Document ID: EPA-R05-OAR-2011-0598-0001
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: Proposed Approval of the Illinois Regional Haze SIP
Posted Date: 2012-01-26T05:00Z

[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 17 (Thursday, January 26, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 3966-3975]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-1606]

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

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

[[Page 3967]]

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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ Areas designated as mandatory Class I Federal areas consist 
of national parks exceeding 6000 acres, wilderness areas, and 
national memorial parks exceeding 5000 acres and all international 
parks that were in existence on August 7, 1977. 42 U.S.C. 7472(a). 
In accordance with section 169A of the CAA, EPA, in consultation 
with the Department of 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.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Albuquerque/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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. Roles of Agencies in Addressing Regional Haze

    Successful implementation of the regional haze program will require 
long-term regional coordination among states, tribal governments, and 
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

[[Page 3968]]

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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

    The deciview is used in expressing RPGs, defining baseline, 
current, and natural conditions, and tracking changes in visibility. 
The regional haze SIPs must contain measures that ensure ``reasonable 
progress'' toward the national goal of preventing and remedying 
visibility impairment in Class I areas caused by anthropogenic air 
pollution. The national goal is a return to natural conditions such 
that anthropogenic sources of air pollution would no longer impair 
visibility in Class I areas.
    To track changes in visibility over time at each of the 156 Class I 
areas covered by the visibility program (40 CFR 81.401-437) and as part 
of the process for determining reasonable progress, states must 
calculate the degree of existing visibility impairment at each Class I 
area at the time 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.

[[Page 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 visibility-impairing 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.

[[Page 3970]]

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

[[Page 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 ``Multi-
Pollutant 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.

[[Page 3972]]

    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

[[Page 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 facilities- 
fabric 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

[[Page 3974]]

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 non-road 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.

[[Page 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