, 

suggesting that no further solicitation of 

comment on the particular differences 

in language between the draft and the 

final administrative order was 

warranted. Therefore, EPA concluded 

that its proposed rule provided an 

adequate basis for commenters to 

identify issues of concern and allow 

EPA to proceed to final rulemaking 

without reproposal. 

Comment: Sierra Club objects to 

Wisconsin expressing the limits for 

Georgia-Pacific as a cap on emissions 

from four boilers, including two boilers 

that are not subject to the requirement 

for BART. In Sierra Club’s view, this 

approach ‘‘dilutes the stringency of the 

BART limits,’’ insofar as ‘‘the control 

efficiency required of the BART units 

will depend on the operating 

characteristics of the other, non-BART 

units.’’ 

Response: Wisconsin established an 

emissions cap reflecting baseline 

emissions of the non-BART boilers plus 

emissions from the BART boilers at 

BART control levels, minus a deduction 

for environmental benefit. This cap 

assures that total emissions from the 

facility will be reduced by more than 

the amount that would be mandated 

with the establishment of limits solely 

on emissions from the BART units. That 

is, in the scenario of concern, in which 

the company accommodates operation 

that controls BART unit emissions by 

less than the unit’s full control capacity 

by reducing non-BART emissions to a 

slightly greater degree below baseline 

levels, the company would be achieving 

a slightly greater environmental benefit 

than if it had controlled BART unit 

emissions at full BART control levels 

and operated the non-BART units at 

baseline emission levels. This scenario 

is fully authorized in 40 CFR 51.308(e), 

which allows satisfaction of BART 

requirements by alternate strategies 

involving control at non-BART units 

that achieve greater environmental 

benefit than the strategy that simply 

controls BART units with BART-level 

control. 

Strictly speaking, Wisconsin’s 

administrative order does not regulate 

which boilers are in operation at any 

given time. For example, Georgia-Pacific 

is allowed under the order to resume 

operation of a fifth boiler. The important 

point here is that regardless of which 

boilers are operating, total emissions 

must be below levels that would occur 

if Wisconsin were simply mandating 

BART controls on the BART units. 

Comment: Sierra Club echoes 

comments made by the National Park 

Service and the U.S. Forest Service 

(misidentified as the Fish and Wildlife 

Service) during the State’s public 

comment process that the cap ‘‘is 

inflated because it relies on ‘baseline’ 

emissions’’ that include emissions for a 

shutdown boiler (B24) and used 

emissions for a ‘‘ ‘design fuel’ rather 

than the more representative fuels for 

the boilers.’’ 

Response: In response to similar 

comments on a July 2011 draft plan, 

Wisconsin made the recommended 

changes, determining baseline 

emissions by excluding emissions from 

the shutdown boiler and removing any 

adjustments for ‘‘design fuels.’’ Thus, 

this comment has previously been 

addressed. 

Comment: Sierra Club objects that, 

with Georgia-Pacific’s limit expressed as 

a cap on emissions from both BART and 

non-BART boilers, any future 

requirement to reduce emissions at the 

non-BART boilers will allow 

correspondingly more emissions at the 

BART boilers. Sierra Club in particular 

identifies two pending actions that in its 

view will likely require emission 

reductions at the non-BART boilers: An 

EPA rulemaking to require maximum 

available control technology at 

industrial boilers and a petition by the 

Sierra Club for EPA to find that this 

Georgia-Pacific facility should have 

become subject to tighter limits under 

prevention of significant deterioration 

regulations. 

Response: EPA’s regional haze 

regulation authorizes the State to 

establish a BART strategy that includes 

credit for measures that have been 

implemented since the baseline date of 

the SIP (which is 2002). In practice, the 

boilers at Georgia-Pacific vent to a 

common stack and the limits are 

designed to limit the combined set of 

emissions from the facility. Consistent 

with EPA’s regional haze rule, 

Wisconsin’s limits require a suitable 

degree of emission reduction from this 

facility and it is not necessary for 

Wisconsin to require these reductions to 

apply to the emissions of particular 

boilers. Second, Wisconsin is not 

required to mandate further emission 

reductions, either at the BART boilers or 

at other boilers from which it mandates 

emission reductions as part of its BART 

strategy, to go beyond the reductions 

that might be required in the future. 

Instead, the degree of reduction required 

to satisfy the regional haze rule is 

independent of the reductions 

mandated by other regulatory 

requirements that apply sooner or later 

after the baseline date. Third, future 

requirements on the non-BART boilers, 

such as Maximum Available Control 

Technology for boilers, will also apply 

to the BART boilers. As a result, the 

situation feared by the commenter, in 

which compliance with tight 

requirements on the non-BART boilers 

allows Georgia-Pacific to have minimal 

control of the BART boilers, is unlikely 

to arise. Finally, the degree of SO2 and 

NOX emission control, if any, that might 

be required by the regulations cited by 

Sierra Club is speculative and too 

uncertain to consider here. 

