[Federal Register Volume 84, Number 236 (Monday, December 9, 2019)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 67191-67196]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2019-26295]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0072; FRL-10002-81-Region 5]


Air Plan Approval; Illinois; Sulfur Dioxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving a 
request submitted by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency 
(IEPA) on February 6, 2018, to revise the Illinois State Implementation 
Plan (SIP) under the Clean Air Act (CAA) for the 2010 1-hour sulfur 
dioxide (SO2) National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). 
IEPA specifically requested EPA approval to amend the Illinois SIP for 
the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS to account for two variances 
granted by the Illinois Pollution Control Board (IPCB) to Calpine 
Corporation (Calpine) and Exelon Generation, LLC (Exelon). EPA

[[Page 67192]]

proposed to approve the state's submittal on June 12, 2019.

DATES: This final rule is effective on January 8, 2020.

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a docket for this action under Docket ID 
No. EPA-R05-OAR-2018-0072. All documents in the docket are listed in 
the http://www.regulations.gov website. Although listed in the index, 
some information is not publicly available, e.g., Confidential Business 
Information 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 through 
http://www.regulations.gov, or please contact the person identified in 
the For Further Information Contact section for additional availability 
information.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Francisco J. Acevedo, Mobile Source 
Program Manager, Control Strategies Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-
18J), Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6061, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document, wherever ``we'', 
``us'' or ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. What is being addressed by this document?

    In conjunction with Illinois' adoption of SO2 emission 
limits for major sources, the state adopted rule revisions (Sulfur 
Content Rule) to limit the sulfur content of distillate and residual 
fuel oil combusted at stationary sources throughout the state. See 35 
Ill. Adm. Code 214.161(b)(2) and 214.305(a)(2). The Sulfur Content Rule 
specifically requires that the sulfur content of distillate fuel oil 
combusted on or after January 1, 2017, not exceed 15 parts per million 
(ppm). The rule applies to owners and operators of existing fuel 
combustion emission and process emission sources that burn liquid fuel.
    Illinois' Sulfur Content Rule, containing 35 Ill. Adm. Code 
214.161(b)(2) and 214.305(a)(2), was submitted to EPA as a SIP revision 
on March 2, 2016, and EPA issued an approval in the Federal Register on 
February 1, 2018 (83 FR 4591) and May 29, 2018 (83 FR 24406).
    On May 18, 2016, pursuant to Section 35(a) of the Illinois 
Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS 5/34(a), and Part 104 of Title 
35 of the Illinois Administrative Code, 35 Ill. Adm. Code 104.100, 
Exelon filed a Petition for Variance with the IPCB regarding its Byron 
(Ogle County), Clinton (DeWitt County), Dresden (Grundy County), and 
LaSalle (LaSalle County) nuclear generation stations. See Exelon 
Generation, LLC v. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 16-
106. Section 35 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act provides 
that the IPCB, under state law, ``may grant individual variances . . . 
whenever it is found, upon presentation of adequate proof, that 
compliance with any rule or regulation . . . would impose an arbitrary 
or unreasonable hardship.'' (IPCB's granting of such a variance under 
state law, however, does not automatically revise what is federally 
enforceable under the SIP; only if Illinois submits and EPA approves a 
SIP revision reflecting the granting of the variance can the federally 
enforceable SIP be revised.) Exelon requested temporary relief from the 
15 ppm sulfur content limitation for distillate fuel oil set forth in 
35 Ill. Adm. Code 214.161(b)(2). On September 8, 2016, the IPCB granted 
the variance subject to a number of conditions.
    On June 16, 2016, Calpine also filed a Petition for Variance with 
the IPCB regarding the Zion Energy Center. See Calpine Corporation 
(Zion Energy Center) v. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, PCB 
16-112. On August 8, 2016, Calpine filed an Amended Petition for 
Variance with the IPCB, requesting temporary relief from the 15 ppm 
sulfur content limitation for distillate fuel oil set forth in 35 Ill. 
Adm. Code 214.161(b)(2). On November 17, 2016, the IPCB granted the 
variance from January 1, 2017, to December 31, 2021, subject to several 
conditions. IPCB also granted the motion on August 17, 2017, amending 
its order to correct the errors.
    The Petition for Variance sought relief from provisions that were 
approved into the Illinois SIP. Those SIP provisions remain in effect 
and enforceable unless and until EPA revises the SIP to incorporate the 
variances. Thus, following the decision by IEPA to approve the 
variances, IEPA submitted them to EPA for approval as SIP revisions.
    On February 6, 2018, IEPA formally submitted a request for EPA 
approval to amend the Illinois SIP for the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS to account for two variances granted by the IPCB to Calpine and 
Exelon. The submittal included an analysis of the potential impact of 
the variances on air quality, specifically with respect to the 2010 1-
hour SO2 NAAQS. This analysis was part of the variance 
applications submitted by Calpine and Exelon to the IPCB.
    On June 12, 2019, at 84 FR 27212, EPA proposed to approve IEPA's 
request to amend the Illinois SIP to reflect the variances granted by 
the IPCB for Calpine and Exelon.

II. What comments did we receive on the proposed SIP revision?

    Our June 12, 2019 proposed rule provided a 30-day comment period. 
The comment period closed on July 12, 2019. EPA received comments from 
one party during the public comment period. In this section we are 
responding to the comments received.
    Comment. The commenter generally states that EPA should not approve 
the variances addressed in the proposal. The commenter specifically 
notes that the sources' claim that they are economically burdened by 
the imposition of the state's rule requiring compliance with sulfur 
limits of no greater than 15 ppm is factually incorrect. In addition, 
the commenter asserts that the facilities should not be allowed to 
dilute the 15 ppm fuel with any remaining high sulfur fuel and that 
they should immediately sell any remaining non-compliant fuel and stop 
burning diluted fuel with non-compliant sulfur limits.
    Response. As discussed in more detail in the June 12, 2019 proposed 
approval, both Exelon and Calpine considered several potential options 
to comply with the Sulfur Content Rule as of January 1, 2017. Such 
options included combusting all the non-compliant fuel; continuing to 
dilute the fuel's sulfur content concentrations with ultra-low sulfur 
diesel (ULSD); draining all the storage tanks and refilling them with 
ULSD. According to the IPCB, both companies demonstrated that none of 
the compliance alternatives evaluated were practicable for meeting the 
15 ppm sulfur limit by January 1, 2017 and presented a substantial 
hardship to the companies. EPA agrees with IPCB's evaluation that 
substantial hardship exists based on review of support documentation 
provided to the IPCB and included as part of the SIP revision submitted 
to EPA. Exelon's plan for complying with the Sulfur Content Rule by the 
end of the variance period outlined by the IPCB calls for continuing to 
replenish the lower sulfur tanks with ULSD; and, as part of a 
coordinated program, emptying the higher sulfur tanks and refilling 
them with ULSD. Under Calpine's compliance plan, the facility would 
comply with the Sulfur Content Rule by January 1, 2022 by continuing to 
purchase only fuel with sulfur content

[[Page 67193]]

