ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)

proposes conditional approval of the State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision request submitted by the State of Illinois for the purpose of

bringing about the attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality

Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter with an aerodynamic diameter

less than or equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM). The SIP revision

request was submitted by the State to satisfy the Federal requirement

for an approvable nonattainment area PM SIP for the Lake Calumet,

McCook, and Granite City nonattainment areas. These areas were

designated nonattainment for PM and classified as moderate by the Clean

Air Act (Act), upon enactment of the 1990 Amendments (amended Act). The

Act requires that States submit plans by November 15, 1991 for those

areas designated nonattainment and classified as moderate for PM upon

enactment (the ``initial moderate nonattainment areas'').

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received by June 24,

1994.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be addressed to:J. Elmer Bortzer,

Chief, Regulation Development Section, Regulation Development Branch

(AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Pohlman, Regulation Development

Branch, Regulation Development Section (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-3299.

Reference file IL25-1-5289.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM nonattainment

areas are set out in title I of the Act1. The USEPA has issued a

``General Preamble'' describing USEPA's preliminary views on how USEPA

intends to review SIPs and SIP revisions submitted under title I of the

Act, including those State submittals relating to moderate PM

nonattainment area SIP requirements (see generally 57 FR 13498 (April

16, 1992)). The reader should refer to the General Preamble for a

detailed discussion of the interpretations of title I and the

supporting rationale.

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

\1\The 1990 Amendments to the Act made significant changes to

the air quality planning requirements for areas that do not meet (or

that significantly contribute to ambient air quality in a nearby

area that does not meet) the PM national ambient air quality

standards (see Pub. L. No. 101-549, 104 Stat. 2399). References

herein are to the Clean Air Act, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

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

Part D of title I contains the provisions applicable to

nonattainment areas. Moderate PM nonattainment areas must meet the

applicable requirements of subparts 1 and 4 of part D. Subpart 1

contains provisions generally applicable to all nonattainment areas and

subpart 4 contains provisions specifically applicable to PM

nonattainment areas. At times, Subparts 1 and 4 overlap or conflict.

USEPA has attempted to clarify the relationship among these various

provisions in the General Preamble and, as appropriate, in this

proposed rule.

Those States containing initial moderate PM nonattainment areas

were required to submit, among other things, the following provisions

by November 15, 1991:

1. Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures

(RACM) (including such reductions from existing sources in the area as

may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of reasonably

available control technology--RACT) shall be implemented no later than

December 10, 1993;

2. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the

plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no

later than December 31, 1994 or a demonstration that attainment by that

date is impracticable;

3. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years

and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward

attainment by December 31, 1994; and

4. Control requirements applicable to major stationary sources of

PM precursors except where the Administrator determines that such

sources do not contribute significantly to PM levels which exceed the

NAAQS in the area. See sections 172(c), 188, and 189 of the Act.

Some additional provisions are due at a later date. States with

initial moderate PM nonattainment areas were required to submit a

permit program for the construction and operation of new and modified

stationary sources of PM by June 30, 1992 (see section 189(a) of the

Act). Such States also were required to submit contingency measures by

November 15, 1993 which become effective without further action by the

State or USEPA, upon a determination by USEPA that the area has failed

to achieve RFP or to attain the PM NAAQS by the applicable statutory

deadline (see section 172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13543-13544).

II. This Action

Section 110(k) of the Act sets out provisions governing USEPA's

review of SIP submittals (see 57 FR 13565-13566). USEPA proposes to

conditionally approve the plan revision request submitted to USEPA on

May 15, 1992, for the Lake Calumet, McCook, and Granite City

nonattainment areas because it strengthens the existing SIP. Public

comments are solicited on the requested SIP revision and on USEPA's

proposed rulemaking action. The USEPA will consider any comments

received during the public comment period before taking final action on

the requested SIP revision.

A. Analysis of State Submittal

1. Procedural Background

The Act requires States to observe certain procedural requirements

in developing implementation plans for submission to USEPA. Section

110(a)(2) of the Act provides that each implementation plan submitted

by a State must be adopted after reasonable notice and public

hearing.2 Section 110(d) of the Act similarly provides that each

revision to an implementation plan submitted by a State under the Act

must be adopted by such State after reasonable notice and public

hearing.

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

\2\Also Section 172(c)(7) of the Act requires that plan

provisions for nonattainment areas meet the applicable provisions of

section 110(a)(2).

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

The State of Illinois held a public hearing on October 21, 1991, in

Chicago, and on October 29, 1991, in Edwardsville, Illinois to

entertain public comment on the implementation plan for the Lake

Calumet, McCook, and Granite City nonattainment areas. Following the

public hearing the plan was adopted by the Illinois Pollution Control

Board on April 9, 1992. The plan was submitted to USEPA on May 15,

1992, as a revision to the SIP, with a request that USEPA approve the

revision.

The USEPA must determine whether a submittal is complete and

therefore warrants further USEPA review and action (see section

110(k)(1) and 57 FR 13565). The USEPA's completeness criteria for SIP

submittals are set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (1991), as amended

by 57 FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). The USEPA attempts to make

completeness determinations within 60 days of receiving a submittal.

However, a submittal is deemed complete by operation of law if a

completeness determination is not made by USEPA 6 months after receipt

of the submission.

The SIP revision was reviewed by USEPA to determine completeness

shortly after its submittal, in accordance with the completeness

criteria set out at 40 CFR part 51, appendix V (1991), as amended by 57

FR 42216 (August 26, 1991). The submittal was found to be complete and

a letter dated June 25, 1992, was forwarded to the Manager, Division of

Air Pollution Control, Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (IEPA)

indicating the completeness of the submittal and the next steps to be

taken in the review process.

2. Accurate Emissions Inventory

Section 172(c)(3) of the Act requires that nonattainment plan

provisions include a comprehensive, accurate, current inventory of

actual emissions from all sources of relevant pollutants in the

nonattainment area. Further, for the attainment demonstration, the SIP

must contain a comprehensive, accurate, and current inventory of

allowable emissions in the area. Because the submission of an emissions

inventory is necessary to an area's attainment demonstration (or

demonstration that the area cannot practicably attain), the emissions

inventory must be received with the submission (see 57 FR 13539).

The emissions inventory for the three nonattainment areas contains

emissions data for over 1000 process and fugitive PM sources. The

emissions inventory was received with the submittal of May 15, 1992.

The base year for the emissions inventory is 1991. A review of the

emissions inventory has revealed that the emissions data for most

emission units are appropriate. However, USEPA has questioned the

emission rates for several sources. The USEPA believes that Illinois

has underestimated emissions from the roof monitors for the Basic

Oxygen Furnaces (BOFs) at Granite City Steel (GCS) and Acme Steel; the

quench towers at GCS, Acme Steel, and LTV Steel; the rotary kiln

incinerator at CWM Chemical Services; 3 coal fired boilers at CPC

International; and, 3 coal fired boilers at GM Electromotive Division.

For further information on the emissions rates, see the Technical

Support Documents (TSDs) dated January 10, 1994, and April 25, 1994,

available at the above address.

A detailed description of the process and methodologies used by the

IEPA to develop the emission inventory for the three nonattainment

areas was submitted in a report titled ``Emissions Inventory Report for

McCook, Lake Calumet, & Granite City PM Study Areas'' which is part of

the docket for this requested SIP revision. The report indicates that

industrial facilities were the primary concern in the three

nonattainment areas. These facilities include metal manufacturers,

mineral product manufacturers, food/agriculture facilities, and other

PM emitters.

3. RACM (Including RACT)

As noted, states which contain initial moderate PM nonattainment

areas must submit provisions to assure that RACM (including RACT) are

implemented no later than December 10, 1993 (see sections 172(c)(1) and

189(a)(1)(C)). The General Preamble contains a detailed discussion of

USEPA's interpretation of the RACM (including RACT) requirement (see 57

FR 13539-13545 and 13560-13561). The USEPA's interpretation of this

requirement is set out here only in broad terms.

The State should first identify available control measures

evaluating them for their reasonableness in light of the feasibility of

the controls and the attainment needs of the area. A State may reject

an available control measure if the measure is technologically

infeasible or the cost of the control is unreasonable. The state must

demonstrate that its submitted provisions provide for attainment of the

NAAQS as expeditiously as practicable but no later than December 31,

1994 (unless the State demonstrates that attainment by that date is

impracticable). Therefore, if a State adopts less than all available

measures but demonstrates, adequately and appropriately, that RFP and

attainment of the PM NAAQS is assured, and application of all such

available measures would not result in attainment any faster, then a

plan which requires implementation of less than all available measures

may be approved as meeting the RACM requirement. As a suggested

starting point, USEPA has identified reasonably available control

measures for sources of fugitive dust, residential wood combustion, and

prescribed burning (see 57 FR 18072-18074 (April 28, 1992)). The State

should add to the list of available measures in an area any measures

that public commenters demonstrate may well be reasonably available in

a particular circumstance.

The RACT for a particular source is similarly determined. The

USEPA's longstanding definition of RACT is the lowest emission

limitation that a particular source is capable of meeting by the

application of control technology that is reasonably available,

considering technological and economic feasibility (see 57 FR 13541).

Thus, USEPA recommends that available control technology be applied to

those existing sources in the area that are reasonable to control in

light of the attainment needs of the area and the feasibility of

controls.3

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

\3\USEPA has issued technological and economic parameters that

should be considered in determining RACT for a particular source

(see 57 FR 18073-18074).

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

A State should submit a reasoned justification for partial or full

rejection of any available control measure (including any available

control technology) that explains, with appropriate documentation, why

each rejected control measure is infeasible or otherwise unreasonable

and, therefore, does not constitute RACM (or RACT) for the area. In

those PM nonattainment areas where mobile sources significantly

contribute to the PM air quality problem, States also must address the

section 108(f) transportation control measures (see 57 FR 13561).

The submitted control measures for point sources in the Lake

Calumet, McCook, and Granite City nonattainment areas include a general

grain loading limit of 0.03 grains per standard cubic foot (gr/scf), as

well as control measures for specific sources. The specific control

measures consist of regulations that impose grain loading limits,

pounds per ton limits, and pounds per million british thermal units

limits (lb/MMBTU). Other control measures for specific sources are

listed in sections 212.324, 212.362, 212.425, 212.458, and 212.464 of

Title 35: Environmental Protection; Subtitle B: Air Pollution; Chapter

1: Pollution Control Board, of the Illinois Administrative Code (35

IAC). The new regulations impose tighter and more enforceable limits

than the current SIP approved rules.

Compliance with the above mentioned point source limits will be

determined by Method 201 or Method 201A of title 40 of the Code of

Federal Regulations 40 CFR part 51, appendix M or Method 5, 40 CFR part

60, appendix A. See 35 IAC 212.108.

The control measures for the area sources consist of opacity limits

for roadways, crushing and screening operations, storage piles, and

some material handling operations such as truck loading. Rule 35 IAC

212.316(b) imposes a 10 percent opacity limit on screening and crushing

operations. There is a 10 percent or 5 percent opacity limit on

roadways, depending on the roadway's location. Rule 35 IAC 212.316(d)

imposes a 10 percent opacity limit on storage piles. Rule 35 IAC

212.316(e)(2) imposes additional opacity limits for marine terminals,

including a 10 percent opacity limit on truck and railcar loading. Rule

35 IAC 212.316(f) imposes a 20 percent opacity limit for all sources in

the three nonattainment areas except for certain metal manufacturing

and agricultural sources. These regulations impose stricter limits than

the current SIP approved statewide 30 percent opacity limit.

Measurement of opacity from area sources other than roadways and

parking areas shall be determined by Method 9, 40 CFR part 60, appendix

A. Opacity determinations for roadways and parking areas shall be

determined by taking 3 opacity readings for each vehicle pass. The

first reading will be taken at the point of maximum opacity. The second

reading will be taken 5 seconds later and the third reading will be

taken another 5 seconds later. After 4 vehicle passes, the 12 readings

will be averaged. See 35 IAC 212.109.

Illinois must resolve the emissions inventory issues raised in the

preceding section and provide a modeled attainment demonstration which

reflects revisions to the emissions inventory. The measures determined

to be necessary to demonstrate attainment will be evaluated by USEPA to

determine whether they meet the RACM/RACT requirement.

4. Attainment Demonstration

As noted, for its initial moderate PM nonattainment areas a state

must submit a demonstration (including air quality modeling) showing

that the plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as

practicable but no later than December 31, 1994 (See section

189(a)(1)(B) of the Act). Alternatively, the State must show that

attainment by December 31, 1994 is impracticable. In the General

Preamble, USEPA indicated that the attainment demonstrations for the

initial moderate areas must follow existing modeling guidelines for PM

or, if appropriate, may be developed consistent with the supplemental

attainment demonstration policy issued for initial moderate areas (see

57 FR 13539).

In the development of the three-area modeling analysis, IEPA

followed a modeling protocol which had been reviewed in 1990 by USEPA

and found to be consistent with USEPA guidance. The following is a

summary of the modeling details.

The Industrial Source Complex short and long term models (ISCST and

ISCLT, respectively) were chosen for this analysis for their ability to

handle different source types at multiple locations. ISCST version

90346 was used to perform the 24-hour PM analysis, and ISCLT version

90008 was used to predict annual PM concentrations. Based on land-use

analyses, IEPA used rural dispersion coefficients for the McCook and

Granite City areas, and urban dispersion coefficients for the Lake

Calumet area. As recommended by USEPA guidance, IEPA placed receptors

at a resolution of 100 meters at fencelines and in areas where high

impacts had been indicated.

For the Lake Calumet area, IEPA used 5 years of meteorological data

from two stations operated by the Lake County (Indiana) Attainment Task

Force in Hammond and Whiting, IN. These sites are representative of the

meteorological conditions at Lake Calumet, since they are nearby and

they account for the effects of Lake Michigan. If on-site

meteorological data is not available, USEPA requires the use of at

least 5 years of quality-assured data from the nearest or most

representative meteorological site. This practice ensures that

potential worst-case meteorological conditions will be identified and

considered in the modeling analysis. Five years of National Weather

Service data from Midway Airport was used for the McCook area, and five

years of data from the St. Louis, Missouri airport was used for the

Granite City area.

Illinois' emissions inventory included stack sources, process

fugitive sources, and open fugitive dust sources. Generally, Illinois

modeled process fugitive sources as volume sources and open fugitive

dust sources as area sources in the ISCST and ISCLT models. Building

downwash was considered for those sources affected by nearby building

turbulence. Roof monitors and coke ovens were modeled as series of

volume sources. Nonbuoyant process fugitive emission sources such as

crushers, screens, and conveyors were treated as area sources. Open

fugitive emissions caused by material handling and vehicle traffic on

both paved and unpaved roads were modeled as area sources.

IEPA used a screening procedure to evaluate the air quality impacts

of sources operating at load levels below maximum design capacity. Some

sources caused maximum impacts at loads less than full capacity. The

short term analyses for the final attainment demonstration employed

stack parameters and emission rates which represented the load levels

which gave the greatest ambient impacts. The annual analyses used stack

parameters and emission rates which represented average operating

conditions.