Comment: Sierra Club cites EPA as 

noting that ‘‘its Draft Economic 

Incentives Program Guidance is relevant 

to this rulemaking.’’ Sierra Club states 

that this guidance allows credit only for 

emission reductions that are surplus 

and beyond current regulatory 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 46955 

requirements. Furthermore, ‘‘the 

Guidance notes that the reduction 

cannot be required by any regulatory 

requirement at the time the reductions 

occur,’’ which Sierra Club considers to 

mean reductions required by 2015. 

Sierra Club cites ‘‘the industrial boiler 

hazardous air pollutant rule, the 1-hour 

SO2 SIP, and new source review 

requirements’’ as regulations that will 

require reductions before 2015, such 

that Wisconsin may only use credit for 

reductions below the 2015 levels. 

Response: In cases like this where a 

subject is addressed by both the general 

guidance in the draft Economic 

Incentive Program Guidance and in 

program-specific guidance that more 

directly addresses specific statutory 

requirements, EPA gives more weight to 

the regulatory provisions that are 

promulgated for the specific statutory 

requirements, in this case to the 

provisions of the regional haze rule. As 

noted above, the regional haze 

regulations promulgated in 40 CFR 

51.308 allow credit for reductions 

achieved after the baseline date of the 

SIP (2002), irrespective of any 

recommendations to the contrary in the 

draft Economic Incentives Program 

Guidance. 

Comment: Sierra Club comments that, 

‘‘the emission limits proposed by 

Wisconsin also apply the BART-level 

emission reductions to a faulty 

‘baseline.’ * * * First, Wisconsin’s 

baseline relies on an unreasonable 

assumption that the boilers always 

operate at the maximum heat input 

during any 30-day period or annual 

period between 2002–2004. [As a 

result,] boilers B26 and B27 will rarely, 

if ever, actually be required to meet the 

control efficiencies determined to 

represent BART. * * * Furthermore, 

because the facility operated more and 

emitted more in 2002–2004 than in 

recent years, using a baseline from a 

decade ago is unrepresentative of more 

recent operations.’’ Sierra Club provided 

various calculations to illustrate its 

point that current operations cause 

substantially lower emissions, so that 

deriving a limit from emissions in 2002– 

2004 yields an inflated limit that 

requires substantially less control than 

BART. Similarly, Sierra Club objects to 

the derivation of a monthly emission 

limit from the peak operating rate rather 

than from a more representative 

operating rate. Sierra Club recommends 

instead that EPA ‘‘require that the 

boilers B26 and B27 comply with a 

percent reduction [limit] through a 

weighted average of fuel input into each 

boiler.’’ 

Response: EPA believes that 

Wisconsin has made a reasonable choice 

in formulating its limits on GeorgiaPacific’s SO2 and NOX emissions as 

mass emission limits governing the 

emissions of all the boilers in the 

facility. While the facility’s current 

emissions are lower than the emissions 

during the baseline period, EPA’s 

regional haze rule allows credit for such 

reductions, insofar as the reductions 

contribute to mitigating regional haze. 

Wisconsin reasonably based its limits 

on the peak baseline emission levels 

rather than average emission levels, 

since the State must set a limit that 

requires continuous compliance and the 

limit must be a level that can be 

achieved even at peak operating rates. 

EPA agrees that a limit defined as a 

weighted average of the intended 

emission factor (e.g., in pounds per 

million British Thermal Units for each 

boiler) times the applicable boiler’s heat 

input would also be an appropriate form 

for the limit, but EPA finds Wisconsin’s 

formulation of its limit to be fully 

approvable and fully adequate as well. 

Comment: Sierra Club comments that 

EPA should have required further 

control at the non-BART boilers at 

Georgia-Pacific, for purposes of 

achieving reasonable progress in 

mitigating visibility impairment. 

Response: Since the non-BART 

boilers by definition are not required to 

install or operate BART-level controls, 

the reasonableness of control at the nonBART boilers at Georgia-Pacific is 

judged according to the same criteria as 

control at other facilities. EPA believes 

that Wisconsin has mandated sufficient 

emission reductions to address the 

requirements for reasonable progress. 

Comments by NPS 

Comment: NPS states, ‘‘Boiler B25 

ceased operation in 2008. WDNR and 

EPA propose to allow the combined 

baseline emissions to include emissions 

from boiler B25 that has not operated for 

three years, as well as boilers B26, B27, 

and B28. However, in its September 

2011 letter to WDNR, EPA commented 

that including emissions from the nonoperational boiler B25 in the combined 

emissions limit would allow less 

effective controls of the BART boilers.’’ 

