Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 91269 

decision-making and other Federal 

activities that affect human health and 

the environment.’’ 

The State did not evaluate EJ 

considerations as part of its SIP 

submittal; the CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 

Consistent with the EPA’s discretion 

under the CAA, the EPA performed an 

EJ analysis, as is described above in the 

section titled, ‘‘Environmental Justice 

Considerations.’’ The analysis was done 

for the purpose of providing additional 

context and information about this 

rulemaking to the public, not as a basis 

of the action. Due to the nature of the 

action being taken here, this action is 

expected to have a neutral impact on the 

air quality of the affected area. In 

addition, there is no information in the 

record upon which this decision is 

based inconsistent with the stated goal 

of E.O. 12898 of achieving EJ for 

communities with EJ concerns. 

This action is subject to the 

Congressional Review Act, and EPA will 

submit a rule report to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. This action 

is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). Under section 307(b)(1) of 

the CAA, petitions for judicial review of 

this action must be filed in the United 

States Court of Appeals for the 

appropriate circuit by January 21, 2025. 

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, Ammonia, 

Incorporation by reference, 

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen 

oxides, Particulate matter, Reporting 

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur 

oxides, Volatile organic compounds. 

Dated: November 2, 2024. 

Martha Guzman Aceves, 

Regional Administrator, Region IX. 

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations is amended as 

follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for Part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

Subpart F—California 

■ 2. Section 52.220 is amended by 

adding and reserving paragraphs 

(c)(620) through (622), and adding 

paragraph (c)(623) to read as follows: 

§ 52.220 Identification of plan—in part. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(620)–(622) [Reserved] 

(623) The following plan revisions 

were submitted electronically on August 

22, 2024, by the Governor’s designee as 

an attachment to a letter of the same 

date. 

(i) [Reserved] 

(ii) Additional materials. (A) 

California Air Resources Board. 

(1) Selected portions titled 

‘‘Amendments to the 15 mg/m3 SIP 

Revision and Agricultural Equipment 

Incentive Measure for the 1997 PM2.5

Standard,’’ and ‘‘Appendix B: 2022 

Annual Demonstration Report: San 

Joaquin Valley Agricultural Equipment 

Incentive Measure Covering Projects 

Completed Through 12/31/2022,’’ of the 

Staff Report, ‘‘Review of the San Joaquin 

Valley 2024 Plan for the 2012 12 mg/m3

Annual PM2.5 Standard and 

Amendments to the Agricultural 

Equipment Incentive Measure and the 

1997 15 mg/m3 State Implementation 

Plan Revision,’’ adopted July 25, 2024. 

(2) The portion of CARB Resolution 

24–10, dated July 25, 2024, adopting 

amendments to the Valley Incentive 

Measure to include quantification of 

emissions reductions of 5.0 tpd of NOX

and 0.27 tpd of PM2.5 in the year 2023 

from existing agricultural equipment 

projects and substituting the reductions 

from the Valley Incentive Measure to 

meet the aggregate emissions reduction 

commitment in the attainment plan for 

the 1997 annual PM2.5 NAAQS 

approved in 40 CFR 

52.220(c)(537)(ii)(A)(9). 

(B) [Reserved] 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–25946 Filed 11–18–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2021–0545; FRL–12100– 

02–R5] 

Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Second 

Period Regional Haze Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is approving the Regional 

Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

revision submitted by the Wisconsin 

Department of Natural Resources 

(Wisconsin or WDNR) on July 30, 2021, 

along with subsequent information 

discussed herein, as satisfying 

applicable requirements under the 

Clean Air Act (CAA) and EPA’s 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) for the 

program’s second implementation 

period. Wisconsin’s SIP submission and 

the subsequent information addresses 

the requirement that states must 

periodically revise their long-term 

strategies for making reasonable 

progress towards the national goal of 

preventing any future, and remedying 

any existing, anthropogenic impairment 

of visibility, including regional haze, in 

mandatory Class I Federal areas. The 

SIP submission also addresses other 

applicable requirements for the second 

implementation period of the regional 

haze program. EPA is taking this action 

pursuant to sections 110 and 169A of 

the CAA. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

December 19, 2024. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R05–OAR–2021–0545. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the www.regulations.gov website. 

Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

i.e., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI), Proprietary Business Information 

(PBI), 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 through 

www.regulations.gov or 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 Charles 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
91270 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

1The application and final permit for 

construction permit 22–MMC–035 are included in 

the docket and is available on WDNR’s website: 

https://apps.dnr.wi.gov/warp_ext/AM_

PermitTracking2.aspx?id=3002301. 

2On August 2, 2024, WDNR provided notice to 

the public of the draft proposed operation permit 

74400810A–P30 for the Ahlstrom-Munksjo ̈- 

Rhinelander Mill for a 30-day comment period. The 

operation permit 74400810A–P30 issued on 

September 17, 2024, as well as the analysis and 

preliminary determination for the operation permit 

renewal are publicly available on WDNR’s website 

at https://dnr.wisconsin.gov/topic/AirPermits. 

