[Federal Register Volume 59, Number 102 (Friday, May 27, 1994)]
[Unknown Section]
[Page 0]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 94-12919]


[[Page Unknown]]

[Federal Register: May 27, 1994]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH29-1-6066; FRL-4854-9]

 

Approval And Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On November 14, 1991, Ohio submitted major revisions to its 
particulate matter regulations to make its State Implementation Plan 
(SIP) consistent with its Statewide regulations and to satisfy Clean 
Air Act requirements for the Cleveland and Steubenville nonattainment 
areas. Ohio submitted supplemental material on December 4, 1991, and 
January 8, 1992. USEPA published a notice of proposed rulemaking on 
August 3, 1993, at 58 FR 41218. Six letters were submitted commenting 
on this proposal. Although several commenters requested delay of this 
final rulemaking, such delay is impermissible under section 110(k) of 
the Act. USEPA has reviewed the submitted comments, and is taking final 
action granting limited approval/limited disapproval as proposed, i.e. 
approving all regulations except for two paragraphs, but determining 
that the plan does not fully satisfy requirements under Part D of Title 
I of the Act for the Cleveland and Steubenville areas. If the relevant 
deficiencies are not remedied within 18 months, the first of the two 
sanctions pursuant to section 179(b) of the Clean Air Act will take 
effect.

DATE: This action is effective June 27, 1994.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the State's submittals, the public comment 
letters, and USEPA's technical support document of February 24, 1994 
are available for inspection at the following address: (It is 
recommended that you telephone John Summerhays at (312) 886-6067, 
before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation 
Division (AE-17J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

    A copy of this revision to the Ohio SIP is available for inspection 
at: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Attn: Jerry Kurtzweg (6102), 
401 M Street SW., Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Regulation 
Development Section, Air Enforcement Branch (AE-17J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, 
(312) 886-6067.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    Ohio submitted major revisions to its particulate matter 
regulations on November 14, 1991, with supplemental submittals on 
December 4, 1991, and January 8, 1992. USEPA published notice of 
proposed rulemaking on August 3, 1993, at 58 FR 41218, proposing 
limited approval of these submittals. The notice of proposed rulemaking 
includes a history of requirements and State submittals, a description 
of Ohio's submittal, a review of each submitted regulation, and reviews 
of whether requirements in section 189 (including requirements for 
attainment demonstrations and reasonably available control measures 
(RACM)) and elsewhere in the Clean Air Act are satisfied, concluding 
with a delineation of the proposed action. For convenience, this 
section will provide highlights of relevant history and the next 
section will repeat the description of the State submittal that was 
provided in the notice of proposed rulemaking. A third section will 
summarize the remainder of the notice of proposed rulemaking, including 
the proposed action. A fourth section of today's notice will summarize 
and review the public comments on the notice of proposed rulemaking. 
The final section of discussion in this notice will describe the final 
action on the State's submittal.
    Ohio submitted its original SIP for particulate matter on January 
31, 1972, and submitted substantial revisions on August 4, 1972. USEPA 
approved the plan and the revisions, most notably including several 
regulations in Chapter AP-3 (Particulate Matter Standards), on April 
15, 1974, at 39 FR 13539. Revisions to AP-3-04, submitted on January 
25, 1974, were approved on September 23, 1976, at 41 FR 41692. On 
August 10, 1976, Ohio submitted EP-12 (Open Burning), which USEPA 
approved on February 3, 1978, at 43 FR 4611.
    Although the State provided various submittals between June 1980 
and March 1985, and USEPA proposed rulemaking to approve these 
revisions on January 2, 1987 (52 FR 91), these submittals were 
subsequently withdrawn and no Statewide revisions were approved into 
the SIP. Thus, with the exception of a small number of source-specific 
limitations, the previously approved Ohio SIP for particulate matter 
reflects the rules approved in 1974 and 1976, i.e. the 1972 version of 
the rules now codified in Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Chapter 3745-
17 (Particulate Matter Standards) and the 1976 version of the rules now 
codified in OAC Chapter 3745-19 (Open Burning Standards).
    On July 1, 1987, USEPA revised the National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) for particulate matter, refocussing the standard on 
smaller particles. Pursuant to the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990,\1\ 
Cuyahoga County and the Steubenville area (including portions of 
Jefferson County, Ohio, and Brooke County, West Virginia) were 
designated nonattainment for this revised standard, and the State was 
required to submit plan revisions to assure attainment, require RACM, 
and satisfy other requirements for these two areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\The 1990 Amendments to the Clean Air 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 particulate matter 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. sections 7401 et seq.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

II. Description of Ohio's Submittal

    The State's submittal of November 14, 1991, as supplemented 
December 4, 1991, and January 8, 1992, consisted of two principal 
elements: (1) Statewide regulations, and (2) additional regulations, 
emissions, and modeling information for Cuyahoga County and the 
Steubenville area. The Statewide regulations, submitted pursuant to 
Section 110, reflect substantial revisions to the 1974 regulations 
presently in the SIP, and constitute the regulations that are presently 
maintaining the air quality standards in much of the State. The 
materials relating to the Cuyahoga County and Steubenville 
nonattainment areas were submitted pursuant to Part D of Title I of the 
Act, and include the more stringent regulations that Ohio identified as 
needed to attain the standards in these areas.
    The regulations submitted by Ohio include all of the rules in OAC 
Chapter 3745-17 except Rule 3745-17-05 (``Nondegradation policy'') and 
all rules in OAC Chapter 3745-75. (Rule 3745-17-06 contains no language 
and is reserved.) The specific submitted rules in Chapter 3745-17 
(Particulate Matter Standards) and associated titles are as follows:

Rule 3745-17-01--Definitions
Rule 3745-17-02--Ambient air quality standards
Rule 3745-17-03--Measurement methods and procedures
Rule 3745-17-04--Compliance time schedules
Rule 3745-17-07--Control of visible particulate emissions from 
stationary sources
Rule 3745-17-08--Restriction of emission of fugitive dust
Rule 3745-17-09--Restrictions on particulate emissions and odors 
from incinerators
Rule 3745-17-10--Restrictions on particulate emissions from fuel 
burning equipment
Rule 3745-17-11--Restrictions on particulate emissions from 
industrial processes
Rule 3745-17-12--Additional restrictions on particulate emissions 
from specific air contaminant sources in Cuyahoga County
Rule 3745-17-13--Additional restrictions on particulate emissions 
from specific air contaminant sources in Jefferson County
Rule 3745-17-14--Contingency plan requirements for Cuyahoga and 
Jefferson Counties

    The specific submitted rules in Chapter 3745-75 (Infectious Waste 
Incinerator Limitations) and associated titles are as follows:

Rule 3745-75-01--Applicability and definitions
Rule 3745-75-02--Emission limits
Rule 3745-75-03--Design parameters and operating restrictions
Rule 3745-75-04--Monitoring requirements
Rule 3745-75-05--Recordkeeping
Rule 3745-75-06--Certification and compliance time schedules

    Rules 3745-17-01 through 3745-17-11 and Rules 3745-75-01 through 
3745-75-06 apply Statewide. Rule 3745-17-12 applies only to selected 
sources in Cuyahoga County. Rule 3745-17-13 applies only to selected 
sources in Jefferson County. Rule 3745-17-14 applies only to identified 
sources in Cuyahoga and Jefferson Counties.
    A second group of elements of Ohio's submittal is the documentation 
of the State's demonstration that the regulations provide for 
attainment in Cuyahoga County and in the Steubenville area, including a 
comprehensive emissions inventory and documentation of a dispersion 
modeling analysis. A third group of elements in Ohio's submittal is 
administrative and regulatory material, principally to demonstrate the 
adequacy of the State's rule adoption process.

III. Summary of Review in Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

    The notice of proposed rulemaking provided a regulation-by-
regulation review of the State's submittal. Since the public comments 
did not question the review of most of these regulations, this review 
is not repeated here. The test method for measuring solids in quench 
water, given in Rule 3745-17-03(B)(10)(c), was found not approvable 
because the provision for monthly averaging provides insufficient 
limitation on 24 hour average emissions levels and allows noncompliance 
with the limit for a majority of the time. The quench water limit in 
Rule 3745-17-12(P)(6)(a) was found not approvable simply because it is 
inseparable from the unapprovable test method in Rule 3745-17-
03(B)(10)(c). Otherwise, the conclusion of this review was that all 
regulations are approvable.
    The stack opacity provisions of Rule 3745-17-07(A) contain several 
provisions allowing sources to claim exemptions from the applicable 
opacity limitation due to factors such as malfunction, startups, 
shutdowns, soot blowing, and ash pulling. Generally, under the CAA and 
U.S. EPA policy, sources are required to meet, without interruption, 
all applicable emission limitations and other control requirements. For 
an exemption from such requirement of continuous compliance to be 
justified, the source must prove that an exemption applies and that the 
violation could not have been prevented.
    In accordance with these principles, USEPA has conducted a further 
evaluation of various aspects of the stack opacity provisions of Rule 
3745-17-07(A). This rule provides that stacks must generally exhibit 20 
percent opacity or less, except for one 6-minute period of up to 60 
percent opacity. Exempted from these limitations are restricted 
conditions of malfunctions, startups, shutdowns, soot blowing, and ash 
pulling. The rule authorizing the exemptions is approvable so long as 
it is interpreted and applied consistently with the requirements of the 
CAA and U.S. EPA policy regarding such exemptions.
    In the case of malfunctions, the exemption is not available unless 
the malfunction was unavoidable and unless the source has notified the 
State of the claimed malfunction, demonstrated that it performed proper 
operation and maintenance, and met various other conditions. USEPA 
policy requires such regulations to place the burden of proof on the 
source to demonstrate that the conditions for applicability of the 
malfunction exemption are met, including: that the claimed malfunction 
was caused by circumstances entirely beyond the control of the source; 
could not have been prevented through installation of proper control 
equipment, or through proper operation and maintenance procedures; and 
that any activity which is or should be planned, or can be foreseen and 
avoided, is not properly excused as a malfunction. USEPA interprets 
Ohio's regulation to place this burden of proof appropriately on the 
source. In accordance with USEPA policy, USEPA interprets Ohio's 
regulation to provide that the enforcement authority (Ohio EPA, USEPA, 
or both) must then evaluate whether the exemption has in fact been 
demonstrated to apply.
    Similarly, in the case of startups and shutdowns, an exemption from 
the general opacity limit is available only until flue gas temperature 
reaches 250  deg.F or for a 3-hour period, depending on the control 
equipment in place. In cases where a source claims high opacity values 
are to be exempted, USEPA interprets Ohio's rule to place the burden on 
the source to document, based on temperature or operation records as 
appropriate, that the exemption applies. USEPA also interprets the 
exemption for soot blowing and ash handling to apply only if the source 
can provide documentary evidence to demonstrate to the satisfaction of 
the enforcement agency (Ohio EPA, USEPA, or both) that the exemption 
criteria are satisfied.
    USEPA is approving the rule containing above types of exemptions 
based specifically on these interpretations of Ohio's rules, and with 
the understanding that the exemptions are to be strictly interpreted, 
as well as applied in a method that is consistent with the prohibition 
of relaxation of existing control requirements in section 193 of the 
CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7515. For further guidance on interpretation of 
exemptions see 42 FR 21472 (April 27, 1977).
    Additionally, with regard to the above exemptions, U.S. EPA will 
treat the submission of any incomplete or erroneous information by a 
source as a violation of this regulation, and will not allow an 
exemption supported by such information. U.S. EPA's action does not 
constitute advance approval of any exemptions which may be claimed or 
issued under Ohio's regulations. Thus, U.S. EPA may take independent 
enforcement action to the extent allowed by sections 113 and any other 
applicable provisions of the CAA, notwithstanding the issuance of an 
exemption by the State.
    The fourth section of the notice of proposed rulemaking provided a 
review of whether the submittal satisfied the requirements of section 
189. These requirements apply to plans for particulate matter 
nonattainment areas, which in Ohio include Cuyahoga County and a 
portion of Jefferson County in and near Steubenville. Section 
189(a)(1)(A) requires a suitable new source review program, and is 
being addressed in a separate rulemaking. Section 189(a)(1)(B) requires 
a demonstration that the plan will provide for attainment no later than 
December 31, 1994, or, alternatively, a demonstration that attainment 
by this date is impracticable. Section 189(a)(1)(C) requires the 
implementation of RACM by December 10, 1993. Finally, Section 189(e) 
provides that ``control requirements * * * for major stationary sources 
of PM-10 shall 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 
standard in the area.''
    The notice of proposed rulemaking provided a lengthy review of the 
attainment demonstrations for Cuyahoga County and the Steubenville 
areas. This discussion included a detailed description of the limits 
and means of estimating corresponding allowable emissions from stack 
sources, process fugitive sources, and open dust sources, as well as 
the modeling procedures used to evaluate the air quality impacts of 
these emissions. Although the State used appropriate estimates of 
emissions allowed under applicable limitations for most sources, the 
emissions estimates for a few sources in the Steubenville area were 
found to significantly underestimate the emissions permitted by the 
applicable regulations. The notice discussed emissions from Wheeling-
Pittsburgh Steel's basic oxygen furnace (BOF) in particular detail, as 
well as discussing coke oven emissions and condensible particulate 
matter. Most aspects of the dispersion modeling analysis were found 
acceptable. However, the notice referenced various deficiencies in both 
the emissions inventory and modeling analysis identified in the 
technical support documents for this rulemaking, including improper 
selection of an allowable emissions rate for certain boilers, use of 
urban dispersion coefficients in modeling area sources, and inadequate 
consideration of complex terrain. Based on a further modeling analysis, 
USEPA proposed to find that the Cuyahoga County plan assures 
attainment, provided the State makes its quench water limit fully 
enforceable, but that the Steubenville area plan does not assure 
attainment.
    The next element of the notice of proposed rulemaking concerned the 
requirement for RACM. In accordance with the ``General Preamble,'' 
published April 16, 1992, at 57 FR 13498, USEPA believes this 
requirement can be satisfied without full implementation of all 
potentially reasonably available control measures, provided attainment 
is assured by the RACM deadline of December 10, 1993, and provided 
attainment could not be expedited by more rapid implementation of 
measures. (See 57 FR 13543.) For most of Cuyahoga County, these 
provisos were found met, and the RACM requirement accordingly 
satisfied. However, for Ford Motor Company's Cleveland Casting Plant, 
certain measures necessary for attainment were not required to be 
implemented until the end of 1994, nor did the State demonstrate that 
measures required by December 1993 represent the full set of reasonably 
available control measures. On the other hand, USEPA concluded that the 
Steubenville area plan did require the full set of reasonably available 
control measures by December 1993.
    The final element of the discussion of Section 189 requirements 
concerned provisions in Section 189(e) relating to particulate matter 
precursors. The conclusion of this discussion was that such precursors 
do not contribute significantly to particulate matter concentrations 
which exceed the standard in either area.
    A fifth section of the notice of proposed rulemaking evaluated 
whether Ohio's submittals satisfied other Clean Air Act requirements. 
The principal relevant requirements beyond those of Section 189 are 
found in section 172(c). The following table summarizes the 
requirements in each paragraph under section 172(c) and the conclusion 
in the notice of proposed rulemaking as to whether each requirement is 
satisfied in each of the two nonattainment areas: 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
     Section                  Requirement                                Conclusion of review                   
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
172(c)(1)         RACM..............................  Satisfied in Jefferson but not in Cuyahoga.               
172(c)(2)         RFP...............................  Satisfied in Cuyahoga\2\ but not in Jefferson.            
172(c)(3)         Suitable inventory................  Satisfied in Cuyahoga\2\ but not in Jefferson.            
172(c)(4)         Growth margin.....................  Satisfied in both areas.                                  
172(c)(5)         Suitable permit program...........  Not addressed in this rulemaking.                         
172(c)(6)         Enforceability....................  See text.                                                 
172(c)(7)         Proper adoption...................  Satisfied in both areas.                                  
172(c)(8)         Equivalent procedures.............  Not applicable to either area.                            
172(c)(9)         Contingency plans.................  Not addressed in this rulemaking.                         
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\The proposed approval with respect to these paragraphs was contingent on suitable revision of the test method
  for the coke quenching limit.                                                                                 

    Section 172(c)(6), which requires that limitations sufficient to 
provide for attainment be enforceable by the State and USEPA, was found 
to be satisfied with respect to all but two paragraphs (relating to 
quench water quality) for Cuyahoga County2 and was found not to be 
satisfied for the Steubenville area.
    The final element in the notice of proposed rulemaking was a 
delineation of the proposed rulemaking action. The action proposed was 
limited approval. Specifically, USEPA proposed to approve all of the 
regulations except for the two paragraphs noted above relating to 
quench water quality, i.e. paragraph (B)(10)(c) of Rule 3745-17-03 and 
paragraph (P)(6)(a) of Rule 3745-17-12. At the same time, USEPA 
proposed to approve these paragraphs if the test method is revised to 
provide either a single day limit or weekly averaging of 5 days' 
samples.
    USEPA also proposed to find that the State's submittals satisfy 
several Part D requirements. Most notably, USEPA proposed to find that 
the Cuyahoga County plan satisfied the requirement to assure 
attainment, provided that the limitation on coke quench water quality 
is made properly enforceable, and proposed to find that the 
Steubenville area plan satisfied the requirement for timely RACM. 
However, USEPA proposed to find that certain requirements of Part D 
were not satisfied for these two areas. Most notably, USEPA proposed to 
find that the Cuyahoga County plan did not satisfy the requirement for 
timely RACM, and proposed to find that the Steubenville area plan did 
not satisfy the requirement for assuring attainment. The notice of 
proposed rulemaking indicated that the RACM requirement would be 
satisfied in Cuyahoga County if attainment were assured by December 
1993, which would be the case if the measures currently required at 
Ford by December 1994 were to be required by December 1993 and the 
quench test method were revised. Finally, USEPA proposed to determine 
that sources of particulate matter precursors do not presently 
contribute significantly to violations of the particulate matter 
standard in Ohio.