Response: As Wisconsin explains in 

its response to comments, while 

Georgia-Pacific ceased operation of 

boiler B24 in 2004, it has only 

suspended operation of boiler B25, 

pending resolution of questions 

regarding whether the requirements of 

the Clean Air Interstate Rule apply to 

this boiler. EPA then found, on May 2, 

2011, that the boiler was exempt from 

requirements of the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule, so that the company no longer had 

this disincentive for operating this 

boiler. While this issue was being 

resolved, Georgia-Pacific had relatively 

constant total boiler use but shifted load 

from boiler B25 to its other boilers. Now 

that this issue is resolved, representative 

operation of Georgia-Pacific’s boilers 

may be considered to include operation 

of boiler B25. For this reason, EPA 

considers boiler B25 (unlike B24) to be 

a source for which the baseline 

emissions may reasonably be included 

in determining a collective limit on 

emissions of operating boilers at 

Georgia-Pacific. 

Comment: NPS asserts that, ‘‘Controls 

on boiler B28 are warranted for 

reasonable progress because the 

northern Class I areas impacted by 

Wisconsin’s emissions are not meeting 

or just meeting the uniform rate of 

progress for visibility improvement. The 

BART and reasonable progress levels of 

control should be 95% for sulfur 

dioxide and 75–85% for nitrogen 

dioxide.’’ 

Response: The non-BART boilers at 

Georgia-Pacific are a few among many 

boilers in Wisconsin that warrant 

consideration for control. The GeorgiaPacific boilers warrant review under the 

same criteria as the other boilers in the 

State. Wisconsin reviewed the 

information generated by the Midwest 

Regional Planning Organization 

(MRPO), addressing the factors 

pertinent for judging potentially 

reasonable measures, and concluded 

that additional control of industrial, 

commercial, and institutional boilers 

was not a reasonable measure at this 

time. This conclusion implicitly applies 

to the non-BART boilers at GeorgiaPacific as well as to other boilers in the 

State. Wisconsin will reassess the 

reasonableness of control of this 

category of boilers in a regional haze 

plan for a future implementation period. 

Comment: NPS ‘‘disagree[s] with 

Wisconsin’s and EPA’s proposal to 

approve four different combinations of 

SO2 and NOX emissions limits as BART 

for the combined stack and to allow 

Georgia-Pacific to select by July 15, 

2013, which emissions limits to meet. 

We are not aware of any other situation 

in the country where EPA proposes to 

allow a source to meet one of multiple 

emissions limits. * * * In the approved 

Plan, the more stringent limits each for 

SO2 and for NOX should be determined 

to be BART and less stringent 

alternative emissions limits should not 

be permitted.’’ 

Response: The administrative order 

that EPA proposed to approve identifies 

four potential sets of emission limits 

and specifies a process by which one of 

these sets of limits shall be identified by 

July 15, 2013, as the enforceable limits 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
46956 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

for Georgia-Pacific. The ‘‘baseline’’ 

limits were derived independently for 

SO2 and for NOX based on baseline 

emissions for the four operating (or 

potentially operating) boilers minus the 

emission reductions expected from 

BART controls on the BART boilers 

minus a reduction for ‘‘environmental 

benefit.’’ EPA found these limits to 

satisfy the requirements under 40 CFR 

51.308(e)(2) for providing greater 

reasonable progress in mitigating 

visibility impairment than direct 

application of BART limits, and so EPA 

found these limits to satisfy the BART 

requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(e). EPA 

then examined the three alternative sets 

of limits submitted by Wisconsin. The 

intent of the State was to establish 

equivalent alternatives, by setting 

increased NOX emission limits and 

setting SO2 emission limits that were 

reduced by an amount equal to twice 

the amount by which the NOX limits 

were increased. The three alternatives 

differ only in the magnitude of the NOX

limit increases and the associated SO2

limit decreases. In EPA’s view, the 

modeling submitted by Wisconsin 

justifies the State’s view that the three 

alternative sets of limits could be 

expected to provide at least 

approximately the same degree of 

visibility protection as the baseline 

limits. From this, EPA concluded that 

any of the four sets of limits that may 

be selected would provide better 

visibility protection than would be 

obtained with direct application of 

BART limits on the BART sources. 

While states do not usually identify and 

submit, and EPA does not usually 

approve, alternative sets of limits, EPA 

believes in this case that Wisconsin has 

provided sufficient justification for each 

of the alternatives. EPA is assured that 

a single set of limits will be 

unambiguously identified as the 

applicable limits within a sufficiently 

short period of time (by July 15, 2013, 

well before the January 1, 2016 

compliance date) and thus is approving 

this approach. 

