34382 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Proposed Rules

permissions to enter the zones via

Broadcast Notice to Mariners.

(d) Effective dates. This section is

effective from the beginning of August

2001 [date to be inserted in final rule]

until the operation ends in midNovember 2001 [date to be inserted in

final rule]. The public will be notified

of the exact dates for enforcement of the

various zones by Broadcast Notice to

Mariners.

Dated: June 19, 2001.

G.J. Kanazawa,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the

Port Honolulu.

[FR Doc. 01–16205 Filed 6–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL208–1, IL209–1; FRL–7003–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Illinois NOX

Regulations

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On April 9, 2001, and May 1,

2001, Illinois submitted adopted rules to

reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides

(NOX) from cement kilns and from

industrial boilers and turbines,

respectively. Illinois adopted these rules

to help meet the NOX emission budget

as required under USEPA’s NOX State

Implementation Plan (SIP) Call as well

as to help attain the 1-hour ozone

standard in the Chicago area.

USEPA proposes to approve these two

sets of rules. These rules are similar to

and satisfy the requirements of USEPA’s

sample rules. Illinois’ rules include

language mandated by the Illinois

legislature making the compliance

deadline contingent on Federal

enforceability of similar rules in other

nearby states. However, the legislature

has recently reversed its prior mandate

and established a fixed compliance

deadline of May 31, 2004.

On June 18, 2001, Illinois submitted

a budget demonstration, reflecting the

impact of the rules on cement kilns and

industrial boilers and turbines in

conjunction with previously submitted

rules on electricity generating units. The

submittal justifies two minor inventory

revisions, adding one source and

deleting another source from the list of

regulated industrial sources. Illinois’

submittal shows that its rules will

achieve the revised budget of acceptable

2007 NOX emission levels. USEPA

concurs with the inventory revisions

and proposes to approve Illinois’ budget

demonstration.

USEPA has previously proposed to

approve Illinois’ rules for electricity

generating units, provided Illinois

established a fixed compliance

deadline. With today’s action, USEPA

has proposed to approve all of the

regulations needed to achieve the

budgeted 2007 NOX emission levels and

to meet USEPA’s associated

requirements. Therefore, USEPA

proposes to conclude that Illinois has

satisfied all requirements of USEPA’s

NOX SIP Call.

DATES: Written comments on this

proposed rule must be received on or

before July 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: J. Elmer

Bortzer, Chief, Regulation Development

Section (AR–18J), United States

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604. Copies of the State’s

submittal are available for inspection at

the following address: (We recommend

that you telephone John Summerhays at

312–886–6067, before visiting the

Region 5 Office.) U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and

Radiation Division (AR–18J), 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Summerhays, Regulation Development

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604,

summerhays.john@epa.gov, 312–886–

6067.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

following text, the terms ‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or

‘‘our’’ refer to USEPA. This notice is

organized according to the following

table of contents:

I. Background

A. What is USEPA’s ‘‘ NOX SIP Call’’?

B. What requirements must Illinois meet?

II. Summary of Illinois Submittals

A. Overview of Pertinent Submittals

1. What are the elements of Illinois’ NOX

emission control program?

2. What submittals has Illinois made?

3. What are USEPA’s plans for rulemaking

on Subpart X?

B. Cement Kiln Rules (Subpart T)

1. When was the cement kiln NOX

emission control rule submitted to

USEPA?

2. When must sources reduce emissions?

3. What are the basic components of the

State’s rule?

4. Will affected sources be allowed to

participate in the NOX emissions trading

program?

5. What public review opportunities were

provided?

C. Industrial Boiler Rules (Subpart U)

1. What do the industrial boiler rules

require?

2. What sources are subject to these rules?

3. What are the special provisions of these

rules?

4. How much emission reduction do these

rules achieve?

D. Budget Demonstration

III. USEPA Review

A. Cement Kiln Rules (Subpart T)

1. What guidance did USEPA use to

evaluate the State’s rule?

2. Can USEPA approve Illinois’ cement

kiln rules?

B. Industrial Boiler Rules (Subpart U)

1. Can USEPA approve the general

approach?

2. Can USEPA approve the new source setaside features?

3. Can USEPA approve the early reduction

credit features?

4. Can USEPA approve the low emitter

exemption features?

5. Can USEPA approve the opt-in features?

6. In summary, can USEPA approve

Illinois’ industrial boiler rules?

C. Budget Demonstration

1. Does USEPA accept Illinois’

recommended budget revisions?

2. Do Illinois’ rules satisfy USEPA’s

budget?

IV. Proposed Action

V. Administrative Requirements

I. Background

A. What Is USEPA’s ‘‘NOX SIP Call’’?

On October 27, 1998, the USEPA

promulgated a regulation known as the

NOX SIP Call for numerous States,

including the State of Illinois. The NOX

SIP Call requires the subject States to

develop NOX emission control

regulations sufficient to provide for a

prescribed NOX emission budget in

2007.

Preceding the promulgation of

USEPA’s NOX SIP Call was extensive

discussions of transport of ozone in the

Eastern United States. The

Environmental Council of States (ECOS)

recommended the formation of a

national workgroup to assess the

problem and to develop a consensus

approach to addressing the transport

problem. As a result of ECOS’

recommendation and in response to a

March 2, 1995 USEPA memorandum,

the Ozone Transport Assessment Group

(OTAG) was formed to conduct regional

ozone transport analyses and to develop

a recommended ozone transport control

strategy. OTAG was a partnership

among USEPA, the 37 eastern States and

the District of Columbia, and industrial,

academic, and environmental groups.

OTAG was given the responsibility of

conducting the two years of analyses

envisioned in the March 2, 1995 USEPA

memorandum.

OTAG conducted a number of

regional ozone data analyses and

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Proposed Rules 34383

1Alabama, Connecticut, Delaware, District of

Colmbia, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky,

Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, New

Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina,

Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia, and Wisconsin.

regional ozone modeling analyses using

photochemical grid modeling. In July

1997, OTAG completed its work and

made recommendations to the USEPA

concerning the regional emissions

reductions needed to reduce transported

ozone as an obstacle to attainment in

downwind areas. OTAG recommended

a possible range of regional NOX

emission reductions to support the

control of transported ozone. Based on

OTAG’s recommendations and other

information, USEPA issued the NOX SIP

Call rule on October 27, 1998. 63 FR

57356.

In the NOX SIP Call, USEPA

determined that sources and emitting

activities in 23 jurisdictions1 emit NOX

in amounts that ‘‘significantly

contribute’’ to ozone nonattainment or

interfere with maintenance of the 1-hour

ozone national ambient air quality

standards (NAAQS) in one or more

downwind areas in violation of Clean

Air Act (CAA) section 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(I).

USEPA identified NOX emission

reductions by source sector that could

be achieved using cost-effective

measures and set state-wide NOX

emission budgets for each affected

jurisdiction for 2007 based on the

possible cost-effective NOX emission

reductions.

The source sectors include nonroad

mobile, highway mobile, area,

electricity generating units (EGUs), and

major non-EGU stationary point sources.

EGUs include stationary boilers and

turbines that generate at least some

electricity, even if they also generate

steam for industrial processes. NonEGUs include other large stationary

boilers and turbines, typically for the

purpose of generating steam for

industrial processes.

