[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11928-11937]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-4688]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2012-0059; FRL-9638-9]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Wisconsin; Regional Haze

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the Wisconsin State Implementation 
Plan addressing regional haze for the first implementation period. 
Wisconsin submitted its regional haze plan on January 18, 2012. The 
Wisconsin regional haze plan addresses Clean Air Act (CAA) and Regional 
Haze Rule (RHR) requirements to remedy any existing and prevent future 
anthropogenic visibility impairment at mandatory Class I areas, notably 
including establishing limits requiring Best Available Retrofit 
Technology (BART) for the Georgia-Pacific facility in Green Bay. We are 
proposing to approve fully the Wisconsin regional haze plan.

DATES: Comments must be received on or before March 29, 2012.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2012-0059, by one of the following methods:
    1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
    2. Email: [email protected].
    3. Fax: (312) 692-2450.
    4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 
Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, Chief, Control Strategies 
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such 
deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office normal hours of 
operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information. The Regional Office official hours of business are 
Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding Federal 
holidays.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. EPA-R05-OAR-
2012-0059. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included 
in the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
www.regulations.gov, including any personal information provided, 
unless the comment includes information claimed to be Confidential 
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through www.regulations.gov or email. The 
www.regulations.gov Web site is an ``anonymous access'' system, which 
means EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an email comment 
directly to EPA without going through www.regulations.gov, your email 
address will be automatically captured and included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on the 
Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that you 
include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses. For additional 
instructions on submitting comments, go to section I of the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this document.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 
www.regulations.gov index. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, e.g., CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, will be publicly available only in hard copy. 
Publicly

[[Page 11929]]

available docket materials are available either electronically in 
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is open from 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding Federal holidays. 
We recommend that you telephone Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, at 
(312) 886-6524 before visiting the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt Rau, Environmental Engineer, 
Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6524, [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?
III. What are the requirements for regional haze State 
Implementation Plans?
IV. What is EPA's analysis of Wisconsin's regional haze plan?
V. What action is EPA taking?
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

    When submitting comments, remember to:
    1. Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying 
information (subject heading, Federal Register date and page number).
    2. Follow directions--EPA may ask you to respond to specific 
questions or organize comments by referencing a Code of Federal 
Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    3. Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives and 
substitute language for your requested changes.
    4. Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information 
and/or data that you used.
    5. If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you 
arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    6. Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.
    7. Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of 
profanity or personal threats.
    8. Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline 
identified.

II. What is the background for EPA's proposed action?

A. The Regional Haze Problem

    Regional haze is visibility impairment that is produced by a 
multitude of sources and activities located across a broad geographic 
area and that emit fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, 
nitrates, organic particles, elemental carbon, and soil dust) and its 
precursors--sulfur dioxide (SO2), nitrogen oxides 
(NOX), and in some cases ammonia (NH3) and 
volatile organic compound (VOCs). Fine particle precursors react in the 
atmosphere to form fine particulate matter. Aerosol PM2.5 
impairs visibility by scattering and absorbing light. Visibility 
impairment reduces the clarity and distance one can see. 
PM2.5 can also cause serious health effects and mortality in 
humans and contributes to environmental effects such as acid deposition 
and eutrophication.
    Data from the existing visibility monitoring network, the 
``Interagency Monitoring of Protected Visual Environments'' (IMPROVE) 
monitoring network, show that visibility impairment caused by air 
pollution occurs virtually all the time at most national park and 
wilderness areas. The average visual range, the distance at which an 
object is barely discernable, in many Class I areas \1\ in the Western 
United States is 100-150 kilometers. That is about one-half to two-
thirds of the visual range that would exist without anthropogenic air 
pollution. In the Eastern and Midwestern Class I areas of the United 
States, the average visual range is generally less than 30 kilometers, 
or about one-fifth of the visual range that would exist under estimated 
natural conditions. See 64 FR 35715 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres, and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). 
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation 
with the Department of the Interior, promulgated a list of 156 areas 
where visibility is identified as an important value. 44 FR 69122 
(November 30, 1979). The extent of a mandatory Class I area includes 
subsequent changes in boundaries, such as park expansions. 42 U.S.C. 
7472(a). Although states and tribes may designate as Class I 
additional areas which they consider to have visibility as an 
important value, the requirements of the visibility program set 
forth in section 169A of the CAA apply only to ``mandatory Class I 
Federal areas.'' Each mandatory Class I Federal area is the 
responsibility of a Federal Land Manager. 42 U.S.C. 7602(i). When we 
use the term ``Class I area,'' we mean a ``mandatory Class I Federal 
area.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

B. Requirements of the CAA and EPA's RHR

    In section 169A of the 1977 Amendments to the CAA, Congress created 
a program for protecting visibility in the nation's national parks and 
wilderness areas. This section of the CAA establishes as a national 
goal the ``prevention of any future, and the remedying of any existing, 
impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas which 
impairment results from manmade air pollution.'' On December 2, 1980, 
EPA promulgated regulations to address visibility impairment in Class I 
areas that is ``reasonably attributable'' to a single source or small 
group of sources known as ``reasonably attributable visibility 
impairment'' (RAVI). 45 FR 80084. These regulations represented the 
first phase in addressing visibility impairment. EPA deferred action on 
regional haze that emanates from a variety of sources until monitoring, 
modeling, and scientific knowledge about the relationships between 
pollutants and visibility impairment were improved.
    Congress added section 169B to the CAA in 1990 to address regional 
haze issues. EPA promulgated a rule to address regional haze, the RHR, 
on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 35713). The RHR revised the existing visibility 
regulations to integrate into the regulation provisions addressing 
regional haze impairment and established a comprehensive visibility 
protection program for Class I areas. The requirements for regional 
haze, found at 40 CFR 51.308 and 51.309, are included in EPA's 
visibility protection regulations at 40 CFR 51.300-309. Some of the 
main elements of the regional haze requirements are summarized in 
section III, below. The requirement to submit a regional haze state 
implementation plan (SIP) applies to all 50 states, the District of 
Columbia, and the Virgin Islands.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Albuquerque/Bernalillo County in New Mexico must also submit 
a regional haze SIP to completely satisfy the requirements of 
section 110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA for the State of New Mexico under 
the New Mexico Air Quality Control Act (section 74-2-4).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require 
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments, and 
various Federal agencies. Pollution affecting the air quality in Class 
I areas can be transported over long distances, even hundreds of 
kilometers. Therefore, effectively addressing the problem of

[[Page 11930]]

visibility impairment in Class I areas means that states need to 
develop coordinated strategies that take into account the effect of 
emissions from one jurisdiction on the air quality in another state.
    EPA has encouraged the states and tribes to address visibility 
impairment from a regional perspective because the pollutants that lead 
to regional haze can originate from sources located across broad 
geographic areas. Five regional planning organizations (RPOs) were 
developed to address regional haze and related issues. The RPOs first 
evaluated technical information to better understand how their states 
and tribes impact Class I areas across the country and then pursued the 
development of regional strategies to reduce PM2.5 emissions 
and other pollutants leading to regional haze.
    The RPO for Wisconsin is the Midwest RPO (MRPO). The MRPO member 
states are Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and Wisconsin. The MRPO 
also included tribes and Federal land management agencies on 
discussions of regional haze and visibility in the Midwest.