Comment: NPS observes that 

Wisconsin’s determination of whether 

its EGUs warranted tighter particulate 

matter (PM) limits was based on actual 

emissions rather than allowable 

emissions. NPS provided a table 

comparing actual PM emission rates to 

permissible PM emission rates, 

indicating that the applicable emission 

limits are in most cases substantially 

higher than actual emission rates. NPS 

believes that Wisconsin’s modeling is an 

inadequate justification for avoiding a 

full five-factor review of BART with 

respect to PM. NPS suggests that 

Wisconsin could satisfactorily justify 

avoiding a full five-factor analysis either 

by demonstrating (with revised 

modeling) that allowable PM emission 

rates have minimal visibility impact or 

by revising PM limits to reflect current 

actual emissions. 

Response: EPA believes that 

Wisconsin has adequately justified its 

conclusion that its limits for PM 

emissions from EGUs satisfy BART 

requirements. First, Wisconsin’s 

findings are consistent with findings by 

MRPO and findings by other states that 

even the higher allowable levels of PM 

emissions are unlikely to cause 

significant visibility impairment, as a 

result of the dispersion of PM that 

occurs over the distances from the EGUs 

and the Class I areas. Second, 

Wisconsin’s PM limits, despite being 

well above actual controlled emission 

levels in most cases, are arguably tight 

enough to require the companies to 

reduce PM emissions to levels that are 

insignificant from a visibility 

perspective. Wisconsin did note that 

one facility complying with applicable 

limits was emitting relatively large 

quantities of PM; Wisconsin reduced 

this facility’s allowable PM emissions. 

EPA is satisfied that all of Wisconsin’s 

EGUs can be expected to emit quantities 

of PM that are de minimis for visibility 

purposes. 

Comment: NPS comments that limits 

should be based on more recent data 

that better represent the current 

operations. These more recent data 

suggest use of a baseline with 

significantly lower emissions. 

Response: The regional haze rule 

authorizes states to determine limits 

based on emissions during the baseline 

period, irrespective of subsequent 

emission reductions. The subsequent 

emission reductions would be 

considered creditable emission 

reductions that needn’t result in 

calculation of lower emission limits. 

The most significant change in 

emissions over that period has been the 

result of the use of fuel with lower 

sulfur content. These reductions are 

creditable, and Wisconsin is not 

required to use a baseline that is 

reduced to reflect these reductions. 

Comment: NPS takes note of EPA’s 

finding ‘‘that emissions limits of 2,340 

[tons per year (tpy)] of SO2 and 977 tpy 

of NOX are [BART] * * * EPA then goes 

on to propose that a SO2 limit as low as 

1,250 tpy and a NOX limit as high as 

1,522 tpy are also [BART].’’ NPS 

continues, ‘‘If EPA believes that 1,250 

tpy is BART for SO2 then it should not 

allow Georgia-Pacific to emit 2,340 tpy 

under any circumstance. Likewise, if 

EPA believes that 977 tpy is BART for 

NOX, then it should not allow GeorgiaPacific to emit 1,522 tpy under any 

circumstance.’’ 

Response: Wisconsin defines BART in 

terms of control equipment that 

achieves specified levels of control of 

SO2 and NOX emissions from boilers 

B26 and B27. These limits do not define 

BART per se; instead, these limits, 

which also limit emissions from two 

boilers that are not required to have 

BART control, are designed to satisfy 

BART requirements by requiring 

emission reductions that would yield 

better visibility protection than would 

be obtained by requiring BART alone. 

The limits of 2,340 tpy of SO2 and 977 

tpy of NOX represent Wisconsin’s 

‘‘baseline’’ 12-month rolling emission 

limits. The limits of 1,250 tpy of SO2

and 1,522 tpy of NOX represent 

Wisconsin’s ‘‘Alternative 3’’ 12-month 

rolling emission limits. In each case, the 

limits reflect a set of control measures 

that EPA finds to provide better 

visibility protection than would be 

obtained from direct application of the 

measures determined to represent 

BART. Requiring Georgia-Pacific to 

meet the Alternative 3 SO2 limits and 

the baseline NOX limits would of course 

also provide better visibility protection, 

but such an approach is not necessary 

to meet BART requirements. 

Comment: NPS states, ‘‘Emission 

limits must reflect the best level of 

‘continuous emission reduction,’ and 

the proposed mass cap limits would 

allow a very high lb/mmBtu emission 

rate during periods of low utilization.’’ 

Response: Wisconsin’s emission 

limits apply at all times and therefore 

require continuous emission reduction. 

EPA allows states to express limits in 

various forms, including in the form of 

mass limits, as adopted by Wisconsin, 

as well as in the form of emission rate 

limits, as urged by NPS. Wisconsin has 

adopted a reasonable limit, which was 

designed to be achievable with BART 

level control even during periods of 

maximum plant utilization. Given the 

air pollution control equipment that 

these limits will require Georgia-Pacific 

to install, EPA expects significant 

emission reductions at all times. 

Comment: NPS comments, ‘‘EPA 

should not allow the source to mix-andmatch to find the least stringent 

combination for each situation.’’ NPS 

quotes from an EPA letter to Wisconsin: 

‘‘If Wisconsin wishes to pursue 30-day 

averaging, in combination with an 

annual emissions cap, the State must 

provide justification.’’ NPS then 

comments that, ‘‘EPA has not explained 

why it now accepts the approaches that 

it recently rejected.’’ 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 46957 

Response: Wisconsin is no longer 

pursuing the variable limit approach 

that EPA was referring to in the letter 

the commenter is citing. Georgia-Pacific 

has an initial option to choose among 

four defined sets of limits, each of 

which has been found acceptable. To be 

precise, Wisconsin’s administrative 

order establishes a baseline set of limits 

that apply by default, but the order also 

provides that one of three identified 

alternative sets of limits becomes the 

enforceable limits if Georgia-Pacific 

selects the alternative by July 15, 2013. 

The selected limits, or, in absence of a 

selection, the baseline limits, are 

permanently enforceable unless 

Wisconsin justifies limit revisions 

through a SIP revision process. Thus, 

EPA is not accepting an approach ‘‘it 

recently rejected.’’ 

Wisconsin has provided suitable 

justification for using a 30-day average 

limit. Regional haze is measured as an 

average over 20 percent of the days of 

a year (the 20 percent worst days or the 

20 percent best days), and so expressing 

the emissions limit as a 30-day limit, 

supplemented by a 12-month limit that 

further limits average emission controls, 

suitably limits emissions consistent 

with the averaging time of the metric 

being addressed. 

Comment: NPS objects that, ‘‘EPA 

proposes to allow WDNR to take 

advantage of the purported Stack S10 10 

percent emission reduction more than 

once.’’ NPS states, ‘‘while it is 

appropriate under EPA’s Economic 

Incentive Program to reduce allowable 

emissions by ‘10 percent for the benefit 

of the environment,’ it is not 

appropriate to use that same 10 percent 

reduction again to ‘arguably compensate 

for that uncertainty as to how much the 

emissions from the BART boilers will be 

controlled.’ ’’ 

Response: NPS provides no reason 

that the pertinent reduction in the 

emission limit cannot serve multiple 

purposes. Arguably, the 10 percent 

reduction recommended in the 

Economic Incentive Program policy is to 

assure that the economic incentive 

program provides environmental 

benefit, notwithstanding the uncertainty 

regarding the extent to which individual 

sources will be controlled. EPA 

guidance does not require that 

Wisconsin reduce its emission limits to 

provide environmental benefit and then 

reduce its emission limits further to 

address uncertainty about which 

sources will reduce emissions by how 

much. 

Comment: NPS does not believe that 

EPA has properly supported a 

conclusion that Wisconsin’s long-term 

strategy provides for satisfaction of 

RPGs. NPS notes differences between 

the visibility projections of the Central 

Regional Air Partnership (CENRAP) 

given in Minnesota’s SIP and the 

projections of the MRPO that Wisconsin 

presents. With either set of projections, 

‘‘The [RPGs] provides for less annual 

progress towards the ultimate visibility 

goals than the uniform rate of progress.’’ 

NPS notes comments it made to 

Wisconsin regarding an absence of a 

four-factor analysis of potential 

emission control measures for providing 

reasonable progress. NPS observes that 

Wisconsin responded by providing an 

analysis of emissions divided by 

distance (‘‘Q/d’’) and by noting 

significant emission reductions that 

have occurred beyond the reductions 

originally expected in Wisconsin’s 

regional haze plan, but NPS finds that 

Wisconsin set no criteria for conducting 

a four-factor review. In NPS’ view, 

several sources in Wisconsin, including 

the non-BART units at Georgia-Pacific, 

warrant consideration for further 

controls for purposes of achieving 

reasonable progress. Finally, NPS quotes 

EPA as finding that ‘‘additional controls 

for [industrial, commercial, and 

institutional (ICI) boilers] are not 

needed now,’’ but NPS believes that 

EPA has not justified this conclusion. 

