Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 21681 

(13) A list of key officials. 

(g) What concurrence must the 

Superintendent obtain? The 

superintendent must obtain the written 

concurrence of the Regional Director to 

any agreement before it can go into 

effect, and before any permit may be 

issued. 

(h) When will the Superintendent 

close areas to gathering and removal? 

Notwithstanding the terms of any 

agreement executed under this section, 

the Superintendent may close park 

areas, or portions thereof, to gathering 

and removal for any of the following 

reasons: 

(i) Maintenance of public health and 

safety; 

(ii) Protection of environmental or 

scenic values; 

(iii) Protection of natural or cultural 

resources; 

(iv) Aid to scientific research; 

(v) Implementation of management 

responsibilities; 

(vi) Equitable allocation and use of 

facilities; or 

(vii) Avoidance of conflict among 

visitor use activities. 

(2) Closed areas may not be reopened 

to traditional gathering and removal 

until the reasons for the closure have 

been resolved. 

(3) Except in emergency situations, 

the Superintendent will provide public 

notice of any closure or reopening under 

this section in accordance with § 1.7 of 

this chapter. 

(i) When will the agreement and 

permit be suspended or terminated? 

(1) Notwithstanding any remedy 

provisions of an agreement, violation of 

the terms or conditions of an agreement 

or permit issued under this section may 

result in suspension or termination of 

the agreement and permit, and loss of 

authorization to gather and remove. 

(2) A Superintendent may suspend an 

agreement and implementing permit if 

terms or conditions are violated or if 

unanticipated or significant impacts 

occur. The Superintendent shall prepare 

a written determination justifying the 

action. 

(3) The Superintendent must have the 

written concurrence of the Regional 

Director before terminating an 

agreement or implementing permit. 

(j) When is gathering prohibited? 

Gathering, possession, or removal from 

a park area of plants or plant parts 

(including for traditional purposes), is 

prohibited except where specifically 

authorized by; 

(1) Federal statutory law; 

(2) Treaty rights; 

(3) Other regulations of this chapter; 

or 

(4) The terms and conditions of an 

agreement and permit issued under this 

section. 

(k) Have the information collection 

requirements been approved? The Office 

of Management and Budget has 

reviewed and approved the information 

collection requirements in this section 

and assigned OMB Control No. 1024– 

XXXX. We will use this information to 

determine whether a traditional 

association and purpose can be 

documented in order to authorize 

gathering. We may not conduct or 

sponsor and you are not required to 

respond to, a collection of information 

unless it displays a currently valid OMB 

control number. You may send 

comments on any aspect of this 

information collection to the 

Information Collection Clearance 

Officer, National Park Service, 1849 C 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20240. 

* * * * * 

Dated: April 2, 2105. 

Michael Bean, 

Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Fish 

and Wildlife and Parks. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08852 Filed 4–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4310–EJ–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0705; FRL–9926–27– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; Illinois; 

Illinois Power Holdings and 

AmerenEnergy Medina Valley Cogen 

Variance 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

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. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 20, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2014–0705, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Doug Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Doug Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance 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–2014– 

0705. 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21682 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

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 

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. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the background for this action? 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of the variance for 

IPH and Medina Valley? 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

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 this 

action? 

Regional haze is visibility impairment 

that is caused by the cumulative 

emissions of fine particles (PM2.5) (e.g., 

sulfates, nitrates, organic carbon, 

elemental carbon and dust) and its 

precursors (sulfur dioxide (SO2), 

nitrogen oxides (NOX), and in some 

cases ammonia and volatile organic 

compounds) from numerous sources 

over a wide geographic area. Fine 

particulate precursors react in the 

atmosphere to form PM2.5. Aerosol PM2.5

reduces the clarity and distance one can 

see by scattering and absorbing light. 

The visibility protection program 

under sections 169A, 169B, and 

110(a)(2)(J) of the CAA is designed to 

protect visibility in national parks and 

wilderness areas (Class I areas). On 

December 2, 1980, EPA promulgated 

regulations, known as ‘‘reasonably 

attributable visibility impairment 

(RAVI), to address visibility impairment 

in Class I areas that is reasonably 

attributable to a single source or small 

group of sources. On July 1, 1999, EPA 

promulgated the Regional Haze Rule 

which revised existing visibility 

regulations to incorporate provisions 

addressing regional haze impairment. 

EPA’s Regional Haze Rule, as codified 

in Title 40 Code of Federal Regulations 

Part 51.308 (40 CFR 51.308), requires 

states to submit regional haze SIPs. 

