3966 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

information described in paragraph (b) 

of this section. 

(b) Required information—(1) In 

general. The information required under 

paragraph (a) of this section shall 

include the following information: 

(i) The passport applicant’s full name 

and, if applicable, previous name; 

(ii) Address of the passport 

applicant’s regular or principal place of 

residence within the country of 

residence and, if different, mailing 

address; 

(iii) The passport applicant’s taxpayer 

identifying number (TIN), if such a 

number has been issued to the passport 

applicant. A TIN means the individual’s 

social security number (SSN) issued by 

the Social Security Administration. A 

passport applicant who does not have 

an SSN must enter zeros in the 

appropriate space on the passport 

application; and 

(iv) The passport applicant’s date of 

birth. 

(2) Time for furnishing information. A 

passport applicant must provide the 

information required by this section at 

the time of submitting his or her 

passport application, whether by 

personal appearance or mail, to the 

Department of State (including United 

States Embassies and Consular posts 

abroad). 

(c) Penalties—(1) In general. If the 

information required by paragraph (b)(1) 

of this section is incomplete or 

incorrect, or the information is not 

timely filed, then the passport applicant 

shall be subject to a penalty equal to 

$500 per application. Before assessing a 

penalty under this section, the IRS will 

ordinarily provide to the passport 

applicant written notice of the potential 

assessment of the $500 penalty, 

requesting the information being sought, 

and offering the applicant an 

opportunity to explain why such 

information was not provided at the 

time the passport application was 

submitted. A passport applicant has 60 

days (90 days if the notice is addressed 

to an applicant outside the United 

States) to respond to the notice. If, after 

considering all the surrounding 

circumstances, the passport applicant 

demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 

Commissioner or his delegate that the 

failure is due to reasonable cause and 

not due to willful neglect, then the IRS 

will not assess the penalty. 

(2) Example. The following example 

illustrates the provisions of paragraph 

(c) this section. 

Example. C, a citizen of the United States, 

makes an error in supplying information on 

his passport application. Based on the nature 

of the error and C’s timely response to correct 

the error after being contacted by the IRS, 

and considering all the surrounding 

circumstances, the Commissioner concludes 

that the mistake is due to reasonable cause 

and not due to willful neglect. Accordingly, 

no penalty is assessed. 

(d) Effective/applicability date. The 

rules of this section apply to passport 

applications submitted after the date of 

publication of the Treasury decision 

adopting these rules as final regulations 

in the Federal Register. 

Steven T. Miller, 

Deputy Commissioner for Services and 

Enforcement. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1567 Filed 1–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4830–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0598; FRL–9622–6] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; 

Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

revisions to the Illinois State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) addressing 

regional haze for the first 

implementation period. Illinois 

submitted its regional haze plan on June 

24, 2011. The Illinois regional haze plan 

addresses Clean Air Act (CAA) section 

169B and Regional Haze Rule 

requirements for states to remedy any 

existing and prevent future 

anthropogenic impairment of visibility 

at mandatory Class I areas. EPA is also 

proposing to approve two state rules 

and incorporating two permits into the 

SIP. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 27, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2011–0598, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2011– 

0598. 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 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3967 

1Areas 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 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 ‘‘mandatory Class I Federal 

area.’’ 

2Albuquerque/Bernalillo County, New Mexico 

must also submit a regional haze SIP to satisfy the 

section 110(a)(2)(D) requirements of the CAA for the 

entire state under the New Mexico Air Quality 

Control Act (section 74–2–4). 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 

886–6524 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt 

Rau, Environmental Engineer, Control 

Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch 

(AR–18J), Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 

(312) 886–6524, rau.matthew@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

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 SIPs? 

IV. What is EPA’s analysis of Illinois’ 

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 that emit fine 

particles (PM2.5) (e.g., sulfates, nitrates, 

organic carbon, 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 

detrimental 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 of 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. 64 FR 

35715 (July 1, 1999). 

B. Requirements of the Clean Air Act 

and EPA’s Regional Haze Rule 

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 the Regional 

Haze Rule (RHR) on July 1, 1999 (64 FR 

35713). The RHR revised the existing 

visibility regulations to integrate into 

the regulations 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. The requirement to submit a 

regional haze SIP applies to all 50 states, 

the District of Columbia, and the Virgin 

Islands.2

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing 

Regional Haze 

Successful implementation of the 

regional haze program will require longterm regional coordination among 

states, tribal governments, and 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 of 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

3968 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

3The preamble to the RHR provides additional 

details about the deciview. 64 FR 35714, 35725 

(July 1, 1999). 

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 Midwest RPO (MRPO) is a 

collaborative effort of state governments 

and various Federal agencies 

established to initiate and coordinate 

activities associated with the 

management of regional haze, visibility, 

and other air quality issues in the 

Midwest. The member states are Illinois, 

Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin. 

III. What are the requirements for 

regional haze SIPs? 

Regional haze SIPs must assure 

reasonable progress toward the national 

goal of achieving natural visibility 

conditions in Class I areas. Section 

169A of the CAA and EPA’s 

implementing regulations require states 

to establish long-term strategies for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting this goal. 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 

must require those sources to install 

emission controls reducing visibility 

impairment if appropriate. 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 3

(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. The deciview is a 

more useful measure for tracking 

progress in improving visibility than 

light extinction itself because each 

deciview change is an equal incremental 

change in visibility perceived by the 

human eye. Most people can detect a 

change in visibility at one deciview. 

