Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Regional Haze Progress Report, 48766-48769 [2017-22705]

Download as PDF 48766 * * Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations * * * Approved: September 30, 2017. A.S. Janin, Captain, JAGC, U.S. Navy, Deputy Assistant Judge Advocate, General (Admiralty and Maritime Law Division). Dated: October 10, 2017. A.M. Nichols, Lieutenant Commander, Judge Advocate General’s Corps, U.S. Navy, Federal Register Liaison Officer. [FR Doc. 2017–22578 Filed 10–19–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3810–FF–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R05–OAR–2017–0157; FRL–9969–87– Region 5] Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Regional Haze Progress Report Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Direct final rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the regional haze progress report under the Clean Air Act as a revision to the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan (SIP). Wisconsin has satisfied the progress report requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. Wisconsin has also met the requirements for a determination of the adequacy of its regional haze plan with its negative declaration submitted with the progress report. DATES: This direct final rule will be effective December 19, 2017, unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 20, 2017. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not take effect. ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– OAR–2017–0157 at https:// www.regulations.gov or via email to aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES SUMMARY: VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:59 Oct 19, 2017 Jkt 244001 accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. For the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/ commenting-epa-dockets. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6143, alvarez.gilberto@epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information section is arranged as follows: I. Background II. Requirements for the Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs and Adequacy of Determinations III. What is EPA’s analysis? IV. What action is EPA taking? V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Background States are required to submit a progress report every five years that evaluates progress towards the Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State and in each mandatory Class I Federal area outside the State which may be affected by emissions from within the State. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are also required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of the State’s existing regional haze SIP. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report is due five years after the submittal of the initial regional haze SIP. Wisconsin submitted its regional haze plan on January 18, 2012. EPA approved Wisconsin’s regional haze plan into its SIP on August 7, 2012, 77 FR 46952. Wisconsin submitted its five-year progress report on March 17, 2017. This is a report on progress made in the first implementation period towards RPGs for Class I areas outside of Wisconsin. Wisconsin does not have any Class I PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 areas within its borders. This progress report SIP included a determination that Wisconsin’s existing regional haze SIP requires no substantive revision to achieve the established regional haze visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals for 2018. EPA is proposing to approve Wisconsin’s progress report on the basis that it satisfies the applicable requirements of the rule at 40 CFR 51.308. II. Requirements for the Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs and Adequacy of Determinations Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must periodically (every five years) submit a regional haze progress report that address the seven elements found in 40 CFR 51.308(g). Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of their existing regional haze SIP and to take one of four possible listed actions based on information in the progress report. III. What is EPA’s analysis? The Regional Haze Rule provides the required elements for five-year progress reports in 40 CFR 51.308(g). EPA finds that Wisconsin satisfied the 40 CFR 51.308(g) requirements with its progress report. EPA finds that, with its negative declaration, Wisconsin also satisfied the requirements for the determination of adequacy provided in 40 CFR 51.308(h). The following sections discuss the information provided by Wisconsin in the progress report submission, along with EPA’s analysis and determination of whether the submission met the applicable requirements of § 51.308. 1. Status of Implementation of all Measures Included in the Regional Haze SIP In its progress report, Wisconsin summarizes the status of the emissions reduction measures that were included in its 2012 regional haze SIP. Specifically, the report addresses the status of the on-the-books emissions reduction measures. The measures include applicable Federal programs (e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule—CAIR, Cross State Pollution Rule—CSAPR, onand off-highway mobile source rules, area source rules, point sources, Title IV programs, nitrogen oxides (NOX) SIP Call, Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) standards, Federal and State consent agreements, and Federal and State control strategies for electric generating units (EGUs)). This summary includes a discussion of the benefits associated with each measure. E:\FR\FM\20OCR1.SGM 20OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations The State documents the implementation status of measures from its regional haze SIP as well as describes significant measures resulting from EPA regulations other than the regional haze program as they pertain to the State’s sources. The progress report SIP highlights the effect of several Federal control measures both nationally and, when possible, in the State. EPA finds that Wisconsin’s analysis adequately addresses the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. Regarding the status of BART and reasonable progress control requirements for sources in the State, Wisconsin’s progress report notes that two boilers at one facility, Green Bay Georgia Pacific, were the only non-EGU emission units subject to BART requirements in Wisconsin. BART requirements at Georgia Pacific reflected alternative measures, which were incorporated into a federally enforceable Administrative Consent Order dated July 9, 2013, effective January 1, 2016. For sources evaluated for reasonable progress in Wisconsin, the State found no additional controls (beyond on-thebooks controls) to be reasonable for the first implementation period, so no other discussion of the status of controls was necessary in the progress report SIP. Wisconsin describes the implementation status of measures from its regional haze SIP, including the status of control measures to meet BART and reasonable progress requirements and the status of measures from on-thebook controls. EPA concludes that Wisconsin has adequately addressed the status of control measures in its regional haze SIP. 2. Summary of Emissions Reductions Achieved in the State Through Implementation of Measures In its regional haze SIP and progress report, Wisconsin focuses its assessment on NOX and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from EGUs as a result of the implementation of CAIR/CSAPR, as well as emissions from non-EGUs. During the period from 2005–2015 SO2 emissions from EGUs and non-EGUs decreased in Wisconsin by 74 percent according to data from the EPA Clean Air Markets Division (CAMD). Additionally, NOX emissions decreased from EGUs and non-EGUs by 55 percent during the same time period. The State provides estimates of reductions of NOX and SO2 from EGUs and non-EGUs in Wisconsin that have occurred since Wisconsin submitted its regional haze SIP. Given the large NOX and SO2 reductions that have actually occurred, further analysis of emissions from other sources or other pollutants, was unnecessary in this first implementation period. Because no additional controls were found to be reasonable for reasonable progress for the first implementation period for evaluated sources in Wisconsin, EPA finds that no further discussion of emissions reductions from controls was necessary in the progress report. EPA concludes that Wisconsin has adequately addressed the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. 3. Assessment of Visibility Conditions and Changes for Each Mandatory Class I Federal Area in the State Wisconsin does not have any Class I areas within its boundaries, and as the applicable provisions pertain only to states containing Class I areas, no further analysis is necessary. EPA concludes that Wisconsin has adequately addressed the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g). 4. Analysis Tracking Emissions Changes of Visibility-Impairing Pollutants In its progress report, Wisconsin presents data from a statewide 48767 emissions inventory developed for the year 2005 and compares this with a 2014 emissions inventory constructed by the Lake Michigan Air Directors Consortium (LADCO) based on the National Emissions Inventory (NEI) 2011 version 2 (2011 NEIv2) data. For both years, pollutants inventoried include ammonia (NH3), NOX, coarse particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter (PM2.5), reactive organic gases (ROG), and SO2. The emissions inventories from both the 2005 dataset and the 2014 NEIv2 include all point, area, on-road, off-road, animal and marine-aircraft-rail (MAR). Table 1 below shows the emissions from 2005–2014 versus projected 2018 emissions from the 2012 Wisconsin regional haze SIP submission. SO2 and NOX sources are the most impactful in terms of visibility improvement. In the 2005 inventory, SO2 emissions were 260,556 tons per year (TPY) and were projected by 2018 to decrease to 133,039 TPY. In 2014, SO2 emission had already decreased to 89,067 TPY, and achieved a 65.8 percent reduction. NOX emissions were 349,336 TPY and were projected by 2018 to decrease to 172,876 TPY. In 2014, NOX emission had already decreased to 236,568 TPY, and achieved a 32.3 percent reduction. Reductions of other pollutants exceeded the expected 2018 emissions. PM10 emissions increased from 2005 to 2014 by 8.4%. In the 2012 Regional Haze SIP and the progress report, WI predicted this increase, but it was deemed insignificant relative to the visibility improvements from the large reductions of NOX and SO2 emissions over those same time periods. NOX and SO2 emissions reductions have a much greater impact on visibility improvement. TABLE 1—EMISSION REDUCTIONS: 2005 TO 2014 VS PROJECTED 2018 EMISSIONS (TPY) NH3 nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES 2005 Base from Haze SIP ............................................... 2014 ................................................................................. 