Among other things, the regional haze 

SIPs must include provisions requiring 

certain sources install and operate best 

available retrofit technology (BART). 

At 40 CFR 51.308(e)(2), the regional 

haze rule allows states to meet BART 

requirements by mandating alternative 

measures in lieu of mandating sourcespecific BART, so long as the alternative 

measures provide better visibility 

protection. Given the regional nature of 

visibility impairment, an alternative that 

results in lower emissions of SO2 and 

NOX will generally provide better 

visibility protection. Thus, in the 

absence of a difference in the spatial 

distribution of emissions, a modeling 

analysis is generally not necessary to be 

able to conclude that an alternative 

strategy with lower SO2 and NOX

emissions provides better visibility 

protection. 

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 BART 

applied to BART subject units (77 FR 

39945). EPA also addressed whether the 

Illinois plan, achieving greater emission 

reductions overall than the application 

of BART on BART-subject units, 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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 21683 

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. IEPA submitted the variance 

as a revisions to the Illinois Regional 

Haze SIP on September 3, 2014. 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 two 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). 

III. What is EPA’s analysis of the 

variance for IPH and Medina Valley? 

As stated above, the IPCB granted IPH 

and Medina Valley a variance from the 

requirement of Section 

225.233(e)(3)(C)(iii) to comply with an 

overall SO2 annual emission rate of 0.25 

lb/mmBtu in 2015 and 2016 for the time 

period from January 1, 2015, through 

December 31, 2019, and from the 

requirement of Section 

225.233(e)(3)(C)(iv) to comply with an 

overall SO2 annual emission rate of 0.23 

lb/mmBtu for the time period from 

January 1, 2017 through December 31, 

2019. This variance was granted subject 

to numerous conditions including, but 

not limited to, the following: 

1. The IPH facilities in the Ameren MPS 

group must comply with an overall SO2

annual emission rate of 0.35 lb/million Btu 

from January 1, 2015, through December 31, 

2019, and an overall SO2 annual emission 

rate of 0.23 lb/mmBtu beginning on January 

1, 2020. 

2. Medina Valley must not operate the 

EGUs at Meredosia and Hutsonville Power 

stations until after December 31, 2020, except 

that the FutureGen project at the Meredosia 

Energy Center is exempt from this restriction. 

3. Through December 31, 2019, IPH must 

continue to burn low sulfur coal at the E.D. 

Edwards, Joppa, and Newton Energy Centers. 

The combined annual average stack SO2

emissions of these three stations must not 

exceed 0.55 lb/mmBtu on a calendar year 

annual average basis. 

4. Through December 31, 2019, IPH must 

operate the existing Flue Gas Desulfurization 

systems at the Duck Creek and Coffeen 

Energy Centers to achieve a combined SO2

removal rate of at least 98 percent on a 

calendar year annual average basis. 

5. IPH must permanently retire E.D. 

Edwards Unit 1 as soon as allowed by the 

Midcontinent Independent Transmission 

System Operator, Inc. (now called the 

Midcontinent Independent System Operator). 

6. From the time period beginning October 

1, 2013, through December 31, 2020, IPH 

must limit the MPS Group system-wide mass 

emissions of SO2 to no more than 327,996 

tons. 

7. For the time period beginning October 

1, 2013, through December 31, 2020, IPH 

must report annually to IEPA the combined 

tons of mass SO2 emissions and the overall 

SO2 annual emissions rate from its five 

Ameren MPS group facilities. The report 

must show the mass SO2 emissions for each 

time period (October 1, 2013 through 

December 31, 2013, and each year thereafter) 

along with a running total of the remaining 

emissions available under the system-wide 

mass SO2 emissions limit. 

8. The variance also includes a condition 

with a schedule for completing the flue gas 

desulfurization project at the Newton Power 

Station, with major equipment components 

in position by September 1, 2019, and 

requirements for IPH to file annual progress 

reports with IEPA from 2013 through 2019. 

In evaluating the variance submitted 

by Illinois, EPA assessed the effect the 

variance would have on the emissions 

reductions expected under the MPS as 

currently approved into the Regional 

Haze SIP. Under the conditions of the 

currently approved Regional Haze SIP, 

the Ameren MPS group would be 

expected to emit 335,774 tons of SO2 for 

the 2013–2020 time period. Under the 

variance, the Ameren MPS group is 

limited to 327,996 tons of SO2 over that 

same time period; 7,778 tons less than 

would be expected under the current 

SIP. 