Background PM concentrations in the area were determined from local

monitored data. Three monitors are located in the McCook area, three

are located in the Lake Calumet area, and five are located in the

Granite City area. IEPA used wind direction information to eliminate

portions of the monitored data from the background calculations, in

order to avoid double-counting emissions due to sources explicitly

modeled. Growth factors which were developed using each county's

projected increases in vehicular traffic were applied to the background

concentrations. Daily background concentrations were then added to the

modeled 24-hour average concentrations to obtain the final predicted

totals. In the long term modeling, Illinois used a single annual

background value. The average annual background concentrations used

were 34.08, 28.39, and 29.99 micrograms per cubic meter (g/

m3) for the Lake Calumet, Granite City, and McCook nonattainment

areas respectively.

In the submitted modeled demonstrations, which use 5 years of

meteorological data, a violation of the 24 hour NAAQS is indicated when

six exceedances of the 24 hour standard are predicted. The 24 hour PM

standard is 150 g/m3. Each receptor's predicted sixth

highest 24 hour value is, therefore, compared to the standard. The

highest, sixth highest predicted 24 hour PM concentration at any

receptor in the McCook area was 145.6 micrograms per cubic meter

(g/m3), in the Lake Calumet area, 145.2 g/

m3, and in the Granite City area, 147.8 g/m3. Thus,

the modeling analysis predicts that the 24 hour NAAQS will be protected

for all three areas. A modeled violation of the annual PM standard is

indicated when any receptor's 5 year arithmetic mean annual PM

concentration exceeds the annual PM standard of 50 g/m3.

The highest arithmetic mean annual PM concentration predicted by the

modeling for the McCook area was 49.9 g/m3, for the Lake

Calumet area, 46.9 g/m3, and for the Granite City area,

49.0 g/m3. Therefore, the annual PM NAAQS will be

protected in these areas.

Because of the length of time it may take to determine whether an

area has attained the standards, USEPA recommends that PM nonattainment

area SIP submittals demonstrate maintenance of the PM NAAQS for at

least 3 years beyond the applicable attainment date. (See a August 20,

1991, memorandum from Fred H. Renner, Jr. to Regional Air Branch Chiefs

titled ``Questions and Answers for Particulate Matter, Sulfur Dioxide,

and Lead'') While Illinois' submittal did take growth into account in

the modeling analysis, it did not adequately address maintenance of the

NAAQS for PM in the nonattainment areas.

The refined air quality modeling analysis supplied by IEPA in

support of the Illinois PM plan indicates that the NAAQS for PM will be

protected under the proposed PM control strategies. As mentioned

previously, Illinois must resolve the issues pertaining to the

emissions inventory and, where necessary, prepare a revised attainment

demonstration including a demonstration that the NAAQS will be

maintained for 3 years beyond the attainment date. The control strategy

used to control PM emissions is summarized in the section of this

notice titled ``RACM (including RACT)''. For a more detailed

description of the attainment demonstration and control strategy used,

see the TSDs prepared in support of this proposed rule.

5. PM Precursors

The control requirements which are applicable to major stationary

sources of PM must also apply to major stationary sources of PM

precursors, unless USEPA determines such sources do not contribute

significantly to PM levels which exceed the NAAQS in that area (see

section 189(e) of the Act). The control requirements that apply to

major stationary sources in PM nonattainment areas generally include

the following: reasonably available control technology, which applies

in moderate PM nonattainment areas; best available control technology,

which applies in serious PM nonattainment areas; and control

requirements under the applicable new source review provisions, such as

the lowest achievable emission rate. The General Preamble contains a

lengthy discussion on control requirements for PM precursors in

moderate nonattainment areas and on the type of technical information

USEPA will rely on in making any determinations under section 189(e)

(see 57 FR 13539-13540 and 13541-13542).

Weather stagnation is not characteristic of the three nonattainment

areas. Reduction of precursor concentrations would require reduction of

indeterminately located sources well upwind of the nonattainment area.

