[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 244 (Monday, December 21, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 79261-79266]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-31882]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0705; FRL-9939-75-Region 5]
Air Quality Implementation Plan Approval; Illinois; Illinois
Power Holdings and AmerenEnergy Medina Valley Cogen Variance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving into
the Illinois Regional Haze State Implementation Plan (SIP) a variance
for the electrical generating units (EGUs) included in the Ameren
Multi-Pollutant Standard Group (Ameren MPS Group). The Ameren MPS Group
consists of five facilities owned by Illinois Power Holdings, LLC (IPH)
and two facilities owned by AmerenEnergy Medina Valley Cogen, LLC
(Medina Valley). The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA)
submitted the variance to EPA for approval on September 3, 2014.
[[Page 79262]]
DATES: This final rule is effective on January 20, 2016.
ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2014-0705. All documents in the docket are listed on
the www.regulations.gov Web site. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, i.e., Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is restricted
by statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, is
not placed on the Internet and will be publicly available only in hard
copy form. Publicly available docket materials are available either
electronically through www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at the
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division,
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. This facility is
open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
Federal holidays. We recommend that you telephone Kathleen D'Agostino,
Environmental Engineer, at (312) 886-1767 before visiting the Region 5
office.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathleen D'Agostino, Environmental
Engineer, Attainment Planning and Maintenance Section, Air Programs
Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-1767,
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document whenever ``we,''
``us,'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA. This supplementary information
section is arranged as follows:
I. Background
II. Response to Comments
III. Final Action
IV. Incorporation by Reference
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Background
On June 24, 2011, Illinois submitted a plan to address the
requirements of the Regional Haze Rule, as codified at 40 CFR 51.308.
EPA approved Illinois' Regional Haze SIP on July 6, 2012 (77 FR 39943).
In its approval, EPA determined that the emission reductions from
sources included in the Illinois plan are significantly greater than
even conservative definitions of best available retrofit technology
(BART) applied to BART subject units. Id. at 39946. EPA also addressed
whether the Illinois plan can also be expected to achieve greater
visibility protection than application of BART on BART-subject units.
Given that, in general, the Illinois power plants are substantial
distances from any Class I area, and given that the averaging in
Illinois' plan is only authorized within the somewhat limited region
within which each utility's plants are located, EPA determined that a
reallocation of emission reductions from one plant to another is
unlikely to change the visibility impact of those emission reductions
significantly. Consequently, EPA concluded that the significantly
greater emission reductions that Illinois required in its Regional Haze
SIP will yield greater progress toward visibility protection as
compared to the benefits of a conservative estimate of BART.
One of the rules approved in that action to meet BART requirements
is 35 Illinois Administrative Code (Ill. Adm. Code) rule 225.233,
Multi-Pollutant Standard (MPS), specifically subsections (a), (b), (e),
and (g). Section 225.233(e)(3)(C) contains the sulfur dioxide
(SO2) emission standards applicable to the Ameren MPS Group.
Section 225.233(e)(3)(C)(i) establishes an overall SO2
annual emission rate for EGUs in the Ameren MPS group of 0.50 pounds
per million Btu (lb/mmBtu) for calendar years 2010 through 2013.
Section 225.233(e)(3)(C)(ii) establishes an overall SO2
annual emission rate for EGUs in the Ameren MPS group of 0.43 lb/mmBtu
for calendar year 2014. Section 225.233(e)(3)(C)(iii) establishes an
overall SO2 annual emission rate for EGUs in the Ameren MPS
group of 0.25 lb/mmBtu for calendar years 2015 and 2016. Section
225.233(e)(3)(C)(iv) establishes an overall SO2 annual
emission rate for EGUs in the Ameren MPS group of 0.23 lb/mmBtu
beginning in calendar year 2017 and continuing each calendar year
thereafter.