below 15 ppm. This ensures that the sulfur content of the fuel used at 
the facility will continue to decrease. During the variance period, the 
sulfur content of all distillate oil combusted by Calpine must not 
exceed 115 ppm sulfur content. EPA believes that both compliance plans 
provide enough flexibility to allow Exelon and Calpine to address their 
hardship concerns while also requiring full compliance with the Sulfur 
Content Rule at the end of the variance period. The commenter did not 
submit any specific information for EPA review to substantiate its 
claim that the companies' hardship concerns were factually incorrect.
    In addition, while hardship is a prerequisite for state variance 
issuance in this case, hardship is not a prerequisite for Federal 
approval. The state regulation under which it grants variances is not 
part of the SIP. Hardship is a defensible criterion for the state to 
use in allocating air quality resources, but it is not a criterion 
under the CAA, nor is EPA obliged in this case to judge whether it 
would have made the same determination as the state. EPA here needs 
only to judge whether the approval of these variances into the SIP 
interferes with attainment and reasonable further progress or any other 
applicable CAA requirement.
    Comment. The commenter raises concerns that the state did not 
perform an appropriate CAA section 110(l) analysis to determine what 
effect these units would have on the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. 
Further, the commenter states that EPA should evaluate situations when 
all the engines are being used at the same time since they appear to be 
emergency units that would likely be turned on at the same time.
    Response. Both Exelon and Calpine submitted an analysis of the 
potential impact of their respective variances on air quality, 
specifically with regard to the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS. These 
analyses were part of the variance applications submitted to the IPCB. 
In addition, IEPA and EPA independently evaluated the impact of both 
variances and concluded that the facilities would not contribute to 
current SO2 nonattainment areas, and that they would not 
cause any current attainment area to violate the SO2 NAAQS. 
In addition, EPA concluded that the impact of these variances with 
regards to section 110(l) do not result in emissions increases above 
the levels of emissions that were in place when EPA designated these 
counties as attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS, but rather result in deferred emission reductions 
during the variance period (unachieved emissions reductions). While 
these variances delay the emission reductions provided by the approved 
state rule, these reductions are not necessary to achieve attainment in 
these areas, since EPA concluded that these areas were attaining the 
standard even before the reductions required by Illinois' rule were to 
commence. Specifically, as discussed in more detail in the June 12, 
2019 proposed approval, EPA designated all of these counties as 
attainment/unclassifiable on January 9, 2018, based on monitoring data 
from 2014 to 2016 and emissions information that predated the January 
1, 2017 compliance date of Illinois' fuel sulfur regulation.
    The information submitted by the state was sufficient to assess 
whether the requirements of section 110(l) were met. For the Exelon 
variance, the potentially affected geographic areas include portions of 
the four counties in which the Exelon facilities are located. Each of 
these counties is designated as attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 
1-hour SO2 NAAQS. This includes Ogle County for Byron 
Station, LaSalle County for LaSalle Station, Grundy County for Dresden 
Station and DeWitt County for Clinton Station. The combined backup 
diesel storage capacity for the four Exelon stations which are part of 
this variance is 782,668 gallons. Using the maximum capacity of diesel 
fuel with a worst case 250 ppm sulfur content would result in 1.7 tons 
of combined unachieved emissions reductions during the variance period 
(0.443 tons at the Byron station; 0.238 tons at the Clinton station; 
0.343 tons at the Dresden station; and 0.342 tons at the LaSalle 
station). A calculation of expected unachieved emissions reductions 
based on a more realistic projection, which uses a five-year average 
annual fuel usage at each station and current sulfur concentrations of 
the fuel in the pertinent tanks (based on the highest measure sulfur 
content fuel in the largest tanks at the Byron, Clinton, and Dresden 
stations and an average at the LaSalle station), would result in 
unachieved emissions reductions on a yearly basis during the variance 
period totaling less than one-tenth of one ton for all the stations 
combined.
    The 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS (or standard) is 75 parts per 
billion (ppb) based on the ``design value'' (the three-year average of 
annual 99th percentile daily maximum 1-hour average concentrations). 
IEPA maintains fifteen (15) SO2 air monitors throughout the 
state. While these monitors are at a substantial distance from the 
sources that were granted variances, none of the monitors closest to 
the sources recorded any exceedances of the 75 ppb standard between 
2014-2016, the design value timeframe immediately before Illinois 
implemented its statewide Sulfur Content Rule requirement. The highest 
1-hour design value (2014-2016) for the nearest SO2 
monitoring sites to the Exelon sources ranged from 11 ppb to 44 ppb. 
Also, as stated above, EPA concluded that the impact of this variance 
with regards to section 110(l) does not result in emissions increases 
above the levels of emissions that were in place when these counties 
were designated as attainment/unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS, but rather result in unachieved emission 
reductions that are deferred during the variance period.
    For the Calpine variance, the backup distillate oil in the tank at 
the Zion Energy Center would allow for approximately 68.6 hours of 
turbine operation or approximately 22.8 hours for each of the three 
combustion turbines at the facility. Using the remaining distillate oil 
with 115 ppm sulfur content would result in actual unachieved emissions 
of 0.77 tons of SO2 over the five-year term of the variance, 
or 0.15 tons per year. The modeling conducted for this variance to 
demonstrate the environmental impact of using distillate oil with 115 
ppm sulfur content shows that the air quality in potentially impacted 
areas will remain far below the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, and 
the facility will not cause a modeled NAAQS exceedance.
    The nearest SO2 monitoring sites to Calpine did not 
record any exceedances in 2013 (IEPA 2013) when Calpine had a permitted 
sulfur limit of 480 ppm. The highest 1-hour monitored value in 2013 for 
those sites are 14 ppb and 10 ppb (36.7 ug/m\3\ and 26.2 ug/m\3\). 
Calpine is also approximately 90 kilometers from the nearest 
nonattainment area for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS, Lemont 
(AQS ID 17-031-16010). Based on available air quality modeling results, 
Calpine is not contributing to these monitors.
    The commenter is concerned about the possibility that all of the 
backup generators being granted variances might operate simultaneously. 
Given the distances between the different affected facilities, air 
quality near any one of these facilities would not reflect any 
detectable impact from any level of operation of pertinent 
SO2 sources at any of the other affected facilities. The 
more germane question is whether full simultaneous usage of the 
variance by the affected units at any one of these facilities would 
cause air quality concerns. The available information demonstrates that 
these areas are