2018 Target from Haze SIP ............................................. % change, 2005–2014 ..................................................... % change, 2005–2018 ..................................................... The progress report shows that emissions are gradually decreasing from implementation of a variety of programs. EPA finds that Wisconsin has satisfied this element requiring an analysis tracking emissions progress for the current five-year period. Wisconsin appears to be on track for reaching its VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:59 Oct 19, 2017 Jkt 244001 NOX PM10 123,260 39,642 114,738 ¥67.8% ¥6.9% 349,336 236,568 172,876 ¥32.3% ¥50.5% 2018 emission projections. EPA concludes that Wisconsin has adequately addressed the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 PM2.5 60,494 65,576 72,231 8.4% 19.4% 53,143 50,278 61,353 ¥5.4% 15.4% ROG SO2 299,230 258,611 228,806 ¥13.6% ¥23.5% 260,556 89,067 133,039 ¥65.8% ¥48.9% 5. Assessment of Any Significant Changes in Anthropogenic Emissions As demonstrated in the previous section, in its progress report, Wisconsin notes that progress has been made in reductions in visibilityimpairing pollutants in the last five years. Wisconsin found that no changes E:\FR\FM\20OCR1.SGM 20OCR1 48768 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations either within or outside the State have occurred in the last five years that would impede the achievement of necessary emission reductions or would impede the improvement of visibility. Wisconsin indicated that no significant changes in anthropogenic emissions have impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving visibility in Class I areas impacted by Wisconsin sources. The progress report identified an overall downward trend in these emissions. Further, the progress report indicates that Wisconsin is on track to meeting its 2018 emissions projections. EPA concludes that Wisconsin has adequately addressed the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. 6. Assessment of Whether the SIP Elements and Strategies Are Sufficient To Enable Wisconsin, or Other States, To Meet RPGs The progress report indicates that the elements and strategies outlined in its original regional haze SIP are sufficient to enable Wisconsin and states where Wisconsin contributes to visibility impairments to meet all of the established RPGs. The original regional haze SIP identified several sources in Wisconsin that contribute to visibility impairment at Seney and Isle Royale Class I areas in Michigan. Wisconsin determined that implementation of control measures at these sources and associated significant downward trends in emissions, as discussed previously, demonstrate that Wisconsin is not interfering with the ability of these Class I areas to meet reasonable progress goals. EPA finds that Wisconsin’s conclusion regarding the sufficiency of the regional haze SIP is supported by the progress report from Michigan showing improved visibility at the Seney and Isle Royale Class I areas. EPA concludes that Wisconsin has adequately addressed the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES 7. Review of the State’s Visibility Monitoring Strategy Wisconsin’s progress report confirms there are no Class I areas within its borders. Because Wisconsin does not have any Class I areas within its borders, Wisconsin is not required to address the applicable provisions related to review of the State’s visibility monitoring strategy. EPA concludes that Wisconsin has adequately addressed the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308. VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:59 Oct 19, 2017 Jkt 244001 40 CFR 51.308(h) Determination of the Adequacy of Existing Implementation Plan The rule at 40 CFR 51.308(h) requires the State to submit its determination of adequacy for the regional haze plan at the same time as the progress report. The rule requires the State to select from four options based on the information given in the progress report. Wisconsin submitted a negative declaration indicating that further substantive revision of its regional haze plan is not needed at this time. Wisconsin determined that its regional haze plan is adequate to meet the Regional Haze Rule requirements and expects to achieve the reasonable progress goals at Isle Royale and Seney. EPA finds that the current Wisconsin regional haze plan is adequate to achieve its established goals. Based on its progress report, Wisconsin is on track to meet the visibility improvement and emission reduction goals. Public Participation and Federal Land Manager Consultation On December 12, 2016 Wisconsin provided an opportunity for Federal Land Managers (FLMs) to review Wisconsin’s report on progress made during the first implementation period toward RPGs for Class I areas outside the State that are affected by emissions from Wisconsin’s sources. Wisconsin’s progress report includes in Appendix 5, the FLMs comments and the State’s response to comments. Wisconsin also published notification for a public hearing and solicitation for full public comment concerning the draft five-year progress report. A public hearing was held on February 14, 2017. No comments were received and no testimony was provided. EPA finds that Wisconsin has addressed the applicable requirements in § 51.308(i) regarding FLM consultation. IV. What action is EPA taking? EPA is approving the regional haze progress report submitted on March 17, 2017, as a revision to the Wisconsin SIP. EPA finds that Wisconsin has satisfied the progress report requirements of 40 CFR 51.308(g). EPA also finds that Wisconsin has met the 40 CFR 51.308(h) requirements for a determination of the adequacy of its regional haze plan with its negative declaration submitted on March 17, 2017. We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse comments. However, in the proposed rules