IV. Summary and Review of Comments

    Six letters were submitted commenting on this proposal, including 
letters from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (OEPA), Wheeling-
Pittsburgh Steel Company, Centerior Energy Corporation, the law firm 
Fuller & Henry (representing a group of Ohio utilities), the law firm 
Porter, Wright, Morris & Arthur (representing Ford Motor Corporation), 
and the law firm Squires, Sanders & Dempsey (representing several steel 
companies). The following is a summary of each comment and USEPA's 
review of the comment:
    Comment: Several commenters requested that USEPA defer rulemaking 
on Ohio's submittal. These commenters noted that the rules are under 
appeal to the State's Environmental Board of Review and that several 
revisions to these rules are anticipated within the next few months. 
These commenters requested that USEPA wait for these anticipated rule 
revisions before proceeding with rulemaking.
    One commenter provided a more detailed rationale for USEPA to defer 
rulemaking. First, given the commenter's presumption that the Ohio 
rules will be changed in the near future, USEPA approval of the current 
rules would soon result in a situation in which companies confront 
State rules that differ from USEPA-approved rules. Second, the 
commenter states that USEPA cannot enforce a State rule which a State 
court has declared void ab initio. The commenter urges that USEPA defer 
rulemaking to avoid this confusion as to enforceable requirements.
    Response: Section 110(k)(2) requires action on SIP submittals 
within 12 months of the date USEPA finds the submittal complete. Since 
USEPA found this submittal complete on January 28, 1992, USEPA is long 
overdue for completing action on the State's submittal, and no further 
delay is justified.
    USEPA cannot defer rulemaking on rules submitted by the State 
simply because the State may subsequently revise those rules. 
Differences between State enforceable rules and federally enforceable 
rules also arise whenever USEPA disapproves a State rule. In neither 
case does the potential for such differences constitute basis for USEPA 
action (or inaction), and in both cases the set of rules approved by 
USEPA are fully federally enforceable. Regardless of the merits of the 
commenter's statements for cases in which a State court has declared 
rules void, in this case no State court has declared judgment on these 
rules and no evidence was provided that the rules do not remain in 
effect at the State level. USEPA is acting on the rules as Ohio has 
submitted them for approval.
    If the State does adopt and submit the anticipated rule revisions, 
USEPA intends to rulemake promptly on such submittal. Some of the 
anticipated revisions are discussed below in the context of other 
comments. To the extent that these revisions simply revisit issues 
already discussed in the notice of proposed rulemaking and do not raise 
new issues, USEPA can publish notice of final action on such revisions 
without another notice of proposed rulemaking.
    Comment: Several commenters found the visible emissions limitation 
on storage piles to be unreasonably strict. This limitation, in Rule 
3745-17-07(B)(6), permits no visible emissions from storage piles 
except for 13 minutes per hour. These commenters noted the likelihood 
that continuous equipment operation would lead to continuous visible 
emissions, and so the limit ``is impossible to achieve.'' One commenter 
presented a survey of visible emissions readings at storage piles in 
which 21 of the 22 hours of readings exceeded the limit. This commenter 
also noted that every part of the Ohio EPA data set used to support its 
rule development that was taken of vehicular traffic at a coal pile 
showed greater than 13 minutes per hour of visible emissions. This 
commenter was further concerned that Ohio apparently intended to apply 
the above limitation to load-in operations, which the commenter 
believes should be given a separate opacity limit. Another commenter 
also stated that it had taken readings which ``indicated that, with 
RACM in place (emphasis in original), the operations on [an observed 
storage pile] could not comply'' with the limit.
    A related concern regards the method used to evaluate visible 
emissions from storage piles. One commenter objected that the question 
of whether Method 22 readings should be taken at a fixed point or a 
moving point depending on the movement of a bulldozer is not addressed 
in any formal guidance and is based on ```guidance' consist[ing] 
primarily of a memo written by John Summerhays'' of USEPA Region V. The 
commenter notes further that the ``Summerhays memo'' is inconsistent, 
insofar as it recommends that visible emissions for roadways be read at 
a fixed point but for storage pile be read at a variable location 
reflecting source relocation. Furthermore, the commenter believes that 
most of the material that becomes airborne near a bulldozer promptly 
redeposits and should not be counted as visible emissions. For these 
reasons, the commenter believes that the method is impracticable and 
unclear and should not be approved. In addition, several other 
commenters indicated that Ohio's visible emissions limitation, as 
evaluated by this method, cannot reasonably be achieved.
    Response: The commenters have provided evidence suggesting that 
Ohio's limit is difficult to meet. Nevertheless, USEPA believes that 
this limitation is achievable. Ohio submittal included a study 
involving opacity readings at numerous storage piles which was used to 
develop these limits. Although the commenters have provided 
supplemental data and reviewed the subset of data from Ohio's study 
that was obtained at coal piles, the commenters have not provided a 
rationale for concluding that coal piles are different from other types 
of storage piles or that the limits which Ohio's study shows to be 
reasonable for storage piles in general are not reasonable for coal 
piles in particular. For example, the commenters have not shown either 
that coal piles are more continuously worked or that coal pile 
operations are more prone to cause emissions than other storage piles. 
One commenter's own data set includes results implying that adequate 
moisture leads to compliance, and it is possible to achieve compliance 
by restricting operations. The commenters did not provide any detailed 
information on the control measures in place at the time of the 
readings, and thus have not demonstrated that a greater level of 
control could not achieve the limit. The commenters have also not 
addressed typical durations of truck or stacker loading or demonstrated 
that such loading cannot be restricted in duration or conducted with 
curtains or other controls to achieve compliance with the State's 
limit. Notwithstanding the commenters concerns, in accordance with 
Section 116, USEPA cannot disapprove an enforceable, achievable State 
submittal because it is too stringent.
    The commenters have correctly noted that USEPA interprets Method 22 
to provide for evaluating whether visible emissions are occurring 
anywhere at a storage pile. The alternative is to conduct this 
evaluation only at a fixed point. This alternative would provide 
meaningless results, since visible emissions would likely only be 
identified for those moments when an emissions generating event (e.g. 
bulldozing) happened to occur at the fixed location. Although the 
commenter is correct that Method 22 is not explicit on this issue, 
USEPA's interpretation is longstanding and is analogous to USEPA's 
longstanding interpretation that Method 9 opacity readings are also to 
be taken at the densest part of a plume at the time of each reading. 
Clearly the interpretation of test methods affects the stringency of 
the limitation, but this does not constitute grounds for disapproving 
the State's submittal, nor does it constitute grounds for altering 
USEPA's interpretation of the test method.
    USEPA recognizes that the State is discussing potential rule 
revisions with the companies that appealed its rules. However, no 
specific revisions have been identified or proposed. If and when the 
State adopts and submits an alternative limitation (e.g., an 
appropriate opacity limitation), USEPA will conduct prompt rulemaking 
on such a revision.
    Comment: Several commenters objected to the limits on the number of 
minutes of visible emissions from roadways and labeled these limits 