[[Page 67194]]

attaining by sufficient margin and the impact of these variances is 
sufficiently small that these variances would not interfere with 
attainment or any other CAA requirement.
    Comment. The commenter does not believe the variances should be 
approved because the Round 3 SO2 designations did not 
account for these units burning non-compliant sulfur fuel. The 
commenter believes that if these units were to turn on all at the same 
time near a Round 3 or Round 4 SO2 designation source, the 
2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS could be violated. EPA must 
affirmatively determine whether this is a possibility and whether the 
sources could contribute to a violation of a 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS.
    Response. In fact, the Round 3 SO2 designations did 
account for these emissions. These designations were based on actual 
emissions in these areas. While the variances authorize the affected 
sources to defer any decrease in emissions as soon as would otherwise 
be required, the designation reflects available evidence indicating 
that the areas were attaining the standard even before the emission 
reductions from Illinois' low sulfur fuel oil rule took effect in these 
areas.
    All the facilities that received these variances from IPCB are 
located in separate counties that were designated by EPA as attainment/
unclassifiable for the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS during the 
Round 3 SO2 designations process. As part of its evaluation 
of the variances, IEPA examined the locations of the affected 
facilities in comparison to areas that were investigated and modeled 
for future area designation recommendations (Round 2 and Round 3 
SO2 designations process), and found that there was no 
overlap; IEPA determined, and EPA concurs, that it did not believe that 
the facilities associated with these variances would impact potential 
future nonattainment areas or change the designation for any of the 
counties where the facilities are located. Because of their relatively 
low SO2 contribution levels, none of the facilities were 
required by EPA's SO2 Data Requirement Rule (DRR) to be 
discretely modeled during the Round 3 SO2 designations 
process. However, EPA designated the pertinent counties as attainment 
unclassifiable on the basis of 2014 to 2016 monitored air quality data 
and emissions information, reflecting air quality before the January 1, 
2017 compliance date for Illinois' fuel sulfur regulation. The 
variances do not change this assessment because their impact does not 
result in emissions increases above the levels of emissions that were 
in place during the Round 3 designations process, but rather result in 
unachieved emission reductions that are deferred during the variance 
period. As outlined earlier, the design value for the closest monitors 
to the facilities are sufficiently below the 2010 1-hour SO2 
NAAQS and even assuming that the combined deferred emissions reduction 
of 2.47 tons were to be considered an emission increase and were to 
occur at one time, it would not trigger a violation of the 2010 1-hour 
SO2 NAAQS. In addition, the impact of these variances is 
minimized by the fact the all the facilities are located outside of 
each other facility's reasonable modeling domain and would not have the 
potential to cause any significant concentration gradients within an 
area of analysis.
    Regarding Round 4 SO2 designations, Illinois installed 
and began operation of a new monitoring network near a pair of DRR 
sources in Macon County by January 1, 2017. Under a court-ordered 
designation schedule, EPA is required by December 31, 2020, to 
designate this area (Macon County) using three years (2017-2019) of 
quality-assured data to be collected from this network. None of the 
Exelon and Calpine units that are part of this variance request are in 
Macon County or are within the reasonable modeling domain and would not 
have the potential to cause any significant concentration gradients 
within the area of analysis.
    Comment. The commenter states that even if EPA believes the 
variance is appropriate, EPA should instead require the affected 
facilities to utilize the non-compliant fuel first using a ``first in, 
first out'' method, so that the non-compliant fuel is used up faster, 
thereby reducing the time it takes for the facilities to come into 
compliance with the state rule and the SIP. The commenter further 
states that EPA should require the facilities to use up any non-
compliant fuel first without dilution so that the time in non-
compliance is limited and any violation of the SIP and state law is 
limited to a short time period.
    Response. Requiring the affected facilities to utilize non-
compliant fuel using a ``first in, first out'' method is not 
practicable in this situation because of the number of tanks that are 
affected; the location of these tanks in the facilities; and because of 
the legal and contractual restrictions that require both companies to 
maintain a specified volume of fuel on hand. In Exelon's case, the 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission regulations require that the facilities 
store and maintain on-site enough fuel to power the emergency equipment 
for up to seven days and ensure nuclear safety. As the fuel is 
depleted, Exelon is obligated to replenish the tanks to maintain the 
required seven-day supply, which would result in burning compliant 
fuel, as well as non-compliant fuel. In addition, Exelon indicates that 
the Federally Enforceable State Operating Permits for the facilities 
restrict the usage of, and emissions from, the emergency equipment. 
Similarly, some of the equipment is subject to Federal New Source 
Performance Standards for ``Stationary Compression Ignition Internal 
Combustion Engines'' (40 CFR part 60, subpart IIII) and the National 
Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for ''Stationary 
Reciprocating Internal Combustion Engines'' (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
ZZZZ), which also restrict the amount of time the emergency equipment 
can be operated.
    In Calpine's case, the company is contractually obligated to 
maintain 12 hours of backup fuel in case of emergency, so draining the 
tanks would violate this obligation and risk public safety. In its 
hardship assessment, Calpine argued that it cannot combust all its 
distillate oil without violating its Clean Air Act Permit Program 
permit that was reissued on October 16, 2014 (ID NO. 097200ABB, 
Application No. 99110042). Under its permit, the facility may only 
combust distillate oil for limited purposes including when natural gas 
is unavailable or for shakedown, evaluation, and testing of the 
turbines. Therefore, the facility's permit and economic conditions 
prevented burning the entire supply of the distillate oil supply before 
January 1, 2017. Additionally, Calpine argues that draining the storage 
tanks would impose a substantial hardship. Draining the tanks would 
entail purchasing and installing new equipment and revising facility 
plans that safeguard fuel spills at a substantial cost. As part of 
their variance agreement, both Exelon and Calpine are required to fully 
comply with the Sulfur Content Rule and will incur the costs necessary 
to achieve compliance. The companies only seek additional time to 
comply with the requirements of the Sulfur Content Rule within their 
current regulatory and contractual framework.