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 of each 

regional haze SIP submission 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) (EPA’s 2003 Tracking 

Progress Guidance). 

For the first regional haze SIP, the 

‘‘baseline visibility conditions’’ are 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 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 the future comparison 

of baseline conditions to the then 

current 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 (RPGs) 

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, 

Class I states 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 state must demonstrate in 

its SIP how these factors are considered 

when selecting the RPGs for the best 

and worst days for each applicable Class 

I area. States have considerable 

flexibility in how they take these factors 

into consideration, as noted in 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 (‘‘uniform rate of 

progress’’ or ‘‘glide path’’) and the 

emissions reduction needed to achieve 

that rate of progress over the 

approximately 10-year period of the SIP. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3969 

In setting RPGs, 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 

(BART) 

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 as 

long as the alternative 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 fossil 

fuel-fired electric generating units 

(EGUs) 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 visibilityimpairing pollutants emitted by a source 

in the BART determination process. The 

most significant visibility impairing 

pollutants are SO2, NOX, and PM. EPA 

has stated that states should use their 

best judgment in determining whether 

VOC or NH3 compounds 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 

would not be expected to cause or 

contribute to visibility impairment in 

any Class I area. 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 emissions that model 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’s 

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. 

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 (LTS) in their 

regional haze SIPs. The LTS 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 LTS 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 LTS, 

including stationary, minor, mobile, and 

area sources. At a minimum, states must 

describe how each of the following 

seven factors are taken into account in 

developing their LTS: (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 LTS. 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) as part 

of the RHR regarding the LTS for RAVI 

to require that 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 LTS for addressing RAVI 

and regional haze on or before this date. 

It must also submit the first such 

coordinated LTS with its first regional 

haze SIP. Future coordinated LTSs, 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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

3970 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

The periodic review of a state’s LTS 

must report on both regional haze and 

RAVI impairment and be submitted to 

EPA as a SIP revision. 

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 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 of 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, and where possible in 

electronic format; 

• 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) 

with the exception of BART. 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 

consultation, in person and 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 Illinois’ 

regional haze plan? 

Illinois submitted its regional haze 

plan on June 24, 2011, which included 

revisions to the Illinois SIP to address 

regional haze. 

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). Illinois 

does not have any Class I areas within 

the state. Illinois reviewed technical 

analyses conducted by MRPO to 

determine what Class I areas outside the 

state are affected by Illinois emission 

sources. MRPO conducted both a back 

trajectory analysis and modeling to 

determine the affects of its states’ 

emissions. The conclusion from the 

technical analysis is that emissions from 

Illinois sources affect 19 Class I areas. 

The affected Class I areas are: Sipsey 

Wilderness Area in Alabama; Caney 

Creek and Upper Buffalo Wilderness 

Areas in Arkansas; Mammoth Cave in 

Kentucky; Acadia National Park and 

Moosehorn Wilderness Area in Maine; 

Isle Royale National Park and Seney 

Wilderness Area in Michigan; Boundary 

Waters Canoe Wilderness Area in 

Minnesota; Hercules-Glades and Mingo 

Wilderness Areas in Missouri; Great 

Gulf Wilderness Area in New 

Hampshire; Brigantine Wilderness Area 

in New Jersey; Great Smoky Mountains 

National Park in North Carolina and 

Tennessee; Lye Brook Wilderness Area 

in Vermont; James River Face 

Wilderness Area and Shenandoah 

National Park in Virginia; and, Dolly 

Sods/Otter Creek Wilderness Area in 

West Virginia. 

B. Baseline, Current, and Natural 

Conditions 

The RHR requires states with Class I 

areas to calculate the baseline and 

natural conditions for their Class I areas. 

Because Illinois does not have any Class 

I areas, it was not required to address 

the requirements for calculating 

baseline and natural conditions. 

C. Reasonable Progress Goals 

Class I states must set RPGs that 

achieve reasonable progress toward 

achieving natural visibility conditions. 

Because Illinois does not have any Class 

I areas, it is not required to establish 

RPGs. Illinois consulted 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 impacts. 

Illinois’s coordination with affected 

Class I states is discussed under Illinois 

Long Term Strategy, in Section IV. E. 

Illinois included the MRPO technical 

support document (TSD) in its 

submission. In Section 5 of the TSD, 

MRPO assessed the reasonable progress 

for regional haze. It first assessed 

potential control measures using the 

four factors required to be considered by 

Class I states when selecting the RPGs: 

the cost of compliance, time needed, 

energy and non-air impacts, and 

remaining useful life of any potentially 

affected sources. The cost of compliance 

factor includes calculating the average 

cost effectiveness and can include costs 

to health and industry vitality as well as 

considering the different visibility 

effects of different pollutants. The time 

necessary for compliance factor 

considers whether control measures can 

be implemented by 2018. The third 

factor, energy and non-air quality 

impacts, considers additional energy 

consumed by or because of the control 

measure as well as effects due to waste 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3971 

generated or water consumption. The 

final factor, remaining useful life, allows 

states to consider planned source 

retirements in calculating costs. 