USEPA established recommended

NOX emissions caps for large EGUs

(potentially generating more than 25

megawatts) and for large non-EGUs

(minimum design heat input of 250

mmBTU per hour). USEPA determined

that significant NOX reductions using

cost-effective measures could be

obtained as follows: application of a

0.15 pounds NOX/mmBtu heat input

emission rate limit for large EGUs; a 60

percent reduction of NOX emissions

from large non-EGUs; a 30 percent

reduction of NOX emissions from large

cement kilns; and a 90 percent

reduction of NOX emissions from large

stationary internal combustion engines.

The 2007 state-wide NOX emission

budgets established by jurisdiction were

based, in part, by assuming these levels

of NOX emission controls coupled with

NOX emissions projected by source

sector to 2007.

Although the state-wide NOX

emission budgets were based on the

levels of reduction achievable through

cost-effective emission control

measures, the NOX SIP Call allows each

State to determine what measures it will

choose to meet the state-wide NOX

emission budgets. It does not require the

States to adopt the specific NOX

emission rates assumed by the USEPA

in establishing the NOX emission

budgets. The NOX SIP Call merely

requires States to submit SIPs, which,

when implemented, will require

controls that meet the NOX state-wide

emission budget. The NOX SIP Call

encourages the States to adopt a NOX

cap and trade program for large EGUs

and large non-EGUs as a cost-effective

strategy and provides an interstate NOX

trading program that the USEPA will

administer for the States. If States

choose to participate in the national

trading program, the States must submit

SIPs that conform to the trading

program requirements in the NOX SIP

Call.

B. What Requirements Must Illinois

Meet?

The State of Illinois has the primary

responsibility under the Clean Air Act

for ensuring that Illinois meets the

ozone air quality standards and is

required to submit a SIP that specifies

emission limitations, control measures,

and other measures necessary for

meeting the NOX emissions budget. The

SIP for ozone must meet the ozone

transport SIP Call requirements, must be

adopted pursuant to notice and

comment rulemaking, and must be

submitted to the USEPA for approval.

These NOX emission reductions will

address ozone transport in the area of

the country primarily east of the

Mississippi River. USEPA promulgated

the NOX SIP Call pursuant to the

requirements of CAA section

110(a)(2)(D) and our authority under

CAA section 110(k). Section 110(a)(2)(D)

applies to all SIPs for each pollutant

covered by a NAAQS and for all areas

regardless of their attainment

designation. It requires a SIP to contain

adequate provisions that prohibit any

source or type of source or other types

of emissions within a State from

emitting any air pollutants in amounts

which will contribute significantly to

nonattainment in, or interfere with

maintenance of attainment of a standard

by any other State with respect to any

NAAQS.

Pursuant to its authority under

section 110(k)(5), USEPA concluded

that the SIPs for Illinois and other states

are substantially inadequate to prohibit

NOX emissions that significantly

contribute to ozone nonattainment in

downwind states. Therefore, Illinois

must submit SIP revisions that address

this inadequacy.

USEPA has published a model rule

for control of NOX emissions from

boilers and turbines. This model rule,

codified at Title 40 of the Code of

Federal Regulations Part 96 (40 CFR part

96), reflects USEPA’s recommendations

for the general design of the necessary

NOX emission control programs as well

as detailed recommendations for

specific program features. Similarly, at

63 FR 56393 (October 21, 1998), USEPA

has published a proposed Federal

implementation plan including rules

regulating cement kilns, which serve as

sample rules for this source type.

USEPA recommends the cost-effective

levels of control noted above. The

budget that USEPA established for states

reflects these control levels. USEPA

further recommends that states take the

necessary steps to allow their sources to

participate in a multi-state NOX

emissions trading program that USEPA

will run. While USEPA offers flexibility

to states on various elements of program

design, particularly in the distribution

of projected emission reductions,

USEPA can offer more streamlined

approval of programs that more closely

follow USEPA’s model rule.

II. Summary of Illinois Submittals

A. Overview of Pertinent Submittals

1. What Are the Elements of Illinois’

NOX Emission Control Program?

Illinois has adopted a control strategy

that closely matches the control strategy

that USEPA assumed in determining

NOX emission budgets. Like USEPA’s

assumed strategy, Illinois is regulating

emissions from large utility sources,

from large cement kilns, and from large

industrial boilers and turbines. Illinois

requires cement kilns to meet an

emission factor limitation or other

equivalent limitation corresponding to

30 percent emission control. Illinois

requires utility sources on average to

meet a limitation of 0.15 pounds of NOX

emissions per mmBTU and requires

industrial boilers on average to achieve

60 percent emissions control.

Illinois provides for the utility and

industrial boiler sources to participate

in the trading program that USEPA is

running. Thus, these sources are not

subject to specific emission limitations.

Instead, USEPA would issue allowances

to these sources in amounts equivalent

34384 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Proposed Rules

to the budgeted emissions level, and

USEPA and Illinois would require each

source to emit no more tons than the

number of allowances it holds. One

option a source would have is to emit

at or below the budgeted level and

accommodate these emissions with the

issued allowances. Another option is to

emit more than the budgeted amount

and accommodate these emissions by

purchasing allowances from a second

source that has excess allowances due to

a corresponding degree of control below

its budgeted level. Under either option,

and under any of the variants of these

options permissible in Illinois’ rules, the

net effect is designed to be achievement

of the targeted emissions reductions by

some combination of sources in the

program.

2. What Submittals Has Illinois Made?

Illinois divided its NOX emission

control program into several

components, each submitted separately.

On July 18, 2000, Illinois submitted a

draft version of subpart W of part 217

of the Illinois Administrative Code,

regulating electricity generating units.

Illinois submitted a fully adopted

version of this rule on February 23,

2001. On April 9, 2001, Illinois

submitted an adopted subpart T of part

217, regulating cement kilns. On May 1,

2001, Illinois submitted adopted subpart

U, regulating industrial boilers and

turbines.

USEPA proposed rulemaking on the

submittal for electricity generating units

on August 31, 2000, at 65 FR 52467.

Today’s notice proposes rulemaking on

the submittals for cement kilns and

industrial boilers.

These submittals constitute the full

set of rules that Illinois has adopted to

satisfy the requirements of USEPA’s

NOX SIP Call. USEPA additionally

requires each state to submit a

demonstration that its regulations are

adequate to attain the state NOX

emissions budget mandated by USEPA.

Illinois submitted its budget

demonstration on June 18, 2001. USEPA

is proposing rulemaking on this budget

demonstration as part of this notice.

More generally, USEPA is proposing

action on whether Illinois has fully

satisfied USEPA’s NOX SIP Call.

3. What are USEPA’s Plans for

Rulemaking on Subpart X?

The submittal of May 1, 2001, also

includes adopted rules of subpart X of

part 217, entitled Voluntary NOX

Emissions Reduction Program. These

rules authorize issuance of allowances

for NOX emission reductions at sources

not required to reduce these emissions.

