
[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, 
dagostino.kathleen@epa.gov.

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

I. Background
II. 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