In addition, EPA evaluated the 

variance to ensure that the alternative 

measures contained in the variance 

continue to provide better visibility 

protection than the application of BART 

on BART-subject units. Because the 

deadline for implementation of BART 

level controls in Illinois is 2017 (within 

5 years of approval of Illinois’ SIP), EPA 

compared the 2017 emissions under the 

variance to the application of typical 

Best Available Control Technology 

(BACT) control levels to the BART 

subject units in the Ameren MPS group. 

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. 

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AT AMEREN MPS GROUP UNITS UNDER THE VARIANCE VERSUS

EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM APPLICATION OF BACT LIMITS TO BART SUBJECT UNITS

Facility Unit MMMBtu 

Base year BACT 

(0.06#/MMBtu) 

Variance 

(2017) 

#/MMBtu Emissions 

(tons) Emissions 

(tons) 

Reduction 

(tons) #/MMBtu Emissions (tons) 

Reduction 

(tons) 

Cofeen .............. 1 18,570 1.54 14,332 557 13,775 0.35 3,250 11,082 

Cofeen .............. 2 37,545 1.49 27999 1,126 26,873 0.35 6,570 21,429 

Duck Creek ...... 1 22,635 0.97 11026 679 10,347 0.35 3,961 7,065 

E D Edwards .... 1 6,417 3.55 11399 .................... .................... 0.35 1,123 10,276 

E D Edwards .... 2 17,222 1.70 14666 517 14,149 0.35 3,014 11,652 

E D Edwards .... 3 15,972 1.21 9683 479 9,204 0.35 2,795 6,888 

Hutsonville ........ 5 3,161 4.53 7163 .................... 0 0 .................... 7,163 

Hutsonville ........ 6 3,443 4.53 7791 .................... 0 0 .................... 7,791 

Joppa ............... 1 13,548 0.51 3441 .................... 0 0.35 2,371 1,070 

Joppa ............... 2 16,258 0.51 4139 .................... 0 0.35 2,845 1,294 

Joppa ............... 3 15,396 0.51 3947 .................... 0 0.35 2,694 1,253 

Joppa ............... 4 13,402 0.52 3448 .................... 0 0.35 2,345 1,143 

Joppa ............... 5 15,094 0.52 3932 .................... 0 0.35 2,641 1,291 

Joppa ............... 6 16,063 0.52 4182 .................... 0 0.35 2,811 1,371 

Meredosia ........ 1 1,134 5.02 2844 .................... 0 0 .................... 2,844 

Meredosia ........ 2 1,337 5.02 3356 .................... 0 0 .................... 3,356 

Meredosia ........ 3 1,069 5.04 2694 .................... 0 0 .................... 2,694 

Meredosia ........ 4 1,406 5.00 3518 .................... 0 0 .................... 3,518 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

21684 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 1—COMPARISON OF EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS AT AMEREN MPS GROUP UNITS UNDER THE VARIANCE VERSUS

EMISSIONS REDUCTIONS FROM APPLICATION OF BACT LIMITS TO BART SUBJECT UNITS—Continued 

Facility Unit MMMBtu 

Base year BACT 

(0.06#/MMBtu) 

Variance 

(2017) 

#/MMBtu Emissions 

(tons) Emissions 

(tons) 

Reduction 

(tons) #/MMBtu Emissions (tons) 

Reduction 

(tons) 

Meredosia ........ 5 10,810 2.34 12639 .................... 0 0 .................... 12,639 

Newton ............. 1 40,631 0.45 9046 .................... 0 0.35 7,110 1,936 

Newton ............. 2 38,533 0.46 8823 .................... 0 0.35 6,743 2,080 

Totals ........ ............ 309,646 .................... 170,108 .................... 74,348 .................... 50,275 119,833 

Table 1 shows SO2 emissions 

reductions of 74,348 tons in 2017 if 

typical BACT limits were applied to 

BART subject sources in the Ameren 

MPS group. With the variance, Table 1 

shows SO2 emissions reductions of 

119,833 tons in 2017. More reductions 

are required in 2017 under the variance 

than would be required by the 

application of typical BACT limits to 

BART subject sources. Even assuming 

that the 22,360 MMBtu generated at the 

Hudsonville and Meredosia units would 

be shifted to other units in the group, 

applying the 0.35 pound/MBtu group 

average results in an additional 3,913 

tons of emissions under the variance in 

2017, or a total of 54,188 tons of SO2. 

