[Federal Register Volume 73, Number 218 (Monday, November 10, 2008)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 66555-66559]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E8-26492]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2004-IL-0003; FRL-8730-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Illinois; CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA is responding to comments and taking final action on a 
July 29, 2003, site-specific sulfur dioxide (SO2) State 
Implementation Plan revision request for the Central Illinois Light 
Company E.D. Edwards Generating Station, now known as AmerenEnergy 
Resources Generating Company, Edwards Power Plant, in Peoria County, 
Illinois. This request amends the facility's emission limits to allow a 
higher SO2 emission limit for one of its boilers. To offset 
this increase, the revised rule includes a group limit for the 
facility's three boilers which is

[[Page 66556]]

lower than the individual boiler emission limits. The revised rule 
retains the facility's existing cap on total SO2 emissions. 
Illinois' July 29, 2003, submittal was identical to a State variance 
which EPA had approved as a temporary revision on April 13, 2000. On 
November 12, 2004, EPA approved the July 29, 2003, permanent rule 
revision submittal as a direct final action. However, on December 13, 
2004, EPA received an adverse comment on its approval. EPA withdrew the 
direct final approval on January 11, 2005. As stated in the January 11, 
2005, withdrawal, EPA is not establishing a second comment period on 
this action.

DATES: This final rule is effective on December 10, 2008.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2004-IL-0003. 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, 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 http://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 Mary 
Portanova, Environmental Engineer, at (312) 353-5954 before visiting 
the Region 5 office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Portanova, Environmental 
Engineer, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353-5954, [email protected].

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

I. Background
II. What has changed in the Illinois SO2 SIP?
III. What comments did EPA receive, and how does EPA respond?
IV. What action is EPA taking?
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

    On July 29, 2003, Illinois submitted a site-specific SO2 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request for the Central 
Illinois Light Company, in Bartonville, Peoria County, Illinois (CILCO 
Edwards). The facility is now known as AmerenEnergy Resources 
Generating Company, Edwards Power Plant. The SIP revision request, 
which amended CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards' SO2 emission 
limits, was identical to an earlier temporary SIP revision, which EPA 
approved on April 13, 2000 (65 FR 19838). Therefore, on November 12, 
2004 (69 FR 65378), EPA approved the July 29, 2003, permanent SIP 
revision request as a direct final action. However, on December 13, 
2004, EPA received adverse comments on the action. EPA withdrew the 
direct final approval on January 11, 2005 (70 FR 1824). The adverse 
comments and EPA's responses are given in section III below.

II. What has changed in the Illinois SO2 SIP?

    CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards operates three boilers, numbered 1, 2, 
and 3. Its SO2 emission limits are codified at 35 Illinois 
Administrative Code (IAC) 214.561. Previously, the Illinois 
SO2 SIP limited the emissions from Boilers 1 and 3 to 6.6 
pounds of SO2 per million British Thermal Units (lb/MMBtu) 
and Boiler 2's emissions to 1.8 lb/MMBtu (See 35 IAC 214.141). The July 
29, 2003, SIP revision request incorporated rule changes which were 
identical to the limits in the variance submitted on May 21, 1999, and 
approved by EPA on April 13, 2000. The average SO2 emissions 
from Boilers 1, 2, and 3, as a group, may not exceed 4.71 lb/MMBtu 
actual heat input. The average SO2 emissions from any one 
boiler may not exceed 6.6 lb/MMBtu actual heat input. CILCO 
(AmerenEnergy) Edwards must determine compliance with these limits on a 
daily basis using the SO2 methodology of the Phase II Acid 
Rain program set forth in 40 CFR part 75. A plantwide SO2 
emission limit for CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards restricts Boilers 1, 2, 
and 3, as a group, to 34,613 pounds SO2 per hour (lb/hr) on 
a 24-hour average. Compliance with the plantwide limit must also be 
determined on a daily basis using the Phase II Acid Rain methodology.

III. What comments did EPA receive, and how does EPA respond?

    EPA received one set of comments from Heart of Illinois Sierra 
Club, dated December 13, 2004, which disagreed with EPA's direct final 
action.
    Comment: The commenter cited that in 2004, the Environmental 
Integrity Project ranked CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards 47th in the 
United States for SO2 emissions. The commenter also stated 
that the CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards facility ``emits approximately 
13% of the state's SO2 emissions and lacks even rudimentary 
pollution controls. The proposed emission rate of 4.71 lb/MMBtu 
reflects the facility's refusal to install pollution controls and is at 
least 4 times higher than the limits proposed for new coal-fired power 
plants.''
    Response: EPA notes that the Environmental Integrity Project's 
report from May 2004 does rank CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards as 47th in 
the nation by total tons per year of SO2. The report also 
shows that the twelve power plants with the highest SO2 
emissions in the United States emitted more than twice CILCO 
(AmerenEnergy) Edwards' SO2 emissions, in tons per year. 
Illinois' Annual Air Quality Report for 2003 (IEPA/BOA/04-019, August 
2004) indicated that the State's total point source SO2 
emissions for 2003 were 512,320.6 tons per year (tpy), and the total 
SO2 emissions from external fuel combustion electric 
generation sources were 348,602.0 tpy (Table C4). Total fuel combustion 
SO2 emissions were estimated in the report as 414,050.0 tpy 
(Table 8). CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards' 55,035 tpy SO2 for 
2003 would be 10.7%, 15.8%, and 13.3% of these totals, respectively. 
EPA agrees that CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards is a large facility with 
significant SO2 emissions. Its boilers have control systems 
for nitrogen oxides and particulate matter, but not for SO2. 
As part of the variance in 1999, the Illinois Pollution Control Board 
required CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards to research and report on 
techniques to control its SO2 emissions. CILCO 
(AmerenEnergy) Edwards reported that installing flue gas 
desulfurization systems to control SO2 would be both 
economically and technically infeasible. The CILCO (AmerenEnergy) 
Edwards facility does not have the necessary space available to install 
them.
    The States prepare SIPs in order to maintain the ambient air 
quality standards, pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA). 
In its review of State SO2 SIPs and SIP revision requests, 
EPA generally does not prescribe specific control measures, nor does it 
comment on the size of individual facilities. Rather, EPA requires that 
the emission limits be clear, enforceable, and protective of the 
National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) for SO2. The 
level of

[[Page 66557]]

emissions allowed for new coal-fired plants in Illinois is not 
necessarily relevant to the emission limits of existing sources. Newer 
facilities may be expected to be more efficient or better suited for 
current control technology. Illinois may determine how best to manage 
its emission regulations, as long as the NAAQS continue to be 
maintained. In support of the 1999 variance, Illinois submitted air 
quality modeling results which evaluated the highest ground-level 
SO2 concentrations possible with CILCO (AmerenEnergy) 
Edwards operating in compliance with the 1999 variance limits. This 
modeling, which included the SO2 emissions from other nearby 
sources and a background SO2 concentration value, showed 
that CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards did not cause or contribute to a 
violation of the SO2 NAAQS. EPA believes that the State has 
demonstrated that the CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards rule revision will 
maintain the NAAQS.
    Comment: The public was led to believe that the variance approved 
in 2000 would be a temporary measure.
    Response: The 2000 action did in fact address a temporary measure. 
The Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) anticipated that the 
company might ask for a permanent revision to its emission limits. The 
variance required CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards to research and consider 
alternatives for complying with Phase II of the Acid Rain Program, 
report back to the IPCB, and if necessary, apply by February 28, 2002, 
for permanent SO2 emission limit changes. The April 13, 
2000, Federal Register made note of this provision at 65 FR 19839. It 
was not possible to inform the public of CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards' 
intentions, since they were unknown to EPA at the time. CILCO 
(AmerenEnergy) Edwards might have reverted to its former limits, 
applied for the 1999 variance to be made permanent in 2002, or applied 
at any time for a different rule revision altogether.
    Comment: The timetable for review and available information is 
inadequate. The commenter requested additional time for review and also 
requested that EPA provide a public hearing to discuss the SIP revision 
prior to acting on it.
    Response: Upon receipt of the adverse comments, EPA withdrew the 
direct final action. The comment period was not extended. Thirty days 
is the usual comment period for a SIP action. The November 12, 2004, 
action was expected to be noncontroversial because it addressed a SIP 
revision which was identical to the SIP rule variance which EPA 
approved on April 13, 2000. There was a thirty day comment period for 
the April 13, 2000, action as well, and no comments were received at 
the time.
    In accordance with SIP procedures, the State of Illinois provided 
an opportunity for a public hearing on this proposed action prior to 
its adoption by the Illinois Pollution Control Board. The Notice of 
Hearing for this petition was filed on August 21, 2002, and the public 
hearing was held on October 11, 2002. Representatives from the Illinois 
Environmental Protection Agency and CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards gave 
statements. No members of the public attended the hearing.
    Comment: EPA must complete the New Source Review investigation 
prior to approving this SIP revision. EPA should not approve a variance 
for a coal-fired power plant to skirt existing SO2 limits 
for a facility that is under active investigation for a new source 
review violation.
    Response: Ongoing New Source Review investigations are not 
pertinent to the SIP approval process. It is not possible to anticipate 
the final outcome of these investigations. Any effect on allowable 
emissions or SIP rules will occur on a separate schedule. The courts 
did not place restrictions on the facilities under investigation that 
would have precluded SIP rulemaking actions; nor did the fact of such 
an investigation occurring within EPA place such restrictions. Since 
CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards' proposed new limits were properly adopted 
by the State and were shown through air quality modeling to protect the 
SO2 NAAQS, they are Federally approvable.
    Comment: The modeling fails to include new sources which have been 
built, permitted, or have applied for permits since 1999. The comment 
named Indeck-Elwood, Peabody's Prairie State Generating Station, 
Enviropower Franklin County Proposal, CornBelt Energy, the Dynegy 
Baldwin expansion, Franklin Power, the Marion IGCC proposal, a new coal 
plant in Springfield, Illinois, the Holcim Cement Plant in Missouri, 
and the proposed Peabody Thoroughbred power plant in Kentucky as other 
large SO2 sources that were not included in the CILCO 
(AmerenEnergy) Edwards modeling.
    Response: Illinois' SIP emission inventory does not include sources 
which are not yet operating. Several of the commenter's named sources 
were not operating in 1998, when the CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards 
modeling was completed, and some have not begun operating to date. As 
part of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permitting 
process, new sources address the maintenance of the NAAQS with 
dispersion modeling that includes neighboring sources. Such modeling 
would address the combined impact of the new source and existing nearby 
sources.
    Illinois' emission inventory for the CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards 
rule included large SO2 sources within 50 kilometers (km) of 
CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards. The Industrial Source Complex Short Term 
model (ISCST3), EPA's recommended regulatory dispersion model in 1998, 
is not considered appropriate for use beyond a 50 km distance. All of 
the facilities named by the commenter are beyond 100 km from CILCO 
(AmerenEnergy) Edwards. A background SO2 concentration, 
determined by actual monitored air quality data, was added to the 
modeled concentrations in a NAAQS analysis to represent the impacts of 
sources too distant to explicitly include in the modeling study.
    Comment: CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards must conduct SO2 
modeling that considers whether there are 24-hour or other 
SO2 NAAQS violations, and whether there is any impact of 
CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards on the Mingo National Wildlife Refuge or 
any other Class I area.
    Response: CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards conducted air quality 
modeling to address the impacts of the variance in 1998. The 1998 
modeling addressed all three averaging times for the SO2 
NAAQS (3 hour, 24 hour, and annual). No violations were found. The 
Mingo National Wildlife Refuge and the next nearest Class I area, 
Mammoth Cave National Park, are both over 300 km from CILCO 
(AmerenEnergy) Edwards. As stated before, the ISCST3 model is not 
considered appropriate for such distances. CILCO (AmerenEnergy) 
Edwards' SIP revision request was submitted in 2002, and at that time, 
EPA did not require Class I area analyses when the source was more than 
100 km from a Class I area. Some current models can evaluate long-range 
transport beyond 100 km, but CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards' distance 
from Class I areas and the emission change represented by the 1999 
variance do not indicate a need for additional long-range transport 
modeling.
    Comment: EPA must consider CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards' impact on 
PM2.5 and 8-hour ozone NAAQS.
    Response: The SO2 SIP revision for CILCO (AmerenEnergy) 
Edwards retains the facility's 34,613 lb/hr overall SO2 
emissions cap and does not provide for an increase in PM2.5 
precursor emissions. The SIP revision does not provide for increases in 
ozone precursors. The States are required to

[[Page 66558]]

submit attainment plans for areas designated nonattainment for 
particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in diameter (PM2.5) 
and ozone on an 8-hour average. These plans are being prepared 
separately under statutory schedules. Where appropriate, CILCO 
(AmerenEnergy) Edwards' emissions will be included in the analyses and 
control strategies. These ongoing actions do not affect the ability of 
CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards to demonstrate that its SO2 
limits address the NAAQS for SO2. If further revisions to 
CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards' SO2 limits are necessary as 
part of the PM2.5 or ozone SIPs, Illinois must submit such 
revisions for Federal approval as they are developed.
    Comment: EPA has not complied with the Endangered Species Act 
(ESA). Federal agencies are required to review their actions ``to 
insure that any action authorized, funded, or carried out by such 
agency * * * is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any 
endangered species * * * .'' See Sec. 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species 
Act.
    Response: EPA disagrees with the commenter. Under relevant CAA 
provisions, States are entitled to administer their own plans for the 
implementation, maintenance, and enforcement of the national primary 
and secondary ambient air quality standards. 42 U.S.C. 7410. EPA is 
required to approve a State's revision to its SIP that meets all 
applicable CAA requirements. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k)(3). Illinois' proposed 
SIP revision for CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards satisfies the conditions 
of section 110(l) of the CAA, the applicable CAA requirement. 
Accordingly, and as confirmed by recent Supreme Court precedent, the 
ESA requirements cited in the comments do not apply to EPA's decision 
to approve Illinois' SIP revision for CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards. See 
50 CFR 402.03; National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Defenders of 
Wildlife, 127 S. Ct. 2518 (2007) (Defenders of Wildlife).
    Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA generally requires Federal agencies to 
consult with the relevant Federal wildlife agencies to ensure that 
actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize 
the continued existence of Federally-listed endangered or threatened 
species, or result in the destruction or adverse modification of 
designated critical habitat of such species. 16 U.S.C. 1536(a)(2). In 
accordance with relevant ESA implementing regulations, this requirement 
applies only to actions in which there is discretionary Federal 
involvement or control. 50 CFR 402.03. In National Ass'n of Home 
Builders v. Defenders of Wildlife, 127 S. Ct. 2518 (2007) (Defenders of 
Wildlife), the Supreme Court examined these provisions in the context 
of EPA's decision to approve a State permitting program under the Clean 
Water Act (CWA). In that case, the Court held that when a Federal 
agency is required by statute to undertake a particular action once 
certain specified triggering events have occurred, there is no relevant 
agency discretion, and thus the requirements of ESA section 7(a)(2) do 
not apply. 127 S. Ct. at 2536.
    With regard to EPA's transfer of CWA permitting authority to a 
State, the Court found that the relevant CWA provision mandated that 
EPA ``shall approve'' a State permitting program if a list of CWA 
statutory criteria are met. Therefore, EPA lacked the discretion to 
deny a transfer application that satisfied those criteria. Id. at 2531-
32. The Court also found that the relevant CWA program approval 
criteria did not include consideration of endangered or threatened 
species, and stated that ``[n]othing in the text of [the relevant CWA 
provision] authorizes EPA to consider the protection of threatened or 
endangered species as an end in itself when evaluating [an] 
application'' to transfer a permitting program to a State. Id. at 2537. 
Accordingly, the Court held that the CWA required EPA to approve the 
State's permitting program if the statutory criteria were met; those 
criteria did not include the consideration of ESA-protected species; 
and thus, consistent with 50 CFR 402.03, the non-discretionary action 
to transfer CWA permitting authority to the State did not trigger 
relevant ESA section 7 requirements.
    Similar to the CWA program approval provision at issue in Defenders 
of Wildlife, section 110(k)(3) of the CAA mandates that EPA ``shall 
approve'' a SIP submittal that meets applicable CAA requirements. 42 
U.S.C. 7410(k)(3). With respect to SIP revisions such as Illinois' 
requested revision, section 110(l) of the CAA provides the relevant 
applicable CAA requirements and prohibits the Administrator from 
approving a SIP revision that ``would interfere with any applicable 
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress * * 
*, or any other applicable requirement'' of the CAA. 42 U.S.C. 7410(l).
    As was the case with the CWA requirements in Defenders of Wildlife, 
the SIP requirements contained in section 110 of the CAA do not include 
protection of listed species, and section 110(l) of the CAA does not 
state that consideration of impacts on listed species is a factor to 
consider in approving SIP revisions. EPA's action on State SIP 
submittals is governed by section 110 of the CAA, which unequivocally 
directs EPA to approve State plans meeting applicable CAA requirements.
    EPA recognizes that it exercises some judgment when evaluating 
whether a SIP submittal meets specific statutory criteria. However, as 
the Supreme Court held in Defenders of Wildlife, the use of such 
judgment does not allow the Agency ``the discretion to add another 
entirely separate prerequisite''--such as the ESA section 7(a)(2) 
consultation requirements--to the list of required criteria EPA 
considers when determining whether it ``shall approve'' a SIP revision 
request. 127 S. Ct. at 2537.
    Applying the reasoning of Defenders of Wildlife, the SIP approval 
criteria contained in the CAA do not provide EPA with the discretionary 
authority to consider whether approval of SIP revisions may affect any 
listed species. EPA has determined that Illinois has submitted a SIP 
revision request for CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards that satisfies all of 
the applicable SIP requirements contained in section 110 of the CAA.\1\ 
Thus, given the Supreme Court precedent and applicable regulations--see 
50 CFR 402.03--EPA is without discretion to disapprove or condition the 
State's SIP revision request based on considerations regarding listed 
species, and the ESA requirements cited by the commenter are thus 
inapplicable to this approval action.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ On the basis of modeling demonstrating a worst-case 
allowable emissions scenario under the requested revision, EPA has 
determined that the CILCO (AmerenEnergy) Edwards SIP revision will 
not interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment 
and reasonable further progress. Nor will it cause or contribute to 
exceedances of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards in other 
States. Therefore, the revision has met all applicable requirements 
under the CAA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: Approving a permanent variance appears to be illegal 
backsliding under CAA section 110, because the proposed rule would 
relax the clean air safeguards contained in the existing SIP.
    Response: EPA disagrees. This SIP revision has been shown to 
maintain the SO2 NAAQS under worst-case operating 
conditions. Therefore, it does not violate 110(l). Sections 110(l) and 
110(n)(1) allow States to revise their SIPs and submit them to the EPA 
for review and approval.

IV. What Action Is EPA Taking?

    EPA is approving a July 29, 2003, site-specific request to revise 
Illinois' SO2

[[Page 66559]]

SIP for the Central Illinois Light Company E.D. Edwards Generating 
Station, now known as AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Company, 
Edwards Power Plant, in Bartonville, Peoria County, Illinois. The 
requested revision changes the SO2 emission limits for the 
plant's three boilers.

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews.

    Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a 
SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and 
applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). 
Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the CAA. Accordingly, 
this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements 
and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by 
State law. For that reason, this action:
     Is not a ``significant regulatory action'' subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 
12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);
     Does not impose an information collection burden under the 
provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);
     Is certified as not having a significant economic impact 
on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory 
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.);
     Does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4);
     Does not have Federalism implications as specified in 
Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);
     Is not an economically significant regulatory action based 
on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 
19885, April 23, 1997);
     Is not a significant regulatory action subject to 
Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);
     Is not subject to requirements of section 12(d) of the 
National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 
note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent 
with the CAA; and
     Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to 
address, as appropriate, disproportionate human health or environmental 
effects, using practicable and legally permissible methods, under 
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
    In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as 
specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), 
because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in 
the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct 
costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.
    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 January 9, 2009. 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, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: October 2, 2008.
Lynn Buhl,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, of title 40 
of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart O--Illinois

0
2. Section 52.720 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(171) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.720  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (171) On July 29, 2003, the Illinois Environmental Protection 
Agency submitted a site-specific revision to the State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) for sulfur dioxide (SO2) for the Central Illinois 
Light Company's E.D. Edwards Generating Station, now known as 
AmerenEnergy Resources Generating Company, Edwards Power Plant, in 
Bartonville, Peoria County, Illinois.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    Illinois Administrative Code Title 35: Environmental Protection, 
Subtitle B: Air Pollution, Chapter 1: Pollution Control Board, 
Subchapter c: Emissions Standards and Limitations for Stationary 
Sources, Part 214: Sulfur Limitations, Subpart X: Utilities Section 
214.561 E.D. Edwards Electric Generating Station which was amended at 
27 Illinois Register 12101, effective July 11, 2003.

[FR Doc. E8-26492 Filed 11-7-08; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P