Document ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0059-0011
Agency: epa
Document Type: Rule
Title: Final Approval of the Wisconsin Regional Haze SIP
Posted Date: 2012-08-07T04:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 152 (Tuesday, August 7, 2012)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46952-46959]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-19137]

=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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 Georgia-Pacific 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 Georgia-Pacific 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

[[Page 46953]]

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 long-term 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-
by-source 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 source-specific 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. Sec.  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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Section 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    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

[[Page 46954]]

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

[[Page 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 Georgia-Pacific'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 non-BART 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 non-
operational 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 
Georgia-Pacific 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 Georgia-Pacific 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

[[Page 46956]]

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 Georgia-Pacific 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-
and-match 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.''

[[Page 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.

[[Page 46958]]

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 
Georgia-Pacific ``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,

[[Page 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 Georgia-Pacific 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]

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

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

0
2. Section 52.2570 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(124) to read as 
follows:

Sec.  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 Georgia-
Pacific 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