[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 44 (Tuesday, March 7, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12478-12483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-5516]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 70

[IL001; FRL-5164-6]


Clean Air Act Final Interim Approval of Operating Permits 
Program; Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final interim approval.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is promulgating interim approval of the Operating 
Permits Program submitted by Illinois for the purpose of complying with 
Federal requirements for an approvable State program to issue operating 
permits to all major stationary sources, and to certain other sources.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 7, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's submittal and other supporting 
information used in developing the final interim approval are available 
for inspection during normal business hours at the following location: 
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West 
Jackson Boulevard, AR-18J, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jennifer Buzecky, 77 West Jackson 
Boulevard, Permits and Grants Section AR-18J, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 
(312) 886-3194.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background and Purpose

A. Introduction

    Title V of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments (sections 501-507 of 
the Clean Air Act (``the Act'')), and implementing regulations at 40 
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 70 require that States develop 
and submit operating permits programs to EPA by November 15, 1993, and 
that EPA act to approve or disapprove each program within 1 year after 
receiving the submittal. The EPA's program review occurs pursuant to 
section 502 of the Act and the part 70 regulations, which together 
outline criteria for approval or disapproval. Where a program 
substantially, but not fully, meets the requirements of part 70, EPA 
may grant the program interim approval for a period of up to 2 years. 
If EPA has not fully approved a program by 2 years after the November 
15, 1993 date, or by the end of an interim program, it must establish 
and implement a Federal program.
    On September 30, 1994, EPA proposed interim approval of the 
operating permits program for Illinois. See 59 FR 49882. The EPA 
received public comment on the proposal, and compiled a Technical 
Support Document (TSD) which describes the operating permits program in 
greater detail. In this notice EPA is taking final action to promulgate 
interim approval of the operating permits program for Illinois.