On November 21, 2013, the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB)
granted IPH and Medina Valley a variance from the applicable
requirements of Section 225.233(e)(3)(C)(iii) for a period beginning
January 1, 2015, through December 31, 2019, and Section
225.233(e)(3)(C)(iv) for a period beginning January 1, 2017, through
December 31, 2019, subject to certain conditions. The IPH facilities
included in the Ameren MPS Group and subject to the variance are
Coffeen Energy Center (Montgomery County), Duck Creek Energy Center
(Fulton County), E.D. Edwards Energy Center (Peoria County), Joppa
Energy Center (Massac County), and Newton Energy Center (Jasper
County). The Medina Valley facilities included in the Ameren MPS Group
and subject to the variance are the Meredosia Energy Center (Morgan
County) and the Hutsonville Energy Center (Crawford County). IEPA
submitted the variance as a revision to the Illinois Regional Haze SIP
on September 3, 2014.
EPA proposed to approve the variance on April 20, 2015 (80 FR
21681). As discussed in the proposal, the variance results in less
SO2 emissions than the currently approved Regional Haze SIP.
Id. at 21683. In addition, EPA determined that the significantly lower
SO2 emissions under the variance versus application of Best
Available Control Technology (BACT) to BART-subject sources, will yield
greater progress toward visibility protection. Id. at 21684. Finally,
with respect to the requirements of section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act
(CAA) (42 U.S.C. 7410(l)), because the variance will result in less
SO2 emissions than the currently approved Regional Haze SIP
and will continue to provide better visibility protection than the
application of BART to BART-subject units, EPA has determined that the
variance will not interfere with attainment, reasonable further
progress, or any other applicable requirement of the CAA. Id. at 21684.
II. Response to Comments
EPA received joint adverse comments from Earthjustice and Sierra
Club, as summarized in the comments/responses below.
Comment 1: The proposed SIP revision unlawfully substitutes fleet-
wide emission limits for the unit-specific five factor BART analysis
required by the CAA.
Response 1: Section 169A(b)(2)(A) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7491(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 existing
major stationary sources procure, install, and operate BART, as
determined by the state. In some cases, this requirement is met with an
analysis of potential controls for each source subject to BART
considering five factors set out in EPA's regional haze rule. 40 CFR
51.308(e)(1)(ii)(A). However, as described in several previous rules,
EPA has concluded that CAA section 169A may reasonably be interpreted
to provide that the requirement for BART may be satisfied by an
alternate program that provides greater reasonable progress toward
visibility improvement than direct application of BART to individual
sources determined to be subject to the BART requirement. See 40 CFR
51.308(e), 64 FR 35714, 35741-35743 (July 1, 1999), 70 FR 39104, 39136
(July 6, 2005), 71 FR 60612 (October 13, 2006), and 77 FR 33642 (June
7, 2012).
[[Page 79263]]
In 1999, EPA promulgated the Regional Haze Rule, which established
a comprehensive visibility protection program for mandatory Class I
Federal areas (including many national parks and wilderness areas). In
the preamble to the Regional Haze Rule, EPA stated that, to demonstrate
that emission reductions of an alternative program would result in
greater emission reductions, ``the State must estimate the emission
reductions that would result from the use of BART-level controls. To do
this, the State could undertake a source-specific review of the sources
in the State subject to BART, or it could use a modified approach that
simplifies the analysis.'' 64 FR 35742 (July 1, 1999).
In a final rule revising certain provisions of the Regional Haze
Rule published on October 13, 2006, EPA offered further clarification
for states for assessing alternative strategies, in particular
regarding the benchmark definition of BART to use in judging whether
the alternative is better. 71 FR 60612. In this rulemaking, EPA stated
in the preamble that the presumptive BART levels given in the BART
guidelines \1\ would be a suitable baseline against which to compare
alternative strategies, where the alternatives have been designed to
meet a requirement other than BART. Id. at 60619; see also 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(C). As described in the EPA's proposed approval of the
Illinois variance, EPA took a more conservative approach and compared
emissions under the variance to the application of typical BACT control
levels to the BART subject units in the Ameren MPS Group.\2\ 80 FR
21681, 21683 (April 20, 2015). In brief, EPA found that the alternative
restrictions imposed by Illinois under the variance can be demonstrated
to provide greater emission reductions and greater visibility
improvement than conservative definitions of BART, even without a full
analysis of the emission levels that constitute BART. The demonstration
is discussed below, in the context of response to comments addressing
the magnitude of emission reductions under the variance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The BART guidelines are contained in Appendix Y to 40 CFR
part 51 and identify the presumptive SO2 limits for
utility boilers as 0.15 lbs/MMBtu or 95 percent control.
\2\ BACT limits are imposed on new units or units undergoing
major modifications. Therefore, BART limits, which by definition
apply to relatively old existing units, are unlikely to be lower
than the limits that would apply to a new unit and would in many
cases be significantly higher. For this analysis, a SO2
limit of 0.06 lbs/MMBtu was determined to be representative of
typical BACT for utility boilers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment 2: The plain language of the CAA ``provides that EPA's
regulations `shall require' each SIP to contain various elements, and
those elements must include BART as a minimum requirement of every haze
SIP.'' The CAA does not permit a state to exempt units from BART
without going through the exemption process outlined in the statute.
The statute specifies the only circumstances in which a source may be
exempted from BART, none of which apply here. 42 U.S.C. 7491(c). The
CAA provision that allows some limited exemptions from BART makes plain
that any such exemption must be assessed and determined on a source-
specific, not a state-wide basis. Id. at 7491(c)(1). Furthermore, EPA
may exempt a unit from the source-specific BART requirements of the CAA
only where the Federal Land Managers concur with the EPA determination
of an exemption. Id. at 7491(c)(3).
Response 2: We do not agree that the provisions governing
exemptions to BART apply. Neither the Illinois Regional Haze SIP
previously approved by EPA nor the revisions to that SIP contained in
the variance being approved in this action exempt BART-eligible sources
from BART requirements, but rather satisfy the BART requirements
through the adoption of an alternative program that provides greater
reasonable progress towards improving visibility.
Section 169A(b)(2) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 9491(b)(2), requires each
visibility SIP to contain ``such emission limits, schedules of
compliance and other measures as may be necessary to make reasonable
progress toward meeting the national goal * * * including * * * a
requirement that [certain major stationary sources] * * * procure,
install, and operate * * * [BART].'' Based on this language, EPA
concluded in the Regional Haze Rule that if an alternative program can
be shown to make greater reasonable progress toward eliminating or
reducing visibility impairment, then installing BART for the purpose of
making reasonable progress toward the national goal is no longer
necessary. 64 FR 35714, 35739 (July 1, 1999).
This interpretation of the visibility provisions of the CAA has
been previously challenged and upheld by the D.C. Circuit. In the first
case challenging the provisions in the Regional Haze Rule allowing for
states to adopt alternative programs in lieu of BART, the court
affirmed EPA's interpretation of CAA section 169A(b)(2) as allowing for
alternatives to BART where those alternatives will result in greater
reasonable progress than BART. Center for Energy and Economic
Development v. EPA, 398 F.3d 653, 660 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (``CEED'')
(finding reasonable EPA's interpretation of CAA section 169(a)(2) as
requiring BART only as necessary to make reasonable progress). In the
second case, Utility Air Regulatory Group v. EPA, 471 F.3d 1333 (D.C.
Cir. 2006) (``UARG''), the court specifically upheld EPA's
determination that states could rely on the Clean Air Interstate Rule
(``CAIR'') as an alternative program to BART for EGUs in the CAIR-
affected states. The court concluded that the EPA's two-pronged test
for determining whether an alternative program achieves greater
reasonable progress was a reasonable one and also agreed with EPA that
nothing in the CAA required the EPA to ``impose a separate technology
mandate for sources whose emissions affect Class I areas, rather than
piggy-backing on solutions devised under other statutory categories,
where such solutions meet the statutory requirements.'' Id. at 1340.