MRPO also assessed the visibility 

benefits of existing programs. MRPO 

considered existing on-highway mobile 

source, off-highway mobile source, area 

source, power plant, and other point 

source programs. MRPO also included 

reductions from the Clean Air Interstate 

Rule (CAIR) in its analysis, as well from 

rules adopted by Illinois and included 

in its regional haze SIP requiring the 

control of emissions from EGUs. 

Illinois has a distinctive situation 

regarding CAIR, insofar as it has 

adopted state rules that require EGUs to 

control NOX and SO2 emissions beyond 

the control expected from CAIR, even in 

the absence of CAIR, particularly by 

2018 and beyond. Further discussion of 

these Illinois rules is provided below. 

The RPGs that pertinent Class I states 

have adopted are predicated on other 

contributing states achieving the EGU 

emission reductions anticipated under 

CAIR. Since Illinois is mandating a 

greater degree of control than is 

expected from other states, EPA 

concludes that Illinois’s regional haze 

plan is expected to provide emission 

reductions representing an appropriate 

contribution toward meeting the RPGs 

for the affected Class I areas, 

irrespective of the status of CAIR and 

irrespective of the associated issues 

regarding the adequacy of other state’s 

plans. For similar reasons, EPA believes 

that the approvability of the Illinois 

plan is also not affected by the status of 

the Transport Rule, which was 

promulgated on August 8, 2011 at 76 FR 

48208 and stayed on December 30, 

2011. 

D. Best Available Retrofit Technology 

States are required to submit an 

implementation plan containing 

emission limitations representing BART 

and schedules for compliance with 

BART for each BART-eligible source 

that may reasonably be anticipated to 

cause or contribute to any impairment 

in a Class I area, unless the State 

demonstrates that an emissions trading 

program or other alternative will 

achieve greater reasonable progress 

toward natural visibility conditions. 40 

CFR 51.308(e). 

Using the criteria in the BART 

Guidance at 40 CFR 51.308(e) and 

Appendix Y, Illinois first identified all 

of the BART-eligible sources and 

assessed whether the BART-eligible 

sources were subject to BART. Illinois 

initially identified 26 potential BART 

facilities—11 EGUs, four petroleum 

refineries, three chemical process 

plants, two Portland cement plants, two 

glass fiber processing plants, one lime 

plant, and one iron and steel plant. The 

state further analyzed these facilities to 

identify those sources subject to BART. 

Illinois relied on modeling conducted 

by MRPO using a modeling protocol 

MRPO developed. MRPO conferred with 

its states, EPA, and the FLMs in 

developing its BART modeling protocol. 

EPA guidance says that, ‘‘any threshold 

that you use for determining whether a 

source ‘contributes’ to visibility 

impairment should not be higher than 

0.5 dv.’’ The Guidelines affirm that 

states are free to use a lower threshold 

if the location of a large number of 

BART-eligible sources in proximity of a 

Class I area justifies this approach. 

Illinois used a contribution threshold of 

0.5 dv for determining which sources 

warrant being subject to BART. Illinois 

concluded that the threshold of 0.5 dv 

was appropriate since its BART-eligible 

sources are located state-wide and no 

Class I areas are nearby causing Illinois 

to correctly conclude that a stricter 

contribution threshold is not justified. 

The modeled impact of these facilities 

indicated that 11 sources have at least 

0.5 dv impact (98th percentile) and thus 

are subject to BART. The 11 sources 

determined to be subject to BART are 

nine EGUs and two petroleum 

refineries. The other 15 potential BART 

sources were determined not to be 

subject to BART because the analysis 

showed impacts well below the 0.5 dv 

contribution threshold. 

The EGUs subject to BART are: 

• Dynegy Midwest Generating— 

Baldwin Boilers 1, 2, and 3. 

• Dominion Kincaid Generation— 

Boilers 1 and 2. 

• Ameren Energy Generating— 

Coffeen Boilers CB–1 and CB–2. 

• Ameren Energy Generating—E.D. 

Edwards Boilers 2 and 3. 

• Ameren Energy Generating—Duck 

Creek Boiler 1. 

• Midwest Generation—Powerton 

Boilers 51, 52, 61, and 62. 

• Midwest Generation—Joliet Boilers 

71, 72, 81, and 82. 

• Midwest Generation—Will County 

Boiler 4. 

• City Water, Light, and Power— 

Dallman Boiler 1 and 2. 

• City Water, Light, and Power— 

Lakeside Boiler 8. 

To address mercury emissions from 

EGUs, Illinois adopted Part 225 of 

Illinois’s air pollution regulations, 

entitled ‘‘Control of Emissions from 

Large Combustion Sources.’’ In this rule, 

Illinois offered affected utilities two 

options, one of which imposes stringent 

limits on mercury emissions alone and 

the other of which mandates 

implementation of specific mercury 

control technology in conjunction with 

satisfaction of stringent emission limits 

for SO2 and NOX. Part 225 includes 

section 225.233, entitled ‘‘MultiPollutant Standards,’’ addressing 

emissions from facilities owned by 

Ameren and Dynegy, and sections 

225.293 to 225.299, collectively referred 

to as the Combined Pollutant Standards 

(CPS), addressing emissions from 

facilities owned by Midwest Generation. 