section PO 00000 Frm 00014 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 of this Federal Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will serve as the proposal to approve the State plan if relevant adverse written comments are filed. This rule will be effective December 19, 2017 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comments by November 20, 2017. If we receive such comments, we will withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. Public comments will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do not receive any comments, this action will be effective December 19, 2017. V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. For that reason, this action: • Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011); • Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under Executive Order 12866. • 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); E:\FR\FM\20OCR1.SGM 20OCR1 Federal Register / Vol. 82, No. 202 / Friday, October 20, 2017 / Rules and Regulations • 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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000). List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds. Dated: October 10, 2017. Robert A. Kaplan, Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: PART 52—APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows: ■ Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. Subpart YY—Wisconsin ■ 2. Add § 52.2593 to read as follows: nlaroche on DSK9F9SC42PROD with RULES § 52.2593 Visibility protection. (a) Approval. Wisconsin submitted its regional haze plan to EPA on January 18, 2012, supplemented on June 7, 2012. The Wisconsin regional haze plan meets the requirements of Clean Air Act section 169B and the Regional Haze Rule in § 51.308. VerDate Sep<11>2014 14:59 Oct 19, 2017 Jkt 244001 (b) Approval. Wisconsin submitted its five-year progress report on March 17, 2017. The Progress Report meets the requirements of Clean Air Act sections 169A and 169B and the Regional Haze Rule in § 51.308. [FR Doc. 2017–22705 Filed 10–19–17; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560–50–P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Part 52 [EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0271; FRL–9969–85– Region 9] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Nevada; Rescission of Visibility Protection Federal Implementation Plan for the Mohave Generating Station Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Final rule. AGENCY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the Nevada Division of Environmental Protection’s (NDEP) request to rescind the visibility protection Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) that we promulgated on February 8, 2002, to regulate air pollutant emissions from the Mohave Generating Station (MGS), located in Clark County, Nevada. The EPA is approving the NDEP’s request because MGS has been decommissioned and demolished. DATES: This rule is effective November 20, 2017. ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID No. EPA–R09–OAR–2017–0271. All documents in the docket are listed on the https://www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available through https:// www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section for additional availability information. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Krishna Viswanathan, EPA, Region IX, Air Division, Air Planning Office, (520) 999–7880 or viswanathan.krishna@ epa.gov. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ and ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA. SUMMARY: PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 4700 Sfmt 4700 48769 Table of Contents I. Proposed Action and Public Comment Period II. Final Action III. Environmental Justice Considerations IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews I. Proposed Action and Public Comment Period On June 22, 2017, the EPA proposed to rescind the MGS FIP because MGS had been decommissioned and demolished, as demonstrated by the supporting documentation provided by the NDEP.1 The EPA’s proposed action provided a 45-day public comment period. The EPA did not receive any comments on the proposal to rescind the MGS FIP. II. Final Action For the reasons explained in our proposal, we are approving the NDEP’s request to rescind the MGS FIP. III. Environmental Justice Considerations The EPA believes that this action will not have potential disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority, lowincome, or indigenous populations because it merely rescinds a FIP that is no longer applicable because the subject facility has been decommissioned and demolished. IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews Additional information about these statutes and Executive Orders can be found at https://www2.epa.gov/lawsregulations/laws-and-executive-orders. A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review and Executive Order 13563: Improving Regulation and Regulatory Review This action is not a significant regulatory action and was therefore not submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review. B. Executive Order 13771: Reducing Regulations and Controlling Regulatory Costs This action is not an Executive Order 13771 regulatory action because actions such as the Rescission of Visibility Protection Federal Implementation Plan for the Mohave Generating Station that apply to only one source is a Rule of Particular Applicability that are exempted under Executive Order 12866. 1 For details on the EPA’s original FIP and additional background, see proposal at 82 FR 28433. E:\FR\FM\20OCR1.SGM 20OCR1

