Voglio sapere a riguardo di…

Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 54 / Tuesday, March 23, 2021 / Rules and Regulations preliminary views regarding Wisconsins submittal. Unfortunately, these views were not informed by a complete understanding of how Wisconsins submittal related to section 123 of the CAA and EPA regulations at 40 CFR 51.118 and 51.100hhkk restricting the circumstances in which increased stack height can be credited in emission limitations in SIPs. As EPA
informed Wisconsin in February 2017, in the process of conducting an internal regulatory review of Wisconsins submittal, EPA found that the plan did not meet the applicable requirements due to the reliance on a stack height above GEP stack height. Specifically, Wisconsins plan relied on a stack height above the formula GEP height defined in 40 CFR 51.100ii2 without meeting the control requirements in 40
CFR 51.100ii3 and kk1.
Wisconsins comments state that Wisconsin and the company disagree with EPAs interpretation of the stack height regulations. However, since Wisconsin identified no specific objections to EPAs interpretation of these regulations as delineated in the proposed rule, EPA has no reason to reevaluate this interpretation as it applies here, and EPA continues to interpret the stack height regulations as prohibiting reliance on stack heights above formula GEP height, unless the plan also establishes control requirements specified in 40 CFR
51.100ii3 and kk1. EPA also notes that its interpretation has been judicially affirmed. See, Montana Sulphur & Chemical Company v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174 9th Cir. 2012.
EPA appreciates that Wisconsin has nevertheless committed to submitting an approvable plan consistent with section 123 of the CAA and EPAs stack height regulations. EPA looks forward to a future rulemaking to address that submittal. EPA also appreciates the continued discussions between EPA and Wisconsin on these issues.
EPA understands that the finalization of the proposed action will not affect the timeline of Wisconsins planned submittal of a corrective SIP, which Wisconsin expects to submit by March 31, 2021. Nevertheless, EPA may not defer acting on Wisconsins 2016
submittal, which the State has never withdrawn, but must instead act more promptly due to a court-ordered deadline that was established for EPA to fulfill its obligation under section 110k of the CAA to complete rulemaking on this state submittal.
EPA will pursue a separate rulemaking to address a future supplemental submittal from Wisconsin. If EPA issues a rulemaking
VerDate Sep<11>2014

16:06 Mar 22, 2021

Jkt 253001

that shows that Wisconsin has met all applicable requirements, that action would terminate the sanctions and FIP
clocks initiated by this action, and Wisconsin would be subject to no further planning obligations with respect to the 2010 SO2 air quality standard for the Rhinelander area.
Anonymous Comment: The commenter supports the finalization of the proposed action. However, the commenter suggested that EPA could strengthen its justification in several ways. The commenter suggested that EPA clarify the differences between the States and EPAs interpretation of the stack height regulations, discuss the effects of SO2 on human health and the environment, and describe some specific actions the facility could take to reduce SO2.
Response: EPA appreciates the commenters support in finalizing the proposed action.
The commenter appears to have identified the primary distinction between the States and EPAs interpretation of the stack height regulation, that EPA unlike the State believes that the stack height regulations require emission control new source performance standards or, alternatively, best available retrofit technology as a prerequisite for any credit being granted for stack height above formula GEP
height. EPA presented an extensive description of its interpretation of these regulations in its proposed rule, and EPA believes that further discussion of how the States views might differ is unwarranted in the absence of comments from the State specifying such distinctions in its interpretation. In any event, EPAs interpretation is wellsettled, and was affirmed by the U.S.
Coury of Appeals for the 9th Circuit in Montana Sulphur & Chemical Company v. EPA, 666 F.3d 1174 9th. Cir. 2012.
The commenter is correct that control of SO2 emissions has a number of environmental benefits; beyond avoiding the health effects that prompted the promulgation of the SO2
air quality standard, SO2 emission reductions also reduce the long range formation of fine particulate matter and reduce regional haze. That said, these benefits are pertinent to programs beyond the scope of this SIP action that are addressed under other authority, whereas the purpose of this action is merely to determine whether Wisconsins plan is consistent with the CAA and with EPAs regulations governing action on attainment demonstration SIPs.
Wisconsin and the facility are well aware of control options for meeting the SO2 air quality standard without
PO 00000

Frm 00023

Fmt 4700

Sfmt 4700

15419

reliance on a stack height above the height that is creditable under the stack height regulations. In any case, the subject of this rule is the adequacy of Wisconsins 2016 plan, not the options for remedying the deficiencies in Wisconsins 2016 plan. Therefore, no additional discussion of control options is necessary here.
III. What action is EPA taking?
EPA is approving the base year emissions inventory and affirming that the new source review requirements for the area have been met. EPA is also approving Wisconsins Administrative Order AM1501, containing emission limits and associated compliance monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements for AhlstromMunksj formerly Expera, as SIP
strengthening.3 EPA is disapproving the attainment demonstration, as well as the requirement for meeting RFP toward attainment of the NAAQS, RACM/
RACT, emission limitations and control measures as necessary to attain the NAAQS, and contingency measures.
This disapproval will start sanctions clocks for this area under CAA section 179ab, including a requirement for 2-for-1 offsets for any major new sources or major modifications 18 months after the effective date of this action, and highway funding sanctions 6 months thereafter, as well as initiate an obligation for EPA to promulgate a FIP
within 24 months under CAA section 110c, unless in the meantime EPA has approved a plan that satisfies the requirements that EPA is finding unsatisfied.
As noted above, Wisconsin has committed to submit a supplemental submittal addressing EPAs concerns.
EPA expects such a submittal to contain more stringent limits for AhlstromMunksjos Rhinelander facility, such that it may be appropriate for the prospective document containing the expected enhanced limits to replace the administrative order being approved here, with the result that the SIP, if revised by Wisconsin and approved by EPA to incorporate them, would then only include the enhanced requirements. However, any such replacement would be considered in the context of notice-and-comment rulemaking on the prospective Wisconsin submittal and is not germane here.
3 EPA is approving an order issued to the facilitys prior owner, Expera, but the order continues to limit emissions from the facility, which is now owned by Ahlstrom-Munksjo.

E:FRFM23MRR1.SGM

23MRR1