Copies of both documents are included in the 

docket for this rulemaking. 

3 ‘‘Rhinelander, Mosinee Mills Convert from Coal 

to Natural Gas with Multimillion-dollar 

Investment,’’ Becky Jacobs, Wausau Daily Herald, 

published September 25, 2023. A copy of this news 

article is included in the docket. 

4The 2022 and 2023 Air Emissions Inventory 

Summary Reports for the Ahlstrom-Munksjo ̈- 

Rhinelander Mill, published by WDNR, are 

included in the docket and are available on 

WDNR’s website at https://apps.dnr.wi.gov/warp_

ext/AM_PermitTracking2.aspx?id=3002301. 

5Construction and operation of Boiler B40 was 

approved through construction permit 22–MMC– 

035 and operation permit renewal 74400810A–P30, 

both of which include the emission limitations 

applicable to Boiler B40 for particulate matter (PM10

and PM2.5), visible emissions, and NOX. In the 

analysis and preliminary determination, Boiler 

B40’s potential to emit was determined to be 2.19 

tpy PM10, 2.19 tpy PM2.5, 15.8 tpy NOX, and 0.25 

tpy SO2. 

Hatten, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 886–6031 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Charles Hatten, Air and Radiation 

Division (AR–18J), Environmental 

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 

60604, (312) 886–6031, hatten.charles@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Throughout this document whenever 

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

EPA. 

Table of Contents 

I. Background 

II. EPA’s Evaluation of WDNR’s 

Documentation Regarding AhlstromMunksjo ̈-Rhinelander Mill’s Boiler B26 

III. Response to Comments 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

On August 9, 2024, (89 FR 65492), 

EPA proposed to partially approve and 

partially disapprove the Wisconsin 

regional haze SIP revision. In the same 

notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM), 

EPA also proposed to approve the 

Wisconsin regional haze SIP in full if 

WDNR provided evidence that boiler 

B26 at the Ahlstrom-Munksjo ̈- 

Rhinelander Mill had permanently 

ceased operations. A detailed analysis of 

Wisconsin’s plan and EPA’s evaluation 

are contained in the NPRM and will not 

be restated here. 

II. EPA’s Evaluation of WDNR’s 

Documentation Regarding AhlstromMunksjo ̈-Rhinelander Mill’s Boiler B26 

As noted in the NPRM, WDNR 

indicated that the Ahlstrom-Munksjo ̈- 

Rhinelander Mill ceased operation of its 

coal-fired cyclone Boiler B26 in 2022 

and decided to retire it. In its place, the 

facility installed a new natural gas-fired 

Boiler B40 under title I construction 

permit 22–MMC–035, which WDNR 

issued on May 24, 2022.1 The facility’s 

application for construction permit 22– 

MMC–035 stated, ‘‘The facility intends 

to install a new natural gas fired boiler 

and retire its coal fired cyclone 

boiler...with the new boiler (B40) being 

used to meet steam demand in winter 

months.’’ The application described the 

retirement of Boiler B26 as part of a twophased project to retire all coal-fired 

boilers at the Ahlstrom-Munksjo ̈- 

Rhinelander Mill. This plan was 

articulated in 2013 in the preliminary 

determination and analysis for 

construction permit 13–SDD–014, 

which stated that upcoming operational 

changes ‘‘will result in the removal of 

an additional coal fired boiler (B26).’’ 

As noted in the NPRM, WDNR stated 

that the shutdown of Boiler B26 would 

be reflected in an upcoming title V 

operating permit renewal. 

Following the publication of the 

NPRM, on September 17, 2024, WDNR 

issued the renewal for the AhlstromMunksjo ̈-Rhinelander Mill’s operation 

permit. The operation permit 

74400810A–P30 is the renewal of the 

facility’s title V operation permit 

744008100–P22.2 The operation permit 

renewal includes a condition that 

‘‘Operation of coal-fired Boiler B26 is 

prohibited,’’ a condition which became 

effective immediately upon issuance of 

the permit. In Table 2 of the operation 

permit renewal, the status of Boiler B26, 

along with its associated emissions 

stacks S09 and S32, electrostatic 

precipitator C06, baghouse C32, and 

boiler fly ash handling system Process 

P52, are all denoted as ‘‘will no longer 

be operated.’’ As publicly reported,3 the 

shuttering of Boiler B26 allowed the 

Ahlstrom-Munksjo ̈-Rhinelander Mill to 

also eliminate its generation of fly ash. 