II. Final Action and Implications

A. Analysis of State Submission

    The EPA received comments from a total of four organizations. The 
EPA's response to these comments is summarized in this section. 
Comments [[Page 12479]] supporting EPA's proposal are not addressed in 
this notice; however, EPA's response to all comments is available in a 
document contained in the docket at the address noted in the ADDRESSES 
section above.
1. Section 112(G) Implementation
    The EPA received several comments regarding the proposed approval 
of Illinois' preconstruction permitting program for the purpose of 
implementing section 112(g) during the transition period between title 
V approval and adoption of a State rule implementing EPA's section 
112(g) regulations. Two commentors argued that Illinois should not, and 
cannot, implement section 112(g) until: (1) EPA has promulgated a 
section 112(g) regulation, and (2) the State has a section 112(g) 
program in place. The commentors also argued that Illinois' 
preconstruction review program cannot serve as a means to implement 
section 112(g) because it was not designed for that purpose. One 
commentor also asserted that such a regulatory program is 
unconstitutional because the section 112(g) requirements are vague.
    In its proposed interim approval of Illinois' part 70 program, EPA 
also proposed to approve Illinois' preconstruction review program for 
the purpose of implementing section 112(g) during the transition period 
before promulgation of a Federal rule implementing section 112(g). This 
proposal was based in part on an interpretation of the Act that would 
require sources to comply with section 112(g) beginning on the date of 
approval of the title V program, regardless of whether EPA had 
completed its section 112(g) rulemaking. The EPA has since revised this 
interpretation of the Act in a Federal Register notice published on 
February 14, 1995. 60 FR 8333. The revised interpretation postpones the 
effective date of section 112(g) until after EPA has promulgated a rule 
addressing that provision. The revised notice sets forth in detail the 
rationale for the revised interpretation.
    The section 112(g) interpretive notice explains that EPA is still 
considering whether the effective date of section 112(g) should be 
delayed beyond the date of promulgation of the Federal rule so as to 
allow States time to adopt rules implementing the Federal rule, and 
that EPA will provide for any such additional delay in the final 
section 112(g) rulemaking. Unless and until EPA provides for such an 
additional postponement of section 112(g), Illinois must be able to 
implement section 112(g) during the period between promulgation of the 
Federal section 112(g) rule and adoption of implementing State 
regulations.
    For this reason, EPA is finalizing its approval of Illinois' 
preconstruction review program. This approval clarifies that the 
preconstruction review program is available as a mechanism to implement 
section 112(g) during the transition period between promulgation of the 
section 112(g) rule and adoption by Illinois of rules established to 
implement section 112(g). However, since the approval is for the single 
purpose of providing a mechanism to implement section 112(g) during the 
transition period, the approval itself will be without effect if EPA 
decides in the final section 112(g) rule that sources are not subject 
to the requirements of the rule until State regulations are adopted. 
Furthermore, EPA is limiting the duration of this approval to 18 months 
following promulgation by EPA of the section 112(g) rule.
    The EPA believes that, although Illinois currently lacks a program 
designed specifically to implement section 112(g), Illinois' 
preconstruction review program will serve as an adequate implementation 
vehicle during a transition period because it will allow Illinois to 
select control measures that would meet MACT, as defined in section 
112, and incorporate these measures into a federally enforceable 
preconstruction permit. Illinois will be able to impose federally 
enforceable measures reflecting MACT for most if not all changes 
qualifying as a modification, construction, or reconstruction under 
section 112(g) because Illinois' preconstruction permitting program is 
not limited to criteria pollutants. 415 ILCS 5/9.1(d).
    Another consequence of the fact that Illinois lacks a program 
designed specifically to implement section 112(g) is that the 
applicability criteria found in its preconstruction review program may 
differ from those in the section 112(g) rule. However, whether a 
particular source change qualifies as a modification, construction, or 
reconstruction for section 112(g) purposes during any transition period 
will be determined according to the final section 112(g) rule. The EPA 
would expect Illinois to be able to issue a preconstruction permit 
containing a case-by-case determination of MACT where necessary for 
purposes of section 112(g) even if review under its own preconstruction 
review program would not be triggered.
    In addition, one commentor incorporated by reference its comments 
on the proposed section 112(g) rule, and stated that the proposed rule 