D. The Relationship of the Clean Air Interstate Rule and the Cross-
State Air Pollution Rule to Regional Haze Requirements

    The Clean Air Interstate Rule (CAIR) required some states to reduce 
emissions of SO2 and NOX that contribute to 
violations of the 1997 National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) 
for PM2.5 and ozone. 70 FR 25162 (May 12, 2005). CAIR 
established emissions budgets for SO2 and NOX. A 
2006 EPA determination (71 FR 60612, October 13, 2006) establishes that 
states opting to participate in the CAIR program need not require Best 
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) for SO2 and 
NOX at BART-eligible electric generating units (EGUs). Many 
states relied on CAIR as an alternative to BART for SO2 and 
NOX for their subject EGUs.
    CAIR was later found to be inconsistent with the requirements of 
the CAA and the rule was remanded to EPA. See North Carolina v. EPA, 
550 F.3d 1176 (DC Cir. 2008). The court left CAIR in place until 
replaced by EPA with a rule consistent with its opinion. See North 
Carolina v. EPA, 550 F.3d at 1178.
    EPA promulgated the Cross-State Air Pollution Rule (CSAPR), to 
replace CAIR in 2011 (76 FR 48208, August 8, 2011). Wisconsin is 
subject to the requirements of CSAPR.
    In CSAPR, EPA noted that it had not conducted a technical analysis 
at that time to determine whether compliance with CSAPR would satisfy 
the requirements of the RHR addressing alternatives to BART. EPA has 
since conducted such an analysis and proposed on December 30, 2011 (76 
FR 2219), that compliance with CSAPR will provide for greater 
reasonable progress toward improving visibility than source-specific 
BART controls for EGUs located in those states covered by CSAPR. On 
that same day, the DC Circuit issued an order addressing the status of 
CSAPR and CAIR in response to motions filed by numerous parties seeking 
a stay of CSAPR pending judicial review. In that order, the DC Circuit 
stayed CSAPR pending the court's resolutions of the petitions for 
review of that rule in EME Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11-1302 
and consolidated cases). The court also indicated that EPA is expected 
to continue to administer CAIR in the interim until the court rules on 
the petitions for review of CSAPR.
    On January 18, 2012, Wisconsin made two submissions constituting 
its regional haze plan. Wisconsin's plan includes a statement that it 
wishes to rely on CSAPR to satisfy the BART requirements for 
SO2 and NOX for EGUs in the state.

III. What are the requirements for regional haze State Implementation 
Plans?

    Regional haze SIPs must assure reasonable progress towards the 
national goal of achieving natural visibility conditions in Class I 
areas, the reasonable progress goal (RPG). Section 169A of the CAA and 
EPA's implementing regulations require states to establish long-term 
strategies for making reasonable progress toward meeting the RPG. Plans 
must also give specific attention to certain stationary sources that 
were in existence on August 7, 1977, but were not in operation before 
August 7, 1962, and require those sources to install BART to reduce 
visibility impairment. The specific regional haze SIP requirements are 
discussed in further detail below.

A. Determination of Baseline, Natural, and Current Visibility 
Conditions

    The RHR establishes the deciview (dv) as the principal metric or 
unit for expressing visibility impairment. This visibility metric 
expresses uniform proportional changes in haziness in terms of common 
increments across the entire range of visibility conditions, from 
pristine to extremely hazy conditions. Visibility expressed in 
deciviews is determined by using air quality measurements to estimate 
light extinction and then transforming the value of light extinction 
using a logarithm function. Thus, a change in visibility by one 
deciview reflects a fixed proportion by which visibility changes, 
irrespective of the baseline from which the change occurred. Most 
people can detect a change in visibility at one deciview.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The preamble to the RHR provides additional details about 
the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 (July 1, 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The deciview is used in expressing RPGs, defining baseline, 
current, and natural conditions, and tracking changes in visibility. 
The regional haze SIPs must contain measures that ensure ``reasonable 
progress'' toward the national goal of preventing and remedying 
visibility impairment in Class I areas caused by anthropogenic air 
pollution. The national goal is a return to natural conditions such 
that anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no longer impair 
visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I 
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437) and as part 
of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must 
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I 
area at the time each regional haze SIP is submitted and at the 
progress review every five years, midway through each 10-year 
implementation period. The RHR requires states with Class I areas 
(Class I states) to determine the degree of impairment in deciviews for 
the average of the 20 percent least impaired (best) and 20 percent most 
impaired (worst) visibility days over a specified time period at each 
of its Class I areas. Each state must also develop an estimate of 
natural visibility conditions for the purpose of comparing progress 
toward the national goal. Natural visibility is determined by 
estimating the natural concentrations of pollutants that cause 
visibility impairment and then calculating total light extinction based 
on those estimates. EPA has provided guidance to states regarding how 
to calculate baseline, natural, and current visibility conditions in 
documents titled, EPA's Guidance for Estimating Natural Visibility 
Conditions under the Regional Haze Rule, September 2003, (EPA-454/B-03-
005 located at http://www.epa.gov/ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/rh_envcurhr_gd.pdf) (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Natural Visibility 
Guidance'') and Guidance for Tracking Progress Under the Regional Haze 
Rule (EPA-454/B-03-004 September 2003 located at http://www.epa.gov/
ttncaaa1/t1/memoranda/

[[Page 11931]]

rh--tpurhr--gd.pdf)) (hereinafter referred to as ``EPA's 2003 Tracking 
Progress Guidance'').
    For the first regional haze SIP, which was due December 17, 2007, 
the ``baseline visibility conditions'' were the starting points for 
assessing ``current'' visibility impairment. Baseline visibility 
conditions represent the degree of visibility impairment for the 20 
percent best days and 20 percent worst days for each calendar year from 
2000 to 2004. Using monitoring data for 2000 through 2004, states are 
required to calculate the average degree of visibility impairment for 
each Class I area, based on the average of annual values over the five-
year period. The comparison of initial baseline visibility conditions 
to natural visibility conditions indicates the amount of improvement 
necessary to attain natural visibility, while comparisons of future 
conditions against baseline conditions will indicate the amount of 
progress made. In general, the 2000 to 2004 baseline period is 
considered the time from which improvement in visibility is measured.