Response: Wisconsin relied on 

information developed by the MRPO 

that addressed the four factors to be 

considered in evaluating reasonable 

measures for purposes of providing 

reasonable progress. Wisconsin 

evaluated this information and 

concluded that the control measure that 

warranted most consideration as a 

further measure was control of ICI 

boilers. However, Wisconsin noted that 

EPA is exploring setting limits on these 

facilities in conjunction with CSAPR. 

Regional multi-state action on these 

sources would provide significantly 

more benefit than action in Wisconsin 

alone. Wisconsin noted that the limiting 

factor for providing further progress in 

addressing visibility impairment was 

the time needed to define and 

implement further controls. Wisconsin 

noted that EPA is still evaluating the 

potential for further reductions from ICI 

boilers. The State concludes that further 

reductions from this sector cannot 

reasonably be required in a timely 

fashion for the long-term strategy of this 

implementation period. Wisconsin 

further concluded that other sources 

categories are less appropriate to 

regulate in this long-term strategy. EPA 

concurs with Wisconsin’s conclusion, 

finding that the State has conducted 

adequate analysis and presented 

suitable justification that its long-term 

strategy provides adequate contribution 

to meeting applicable RPGs. 

Comment: NPS quotes Wisconsin as 

‘‘assert[ing] that the rate of emission 

reduction projected for Wisconsin 

sources, compared to those of Michigan 

and Minnesota, shows that Wisconsin is 

meeting its share of visibility 

improvement. Figures 6 and 7 * * * 

show that Wisconsin emissions, using 

the ‘on the books’ inventory, decrease at 

a similar or greater rate than Michigan 

and Minnesota emissions.’’ NPS 

observes, ‘‘However, inspection of 

Figures 6 and 7 finds that, while 

Wisconsin is predicting greater 

reductions in NOX than MI and MN, it 

falls short of the SO2 reductions 

estimated in MN. WDNR should have 

conducted a valid four factor analysis of 

specific sources to determine what 

emissions controls are reasonable.’’ 

Response: NPS correctly characterizes 

the information in Figures 6 and 7. 

However, the critical test is whether 

Wisconsin has provided ‘‘all measures 

necessary to obtain its share of the 

emission reductions needed to meet the 

progress goal for the [affected Class I 

areas].’’ (40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(ii)) 

Irrespective of modest differences in the 

emission reductions achieved in 

different states, Wisconsin’s data show 

that Wisconsin is implementing 

measures similar to those in other 

neighboring states. Based on 

Wisconsin’s submission, EPA concludes 

that Wisconsin has in place measures 

that will allow it to meet applicable 

RPGs. 

WDNR 

Comment: ‘‘WDNR believes that U.S. 

EPA inadvertently mislabeled the 

control technologies for NOX and SO2

which WDNR * * * determined to be 

BART at the Georgia-Pacific facility in 

Green Bay. Accordingly, WDNR 

requests that U.S. EPA make the 

following corrections to the BART 

control technologies listed in the 

proposed approval: change ‘wet 

scrubbing’ to ‘dry scrubbing’ for SO2

BART; and change ‘recirculating 

selective catalytic reduction’ to 

‘regenerative selective catalytic 

reduction’ for NOX BART.’’ 

Response: EPA acknowledges and 

corrects these errors. As noted by 

WDNR, the technologies that it 

determined to be BART are dry 

scrubbing for SO2 and regenerative 

selective catalytic reduction for NOX.

Georgia-Pacific 

Comment: Georgia-Pacific notes the 

same errors that WDNR identified in 

EPA’s description of the control 

technology found to be BART. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
46958 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

Specifically, Georgia-Pacific quotes from 

WDNR’s submission: ‘‘The final BART 

determination for SO2 reflects fuel 

switching of petroleum coke from BART 

boilers B26 and B27, followed by 

circulating bed dry scrubbing 

technology at 93 percent control.’’ 

Georgia-Pacific quotes further from 

WDNR’s submittal: ‘‘For B27, a cyclone 

boiler, the BART determination for NOX

reflects overfire air combustion 

modifications followed by Regenerative 

Selective Catalytic Reduction (RSCR) to 

yield an 85 percent long-term NOX

Control requirement.’’ 

Response: As requested, EPA is 

correcting the description of the 

technology determined to be BART to 

include, in part, dry scrubbing 

technology and regenerative selective 

catalytic reduction. 

Comment: Georgia-Pacific supports 

EPA’s findings regarding the adequacy 

of its limits to satisfy BART 

requirements. The company in 

particular agrees with EPA’s position 

that the limits established for the sum 

of emissions across all operating boilers 

at the facility provide additional 

environmental benefits, as 

recommended in the EPA Draft 

Economic Incentive Policy Guidance. 