Agencies

[Federal Register Volume 82, Number 202 (Friday, October 20, 2017)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 48766-48769]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2017-22705]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2017-0157; FRL-9969-87-Region 5]


Air Plan Approval; Wisconsin; Regional Haze Progress Report

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving the 
regional haze progress report under the Clean Air Act as a revision to 
the Wisconsin State Implementation Plan (SIP). Wisconsin has satisfied 
the progress report requirements of the Regional Haze Rule. Wisconsin 
has also met the requirements for a determination of the adequacy of 
its regional haze plan with its negative declaration submitted with the 
progress report.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective December 19, 2017, 
unless EPA receives adverse comments by November 20, 2017. If adverse 
comments are received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the 
direct final rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the 
rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-R05-
OAR-2017-0157 at https://www.regulations.gov or via email to 
aburano.douglas@epa.gov. For comments submitted at Regulations.gov, 
follow the online instructions for submitting comments. Once submitted, 
comments cannot be edited or removed from Regulations.gov. For either 
manner of submission, EPA may publish any comment received to its 
public docket. Do not submit electronically any information you 
consider to be Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Multimedia 
submissions (audio, video, etc.) must be accompanied by a written 
comment. The written comment is considered the official comment and 
should include discussion of all points you wish to make. EPA will 
generally not consider comments or comment contents located outside of 
the primary submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or other file sharing 
system). For additional submission methods, please contact the person 
identified in the For Further Information Contact section. For the full 
EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or multimedia 
submissions, and general guidance on making effective comments, please 
visit https://www2.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gilberto Alvarez, Environmental 
Scientist, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs 
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6143, 
alvarez.gilberto@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,'' 
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information 
section is arranged as follows:

I. Background
II. Requirements for the Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs and 
Adequacy of Determinations
III. What is EPA's analysis?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    States are required to submit a progress report every five years 
that evaluates progress towards the Reasonable Progress Goals (RPGs) 
for each mandatory Class I Federal area within the State and in each 
mandatory Class I Federal area outside the State which may be affected 
by emissions from within the State. See 40 CFR 51.308(g). States are 
also required to submit, at the same time as the progress report, a 
determination of the adequacy of the State's existing regional haze 
SIP. See 40 CFR 51.308(h). The first progress report is due five years 
after the submittal of the initial regional haze SIP.
    Wisconsin submitted its regional haze plan on January 18, 2012. EPA 
approved Wisconsin's regional haze plan into its SIP on August 7, 2012, 
77 FR 46952. Wisconsin submitted its five-year progress report on March 
17, 2017. This is a report on progress made in the first implementation 
period towards RPGs for Class I areas outside of Wisconsin. Wisconsin 
does not have any Class I areas within its borders. This progress 
report SIP included a determination that Wisconsin's existing regional 
haze SIP requires no substantive revision to achieve the established 
regional haze visibility improvement and emissions reduction goals for 
2018. EPA is proposing to approve Wisconsin's progress report on the 
basis that it satisfies the applicable requirements of the rule at 40 
CFR 51.308.

II. Requirements for the Regional Haze Progress Report SIPs and 
Adequacy of Determinations

    Under 40 CFR 51.308(g), states must periodically (every five years) 
submit a regional haze progress report that address the seven elements 
found in 40 CFR 51.308(g).
    Under 40 CFR 51.308(h), states are required to submit, at the same 
time as the progress report, a determination of the adequacy of their 
existing regional haze SIP and to take one of four possible listed 
actions based on information in the progress report.

III. What is EPA's analysis?

    The Regional Haze Rule provides the required elements for five-year 
progress reports in 40 CFR 51.308(g). EPA finds that Wisconsin 
satisfied the 40 CFR 51.308(g) requirements with its progress report. 
EPA finds that, with its negative declaration, Wisconsin also satisfied 
the requirements for the determination of adequacy provided in 40 CFR 
51.308(h).
    The following sections discuss the information provided by 
Wisconsin in the progress report submission, along with EPA's analysis 
and determination of whether the submission met the applicable 
requirements of Sec.  51.308.