has technical, legal, and constitutional defects that disqualify it as 
a valid or workable approach to section 112(g) implementation. The EPA 
believes the appropriate forum for pursuing objections to the legal 
validity of Federal regulations is by: (1) Submitting comments on a 
proposed rulemaking during the public comment period for that 
particular rulemaking, or (2) petitioning for review of the promulgated 
rule in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. If the commentor has 
concerns with the final section 112(g) rule, the commentor will have 
the opportunity to pursue such action once the section 112(g) rule is 
promulgated.
    Two commentors assumed that EPA would delegate the section 112(g) 
requirements to the State. The EPA wishes to clarify that the 
implementation of section 112(g) by the State, including case-by-case 
MACT determinations, is a requirement for approval of a State title V 
program. In other words, approval of the title V operating permits 
program confers on the State responsibility to implement section 
112(g). Since the requirement to implement section 112(g) lies with the 
State in the first instance, there is no need for a delegation action 
apart from the title V program approval mechanism, except where the 
State seeks approval of a ``no less stringent'' program under 40 CFR 
part 63 subpart E. EPA's approval of Illinois' program for delegation 
of section 112 standards as promulgated does not affect this 
responsibility to implement section 112(g).
2. Variance
    EPA received two comments regarding the variance provisions 
contained in Illinois' existing regulations. The commentors objected to 
EPA's position that State variances are not recognized by EPA unless a 
variance is issued in accordance with part 70 procedures. The 
commentors stated that dismissing all State-issued variances would 
conflict with part 70. The commentors also stated that while part 70's 
requirements for compliance schedules do not sanction non-compliance by 
a source, variances provided by the state are consistent with the 
recognition of non-complying sources and the requirement for compliance 
schedules in the permit application.
    EPA agrees with the commentors that variances provided by the State 
could be consistent with the issuance of a part 70 permit. The 
inclusion of a compliance schedule in a part 70 permit is a part 70 
requirement and, therefore, a State variance from the applicable 
requirements at the time of permit [[Page 12480]] issuance that is 
provided to a non-complying source may not be inconsistent with part 
70. EPA would not, however, recognize variances that grant relief from 
the duty to comply with the terms of an issued federally enforceable 
part 70 permit except where such relief is granted through procedures 
allowed by part 70. Once again, EPA is not taking any action on 
Illinois' variance procedures. The Agency is only clarifying that all 
variances provided by the State for title V sources must be granted in 
accordance with part 70.
3. Insignificant Activities
    Four commentors responded to EPA's proposed concerns regarding 
Illinois' draft insignificant activities regulations. In response to 
these comments EPA reviewed the draft regulations a second time. On 
February 2, 1995, EPA formally received a final copy of these 
regulations for inclusion in the State's CAAPP submittal. Please see 
the docket for a more detailed review of the Illinois rule.
    All commentors objected to EPA's interpretation that the threshold 
levels of 1.0 pound per hour (lb/hr) of criteria pollutants and .1 lb/
hr of HAP in 35 Illinois Administrative Code (IAC) Part 201.211 are not 
acceptable. These cut-off rates mentioned above are contained in the 
State's provision, ``Application for Classification as an Insignificant 
Activity.'' 35 IAC 201.211. One commentor stated that the more 
appropriate classification of insignificant activities lies in 
different sections of the State's regulations. The section referred to 
by the commentor distinguishes between HAP and non-HAP emissions. For 
HAP calculations, the rule relies on concentrations of HAPs in the form 
of raw material fed to an emission unit. 35 IAC 201.209(a)(1) (A)-(C). 
For non-HAPs, the rule refers to emission units that never exceed .1 
lb/hr or .44 tpy. 35 IAC 201.210(a) (2) and (3). Although EPA cannot 
now determine whether or not the HAP calculations would result in 
emissions in amounts greater than the significance limits that will 
ultimately be finalized in the section 112(g) rulemaking, EPA also 
believes that the non-HAP provisions in 35 IAC 201.210(a) (2) and (3) 
do not now pose a problem for approval of the State's submittal. The 
Agency, therefore, is taking no action on these provisions. EPA 
originally objected to 35 IAC 201.210(a)(1), however, because this 
provision includes emissions determined to be insignificant according 
to the provisions in 35 IAC 201.211 (allowing sources to apply for 
insignificant activities that are granted by IEPA's discretion). The 
regulatory sections offered by the commentor, therefore, are not 
entirely dispositive of the issue.
    Upon further reflection, EPA generally agrees with the commentors 
that the rate itself of 1.0 lb/hr of criteria pollutant emission cut-