Sources seeking such allowances must

operate continuous emission monitors

in accordance with USEPA’s regulations

at 40 CFR part 60. Subpart X is intended

to provide flexibility for sources not part

of the core group of sources to be subject

to Illinois’ NOX emission control

regulations to achieve reductions which

can in effect substitute for reductions at

facilities that must be subject to Illinois’

regulations.

USEPA views subpart X as a

supplement to Illinois’ NOX emissions

regulations and not a direct set of

emission reduction requirements

needed to achieve the emissions control

mandated by USEPA. Subpart X allows

a redistribution of the targeted emission

reductions but is intended to have no

effect on the net emission reductions

achieved.

USEPA is under court order to

complete rulemaking on the ozone

attainment demonstration for the

Chicago area by October 15, 2001. The

NOX emission reductions required by

subparts T, U, and W are an important

part of the Chicago area attainment

demonstration that Illinois has

submitted. Therefore, USEPA must also

complete rulemaking on these NOX

emission reduction regulations by

October 15, 2001. Because these same

three subparts are also designed to be

sufficient to satisfy USEPA’s NOX

emission budget requirements, USEPA

intends to complete rulemaking on

Illinois’ budget demonstration in the

same timeframe.

USEPA views subpart X as not being

an element of Illinois’ attainment

demonstration, such that rulemaking on

this subpart need not occur by October

15, 2001. USEPA believes the best

approach for satisfying this deadline is

to conduct separate rulemaking on

subpart X. Also, because the features of

subpart X are not included in USEPA’s

model rule, USEPA cannot conduct

streamlined rulemaking on subpart X.

Therefore, USEPA wishes to conduct

streamlined rulemaking on the Illinois

rules needed to satisfy USEPA’s NOX

SIP Call without delaying the

rulemaking to address subpart X.

USEPA provides flexibility for states

to adopt different mixes of control

strategies, to address different mixes of

sources and to impose differing levels of

control stringency. Most cases of

applying this flexibility are to issue a

different distribution of allowances

(reflecting different distribution of

control levels or growth rates) or to

impose specific control requirements on

a specific alternative source type.

Conceptually, subpart X is a reasonable

extension of this flexibility, to allow the

reductions dictated in subparts T, U,

and W to be replaced with reductions

from other, as yet unidentified sources.

Furthermore, subpart X is in many

respects similar to the opt-in provisions

that USEPA suggests in its model rule.

USEPA anticipates proposing

rulemaking on subpart X in the near

future.

B. Cement Kiln Rules (Subpart T)

1. When Was the Cement Kiln NOX

Emission Control Rule Submitted to the

USEPA?

Illinois EPA submitted to USEPA,

additional portions of the State’s NOX

emission control plan in a letter dated

April 9, 2001. The letter contained rules

adopted by the Illinois Pollution Control

Board (IPCB) as requested amendments

to the SIP. The submittal included:

Subpart A: General Provisions, Subpart

B: Definitions and Subpart T: Cement

Kiln. The final State rule was published

in the Illinois Register, Volume 25, Issue

13, pages 4582–4608, dated March 30,

2001. This version in the Illinois

Register differs from that submitted with

the SIP revision request only in that the

numbering scheme in subpart T was

changed from 217.6xx in the final

package of rules sent to the IPCB (and

in the submittal to USEPA) to 217.4xx

in the official Illinois Register

publication. This is not a significant

issue but, highlighted only for clarity.

2. When Must Sources Reduce

Emissions?

An important element of Illinois’

rules is the date by which sources must

comply with the applicable

requirements. Section 217.402(b) of

subpart T as submitted by Illinois states

that sources are subject to the

requirements of subpart T only after

other nearby states become subject to

comparable, federally enforceable NOX

emission limits. Similar language is in

Illinois’ rules for utility sources (subpart

W), and USEPA proposed to approve

those rules only if Illinois made the

allowance holding/emission reduction

requirements effective in May 2004

without respect to the status of

requirements in nearby States. (Cf. 65

FR 52975, dated August 31, 2000.)

The Illinois legislature has passed

legislation overriding the contingency

clause in these rules and requiring

compliance by May 31, 2004. This is the

necessary compliance deadline

pursuant to the resolution of a lawsuit

regarding USEPA’s NOX SIP Call.

USEPA expects the governor to sign this

legislation soon. Once the governor

signs this legislation, Illinois will have

addressed the concern identified in

USEPA’s prior rulemaking and

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Proposed Rules 34385

established an appropriate compliance

deadline for these rules.

3. What Are the Basic Components of

the State’s Rule?

Basic components of the rule are

included in Table 1.

TABLE 1.—40 CFR PARTS AND SECTIONS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE IN ILLINOIS’ CEMENT KILN NOX RULE

State subpart State section Comment

A ........................ 217.104(a) ........ Incorporation by reference (IBR) of 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 7.

217.104(b) ........ IBR of Alternative Control Techniques Document, NOX Emissions from Cement Manufacturing.

217.104(c) ........ IBR of AP–42, Compilation of Air Emission Factors, Volume 1, Section 11.6, Portland Cement Manufacturing.

217.104(d) ........ IBR of 40 CFR 60.13

217.104(e) ........ IBR of 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, and 7E.

T ........................ 217.400 ............ Applicability, lists the types and sizes of kilns which are covered in the rule.

217.402 ............ Control Requirements. Lists dates, type of kiln, and NOX emission limits. Includes language linking effective dates to NOX SIPs in other states.

217.404 ............ Testing Requirements. References 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Methods 7, 7A, 7C, 7D, or 7E.

217.406 ............ Monitoring Requirements.

217.408 ............ Reporting Requirements.

217.410 ............ Recordkeeping Requirements.

Subpart T applies to all Cement Kilns of the sizes noted in Table 2.

TABLE 2.—EQUIPMENT SUBJECT TO THE ILLINOIS CEMENT KILN RULE

Item Process name Process rate

1 ........................ Long dry kilns .................................................................................................................................................... 12 tons/hour.

2 ........................ Long wet kilns ................................................................................................................................................... 10 tons/hour.

3 ........................ Pre-heater kilns ................................................................................................................................................. 16 tons/hour.

4 ........................ Pre-heater/pre-calciner kilns ............................................................................................................................. 22 tons/hour.

The rule applies to all noted sources

in the State of Illinois. Equipment with

process rates equal to or greater than the

rates listed in Table 2, are subject to the

requirements of the State’s subpart T.

There are three sources totaling four

units potentially impacted by the

cement kiln rule. Using information

available to the State, the Illinois EPA

applied regulatory control efficiency of

30 percent to the projected 2007

seasonal NOX emissions to obtain the

2007 seasonal NOX budget for the kilns.

The required control on these kilns will

reduce the 2007 base emissions to a

control level 2,851 tons per control

period as a result of emission controls

beginning May 31, 2004.

Control requirements are listed in

section 217.402 of the State’s rule.

Section 217.402 identifies a number of

emission rates and technologies by

which standards can be met. The rule

specifies an emission rate limit based on

type of kiln (see Table 2) or the use of

emission factors based on a specified

method. The rule also allows the use of

an alternate emission standard for the

kiln based on a demonstration that the

alternative standard is justifiable.

Illinois EPA established the following

NOX emission rate limits for the process

kilns listed in Table 3.