1. Status of Implementation of all Measures Included in the Regional 
Haze SIP

    In its progress report, Wisconsin summarizes the status of the 
emissions reduction measures that were included in its 2012 regional 
haze SIP. Specifically, the report addresses the status of the on-the-
books emissions reduction measures. The measures include applicable 
Federal programs (e.g., Clean Air Interstate Rule--CAIR, Cross State 
Pollution Rule--CSAPR, on- and off-highway mobile source rules, area 
source rules, point sources, Title IV programs, nitrogen oxides 
(NOX) SIP Call, Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT) 
standards, Federal and State consent agreements, and Federal and State 
control strategies for electric generating units (EGUs)). This summary 
includes a discussion of the benefits associated with each measure.

[[Page 48767]]

    The State documents the implementation status of measures from its 
regional haze SIP as well as describes significant measures resulting 
from EPA regulations other than the regional haze program as they 
pertain to the State's sources. The progress report SIP highlights the 
effect of several Federal control measures both nationally and, when 
possible, in the State. EPA finds that Wisconsin's analysis adequately 
addresses the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308.
    Regarding the status of BART and reasonable progress control 
requirements for sources in the State, Wisconsin's progress report 
notes that two boilers at one facility, Green Bay Georgia Pacific, were 
the only non-EGU emission units subject to BART requirements in 
Wisconsin. BART requirements at Georgia Pacific reflected alternative 
measures, which were incorporated into a federally enforceable 
Administrative Consent Order dated July 9, 2013, effective January 1, 
2016. For sources evaluated for reasonable progress in Wisconsin, the 
State found no additional controls (beyond on-the-books controls) to be 
reasonable for the first implementation period, so no other discussion 
of the status of controls was necessary in the progress report SIP.
    Wisconsin describes the implementation status of measures from its 
regional haze SIP, including the status of control measures to meet 
BART and reasonable progress requirements and the status of measures 
from on-the-book controls. EPA concludes that Wisconsin has adequately 
addressed the status of control measures in its regional haze SIP.

2. Summary of Emissions Reductions Achieved in the State Through 
Implementation of Measures

    In its regional haze SIP and progress report, Wisconsin focuses its 
assessment on NOX and sulfur dioxide (SO2) 
emissions from EGUs as a result of the implementation of CAIR/CSAPR, as 
well as emissions from non-EGUs. During the period from 2005-2015 
SO2 emissions from EGUs and non-EGUs decreased in Wisconsin 
by 74 percent according to data from the EPA Clean Air Markets Division 
(CAMD). Additionally, NOX emissions decreased from EGUs and 
non-EGUs by 55 percent during the same time period.
    The State provides estimates of reductions of NOX and 
SO2 from EGUs and non-EGUs in Wisconsin that have occurred 
since Wisconsin submitted its regional haze SIP. Given the large 
NOX and SO2 reductions that have actually 
occurred, further analysis of emissions from other sources or other 
pollutants, was unnecessary in this first implementation period. 
Because no additional controls were found to be reasonable for 
reasonable progress for the first implementation period for evaluated 
sources in Wisconsin, EPA finds that no further discussion of emissions 
reductions from controls was necessary in the progress report. EPA 
concludes that Wisconsin has adequately addressed the applicable 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308.

3. Assessment of Visibility Conditions and Changes for Each Mandatory 
Class I Federal Area in the State

    Wisconsin does not have any Class I areas within its boundaries, 
and as the applicable provisions pertain only to states containing 
Class I areas, no further analysis is necessary. EPA concludes that 
Wisconsin has adequately addressed the applicable requirements of 40 
CFR 51.308(g).

