Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; West Virginia: Limited Approval and Disapproval of PM-10 Implementation Plan for the Follansbee Area

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[WV 5-1-5149 A1-FRL-4823-2]

Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;

West Virginia: Limited Approval and Disapproval of PM-10 Implementation

Plan for the Follansbee Area

AGENCY: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: EPA today proposes limited approval and limited disapproval of

the State Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by the State of West

Virginia for the purpose of bringing about the attainment of the

national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for particulate matter

with an aerodynamic diameter less than or equal to a nominal 10

micrometers (PM-10). The implementation plan was submitted by the State

to satisfy certain federal requirements for an approvable nonattainment

area PM-10 SIP for a portion of the Follansbee area, Brooke County,

West Virginia. The Act required that States make certain submittals by

November 15, 1991 for those areas designated nonattainment and

classified as moderate for PM-10 upon enactment (the ``initial moderate

nonattainment areas''). By today's action, EPA is proposing limited

approval and limited disapproval of the PM-10 SIP for the Follansbee,

West Virginia area.

DATES: Comments must be received in writing on or before February 7,

1994. Public comments on this document are requested and will be

considered before taking final action on this SIP revision.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Thomas J. Maslany, Director, Air,

Radiation and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107. Copies of

the documents relevant to this notice are available for public

inspection during normal business hours at the following locations:

Air, Radiation and Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, PA 19107;

Public Information Reference Unit, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460; and West Virginia

Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Air Quality, 1558

Washington Street, East, Charleston, West Virginia, 25311.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas A. Casey, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region III (3AT14), 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, PA 19107, (215) 597-2746.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM-10

nonattainment areas are set out in subparts 1 and 4 of Title I of the

Act. The EPA has issued a ``General Preamble'' describing EPA's

preliminary views on how EPA intends to review SIP's and SIP revisions

submitted under Title I of the Act, including those State submittals

containing moderate PM-10 nonattainment area SIP requirements (see

generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 18070 (April 28,

1992)).

The Follansbee area of Brooke County, along with a portion of

Jefferson County, Ohio near Steubenville, was classified as a Group I

area on the basis of monitored PM-10 violations in Mingo Junction,

Ohio. Upon enactment of the CAAA, all Group I areas (and Group II areas

that had monitored violations before January 1, 1989) were designated

nonattainment by operation of law. A list of these initial

nonattainment areas, including the Follansbee area, was published on

March 15, 1991 (56 FR 11101) with corrections on May 20, 1991 (56 FR

23105).\1\

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

\1\The Follansbee, West Virginia nonattainment area was defined

in this notice as the area bounded on the north by the Market Street

Bridge, on the east by West Virginia Route 2, on the south by the

extension of the southern boundary of Steubenville Township,

Jefferson County, Ohio, and on the West by the Ohio/West Virginia

border.

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

Those States containing initial moderate PM-10 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 in emissions 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. Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable to

major stationary sources of PM-10 also apply to major stationary

sources of PM-10 precursors except where the Administrator determines

that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which

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

Act.

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

moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas were required to submit a permit

program for the construction and operation of new and modified major

stationary sources of PM-10 by June 30, 1992 (see section 189(a)). Such

States also must submit contingency measures by November 15, 1993 which

become effective without further action by the State or EPA, upon a

determination by EPA that the area has failed to achieve RFP or to

attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline. See

section 172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13543-44.

Responsibility for fulfilling the air quality planning requirements

for the Follansbee and Steubenville areas lies in different states:

West Virginia is responsible for the Follansbee area and Ohio is

responsible for the Steubenville area. The plans are linked in that,

according to their attainment demonstrations, emissions reductions in

both states are necessary to effect attainment in either area. (West

Virginia and Ohio corroborated on parts of the attainment

demonstration; West Virginia prepared much of the emissions inventory,

and Ohio performed the modeling analyses.) The submitted SIP revision

of each State, however, stands alone. Today's proposed rulemaking

applies only to West Virginia's SIP; EPA will act on Ohio's SIP

separately.

While this notice proposes limited disapproval and limited

disapproval of West Virginia's SIP revision, EPA will fully approve the

State's submittal without further notice, if the unapprovable aspects

of the State's submittal are corrected. The rationale for this proposal

is set out both in this notice and in the supporting Technical Support

Document (TSD) which is available at the address indicated below.