III. What action is EPA taking?

    EPA is approving the revision to the Illinois SIP submitted by the 
IEPA on February 6, 2018, because the variances granted by the IPCB for 
Calpine and Exelon meet all applicable requirements and would not 
interfere with attainment of the 2010 1-hour SO2 NAAQS.

[[Page 67195]]

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 IPCB 
Opinion and Orders of the Board described in the amendments to 40 CFR 
part 52 set forth below. EPA has made, and will continue to make, these 
documents generally available through www.regulations.gov, and/or at 
the EPA Region 5 Office (please contact the person identified in the 
For Further Information Contact section of this preamble for more 
information). Therefore, these materials have been approved by EPA for 
inclusion in the SIP, have been incorporated by reference by EPA into 
that plan, are fully federally enforceable under sections 110 and 113 
of the CAA as of the effective date of the final rulemaking of EPA's 
approval, and will be incorporated by reference in the next update to 
the SIP compilation.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ 62 FR 27968 (May 22, 1997).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

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);
     Is not an Executive Order 13771 (82 FR 9339, February 2, 
2017) regulatory action because SIP approvals are exempted under 
Executive Order 12866;
     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 7, 2020. 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) of the CAA.)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Sulfur oxides.

    Dated: November 20, 2019.
Cathy Stepp,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

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

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

0
2. In Sec.  52.720 the table in paragraph (d) is amended by adding 
entries in alphabetical order for ``Calpine Corporation (Zion Energy 
Center)'' and ``Exelon Generation, LLC'' to read as follows:


Sec.  52.720  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (d) * * *

                               EPA-Approved Illinois Source-Specific Requirements
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                      State effective
         Name of source           Order/permit  No.         date         EPA approval date         Comments
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Calpine Corporation (Zion Energy         PCB 16-112         12/19/2016  12/09/2019, [insert  As amended on 8/17/
 Center).                                                                Federal Register     2017.
                                                                         citation].
 

[[Page 67196]]

 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Exelon Generation, LLC..........         PCB 16-106          9/13/2016  12/09/2019, [insert
                                                                         Federal Register
                                                                         citation].
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 2019-26295 Filed 12-6-19; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 6560-50-P