off contained in 35 IAC 201.211 need not be amended for full approval. 
Emission cut-offs approved for insignificant activities are based upon 
State-specific circumstances and analysis. One State's cut-offs may not 
be appropriate for another State's programs due to variations in local 
factors such as non-attainment areas, State Implementation Plans (SIP), 
source types, and emissions. EPA believes the State should be given 
substantial deference in this matter and finds the insignificance 
levels established by Illinois will not, in and of themselves, 
interfere with the State's ability to ensure that part 70 sources meet 
all applicable requirements of the SIP. Although a severe ozone 
nonattainment area exists in the State, EPA believes that it is 
reasonable in this case to project that the insignificant levels 
established in the State of Illinois' regulations will not interfere 
with its effort to be reclassified as attainment. Illinois believes 
that this level will not only reduce its administrative burden, but 
allow it to eventually meet its attainment demonstrations.
    The Agency, however, is still concerned with the development of 
these regulations and continues to believe that interim approval is 
appropriate for these rules at this time. 35 IAC 201.208 of the State's 
rule does not meet the requirements of 40 CFR 70.5(c), which requires 
that an application may not omit information needed to determine the 
applicability of, or to impose, any applicable requirements, or to 
evaluate the fee amount required under the schedule approved pursuant 
to 40 CFR 70.9. These provisions are intended to ensure that sources do 
not file incomplete permit applications due to inadvertent usage of a 
State's insignificant activity provisions. In addition, 35 IAC 
201.210(b) must be amended to clarify that a source must specifically 
list in its permit application the activities present at its facility 
and not just rely on a general statement that denotes the presence of 
activities.
    Although the emission cut-offs for criteria pollutants are not a 
concern at this time, revisions to the State's insignificant 
regulations will still be necessary for full approval of the State's 
program. EPA believes the State must make the following changes for 
full approval: (1) the language of 201.208 must worded to state that at 
the time of filing an application, the application must include all 
necessary information to determine the applicability of or to impose 
any applicable requirements or fees and (2) 201.210(b) must be amended 
so that sources specifically list the insignificant activities present 
at their facilities.
4. Administrative Amendments
    EPA received three comments on the inclusion of the State's 
incorporation of emission trades based upon a SIP-approved trading 
program into a title V permit based upon the administrative amendment 
procedure. Two of the commentors requested clarification as to whether 
EPA intends to subject emissions trading that occurs under an emissions 
cap established in a part 70 permit to significant modification 
procedures. One commentor stated that it is not necessary for EPA to 
consider this provision now since Illinois has no such regulations 
developed concerning emissions trading.
    Responding to the commentors' request for clarification, EPA does 
not interpret part 70 to require states to subject emissions trades 
that occur under an emissions cap established in a part 70 permit to 
significant modification procedures. These trades are established by a 
part 70 permit and, therefore, sources do not need to revise their part 
70 permits when utilizing these trading provisions.
    Part 70, however, does not allow the use of an administrative 
permit amendment to accomplish incorporation of emissions trades 
resulting from the application of an approved economic incentives rule, 
a marketable permits rule or a generic emissions trading rule into a 
part 70 permit. 40 CFR 70.7(d). Any substantive change to a permit term 
or condition must follow the permit revision procedures of part 70. 
Future part 70 rulemakings may change this requirement, but for the 
present, EPA can only review State submittals in accordance with the 
promulgated part 70 rulemaking of July 21, 1992.
    Despite the fact that Illinois does not currently have an approved 
trading program, it is appropriate for EPA to now consider this State 
legislative provision allowing emission trades to be incorporated 
through the administrative amendment procedure. EPA cannot approve 
regulations in a State program that would conflict with provisions in 
the part 70 regulations.
5. Compliance Certification
    Three commentors objected to EPA's proposed interim approval 
regarding the [[Page 12481]] State's legislation concerning compliance 
certification by a responsible official. The Illinois statute requires 
that applications be certified for truth, accuracy, and completeness by 
a responsible official in accordance with applicable regulations. 415 
ILCS 5/39.5(5)(e). Part 70 requires that certifications be based upon a 
``reasonable belief'' or that statements be based upon ``information 
and belief.'' 40 CFR 70.5(d) and 70.6(c)(1).
    EPA agrees with the commentors to the extent that interim approval 