Summary of the SIP Revision and Criteria for Proposed Action

1. Procedural Background

The Act requires States to observe certain procedural requirements

in developing implementation plans and plan revisions for submission to

EPA. 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(l) 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).

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

EPA also must determine whether a submittal is complete and

therefore warrants further EPA review and action (see section 110(k)(1)

and 57 FR 13565). EPA'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). EPA attempts to make completeness determinations

within 60 days of receiving a submission. However, a submittal is

deemed complete by operation of law if a completeness determination is

not made by EPA 6 months after receipt of the submission.

The State of West Virginia held a public hearing on October 30,

1991 to solicit public comment on the implementation plan for the

Follansbee nonattainment area. Following the public hearing, the plan

was adopted by the State and signed by the Honorable John M. Ranson,

Secretary, Department of Commerce, Labor & Environmental Resources on

November 12, 1991, and submitted to EPA on November 15, 1991 as a

formal request for revision to the SIP.

The State submittal revision was reviewed by EPA to determine

completeness, 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 determined to be complete, and a letter

dated January 22, 1992 was forwarded to the Governor of West Virginia

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

taken in the review process.

2. Emissions Inventory

Section 172(c)(3) of the Clean Air 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. This section of the notice describes the adequacy

of West Virginia's inventory of actual emissions as required by section

172(c)(3). The adequacy of the State's inventory of allowable emissions

used as input to the demonstration of attainment (as required by

section 189(a)) is discussed in a subsequent section of this notice.

West Virginia submitted an emissions inventory for base year 1990.

The West Virginia submittal shows that activities related to steel

making and shaping dominate the Follansbee area's emissions inventory.

There were some deficiencies related to the estimation of PM-10

emissions from coke oven batteries. Specifically, the calculations

relating emissions of benzene soluble organics (BSO) to emissions of

PM-10 are in error. The estimation of BSO-related PM-10 emissions

effects estimates of both actual and SIP allowable emissions (and,

consequently, the attainment demonstration). The error in BSO emissions

notwithstanding, the inventory of actual emissions is generally

comprehensive, accurate, and current, and therefore approvable as

meeting the requirements of sections 172(c)(3) and 110(a)(2)(K) of the

Act.\3\ Therefore, EPA is proposing approval of the SIP for the purpose

of satisfying the section 172(c)(3) requirement for an emissions

inventory. A more detailed discussion of the shortcomings in the

inventory of SIP allowable emissions used as input to dispersion models

is presented in section II.C.4 of the TSD.\4\

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

\3\The EPA issued guidance on PM-10 emissions inventories prior

to the enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments in the form of the

1987 PM-10 SIP Development Guideline. The guidance provided in this

document appears to be consistent with the Act.

\4\Calculations of emissions from leaking doors were also in

error. However, the error in the calculation of emissions from

leaking doors only affects the inventory of SIP allowable emissions

and has no bearing on the section 172(c)(3) requirement for an

inventory of actual emissions.

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

3. RACM (Including RACT)

As noted, the initial moderate PM-10 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

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

FR 13540-45 and 13560-61). Guidance on identifying RACT is found in the

supplement to the General Preamble (57 FR 18074); ``Procedures for

Identifying Reasonably Available Control Technology for Stationary

Sources of PM-10'' (EPA 450-R-93-001); and an August 7, 1980 memorandum

from Edward E. Reich, Director, Stationary Source Enforcement Division

to the regional air enforcement directors entitled ``Steel Technical

Support Options and Documents,'' (with the attached table entitled

``Particulate Emission Limitations Generally Achievable on a Retrofit

Basis'').

West Virginia submitted six Consent Orders for incorporation into

West Virginia's State Implementation Plan (SIP). By entering into the

Consent Orders, Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation; Standard

Lafarge; Follansbee Steel Corporation; Koppers Industries,

Incorporated; International Mill Service, Incorporated; and Starvaggi

Industries, Incorporated have agreed to comply with reduced allowable

emission rates for PM-10. Table 1 presents a summary of the controls

required by the Consent Orders; more detail is provided by Tables 2

through 7. Consent orders with International Mill Service, Koppers

Industries, Standard Lafarge, Starvaggi Industries, and Wheeling-

Pittsburgh Steel provide for new or improved, specific dust control

measures. Consent orders with Follansbee Steel and Koppers Industries

require ``add-on'' control equipment.