The 2022 and 2023 Air Emissions 

Inventory Summary Reports for the 

Ahlstrom-Munksjo ̈-Rhinelander Mill, 

published by WDNR, show that B26 last 

operated in the second quarter of 2022.4

As noted in the NPRM, ‘‘if the 

Ahlstrom-Munksjo ̈-Rhinelander Mill 

were to resume the operation of Boiler 

B26 or replace it with a comparable 

coal-fired boiler after the title V 

operation permit 74400810A–P30 is 

renewed, either boiler would be 

considered a new source and the 

emissions would be limited by WDNR’s 

construction permitting process 

requiring a PSD [Prevention of 

Significant Deterioration] review and 

BACT [Best Available Control 

Technology].’’ 89 FR 65492, 65506 

(August 9, 2024). By issuing the title V 

operation permit renewal 74400810A– 

P30, WDNR revoked the facility’s 

permission to operate Boiler B26, 

specifically, under permit condition 

ZZZ.11, and a revision to the operation 

permit renewal on its own would not 

allow Boiler B26 to recommence 

operation. In order for the facility to 

regain the ability to legally operate 

Boiler B26, WDNR would require the 

Ahlstrom-Munksjo ̈-Rhinelander Mill to 

acquire a new construction permit 

under Wisconsin’s SIP-approved 

construction permitting program. The 

permit application would trigger New 

Source Review and PSD requirements 

under Wisconsin Administrative Code 

NR 405, including BACT, and analyses 

of air quality and air quality impacts. 

EPA finds that Wisconsin has met the 

terms described in EPA’s proposal in 

order to received full approval. In place 

of coal-fired Boiler B26, AhlstromMunksjo ̈-Rhinelander constructed new 

Boiler B40 in 2022 such that it would 

burn natural gas only, using low oxides 

of nitrogen (NOX) burners and flue gas 

recirculation to reduce NOX emissions.5

According to the 2023 Air Emissions 

Summary Inventory Report, emissions 

for Boiler B40 in its first full year of 

operation resulted in 6.84 tons per year 

(tpy) NOX and 0.114 tpy sulfur dioxide 

(SO2). 

Based on the provisions in operation 

permit renewal 74400810A–P30, in 

addition to the information provided in 

WDNR’s analysis, preliminary 

determination, and in the previous 

permitting actions described above, EPA 

finds that Wisconsin has produced 

sufficient evidence that coal-fired 

cyclone Boiler B26 at the AhlstromMunksjo ̈-Rhinelander Mill has 

permanently ceased operation and is 

being decommissioned. Thus, EPA is 

fully approving Wisconsin’s regional 

haze plan as satisfying the regional haze 

requirements for the second 

implementation period. 

The retirement of Boiler B26 at the 

Ahlstrom-Munksjo ̈-Rhinelander Mill 

provides federally enforceable and 

permanent emission reductions from 

one of Wisconsin’s largest sources. 

WDNR initially determined that 

continued operation of Boiler B26, with 

the new limits for SO2 and heat input 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 91271 

6See Section 2.1 of Clarifications Regarding 

Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for the 

Second Implementation Period. EPA Office of Air 

Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle 

Park (July 8, 2021). (2021 Clarifications Memo) 

https://www.epa.gov/system/files/documents/2021- 

07/clarifications-regarding-regional-haze-stateimplementation-plans-for-the-secondimplementation-period.pdf. 

developed under the SO2 attainment 

plan for the Rhinelander area, would 

reduce the potential to emit NOX by 13 

percent and SO2 by 31 percent. Now, 

with the retirement of Boiler B26 and 

the replacement with Boiler B40, the 

2016 emissions from Boiler B26 

compared to the potential to emit for 

Boiler B40 in the analysis and 

preliminary determination demonstrate 

that emissions have been reduced by 99 

percent for NOX and 100 percent for 

SO2. 

The permanent cessation of operation 

of both Boiler B26 and Boiler B11 at the 

Ahlstrom-Munksjo ̈-Kaukauna Mill 

demonstrate additional emission 

reductions during the second 

implementation period than were 

projected in WDNR’s initial SIP 

submittal. Tables 1 and 12 in appendix 

3 of Wisconsin’s submittal compared 

2016 actual emissions with 2028 

projected emissions as if the emissions 

from both boilers continued at the same 

levels from 2016 to 2028. With the 

cessation of operation of coal-fired 

boilers B26 and B11, there are 

additional emission reductions from 

Boiler B26 at the Ahlstrom-Munksjo ̈- 

Rhinelander Mill (1,145 tpy NOX and 

1,596 tpy SO2); and Boiler B11 at 

Ahlstrom-Munksjo ̈-Kaukauna Mill 

(1,070 tpy NOX and 5,213 tpy SO2). 

Accounting for the permanent 

retirement of these two boilers, the 2028 

projected emissions in Table 1 in 

appendix 3 of WDNR’s SIP submittal for 

non-Electric Generating Units (nonEGUs) with an emissions divided by 

distance (Q/d) greater than 1 would be 

adjusted downward from 10,546 tpy to 

8,331 tpy for NOX, and from 15,018 tpy 

to 8,209 tpy for SO2. Compared to the 

total 2016 emissions of 14,094 tpy NOX

and 18,963 tpy SO2 for non-EGUs with 

a Q/d greater than 1 shown in Table 1 

of appendix 3 of WDNR’s SIP submittal, 

the permanent shutdowns represent a 

decrease in emissions of 41 percent NOX

and 57 percent SO2 from 2016 to 2028 

among these non-EGUs. Together with 

the other emission reductions 

chronicled in the NPRM, these 

permanent shutdowns contribute to 

substantial SO2 and NOX emission 

reductions and associated visibility 

improvements for the second 

implementation period at the affected 

Class I areas WDNR identified: Isle 

Royale National Park, Voyageurs 

National Park, Seney Wilderness Area, 

and Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness 

Area. 