This would result in 2017 SO2

emissions reductions under the variance 

of 115,920 tons, which remains 41,572 

tons greater than emissions reductions 

under the application of BACT at BART 

subject sources. In addition, for the 

reasons set forth in EPA’s approval of 

the Illinois regional haze sip (77 FR 

39946) and summarized above, EPA 

continues to conclude that the 

significantly greater emission reductions 

required under the variance will yield 

greater progress toward visibility 

protection as compared to the benefits 

of a conservative estimate of BART. 

Therefore, EPA concludes that the 

revised limits under the variance 

continue to satisfy BART requirements 

for the Ameren MPS Group sources. 

In evaluating the approvability of the 

variance, EPA must also consider 

whether the SIP revision meets the 

requirements of section 110(l) of the 

CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7410(l). To be approved, 

a SIP revision must not interfere with 

any applicable requirement concerning 

attainment, reasonable further progress, 

or any other applicable requirement of 

the CAA. Currently, the SIP establishes 

overall annual SO2 emissions rates for 

the Ameren MPS Group, beginning in 

2010. The SIP allows flexibility in 

achieving these overall emissions rates, 

not requiring reductions at any 

particular source. It should be noted 

that none of the Ameren MPS Group 

sources are located in a PM2.5

nonattainment area and the only source 

located in an SO2 nonattainment area is 

the E.D. Edwards facility in Peoria 

County. The variance adds specific 

conditions applicable to this facility, 

including the requirement that the E.D. 

Edwards, Joppa, and Newton Energy 

Centers continue to burn low sulfur coal 

through December 31, 2019, and that 

E.D. Edwards permanently retire Unit 1 

as soon as allowed by the Midcontinent 

Independent Transmission System 

Operator, Inc. The variance will not 

result in any increase in SO2 emissions, 

but rather will result in fewer SO2

emissions over the 2013–2020 time 

period. In addition, the measures 

contained in the variance provide better 

visibility protection than the application 

of BART on BART-subject units. 

Therefore, the variance will not interfere 

with attainment, reasonable further 

progress, or any other applicable 

requirement of the CAA. 

IV. What action is EPA taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve the IPH 

and Medina Valley variance, submitted 

by IEPA on September 3, 2014, as a 

revision to the Illinois Regional Haze 

SIP. 

V. Incorporation by Reference 

In this rule, EPA is proposing to 

include in a final EPA rule regulatory 

text that includes incorporation by 

reference. In accordance with 

requirements of 1 CFR 51.5, the EPA is 

proposing to incorporate by reference 

Illinois Pollution Control Board Order 

PCB 14–10, effective November, 21, 

2013. The 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). 

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 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules 21685 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable and legally permissible 

methods, under Executive Order 12898 

(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994). 

This rule 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 as specified by Executive 

Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 

2000), nor will it impose substantial 

direct costs on tribal governments or 

preempt tribal law. 

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: April 2, 2015. 

Susan Hedman, 

Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

[FR Doc. 2015–08896 Filed 4–17–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2014–0704; FRL–9926–33– 

Region 5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; 

Wisconsin; Infrastructure SIP 

Requirements for the 2008 Ozone, 2010 

NO2, and 2010 SO2 NAAQS 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve 

some elements of state implementation 

plan (SIP) submissions from Wisconsin 

regarding the infrastructure 

requirements of section 110 of the Clean 

Air Act (CAA) for the 2008 ozone, 2010 

nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and 2010 sulfur 

dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air 

Quality Standards (NAAQS). The 

infrastructure requirements are designed 

to ensure that the structural components 

of each state’s air quality management 

program are adequate to meet the state’s 

responsibilities under the CAA. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 20, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2014–0704, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: aburano.douglas@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 408–2279. 

4. Mail: Douglas Aburano, Chief, 

Attainment Planning and Maintenance 

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: Douglas Aburano, 

Chief, Attainment Planning and 

Maintenance 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–2014– 

0704. 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 

the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section 

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 

Friday, excluding Federal holidays. We 

recommend that you telephone Eric 

Svingen, Environmental Engineer, at 

(312) 353–4489 before visiting the 

Region 5 office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Eric 

Svingen, 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) 353–4489, 

svingen.eric@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. What should I consider as I prepare my 

comments for EPA? 

II. What is the background of these SIP 

submissions? 

III. What guidance is EPA using to evaluate 

these SIP submissions? 

IV. What is the result of EPA’s review of 

these SIP submissions? 

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. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS