Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 244 / Monday, December 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 79261 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

5 a.m. to 10:30 a.m. on Sunday, March 

20, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

deviation, [USCG–2015–1064] is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Type the docket number in the 

‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH’’. 

Click on Open Docket Folder on the line 

associated with this deviation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

deviation, call or email Kashanda 

Booker, Bridge Administration Branch, 

Fifth Coast Guard; telephone 757–398– 

6227, email Kashanda.l.booker@

uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 7th 

Annual Quintiles Wrightsville Beach 

Marathon committee on behalf of the 

North Carolina Department of 

Transportation (NCDOT) has requested 

a temporary deviation from the current 

operating schedule for the SR 74 

Bascule Drawbridge across the AIWW, 

mile 283.1, at Wrightsville Beach, NC. 

The requested deviation will 

accommodate the 7th Annual Quintiles 

Wrightsville Beach Marathon scheduled 

for Sunday, March 20, 2016. To 

facilitate this event, the draw of the 

bridge will be maintained in the closedto-navigation position from 5 a.m. to 

10:30 a.m. to allow race participants to 

cross during the scheduled event. 

The current operation schedule is set 

out in 33 CFR 117.821(a)(4). The 

regulation requires the bridge to open 

on signal for vessels at all times except 

that from 7 a.m. until 7 p.m. the bridge 

shall open on the hour; every third and 

fourth Saturday in September the bridge 

shall remain closed from 7 a.m. until 11 

a.m.; and the last Saturday of October or 

the first or second Saturday of 

November the bridge shall remain 

closed from 7 a.m. until 10:30 a.m. The 

bascule drawbridge has a vertical 

clearance of 20 feet above mean high 

water (MHW) in the closed position. 

Vessels able to pass through the 

bridge in the closed position may do so 

at anytime. The bridge will be able to 

open for emergencies and there is no 

immediate alternate route for vessels. 

Most waterway traffic consists of 

recreational boats with a few barges and 

tugs during the daytime. The Coast 

Guard will also inform the users of the 

waterways through our Local and 

Broadcast Notices to Mariners of the 

change in operating schedule for the 

bridge so that vessel operators can 

arrange their transits to minimize any 

impact caused by the temporary 

deviation. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the effective period of this 

temporary deviation. This deviation 

from the operating regulations is 

authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: December 15, 2015. 

Hal R. Pitts, 

Bridge Program Manager, Fifth Coast Guard 

District. 

[FR Doc. 2015–31938 Filed 12–18–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Coast Guard 

33 CFR Part 117 

[Docket No. USCG–2015–1063] 

Drawbridge Operation Regulation; 

Connecticut River, Old Lyme, CT 

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DHS. 

ACTION: Notice of deviation from 

drawbridge regulation. 

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard has issued a 

temporary deviation from the operating 

schedule that governs the Amtrak Old 

Saybrook-Old Lyme Bridge across the 

Connecticut River, mile 3.4, at Old 

Lyme, Connecticut. This deviation is 

necessary to perform gear box 

replacement. This deviation allows the 

bridge to remain in the closed position 

for approximately 5 days. 

DATES: This deviation is effective from 

7:00 a.m. on January 25, 2016 to 7:00 

a.m. on February 6, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The docket for this 

deviation, [USCG–2015–1063] is 

available at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Type the docket number in the 

‘‘SEARCH’’ box and click ‘‘SEARCH’’. 

Click on Open Docket Folder on the line 

associated with this deviation. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: If 

you have questions on this temporary 

deviation, call or email Ms. Judy K. 

Leung-Yee, Project Officer, First Coast 

Guard District, telephone (212) 514– 

4330, email judy.k.leung-yee@uscg.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: National 

Passenger Railroad Corporation 

(Amtrak) requested this temporary 

deviation from the normal operating 

schedule to perform gear box 

replacement. 

The Amtrak Old Saybrook-Old Lyme 

Bridge, mile 3.4, across the Connecticut 

River has a vertical clearance in the 

closed position of 19 feet at mean high 

water and 22 feet at mean low water. 

The existing bridge operating 

regulations are found at 33 CFR 

117.205(b). 

The waterway is transited by one 

commercial user and recreation vessel 

traffic. 