TABLE 3.—CEMENT KILN EMISSION LIMITS FOR KILNS WHICH BEGAN OPERATION PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1996.

Item Process Emission limit

#/ton clinker

1 ........................ Long dry kilns ........................................................................................................................................... 5.1 # of NOX/ ton of

clinker.

2 ........................ Long wet kilns .......................................................................................................................................... 6.0 # of NOX/ ton of

clinker.

3 ........................ Pre-heater kilns ........................................................................................................................................ 3.8 # of NOX/ ton of

clinker.

4 ........................ Pre-heater/pre-calciner ............................................................................................................................. 2.8 # of NOX/ ton of

clinker.

The State allows other options to

control emissions from kilns. As one

option, after May 30, 2004, the kiln shall

not operate during the control period

unless the kiln is operated with a lowNOX burner or a mid-kiln firing system

for kilns which began operation before

January 1, 1996. There is also an option

under which the kilns would be

required to achieve a 30 percent or

greater reduction from its uncontrolled

baseline.

USEPA evaluated whether two

provisions posed ‘‘director’s discretion’’

concerns, i.e. whether these provisions

authorized only the state to make

significant judgments without USEPA

having independent review authority.

First, section 217.402 (a)(5) authorizes

the state to grant alternative emission

standards. The state may issue such

standards if the source demonstrates

that 30 percent control would impose an

‘‘unreasonable cost of control’’ or

installation of such control is a

‘‘physical impossibility.’’ These terms

are undefined.

34386 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Proposed Rules

However, section 217.402(a)(5) also

states that alternative standards ‘‘shall

be effective only when included as a

federally enforceable condition in a

permit approved by USEPA or approved

as a SIP revision.’’ Furthermore, the rule

states that alternative standards or

alternative compliance deadlines ‘‘shall

be granted by the Board to the extent

consistent with federal law.’’ These

provisions clearly require independent

USEPA review and approval. Therefore,

USEPA does not find this provision to

inappropriately remove USEPA from

involvement in judging whether to grant

alternative emission standards.

The second feature involving state

judgment relates to methods for

determining emissions. Section

217.402(a)(3)(B) requires sources to

determine emissions using (i)

appropriate emission factors, (ii)

Method 7, or (iii) alternative methods

approved by the State. The third option

requires the alternative to be established

in a federally enforceable permit.

Because state issuance of federally

enforceable permits require USEPA

review and typically allow USEPA to

veto any permit to which it objects,

USEPA believes it has adequate

authority to assure that appropriate

emissions determining methods are

used.

Sources must submit a compliance

plan which must:

1. Identify the specific operating

conditions to be monitored and the

correlation between the operating

conditions and NOX emission rates;

2. Include the data and information

that the owner or operator used to

identify the correlation between NOX

emission rates and these operating

conditions;

3. Identify how the owner or operator

will monitor these operating conditions

on an hourly or other basis, and identify

the quality assurance procedures or

practices that will be employed to

ensure that the data generated by

monitoring these operating conditions

will be representative and accurate.

4. If operating a low-NOX burner or

mid-kiln firing system, the plan must

include only monitoring parameters

indicated in the manufacturer’s

specifications and recommendations for

the low-NOX burner or mid-kiln firing

system as approved by the IEPA.

5. If the owner or operator elects to

monitor NOX emissions using a

continuous emissions monitoring

system, the owner or operator must

submit a monitoring plan subject to the

approval by the IEPA.

4. Will Affected Sources Be Allowed to

Participate in a NOX Emissions Trading

Program?

This rule allows the owner or operator

to obtain approval from the Illinois EPA

and the USEPA to participate in the

NOX Trading Program. Participation

will be effective upon issuance of a

permit containing all necessary

federally enforceable permit conditions

addressing the kiln’s participation in the

Federal NOX Trading Program following

the requirements of 40 CFR part 96. A

source which participates in the trading

program is not subject to subpart T of

the State’s rule except for the

requirement to submit an initial

compliance report.

5. What Public Review Opportunities

Were Provided?

The IEPA filed the subpart T Cement

Kiln rule with the IPCB on August 21,

2000. The first notice of the rule was

published in the Illinois Register on

September 8, 2000. Hearings were held

on October 3, 2000, in Chicago, and

November 3, 2000 in Springfield,

Illinois. A second notice was issued on

December 21, 2000. Illinois issued a

certification of no objections and second

notice changes on February 21, 2001.

On March 1, 2001, the IPCB issued its

opinion and final order and adopted the

rule. The final rule was published in the

Illinois Register on March 30, 2001.

C. Industrial Boiler Rules (Subpart U)

Subpart U is quite similar to USEPA’s

model rule as given in 40 CFR part 96.

The central feature is issuance of

allowances to subject sources in an

amount equivalent to significantly

reduced emissions and a requirement to

hold allowances equivalent to actual

emissions levels. Subpart U also has

several special provisions similar to

USEPA’s model rule, including

provisions for a new source set-aside,

for early reduction credits, for sources

obtaining low emitter status, and for

sources to opt into the program. The

following summary of Illinois’

industrial boiler rules describes the

program’s general features, discusses the

sources subject to the rule, discusses the

program’s special features, and

discusses the emission reductions

anticipated from this program.

1. What Do the Industrial Boiler Rules

Require?

Starting in 2004, industrial boilers

and turbines must hold allowances

equal to their emissions during the

ozone season, defined here as May 1 to

September 30. (As part of the resolution

of a lawsuit challenging USEPA’s rule,

the applicable period for 2004, unlike

the applicable period for subsequent

years, excludes May 1 to May 30.) Each

year, sources are issued a number of

allowances as specified in appendix E to

part 217. These sources receive

allowances equivalent to 60 percent

control. Sources have the option to

avoid trading and reduce emissions to

their allowance level. Alternatively,

sources may alter their required

emissions level by buying or selling

allowances, presumably with other

sources that reduced their own

emissions to below or above their own

allowance issuance levels, respectively.

As with the cement kiln and utility

boiler programs, many elements of

Illinois’ industrial boiler program

directly apply provisions promulgated

by USEPA. Illinois applies the same

applicability criteria as USEPA applied

in assessing its emissions budget.

Subject sources must satisfy the

continuous emissions monitoring

requirements set in 40 CFR part 96 and

specified in 40 CFR part 75. Sources

that emit in excess of their allowance

holdings are subject to the enforcement

provisions of 40 CFR 96.54, including a

deduction of three allowances per ton of

excess emissions and other potential

enforcement actions. The process for

tracking allowances and recording

allowance transfers is the process given

in 40 CFR part 96, subparts F and G,

respectively. Sources must establish an

allowance account representative

pursuant to 40 CFR part 96, subpart B.

Provisions on permits and emissions

reporting closely match the

corresponding provisions of 40 CFR part

96.

Subpart U applies the same level of

stringency of control as is assumed for

these sources in USEPA’s emissions

budget. The number of allowances

issued to individual sources differs from

the corresponding numbers in USEPA’s

emissions budget, principally due to

redistribution of allowances of a source

that has shut down, but the total

number of allowances for source

covered by subpart U is identical to the

number of tons of NOX emissions for

these sources in USEPA’s budget

calculations.