Table 1

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

Company Process Control

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

Follansbee Steel....... Terne Metal Coaters No. Process control

1,2. (probably an

electrostatic

precipitator).

International Mill..... Sinter Receiving Hopper Partial Enclosure &

Spray.

Sinter Hopper & Sinter Full Enclosure &

Screens. Spray.

Sinter Storage Piles... Water Spray.

Unpaved Areas.......... Dust Control Plan.

Koppers................ Pitch Dryer............ Baghouse.

Standard Lafarge....... Slag Processing Plant.. Reduce Fugitives 95%.

Slag Receiving Hopper.. Increase Wet

Suppression.

Paved & Unpaved Roads.. Dust Control Plan.

Starvaggi.............. Unpaved Areas.......... Dust Control Plan.

Wheeling-Pitt Steel.... Coal Crusher........... Full Enclosure.

Coke Sizing No. 1,2.... Full Enclosure.

Coke Pushing No. 1,2,3. Mass limit on

baghouse.

Coke Underfiring No. Mass limit on

1,2,3,8. combustion stacks.

Paved & Unpaved Roads.. Dust Control Plan.

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

Table 2.--New Limits for Follansbee Steel

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

Limit(s)

Process Control -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Unit TSP (lb/hr) PM-10 (lb/hr)

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

Terne Coaters No. 1, 2 Company has flexibility. No. 1..... 2.00 (approx. 53% control)................. 1.80 (approx. 53% control)

Will probably require a No. 2..... 1.80 (approx. 71% control)................. 1.66 (approx. 71% control)

new pollution control

device such as a

commercial precipitator.

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

Table 3.--New Limits for International Mill Services

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

Process Control Limit(s)

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

Sinter Receiving Hopper.......... Partial Enclosure & Spray................ TSP 0.092 lb/hr, PM-10

0.046 lb/hr, 5%

opacity, 95% control efficiency.

Sinter Hopper.................... Full Enclosure & Spray................... Hopper--TSP (lb/hr) 0.092; PM-10

Sinter Screens (lb/hr) 0.046.

Screening--TSP (lb/hr) 1.84; PM-10

(lb/hr) 0.938.

10% opacity, 95% control.

Sinter Storage Piles............. Water Spray.............................. TSP 0.682 lb/hr; PM-10

0.596 lb/hr; 5%

opacity; 75% control of TSP & PM-

10.

Unpaved Areas.................... Dust Control Plan........................ Program is the responsibility of

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Company

under its consent order with

WVAPCC. International Mill

Service is also responsible

should Wheeling-Pitt, for any

reason, not implement the

program. (See Table 7.)

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

Table 4.--New Limits for Koppers

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

Process Control Limit(s)

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

Pitch Dryer........... Baghouse.................. TSP 1.86 lb/hr (0.93 lb/ton).

PM-10 0.59 lb/hr (0.30 lb/ton).

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

Table 5.--New Limits for Standard Lafarge

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

Process Control Limit(s)

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

Slag Processing Plant.......... Company has flexibility.................. TSP 19.13 lb/hr.

PM-10 8.15 lb/hr.

10% opacity, 95% control.

Slag Receiving Hopper.......... Increase Web Suppression................. TSP 0.07 lb/hr.

PM-10 0.06 lb/hr.

5% opacity, 80% control.

Paved & Unpaved Roads.......... Chemical Dust Suppressant................ 90% control.

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

Table 6.--New Limits for Starvaggi Incorporated

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

Process Control Limit(s)

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

Unpraved Roads & Parking Lots............. Chemical Suppressant................ 90% control.

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

Table 7.--New Limits for Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel

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

Process Control Limit(s)

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

Coal Crushing..................................... Full Enclosure................... TSP 1.0 lb/

hr; PM-10

0.51 lb/hr; No visible

emissions; 90% Control

(PM-10).

Coal Sizing No. 1, 2.............................. Full Enclosure................... TSP 1.48 lb/

hr; PM-10

0.76 lb/hr; 5% opacity;

90% Control (PM-10).

Coke Pushing No. 1, 2, 3.......................... Existing Baghouse................ 2.14 lb/hr (approx. 0.022

lb/ton coal charged at

maximum operating rate).