In all cases, the utilities have selected 

the option including mercury control 

technology and applicability of the SO2

and NOX limits. The emission limits are 

in the earlier noted sections of the state 

rules, so these SO2 and NOX limits are 

now fully enforceable by the state. 

The SO2 and NOX emission limits in 

Part 225 rules reflect substantial 

averaging across units and across 

facilities. For example, the collective set 

of facilities in Illinois owned by 

Midwest Generation (as listed in the 

Part 225 rules) are subject to NOX and 

SO2 limits based on annual average 

emissions across all facilities. The limit 

for NOX emissions is 0.11 pounds per 

million British Thermal Units (lb/ 

MMBTU) starting in 2012 and the limits 

for SO2 are 0.15 lb/MMBTU in 2017 and 

0.11 lb/MMBTU starting in 2019. The 

collective set of Ameren facilities in 

Illinois, under the Multi-Pollutant 

Standards (MPS), must meet an annual 

average emission limit for NOX of 0.11 

lb/MMBTU starting in 2012 and for SO2

of 0.23 lb/MMBTU starting in 2017. 

Similar limits under the MPS apply to 

the Dynegy facilities in Illinois. 

EPA believes this degree of averaging 

is acceptable in this context. The limits 

that Illinois has imposed are sufficiently 

stringent that the companies have only 

limited latitude to over control at some 

facilities in trade for having elevated 

emissions at other facilities. The 

facilities owned by each company are 

sufficiently close to each other, relative 

to their distances from the nearest Class 

I areas, that modest shifts in emissions 

from one facility to another should have 

minimal impact on the combined 

impact on regional haze at the Class I 

areas. Furthermore, regional haze is 

evaluated across a considerable number 

of days, e.g., the 20 percent of days with 

the worst visibility. Therefore, a limit 

that allows elevated emissions on 

individual days, so long as other days 

have lower emissions, should suffice to 

address the pertinent measures of 

regional haze. Illinois’s limits should 

also be adequately enforceable since the 

sources at issue are required to conduct 

continuous emission monitoring of both 

SO2 and NOX. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

3972 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

Dynegy has five facilities with 10 

units covered by MPS, including the 

three Dynegy Baldwin units that are 

subject to BART. Emission reductions 

required for seven other Dynegy units 

not subject to BART will allow it meet 

the MPS reduction requirements. MPS 

will reduce emissions from all Dynegy 

facilities by 23,831 tons per year (TPY) 

of NOX and 47,347 TPY of SO2, as 

compared to emissions in the 2002 base 

year. 

Ameren has seven facilities with 21 

units covered by MPS. This includes the 

subject to BART units: Coffeen units 1 

and 2, Duck Creek unit 1, and Edwards 

units 2 and 3. Ameren has installed 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) for 

NOX control and wet scrubbers to limit 

SO2 emissions from both Coffeen units. 

Duck Creek unit 1 is controlled by low 

NOX burners, SCR, and wet scrubbers. 

Edwards unit 2 will receive an upgraded 

low NOX burner and overfire air (OFA) 

to reduce NOX emissions. Edwards unit 

3 is already controlled for NOX with low 

NOX burners, OFA, and SCR. Ameren 

plans to install a new scrubber and 

fabric filter at Edwards unit 3. 

Company-wide reductions from Ameren 

EGUs are projected to be 27,896 TPY 

NOX and 131,367 TPY SO2 by 2015 and 

134,464 TPY of SO2 by 2017. 

Midwest Generating operates six 

facilities with 19 total units that must 

comply with CPS, including the 

Midwest Generation units subject to 

BART: Powerton units 51, 52, 61, and 

62; Joliet units 71, 72, 81, and 82; and 

Will County unit 4. The four Powerton 

units currently have low NOX burners 

and OFA. Midwest Generation plans to 

add selective non-catalytic reduction 

(SNCR) in 2012 to reduce NOX

emissions and flue gas desulfurization 

(FGD) in 2013 to cut SO2 emissions. 

Both control improvements will be 

added to all four units. Midwest 

Generating’s Joliet facility currently has 

low NOX burners and OFA on its four 

BART units. SNCR is expected to be 

added in 2012 to all four BART units. 

Midwest Generating is also planning to 

add FGD on units 71, 72, 81, and 82 by 

2019. Will County unit 4 is currently 

controlled with low NOX burners and 

OFA. Midwest Generating plans to 

upgrade the NOX control to SNCR in 

2012 and to add FGD control by 2019. 

CPS will reduce NOX emissions from all 

Midwest Generating facilities by 38,155 

TPY, while SO2 emissions will decrease 

by 35,465 TPY in 2015, increasing to a 

61,194 TPY reduction in 2019. 

A state may opt to implement an 

alternate measure rather than requiring 

each subject to BART unit to install, 

operate, and maintain BART if it 

demonstrates that the alternate measure 

will achieve greater reasonable progress. 

The criteria for the assessment if an 

alternative measure demonstrates 

greater reasonable progress are provided 

in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2). MPS will reduce 

emissions from both subject to BART 

and non-BART units at the Ameren and 

Dynegy facilities. Similarly, CPS will 

require emission reductions from 

Midwest Generation’s subject to BART 

and non-BART units. Illinois elected to 

use MPS and CPS participation as 

alternative to requiring BART control on 

each of the Ameren, Dynegy, and 

Midwest Generation units subject to 

BART. Illinois stated that 

implementation of the MPS and CPS 

emission limits will provide much 

deeper NOX and SO2 reductions than 

implementing BART on the subject to 

BART units and thus the alternate will 

provide greater reasonable progress. 