B. Determination of Reasonable Progress Goals

    The vehicle for ensuring continuing progress towards achieving the 
natural visibility goal is the submission of a series of regional haze 
SIPs from the states that establish two distinct RPGs, one for the best 
days and one for the worst days for every Class I area for each 
approximately 10-year implementation period. The RHR does not mandate 
specific milestones or rates of progress, but instead calls for states 
to establish goals that provide for ``reasonable progress'' toward 
achieving natural visibility conditions. In setting RPGs, a state with 
a mandatory Class I area (Class I state) must provide for an 
improvement in visibility for the worst days over the approximately 10-
year period of the SIP and ensure no degradation in visibility for the 
best days.
    Class I states have significant discretion in establishing RPGs, 
but are required to consider the following factors established in 
section 169A of the CAA and in EPA's RHR at 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(i)(A): 
(1) The costs of compliance; (2) the time necessary for compliance; (3) 
the energy and non-air quality environmental impacts of compliance; and 
(4) the remaining useful life of any potentially affected sources. The 
states must demonstrate in their SIPs how these factors are considered 
when selecting the RPGs for the best and worst days for each applicable 
Class I area. See EPA's Guidance for Setting Reasonable Progress Goals 
under the Regional Haze Program, (``EPA's Reasonable Progress 
Guidance''), July 1, 2007, memorandum from William L. Wehrum, Acting 
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation, to EPA Regional 
Administrators, EPA Regions 1-10 (pp. 4-2, 5-1). In setting the RPGs, 
states must also consider the rate of progress needed to reach natural 
visibility conditions by 2064 and the emissions reduction needed to 
achieve that rate of progress over the approximately 10-year period of 
the SIP. Each Class I state must also consult with potentially 
contributing states, i.e. those states that may affect visibility 
impairment at the Class I state's areas. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(1)(iv).

C. Best Available Retrofit Technology

    Section 169A of the CAA directs states to evaluate the use of 
retrofit controls at certain older large stationary sources to address 
visibility impacts from these sources. Specifically, CAA section 
169A(b)(2)(A) requires states to revise their SIPs to contain such 
measures as may be necessary to make reasonable progress towards the 
natural visibility goal, including a requirement that certain 
categories of existing major stationary sources built between 1962 and 
1977 procure, install, and operate BART as determined by the state. The 
set of ``major stationary sources'' potentially subject to BART is 
listed in CAA section 169A(g)(7). The state can require source-specific 
BART controls, but it also has the flexibility to adopt an alternative 
such as a trading program if the alternate provides greater progress 
towards improving visibility than BART.
    On July 6, 2005, EPA published the Guidelines for BART 
Determinations Under the Regional Haze Rule at Appendix Y to 40 CFR 
part 51 (BART Guidelines) to assist states in determining which of 
their sources should be subject to the BART requirements and in 
determining appropriate emission limits for each applicable source. A 
state must use the approach in the BART Guidelines in making a BART 
determination for a fossil fuel-fired EGU with total generating 
capacity in excess of 750 megawatts. States are encouraged, but not 
required, to follow the BART Guidelines in making BART determinations 
for other sources.
    States must address all visibility-impairing pollutants emitted by 
a source in the BART determination process. The most significant 
visibility impairing pollutants are SO2, NOX, and 
PM. EPA's guidance provides that states should use their best judgment 
in determining whether VOC or NH3 emissions impair 
visibility in Class I areas.
    States may select an exemption threshold value for their BART 
modeling under the BART Guidelines, below which a BART-eligible source 
may be considered to make a small enough contribution to visibility 
impairment in any Class I area to warrant being exempted from the BART 
requirement. The state must document this exemption threshold value in 
the SIP and must state the basis for its selection of that value. The 
exemption threshold set by the state should not be higher than 0.5 dv. 
Any source with modeled impacts above the threshold value would be 
subject to a BART determination review. The BART Guidelines acknowledge 
varying circumstances affecting different Class I areas. States should 
consider the number of emission sources affecting the Class I areas at 
issue and the magnitude of the individual source's impact.
    The state must identify potential BART sources in its SIP, 
described as ``BART-eligible sources'' in the RHR, and document its 
BART control determination analyses. In making BART determinations, 
section 169A(g)(2) of the CAA requires the state to consider the 
following factors: (1) The costs of compliance; (2) the energy and non-
air quality environmental impacts of compliance; (3) any existing 
pollution control technology in use at the source; (4) the remaining 
useful life of the source; and (5) the degree of improvement in 
visibility which may reasonably be anticipated to result from the use 
of such technology.
    A regional haze SIP must include source-specific BART emission 
limits and compliance schedules for each source subject to BART. The 
BART controls must be installed and in operation as expeditiously as 
practicable, but no later than five years after the date of EPA 
approval of the state's regional haze SIP. CAA section 169(g)(4); 40 
CFR 51.308(e)(1)(iv). In addition to what is required by the RHR, 
general SIP requirements mandate that the SIP must also include all 
regulatory requirements related to monitoring, recordkeeping, and 
reporting for the BART controls on the source.
    The RHR also allows states to implement an alternative program in 
lieu of BART, so long as the alternative program can be demonstrated to 
achieve greater progress toward the national visibility goal than 
implementing BART controls. EPA made such a demonstration for CAIR 
under regulations issued in 2005 revising the regional haze program. 70 
FR 39104

[[Page 11932]]

(July 6, 2005). EPA's regulations provide that states participating in 
the CAIR trading program under 40 CFR part 96 pursuant to an EPA-
approved CAIR SIP, or which remain subject to the CAIR Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) in 40 CFR part 97 need not require affected 
BART-eligible EGUs to install, operate, and maintain BART for emissions 
of SO2 and NOX. 40 CFR 51.308(e)(4). CAIR is not 
applicable to emissions of PM, so states are still required to conduct 
a BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs subject to BART for that 
pollutant.
    As described above in section II, the DC Circuit found CAIR to be 
inconsistent with the requirements of the CAA. The rule was remanded to 
EPA but left in place until the Agency replaced it. EPA replaced CAIR 
with CSAPR in August 2011.
    On December 30, 2011, EPA proposed to find that the trading 
programs in CSAPR would achieve greater progress towards improving 
visibility than would be obtained by implementing BART for 
SO2 and NOX for BART-subject EGUs in the area 
subject to CSAPR (see 76 FR 82219). Based on that proposed finding, EPA 
also proposed to revise the RHR to allow states to meet the 
requirements of BART by participation in the trading programs under 
CSAPR. CSAPR is not applicable to emissions of PM, so states would 
still be required to conduct a BART analysis for PM emissions from EGUs 
subject to BART for that pollutant. EPA has not taken final action on 
that rule.