4. Analysis Tracking Emissions Changes of Visibility-Impairing 
Pollutants

    In its progress report, Wisconsin presents data from a statewide 
emissions inventory developed for the year 2005 and compares this with 
a 2014 emissions inventory constructed by the Lake Michigan Air 
Directors Consortium (LADCO) based on the National Emissions Inventory 
(NEI) 2011 version 2 (2011 NEIv2) data. For both years, pollutants 
inventoried include ammonia (NH3), NOX, coarse 
particulate matter (PM10), fine particulate matter 
(PM2.5), reactive organic gases (ROG), and SO2. 
The emissions inventories from both the 2005 dataset and the 2014 NEIv2 
include all point, area, on-road, off-road, animal and marine-aircraft-
rail (MAR).
    Table 1 below shows the emissions from 2005-2014 versus projected 
2018 emissions from the 2012 Wisconsin regional haze SIP submission. 
SO2 and NOX sources are the most impactful in 
terms of visibility improvement. In the 2005 inventory, SO2 
emissions were 260,556 tons per year (TPY) and were projected by 2018 
to decrease to 133,039 TPY. In 2014, SO2 emission had 
already decreased to 89,067 TPY, and achieved a 65.8 percent reduction. 
NOX emissions were 349,336 TPY and were projected by 2018 to 
decrease to 172,876 TPY. In 2014, NOX emission had already 
decreased to 236,568 TPY, and achieved a 32.3 percent reduction. 
Reductions of other pollutants exceeded the expected 2018 emissions.
    PM10 emissions increased from 2005 to 2014 by 8.4%. In 
the 2012 Regional Haze SIP and the progress report, WI predicted this 
increase, but it was deemed insignificant relative to the visibility 
improvements from the large reductions of NOX and 
SO2 emissions over those same time periods. NOX 
and SO2 emissions reductions have a much greater impact on 
visibility improvement.

                  Table 1--Emission Reductions: 2005 to 2014 vs Projected 2018 Emissions (TPY)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        NH3          NOX          PM10        PM2.5         ROG          SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 Base from Haze SIP...........      123,260      349,336       60,494       53,143      299,230      260,556
2014..............................       39,642      236,568       65,576       50,278      258,611       89,067
2018 Target from Haze SIP.........      114,738      172,876       72,231       61,353      228,806      133,039
% change, 2005-2014...............       -67.8%       -32.3%         8.4%        -5.4%       -13.6%       -65.8%
% change, 2005-2018...............        -6.9%       -50.5%        19.4%        15.4%       -23.5%       -48.9%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The progress report shows that emissions are gradually decreasing 
from implementation of a variety of programs. EPA finds that Wisconsin 
has satisfied this element requiring an analysis tracking emissions 
progress for the current five-year period. Wisconsin appears to be on 
track for reaching its 2018 emission projections. EPA concludes that 
Wisconsin has adequately addressed the applicable requirements of 40 
CFR 51.308.

5. Assessment of Any Significant Changes in Anthropogenic Emissions

    As demonstrated in the previous section, in its progress report, 
Wisconsin notes that progress has been made in reductions in 
visibility-impairing pollutants in the last five years. Wisconsin found 
that no changes

[[Page 48768]]

either within or outside the State have occurred in the last five years 
that would impede the achievement of necessary emission reductions or 
would impede the improvement of visibility.
    Wisconsin indicated that no significant changes in anthropogenic 
emissions have impeded progress in reducing emissions and improving 
visibility in Class I areas impacted by Wisconsin sources. The progress 
report identified an overall downward trend in these emissions. 
Further, the progress report indicates that Wisconsin is on track to 
meeting its 2018 emissions projections. EPA concludes that Wisconsin 
has adequately addressed the applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308.

6. Assessment of Whether the SIP Elements and Strategies Are Sufficient 
To Enable Wisconsin, or Other States, To Meet RPGs

    The progress report indicates that the elements and strategies 
outlined in its original regional haze SIP are sufficient to enable 
Wisconsin and states where Wisconsin contributes to visibility 
impairments to meet all of the established RPGs. The original regional 
haze SIP identified several sources in Wisconsin that contribute to 
visibility impairment at Seney and Isle Royale Class I areas in 
Michigan. Wisconsin determined that implementation of control measures 
at these sources and associated significant downward trends in 
emissions, as discussed previously, demonstrate that Wisconsin is not 
interfering with the ability of these Class I areas to meet reasonable 
progress goals.
    EPA finds that Wisconsin's conclusion regarding the sufficiency of 
the regional haze SIP is supported by the progress report from Michigan 
showing improved visibility at the Seney and Isle Royale Class I areas. 
EPA concludes that Wisconsin has adequately addressed the applicable 
requirements of 40 CFR 51.308.