See also Central Arizona Water Conservation District v. EPA, 990 F.2d
1531, 1543 (9th Cir. 1993) (upholding EPA's interpretation of CAA
section 169A(b)(2)).
Comment 3: An interpretation of the statute which allows a state to
substitute an alternative for BART on a state-wide or fleet-wide basis
cannot be reconciled with Congress specifying very narrow standards for
exempting a source from BART. If EPA relies on the D.C. Circuit Court
of Appeals decisions upholding its interpretation of the statute, ``the
cases are incorrect in that the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals has
rewritten the statute by failing to give effect to the plain language
requiring each SIP to include BART and by disregarding the very
specific parameters in the statute for exemptions from BART.'' In
addition, ``these decisions are not binding precedent in the 7th
Circuit, which has jurisdiction over EPA's approval of the Illinois
Regional Haze SIP.''
Response 3: EPA disagrees with the commenter that BART alternatives
are impermissible under the CAA. As the commenter notes, EPA's
interpretation that the CAA allows States to devise alternative
programs in lieu of source-specific BART was upheld in both the CEED
and UARG decisions. The conclusions in these cases have not been upset
or overturned by any subsequent decision of the D.C. Circuit, and we
disagree with the commenter's contention that CEED and UARG were
decided erroneously. The D.C. Circuit has exclusive jurisdiction over
the review of nationally applicable rules. The Illinois' SIP has been
evaluated
[[Page 79264]]
against nationally applicable rules (upheld by the D.C. Circuit) that
allow States to adopt alternative measures in lieu of BART.
Comment 4: The IEPA has not met its burden to show that the Multi-
Pollutant Standard is approvable as a BART alternative because it has
not performed modeling of the visibility impacts for the MPS compared
to BART. ``By design, the MPS allows the flexibility to implement
emissions reductions other than by imposing uniform reductions at
specific units subject to BART.'' There is, therefore, no basis for
claiming that the distribution of emissions under the MPS is not
substantially different than under BART. Instead, the MPS limits can be
met in such a way that the distribution of emissions is significantly
different than it would be if its subject-to-BART units had to meet
unit specific BART limits. ``If the distribution of emissions is
significantly different under an alternate program, a state must
conduct visibility modeling in order to meet its burden of securing
approval for the alternative program.''
Response 4: EPA disagrees with the commenter that visibility
modeling is required. EPA found in its original approval of Illinois'
BART plan that the distances from the relevant power plants to the
affected Class I areas are substantial and that the averaging in
Illinois' plan is only allowed within somewhat limited regions. Given
this, EPA concluded that ``a reallocation of emission reductions from
one plant to another is unlikely to change the impact of those emission
reductions significantly'' and that the much greater emission
reductions from Illinois' plan will result in greater reasonable
progress than would source-specific BART controls. 77 FR 39946. The
commenter has provided no evidence that EPA's conclusion that the
greater reductions in emissions from these facilities under the terms
of the variance should lead to a different conclusion.