2. What Sources Are Subject to These

Rules?

Subpart U focuses on boilers and

turbines with heat input capacity greater

than 250 million British Thermal Units

(mmBTU) that do not produce

significant electricity. This rule affects a

variety of companies, including

refineries, food processors, and

steelmakers. The rule includes an

appendix that identifies sources that are

subject to the regulation and specifies

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Proposed Rules 34387

the number of allowances issued to each

of these sources.

Illinois requested two minor revisions

to the emissions inventory of sources to

be subject to the industrial boiler rules.

The first revision applies to LTV Steel.

Illinois explains that a boiler of this

company was mistakenly identified as a

small source. Illinois identifies this

boiler as needing an allocation from

USEPA; Illinois recommends an

allocation of 60 tons per ozone season.

The second revision applies to a boiler

at the University of Illinois at UrbanaChampaign. Illinois submitted evidence

that this boiler has a design capacity

below the 250 mmBTU/hour cutoff

given in Illinois’ rule and assumed in

USEPA’s budget calculations. This

revision would remove an allocation of

86 tons of allowances. The net effect of

recognizing LTV’s larger size and

voiding the University of Illinois control

requirement would be to increase the

emissions budget for industrial boilers

and turbines by 188 tons per ozone

season. Considering existing controls at

the LTV boiler, the addition of the LTV

boiler and removal of the University of

Illinois boiler from the list of sources

subject to control would decrease the

actual emission reductions expected

from the rule by 124 tons per ozone

season, to about 4100 tons per ozone

season.

3. What Are the Special Provisions of

These Rules?

Various special provisions

supplement these general features.

Appendix E allocates three percent of

the industrial boiler allowances as a

new source set-aside. Illinois issues

these allowances to new sources to

accommodate generally three years of

well controlled operation, and

redistributes any remaining ‘‘new

source set-aside’’ allowances back to the

existing sources listed in appendix E.

Illinois rules allow special issuance of

allowances to sources that achieve early

reductions, i.e. reductions in 2001,

2002, or 2003, provided the source has

reduced its emission rate by at least 30

percent. Illinois allows sources that

burn natural gas or fuel oil to achieve

‘‘low emitter status,’’ in which the

source must limit its fuel usage to

remain below 25 tons of NOX emissions

per ozone season in exchange for being

exempted from monitoring and

allowance holding requirements.

Illinois’ rule differs slightly from

USEPA’s model rule (cf. 63 FR 57491,

October 27, 1998) by giving sources the

option to use continuous emissions

monitoring rather than conservative

default emission factors to show

compliance with the 25 tons per ozone

season qualifying level. Finally, Illinois

allows smaller sources that are not

required to participate in the program to

opt into the program.

4. How Much Emission Reduction Do

These Rules Achieve?

With the inventory adjustments

recommended by Illinois, the sources

identified in subpart U have a total

allocation of 4856 tons per ozone

season. Each individual allocation

generally reflects 60 percent control, i.e.

40 percent of uncontrolled emissions.

Thus, subpart U requires emission

reductions to about 7300 tons below

uncontrolled levels. Because many

sources already have some emission

controls, the reduction of actual

emissions from these sources is

projected to be about 4100 tons.

D. Budget Demonstration

On June 18, 2001, Illinois submitted

its demonstration that its rules were

adequate to achieve the 2007 level of

NOX emissions that USEPA budgeted

for Illinois. As requested by USEPA,

Illinois used USEPA’s baseline

inventory as the basis for this

demonstration. Illinois provided the

following table of NOX emissions from

the various types of sources that emit

NOX in significant quantities.

Sector

2007 Base

ozone season

total

(tons)

2007 Budget

ozone season

total

(tons)

Emission

reduction

(tons)

Category

reduction

(%)

Contribution to

NOX trading

budget

(tons)

Electrical Generating Units (EGUs) ..................................... 119,311 32,372 86,939 73 30,701

Non-Electrical Generation Units (Non-EGUs) ..................... 71,011 59,765 11,246 16 4,856

Area ...................................................................................... 9,369 9,369 0 0 0

On-Road Mobile ................................................................... 112,518 112,518 0 0 0

Non-Road Mobile ................................................................. 56,724 56,724 0 0 0

Total .............................................................................. 368,933 270,748 98,185 1 27 35,557

1Total Reduction.

This table relies on USEPA budget

information as of March 2, 2000. On this

date, at 65 FR 11222, USEPA published

revised budgets for each of the states

subject to the NOX SIP Call and

provided a detailed inventory of

baseline and controlled emissions,

available on the internet at ftp.epa.gov/

EmisInventory/

NOXSIPCall_Mar2_2000/.

Subsequent to March 2, 2000, the

Court of Appeals for the District of

Columbia Circuit remanded to USEPA

the portion of the NOX SIP Call

requiring control of stationary internal

combustion engines. Thus, pending

further rulemaking, USEPA does not

currently require control of these

sources. In Illinois, control of these

sources is projected to reduce NOX

emissions by 5954 tons per ozone

season. Illinois has not adopted

regulations for control of these sources

and intends instead to adopt these

regulations after USEPA completes

rulemaking pursuant to the remand.

Nevertheless, Illinois includes the

prospective control of these sources, to

simplify the comparison of projected

Illinois emissions with USEPA’s budget

requirements. This approach is of

course equivalent to making a

comparison in which both the Illinois

inventory and USEPA’s budget exclude

these controls.

Also subsequent to March 2, 2000,

Illinois identified the issues described

earlier in this notice concerning the size

of the boilers of LTV Steel and the

University of Illinois. Illinois’ budget

demonstration reflects the state’s

recommended budget revisions for these

sources. These revisions increase the

baseline emissions by 64 tons per ozone

season and increase the budget level

emissions by 188 tons per ozone season.

Because Illinois has adopted rules

which reflect the same control strategy

as USEPA assumed in formulating its

budget, Illinois’ projected, controlled

emission inventory closely resembles

USEPA’s budget for Illinois. Illinois

obtains emission reductions from

electricity generating units and from

non-electricity generating point sources.

The inventory for non-electricity

generating units reflects controls on

34388 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Proposed Rules

both cement kilns and industrial boilers

and turbines. Because Illinois is

pursuing the same mix of controls as

was assumed in USEPA’s budget, the

projected 2007 emissions for these two

categories are identical to the emissions

for these categories in USEPA’s budget

except for the adjustments to the

inventory for the two industrial boilers

as described above. Illinois obtains no

emission reductions from area sources,

highway mobile sources, or nonroad

mobile sources beyond the baseline

inventory. (The baseline inventory

reflects reductions from federal

measures, notably highway vehicle

controls.) USEPA’s budget also assumes

no emission reductions below the

baseline inventory, so for all three

categories Illinois’ inventory and

USEPA’s budget equal the same USEPA

baseline inventory total. Consequently,

with adjustment for the alterations

described above, Illinois’ budget

demonstration shows that total 2007

NOX emissions are identical to the 2007

total NOX emissions budget that USEPA

has required Illinois to achieve.

III. USEPA Review

A. Cement Kiln Rules (Subpart T)

1. What Guidance Did USEPA Use To

Evaluate the State’s Rule?

The proposed Federal implementation

plan, proposed at 63 FR 56393 (October

21, 1998), including regulations

covering cement kilns, reflects USEPA’s

recommendations for the design of State

regulations of such sources. Also

relevant are USEPA’s regulations on

emissions monitoring in 40 CFR part 60,

a significant portion of which are

incorporated by reference into the State

rules. The portions incorporated by

reference are listed elsewhere in this

proposal.

2. Can USEPA Approve Illinois’ Cement

Kiln Rules?

A key deficiency in subpart T is

language which affords sources in

Illinois a delay of one year or more in

complying with the requirements of the

rule. However, on May 31, 2001, the

Illinois legislature passed a bill to

establish a fixed compliance deadline of

May 31, 2004. We anticipate that the

Governor will sign this legislation soon,

which would remove this deficiency.

This legislation must be signed before

we can approve subpart T.

The earlier section describing the rule

discusses two issues relating to

‘‘director’s discretion’’, i.e., questions as

to whether the rules authorize only the

state to make significant judgments

without USEPA having independent

review authority. As previously

discussed, USEPA concludes that the

alternative standard provisions at

section 217.402(a)(5) sufficiently protect

the viability of the NOX budget plan.

The intent is to ensure the source

controls emissions to at least 30 percent

below the baseline. The rule does not

give the state sole discretion to broadly

interpret terms such as ‘‘unreasonable

cost’’ and ‘‘physical impossibility’’. The

rule allows an ‘‘adjusted standard or

alternate emission standard * * *

consistent with federal law. Such

alternate shall be effective only when

included as a federally enforceable

condition in a permit approved by

USEPA or approved as a SIP revision.’’

USEPA believes this provision gives

USEPA adequate authority to reject

unacceptable requests for emission

standards that require less than 30

percent emission reduction.

USEPA has conducted an extensive

evaluation of controls feasible at cement

kilns. Based on these efforts, USEPA

does not expect any source to find 30

percent control to impose unreasonable

costs or to be physically impossible.

USEPA further expects to find that any

request for lesser controls to be contrary

to federal law, in particular the

provisions of Clean Air Act section

110(a)(2)(D) requiring the state to

prohibit emissions that contribute

significantly to downwind

nonattainment. Cement kilns which find

control to be expensive or difficult can,

in any case, opt into the trading program

and purchase allowances as an

alternative compliance strategy.

Therefore, USEPA plans to use its

discretion to reject requests for

alternative emission standards.

The State rule addressed in this

proposal applies to equipment of a size

comparable to that used by USEPA in

the development of the budget for the

State of Illinois. For purposes of

calculating the State’s budget, USEPA

assumed a 30 percent reduction in

emissions from uncontrolled levels. The

State’s rule calls for a minimum

reduction of NOX of 30 percent as part

of the approved federally enforceable

permit conditions for a kiln

participating in the NOX trading

program.

Illinois EPA identifies four large kilns

as potentially impacted by the State’s

rule at three sources in the State. Each

of these sources emitted more than 1 ton

per day of NOX during 1995. The total

base year 2007 seasonal emissions of

NOX from these four kilns is calculated

to be 4,073 tons during the control

period. The required 30 percent control

on these kilns will reduce the 2007 base

to a controlled level of 2,851 tons during

the control period.

We believe the State rule is

approvable as an element of the State’s

NOX plan.

B. Industrial Boiler Rules (Subpart U)

Illinois’ rules for industrial boilers

and turbines are similar to USEPA’s

model rule, both in their general design

and in their inclusion of several special

features. These features include

provisions for a new source set-aside,

for early reduction credits, for some

sources to obtain low emitter status, and

for sources not required to participate in

the program to opt into the program.

This review of Illinois’ industrial

boiler rules focuses on the slight

differences between Illinois’ rules and

USEPA’s model rule. The review begins

with a review of the general features of

the program and continues with a

review of each of the above special

features.

1. Can USEPA Approve the General

Approach?

Illinois’ rules for industrial boilers

and turbines are similar to USEPA’s

model rule for these sources. Therefore,

USEPA finds acceptable the general

design of Illinois’ program for these

sources, including the allocation of

allowances, the requirement to hold

allowances equivalent to emissions

during a properly defined ozone season,

and the supplemental features including

the provisions for a new source setaside, for early reduction credits, for

sources obtaining low emitter status,

and for sources to opt into the program.

Thus, the principal question for this

review is whether the details of Illinois’

rules properly implement these general

features. This review focuses on modest

differences between particular elements

of Illinois’ rules and the corresponding

elements of USEPA’s model rule.

Illinois used the emissions inventory

developed by USEPA, given at

ftp.epa.gov/EmisInventory/

NOXSIPCall_Mar2_2000, reflecting 60

percent emissions control, as the basis

for determining allowances for each

source. While the total number of

allowances is identical to the number of

tons per ozone season assumed for these

sources in USEPA’s budget, Illinois

redistributes the allowances associated

with a source that has shut down to the

currently operating sources. USEPA

guidance clearly accepts such

redistributions of control burden. A

subsequent section of this notice

reviews whether the emission

reductions mandated by these rules in

conjunction with reductions mandated

by other Illinois rules are adequate to

achieve the NOX emissions budget

required by USEPA.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Proposed Rules 34389

USEPA’s model rule has provision for

periodic reassessment of the number of

allowances to be issued to each source.

In USEPA’s model rule, the state makes

an annual determination of heat input,

which the state uses to determine the

source’s allocation of allowances for

four years thereafter.

In contrast, Illinois does not change

its distribution of allowances to

industrial boiler sources from year to

year. In fact, aside from adjustments

from overall budget changes that may in

time be imposed by USEPA, and aside

from source-specific changes such as

opt-ins and low emitter status changes,

Illinois’ allocations of allowances to

industrial boilers and turbines are

permanent. Illinois has the flexibility to

distribute allowances in a fixed manner,

and this approach clearly gives sources

the advance notice of allotments that

USEPA requires.

USEPA objects to language in the rule

making the compliance deadline

contingent on action in other nearby

states. However, legislation passed by

the state legislature would remedy this

problem, establishing a fixed,

noncontingent compliance deadline of

May 31, 2004. If the governor signs this

legislation, the state will have an

approvable compliance deadline.

The remaining general features of

Illinois’ program for industrial boilers

and turbines either apply the provisions

that USEPA has promulgated (such as

for monitoring emissions, imposing

penalties for noncompliance, and

tracking and transferring allowances) or

establish provisions closely matching

USEPA’s recommendations (such as for

applicability and requirements for

permitting and emissions reporting).

These elements of Illinois’ program are

clearly acceptable.

2. Can USEPA Approve the New Source

Set-aside Features?

USEPA’s model rule reserves

allowances to be granted to new

sources. The model rule reserves five

percent of the budget for this purpose

for the first three years of the program

and two percent thereafter. The model

rule grants allowances to new industrial

boilers and turbines in an amount equal

to the maximum design heat input times

0.17 pounds of allowances per mmBTU.

Illinois’ industrial boiler rule also

reserves allowances for new sources, but

Illinois reserves three percent of the

large industrial boiler source budget in

all years and issues a smaller number of

allowances to new sources. Illinois’

rules determine the number of

allowances available to a new source

based on a heat input rate that reflects

actual usage once actual usage data

become available times an emission

factor equal to the lesser of 0.15 pounds

NOX per mmBTU or the new source’s

permit limit. Illinois also requires the

new source to purchase these

allowances, the funds of which are

returned to existing sources. USEPA

expressly states that states have

flexibility on these issues, and these

aspects of Illinois’ rules are well within

the range of acceptable options.

3. Can USEPA Approve the Early

Reduction Credit Features?

USEPA’s model rule provides for

early reduction credits. The model rule

defines a process for requesting early

reduction credits. In the model rule,

sources that reduce their emission rate

(pounds per mmBTU) by at least 20

percent and to below 0.25 pounds of

NOX emissions per mmBTU in 2001 or

2002 may request early reduction

credits. USEPA’s model rule issues

allowances to the extent the source

reduces emissions below 0.25 pounds

per mmBTU, up to a specified

maximum total issuance. Illinois’ rule

applies the same basic process as the

model rule. However, Illinois issues

allowances to any timely reduction that

reduces the emission rate by at least 30

percent, irrespective of whether the

resulting emission rate is above or

below 0.25 pounds per mmBTU.

(Although section 217.470(c) is

somewhat confusing, USEPA interprets

the language according to Illinois’

intent, that credits may be requested

only if the emission rate is at least 30

percent below the prior actual emission

rate.) Since Illinois requires suitable

monitoring before and after the

reduction to assure that credits reflect

valid reductions, USEPA accepts issuing

credits for reductions above the 0.25

pounds per mmBTU level.

Two issues relating to early reduction

credits arise from the one year delay in

program startup mandated by the

District of Columbia Circuit Court in its

ruling on USEPA’s NOX SIP Call

regulations. Since emission controls are

no longer required in 2003, the first

issue is whether sources that reduce

emission rates in 2003 may receive early

reduction credits. Illinois’ rules provide

that sources may request early reduction

credits for adequate reductions ‘‘in the

2001 or 2002 control period, or if

approved by USEPA the 2003 control

period.’’ The second issue is when these

credits may be used. USEPA’s model

rule provides that early reduction

credits may only be used in 2003 and

2004. Illinois’ rules provide that early

reduction credits are ‘‘for use in [the]

2004 control period, or later control

periods authorized by USEPA.’’

Because reductions are not required

in 2003, USEPA considers reductions in

2003 to be early reductions. That is,

USEPA approves issuing early reduction

credits for qualifying reductions in

2003. USEPA intended for these early

reduction credits to be used in the first

two control years of the program.

Therefore, USEPA authorizes use of

these credits in 2005 as well as 2004.

All early reduction credits not used by

2005 must be retired at the end of 2005

and may no longer be used.

4. Can USEPA Approve the Low Emitter

Exemption Features?

Section 217.472 of Illinois’ rules

provides an exemption very similar to

an exemption in USEPA’s model rule

for sources that only burn natural gas

and/or fuel oil and emit under 25 tons

per ozone season. Such sources do not

receive allowances and need not hold

allowances for these emissions but must

comply with permit limitations

sufficiently restricting fuel usage to

comply with this emission level.

The only significant difference in

Illinois’ rule from USEPA’s model rule

is that sources may rely on continuous

emissions monitoring (rather than fuel

usage multiplied by default emission

factors) to assess compliance with the

25 ton limit. USEPA discussed the

interpretation of section 217.472 with

the state. Illinois clarified this section in

its letter of June 18, 2001. First, Illinois

stated that section 217.472(a)(4) in effect

defines ‘‘potential NOX mass emissions’’

as the emissions determined either by

emissions monitoring or by multiplying

hours of operation times maximum

potential hourly emissions. Second,

Illinois clarified that, for sources relying

on mass emissions monitoring, the

restriction on operating hours should be

interpreted as allowing only the number

of hours of operation associated with

the permissible number of tons of

emissions (usually 25 tons per ozone

season). Operation for any additional

hours, during which the source would

be emitting tons in excess of its

permissible level (e.g. above 25 tons),

would constitute a violation of the

operating hours restriction and would

cause the source to lose the low-emitter

exemption (cf. section 217.472(c)).

Third, as indicated in section 217.472(d)

and reaffirmed by Illinois, whenever a

source obtains low emitter status,

Illinois will reduce the budget

accordingly, so that sufficient

allowances are set aside to account for

the potential emissions of the low

emitting source.

Similar provisions are in subpart W of

part 217, applying to EGU’s. The same

interpretations of ‘‘potential NOX mass

34390 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Proposed Rules

emissions’’ and operating hours

restrictions apply to subpart W, for

similar reasons. Illinois also reaffirmed

that its rules provide a similar budget

adjustment for low emitting sources

under subpart W as under subpart U.

USEPA concurs with these

interpretations and finds these features

of Illinois’ rules approvable.

USEPA finds one paragraph of

Illinois’ rule pertaining to the low

emitting source exemption to be

confusing. Illinois has clarified that

section 217.472(a)(5) was intended to

use the language of USEPA’s model at

40 CFR 96.4(b)(1)(v) but inadvertently

omitted several words. USEPA therefore

interprets section 217.472(a)(5) to

require that the permit for the exempted

source must ‘‘require that the owner or

operator of the unit shall retain for 5

years at the source that includes the

unit, [records demonstrating

compliance].’’ (Underlined words

added.)

5. Can USEPA Approve the Opt-in

Features?

Finally, the Illinois rules include

provisions similar to provisions in the

USEPA model rule for sources not

required to participate in the program to

opt into the program. As with the model

rule, Illinois requires these sources to

monitor emissions using continuous

emissions monitors meeting the same

criteria as mandatory program

participants. Illinois’ criteria and

process for opting in, the requirements

and process for withdrawing after

opting in, and the method of calculating

the number of allowances to be

allocated to opt-in sources, are all

essentially identical to the

corresponding provisions in USEPA’s

model rule. USEPA finds this aspect of

Illinois’ program acceptable.

6. In Summary, Can USEPA Approve

Illinois’ Industrial Boiler Rules?

Illinois’ rules for industrial boiler

NOX emissions closely resemble

USEPA’s model rule. USEPA believes

that the modest differences between

Illinois’ rules and the model rule are

well within the range of flexibility that

USEPA has offered to states. The recent

legislation overriding the rules’

contingent compliance date and

establishing a compliance requirement

starting May 31, 2004, will provide a

timely deadline for compliance. Once

this legislation is signed by the

Governor, USEPA believes that Illinois’

rules for industrial boilers and turbines

will satisfy USEPA’s requirements for

program design and provide a creditable

contribution toward achieving the NOX

emissions budget that USEPA requires

Illinois to achieve and a creditable NOX

emission reduction for attainment

planning purposes.

C. Budget Demonstration

1. Does USEPA Accept Illinois’

Recommended Budget Revisions?

Illinois submitted evidence that the

LTV Steel boiler is in fact a large boiler

that should have been inventoried as

having much greater emissions and

should have been assumed to be subject

to control. Illinois also submitted

evidence that the maximum design heat

input for the University of Illinois boiler

is below 250 mmBTU/hour, so that this

source should have been assumed to

remain uncontrolled. These revisions

would have minimal impact on the

overall impact of the program. Also,

these revisions are similar to revisions

recommended by other states during

early 2000 and incorporated into

USEPA’s budget in its March 2, 2000,

rulemaking. While USEPA would have

preferred to address these revisions

then, USEPA can nevertheless address

Illinois’ recommendations now. USEPA

concludes that Illinois has adequately

justified these modest revisions to the

inventory of data on these sources.

The special interaction between states

and USEPA in implementing the NOX

emission trading program requires

special procedures for addressing the

revisions requested by Illinois. USEPA

has established a budget of total 2007

NOX emissions to be achieved by

Illinois. Illinois cannot unilaterally

change this budget; Illinois must instead

request that USEPA change this budget.

Illinois has made its recommended

allotment revisions contingent on

USEPA concurrence with the requested

budget revisions. Subpart U provides

allotments without these revisions.

Section 217.460(e) within subpart U

specifies that Illinois will adjust the

allocations for single units if USEPA

makes unit-specific adjustments to the

budget. USEPA hereby proposes to

adjust the budget to reflect the revisions

requested by Illinois. If finalized, this

will have the result pursuant to section

217.460(e) that LTV Steel will receive

an allocation of 60 allowances and the

University of Illinois will receive no

allowances and may be exempt from the

requirements of subpart U.

2. Do Illinois’ Rules Satisfy USEPA’s

Budget?

Illinois has adopted regulations

governing NOX emissions from EGUs,

from cement kilns, and from large

industrial boilers and turbines. On

August 31, 2000, at 65 FR 52967,

USEPA proposed to approve Illinois’

EGU rules provided Illinois removed

language making the compliance date

contingent on similar rules taking effect

in nearby states. The Illinois legislature

has passed a bill to override that

contingency and establish a fixed

compliance deadline of May 31, 2004.

Today’s rulemaking proposes to approve

the regulations for cement kilns and for

large industrial boilers and turbines,

provided the legislation is signed. Thus,

USEPA believes that these regulations

will be fully creditable for satisfying

USEPA’s NOX emission budget

requirements and attainment planning

requirements once the Governor signs

the legislation setting a fixed

compliance date.

Illinois adopted rules reflecting the

same control strategy as USEPA

assumed in formulating its budget.

Therefore, Illinois’ budget

demonstration is straightforward.

Illinois used USEPA’s baseline

inventory as a basis for this

demonstration, using the same five

categories of sources as USEPA. For four

of the five categories, namely electricity

generating units, stationary area sources,

highway vehicle sources, and nonroad

vehicles, the inventory in Illinois’

budget demonstration is identical to

USEPA’s budget inventory for both the

base case and the controlled emissions

case.

Illinois’ subinventory for non-EGU

point sources differs slightly from

USEPA’s subinventory for these sources.

The differences are attributable to

adjustments that Illinois recommends

for LTV Steel and for the University of

Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. As

discussed above, USEPA proposes to

make these revisions to the baseline and

budget inventories.

USEPA concludes that Illinois has

demonstrated that its NOX regulations

are adequate to achieve the adjusted

2007 NOX emissions budget required by

USEPA. Therefore, USEPA proposes to

conclude further that Illinois has

satisfied the requirements of USEPA’s

NOX SIP Call.

IV. Proposed Action

USEPA proposes to approve Illinois’

cement kiln rule and its industrial boiler

rule (subparts T and U of part 217,

respectively) as elements of the State’s

plan to meet the requirements of the

NOX SIP Call and the requirements of

the 1-hour ozone demonstration for the

Chicago area, provided the governor

signs legislation setting a fixed

compliance deadline. USEPA proposes

to adjust the budget to reflect the

revisions requested by Illinois, adding

188 tons to the nonEGU point source

portion of the budget due to

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 125 / Thursday, June 28, 2001 / Proposed Rules 34391

reassessments of the size of boilers at

LTV and the University of Illinois.

USEPA proposes to approve Illinois’

budget demonstration, demonstrating

that Illinois’ cement kiln and industrial

boiler rules, in conjunction with the

state’s rules for electricity generating

units, are adequate to achieve the NOX

emissions level that USEPA has

budgeted for the state. Therefore,

USEPA proposes to conclude more

generally that Illinois has satisfied the

requirements of USEPA’s NOX SIP Call,

again provided the governor signs

legislation setting a fixed compliance

deadline.

USEPA is not proposing action today

on subpart X, entitled ‘‘Voluntary NOX

Emissions Reduction Program.’’ USEPA

is continuing to review this portion of

Illinois’ submittal and plans to propose

rulemaking on these rules in the near

future.

V. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ and therefore is not subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget. This proposed action merely

proposes to approve state law as

meeting federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this proposed rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule

proposes to approve pre-existing

requirements under state law and does

not impose any additional enforceable

duty beyond that required by state law,

it 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). This proposed

rule also does not have a substantial

direct effect on one or more Indian

tribes, on the relationship between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes,

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

Government and Indian tribes, as

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will

it have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

proposes to approve a state rule

implementing a federal standard, and

does not alter the relationship or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities established in the Clean

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions,

USEPA’s role is to approve state

choices, provided that they meet the

criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this

context, in the absence of a prior

existing requirement for the State to use

voluntary consensus standards (VCS),

USEPA has no authority to disapprove

a SIP submission for failure to use VCS.

It would thus be inconsistent with

applicable law for USEPA, when it

reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in

place of a SIP submission that otherwise

satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air

Act. Thus, the requirements of section

12(d) of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995

(15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As

required by section 3 of Executive Order

12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996),

in issuing this proposed rule, USEPA

has taken the necessary steps to

eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity,

minimize potential litigation, and

provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. USEPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the executive order. This proposed rule

does not impose an information

collection burden under the provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

Dated: June 20, 2001.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 01–16292 Filed 6–27–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN138–1; FRL–7003–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is proposing to

approve a State Implementation Plan

(SIP) revision submitted by the Indiana

Department of Environmental

Management (IDEM) on June 8, 2000.

The revised SIP pertains to the Indiana

motor vehicle inspection and

maintenance (I/M) program. The

purpose of this action is to approve

certain amendments to the Indiana

program, which EPA originally

approved on March 19, 1996 (61 FR

11142).

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before July 30, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

Copies of this SIP revision request are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours at the following

address: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is

recommended that you telephone

Francisco J. Acevedo at (312) 886–6061

before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Francisco J. Acevedo, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604, Telephone: (312) 886–6061, EMail: acevedo.francisco@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, the terms

‘‘you’’ and ‘‘me’’ refer to the reader of

this proposed rulemaking and to sources

subject to the State rule addressed by

this proposed rulemaking, and the terms

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. What is a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)?

B. What is the federal approval process for

a SIP?

C. What does federal approval of a state

rule mean to me?

D. What is the purpose of the Indiana I/M

rule?

E. What public review opportunities did

Indiana provide for this rule?

II. Evaluation of the Rule

A. What are the changes to the States I/M

rule?

B. Is this rule approvable?

III. Proposed Action

What action is EPA proposing today?

IV. Administrative Requirements