Response: EPA acknowledges 

Georgia-Pacific’s support for its 

proposed action. 

Comment: Georgia-Pacific ‘‘supports 

WDNR’s simplified approach for 

establishing a ‘not-to-exceed’ emissions 

curve (line) instead of a mass cap 

established by a single point or a set of 

three sets [of] alternative emission 

limits.’’ Georgia-Pacific notes that EPA 

in its notice of proposed rulemaking 

‘‘agrees that different pairs of SO2 and 

NOX emission limits can provide 

equivalent visibility improvement.’’ 

Georgia-Pacific then notes that WDNR 

in its submission ‘‘supports a more 

simplified approach’’ in which GeorgiaPacific ‘‘does not need to elect one set 

of SO2 and NOX mass caps,’’ but instead 

allows inter-pollutant trading, using 

‘‘the established 2:1 trading ratio’’ (i.e., 

requiring two tons less SO2 emissions 

for each ton more of NOX emissions), 

such that Georgia-Pacific may comply 

with any combination of SO2 and NOX

emissions that meet an equation 

defining combinations with equivalent 

benefits. Accordingly, Georgia-Pacific 

envisions a graph of the SO2 and NOX

limits in the baseline limits and the 

three alternative sets of limits, and the 

company observes that these four points 

on this imagined graph lie along a 

straight line. ‘‘We believe that 

equivalent improvements in visibility 

exist for any emission limit set that also 

lies on the line.’’ Georgia-Pacific quotes 

from WDNR’s submittal: ‘‘This approach 

allows the control levels to be varied 

over time based on the most effective 

option at that time. Further, this 

approach does not require an election of 

one set of mass caps by July 15, 2013, 

and or SIP approval for mass caps 

identified at a later time.’’ 

Georgia-Pacific concludes, ‘‘The 

compliance date for BART controls in 

DNR’s SIP is December 31, 2015. We 

request the SIP allow the state flexibility 

in granting alternate emission limits 

through December 31, 2015 through 

amendment of a state-authorized order 

or other mechanism deemed appropriate 

by WDNR. Between today and 

December 31, 2015, these boilers require 

other controls to meet 40 CFR 63 

DDDDD (Industrial Boiler MACT). With 

the ultimate Boiler MACT rule 

requirements still uncertain, 

adjustments to the alternate BART 

emission limits may be necessary to 

provide a reasonable solution to comply 

with both overlapping requirements.’’ 

Response: Wisconsin’s submission 

identifies a baseline set of limits and 

three alternative sets of limits, with 

provision for Georgia-Pacific either to 

become subject to the baseline set of 

limits or to choose by July 15, 2013 to 

become subject to one of the three 

alternative sets of limits. The Wisconsin 

submission does not include any limits 

based on the more flexible approach 

that Georgia-Pacific suggests, and so 

these comments are not directly 

germane to Wisconsin’s submission or 

to EPA’s proposed rule. Furthermore, 

EPA does not have the latitude to 

approve a hypothetical SIP revision that 

differs from the State submission by 

including the requested flexibility. 

A similar issue arose in the context of 

Wisconsin’s July 2011 draft SIP. 

Therefore, EPA’s comments to 

Wisconsin in response to that draft SIP 

also serve to respond to these 

comments. In a letter to Wisconsin 

dated September 16, 2011, EPA stated: 

‘‘While EPA’s regional haze rule offers 

some flexibility for establishing combinations 

of particular control measures that provide 

more or less control of particular pollutants, 

the rule does not provide for states to adopt 

limits that provide for a range of control 

levels for one pollutant that is dependent on 

the level of emissions of another pollutant. 

Georgia-Pacific can expect to be required to 

reduce SO2 emissions substantially over the 

next several years. Georgia-Pacific will likely 

need to install emission control equipment to 

satisfy the maximum achievable control 

technology (MACT) regulation for industrial 

boilers, and the SO2 emission reductions will 

likely also be necessary to provide for 

attainment of the SO2 national ambient air 

quality standard. If Wisconsin allows these 

SO2 emission reductions (or reductions from 

reduced boiler usage) to replace the NOX

reductions that would otherwise be required 

as BART, it is quite plausible that 

implementation of these reductions would 

allow Georgia-Pacific to implement no 

reductions of NOX emissions at all. In 

contrast, the baseline scenario involving 

standard limits requiring BART would 

require NOX emission control regardless of 

whether extraneous factors require or 

otherwise yield SO2 emissions below BART 

levels. While Wisconsin is comparing 

visibility levels with various potential 

emission scenarios against visibility in 2002 

to 2004, EPA is comparing visibility under 

these scenarios against visibility that would 

be expected under a standard scenario in 

which BART limits apply directly to the 

BART units. Consequently, Wisconsin’s 

proposed approach must be considered to 

authorize Georgia-Pacific to cause more 

visibility impairment than would be 

authorized under an approach that applied 

standard BART limits.’’ 