However, Illinois did not provide an 

analysis comparing BART for each 

subject unit to the alternative. Illinois 

compared the emission reductions from 

MPS and CPS to the presumptive BART 

emission levels suggested in EPA’s 

guidance. EPA generally requires states 

to compare the alternative strategy to a 

fully analyzed set of BART limits for the 

BART-subject units. However, in this 

case, the results of such a comparison 

are clear even without Illinois 

conducting a full BART analysis for 

these units. The total NOX emission 

reductions due to MPS on Dynegy EGUs 

are greater than the base year NOX

emissions from Dynegy’s subject to 

BART units. Therefore, the emission 

reductions from MPS are greater than 

the maximum possible reductions from 

the BART units. The same is true for 

SO2 emissions for the Dynegy EGUs, the 

NOX emissions from the Ameren EGUs, 

and the SO2 emissions from the Ameren 

EGUs. Similarly, the total NOX emission 

reductions from all Midwest Generating 

are greater than the NOX emissions from 

the BART units and the same for its SO2

emissions. Therefore, even without a 

full analysis of the precise emission 

levels that would constitute BART for 

the BART-subject units, EPA finds that 

the Illinois rules, MPS and CPS, are an 

acceptable BART alternative because the 

emission reductions are greater than the 

reductions that could possibly be 

obtained by only requiring BART at the 

BART-subject units. 

Three other EGUs, owned by two 

other utilities Dominion Energy and the 

City of Springfield’s City Water, Light, 

and Power (CWLP), are not covered by 

MPS and CPS but have units subject to 

BART. CWLP is a smaller utility with a 

total generating capacity of less than 750 

MW and Dominion Energy has only one 

electric generating facility in Illinois 

such that these utilities do not have the 

opportunities for multi-plant averaging 

of emission limits that the larger 

utilities have. Rather than adopting an 

alternative program to address the 

BART requirements for these two 

utilities, Illinois is requiring these 

utilities to meet the BART requirements 

for the units subject to BART and 

establish enforceable emission limits for 

SO2 and NOX. CWLP’s Dallman and 

Lakeside plants, along with Dominion’s 

Kincaid plant, have units subject to 

BART. Both utilities must reduce 

emissions to meet the BART limits. The 

emission limits for Dallman units 31 

and 32, Lakeside unit 8, and Kincaid 

units 1 and 2 are contained in Joint 

Construction and Operating permits. 

Illinois evaluated potential controls and 

what control level the current emission 

controls can achieve in setting the 

BART emission limits for the CWLP 

Dallman and Dominion Kincaid units. 

CWLP currently has SCRs and FGD on 

Dallman units 31 and 32. As of 2010, 

CWLP has been operating the SCRs to 

achieve an annual average NOX

emission rate of 0.14 lb/MMBTU on 

both Dallman units, combined. The 

annual average NOX emission rate will 

be limited to 0.12 lb/MMBTU by 2015 

and then further decreased to 0.11 lb/ 

MMBTU by 2017 for both units, 

combined. CWLP will operate the 

controls to achieve an annual average 

SO2 emissions rate on both Dallman 

units, combined, of 0.29 lb/MMBTU by 

2012, then reduced to 0.25 lb/MMBTU 

by 2015, and finally to 0.23 lb/MMBTU 

by 2017. Illinois has determined these 

emission limits satisfy BART for both 

units. CWLP permanently shut down 

Lakeside unit 8 in 2009, which is 

reflected in the permit. 

Dominion’s Kincaid facility operates 

SCRs on its units 1 and 2. The permit 

for the Kincaid facility limits NOX

emissions to an annual average of 0.07 

lb/MMBTU by March 1, 2013, on both 

units, combined. Illinois determined the 

appropriate SO2 control system for 

Kincaid is a dry sorbent injection 

system along with using low sulfur coal. 

Illinois initially gave the Kincaid facility 

a SO2 emission limit of 0.20 lb/MMBTU 

on both units, but found that a stricter 

limit of 0.15 lb/MMBTU can be 

achieved with the control system. 

Illinois thus set the SO2 emission limits 

for both Kincaid units, combined, at an 

annual average emission rate of 0.20 lb/ 

MMBTU by January 1, 2014, and 

reduced the limit further to an annual 

average emission rate of 0.15 lb/ 

MMBTU beginning on January 1, 2017. 

Illinois issued the Joint Construction 

and Operating permits pursuant to its 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3973 

authority in the SIP and submitted the 

two permits as part of its Regional Haze 

plan to be incorporated into the SIP. 

The permits set Federally enforceable 

NOX and SO2 limits as necessary to 

meet the Regional Haze requirements of 

the CAA and effectively mandate that 

the utilities to run the SCRs year round 

and for CWLP to shut down its Lakeside 

unit 8. 