Control of precursors in the nonattainment area would have little if

any impact on particulate matter concentrations in the nonattainment

area. For this reason, it is appropriate to conclude that precursors do

not contribute significantly to particulate matter concentrations in

the Lake Calumet, McCook, and Granite City nonattainment areas. Note

that while USEPA is making a general finding for this area, today's

finding is based on the current character of the area including, for

example, the existing mix of sources in the area. It is possible,

therefore, that future growth could change the significance of

precursors in the area. The USEPA intends to issue future guidance

addressing such potential changes in the significance of precursor

emissions in an area.

6. Quantitative Milestones and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

The PM nonattainment area plan revisions demonstrating attainment

must contain quantitative milestones, which are to be achieved every 3

years, until the area is redesignated attainment. The plan must also

demonstrate RFP, as defined in section 171(1), toward attainment by

December 31, 1994 (see section 189(c) of the Act). Reasonable further

progress is defined in section 171(1) as such annual incremental

reductions in emissions of the relevant air pollutant as are required

by part D or may reasonably be required by the Administrator for the

purpose of ensuring attainment of the applicable NAAQS by the

applicable date.

USEPA has indicated (see 57 FR 13539) that for the initial moderate

PM nonattainment areas, the emissions reductions progress made between

the SIP submittal due date of November 15, 1991 and the attainment date

of December 31, 1994, (only 46 days beyond the November 15, 1994

milestone date) will satisfy the first milestone requirement. The de

minimis timing differential makes it administratively impracticable to

require separate milestone and attainment demonstrations. In

implementing RFP for an initial moderate area, USEPA will review the

attainment demonstration and control strategy for the area and

determine whether annual incremental reductions different from those

provided in the SIP may reasonably be required in order to ensure

attainment of the PM NAAQS by December 31, 1994 (see section 171(1)).

The control strategy for the Lake Calumet, McCook, and Granite City

nonattainment areas went into effect on May 11, 1993. At this time, it

is unknown if RFP has been achieved because a revised attainment

demonstration is still pending. USEPA will make any such determination

in a separate action.

7. Enforceability

All measures and other elements in the SIP must be enforceable both

by the State and USEPA. See sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) and 57 FR

13556. The USEPA criteria addressing the enforceability of SIPs and SIP

revisions were stated in a September 23, 1987 memorandum (with

attachments) from the Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation,

et. al., entitled ``Review of State Implementation Plans and Revisions

for Enforceability and Legal Sufficiency'' and with an attached memo

with the same date and title which contained more detailed guidance

from the Associate Enforcement Counsel for Air Enforcement et. al. (see

discussion at 57 FR 13541). The criteria include, for example,

applicability to sources, compliance date(s), compliance periods, test

methods, recordkeeping requirements, and any exemptions or variances.

In addition to enforceable requirements, nonattainment area plan

provisions must contain a program that provides for enforcement of the

control measures and other elements in the SIP (see section

110(a)(2)(C)).

The particular control measures contained in the SIP are addressed

above under the section headed ``RACM (including RACT).'' These control

measures apply to the types of activities identified in that

discussion, including, for example, grain loading limits, pound per ton

limits, and lb/MMBTU limits for point sources and opacity limits for

roadways and storage piles. The SIP provides that these control

measures apply to the areas defined in section 212.324(a)(1). These

areas match the Lake Calumet, McCook, and Granite City nonattainment

areas.

The State of Illinois uses two approaches to regulate PM emissions,

``testing'' and ``observation''. Testing is the common approach to

control particulate matter from large process emission sources. In this

approach the emission limit is set as allowable concentration, e.g.

grain/scf, or an allowable emission factor, e.g. lbs/ton throughput.

Compliance with the emission limit is evaluated by initial emissions

testing using an appropriate method. For PM, the appropriate test

methods are Method 201 and Method 201A of 40 CFR part 51, appendix M or

Method 5 of 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. Method 202 of 40 CFR part 51,

appendix M is used if condensibles is also to be tested. Besides

emissions tests, compliance is determined by a combination of

techniques, including reviewing operating records, observation of stack

opacity, and monitoring of stack opacity. These techniques are used to

assure that the equipment is being operated in a manner that is

consistent with that used during testing. If the manner of operation

deviates significantly from that used during testing, the equipment

must be restored to the manner of operation used during testing or the

equipment must be tested again. There are recordkeeping and reporting

requirements that are used to help verify proper operation and

maintenance of the control equipment.

The second approach to control of particulate matter emissions,

relies solely on visual observation of the exhaust. This

``observation'' approach is particularly relevant where existing or

small sources are being considered. This approach determines whether or

not visible emissions from equipment have exceeded opacity limitations.

Upon review of Illinois' submittal, USEPA has identified several

enforcement concerns. They are as follows:

a. On December 29, 1992, USEPA approved general opacity limitations

for the State of Illinois. See 57 FR 61834. These opacity limitations

are found at subpart B under 35 IAC 212. Subpart B of 35 IAC 212 is a

recodification of the former Rule 202. These regulations impose a 30

percent opacity limit for most sources.

The coke oven regulations of the Illinois SIP exempt coke oven

sources from all of Rule 202 of the State of Illinois Air Pollution

Control Regulations. This exemption in the state regulations was

approved on September 3, 1981, (46 FR 44177) as Rule 203(d)(5)(B)(i)

and is now codified as 35 IAC 212.443(a).

Currently, PM emissions from coke oven combustion stacks in

Illinois are limited to 0.05 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/

dscf). USEPA conditionally approved this limit on September 3, 1981.

Currently, coke oven combustion stacks exist at LTV Steel, GCS, and

Acme Steel. The LTV combustion stack is limited to a 0.03 gr/dscf by a

Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) permit.

USEPA inspectors have observed emissions of greater than 60 percent

opacity at the LTV Steel coke oven combustion stack. As recent stack

tests have confirmed, this stack is not in compliance with its mass

limit while emitting at this opacity. However, without the benefit of

an opacity limit, enforcement was delayed for months until stack test

results were obtained, even after high opacity emissions were observed.

An opacity limit on this stack will better assure compliance with the

grain loading limit.

To better assure compliance with the grain loading limit, the State

needs to impose an opacity limit on the coke oven combustion stacks

that is reflective of their mass emission limit.

b. USEPA considers the rules that apply to the electric arc furnace

roof vents at American Steel Foundries to be unenforceable because the

stacks can not be tested for compliance. IEPA should develop an

enforceable limit that is reflective of the emissions which are in the

modeled attainment demonstration.

c. Section 212.107, Measurement Methods for Visible Emissions,

states that Method 22 should be used for ``detection of visible

emissions''. This could be misinterpreted as requiring use of Method 22

for sources subject to opacity limits as well as sources subject to

limits on detectability of visible emissions. USEPA recommends revising

the language of the rule to state that ``For both process emission

sources and fugitive particulate matter sources, a determination as to

the presence or absence of visible emissions shall be in accordance

with Method 22 ...''.

d. Measurement methods for opacity, visible emissions, and ``PM''

are in section 212.110, and in separate sections 212.107, 212.108, and

212.109. The measurement methods in these sections are not always

consistent with each other. USEPA recommends that the measurement

methods in 212.107, 212.108, and 212.109 be integrated with section

212.110.

e. Several of the submitted rules contain language which exempts

sources with no visible emissions from mass emissions limits. It is

USEPA's understanding that the State intends for these exemptions to

apply to small, well-controlled sources. However, the way the

exemptions are worded, they could be misinterpreted to exclude many

other sources from mass emissions limits. The rules containing these

exemptions need to be more clear about exactly what sources are to be

exempt, and when.