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

Approx. lb/ton of

Battery Stack (lb/hr) coal charged at

maximum capacity

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

Coke Underfiring No. 1, 2, 3, 8................... None............................. TSP

No. 1........................ 1.40 0.044

No. 2........................ 1.40 0.044

No. 3........................ 1.58 0.046

No. 8........................ 6.93 0.048

PM-10

No. 1........................ 1.35 0.043

No. 2........................ 1.35 0.043

No. 3........................ 1.52 0.046

No. 8........................ 6.65 0.047

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

Unpaved & Irregular Paved Surfaces................ Chemical Suppression............. 95% Control.

Paved Roads....................................... Flushing and Vacuum Sweeping..... 95% Control.

EPA's longstanding definition of RACT is the lowest emission

limitation or percent reduction that a particular source is capable of

achieving by the application of control technology that is reasonably

available considering technological and economic feasibility (see 57 FR

13541). Thus, EPA 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.

In addition to determining that the requirements of the consent

orders meet this definition of RACT, EPA also reviewed the requirements

of the six consent orders and found them consistent with the EPA

guidance documents on RACM referenced earlier in the notice. All of the

requirements identified by EPA in the previously referenced August 7,

1980 memorandum as being normally achievable for iron and steel sources

are in fact required by West Virginia. Although EPA has not developed

such specific PM-10 RACM guidance for other applicable point sources,

but the applicable control measures in the State's plan was found by

EPA to require the implementation of RACM for other sources in the

area.\5\ In addition, the plan requires implementation of RACM in all

cases by December 10, 1993. Consequently, West Virginia's plan is

judged to satisfy the RACM requirement in Section 189(a)(1)(C).

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

\5\The EPA has issued technological and economic parameters that

should be considered in determining RACT for a particular source

(see 57 FR 18073-74).

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

4. Attainment Demonstration\6\

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

\6\It should be noted that the modeling techniques used in the

attainment demonstration are based on the modeling guidelines in

place at the time the analysis was performed. EPA approval of this

analysis will not automatically apply to any other analysis of

Follansbee to support any further regulatory action.

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

As noted, the initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas 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). The 24-hour PM-10 NAAQS is 150 micrograms/cubic meter

(g/m\3\), and the standard is attained when the expected

number of days per calendar year with a 24-hour average concentration

above 150 g/m\3\ is equal to or less than one. The annual PM-

10 NAAQS is 50 g/m\3\, and the standard is attained when the

expected annual arithmetic mean concentration is less than or equal to

50 g/m\3\ (see 40 CFR 50.6). Alternatively, the State must

show that attainment by December 31, 1994 is impracticable.

West Virginia performed dispersion modeling for the Follansbee

area; this modeling is described in detail is section II.C.4 of the

TSD. The modeling is unapprovable as a demonstration of attainment

because of deficiencies in estimating emissions from coke oven

batteries, the lack of an approvable analysis of intermediate terrain,

and the nonguideline use of the RAM dispersion model in a

meteorologically rural area.

As described in the section of this notice entitled ``Emissions

Inventories,'' estimates of emissions from coke oven doors are in

error. Calculations of emissions from leaking coke oven doors were

based on an estimate of actual percent leaking doors leak rather than

the allowable leak rate, and the calculation of the relation between

BSO emissions and PM-10 emissions is in error.

EPA modeling guidance and policy require that receptors between

stack height and plume height must be modeled with both an appropriate

simple terrain model and an appropriate complex terrain model (see

EPA's Guideline on Air Quality Models (EPA-450/2-78-027R), and June 8,

1989 Memorandum from Joseph Tikvart to Alan Cimorelli). No

implementation of the intermediate terrain policy was included in the

State's submittal.

The State employed the Gaussian Plume Multiple Source Air Quality

Algorithm (RAM) to estimate the impacts of area sources such as

agricultural tilling and residential heating. The use of RAM in a

meteorologically rural area, such as the Steubenville, Ohio/Follansbee

West Virginia area, is inconsistent with the recommendations of the

Guideline on Air Quality Models.

Because of these deficiencies, EPA is proposing to disapprove the

SIP revision for the limited purpose of fulfilling the section 189(a)

requirement for a demonstration of attainment. For a more detailed

description of the attainment demonstration and the control strategy

used, see the Technical Support Document accompanying this notice. The

TSD also provides EPA's detailed rationale for determining that the

demonstration, as submitted, does not meet the criteria for approval.