III. Response to Comments 

EPA provided a 30-day review and 

comment period in the NPRM. The 

comment period ended September 9, 

2024. We received a total of four 

comments, only two of which were 

substantive. Both substantive comments 

received were from agencies with 

authority as Federal Land Managers 

(FLMs) over Federal Class I Areas: the 

United States Forest Service (USFS) and 

the United States National Park Service 

(NPS). The other two comments 

received were from individuals and 

raised issues that are not relevant to this 

action. Neither of the two comments 

from individuals addressed the specific 

regulation or provision in question or 

recommended a different action on the 

SIP submission from what EPA 

proposed. All comments received are 

included in the rulemaking docket. 

Comments from USFS and NPS are 

summarized and addressed below. 

Comment: NPS stated that 

Wisconsin’s notice to the public of the 

proposed Regional Haze SIP revision 

did not include a summary of the FLMs’ 

conclusions and recommendations as 

required by 42 U.S.C. 7491(d). 

Response: As part of its notice to the 

public on April 29, 2021, WDNR 

included a link to its proposed Regional 

Haze SIP revision that included a 

summary of the FLMs conclusions and 

recommendations, and WDNR’s 

responses to the FLM comments, as well 

as another link to WDNR’s website with 

the FLMs’ full written comments. EPA 

finds that the information that WDNR 

provided in its public notice meets both 

the statutory and regulatory 

requirements. CAA 169A(d) and 40 CFR 

51.308(i)(3). 

Comment: USFS stated that the final 

version of the analysis performed by the 

Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium 

(LADCO), provided in appendix 2 of 

Wisconsin’s SIP submittal, shows that 

Wisconsin is the second largest 

contributing state on the most visibly 

impaired days to the Boundary Waters 

Canoe Area Wilderness. 

Response: EPA acknowledges this 

information. LADCO’s analysis, 

described in appendix 2 of Wisconsin’s 

SIP submittal, modeled projected 

contributions from various sources to 

visibility impacts at the Class I areas in 

2028 based on 2016 emissions. 

LADCO’s modeling projected sources in 

Wisconsin would contribute 0.9 Mm¥ 1

or 2.3 percent to the light extinction at 

the Boundary Waters Canoe Area 

Wilderness on the 20 percent most 

impaired days, ranking Wisconsin 

second among contributions from other 

states. 

Comment: USFS and NPS reiterate 

comments both agencies had provided 

to Wisconsin during the FLM 

consultation period and the state’s 

public comment period regarding 

WDNR’s selection of sources for a fourfactor analysis. In so doing, USFS and 

NPS disagree with EPA’s determination 

that WDNR’s source selection results are 

reasonable. USFS and NPS state that 

Wisconsin’s approach for source 

selection did not identify a sufficient 

number of sources for a four-factor 

analysis. USFS stated that WDNR’s 

approach captured a smaller percentage 

of SO2 and NOX emissions than those of 

other LADCO states. NPS contended 

that WDNR used a visibility impact 

threshold far more lenient than that 

used by other states in EPA’s Region 5 

to identify the affected Class I areas. 

NPS also notes that WDNR cited the 

uniform rate of progress and emissions 

from out-of-state sources as a rationale 

for its source selection process. As such, 

USFS and NPS argue that WDNR’s 

selection, which resulted in the 

identification of three sources for 

further evaluation, was not sufficient. 

During Wisconsin’s public comment 

period, USFS and NPS recommended 

that WDNR select additional facilities 

with a Q/d between 4 and 10 to be 

screened in for a four-factor analysis. 

The facilities USFS and NPS identified 

include: Wisconsin Rapids Paper Mill, 

Catalyst Paper–Biron Mill, Graymont 

Superior, Ahlstrom-Munksjo ̈-Mosinee 

Mill, and Calumet Superior Refinery. 

While WDNR characterized these 

facilities as being ‘‘well controlled,’’ 

USFS and NPS asserted that they are not 

‘‘effectively controlled.’’ USFS and NPS 

suggest that a four-factor analysis at 

these facilities would likely identify 

cost-effective controls. NPS noted that 

EPA’s July 8, 2021, ‘‘Clarifications 

Regarding Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plans for the Second 

Implementation Period’’ (‘‘2021 

Clarifications Memo’’) 6 reinforces the 

requirement under the Regional Haze 

Rule that states must consider selecting 

sources identified by FLMs and either 

perform a four-factor analysis or provide 

a well-reasoned explanation as to why 

the state is choosing not to do so. 