Under this temporary deviation, the 

Amtrak Old Saybrook-Old Lyme Bridge 

may remain in the closed position from 

7:00 a.m. on January 25, 2016 to 7:00 

a.m. on January 30, 2016 with rain date 

from 7:00 a.m. on February 1, 2016 to 

7:00 a.m. on February 6, 2016. 

Vessels able to pass through the 

bridge in the closed positions may do so 

at anytime. The bridge will not be able 

to open for emergencies and there is no 

immediate alternate route for vessels to 

pass. 

The Coast Guard will also inform the 

users of the waterways through our 

Local and Broadcast Notices to Mariners 

of the change in operating schedule for 

the bridge so that vessels can arrange 

their transits to minimize any impact 

caused by the temporary deviation. 

In accordance with 33 CFR 117.35(e), 

the drawbridge must return to its regular 

operating schedule immediately at the 

end of the effective period of this 

temporary deviation. This deviation 

from the operating regulations is 

authorized under 33 CFR 117.35. 

Dated: December 15, 2015. 

C.J. Bisignano, 

Supervisory Bridge Management Specialist, 

First Coast Guard District. 

[FR Doc. 2015–31939 Filed 12–18–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 9110–04–P 

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. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
79262 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 244 / Monday, December 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 BARTsubject 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 fleetwide emission limits for the unitspecific 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). 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 244 / Monday, December 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 79263 

1The 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. 

2BACT 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. 

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. 

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 sourcespecific, 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 BARTeligible 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 twopronged 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 sourcespecific 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 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
79264 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 244 / Monday, December 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

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 subjectto-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 sourcespecific 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 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 244 / Monday, December 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 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 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES
79266 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 244 / Monday, December 21, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

■ 2. Section 52.720 is amended by 

adding paragraph (c)(207) to read as 

follows: 

§ 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 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0259; FRL–9940–35– 

Region 10] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Oregon: 

Interstate Transport of Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requires each State Implementation Plan 

(SIP) to contain adequate provisions 

prohibiting air emissions that will have 

certain adverse air quality effects in 

other states. On June 28, 2010, the State 

of Oregon made a submittal to the 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 

to address these requirements. The EPA 

is approving the submittal as meeting 

the requirement that each SIP contain 

adequate provisions to prohibit 

emissions that will contribute 

significantly to nonattainment or 

interfere with maintenance of the 2008 

ozone National Ambient Air Quality 

Standard (NAAQS) in any other state. 

DATES: This final rule is effective 

January 20, 2016. 

ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

No. EPA–R10–OAR–2015–0259. All 

documents in the docket are listed on 

the http://www.regulations.gov Web 

site. Although listed in the index, some 

information is not publicly available, 

e.g., Confidential Business Information 

(CBI) or other information the disclosure 

of which 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 http://

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Air Programs Unit, Office of Air, 

Waste and Toxics, EPA Region 10, 1200 

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, WA, 98101. The 

EPA requests that if at all possible, you 

contact the individual listed in the FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section to 

view the hard copy of the docket. You 

may view the hard copy of the docket 

Monday through Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 

4:00 p.m., excluding Federal holidays. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Kristin Hall at (206) 553–6357, 

hall.kristin@epa.gov, or the above EPA, 

Region 10 address. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Table of Contents 

I. Background Information 

II. Final Action 

III. Statutory and Executive Orders Review 

I. Background Information 

On October 27, 2015, the EPA 

proposed to approve Oregon’s June 28, 

2010 submittal as meeting the interstate 

transport requirements of CAA section 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) for the 2008 ozone 

NAAQS (80 FR 65680). An explanation 

of the CAA requirements, a detailed 

analysis of the submittal, and the EPA’s 

reasons for approval were provided in 

the notice of proposed rulemaking, and 

will not be restated here. The public 

comment period for this proposed rule 

ended on November 27, 2015. The EPA 

received no comments on the proposal. 

II. Final Action 

The EPA is approving Oregon’s June 

28, 2010 submittal as meeting the CAA 

section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I) interstate 

transport requirements for the 2008 

ozone NAAQS. 

III. Statutory and Executive Orders 

Review 

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, the 

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 

this action does not involve technical 

standards; and 

• Does not provide the 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 the 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, 


Lhorne on DSK5TPTVN1PROD with RULES