Two petroleum refineries, the CITGO 

and Exxon Mobil refineries, also have 

units subject to BART: the CITGO 

refinery in Lemont, Illinois and the 

Exxon Mobil refinery south of Joliet, 

Illinois. Both refineries will be required 

to reduce emissions by a Federal 

consent decree resolving an 

enforcement action brought by EPA 

against a number of refineries. The 

consent decrees require the CITGO, 

Exxon Mobil, and the other refineries to 

operate controls at the Best Available 

Control Technology level. Illinois 

evaluated the subject-to-BART units at 

the CITGO and Exxon Mobil refineries. 

It found that the NOX and SO2 emission 

limits on the subject-to-BART units in 

the consent decrees satisfy BART. 

A consent decree between the United 

States and CITGO Petroleum 

Corporation was entered in the U.S. 

District Court for the Southern District 

of Texas on October 6, 2004 (No. H–04– 

3883). The consent decree requires the 

company to operate SCR and a wet 

scrubbing system at its Fluid Catalytic 

Cracking Unit (FCCU) that will reduce 

NOX emissions by more than 90 percent 

and SO2 emissions by 85 percent. The 

controls on the FCCU will result in a 

reduction of NOX emissions from 

1,065.7 to 106.6 TPY and SO2 emissions 

from 10,982.5 to 107.9 TPY by 2013. 

CITGO has also added a tail gas 

recovery unit that reduces SO2

emissions from its sulfur train units 

from 4340.0 to 91.2 TPY, a 98 percent 

reduction. The emission controls on all 

units at CITGO’s Lemont refinery will 

reduce NOX emissions by 1,268 TPY 

and SO2 emissions by 15,123 TPY. 

A consent decree between the United 

States and Exxon Mobil Corporation 

was entered in the U.S. District Court 

for the Northern District of Illinois on 

October 11, 2005 (No. O5–C–5809). The 

consent decree for Exxon Mobil requires 

SCR operation on its FCCU in addition 

to maintenance of the existing wet 

scrubbing system. The controls on the 

FCCU result in a 1,636.2 TPY decrease 

in NOX emissions from 1,818.0 to 181.8 

TPY and a 9,667.7 TPY decrease in SO2

emissions from 9,865.0 to 197.3 TPY. 

Exxon Mobil also has added a tail gas 

recovery unit on its south sulfur 

recovery unit. That reduces SO2

emissions by 9,153.8 TPY to 186.8 TPY. 

The emission controls at Exxon Mobil’s 

Joliet refinery will reduce 1,695 TPY 

NOX and 18,821 TPY SO2. 

These two consent decrees are 

Federally enforceable and also require 

that the refineries submit permit 

applications to Illinois to incorporate 

the required emission limits into 

Federally enforceable air permits (other 

than Title V). Therefore, emission limits 

established by the consent decrees may 

be relied upon by Illinois for addressing 

the BART requirement for these 

facilities. 

Based on modeling, MRPO 

determined that the visibility impact of 

directly emitted particulate matter from 

the facilities with subject to BART units 

is minimal. In particular, MRPO 

assessed the impact of the directly 

emitted particulate matter from all 

facilities potentially subject to BART in 

the five MRPO states, and found the 

impact to be less than 0.5 dv at any 

Class I area as compared to natural 

background conditions. Illinois 

therefore concludes that PM emissions 

from its subset of these BART sources 

have a negligible visibility impact. 

Furthermore, these facilities are already 

subject to federally enforceable PM 

emission control requirements 

mandated by SIP-approved state 

particulate matter regulations, so that 

there is minimal potential for further 

PM emission reductions. Therefore, 

based particularly on the substantial 

existing controls on these facilitiesfabric filters, electrostatic precipitators, 

and cyclones; and the minimal benefits 

of further control, Illinois concluded 

that BART did not include further 

control of PM emissions from these 

facilities. 

EPA is satisfied with the state’s BART 

determinations. The emission limits that 

Illinois adopted generally will require 

state-of-the-art emission controls, not 

just at the units subject to BART 

requirements but also at numerous units 

that are not subject to BART. The 

Illinois facilities subject to BART are a 

long distance from any Class I area such 

that, so the geographical redistributions 

of emissions within Illinois do not 

significantly affect visibility and the 

benefits of alternate control strategies 

may be judged simply by comparing the 

net emission reductions. The MPS and 

CPS provide emission reduction well in 

excess of simply implementing BART 

on subject units. The reduction in NOX

emissions from the Ameren, Dynegy, 

and Midwest Generation units by 2015 

from MPS and CPS is expected to be 

89,882 TPY. Illinois estimated that 

simply implementing BART on the 

subject units from these entities would 

yield 32,992 TPY of NOX emission 

reductions, which is 56,890 TPY less 

that from MPS and CPS. Illinois 

estimated that implementing BART on 

the subject units at Ameren, Dynegy, 

and Midwest Generation facilities 

would require an 117,252 TPY 

reduction in SO2 emission, but MPS and 

CPS will require a 214,179 TPY SO2

reduction by 2015. Thus, Illinois 

estimated that its plan will require 

96,927 TPY lower SO2 emissions than 

simply requiring BART. EPA believes 

that Illinois has thereby demonstrated 

the emission limits on the subject to 

BART units covered by MPS and CPS 

satisfy the BART requirements. 

Illinois did not rely on the Clean Air 

Interstate Rule (CAIR) for its BART 

determinations. Illinois is in the CAIR 

region. However, it used its state rules, 

permits, and consent decrees to achieve 

emission reductions that satisfy BART. 