D. Long-Term Strategy

    Consistent with the requirement in section 169A(b) of the CAA that 
states include in their regional haze SIP a 10 to 15 year strategy for 
making reasonable progress, section 51.308(d)(3) of the RHR requires 
that states include a long-term strategy in their regional haze SIPs. 
The long-term strategy is the compilation of all control measures a 
state will use during the implementation period of the specific SIP 
submittal to meet applicable RPGs. The long-term strategy must include 
enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and other 
measures as necessary to achieve the RPGs for all Class I areas within 
or affected by emissions from the state. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3).
    When a state's emissions are reasonably anticipated to cause or 
contribute to visibility impairment in a Class I area located in 
another state, the RHR requires the impacted state to coordinate with 
the contributing states in order to develop coordinated emissions 
management strategies. 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(i). In such cases, the 
contributing state must demonstrate that it has included in its SIP all 
measures necessary to obtain its share of the emission reductions 
needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I area. The RPOs have provided 
forums for significant interstate consultation, but additional 
consultations between states may be required to address interstate 
visibility issues sufficiently.
    States should consider all types of anthropogenic sources of 
visibility impairment in developing their long-term strategy, including 
stationary, minor, mobile, and area sources. At a minimum, states must 
describe how each of the following seven factors listed below are taken 
into account in developing their long-term strategy. The seven factors 
are: (1) Emission reductions due to ongoing air pollution control 
programs, including measures to address RAVI; (2) measures to mitigate 
the impacts of construction activities; (3) emissions limitations and 
schedules for compliance to achieve the RPG; (4) source retirement and 
replacement schedules; (5) smoke management techniques for agricultural 
and forestry management purposes including plans as currently exist 
within the state for these purposes; (6) enforceability of emissions 
limitations and control measures; and (7) the anticipated net effect on 
visibility due to projected changes in point, area, and mobile source 
emissions over the period addressed by the long-term strategy. 40 CFR 
51.308(d)(3)(v).

E. Coordinating Regional Haze and Reasonably Attributable Visibility 
Impairment Long-Term Strategy

    EPA revised 40 CFR 51.306(c), which is a part of the RHR, regarding 
the long-term strategy for RAVI. The RAVI plan must provide for a 
periodic review and SIP revision not less frequently than every three 
years until the date of submission of the state's first plan addressing 
regional haze visibility impairment in accordance with 40 CFR 51.308(b) 
and (c). The state must revise its plan to provide for review and 
revision of a coordinated long-term strategy for addressing RAVI and 
regional haze on or before this date. It must also submit the first 
such coordinated long-term strategy with its first regional haze SIP. 
Future coordinated long-term strategies and periodic progress reports 
evaluating progress towards RPGs must be submitted consistent with the 
schedule for SIP submission and periodic progress reports set forth in 
40 CFR 51.308(f) and 51.308(g), respectively. The periodic review of a 
state's long-term strategy must be submitted to EPA as a SIP revision 
and must report on both RAVI and regional haze impairment.

F. Monitoring Strategy and Other Implementation Plan Requirements

    Section 51.308(d)(4) of the RHR includes the requirement for a 
monitoring strategy for measuring, characterizing, and reporting of 
regional haze visibility impairment that is representative of all 
mandatory Class I Federal areas within the state. The strategy must be 
coordinated with the monitoring strategy required in section 51.305 for 
RAVI. Compliance with this requirement may be met through participation 
in the IMPROVE network, meaning that the state reviews and uses 
monitoring data from the network. The monitoring strategy must also 
provide for additional monitoring sites if the IMPROVE network is not 
sufficient to determine whether RPGs will be met. The monitoring 
strategy is due with the first regional haze SIP, and it must be 
reviewed every five years.
    The SIP must also provide for the following:
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with mandatory Class I areas to determine the contribution 
of emissions from within the state to regional haze visibility 
impairment at Class I areas both within and outside the state;
     Procedures for using monitoring data and other information 
in a state with no mandatory Class I areas to determine the 
contribution of emissions from within the state to regional haze 
visibility impairment at Class I areas in other states;
     Reporting of all visibility monitoring data to the 
Administrator at least annually for each Class I area in the state, to 
be submitted in electronic format, if available;
     A statewide inventory of emissions of pollutants that are 
reasonably anticipated to cause or contribute to visibility impairment 
in any Class I area. The inventory must include emissions for a 
baseline year, emissions for the most recent year with available data, 
and future projected emissions. A state must also make a commitment to 
update the inventory periodically; and
     Other elements including reporting, recordkeeping, and 
other measures necessary to assess and report on visibility.
    The RHR requires control strategies to cover an initial 
implementation period extending to the year 2018 with a comprehensive 
reassessment and revision of those strategies, as appropriate, every 10 
years thereafter.

[[Page 11933]]

Periodic SIP revisions must meet the core requirements of section 
51.308(d), except that BART is only required in the initial submittal. 
The requirement to evaluate sources for BART applies only to the first 
regional haze SIP. Facilities subject to BART must continue to comply 
with the BART provisions of section 51.308(e), as noted above. Periodic 
SIP revisions will assure that the statutory requirement of reasonable 
progress will continue to be met.

G. Consultation With States and Federal Land Managers

    The RHR requires that states consult with Federal Land Managers 
(FLMs) before adopting and submitting their SIPs. 40 CFR 51.308(i). 
States must provide FLMs an opportunity for in person consultation at 
least 60 days prior to holding any public hearing on the SIP. This 
consultation must include the opportunity for the FLMs to discuss their 
assessment of impairment of visibility in any Class I area and to offer 
recommendations on the development of the RPGs and on the development 
and implementation of strategies to address visibility impairment. 
Further, a state must include in its SIP a description of how it 
addressed any comments provided by the FLMs. Finally, a SIP must 
provide procedures for continuing consultation between the state and 
FLMs regarding the state's visibility protection program, including 
development and review of SIP revisions, five-year progress reports, 
and the implementation of other programs having the potential to 
contribute to impairment of visibility in Class I areas.

IV. What is EPA's analysis of Wisconsin's regional haze plan?

    Wisconsin submitted its regional haze plan to EPA in the form of 
two letters on January 18, 2012, addressing the BART requirements and 
the balance of the state's regional haze plan. EPA considers the two 
submissions to be a complete regional haze plan and is proposing to 
find that the plan meets the relevant CAA requirements and EPA 
regulations and guidance outlined in section II, above. A detailed 
analysis follows.

A. Class I Areas

    States are required to address regional haze affecting Class I 
areas within a state and in Class I areas outside the state that may be 
affected by the state's emissions. 40 CFR 51.308(d). Wisconsin does not 
have any Class I areas for which visibility is an important value. See 
40 CFR part 81, subpart D. Rainbow Lake Wilderness Area is located in 
Wisconsin but has not been identified by the Secretary of the Interior 
in consultation with other FLMs as an area where visibility is an 
important value. As Wisconsin has no Class I areas where visibility is 
an important value within its borders, Wisconsin is not required to 
address the following regional haze SIP elements: (a) Calculation of 
baseline and natural visibility conditions, (b) establishment of 
reasonable progress goals, (c) monitoring requirements, and d) RAVI 
requirements. Wisconsin is responsible for consulting with other states 
with Class I areas that are affected by Wisconsin's emissions and for 
developing a regional haze SIP which addresses Wisconsin's impact on 
any nearby Class I areas.
    Wisconsin reviewed technical analyses conducted by MRPO and other 
RPOs to determine what Class I areas outside the state are affected by 
Wisconsin emission sources. Wisconsin's analysis shows that its 
emissions contribute to visibility impairment at Isle Royale National 
Park (Isle Royale) and Seney Wilderness Area (Seney) in Michigan and 
Boundary Waters Canoe Wilderness Area (Boundary Waters) and Voyageurs 
National Park (Voyageurs) in Minnesota. These four Class I areas in 
Michigan and Minnesota are collectively referred to as the Northern 
Class I areas. The state also noted that MRPO found that Wisconsin 
emission sources also contribute to visibility impairment at Upper 
Buffalo Creek in Arkansas and at two Missouri Class I areas: Hercules-
Glades Wilderness Area and Mingo Wilderness Area. EPA proposes to find 
that Wisconsin has appropriately identified affected Class I areas.

B. Baseline, Current, and Natural Conditions

    The RHR requires Class I states to calculate the baseline and 
natural conditions for their Class I areas. Wisconsin does not have any 
Class I areas. Therefore, Wisconsin is not required to submit such 
calculations.

C. Reasonable Progress Goals

    States with Class I areas must set RPGs that achieve reasonable 
progress toward achieving natural visibility conditions. Wisconsin does 
not have any Class I areas, so it does not need to set any RPGs. As 
discussed in section E, Wisconsin did consult with affected Class I 
states to ensure that it achieves its share of the overall emission 
reductions necessary to achieve the RPGs of Class I areas that it 
affects.

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology

    Wisconsin followed a multi-step process to identify which sources 
are subject to BART and to determine what emission limits satisfy this 
requirement. The first step of this process was to identify all the 
sources in the state that are within one of the 26 categories 
established under prevention of significant deterioration rules and 
having at least 250 tons per year of potential emissions. The second 
step was for the MRPO to conduct modeling to assess the impact of each 
of these identified candidate sources. This modeling deviated in 
selected respects from EPA's recommended approach, first by evaluating 
source impacts relative to cleanest day visibility rather than to 
average day visibility, and second by using meteorological data taken 
directly from the outputs of a meteorological model without making 
adjustments (``blending'') based on local observations of actual 
meteorology. However, EPA views the modeling analysis overall to be 
more likely to overstate rather than understate source impacts, so that 
LADCO's modeling provided an acceptable test of whether sources had 
sufficient impact to warrant being subject to BART. Consistent with EPA 
guidance, Wisconsin elected to exempt sources with a 98th percentile 
\4\ impact of less than 0.5 dv. Wisconsin concluded that 0.5 dv was an 
appropriate threshold for defining significant impact for BART purposes 
because sources are not clustered in the same geographic areas and thus 
are unlikely to impact the same Class I areas concurrently.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The 98th percentile of values is compared to the 
contribution threshold. The 98th percentile value would exclude 
about the seven most impaired days per years. EPA feels that this 
does not give undue weight to the extreme tail of the modeled 
distribution. EPA judges that this approach effectively captures 
sources contributing to visibility impairment, while minimizing the 
effect the highest model impairments that might have been caused by 
model assumptions or unusual meteorology.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on this process, Wisconsin concluded that nine EGU facilities 
and four paper mills warranted being subject to BART. However, owners 
of three of the paper mills provided more refined modeling showing the 
facilities have a 98th percentile impact less than 0.5 dv impact. Thus, 
Wisconsin revised its finding to conclude that only the nine EGU 
facilities and one paper mill, in particular the paper mill owned by 
Georgia-Pacific and located in Green Bay, are subject to the 
requirement for BART.
    To address the BART requirement for the EGUs, Wisconsin referenced 
EPA's proposed finding that CSAPR is an acceptable alternative to 
source-specific BART for SO2 and/or NOX for EGUs 
located in the CSAPR region, including

[[Page 11934]]

in Wisconsin. (See 76 FR 82219, December 30, 2011.) Therefore, 
Wisconsin has elected to rely on CSAPR to satisfy the BART requirement 
for EGUs with respect to SO2 and NOX emissions.
    EPA has analyzed the benefits of CSAPR in relation to the benefits 
of BART on EGUs that are subject to CSAPR. On December 30, 2011 (76 FR 
82219), EPA proposed a rule finding that CSAPR is more beneficial in 
mitigating visibility impairment than application of BART to the 
affected EGUs on a source-specific basis. If the proposal is finalized, 
CSAPR may be considered to satisfy the requirement for BART for EGUs in 
Wisconsin for SO2 and NOX.
    For PM, Wisconsin conducted extensive analysis of the options for 
PM control at the nine EGU facilities subject to BART. Wisconsin found 
that fabric filters, commonly called baghouses, and electrostatic 
precipitators mandated under existing regulations generally achieve 99 
percent or more control of PM. Wisconsin found further that few 
opportunities for enhancement of these controls are available, that 
further control would likely be expensive, and that further controls 
would generally improve visibility by 0.01 dv or less. Therefore, 
Wisconsin concluded, with one exception, that existing PM limitations 
on these EGU facilities in combination with CSAPR limitations on 
SO2 and NOX emissions represents BART. The 
exception applies to the PM limits for Alliant Energy's Columbia 
facility. This facility has relatively old PM control equipment and 
correspondingly higher emission limits than apply to other facilities 
in the state, resulting in its PM impacts being the highest PM impacts 
on visibility of any facility in the state. On November 11, 2011, 
Wisconsin issued a permit to this facility that limits PM emissions to 
0.025 and 0.0195 pounds of particulate matter per million British 
Thermal Units (lbs/MMBTU) for boilers B21 and B22, respectively, 
representing limits similar to or lower than PM limits for other 
facilities in the state. EPA proposes to find that the tightened PM 
limits for Alliant Energy's Columbia facility and the existing PM 
limits for other EGUs represent BART for PM for EGUs in Wisconsin.
    Wisconsin also determined appropriate BART limitations for the 
paper mill in Green Bay owned by Georgia-Pacific, based on a 
particularly extensive review of control alternatives. In 2004, the 
facility operated five boilers identified as B24, B25, B26, B27, and 
B28. Two of these boilers, B26 and B27, began operation between 1962 
and 1977 and are subject to the BART requirement; the other boilers are 
not. Wisconsin determined that emissions of both SO2 and 
NOX from both B26 and B27 were significant and warranted 
evaluation for control.
    After evaluating the costs, benefits, and other characteristics of 
a number of control alternatives, Wisconsin determined that BART with 
respect to SO2 emissions for both boilers should be defined 
as wet scrubbing and eliminating the use of petroleum coke. The control 
efficiency of the wet scrubbing was estimated to be 93 percent and the 
overall control percentage, also reflecting elimination of petroleum 
coke, was estimated to be 95.8 percent for B26 and 93.8 percent for 
B27. The difference in percentages reflects the difference in baseline 
petroleum coke usage at the two boilers. For NOX, Wisconsin 
determined BART to be combustion control using overfire air plus post 
combustion control. For B26, a stoker boiler, Wisconsin estimated that 
overfire air would reduce emissions by 35 percent and that selective 
noncatalytic reduction would reduce the remaining emissions by 50 
percent (including a compliance margin) for a net reduction of 68 
percent. For B27, Wisconsin estimated that overfire air would reduce 
emissions by 50 percent and that recirculating selective catalytic 
reduction would reduce the remaining emissions by 70 percent for a net 
reduction of 85 percent.
    The exhaust gases from Georgia-Pacific's boilers are combined 
before entering a pair of baghouses, after which the exhaust gases are 
recombined and vented out a single stack. Additional SO2 and 
NOX control devices are most logically placed after the 
baghouses, controlling exhaust gas originating as a combination of 
emissions from all operating boilers. Consequently, the company 
requested that Wisconsin develop limits governing the combined 
emissions of all operating boilers. Wisconsin determined these limits 
by first finding the sum of the controlled emissions for B26 and B27 
plus the baseline, uncontrolled emissions for B25 and B28. In 
calculating these limits, emissions were not allocated for B24, because 
this boiler has been shut down for the last several years.\5\ The final 
limits were determined by then subtracting 10 percent of the remaining 
emissions of B26 and B27, providing an environmental benefit as called 
for in the economic incentive program guidance\6\ for cases such as 
this, where emissions of multiple units may in effect be traded.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Wisconsin is not taking credit for the shutdown of B24, so 
it is not necessary for the shutdown to be enforceable. If Georgia-
Pacific were to resume operation of B24, the emissions of B24 would 
count against the collective stack emission limit and thus would 
require compensating reductions from other boilers.
    \6\ ``Draft Economic Incentive Policy Guidance,'' Office of Air 
and Radiation, September 1999, available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/memoranda/eip9-2.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Wisconsin determined emission limits both on a 30-day basis and on 
a 12-month basis. Wisconsin calculated these limits using operating 
rate information from the 2002 to 2004 SIP baseline period. 
Specifically, the operating rate used to determine the 30-day limit was 
the maximum 30-day heat input for the four boilers being included in 
the limit during the 2002 to 2004 period. The operating rate used to 
determine the 12-month limit was the average heat input for 2002 to 
2004 for the four boilers. The emission factors used in calculating the 
limits were the average emission rates in 2002 to 2004, adjusted to 
reflect emission controls for B26 and B27 and further reduced as noted 
above to provide an additional margin for environmental benefit. The 
resulting emission limits for SO2 are a 30-day limit of 268 
tons and a 12-month limit of 2,340 tons. The limits for NOX 
are a 30-day limit of 110 tons and a 12-month limit of 977 tons.
    Wisconsin also conducted modeling to assess the environmental 
impact of establishing BART alternatives that involve less control of 
NOX emissions and correspondingly more control of 
SO2 emissions. The relevant portion of the modeling included 
in Wisconsin's submission reflects simulations in which SO2 
emissions are reduced between 2.1 and 2.2 tons for every ton that 
NOX emissions are increased. Three different levels of 
NOX emission increase were assessed. For all of these 
simulations, both the number of days with visibility impacts of at 
least 0.5 dv and the 98th percentile magnitude of the source's impact 
remained unchanged or slightly declined with this exchange of 
SO2 and NOX control. Further simulations 
conducted by Wisconsin also show environmental benefit according to 
these same indicators with SO2 emissions being reduced by 2 
tons for every ton of NOX emission increase.
    On this basis, Wisconsin identified three alternatives to the BART 
limits described above. These alternatives are listed along with the 
primary BART limits in Table 1. Each alternative reflects an increase 
of NOX emissions and a corresponding decrease of 2 tons of 
SO2 emissions for each 1 ton of NOX

[[Page 11935]]

emissions relative to the primary BART limits. According to the draft 
administrative order included in Wisconsin's SIP submittal, the primary 
limits shall be enforceable, except that Georgia-Pacific may, by July 
15, 2013, select one of the three specified alternatives, in which case 
the selected alternative shall be enforceable. Compliance with the 
applicable limits must be by the end of 2015.