8. Contingency Measures

As provided in section 172(c)(9) of the Act, all moderate

nonattainment area SIPs that demonstrate attainment must include

contingency measures. See generally 57 FR 13543-13544. These measures

were required to be submitted by November 15, 1993 for the initial

moderate nonattainment areas. On January 21, 1994, the USEPA made a

finding that Illinois had failed to submit the required PM contingency

measures. If Illinois does not make a complete submission of these

contingency measures within 18 months of the findings letter, USEPA

will be mandated to use its authority under section 179(a) of the Act

to impose at least one sanction identified in section 179(b) of the Act

in the affected nonattainment areas. Contingency measures should

consist of other available measures that are not part of the area's

current control strategy. These measures must take effect without

further action by the State or USEPA, upon a determination by USEPA

that the area has failed to make RFP or attain the PM NAAQS by the

applicable statutory deadline. The USEPA will take separate rulemaking

action on the contingency plan for the Lake Calumet, McCook, and

Granite City nonattainment areas.

III. USEPA's Proposed Rulemaking Action

The USEPA proposes to grant conditional approval to the plan

revision submitted to USEPA by the State of Illinois on May 15, 1992,

for the Lake Calumet, McCook, and Granite City PM nonattainment areas.

Illinois' requested SIP revision does not include a complete and

accurate emissions inventory, which, in turn, leads to an unacceptable

attainment demonstration. However, the submitted regulations do require

stricter limitations than the current applicable SIP.

The conditional approval is based on the State's enforceable

commitment to meet five requirements within one year from the date of

final conditional approval. The State submitted a letter on March 2,

1994, committing to meet these requirements within one year of final

conditional approval. The first requirement is for the State to adopt

additional enforceable control measures, if necessary, that will

achieve attainment. The second requirement is for the State to submit a

complete and accurate emissions inventory (including corrected

emissions estimates, as well as any new control measures which may be

needed) and an acceptable modeled attainment demonstration. The third

requirement is for the State to impose an opacity limit for coke oven

combustion stacks which is reflective of their mass emission limits.

The fourth requirement is for the State to provide an appropriate

regulation for the electric arc furnaces at American Steel Foundries.

The fifth requirement is for the State to correct the three other

enforcement concerns listed above as c-e under the heading

``Enforceability''.

If the State ultimately fails to meet its commitment within one

year of final conditional approval, then USEPA's action for the State's

requested SIP revision will automatically convert to a final limited

approval/disapproval. The limited approval would entail approval of the

submitted regulations into the Illinois SIP for their strengthening

effect, and disapproval of the attainment demonstration and the

emissions inventory.

IV. Request for Public Comments

USEPA is requesting comments on all aspects of this proposed rule.

As indicated at the outset of this notice, USEPA will consider any

comments received by June 24, 1994.

V. Processing Procedures

This action has been classified as a Table 2 action by the Regional

Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on

January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225). On January 6, 1989, the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) waived Table 2 and Table 3 SIP revisions

(54 FR 2222) from the requirements of section 3 of Executive Order

12991 for a period of 2 years. The USEPA has submitted a request for a

permanent waiver for Table 2 and 3 SIP revisions. The OMB has agreed to

continue the waiver until such time as it rules on USEPA's request.

This request is still applicable under Executive Order 12866. Nothing

in this action should be constructed as permitting, allowing, or

establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any

SIP. Each request for revision to any SIP shall be considered

separately in light of specific technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant statutory and regulatory

requirements.

VI. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA

must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of

any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.

Alternatively, USEPA may certify that the rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations

of less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the Act

do not create any new requirements, but simply approve requirements

that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP-

approval does not impose any new requirements, I certify that it does

not have a significant impact on small entities affected. Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-state relationship under the Act,

preparation of a regulatory flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The

Act forbids USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (S.Ct. 1976);

42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental

relations, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.

Dated: May 12, 1994.

Michelle D. Jordan,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 94-12769 Filed 5-24-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-F