for this issue is not appropriate. Upon further review, Illinois' 
legislative authority for certification of responsible officials 
carries the same meaning as part 70. A responsible official of the 
permit applicant would presumably need to make some inquiry into the 
document being certified to ensure that the official's certification 
meets the requirements of the Illinois statute. In light of this, EPA 
will remove the compliance certification issue from the items needing 
further State action for final approval.
6. Enhanced NSR
    Three commentors objected to EPA's proposal of interim approval for 
Illinois' inclusion of preconstruction review permits into part 70 
permits via the administrative amendment procedures of part 70. To 
summarize, all three commentors object to requiring the development of 
specific regulations that would outline the substantive, procedural and 
compliance requirements necessary for incorporation of a 
preconstruction permit into a part 70 permit through the administrative 
amendment procedure. This incorporation of a preconstruction permit 
into a part 70 permit is known as ``enhanced new source review (NSR).''
    In EPA's proposal, EPA stated that 40 CFR 70.7(d)(1)(v) allows such 
incorporation only when the State's preconstruction review program 
meets procedural and compliance requirements substantially equivalent 
to the requirements of 40 CFR 70.7 and 70.8 and compliance requirements 
substantially equivalent to those contained in 40 CFR 70.6. To utilize 
40 CFR 70.7(d)(1)(v), the state must develop regulations which outline 
the actual requirements necessary for preconstruction permits to 
qualify for inclusion in part 70 permits using the administrative 
amendment procedure and for EPA to approve these regulations as 
``substantially equivalent.'' Without these regulations, the public and 
EPA cannot track the issuance and amendments of part 70 permits to 
ensure that the permits contain all requirements. The public also needs 
assurance that a source will not be able to avoid the requirements of 
the part 70 process through a different permitting program such as 
preconstruction review.
    Although 40 CFR 70.7(d)(1)(v) is not a necessary element of a part 
70 program, the State of Illinois submitted a title V permit program 
that provides for the use of this procedure. EPA, therefore, must 
determine the adequacy of this aspect of the State's submittal. Because 
Illinois' existing legislative authority allows the use of enhanced 
NSR, without any further regulations defining substantially equivalent 
procedures to 40 CFR 70.6, 70.7 and 70.8, this provision is currently 
deficient. To cure this deficiency, the State must: (1) develop 
regulations outlining the exact substantive, procedural and compliance 
requirements for incorporation of preconstruction permits into part 70 
permits and (2) submit these regulations to EPA for review and approval 
to ensure that these regulations are ``substantially equivalent'' to 
the part 70 regulations.
    415 ILCS 5/39.5(13)(c)(v), therefore, will remain on the interim 
approval list until the State corrects this deficiency. Until 
regulations are developed outlining the elements of an enhanced NSR 
program, the State will be expected to interpret ``substantially 
equivalent'' in 415 ILCS 5/39.5(13)(c)(v) consistently with part 70.
7. Knowingly Tampering with Monitoring Devices
    Two commentors objected to EPA's inclusion of Illinois' statutory 
provision concerning enforcement of knowingly tampering with any 
``monitoring device or record.'' 415 ILCS 5/44(j)(4)(D). Part 70 
requires that criminal fines be imposed upon one who knowingly renders 
inaccurate any required ``monitoring device or method.'' 40 CFR 
70.11(a)(3)(iii). One commentor stated that Illinois' enforcement 
provision is identical in meaning and effect to the language in part 70 
and is appropriate in the context of Illinois' law.
    Upon further review, EPA agrees with the commentors that the 
Illinois legislative provisions for enforcement for knowingly tampering 
with monitoring devices or records is equivalent in meaning to the 
requirements of part 70. EPA will, therefore, remove from the list of 
interim approval issues the requirement that the State make a 
legislative change to its enforcement provisions.
8. Prompt Reporting of Deviations
    EPA received two comments supporting its review of Illinois' 
submittal concerning the prompt reporting of deviations from permit 
conditions required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(B). Because Illinois did 
not include a definition of ``prompt'' in its legislation or 
regulations, an acceptable alternative is for the State to define 
``prompt'' in each part 70 permit. This definition will be dependent 
upon the individual circumstances of each source.
    The commentors, however, believe that the EPA must revise several 
of its earlier interim approval notices, in which the Agency 
conditioned final approval on including a definition of prompt in the 
State program, in order to provide a consistent application of the 
appropriate interpretation of its rules. EPA is not aware of any 
program approval notices that need to be corrected at this time.

B. Additional Issues

    The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA) informed the 
EPA, after publication of the proposed interim approval of the State's 
title V program, that the State cannot meet its January 1, 1995, 
commitment for an effective acid rain program. In light of the 
structure of existing state legislation, in order for an eventual full 
approval of the State's CAAPP, the State must incorporate by reference 
the Federal acid rain program into the State's existing CAAPP 
legislation. 415 ILCS 5/39.5(17). IEPA requested an extension of its 
commitment to incorporate by reference the Federal program so that the 
State can combine this incorporation by reference with the amendments 
to its CAAPP legislation required for interim approval. This 
presentation to the legislature would occur in the January, 1996, 
legislative session, rather than the January, 1995, session originally 
contemplated. IEPA argues that amending its CAAPP legislation once 
rather than twice would not interfere with the State's implementation 
of Phase II of the Acid Rain Program.
    On January 9, 1994, EPA received a letter from Bharat Mathur, 
Chief, Bureau of Air, IEPA, to Stephen Rothblatt, Chief, Regulation 
Development Branch, EPA Region 5, detailing why the State cannot meet 
its January 1, 1995, commitment and reiterating its commitment to 
implement the Acid Rain program.
    Due to the State's existing enabling legislation for titles IV and 
V and its commitment to implement the acid rain program in the interim 
period between [[Page 12482]] this final notice and an effective 
incorporation by reference of the Federal acid rain program into the 
State's legislation, EPA believes an extension of the State's 
commitment to adopt acid rain legislation is appropriate. Existing 
State legislation allows the State to collect applications for Phase II 
affected source and allows the State to process these applications and 
evidences the State's ability to implement the Federal acid rain 
program in accordance with all Federal regulations. 415 ILCS 5/
39.5(17). Until the State officially incorporates the Federal acid rain 
program by reference, EPA expects the State to use its broad 
legislative authority for the receipt and processing of phase II 
applications in accordance with all Federal regulations.

C. Final Action

    The EPA is promulgating interim approval of the operating permits 
program submitted by Illinois on November 15, 1993. The State must make 
the following changes to receive full approval:
    1. The State must correct all deficiencies in its insignificant 
activities regulations (refer to previous discussion of insignificant 
activities for actual changes);
    2. The State must amend 415 ILCS 5/39.5(13)(c)(vi) to require the 
use of the significant modification procedure to incorporate emission 
trades into a CAAPP permit;
    3. The State must develop regulations defining enhanced NSR for the 
purposes of implementing 40 CFR 70.7(d)(1)(v); and
    4. Due to the State's present legislative provisions concerning the 
Acid Rain program, the State must incorporate by reference the federal 
regulations for implementation of the acid rain program.
    The scope of Illinois' part 70 program approved in this notice 
applies to all part 70 sources (as defined in the approved program) 
within the State of Illinois, except any sources of air pollution over 
which an Indian Tribe has jurisdiction. See, e.g., 59 FR 55813, 55815-
55818 (Nov. 9, 1994). The term ``Indian Tribe'' is defined under the 
Act as ``any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other organized group or 
community, including any Alaska Native village, which is Federally 
recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided 
by the United States to Indians because of their status as Indians.'' 
See section 302(r) of the CAA; see also 59 FR 43956, 43962 (Aug. 25, 
1994); 58 FR 54364 (Oct. 21, 1993).
    This interim approval, which may not be renewed, extends until 
March 7, 1997. During this interim approval period, the State of 
Illinois is protected from sanctions, and EPA is not obligated to 
promulgate, administer and enforce a Federal operating permits program 
in Illinois. Permits issued under a program with interim approval have 
full standing with respect to part 70, and the 1-year time period for 
submittal of permit applications by subject sources begins upon the 
effective date of this interim approval, as does the 3-year time period 
for processing the initial permit applications.
    If the State of Illinois fails to submit a complete corrective 
program for full approval by September 9, 1996, EPA will start an 18-
month clock for mandatory sanctions. If Illinois then fails to submit a 
corrective program that EPA finds complete before the expiration of 
that 18-month period, EPA will be required to apply one of the 
sanctions in section 179(b) of the Act, which will remain in effect 
until EPA determines that Illinois has corrected the deficiency by 
submitting a complete corrective program. Moreover, if the 
Administrator finds a lack of good faith on the part of the State of 
Illinois, both sanctions under section 179(b) will apply after the 
expiration of the 18-month period until the Administrator determined 
that Illinois had come into compliance. In any case, if, six months 
after application of the first sanction, Illinois still has not 
submitted a corrective program that EPA has found complete, a second 
sanction will be required.
    If EPA disapproves Illinois' complete corrective program, EPA will 
be required to apply one of the section 179(b) sanctions on the date 18 
months after the effective date of the disapproval, unless prior to 
that date the State of Illinois has submitted a revised program and EPA 
has determined that it corrected the deficiencies that prompted the 
disapproval. Moreover, if the Administrator finds a lack of good faith 
on the part of Illinois, both sanctions under section 179(b) shall 
apply after the expiration of the 18-month period until the 
Administrator determines that Illinois has come into compliance. In all 
cases, if, six months after EPA applies the first sanction, Illinois 
has not submitted a revised program that EPA has determined corrects 
the deficiencies, a second sanction is required.
    In addition, discretionary sanctions may be applied where warranted 
any time after the expiration of an interim approval period if Illinois 
has not timely submitted a complete corrective program or EPA has 
disapproved its submitted corrective program. Moreover, if EPA has not 
granted full approval to the Illinois program by the expiration of this 
interim approval and that expiration occurs after November 15, 1995, 
EPA must promulgate, administer and enforce a Federal permits program 
for Illinois upon interim approval expiration.
    Requirements for approval, specified in 40 CFR 70.4(b), encompass 
section 112(l)(5) requirements for approval of a program for delegation 
of section 112 standards as promulgated by EPA as they apply to Part 70 
sources. Section 112(l)(5) requires that the State's program contain 
adequate authorities, adequate resources for implementation, and an 
expeditious compliance schedule, which are also requirements under part 
70. Therefore, the EPA is also promulgating approval under section 
112(l)(5) and 40 CFR 63.91 of the State's program for receiving 
delegation of section 112 standards that are unchanged from Federal 
standards as promulgated. This program for delegations only applies to 
sources covered by the Part 70 program.
    The EPA is also promulgating approval of Illinois' federally 
enforceable state operating permit program (FESOP) for the purposes of 
creating federally enforceable limitations on the potential to emit of 
Hazardous Air Pollutants (HAP) regulated under section 112 of the CAA. 
The EPA is approving this program as meeting the criteria articulated 
in the June 28, 1989, Federal Register notice for State operating 
permit programs to establish limits federally enforceable on potential 
to emit and the criteria established in section 112(l).
    The EPA is also promulgating approval of Illinois's preconstruction 
permitting program found in 35 Ill. Adm. Code 201-203, under the 
authority of title V and part 70 solely for the purpose of implementing 
section 112(g) to the extent necessary during the period between final 
promulgation of section 112(g) and adoption of any necessary State 
rules to implement EPA's section 112(g) regulations. However, since the 
approval is for the single purpose of providing a mechanism to 
implement section 112(g) during the transition period, the approval 
itself will be without effect if EPA decides in the final section 
112(g) rule that sources are not subject to the requirements of the 
rule until State regulations are adopted. Although section 112(l) 
generally provides authority for approval of State air programs to 
implement section 112(g), title V and section 112(g) provide authority 
for this limited approval because of the direct linkage between 
[[Page 12483]] the implementation of section 112(g) and title V. The 
scope of this approval is narrowly limited to section 112(g) and does 
not confer or imply approval for purposes of any other provision under 
the Act, for example, section 110. The duration of this approval is 
limited to 18 months following promulgation by EPA of section 112(g) 
regulations, to provide Illinois adequate time for the State to adopt 
any necessary regulations consistent with the Federal requirements.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Docket

    Copies of the State's submittal and other information relied upon 
for the final interim approval, including four public comments received 
and reviewed by EPA on the proposal, are contained in a docket 
maintained at the EPA Regional Office. The docket is an organized and 
complete file of all the information submitted to, or otherwise 
considered by, EPA in the development of this final interim approval. 
The docket is available for public inspection at the location listed 
under the ADDRESSES section of this document.

B. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this action from 
Executive Order 12866 review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The EPA's actions under section 502 of the Act do not create any 
new requirements, but simply address operating permits programs 
submitted to satisfy the requirements of 40 CFR Part 70. Because this 
action does not impose any new requirements, it does not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities.

D. Effective Date

    An administrative agency engaging in rulemaking must comport with 
the requirements of section 553 of the Administrative Procedures Act (5 
U.S.C.A., chapter 5). Section 553 requires that an agency allow at 
least 30 days from the date of publication before the effective date of 
a substantive rulemaking. If, however, good cause can be shown, then 
the agency may impose an effective date of less than 30 days after 
publication. Good cause exists to initiate an effective date less than 
30 days after publication when it is in the public interest and the 
shorter time period does not cause prejudice to those regulated by the 
rule. British American Commodity Options Corp. v. Bagley, 552 F.2d 482, 
at 488-89 (1977). For the reasons explained below, EPA believes that 
good cause exists for the effective date of Illinois' CAAPP to be the 
date of publication of this rulemaking.
    An immediate effective date is in the public's interest for several 
reasons. The requirement for sources to submit CAAPP applications to 
the State is contingent in the Illinois regulations upon the effective 
date of the program, not the date of publication. All sources subject 
to title V in Illinois must submit their title V applications to the 
state within one year of the effective date of the State's program. 
Likewise, the collection of fees, hiring of permit engineers and 
analysis of applicants' permits cannot begin until the State's program 
is effective. Illinois' program, therefore, should be adopted without 
any further delay inasmuch as the public has been without the 
protection of this comprehensive regulatory program and because any 
further delay would not serve the public interest.
    Although it is in the public's interest to commence Illinois' title 
V program upon the date of publication, EPA must ensure that this 
action will not have any prejudicial effects upon the regulated 
community. Rowell v. Andrus, 631 F.2d 699, at 702-703 (1980). For 
example, EPA must ensure that the regulated community has sufficient 
notice of this rulemaking and ample opportunity to comment. EPA 
believes that all interested parties have had sufficient notice of this 
rulemaking and ample time to comment. The development of the State's 
CAAPP occurred over the last few years. As such, it contains a 
combination of legislation and regulations. These regulations were all 
previously subjected to public comment at the State level. The State's 
legislation has been effective and fully enforceable as a matter of 
State law since September 26, 1992, and the first set of State CAAPP 
regulations became effective on June 10, 1993. Illinois' CAAPP program, 
therefore, has been fully effective and enforceable as a matter of 
State law for over the past year. In addition, EPA also subjected these 
same regulations and legislation to public comment when it published 
its proposed interim approval of the State's CAAPP on September 30, 
1994. From the preceding facts, it is obvious that all interested 
parties have had ample time both to participate in the rulemaking 
process and to ready themselves to comply with this program.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 70

    Environmental Protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Intergovernmental relations, Operating permits, 
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: February 24, 1995.

Valdas V. Adamkus,

Regional Administrator.


    40 CFR part 70 is amended as follows:

PART 70--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 70 continues to read as follows:

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


    2. Appendix A to part 70 is amended by adding the entry for 
Illinois in alphabetical order to read as follows:

Appendix A to Part 70--Approval Status of State and Local Operating 
Permits Programs

* * * * *

Illinois

    (a) The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency: submitted on 
November 15, 1993; interim approval effective on March 7, 1995; 
interim approval expires March 7, 1997.
    (b) Reserved
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 95-5516 Filed 3-6-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P