[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 100 (Wednesday, May 25, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-12769]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: May 25, 1994]


                                                   VOL. 59, NO. 100

                                            Wednesday, May 25, 1994

 

 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL25-1-5289; FRL-4887-6]

Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

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