Response: The Regional Haze Rule 

does not require states to consider 

controls for all sources, all source 

categories, or any or all sources in a 

particular source category. Rather, states 

have discretion to choose any source 

selection methodology or threshold that 

is reasonable, provided that the choices 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
91272 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

7See Clarifications Memo at sections 2 and 2.1. 

8See Wisconsin’s July 30, 2021, Regional Haze 

SIP revision submittal, page 13. 

9See Figure 5A and Table 12, as well as Tables 

1 and 2 of appendix 3 of Wisconsin’s July 30, 2021, 

Regional Haze SIP submittal. 10Catalyst Paper–Biron Mill’s 2017 Air Emissions 

Inventory Summary Report is included in the 

docket and is available on WDNR’s website. 11Cardinal FG–Menominee’s 2021 Air Emissions 

Inventory Summary Report is included in the 

docket and is available on WDNR’s website. 12 Guidance on Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plans for the Second 

Implementation Period. https://www.epa.gov/ 

visibility/guidance-regional-haze-stateimplementation-plans-second-implementationperiod EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 

Standards, Research Triangle Park (August 20, 

2019). 

they make are reasonably explained and 

produce a reasonable outcome.7 To this 

end, 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(i) requires that 

a state’s SIP submission include ‘‘a 

description of the criteria it used to 

determine which sources or groups of 

sources it evaluated.’’ The technical 

basis for source selection must also be 

appropriately documented, as required 

by 40 CFR 51.308(f)(2)(iii). 

WDNR reasonably explained its 

criteria and the technical basis for its 

process to select units with a Q/d 

greater than 10 for a potential four-factor 

analysis as well as its reasoning for not 

selecting facilities identified by the 

FLMs with a Q/d between 4 and 10. 

Additionally, WDNR’s approach 

resulted in a reasonable outcome, 

identifying the units with the greatest 

potential to impair visibility at Class I 

areas, as discussed below. 

WDNR first considered the Class I 

areas affected during the second 

implementation period. Although NPS 

contends that WDNR used a more 

lenient visibility impact threshold than 

other states in EPA’s Region 5, 

Wisconsin’s approach was consistent 

with the 2 percent light extinction 

threshold LADCO identified with its 

2028 source apportionment modeling as 

accounting for 92 percent or more of the 

total light extinction applied to all six 

LADCO states as well as seven other 

states on the most impaired days. Using 

the 2 percent threshold, WDNR 

determined that Wisconsin emissions in 

the second implementation period 

impact visibility impairment at Isle 

Royale National Park, Seney Wilderness 

Area, and Boundary Waters Canoe 

Wilderness Area. Additionally, WDNR 

included Voyageurs National Park as a 

carryover from the first implementation 

period even though LADCO’s 2028 

projections estimated Wisconsin’s 

contribution to total light extinction 

there as 1 percent. As to Wisconsin’s 

impact on other Class I areas, WDNR 

explained that LADCO’s 2028 source 

apportionment modeling identified 

Wisconsin as contributing to the total 

light extinction at 42 other Class I areas, 

however, at levels less than the 2 

percent threshold. As such, WDNR 

noted that Wisconsin did not receive 

any requests to engage in interstate 

consultation for the second 

implementation period.8

After considering the Class I areas 

affected during the second 

implementation period, WDNR chose a 

Q/d threshold of 10 based on identifying 

a significant gap between the largest 

four units with a Q/d ranging from 11 

to 22 and the remaining 41 units, all 

with a Q/d of 6.1 or less.9 For nonEGUs, all but two units were below a Q/ 

d of 4. Since 2016, both units have 

instituted control measures and now 

have a Q/d far less than 4. These two 

non-EGUs are Catalyst Paper–Biron 

Boiler B23, which switched to natural 

gas in 2017, reducing SO2 emissions 

from 2,506 tpy in 2016 to 0.1115 tpy in 

2017; 10 and Cardinal FG–Menominee 

Boiler P01, which installed selective 

catalytic reduction in 2020, reducing 

NOX emissions from 1,574 tpy in 2016 

to 190 tpy in 2021.11 For EGUs, there 

were three units with a Q/d between 4 

and 10, none of which were on the 

FLMs’ list: Alliant Energy–Columbia 

Power Plant, B21 and B22, as well as JP 

Madgett, B25. Of the units remaining on 

the FLMs’ list above, all but one have 

a unit Q/d less than 3.4. For AhlstromMunksjo ̈-Mosinee Mill, Unit B20 has a 

Q/d of 4.2, while all other units are 

below a Q/d of 1.2. For both Graymont 

Superior and Calumet Superior 

Refinery, all units are below a Q/d of 

1.8. For Wisconsin Rapids, all units are 

below a Q/d of 3.4, and the FLMs 

acknowledged that the facility has been 

idled indefinitely, suggesting it be 

evaluated at the time a decision is made 

to restart it. 