7. Review of the State's Visibility Monitoring Strategy

    Wisconsin's progress report confirms there are no Class I areas 
within its borders. Because Wisconsin does not have any Class I areas 
within its borders, Wisconsin is not required to address the applicable 
provisions related to review of the State's visibility monitoring 
strategy. EPA concludes that Wisconsin has adequately addressed the 
applicable requirements of 40 CFR 51.308.
40 CFR 51.308(h) Determination of the Adequacy of Existing 
Implementation Plan
    The rule at 40 CFR 51.308(h) requires the State to submit its 
determination of adequacy for the regional haze plan at the same time 
as the progress report. The rule requires the State to select from four 
options based on the information given in the progress report.
    Wisconsin submitted a negative declaration indicating that further 
substantive revision of its regional haze plan is not needed at this 
time. Wisconsin determined that its regional haze plan is adequate to 
meet the Regional Haze Rule requirements and expects to achieve the 
reasonable progress goals at Isle Royale and Seney.
    EPA finds that the current Wisconsin regional haze plan is adequate 
to achieve its established goals. Based on its progress report, 
Wisconsin is on track to meet the visibility improvement and emission 
reduction goals.
Public Participation and Federal Land Manager Consultation
    On December 12, 2016 Wisconsin provided an opportunity for Federal 
Land Managers (FLMs) to review Wisconsin's report on progress made 
during the first implementation period toward RPGs for Class I areas 
outside the State that are affected by emissions from Wisconsin's 
sources. Wisconsin's progress report includes in Appendix 5, the FLMs 
comments and the State's response to comments.
    Wisconsin also published notification for a public hearing and 
solicitation for full public comment concerning the draft five-year 
progress report. A public hearing was held on February 14, 2017. No 
comments were received and no testimony was provided.
    EPA finds that Wisconsin has addressed the applicable requirements 
in Sec.  51.308(i) regarding FLM consultation.

IV. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the regional haze progress report submitted on 
March 17, 2017, as a revision to the Wisconsin SIP. EPA finds that 
Wisconsin has satisfied the progress report requirements of 40 CFR 
51.308(g). EPA also finds that Wisconsin has met the 40 CFR 51.308(h) 
requirements for a determination of the adequacy of its regional haze 
plan with its negative declaration submitted on March 17, 2017.
    We are publishing this action without prior proposal because we 
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse 
comments. However, in the proposed rules section of this Federal 
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will 
serve as the proposal to approve the State plan if relevant adverse 
written comments are filed. This rule will be effective December 19, 
2017 without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written 
comments by November 20, 2017. If we receive such comments, we will 
withdraw this action before the effective date by publishing a 
subsequent document that will withdraw the final action. Public 
comments will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on the 
proposed action. EPA will not institute a second comment period. Any 
parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at this 
time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse comment on an amendment, 
paragraph, or section of this rule and if that provision may be severed 
from the remainder of the rule, EPA may adopt as final those provisions 
of the rule that are not the subject of an adverse comment. If we do 
not receive any comments, this action will be effective December 19, 
2017.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under the Clean Air Act (CAA), the Administrator is required to 
approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the CAA 
and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, 
this action merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements 
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by 
state law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to review 
by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Orders 12866 (58 
FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21, 2011);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866.
     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);

[[Page 48769]]

     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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian 
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has 
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian 
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose 
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 
matter, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides, 
Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 10, 2017.
Robert A. Kaplan,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

Subpart YY--Wisconsin

0
2. Add Sec.  52.2593 to read as follows:


Sec.  52.2593  Visibility protection.

    (a) Approval. Wisconsin submitted its regional haze plan to EPA on 
January 18, 2012, supplemented on June 7, 2012. The Wisconsin regional 
haze plan meets the requirements of Clean Air Act section 169B and the 
Regional Haze Rule in Sec.  51.308.
    (b) Approval. Wisconsin submitted its five-year progress report on 
March 17, 2017. The Progress Report meets the requirements of Clean Air 
Act sections 169A and 169B and the Regional Haze Rule in Sec.  51.308.
[FR Doc. 2017-22705 Filed 10-19-17; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.