This means that Illinois is not reliant on 

CAIR and, thus, it has avoided the 

issues of other CAIR region states that 

relied on CAIR. For similar reasons, 

Illinois’ satisfaction of regional haze 

rule requirements is not contingent on 

the Transport Rule and thus is not 

affected by the stay of that rule. 

E. Long-Term Strategy 

Under section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA 

and 40 CFR 51.308(d), states’ regional 

haze programs must include an LTS for 

making reasonable progress toward 

meeting the national visibility goal. 

Illinois’s LTS must address visibility 

improvement for the Class I areas 

impacted by Illinois sources. Section 

51.308(d)(3) requires that Illinois 

consult with the affected states in order 

to develop a coordinated emission 

management strategy. A contributing 

state, such as Illinois, must demonstrate 

that it has included, in its SIP, all 

measures necessary to obtain its share of 

the emissions reductions needed to 

meet the RPGs for the Class I areas 

affected by Illinois sources. As 

described in section III.D. of this 

proposed rule, the LTS is the 

compilation of all control measures 

Illinois will use to meet applicable 

RPGs. The LTS must include 

enforceable emissions limitations, 

compliance schedules, and other 

measures as necessary to achieve the 

RPGs for all Class I areas affected by 

Illinois emissions. 

Illinois complied with the consulting 

requirements by participating in 

meetings and conference calls with 

affected Class I states and RPOs to 

discuss the states’ assessments of 

visibility conditions, analyses of 

culpability, and possible measures that 

could be taken to meet visibility goals. 

Illinois engaged in extensive 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

3974 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

consultations with other MRPO states, 

including Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, and 

Wisconsin. Illinois also consulted with 

Arkansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, 

Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, 

and Vermont. As part of the MRPO, 

Illinois participated in inter-RPO 

consultation on regional haze. This 

consultation is detailed in Chapter 9 of 

the state’s plan. EPA finds that the 

state’s consultation with Class I states 

satisfies applicable consultation 

requirements. 

Illinois’s LTS includes the modeling 

and monitoring results on which it 

relied to determine its share of emission 

reductions necessary to meet the 

reasonable progress goals of impacted 

Class I areas. This information is 

provided in Chapter 9 of the Illinois 

regional haze plan. Portions of this 

technical work were provided by MRPO 

as it worked with other RPOs to provide 

this information on Class I areas outside 

the Midwest. 

At 40 CFR 51.308(d)(3)(v), the RHR 

identifies seven factors that a state must 

consider in developing its LTS: (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 LTS period. 

Illinois considered the seven factors in 

developing its LTS. Chapter 8 of the 

Illinois regional haze plan provides a 

full analysis of each factor. 

Illinois relied on MRPO’s modeling 

and analysis along with its emission 

information in developing a LTS. 

Illinois considered the factors set out in 

51.308(d)(3)(v) in developing its LTS. 

Based on these factors and the MRPO’s 

technical analysis, in conjunction with 

RPGs that were set by the pertinent 

Class I states in consultation with 

Illinois and other contributing states, 

Illinois concludes that existing control 

programs, together with the BART 

controls described above, address 

Illinois’s impact on Class I areas. This 

is because the combination of the 

existing controls and the BART controls 

suffice to meet the impacted Class I 

areas’ RPGs by 2018. These existing 

control programs include Federal motor 

vehicle emission control program, 

reformulated gasoline, emission limits 

for area sources of VOCs, Title IV, the 

NOX SIP Call, NOX Reasonable 

Achievable Control Technology, 

Maximum Achievable Control 

Technology standards, and Federal nonroad standards for construction 

equipment and vehicles. As discussed 

in prior sections, implementation of the 

existing control programs, 

supplemented by the control measures 

in the submission that require power 

plant and petroleum refinery emission 

reductions, will satisfy the LTS 

requirements because, for reasons 

discussed above, the expected emission 

reductions will meet requirements both 

to provide for BART and to provide 

emission reductions in Illinois that, in 

combination with emission reductions 

elsewhere, should improve visibility 

sufficiently for the pertinent Class I 

areas to meet their RPGs. 

Illinois assessed all point sources in 

the state that emit at least 1,000 TPY of 

NOX and SO2 combined and are more 

than 100 km from a Class I area to 

determine if the sources could 

potentially affect visibility in a Class I 

area. The assessment followed EPA 

guidance in calculating the ratio of 

emission rate in TPY (Q) to the distance 

to the nearest Class I area (d). The 

exclusions also followed guidance. 

Illinois found 15 facilities with a Q/d 

ratio equal to and greater than 10, EPA’s 

recommended threshold. The results of 

the Q/d assessment are found in Table 

8.1 in the Illinois TSD. Illinois found 

that it expects the implementation of 

existing control measures will result in 

emission reductions from the 15 

facilities. As such, Illinois believes that 

the expected emission reductions will 

ensure reasonable progress. 

F. Monitoring Strategy 

Illinois maintains a monitoring 

network that provides data to analyze 

air quality problems including regional 

haze. Illinois’s monitoring network 

includes State and Local Air Monitoring 

Sites (SLAMS), Special Purpose 

Monitors (SPM), Photochemical 

Assessment Monitoring Sites (PAMS), 

and PM2.5 speciation sites. Illinois does 

not operate any sites under the 

IMPROVE program, but does have a site 

in Bondville, Illinois that monitors 

using the IMPROVE procedure method. 