Although these units mentioned in 

the paragraph above were below 

Wisconsin’s Q/d threshold of 10, WDNR 

addressed them in its July 30, 2021, SIP 

submittal because they were flagged by 

the FLMs. WDNR characterized them as 

‘‘well controlled,’’ providing 

information on their control measures 

and emissions limits within the 

applicable title V operating permits. 

Notwithstanding this information, USFS 

and NPS contend that those units are 

not ‘‘effectively controlled,’’ a term 

described in EPA’s ‘‘Guidance on 

Regional Haze State Implementation 

Plans for the Second Implementation 

Period’’ (‘‘2019 Guidance’’) 12 and 2021 

Clarifications Memo. The 2019 

Guidance and 2021 Clarifications Memo 

explain, ‘‘[A] source that otherwise 

would undergo a four-factor analysis 

(e.g., because it exceeds a threshold or 

emissions divided by distance or Q/d, 

visibility, or other source-selection 

threshold) may forgo a full four-factor 

analysis if it is already ‘effectively 

controlled.’ ’’ See Section 2.3 of the 2021 

Clarifications Memo. However, none of 

the additional units identified by the 

FLMs were excluded by WNDR from a 

four-factor analysis because they were 

‘‘effectively controlled’’. Rather, the 

additional units identified by the FLMs 

were excluded from consideration 

because they did not exceed WDNR’s 

source selection threshold. Therefore, 

pursuant to WDNR’s source selection 

criteria, which EPA is determining is 

reasonable, they are not sources that 

would need to be considered by WDNR 

for a four-factor analysis or a 

determination of whether existing 

measures at the units are necessary for 

reasonable progress. 

EPA agrees that Wisconsin examined 

a reasonable set of sources by choosing 

criteria that would focus on the largest 

sources having the greatest potential to 

impair visibility at Class I areas. 

Additionally, WDNR’s threshold, based 

on unit Q/d rather than facility-wide Q/ 

d, is appropriate in Wisconsin’s case 

since any new control measures would 

be initiated on a unit-by-unit basis, 

rather than a facility-wide basis. In sum, 

EPA is determining that the WDNR’s 

decision to only select units with a Q/ 

d greater than 10 was reasonable in this 

case. While NPS raised concerns that 

WDNR cited the uniform rate of 

progress and emissions from out-of-state 

sources in describing its source 

selection process, EPA’s determination 

is based on the reasoning provided 

above, which was further elaborated 

upon in the NPRM. Thus, Wisconsin’s 

regional haze plan has satisfied the 

regional haze requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(i) regarding the sources it 

selected to evaluate and determine the 

potential emission reduction measures 

necessary to make reasonable progress 

during the second implementation 

period. 

Comment: USFS commented that 

WDNR’s decision to not require 

technically feasible and cost-effective 

emission controls identified through the 

four-factor analyses for the AhlstromMunksjo ̈-Kaukauna and Rhinelander 

Mills deserves scrutiny because of 

potential implications for other paper 

mills mentioned in WDNR’s 2021 

Regional Haze submittal. Regardless of 

the switch to natural gas and 

retirements of coal-fired boilers, USFS 

notes that WDNR’s line of reasoning 

referenced the universal rate of progress, 

emission reductions from other point 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 91273 

sources, and the impact on a facility’s 

profit margin. USFS maintains that this 

approach is not consistent with the 2019 

Guidance and 2021 Clarifications 

Memo. 

Response: The other paper mills 

mentioned in WDNR’s 2021 Regional 

Haze SIP submittal were not selected 

during WDNR’s source selection 

process. These include the Wisconsin 

Rapids Paper Mill, Catalyst Paper— 

Biron Mill, Georgia-Pacific Broadway 

Street Paper Mill, and AhlstromMunksjo ̈-Mosinee. WDNR’s 

determinations of control measures 

necessary for reasonable progress were 

specific to the Ahlstrom-Munksjo ̈- 

Kaukauna and Rhinelander Mills, not 

other sources that were not selected for 

further evaluation. As noted in the 

NPRM, although WDNR evaluated addon controls, WDNR found that 

Ahlstrom-Munksjo ̈-Kaukauna and 

Rhinelander Mills’ retirement of coalfired boilers constituted the emissions 

reduction measures that are necessary 

for reasonable progress for the two units 

at these two facilities. Aside from 

WDNR’s statements regarding the 

universal rate of progress, emission 

reductions from other sources, and 

profit margins, EPA is determining, 

based on the reasons above and further 

elaborated in the NPRM, that Wisconsin 

has satisfied the requirements of 40 CFR 

51.308(f)(2)(i) related to evaluating and 

determining the emission reduction 

measures that are necessary to make 

reasonable progress by applying the four 

statutory factors to sources in a control 

analysis. 

Comment: USFS raised concerns 

regarding the lack of Federal 

enforceability for the publicly 

announced shutdowns that had not yet 

occurred for the Alliant Energy– 

Columbia Power Plant and Alliant 

Energy–Edgewater. USFS noted, 

‘‘Relying on public announcements has 

already been problematic as can be seen 

by the shifting shutdown dates for 

Columbia, Edgewater, and Oak Creek.’’ 