5. PM-10 Precursors

The control requirements which are applicable to major stationary

sources of PM-10, also apply to major stationary sources of PM-10

precursors unless EPA determines such sources do not contribute

significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of the NAAQS in that area (see

section 189(e) of the Act).

An analysis of air quality and emissions data for the Follansbee

nonattainment area demonstrates that violations of the NAAQS are

attributable chiefly to direct particulate matter emissions from

industrial sources, and that sources of particulate matter precursors

SO2, and NOx contribute less than 8 g/m\3\.

Consequently, EPA is proposing to find that major sources of precursors

of PM-10 do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels in excess of

the NAAQS. The consequences of this finding are to exclude these

sources from the applicability of PM-10 nonattainment area control

requirements. Further discussion of the analyses and supporting

rationale for EPA's finding are contained in the Technical Support

Document accompanying this notice. Note that while EPA 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. EPA intends to

issue future guidance addressing such potential changes in the

significance of precursor emissions in PM-10 nonattainment areas.

6. Quantitative Milestones and Reasonable Further Progress (RFP)

The PM-10 nonattainment area plan revisions demonstrating

attainment must contain quantitative milestones which are to be

achieved every 3 years until the area is redesignated attainment and

which demonstrate RFP, as defined in section 171(l), toward attainment

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

further progress is defined in section 171(l) 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.

As stated previously, PM-10 plan revisions were due November 15,

1991, and RACM must be implemented no more than two years, 25 days

later, by December 10, 1993. It would be unreasonable, and therefore

not constitute RACT, to require a stationary source to install

successive, incremental controls during this short period. In

implementing RFP for the Follansbee area, EPA has reviewed the

attainment demonstration and control strategy for the area to determine

whether reductions different from those provided in the SIP should be

required in order to ensure attainment of the PM-10 NAAQS by December

31, 1994 (see section 171(l)). Each of the Consent Orders submitted by

West Virginia includes compliance dates for the various measures within

each order. While these dates vary, none are later than December 10,

1993 and many measures are required well before that date. EPA,

therefore, intends to approve West Virginia's submittal as fulfilling

the part D requirements for quantitative milestones and reasonable

further progress.

7. Enforceability Issues

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

the State and EPA (see sections 172(c)(6), 110(a)(2)(A) of the CAAA and

57 FR 13556). The EPA criteria addressing the enforceability of SIP's

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

attachments) from J. Craig Potter, Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation, et al. (see 57 FR 13541). Nonattainment area plan provisions

must also 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 Table 1 of that

section including reduced emission limits on both stack and fugitive

emissions. Through consent orders, the SIP provides applicable control

measures on a source-by-source basis.

Consistent with the attainment demonstration described above, the

submittal requires that all affected activities must be in full

compliance with the applicable provisions by, in the latest case,

December 10, 1993. In addition to the control measures, the submittal

includes record-keeping requirements which are specified in the consent

orders. In addition, the submittal (specifically, each consent

agreement) sets out compliance schedules that include dates by which

the source(s) must, for example, purchase and install equipment and

commence dust suppression programs.

The State of West Virginia has a program that will ensure that the

measures contained in the submittal are adequately enforced. The

compliance schedules and associated test methods are described in

detail in the consent orders. Each consent order specifically describes

or references test methods or other means of determining compliance.

8. Contingency Measures

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

nonattainment area SIP's that demonstrate attainment must include

contingency measures (see generally 57 FR 13543-44). These measures

must be submitted by November 15, 1993 for the initial moderate

nonattainment areas. Contingency measures should consist of other

available measures that are not part of the areas's control strategy.

These measures must take effect without further action by the State or

EPA, upon a determination by EPA that the area has failed to make RFP

or attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline. In

their consent orders, Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, International Mill

Services, and Follansbee Steel committed to develop contingency plans

(by July 1, 1992) to reduce mass emissions by quantities specified in

the consent orders. These companies agreed to the inclusion of these

plans into consent orders to be approved by the WVAPCC by December 31,

1992. Koppers Industries, which shares the use of some property with

Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, agreed to comply with such contingency plans

in its consent order.