The commenter points to a test set out in 40 CFR 51.308(e)(3) to
support its argument that visibility modeling is necessary to determine
whether an alternative to BART provides for greater reasonable
progress. States are not required to use this test, however, as 40 CFR
51.308(e)(2)(i)(E) makes clear: A demonstration that an alternative
measure will make greater reasonable progress may be based on the clear
weight of evidence. Although there is no requirement that States use
the test in 51.308(e)(3), EPA nevertheless reexamined whether modeling
is necessary to conclude that the greater emission reductions of
Illinois' revised plan provide for better visibility than imposition of
source-specific BART. There are seven facilities in the Ameren MPS
Group: Coffeen Energy Center (Montgomery County), Duck Creek Energy
Center (Fulton County), E.D. Edwards Energy Center (Peoria County),
Joppa Energy Center (Massac County), Newton Energy Center (Jasper
County), Meredosia Energy Center (Morgan County) and Hutsonville Energy
Center (Crawford County). Of these facilities, only Coffeen, Duck
Creek, and E.D. Edwards were determined to be subject to BART. The
least distance from any of these three BART-subject sources to any
Class I area is from Coffeen to the Mingo Wilderness Area, a distance
of about 240 kilometers (km). Duck Creek and E.D. Edwards are
approximately 390 km and 410 km, respectively, from the Mingo
Wilderness area. The distance from the Mingo Wilderness Area to
remaining Ameren MPS Group facilities ranges from approximately 120 km
to 330 km, with an average distance of 260 km. Further, an evaluation
for the Class I areas within 500 km of any Ameren MPS Group source
shows that in every case the average distance from the BART-subject
facilities is greater than the average distance from the facilities
that would not be subject to BART. That is, even if Illinois' plan
achieved no more emission reductions than source-specific BART, the
plan would likely yield better visibility because the reductions would
likely be reallocated to closer plants. Given these distances and given
the relative location of these facilities, a reallocation of emission
reductions from one plant to another among this group is unlikely to
change the visibility impact of these emission reductions meaningfully.
As noted above, however, the Illinois plan (originally and as revised)
achieves significantly greater reductions than source-specific BART.
Consequently, in these circumstances, EPA is confident that visibility
modeling is not necessary to conclude that the significantly greater
emission reductions that are required under the variance will yield
greater progress toward visibility protection as compared to the
benefits of a conservative estimate of BART.
Comment 5: The variance from the MPS authorizes the IPH fleet to
emit greater SO2 emissions than would be emitted if BART
were required, and thus EPA cannot find that the MPS will lead to
greater reasonable progress than would BART.
Of the seven plants included in the original Ameren MPS Group, five
plants still in operation are now owned and operated by IPH and two
plants that retired in 2011, Hutsonville and Meredosia, are now owned
by Medina Valley and are no longer part of the fleet. Because of the
variance, the MPS will no longer require SO2 reductions from
the IPH coal fleet during the period of the first long-term strategy
for regional haze (i.e., before 2018) that are greater than the
reductions that would result from requiring IPH to install and operate
BART on its BART-subject plants.
The commenter supports this assertion by comparing emissions
reductions from the variance to emissions reductions from BACT at BART-
subject facilities, excluding emissions reductions from the retired
Meredosia and Hutsonville units (now owned by Medina Valley) and
emissions reductions from the Edwards Unit 1 (owned by IPH). The
commenter states that these sources were not included in the analysis
because Meredosia and Hutsonville ``have been retired for several years
due to economic reasons,'' and Edwards Unit 1 is currently being
operated only for grid reliability purposes subject to a short-term
System Support Resource agreement with the Midcontinent Independent
System Operator (MISO). The commenter argues that the MPS is not
driving emissions reductions at those sources and they should not be
included in any analysis of emissions reductions at the IPH fleet. The
commenter's analysis shows that, in 2017, implementation of BART at
BART-subject sources would reduce SO2 emissions by 74,348
tons and the variance would reduce SO2 by 69,555 tons.
Response 5: EPA disagrees with the commenter's assertion that EPA
cannot find that the MPS will lead to greater reasonable progress than
would BART. The premise of the commenter's analysis, that only
currently operating units in the IPH fleet should be evaluated, is
flawed. As discussed above, the requirement for BART may be satisfied
by an alternate program that provides greater reasonable progress
toward visibility improvement than direct application of BART to
individual sources determined to be subject to the BART requirement.
The alternate program being evaluated, as contained in the MPS and
revised by the variance, applies to the seven sources in the Ameren MPS
Group, not only to the five sources currently owned and operated by
IPH.