Forest Service 

Comment: The Forest Service 

referenced the comments it made to 

Wisconsin regarding draft regional haze 

plans. In particular, it cites letters to 

Wisconsin dated March 4, 2011, and 

July 27, 2011. The Forest Service states, 

‘‘We do not believe the changes made 

address the concerns in our previous 

letters.’’ The Forest Service encloses 

copies of the previous letters, but 

provides no discussion regarding which 

concerns remain unaddressed. The 

letters address BART for Georgia-Pacific 

(generally supporting Wisconsin’s 

January 13, 2011 draft and objecting to 

Wisconsin’s July 1, 2011 draft), the 

determination that the BART 

requirement does not apply to other 

sources in the State other than EGUs, 

and the provisions in the long-term 

strategy for achieving RPGs. 

Response: Wisconsin’s regional haze 

plan includes responses to comments, 

including responses to both comment 

letters from the Forest Service. Implicit 

in EPA’s proposal to approve 

Wisconsin’s plan is a finding that 

Wisconsin has satisfactorily addressed 

the comments it received. In general, 

Wisconsin modified its BART 

determination for Georgia-Pacific in 

response to some comments and 

justified its draft determination with 

respect to other comments. Wisconsin 

justified its determination of which 

sources were subject to a BART 

requirement, and Wisconsin justified 

the features of its long-term strategy as 

implementing its share of reductions for 

achieving RPGs. In absence of 

identification of particular issues that 

remain of concern and explanation of 

the Forest Service’s disagreements with 

EPA’s proposed rule and with 

Wisconsin’s responses to its comments, 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 152 / Tuesday, August 7, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 46959 

EPA continues to believe that Wisconsin 

has appropriately addressed comments 

by the Forest Service. 

III. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is approving Wisconsin’s 

regional haze plan as satisfying the 

applicable requirements in 40 CFR 

51.308. The plan identifies affected 

Class I areas, calculates the baseline and 

natural visibility, establishes RPGs, 

relies on CSAPR to address BART 

requirements for nine EGUs that are 

subject to BART, mandates BART 

measures for Georgia-Pacific, establishes 

a Long-Term Strategy for making 

reasonable progress toward visibility 

goals, and provides a monitoring 

strategy. 

A key element of Wisconsin’s plan is 

an administrative consent order 

establishing emission limits satisfying 

BART requirements for Georgia-Pacific. 

Wisconsin issued this order, 

Administrative Consent Order Number 

405032870, on June 8, 2012. This Order 

provides a baseline set of emission 

limits and three alternative sets of 

emission limits, and provides a 

selection process to be completed by 

June 15, 2013, such that one of these 

sets of emission limits for GeorgiaPacific shall become permanent and 

State enforceable. The Georgia-Pacific 

BART emission limits will become 

Federally enforceable with this SIP 

approval. 

IV. 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 action merely 

approves state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and does not impose 

additional requirements beyond those 

imposed by state law. For that reason, 

this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive 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. 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean 

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by October 9, 2012. 

Filing a petition for reconsideration by 

the Administrator of this final rule does 

not affect the finality of this action for 

the purposes of judicial review nor does 

it extend the time within which a 

petition for judicial review may be filed, 

and shall not postpone the effectiveness 

of such rule or action. This action may 

not be challenged later in proceedings to 

enforce its requirements. (See section 

307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, and Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: June 15, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

Therefore, 40 CFR part 52 is amended 

as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 52.2570 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(124) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.2570 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(124) On January 18, 2012, 

supplemented on June 7, 2012, 

Wisconsin submitted Wisconsin’s 

regional haze plan to EPA. This regional 

haze plan includes an administrative 

consent order specifying limits 

satisfying best available retrofit 

requirements for Georgia-Pacific 

Consumer Products, L.P. This plan also 

includes a long-term strategy with 

emission reductions to provide 

Wisconsin’s contribution toward 

achievement of reasonable progress 

goals at Class I areas affected by 

emissions from Wisconsin sources. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. 

(A) Administrative Consent Order 

Number 405032870, issued by the 

Wisconsin Department of Natural 

Resources on June 8, 2012, to GeorgiaPacific Consumer Products LP. 

(B) Construction Permit Number 11– 

POY–123, issued by the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources on 

November 11, 2011, to Wisconsin Power 

& Light for its Columbia Energy Center. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–19137 Filed 8–6–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with RULES