Response: As described in the NPRM, 

WDNR did not rely on the publicly 

announced shutdowns of the Alliant 

Energy–Columbia Power Plant, Alliant 

Energy–Edgewater, or We Energies–Oak 

Creek Power Plant for reasonable 

progress. 

For the Alliant Energy–Columbia 

Power Plant, both B21 and B22 each had 

a Q/d of 6, which was below WDNR’s 

source selection threshold. WDNR 

identified the existing control measures 

in place and noted that the planned 

shutdown in 2025 was not relied upon 

by LADCO’s modeling in assessing 

visibility impacts. As explained above, 

EPA finds WDNR’s approach to source 

selection based on a Q/d of 10 is 

reasonable, so making the planned 

shutdown of B21 and B22 federally 

enforceable would not be considered 

necessary for reasonable progress in the 

second implementation period. 

WDNR also did not rely on the 

publicly announced shutdown of 

Alliant Energy–Edgewater’s Boiler B25 

for reasonable progress. With a Q/d of 

11, WDNR selected Boiler B25 at Alliant 

Energy–Edgewater for further analysis 

since it exceeded WDNR’s Q/d 

threshold of 10. As noted in the NPRM, 

WDNR explained its decision to forgo a 

full four-factor analysis on the basis that 

the existing controls for Boiler B25 are 

effective and not necessary for 

reasonable progress. ‘‘With the 

combination of recently installed SO2

and NOX controls along with limits in 

the Federal consent decree that ensure 

emission rates will not increase, 

including an SO2 limit well below the 

SO2 limit of 0.2 pounds per million 

British thermal units (lbs/MMBtu) in the 

Mercury and Air Toxics Standards 

(MATS) rule for coal-fired EGUs, WDNR 

determined the existing measures are 

not necessary to make reasonable 

progress or prevent future emission 

increases and, thus, do not need to be 

included in the regulatory portion of the 

SIP.’’ 89 FR 65492, 65505, August 9, 

2024. WDNR’s determination is 

consistent with section 2.3 of the 2021 

Clarifications Memo as discussed above. 

For We Energies–Oak Creek Power 

Plant, the planned retirements are 

discussed in response to the comment 

below. 

Comment: USFS questioned the 

Federal enforceability of various control 

measures at the following facilities: We 

Energies—Oak Creek Power Plant, 

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation— 

Weston Power Plant, and AhlstromMunksjo ̈—Kaukauna Mill. For both We 

Energies—Oak Creek Power Plant and 

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation— 

Weston Power Plant, USFS asked for 

confirmation of federally enforceable 

shutdown dates at both plants. For 

Ahlstrom-Munksjo ̈—Kaukauna Mill, 

USFS questioned the Federal 

enforceability of the fuel switch to 

natural gas for Boiler B09. In addition, 

USFS indicated that although emission 

reductions from these facilities were not 

relied upon in LADCO’s 2028 modeling 

for assessing visibility impacts, whether 

or not a certain emission reduction is 

accounted for in LADCO’s modeling has 

no relevance to whether or not it would 

be considered ‘‘surplus’’ and does not, 

in and of itself, make it federally 

enforceable and permanent. 

Response: None of the units at We 

Energies—Oak Creek Power Plant and 

Wisconsin Public Service Corporation— 

Weston Power Plant nor Boiler B09 at 

Ahlstrom-Munksjo ̈—Kaukauna Mill 

were identified during WDNR’s source 

selection process as having a Q/d greater 

than 10. For the reasons discussed 

above, EPA proposed to approve 

Wisconsin’s approach for units with a 

Q/d less than 10, which did not pursue 

a demonstration of existing effective 

controls as described in the 2019 

Guidance or determine, for example, 

that permanent and federally 

enforceable shutdowns or other 

measures would be required for 

reasonable progress. 

WDNR did not rely on the planned 

shutdowns at We Energies—Oak Creek 

Power Plant and Wisconsin Public 

Service Corporation—Weston Power 

Plant or the conversion to natural gas for 

B09 at Ahlstrom-Munksjo ̈—Kaukauna 

Mill as a reason to exclude these units 

from four-factor analyses. However, 

recent and upcoming shutdowns of 

these units provide additional support 

for WNDR’s decision making and 

further emissions reductions, as well as 

insight into the potential reduction in 

visibility impairment that was not 

accounted for in LADCO’s 2028 

modeled projections. For We Energies— 

Oak Creek Power Plant, WDNR listed 

six boilers under Table 1 of appendix 3 

of their submittal and indicated that 

four would be retired by 2025: B25, B26, 

B27, and B28. For Wisconsin Public 

Service Corporation Weston—Power 

Plant, WDNR listed 12 units under 

Table A2–1 of appendix 2 of their 

submittal and indicated the following 8 

units are projected to have zero 

emissions in 2028: B02, B12, B13, F24, 

F26, P36, P43, and P56. For AhlstromMunksjo ̈—Kaukauna Mill Boiler B09, 

WDNR’s four-factor analysis noted that 

the unit switched to natural gas in 2016, 

and the federally enforceable title V 

operation permit 44503118A–P30 

referenced in the NPRM reflects the 

permit modification that has been in 

effect since 2016, stating, ‘‘The 

permittee shall only burn natural gas in 

Boiler B09.’’ 

Comment: USFS requested a 

correction to Footnote 31 in the NPRM 

to clarify that Rainbow Lake Wilderness 

is within the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, not within the U.S. 

Department of Interior. See 89 FR 

65501, August 9, 2024. 

Response: Footnote 31 in the NPRM 

explains that Rainbow Lake Wilderness 

Area did not meet the criteria 

established by the Department of 

Interior to identify visibility as an 

important value there. See 44 FR 69122, 

November 30, 1979. CAA section 

169A(a)(2) assigns the Department of the 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
91274 Federal Register / Vol. 89, No. 223 / Tuesday, November 19, 2024 / Rules and Regulations 

Interior (in consultation with other 

FLMs) the responsibility to identify 

Class I areas where visibility is an 

important value. Therefore, the footnote 

accurately reflects the determination 

made by rulemaking in 1979, and no 

correction to Footnote 31 is needed. 

EPA acknowledges that Rainbow Lake 

Wilderness Area is a mandatory Class I 

Federal area managed by the USFS as an 

agency within the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture. 

After considering the FLMs’ 

comments, EPA finds that nothing in 

the comments warrants a change to 

EPA’s proposed action. Therefore, EPA 

is finalizing its approval of the 

Wisconsin SIP submission for the 

second planning period. 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

In consideration of the documentation 

from WDNR that coal-fired Boiler B26 at 

the Ahlstrom-Munksjo ̈—Rhinelander 

Mill has permanently ceased operation 

and is being decommissioned, EPA is 

approving the Regional Haze SIP 

revision submitted by WDNR on July 30, 

2021, as satisfying the regional haze 

requirements for the second 

implementation period contained in 40 

CFR 51.308(f). 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 

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

Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, 

EPA’s role is to approve State choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves State law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by State law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget under 

Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993), and 14094 (88 FR 

21879, April 11, 2023); 

• 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 subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) 

because it approves a State program; 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); and 

• 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. 

In addition, the SIP is not approved 

to apply on any Indian reservation land 

or in any other area where EPA or an 

Indian tribe has demonstrated that a 

tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of 

Indian country, the rule does not have 

Tribal implications and will not impose 

substantial direct costs on Tribal 

governments or preempt Tribal law as 

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 

FR 67249, November 9, 2000). 

Executive Order 12898 (Federal 

Actions To Address Environmental 

Justice in Minority Populations and 

Low-Income Populations, 59 FR 7629, 

February 16, 1994) directs Federal 

agencies to identify and address 

‘‘disproportionately high and adverse 

human health or environmental effects’’ 

of their actions on communities with 

environmental justice (EJ) concerns to 

the greatest extent practicable and 

permitted by law. Executive Order 

14096 (Revitalizing Our Nation’s 

Commitment to Environmental Justice 

for All, 88 FR 25251, April 26, 2023) 

builds on and supplements E.O. 12898 

and defines EJ as, among other things, 

the just treatment and meaningful 

involvement of all people, regardless of 

income, race, color, national origin, or 

Tribal affiliation, or disability in agency 

decision-making and other Federal 

activities that affect human health and 

the environment.’’ 

Wisconsin did not evaluate EJ 

considerations as part of its SIP 

submittal; the CAA and applicable 

implementing regulations neither 

prohibit nor require such an evaluation. 

EPA did not perform an EJ analysis and 

did not consider EJ in this action. Due 

to the nature of the action being taken 

here, this action is expected to have a 

neutral to positive impact on the air 

quality of the affected area. 

Consideration of EJ is not required as 

part of this action, and there is no 

information in the record inconsistent 

with the stated goal of E.O. 12898/14096 

of achieving EJ for communities with EJ 

concerns. 

This action is subject to the 

Congressional Review Act, and EPA will 

submit a rule report to each House of 

the Congress and to the Comptroller 

General of the United States. This action 

is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 

U.S.C. 804(2). 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by January 21, 2025. 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, Ozone, Particulate 

matter, Sulfur oxides. 

Dated: November 12, 2024. 

Debra Shore, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, title 40 CFR part 52 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 52—APPROVAL AND 

PROMULGATION OF 

IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

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

■ 2. Section 52.2593 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c) to read as follows: 

§ 52.2593 Visibility protection. 

* * * * * 

(c) Approval. Wisconsin submitted its 

regional haze plan for the second 

implementation period to EPA on July 

30, 2021. The Wisconsin regional haze 

plan meets the requirements of Clean 

Air Act sections 169A and 169B and the 

Regional Haze Rule in 40 CFR 51.308. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2024–26833 Filed 11–18–24; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1