The variance prohibits the Meredosia and Hutsonville power stations
from operating until after December 31, 2020, at which point they would
remain subject to the emission limits in the MPS. In addition, the
variance requires IPH to permanently retire E.D. Edwards Unit 1 as soon
as allowed by MISO. The
[[Page 79265]]
fact that there are reasons other than the MPS that influenced the
decisions to cease operation of these plants does not change the fact
that under the currently approved Regional Haze SIP these sources are
permitted to operate. The variance makes these shutdowns enforceable
and prohibits emissions that would otherwise have been allowed under
the SIP. Further, these facilities ceased operating late in 2011, well
after the 2000-2004 baseline established in the Regional Haze Rule (40
CFR 51.308(d)(2)) and before the 2017 deadline for implementing BART
controls in Illinois, so the emission reductions from the shutdown of
these facilities are fully creditable. Therefore, comparing emission
reductions at all seven Ameren MPS Group sources under the variance to
emission reductions from application of BACT limits to BART-subject
units is the appropriate test for determining whether the alternate
program would result in greater emission reductions.
The analysis included by EPA in the proposed rule shows
SO2 emission reductions of 74,348 tons in 2017 if typical
BACT limits were applied to BART subject sources and SO2
emission reductions of 119,833 tons in 2017 under the variance. 80 FR
21683-21684. The analysis is conservative in that it assumes that E.D.
Edwards Unit 1 is still operating, since an absolute shutdown date was
not included in the variance. Further, even assuming that the
22,360,000 MMBtu previously generated at Meredosia and Hutsonville were
shifted to the five remaining facilities in the Ameren MPS Group,
applying the 0.35 pound/MMBtu group average emission limit results in
an additional 3,913 tons of SO2 emissions under the variance
in 2017, or a total of 54,188 tons of SO2. Thus,
SO2 emissions reductions in 2017 under the variance would be
115,920 tons, which is still 41,572 fewer tons of SO2
emissions than what the SO2 emissions would be if BACT were
applied at BART-subject sources.
III. Final Action
EPA is finalizing approval of the IPH and Medina Valley variance
submitted by IEPA on September 3, 2014, as a revision to the Illinois
Regional Haze SIP.
IV. Incorporation by Reference
In this rule, EPA is finalizing regulatory text that includes
incorporation by reference. In accordance with requirements of 1 CFR
51.5, EPA is finalizing the incorporation by reference of the Illinois
Regulations described in the amendments to 40 CFR part 52 set forth
below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these documents
generally available electronically through www.regulations.gov and/or
in hard copy at the appropriate EPA office (see the ADDRESSES section
of this preamble for more information).
V. 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 Orders
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993) and 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 21,
2011);
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, the SIP is not approved to apply on any Indian
reservation land or in any other area where EPA or an Indian tribe has
demonstrated that a tribe has jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal implications and will not impose
substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law as
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000).
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this action and
other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by February 19, 2016. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this action for the purposes of judicial review nor
does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may
be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or
action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to
enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur oxides.
Dated: November 24, 2015.
Susan Hedman,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
[[Page 79266]]
0
2. Section 52.720 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(207) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.720 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(207) On September 3, 2014, Illinois submitted a variance to its
regional haze state implementation plan affecting the electrical
generating units (EGUs) included in the Ameren Multi-Pollutant Standard
Group (Ameren MPS Group). The Ameren MPS Group consists of five
facilities owned by Illinois Power Holdings, LLC (IPH) and two
facilities owned by AmerenEnergy Medina Valley Cogen, LLC (Medina
Valley). The IPH facilities included in the Ameren MPS Group and
subject to the variance include: Coffeen Energy Center (Montgomery
County), Duck Creek Energy Center (Fulton County), E.D. Edwards Energy
Center (Peoria County), Joppa Energy Center (Massac County), and Newton
Energy Center (Jasper County). The Medina Valley facilities included in
the Ameren MPS Group and subject to the variance are the Meredosia
Energy Center (Morgan County) and the Hutsonville Energy Center
(Crawford County).
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Illinois Pollution Control Board Order PCB 14-10, adopted on
November 21, 2013; Certificate of Acceptance, filed with the Illinois
Pollution Control Board Clerk's Office December 20, 2013.
[FR Doc. 2015-31882 Filed 12-21-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P