Illinois is required under 40 CFR 

51.308(d)(4) to have procedures for 

using the monitoring data to determine 

the contribution of emissions from 

within the state to affected Class I areas. 

Illinois developed procedures in 

conjunction with the MRPO. The 

procedures are detailed in the MRPO 

TSD. EPA finds that Illinois’s regional 

haze plan meets the monitoring 

requirements for the RHR and that 

Illinois’s network of monitoring sites is 

satisfactory to measure air quality and 

assess its contribution to regional haze. 

G. Federal Land Manager Consultation 

Illinois was required to consult with 

the FLMs under 40 CFR 51.308(i). 

Illinois consulted with the FLMs 

electronically and by telephone. The 

FLMs were also included in discussions 

with Illinois during MRPO conference 

calls and meetings. A draft regional haze 

plan was submitted for FLMs comments 

on August 6, 2009. Illinois then 

provided the FLMs a revised regional 

haze plan on October 7, 2010 for review. 

That provided the FLMs enough time to 

comment prior to the December 6, 2010, 

public hearing on the regional haze 

plan. Illinois has included comments 

from the FLMs in Attachment 9 to its 

regional haze plan, a document 

providing the comments Illinois 

received and its responses. The state has 

committed to consulting the FLMs on 

future SIP revisions and progress 

reports. 

H. Comments 

Illinois took comments on its 

proposed regional haze plan. It held a 

public hearing on December 6, 2010. 

The public comment period ended on 

January 5, 2011. Evidence of the public 

notice and evidence of the public 

hearing were submitted to EPA. 

Illinois’s submission includes a 

document, Attachment 9, which 

summarized the comments it received 

from both the FLMs and from the public 

and provides its responses to the 

comments. The state revised portions of 

its plan based on the comments to 

correct errors and clarify portions that 

caused confusion. Illinois responded to 

other comments without revising its 

plan. EPA concludes that Illinois has 

satisfied the requirements from 40 CFR 

Part 51, Appendix V to provide 

evidence that it gave public notice, took 

comments, and that it compiled and 

responded to comments. 

V. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve revisions 

to the Illinois SIP, submitted on June 24, 

2011, addressing regional haze for the 

first implementation period. The 

revisions address CAA and regional 

haze rule requirements for states to 

remedy any existing anthropogenic and 

prevent future impairment of visibility 

at Class I areas. EPA finds that Illinois 

has satisfied all the requirements and, 

thus, is proposing approval of the 

regional haze plan. EPA is also 

proposing to approve two state rules, 

MPS and CPS, and incorporating two 

permits, issued to City Water, Light, & 

Power and to Dominion Energy, into the 

SIP. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 17 / Thursday, January 26, 2012 / Proposed Rules 3975 

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 approves state law as meeting 

Federal requirements and does not 

impose additional requirements beyond 

those imposed by state law. For that 

reason, this action: 

• Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ subject to review by the Office 

of Management and Budget under 

Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, 

October 4, 1993); 

• Does not impose an information 

collection burden under the provisions 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); 

• Is certified as not having a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.); 

• Does not contain any unfunded 

mandate or significantly or uniquely 

affect small governments, as described 

in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–4); 

• Does not have Federalism 

implications as specified in Executive 

Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 

1999); 

• Is not an economically significant 

regulatory action based on health or 

safety risks subject to Executive Order 

13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997); 

• Is not a significant regulatory action 

subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 

28355, May 22, 2001); 

• Is not subject to requirements of 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because 

application of those requirements would 

be inconsistent with the 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, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: January 17, 2012. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2012–1606 Filed 1–25–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2011–0080; FRL–9622–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Indiana; 

Regional Haze 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing a limited 

approval of revisions to the Indiana 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

addressing regional haze for the first 

implementation period. Indiana 

submitted its regional haze plan on 

January 14, 2011, and supplemented it 

on March 10, 2011. The Indiana regional 

haze plan addresses the requirements of 

the Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) and 

Regional Haze Rule (RHR) requirements 

for states to remedy any existing and 

prevent future anthropogenic 

impairment of visibility in mandatory 

Class I areas caused by emissions of air 

pollutants from numerous sources 

located over a wide geographic area 

(also referred to as the ‘‘regional haze 

program’’). States are required to assure 

reasonable progress toward the national 

goal of achieving natural visibility 

conditions in Class I areas. EPA is 

proposing a limited approval of these 

SIP revisions to implement the regional 

haze requirements for Indiana on the 

basis that the revisions, as a whole, 

strengthen the Indiana SIP. In a separate 

action, EPA has previously proposed a 

limited disapproval of the Indiana 

regional haze SIP because of the 

deficiencies in Indiana’s regional haze 

SIP submittal arising from the remand 

by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia (D.C. Circuit) to 

EPA of the Clean Air Interstate Rule 

(CAIR). Consequently, we are not 

proposing to take action in this notice 

to address the state’s reliance on CAIR 

to meet certain regional haze 

requirements. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before February 27, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2011–0080, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: blakley.pamela@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2450. 

4. Mail: Pamela Blakley, Chief, 

Control Strategies Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Pamela Blakley, 

Chief, Control Strategies Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2011– 

0080. 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS