[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 221 (Friday, November 15, 2019)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62519-62521]
[FR Doc No: 2019-24815]

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

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

[Docket No. CP19-512-000]

Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P.; Notice of Intent To Prepare an
Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Cameron Extension Project and
Request for Comments on Environmental Issues

    The staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC or
Commission) will prepare an environmental assessment (EA) that will
discuss the environmental impacts of the Cameron Extension Project
involving construction of a new 30,000 horsepower compressor station by
Texas Eastern Transmission, L.P. (Texas Eastern), in Calcasieu Parish,
Louisiana. The Commission will use this EA in its decision-making
process to determine whether the project is in the public convenience
and necessity.
    This notice announces the opening of the scoping process the
Commission will use to gather input from the public and interested
agencies about issues regarding the project. The National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) requires the Commission to take into account the
environmental impacts that could result from its action whenever it
considers the issuance of a Certificate of Public Convenience and
Necessity. NEPA also requires the Commission to discover concerns the
public may have about proposals. This process is referred to as
``scoping.'' The main goal of the scoping process is to focus the
analysis in the EA on the important environmental issues. By this
notice, the Commission requests public comments on the scope of the
issues to address in

the EA. To ensure that your comments are timely and properly recorded,
please submit your comments so that the Commission receives them in
Washington, DC on or before 5:00 p.m. Eastern Time on December 9, 2019.
    You can make a difference by submitting your specific comments or
concerns about the project. Your comments should focus on the potential
environmental effects, reasonable alternatives, and measures to avoid
or lessen environmental impacts. Your input will help the Commission
staff determine what issues they need to evaluate in the EA. Commission
staff will consider all filed comments during the preparation of the
EA.
    If you sent comments on this project to the Commission before the
opening of this docket on September 26, 2019, you will need to file
those comments in Docket No. CP19-512-000 to ensure they are considered
as part of this proceeding.
    This notice is being sent to the Commission's current environmental
mailing list for this project. State and local government
representatives should notify their constituents of this proposed
project and encourage them to comment on their areas of concern.
    If you are a landowner receiving this notice, a pipeline company
representative may contact you about the acquisition of an easement to
construct, operate, and maintain the proposed facilities. The company
would seek to negotiate a mutually acceptable easement agreement. You
are not required to enter into an agreement. However, if the Commission
approves the project, that approval conveys with it the right of
eminent domain. Therefore, if you and the company do not reach an
easement agreement, the pipeline company could initiate condemnation
proceedings in court. In such instances, compensation would be
determined by a judge in accordance with state law.
    Texas Eastern provided landowners with a fact sheet prepared by the
FERC entitled ``An Interstate Natural Gas Facility On My Land? What Do
I Need To Know?'' This fact sheet addresses a number of typically asked
questions, including the use of eminent domain and how to participate
in the Commission's proceedings. It is also available for viewing on
the FERC website (www.ferc.gov) at https://www.ferc.gov/resources/guides/gas/gas.pdf.

Public Participation

    The Commission offers a free service called eSubscription which
makes it easy to stay informed of all issuances and submittals
regarding the dockets/projects to which you subscribe. These instant
email notifications are the fastest way to receive notification and
provide a link to the document files which can reduce the amount of
time you spend researching proceedings. To sign up go to www.ferc.gov/docs-filing/esubscription.asp.
    For your convenience, there are three methods you can use to submit
your comments to the Commission. The Commission encourages electronic
filing of comments and has staff available to assist you at (866) 208-
3676 or<EMAIL_ADDRESS>Please carefully follow these
instructions so that your comments are properly recorded.
    (1) You can file your comments electronically using the eComment
feature, which is located on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov)
under the link to Documents and Filings. Using eComment is an easy
method for submitting brief, text-only comments on a project;
    (2) You can file your comments electronically by using the eFiling
feature, which is also on the Commission's website (www.ferc.gov) under
the link to Documents and Filings. With eFiling, you can provide
comments in a variety of formats by attaching them as a file with your
submission. New eFiling users must first create an account by clicking
on ``eRegister.'' You will be asked to select the type of filing you
are making; a comment on a particular project is considered a ``Comment
on a Filing''; or
    (3) You can file a paper copy of your comments by mailing them to
the following address. Be sure to reference the project docket number
(CP19-512-000) with your submission: Kimberly D. Bose, Secretary,
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street NE, Room 1A,
Washington, DC 20426.

Summary of the Proposed Project

    Texas Eastern proposes to construct and operate a new compressor
station (East Calcasieu Compressor Station) in Calcasieu Parish,
Louisiana. The new compressor station is comprised of one 30,000 ISO-
rated horsepower, natural gas-driven turbine compressor unit and
related appurtenances. The project would consist of the following new
facilities:
     Installation of a new delivery meter and regulatory (M&R)
station and related facilities, including 0.2 mile of 30-inch-diameter
piping to interconnect with TransCameron, LLC's pipeline system in
Cameron Parish, Louisiana;
     installation of a receipt M&R station and related
facilities at a new interconnect with Momentum Midstream, LLC in
Beareugard Parish, Louisiana;
     installation of a new bi-directional M&R station and
related facilities at a new interconnect with Trunkline Gas Company,
LLC in Jefferson Davis Parish, Louisiana;
     installation of equipment, including a filter separator
and regulator at the Gillis Compressor Station in Beauregard Parish,
Louisiana;
     modifications to existing internal pipeline inspection
launcher and receiver facilities, as well as two new bypass facilities
at existing sites along Texas Eastern's Line 41 in Cameron (Grand
Chenier Compressor Station), Beuregard (Gillis Compressor Station), and
Jefferson Davis (Iowa Plant) Parishes, Louisiana; and
     other related auxiliary facilities and appurtenances.
    The project would reverse natural gas flow on a portion of Texas
Eastern's Line 41 mainline to provide natural gas from various sources
to serve the Venture Global Calcasieu Pass Terminal, a liquefied
natural gas export terminal project currently under development in
Cameron Parish, Louisiana. Texas Eastern proposes to provide 750
million cubic feet per day of firm transportation service. Texas
Eastern proposes to complete and place this project into service by
November 1, 2021.
    The general location of the project facilities is shown in appendix
1.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The appendices referenced in this notice will not appear in
the Federal Register. Copies of appendices were sent to all those
receiving this notice in the mail and are available at www.ferc.gov
using the link called ``eLibrary'' or from the Commission's Public
Reference Room, 888 First Street NE, Washington, DC 20426, or call
(202) 502-8371. For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to
the last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Land Requirements for Construction

    Construction of the project would disturb about 156.8 acres (of
which 81.7 acres would be within the existing fence line of the Gillis
Compressor Station, Iowa Plant, and Grand Chenier Compressor Station
facility). Texas Eastern would maintain 10.2 acres for permanent
operation of the project's facilities following construction. The
remaining acreage would be restored and revert to former uses.

The EA Process

    The EA will discuss impacts that could occur as a result of the
construction and operation of the proposed project under these general
headings:
     Geology and soils;
     water resources and wetlands;
     vegetation and wildlife;

     threatened and endangered species;
     cultural resources;
     land use;
     air quality and noise;
     public safety; and
     cumulative impacts.
    Commission staff will also evaluate reasonable alternatives to the
proposed project or portions of the project, and make recommendations
on how to lessen or avoid impacts on the various resource areas.
    The EA will present Commission staffs' independent analysis of the
issues. The EA will be available in electronic format in the public
record through eLibrary \2\ and the Commission's website (https://www.ferc.gov/industries/gas/enviro/eis.asp). If eSubscribed, you will
receive instant email notification when the EA is issued. The EA may be
issued for an allotted public comment period. Commission staff will
consider all comments on the EA before making recommendations to the
Commission. To ensure Commission staff have the opportunity to address
your comments, please carefully follow the instructions in the Public
Participation section, beginning on page 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ For instructions on connecting to eLibrary, refer to the
last page of this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With this notice, the Commission is asking agencies with
jurisdiction by law and/or special expertise with respect to the
environmental issues of this project to formally cooperate in the
preparation of the EA.\3\ Agencies that would like to request
cooperating agency status should follow the instructions for filing
comments provided under the Public Participation section of this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ The Council on Environmental Quality regulations addressing
cooperating agency responsibilities are at Title 40, Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 1501.6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Consultation Under Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act

    In accordance with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
implementing regulations for section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act, the Commission is using this notice to initiate
consultation with the applicable State Historic Preservation Office,
and to solicit their views and those of other government agencies,
interested Indian tribes, and the public on the project's potential
effects on historic properties.\4\ The EA for this project will
document findings on the impacts on historic properties and summarize
the status of consultations under section 106.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's regulations
are at Title 36, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 800. Those
regulations define historic properties as any prehistoric or
historic district, site, building, structure, or object included in
or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Environmental Mailing List

    The environmental mailing list includes: Federal, state, and local
government representatives and agencies; elected officials; Native
American Tribes; libraries; newspapers; and other interested parties.
This list also includes all affected landowners (as defined in the
Commission's regulations) who are potential right-of-way grantors,
whose property may be used temporarily for project purposes, or who own
homes within certain distances of aboveground facilities, and anyone
who submits comments on the project. Commission staff will update the
environmental mailing list as the analysis proceeds to ensure that
Commission notices related to this environmental review are sent to all
individuals, organizations, and government entities interested in and/
or potentially affected by the proposed project.
    If the Commission issues the EA for an allotted public comment
period, a Notice of Availability of the EA will be sent to the
environmental mailing list and will provide instructions to access the
electronic document on the FERC's website (www.ferc.gov). If you need
to make changes to your name/address, or if you would like to remove
your name from the mailing list, please return the attached ``Mailing
List Update Form'' (appendix 2).

Additional Information

    Additional information about the project is available from the
Commission's Office of External Affairs, at (866) 208-FERC, or on the
FERC website at www.ferc.gov using the eLibrary link. Click on the
eLibrary link, click on ``General Search'' and enter the docket number
in the ``Docket Number'' field, excluding the last three digits (i.e.,
CP19-512). Be sure you have selected an appropriate date range. For
assistance, please contact FERC Online Support at
<EMAIL_ADDRESS>or<PHONE_NUMBER>, or for TTY, contact (202)
502-8659. The eLibrary link also provides access to the texts of all
formal documents issued by the Commission, such as orders, notices, and
rulemakings.
    Public sessions or site visits will be posted on the Commission's
calendar located at www.ferc.gov/EventCalendar/EventsList.aspx along
with other related information.

    Dated: November 8, 2019.
Kimberly D. Bose,
 Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2019-24815 Filed 11-14-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6717-01-P


[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 28, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 11928-11937]
[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_ADDRESS>    3. Fax:<PHONE_NUMBER>.
    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

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,<PHONE_NUMBER><EMAIL_ADDRESS>
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

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/

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

(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.

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

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

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

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,

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