                         Table 1--BART Limits and Alternative Limits for Georgia-Pacific
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  SO2 Limit (tons)          NOX Limit (tons)
                           Option                            ---------------------------------------------------
                                                                 Annual       30-day       Annual       30-day
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Primary Limits..............................................        2,340          268          977          110
Alternative 1...............................................        2,150          246        1,072          121
Alternative 2...............................................        1,700          195        1,297          147
Alternative 3...............................................        1,250          143        1,522          172
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    EPA proposes to approve Wisconsin's determinations of BART for 
Georgia-Pacific. The state has conducted a full analysis of control 
options and has defined a control strategy that will provide 
significant reductions in emissions of SO2 and 
NOX. EPA proposes to find acceptable the use of a collective 
emission limit governing the sum of emissions from the two BART boilers 
as well as from the operating non-BART boilers, insofar as the state 
has set limits that can be expected to assure that overall emissions 
will be controlled to the same degree as would be the case if the 
emission limits applied only to the BART boilers. While the 
establishment of limits governing emissions from the full set of 
operating boilers rather than just the BART boilers creates some 
uncertainty as to how much the emissions from the BART boilers will be 
controlled, Wisconsin has arguably compensated for that uncertainty by 
providing an ``environmental benefit'' in the form of a reduction of 
the overall cap by an amount equal to 10 percent of the emissions of 
the BART boilers at BART control levels. Wisconsin has provided 
adequate justification that the three alternative sets of emission 
limits provide equivalent improvement in visibility, such that any of 
the three alternatives, like the primary set of BART limits, will 
suffice to satisfy the BART requirements for Georgia-Pacific. Wisconsin 
clearly provides for the establishment of one set of SO2 and 
NOX limits (selected by specified procedure by July 15, 2013 
among a primary set and three equally acceptable alternative sets) that 
will mandate BART controls.
    Wisconsin's submission contains a draft administrative order for 
imposing the emission limits for Georgia-Pacific discussed above, along 
with the statement that the state will issue a final administrative 
order once EPA has published this proposed rulemaking. EPA has concerns 
about the language of the draft administrative order, particularly with 
respect to the clarity and enforceability of the alternative limits 
should the company elect one of the alternatives. However, EPA expects 
the final administrative order to be modified to resolve these 
concerns.
    EPA can only take final action to approve Wisconsin's plan if the 
limits needed to satisfy BART requirements are submitted in a fully 
adopted, fully enforceable form. However, EPA expects Wisconsin to 
issue a clear and enforceable final administrative order, which will be 
incorporated into its Regional haze SIP, rendering it Federally 
enforceable, before EPA signs final rulemaking on Wisconsin's plan, and 
EPA is proposing approval based on this premise.
    In summary, EPA proposes to approve Wisconsin's BART 
determinations. Wisconsin has followed appropriate procedures and 
applied appropriate criteria for identifying facilities that are 
subject to BART. EPA in particular finds the identification of 
candidate BART sources appropriate, EPA finds the screening modeling 
used appropriately defined inputs to identify sources with sufficiently 
low impacts to warrant exempting from the BART requirement, and EPA 
agrees that the refined modeling appropriately justifies exempting 
three of the four paper mills from being subject to the BART 
requirement.
    EPA proposes to approve Wisconsin's BART determinations for 
Georgia-Pacific as a SIP revision, based on the premise that Wisconsin 
will issue and submit a final administrative order that provides for 
clear enforceability of the limits identified in the draft 
administrative order in Wisconsin's submittal.
    For EGUs, EPA proposes to approve Wisconsin's reliance on the 
already promulgated CSAPR FIP for EGU sources in Wisconsin as an 
alternative to BART for SO2 and NOX for its EGUs. 
Therefore, EPA is proposing that if EPA finalizes the rule finding that 
CSAPR satisfies the BART requirement for EGUs for SO2 and 
NOX in the CSAPR region, then Wisconsin's submission will 
satisfy applicable BART requirements for SO2 and 
NOX for EGUs.
    We do not believe that the order issued by the DC Circuit staying 
CSAPR pending the court's resolutions of the petitions for review of 
CSAPR in EME Homer Generation, L.P. v. EPA (No. 11-1302 and 
consolidated cases) impacts our proposed approval of the Wisconsin SIP. 
Under the RHR, an alternative to BART does not need to be fully 
implemented until 2018. As that is well after we expect the stay to be 
lifted, EPA believes the Agency and Wisconsin may still rely on CSAPR 
as an alternative to BART. We note that our proposed approval of 
Wisconsin's SIP does not impact the implementation of CSAPR or 
otherwise interfere with the stay of CSAPR.
    EPA also proposes to approve the tightened PM limits for Alliant 
Energy's Columbia facility and the existing PM limits for other EGUs as 
BART.

E. Long-Term Strategy

    Under section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA and 40 CFR 51.308(d), states' 
regional haze programs must include a long-term strategy for making 
reasonable progress toward meeting the national visibility goal. 
Section 51.308(d)(3) requires that Wisconsin consult with the affected 
states in order to develop a coordinated emission management strategy. 
As a contributing state, Wisconsin must demonstrate that it has 
included in its plan all measures necessary to obtain its share of the 
emissions reductions needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I areas 
affected by Wisconsin sources. As described in section III.E., above, 
the long-term strategy is the compilation of all control measures 
Wisconsin will use to meet applicable RPGs. The long-term strategy must 
include enforceable emissions limitations, compliance schedules, and 
other measures as

[[Page 11936]]

necessary to achieve the RPGs for the affected Class I areas.
    Wisconsin relied on MPRO's modeling and analysis along with its 
emission information in developing a LTS. Wisconsin consulted with 
Class I states through its participation in MRPO. MRPO facilitated 
consultations with other Midwest states and with states in other 
regions through inter-RPO processes. Wisconsin consulted with Minnesota 
and Michigan on their Class I areas. Wisconsin also participated in 
MRPO's inter-RPO consultations. MANE-VU, the RPO for the Northeastern 
states, facilitated consultation between Wisconsin and Maine, New 
Hampshire, New Jersey, and Vermont. Wisconsin also consulted with 
Arkansas and Missouri through their RPO.
    At 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), the RHR identifies seven factors that a 
state must consider in developing its long-term strategy: (A) Emission 
reductions due to ongoing programs, (B) measures to mitigate impact 
from construction, (C) emission limits to achieve the RPG, (D) 
replacement and retirement of sources, (E) smoke management techniques, 
(F) Federally enforceable emission limits and control measures, and (G) 
the net effect on visibility due to projected emission changes over the 
long-term strategy period. Wisconsin considered the seven factors in 
developing its long-term strategy.
    Wisconsin relied on MPRO's modeling and analysis along with its 
emission information in developing a long-term strategy. Wisconsin 
consulted with Class I states through its participation in MRPO. MRPO 
facilitated consultations with other Midwest states and with states in 
other regions through inter-RPO processes.
    Wisconsin considered these ongoing and expected programs in 
developing its long-term strategy: CAIR; NOX SIP Call; BART; 
inspection and maintenance program; reformulated gasoline; Large Spark 
Ignition and Recreational Vehicle standards; heavy-duty diesel engine 
standards; low sulfur fuel; non-road mobile source control programs; 
area source standards; consent decrees; NOX Reasonably 
Available Control Technology; and measures taken to attain the NAAQS.
    Consistent with EPA guidance at the time, Wisconsin, in developing 
its long-term visibility strategy, initially relied on the visibility 
improvements expected to result from controls planned or already 
installed on sources in order to meet CAIR provisions. Wisconsin now 
relies on CSAPR. As CSAPR will result in greater emission reductions 
overall than CAIR, we anticipate that the substitution of CSAPR for 
CAIR does not weaken Wisconsin's long-term strategy and will enable 
Wisconsin to meet its obligations to obtain its share of the emissions 
reductions needed to meet the RPGs for the Class I areas affected by 
Wisconsin sources. However, we will assess the midcourse review of 
Wisconsin's SIP to ensure that this is so.
    Wisconsin has addressed the requirement to consider measures to 
mitigate the impacts of construction activities through the general and 
transportation conformity measures that are included in the Wisconsin 
SIP. The visibility impacts of new major sources will be mitigated 
using the existing New Source Review (NSR) and Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration (PSD) programs. The PSD program requires 
sources to install stringent emission controls. New and modified 
sources need to consider the potential affect on visibility in Class I 
areas under the NSR and PSD programs.
    The state is required to investigate whether additional reasonable 
control strategies are available to help meet the visibility goal. MRPO 
studied the potential emission reductions from a variety of sources. 
The results are in section 5.2 of the MRPO technical support document. 
Electric generating units have the largest impact on Class I areas, but 
these sources are already being regulated. Reasonable controls can 
potentially be implemented on industrial, commercial, and institutional 
boilers. Wisconsin did not include additional controls for these 
sources in this plan as additional emission reductions are not needed 
now, but Wisconsin committed to reevaluate options for achieving 
emission reductions from this category of sources if needed in future. 
For example, Wisconsin will be required to conduct a midcourse progress 
review assessing whether the program is making appropriate progress 
toward mitigating visibility impairment, and EPA expects that review to 
include an assessment as to whether emission reductions from these 
sources are necessary to meet the state's obligation to alleviate its 
impacts on pertinent Class I areas.
    Wisconsin will follow the requirement to consider source retirement 
and replacement schedules with the existing requirements in its PSD 
program. Wisconsin has met its obligation to consider smoke management 
during the long-term strategy development by developing a Smoke 
Management Plan, included in the regional haze SIP as Appendix D. 
Proper management of fire under the right meteorological conditions 
will help to protect public safety and will prevent deterioration of 
air quality.
    Wisconsin must also ensure that the emission limits and control 
measures it is using to obtain its share of emission reductions are 
Federally enforceable. Included in the state's SIP submittal is a draft 
Administrative Order for its non-EGU source that is subject to BART, 
i.e., Georgia-Pacific, and the state commits to issue a final 
administrative order following this proposed approval. Other rules that 
the state is relying on are federal rule or are already approved into 
the Wisconsin SIP. EPA believes that control measures and emission 
limits, including the final administrative order for Georgia-Pacific, 
will be Federally enforceable upon final approval of the Wisconsin 
regional haze plan.
    EPA is proposing to find that Wisconsin has addressed the 
applicable requirements for a long-term strategy.

F. Monitoring Strategy

    The RHR requires a monitoring strategy for measuring the various 
pollutants that influence visibility and reporting on visibility 
impairment that is representative of all mandatory Class I areas. There 
are no mandatory Class I areas in Wisconsin, so the state does not 
operate any IMPROVE monitoring sites. Wisconsin does use IMPROVE 
network data from the Class I states.
    Wisconsin operates a monitoring network that provides data to 
analyze air quality problems. The monitoring network includes Federal 
Reference Method monitors, photochemical assessment monitoring, special 
purpose monitors, and ``speciation monitors'' that measure components 
or subcategories of particulate matter. The monitoring network measures 
and reports the levels of various pollutants throughout Wisconsin, 
including pollutants that contribute to visibility impairment. EPA 
finds that Wisconsin meets the monitoring requirements from the RHR and 
that its network of monitoring sites is satisfactory to measure air 
quality and assess its contribution to regional haze.

G. Federal Land Manager Consultation

    Wisconsin consulted with the FLMs during the development of its 
regional haze plan. Wisconsin submitted a draft of its regional haze 
plan to the FLMs on January 13, 2011, and a revised draft on July 1, 
2011. The Forest Service provided comments on July 27, 2011. The 
National Park Service sent a comment letter on September 2, 2011. 
Wisconsin later held a public hearing on September 13, 2011. The public 
comment period for the Wisconsin regional haze plan was from August 11,

[[Page 11937]]

2011 to September 16, 2011. Wisconsin has committed to continue to 
consult with the FLMs as it develops future SIP revisions and progress 
reports.

H. Comments

    Wisconsin offered the public an opportunity to comment on its 
proposed regional haze plan. The public comment period for the 
Wisconsin regional haze plan was from August 11, 2011, to September 16, 
2011. Wisconsin held a public meeting on September 13, 2011. It also 
had a public comment period from June 28, 2010, to July 29, 2010, 
specifically on the proposed BART for Georgia Pacific. A July 29, 2010, 
public hearing concluded the comment period. Evidence of the public 
notices and the public hearings were submitted to EPA with the regional 
haze plan.
    Wisconsin summarized the comments in its plan and provided its 
responses to the comments. Wisconsin revised its proposed BART plan for 
Georgia Pacific following the 2010 and 2011 comment periods. Wisconsin 
has met the requirements from 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V to provide 
evidence that it gave public notice, took comment, and that it compiled 
and responded to comments.

V. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is proposing to approve Wisconsin's SIP addressing regional 
haze for the first implementation period, provided Wisconsin adopts and 
submits a clearly enforceable administrative order that establishes 
limits representing BART for Georgia Pacific consistent with the limits 
in its draft administrative order. Full approval of Wisconsin's use of 
CSAPR to satisfy the BART requirement for the EGUs at nine facilities 
is contingent on EPA's finalization of the rule, proposed on December 
30, 2011, finding CSAPR as an approvable alternative to BART.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the CAA, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP 
submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable 
Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in 
reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, 
provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this 
action merely proposes to approve state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those 
imposed by state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified 
by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the 
SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the state, 
and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on 
tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: February 15, 2012.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
[FR Doc. 2012-4688 Filed 2-27-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P