In the General Preamble to Title I of the CAAA, EPA established a

November 15, 1993 deadline for state submittal of contingency plans.

Consequently, West Virginia will have until November 15, 1993 to submit

a detailed contingency plan necessary to satisfy section 172(c)(9) of

the Act. This discussion of the contingency measures included in the

Follansbee SIP will not be grounds for disapproval in whole or in part

of the Follansbee SIP submittal.

Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to grant a limited approval and limited

disapproval of the plan revision for the Follansbee, West Virginia

area.

While the submittal does not meet specific provisions of Part D, it

does contain some provisions (enforceable consent orders) which advance

the NAAQS-related air quality protection goals of the Act. Thus, EPA is

proposing a limited approval of the submittal to approve the consent

agreements and make them part of the SIP. EPA has evaluated the consent

agreements of West Virginia's SIP revision submittal for consistency

with the Act and EPA regulations and has found that the submittal

provides State and federally enforceable provisions to decrease PM-10

emissions in the nonattainment area. These measures, together with the

existing SIP, constitute RACM, including RACT.

Because the submittal does not meet the section 189(a)(1)(B)

requirement of Part D for an attainment demonstration and the section

172(c)(3) requirement for an accurate inventory of actual emissions

(for the reasons described previously in this notice) EPA cannot grant

full approval of this submittal under section 110(k)(3) and Part D of

the Act. Also, because the submitted revision is not composed of

separable parts which meet all the applicable requirements of the Act,

EPA cannot grant partial approval of the submittal under section

110(k)(3). However, EPA may grant a limited approval of the submitted

rule(s) under section 110(k)(3) in light of EPA's authority pursuant to

section 301(a) to adopt regulations necessary to further air quality

improvement by strengthening the SIP.

If finalized, this limited disapproval would constitute a

disapproval under section 179(a)(2) of the Act (see generally 57 FR

13566-67). As provided under section 179(a) of the Act, the State of

West Virginia would have up to 18 months after a final SIP disapproval

to correct the deficiencies that are the subject of the disapproval

before EPA is required to impose either the highway funding sanction or

the requirement to provide two-to-one new source review offsets. If the

State has not corrected its deficiency within 6 months thereafter, EPA

must impose the second sanction. Any sanction EPA imposes must remain

in place until EPA determines that the State has come into compliance.

Note also that any final disapproval would trigger the requirement for

EPA to impose a federal implementation plan within 24 months as

provided under section 110(c)(1) of the Act.

While this action proposes limited approval and limited disapproval

of West Virginia's SIP revision, EPA will fully approve the State's

submittal without further notice, if the unapprovable aspects of the

State's submittal are corrected.

EPA is proposing no action on the contingency measures with respect

to the requirements of section 172(c)(9) of the Act at this time.\7\ In

the General Preamble to Title I of the CAAA, EPA established a November

15, 1993 deadline for state submittal of contingency plans.

Consequently, West Virginia will have until November 15, 1993 to submit

a detailed contingency plan necessary to satisfy section 172(c)(9) of

the Act.

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

\7\As noted above, EPA is proposing to incorporate by reference

all of the submitted consent orders into the SIP in their entirety.

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

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

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, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a

significant 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 sections 110 and 301 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, EPA

certifies that it does not have a significant impact on any 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 EPA to base its actions

concerning SIP's 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).

EPA's disapproval of the State request under section 110 and

subchapter I, Part D of the Act does not affect any existing

requirements applicable to small entities. Any pre-existing federal

requirements remain in place after this disapproval. Federal

disapproval of the State submittal does not affect its state-

enforceability. Moreover, EPA's disapproval of the submittal does not

impose any new federal requirements. Therefore, EPA certifies that this

proposed disapproval action does not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities because it does not impose any new

federal requirements.

Under Executive Order 12866, this action is not ``significant.'' It

has been submitted to OMB for review.

The Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove West

Virginia's PM-10 SIP revision for the Follansbee nonattainment area

will be based on whether it meets the requirements of Section

110(a)(2)(A)-(K), 110(a)(3), and Part D of the Clean Air Act, as

amended, and EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air pollution control, hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate matter,

Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide, and Volatile

organic compounds.

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

Dated: July 13, 1993.

Stanley L. Laskowski,

Acting Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 94-275 Filed 1-6-94; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P