```

[Federal Register Volume 89, Number 223 (Tuesday, November 19, 2024)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 91269-91274]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2024-26833]

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

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

[[Page 91270]]

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, 
[email protected].

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 Ahlstrom-
Munksj[ouml]-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-Munksj[ouml]-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 Ahlstrom-
Munksj[ouml]-Rhinelander Mill's Boiler B26

    As noted in the NPRM, WDNR indicated that the Ahlstrom-
Munksj[ouml]-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 two-phased project to retire 
all coal-fired boilers at the Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml]-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Following the publication of the NPRM, on September 17, 2024, WDNR 
issued the renewal for the Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml]-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-Munksj[ouml]-Rhinelander Mill to 
also eliminate its generation of fly ash. The 2022 and 2023 Air 
Emissions Inventory Summary Reports for the Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml]-
Rhinelander Mill, published by WDNR, show that B26 last operated in the 
second quarter of 2022.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ On August 2, 2024, WDNR provided notice to the public of the 
draft proposed operation permit 74400810A-P30 for the Ahlstrom-
Munksj[ouml]-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.
    \4\ The 2022 and 2023 Air Emissions Inventory Summary Reports 
for the Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml]-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    As noted in the NPRM, ``if the Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml]-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-Munksj[ouml]-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, Ahlstrom-
Munksj[ouml]-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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Construction 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml]-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-Munksj[ouml]-
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

[[Page 91271]]

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-Munksj[ouml]-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-Munksj[ouml]-Rhinelander 
Mill (1,145 tpy NOX and 1,596 tpy SO2); and 
Boiler B11 at Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml]-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 (non-EGUs) 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 four-factor 
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-Munksj[ouml]-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ See 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-state-implementation-plans-for-the-second-implementation-period.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 91272]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ See Clarifications Memo at sections 2 and 2.1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ See Wisconsin's July 30, 2021, Regional Haze SIP revision 
submittal, page 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 non-EGUs, 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 Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml]-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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See 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.
    \10\ Catalyst Paper-Biron Mill's 2017 Air Emissions Inventory 
Summary Report is included in the docket and is available on WDNR's 
website.
    \11\ Cardinal FG-Menominee's 2021 Air Emissions Inventory 
Summary Report is included in the docket and is available on WDNR's 
website.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ Guidance on Regional Haze State Implementation Plans for 
the Second Implementation Period. https://www.epa.gov/visibility/guidance-regional-haze-state-implementation-plans-second-implementation-period EPA Office of Air Quality Planning and 
Standards, Research Triangle Park (August 20, 2019).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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 Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml]-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

[[Page 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 
Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml]-Mosinee. WDNR's determinations of control 
measures necessary for reasonable progress were specific to the 
Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml]-Kaukauna and Rhinelander Mills, not other sources 
that were not selected for further evaluation. As noted in the NPRM, 
although WDNR evaluated add-on controls, WDNR found that Ahlstrom-
Munksj[ouml]-Kaukauna and Rhinelander Mills' retirement of coal-fired 
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 Ahlstrom-Munksj[ouml]--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-Munksj[ouml]--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-Munksj[ouml]--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-
Munksj[ouml]--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 Ahlstrom-
Munksj[ouml]--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

[[Page 91274]]

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-Munksj[ouml]--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

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

0
2. Section 52.2593 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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
```