unreasonable. One commenter notes that ``Method 22 would allow 
observations to be made at the rear wheels while following vehicles 
down the road. As the Utilities continuously have hauling trucks 
entering and exiting the premises, this standard is very difficult, if 
not impossible, to meet.''
    Response: Part of Ohio's submittal is a summary of a study 
demonstrating that the limits it adopted can be achieved. As with the 
storage pile limit, discussed above, USEPA believes that this limit is 
achievable. Also as with the storage pile limit, USEPA cannot 
disapprove a State submittal simply because commenters consider the 
limit too stringent. Again, if and when the State adopts and submits a 
replacement limitation (e.g. an appropriate opacity limit), USEPA will 
conduct prompt rulemaking on such replacement limitation.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern about the 20 percent 
opacity/3-minute average limit as applied to ash handling. The 
commenter concedes that emissions are generally low when ash is 
pneumatically conveyed, but recommended 6 minute averaging to permit 
reasonable time to clean up spills. For loading of ash into dump 
trucks, the commenter noted limits on the extent to which the ash could 
be watered, summarized a series of opacity readings showing about half 
of the 3-minute averages exceeding 20 percent, and recommended a 35 
percent opacity limit.
    Response: For pneumatic loading, the commenter has conceded that 
the limit is generally achievable, and even with respect to spill 
conditions has not demonstrated that reasonable measures will not yield 
compliance with the 20 percent/3-minute average limit. For dump truck 
loading, the commenter has not indicated what control measures were 
undertaken during the ash loading events that did and did not comply 
with the 20 percent limit or what differences might explain why 
compliance occurs in some cases and not in others. Therefore, the 
commenter's information does not demonstrate the limits to be 
infeasible and, in fact, suggests that reasonable measures yield 
compliance.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the limitations 
imposed for open dust sources in Cuyahoga County should not be 
considered to represent best available technology.
    Response: ``Best available technology'' is a requirement for new 
sources, which are not addressed in this rulemaking. Therefore, this 
comment is not germane to this rulemaking.
    Comment: One commenter disagrees with USEPA's proposed finding that 
Ohio's rules do not require timely implementation of RACM at Ford Motor 
Company's Cleveland Casting Plant. The comments focus on the cupolas, 
stating that control options previously under consideration are beyond 
what controls should be considered reasonably available. Nevertheless, 
the commenter states that ``Ford has already submitted to Ohio EPA an 
alternative control strategy that would provide for all reductions 
necessary for attainment to occur by December 10, 1993.''
    Response: Although the commenter believes that further control of 
the cupolas are not reasonably available, the commenter has not 
provided any detailed information to support its view. Also, the 
commenter does not address other emission points identified as not 
demonstrated to have RACM by December 10, 1993. No revised rules have 
been submitted, and so USEPA must conclude that the submitted rules do 
not satisfy the requirement in section 189(a)(1)(C) for RACM in 
Cuyahoga County.
    The notice of proposed rulemaking notes that one alternative for 
satisfying section 189(a)(1)(C) would be to advance the post-1993 
control requirements so as to assure attainment by December 1993. Ford 
has apparently recommended State rule revisions which would satisfy the 
RACM requirement in this manner. If Ohio adopts and submits rule 
revisions which require that all measures necessary for attainment be 
implemented by December 1993, and no substantive new issues are raised 
by the submittal, USEPA would be able to publish final rulemaking 
approving such a revision and concluding that the RACM requirement is 
satisfied.
    Comment: A commenter notes that Ford has challenged various 
provisions of the State rules, including the open dust limits, the 
reduced exemptions from the general stack opacity limit for startup and 
shutdown, the procedure for establishing equivalent visible emission 
limits, and the provision that contingency measures could be triggered 
based on air quality data collected before all SIP control measures are 
implemented.
    Response: The commenter has not provided a basis for USEPA to 
disapprove these provisions which were proposed for approval. If the 
State adopts and submits revisions to these aspects of its plan, USEPA 
will conduct prompt rulemaking on the submittal. It should be noted 
that Ford's revised compliance schedule will provide that all measures 
shown necessary for attainment will be implemented prior to the first 
year of monitoring data (i.e. 1994) which under Section 188(d) is to be 
used to judge attainment.
    Comment: Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel provides extensive discussion of 
a modeling reanalysis it plans to conduct both to reassess emissions 
from its facility and to reassess the impact of these emissions.
    Response: These comments do not provide any modeling results or 
other information to indicate that the current rules provide for 
attainment. These comments also propose several modeling techniques 
which differ from standard practice (e.g., the use of plume rise for 
the basic oxygen furnace (BOF) based on the Buoyant Line Plume Model) 
that have not been justified. In the absence of detailed documentation 
of a modeling analysis properly demonstrating that attainment is 
assured, USEPA must continue to conclude that the requirement in 
Section 189(a)(1)(B) for assuring attainment has not been satisfied.
    Comment: A commenter identifies several reasons to believe that the 
BOF at Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel does not have a high fugitive emission 
rate. First, no exceedances have been monitored since 1989. Second, 
these emissions have been in compliance with the 20 percent/3-minute 
average opacity limit. Third, evidence included in the State's SIP 
submittal indicates that modeling more closely reproduces monitored 
concentrations if a relatively modest emission rate is assumed. This 
commenter expresses concern that this portion of the SIP submittal may 
have been overlooked.
    Response: Each of the commenter's reasons for expecting low BOF 
fugitive emissions may be addressed individually. First, the commenter 
is correct that no exceedances have been observed after 1989. However, 
monitoring data provide only a limited indication of fugitive emissions 
from the BOF, since monitoring data reflect the impact of multiple 
sources and reflect actual emissions rather than allowable emissions. 
More generally, in order to assure attainment, the State's plan must 
establish limits such that attainment would occur even if all sources 
were emitting at full allowable emissions. (See Guidelines on Air 
Quality Models.) Thus, the absence of monitored exceedances does not 
indicate that emissions at the BOF or at other nearby sources are 
sufficiently limited to assure attainment.
    Second, the commenter notes that the BOF is in compliance with the 
applicable opacity limit. However, this comment does not address the 
key question here, namely the quantity of emissions that the applicable 
opacity limit permits from this source.
    Third, the commenter notes that a modeling-monitoring comparison 
suggests relatively low BOF emissions. This comparison is described 
most fully in Appendix H to a document presenting the control program 
suggested by Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel Corporation, a document which is 
included as section (d) of Appendix I of the State's submittal. USEPA's 
technical support document for this final rulemaking provides a more 
detailed review of this comparison. USEPA finds the comparison 
unreliable, because the analysis found concentrations that did not 
change in accordance with changes in emissions, because differences 
among current allowable emissions and actual emissions at various times 
were not accounted for, and because spatial prediction errors 
(particularly in complex terrain) and other factors introduce 
substantial uncertainties into this type of comparison. Consequently, 
the comparison between modeled and monitored concentrations does not 
justify the low emission rate recommended by the company.
    Contrary to the commenter's concern, the proposed rulemaking does 
reflect a review of the full document prepared by a Wheeling-Pittsburgh 
Steel contractor and submitted by the State. The principal argument in 
this document relates to the quantity of solids collected in the 
pollution control equipment, and is addressed at column 1 of 58 FR 
41223 of the notice of proposed rulemaking. It should be noted that no 
specific basis for estimating 99.5 percent capture has been provided, 
and this estimate yields an emission rate substantially lower than a 
``BOF monitor'' emission factor also provided in AP-42. Appendix H also 
provides visible emissions data showing opacity values slightly above 
allowable levels, but concedes that these data do not support any 
particular emission rate.
    In summary, the notice of proposed rulemaking reflected 
consideration of the evidence contained in the State's submittal, 
concluded that allowable emissions at the BOF are substantially greater 
than those assumed in the attainment demonstration, and concluded that 
the State's analysis did not adequately demonstrate attainment. The 
commenters have not provided adequate basis to alter this finding.
    Comment: A commenter believes that the State's submittal adequately 
addresses intermediate terrain. The commenter states that ``at the time 
of our analysis (January through September 1991), no EPA approved model 
existed for intermediate terrain processing. We used software developed 
for PSD applications in complex terrain in West Virginia and 
Pennsylvania and approved by EPA Region III.''
    Response: USEPA guidance now and at the time of SIP development 
(1991) requires the use of both a simple terrain model and a complex 
terrain model at all intermediate terrain receptors. The higher 
estimated concentration on an hour by hour basis is used to judge 
attainment. (See Guidelines on Air Quality Models and a memorandum on 
the subject dated June 8, 1989, to Alan Cimorelli from Joseph Tikvart, 
chief of USEPA's Source Receptor Analysis Branch.) The commenter is 
correct that no single model was available at the time of SIP 
development (1991) to perform the full analysis. Nevertheless, 
procedures were (and are) available to perform such an analysis (or, in 
many cases, to perform briefer analyses demonstrably giving the same 
results), some of which were recommended to Ohio and West Virginia in a 
meeting with USEPA in March 1991. As for PSD applications, USEPA does 
not approve PSD permits in West Virginia or Pennsylvania. Although it 
is conceivable that USEPA may have failed to identify inappropriate 
treatment of intermediate terrain in selected PSD cases, the commenter 
has not shown that a precedent has been knowingly set that would be 
germane to this SIP analysis. Thus, no basis for exempting the State 
from this requirement exists.
    Comment: The State comments that condensible particulate matter 
emissions are negligible in the Steubenville area, but agrees to 
reexamine the issue and to address the issue in further documentation 
to be provided to USEPA.
    Response: The technical support document for the notice of proposed 
rulemaking identified absence of condensible particulate matter in the 
Steubenville emissions inventory as one of the deficiencies in the 
area's attainment demonstration. These emissions may or may not be 
minor, and this deficiency cannot be considered addressed without 
evaluation of available information for the emission points contained 
in the inventory.
    Comment: The State confirms USEPA's understanding that limits in 
Rule 3745-17-08(B) apply to all coke pushing operations and all vented 
material handling operations in the State.
    Response: The notice of proposed rulemaking expressed concern as to 
the enforceability of Rule 3745-17-08(B) for coke pushing and ventable 
materials handling operations. This rule requires implementation of at 
least one of nine reasonably available control measures, and sets a 
limit of 0.030 grains per dry standard cubic foot (or no visible 
emissions) if venting is required. USEPA proposed to interpret this 
rule as applying this limit to coke pushing and ventable material 
handling operations. The State's comment confirms that this 
interpretation is appropriate and consistent with the State's 
interpretation.
    Comment: One commenter noted that USEPA's notice of proposed 
rulemaking incorrectly characterized the limit for the one allowed 
excursion of the general stack opacity limit as being 27 percent.
    Response: The commenter is correct. The Ohio general stack opacity 
rule being approved today allows the one permissible 6-minute average 
excursion of the usual 20 percent opacity limit to have up to 60 
percent opacity.
    Comment: One commenter submitted a lengthy statement of appeal of 
the State rules, thereby submitting a variety of comments. These 
comments are described further in USEPA's technical support document 
for this rulemaking. The comments include expressions of concern about 
BOF opacity limits, procedures used to adopt these State rules, 
accuracy of emissions parameters for LTV, and the need for controls 
given that monitoring shows attainment.
    Response: USEPA's technical support document provides a review of 
each of the submitted comments. In summary, USEPA has substantial 
evidence that the BOF opacity limit is reasonably achievable, USEPA 
remains satisfied with the procedures used to adopt these rules, USEPA 
has no reason to doubt any specific emission parameter (other than the 
allowable emission rate for coke quenching), and monitoring does not 
address whether emissions at full allowable rates would cause 
violations.
    Comment: Ohio EPA indicated plans to modify its rules in several 
ways to address USEPA's concerns. Ohio EPA intends to revise its quench 
water test method to provide for weekly averaging of 5 days' samples. 
Ohio EPA intends to submit a revised attainment demonstration for the 
Steubenville area. Ohio EPA intends to modify its rules to require that 
the entire control plan for Ford's Cleveland Casting Plant be 
implemented by December 10, 1993, thereby providing timely satisfaction 
of the RACM requirement in Section 189(a)(1)(C).
    Response: It appears likely that the anticipated rule revisions 
concerning quench water testing and concerning Ford's compliance 
schedule will satisfactorily address the relevant USEPA concerns. 
However, USEPA cannot base its review on anticipated rule revisions and 
analyses which have not yet been submitted. The comments do not justify 
revised judgment of the November 1991 submittal. However, with respect 
to the Cuyahoga County plan, if Ohio adopts and submits rule revisions 
as indicated in its comments, USEPA expects to be able to publish a 
notice of final approval of this plan, without further proposal.
    With respect to Jefferson County, separate rulemaking is being 
conducted with respect to the plan for the other part of the 
Steubenville area, in Brooke County, West Virginia. A notice of 
proposed rulemaking was published on January 7, 1994, at 59 FR 988. As 
a comment on the January rulemaking on West Virginia's SIP, Wheeling-
Pittsburgh Steel submitted a revised modeling analysis. This material 
does not warrant revising the proposed evaluation of Ohio's submittal 
for several reasons. First, this material was submitted as a comment on 
a separate rulemaking, was not submitted with respect to this 
rulemaking or within the comment period for this rulemaking, and thus 
is not directly relevant to this rulemaking. Second, as discussed in 
more detail in a supplemental USEPA technical support document, a 
review of this material indicates that unjustified nonreference 
modeling and other inappropriate modeling techniques were used. Third, 
these materials do not dispute USEPA's judgment of Ohio's submittal, 
but instead seek to show that an alternate analysis would demonstrate 
the adequacy of the State's plan to assure attainment. Section 
189(a)(1)(B) requires that the State submit a demonstration that its 
plan assures attainment (or that attainment is infeasible). For these 
reasons, Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel's comments do not alter USEPA's view 
that the State has not demonstrated that its plan for the Steubenville 
area assures attainment.

V. Today's Action

    Based on the review underlying the proposed action and a review of 
comments on that proposal, USEPA is today granting limited approval/
limited disapproval of Ohio's particulate matter submittal. 
Specifically, USEPA is today making final the action proposed on August 
3, 1993 (58 FR 41218). Thus, USEPA is approving all regulations in 
Chapter 3745-17 and Chapter 3745-75 except for Rule 3745-17-05 (which 
was not submitted) and except for Rule 3745-17-12(P)(6)(a) and Rule 
3745-17-03(B)(10)(c) (pertaining to quench water quality). USEPA is 
disapproving Rule 3745-17-12(P)(6)(a) and Rule 3745-17-03(B)(10)(c).
    On the other hand, USEPA is today issuing final limited disapproval 
of Ohio's plans for Cuyahoga and Jefferson Counties for failure to 
satisfy certain requirements of Part D. The bases for the disapproval 
of the Cuyahoga County plan are the failure to satisfy the requirement 
for RACM given in sections 189(a)(1)(C) and 172(c)(1) and the failure 
to assure attainment as required in section 189(a)(1)(B) and to satisfy 
the related requirements in sections 172(c)(2), 172(c)(3), and 
172(c)(6). Although the notice of proposed rulemaking did not 
explicitly propose to find failure to assure attainment, the proposal 
made clear that assurance of attainment was contingent on remedying 
deficiencies in the State's quench water test method. Since this method 
was not revised, USEPA now finds that the State has not demonstrated 
that the plan assures attainment. The basis for the disapproval of the 
Jefferson County plan is the failure to satisfy the requirement to 
assure attainment given in sections 189(a)(1)(B) and the related 
requirements in sections 172(c)(2), 172(c)(3), and 172(c)(6), due to 
the use of inappropriate emissions estimates for Wheeling-Pittsburgh 
Steel's basic oxygen furnace, coke ovens, and other emission sources, 
and various modeling issues.
    The notice of proposed rulemaking discusses alternatives by which 
the Cuyahoga County plan could satisfy the requirement for RACM. The 
State has committed in essence to implementing one of these 
alternatives, namely to advance Ford's compliance deadlines, such that 
all measures reflected in the submitted attainment demonstration are 
required by December 1993. The notice of proposed rulemaking also 
specifies remedies for the deficiency in the coke quenching test 
method. Thus, if the State submits rules that have been revised 
accordingly, USEPA can proceed directly to final approval of these 
revisions without further proposal, provided these revisions do not 
raise new issues. Such revisions would address all identified bases for 
disapproving the Cuyahoga County plan, and so such USEPA rulemaking 
could reverse today's limited disapproval of the Cuyahoga County plan 
and find all particulate matter SIP requirements addressed in today's 
rulemaking for this area satisfied.3 Note that revisions to the 
Steubenville area plan would likely raise new issues and thus would 
likely require further proposed rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\Other requirements, notably including the new source review 
program required in section 189(a)(1)(A) and 173 and the contingency 
plan required in section 172(c)(9), are not addressed in today's 
rulemaking.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, USEPA is today making a final determination on particulate 
matter precursors consistent with its proposed determination. 
Specifically, USEPA is today determining that precursors do not 
contribute significantly to violations of the particulate matter 
standards in Ohio. As a result, the otherwise applicable provision of 
Section 189(e) that particulate matter precursor sources must meet the 
same control requirements as primary sources of particulate matter does 
not apply.
    This disapproval constitutes 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, one of two sanctions in Section 179(b) is to take 
effect 18 months from the publication of this final rule unless the 
relevant deficiencies are corrected in the meantime. The second 
sanction in Section 179(b) is to take effect 24 months from the 
publication of this final rule, again unless the relevant deficiencies 
are corrected in the meantime. These two sanctions are (1) A 
requirement for two-to-one new source review offsets for sources in or 
near the Cuyahoga and Jefferson County nonattainment areas and, (2) a 
sanction against highway funding in these two areas. Separate 
rulemaking is being conducted to determine which of these sanctions 
would apply first and to address related questions concerning the 
effectuation of such sanctions. (See the notice of proposed rulemaking 
dated October 1, 1993 (58 FR 51270).) Any sanction USEPA imposes must 
remain in place until USEPA determines that the deficiency has been 
corrected. This disapproval also triggers the requirement for USEPA to 
impose a federal implementation plan under section 110(c)(1) of the Act 
if the deficiencies are not corrected within 2 years.
    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 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 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 USEPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. 
Union Electric Co. v. USEPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2).
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any SIP. Each request for revision to the SIP shall be 
considered separately in light of specific technical, economic, and 
environmental factors and in relation to relevant statutory and 
regulatory requirements.
    This action has been classified as a Table Two action by the 
Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal 
Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), based on revised SIP 
processing review tables approved by the Acting Assistant Administrator 
for Air and Radiation on October 4, 1993 (Michael Shapiro's memorandum 
to Regional Administrators). On January 6, 1989, the Office of 
Management and Budget waived Tables Two and Three SIP revisions (54 FR 
222) from the requirements of section 3 of Executive Order 12291 for a 
period of 2 years. USEPA has submitted a request for a permanent waiver 
for Table 2 and Table 3 SIP revisions. OMB has agreed to continue the 
temporary waiver until such time as it rules on USEPA's request. This 
request continued in effect under Executive Order 12866, which 
superseded Executive Order 12291 on September 30, 1993.
    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by July 26, 1994. Filing a 
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule 
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial 
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial 
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such 
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings 
to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Air Pollution control, Environmental protection, Incorporation by 
Reference, Intergovernmental relations, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and recordkeeping requirements.

    Note.--Incorporation by reference of the State Implementation 
Plan for the State of Ohio was approved by the Director of the 
Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

    Dated: May 13, 1994.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.

    Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, chapter I, part 52, is 
amended as follows:

PART 52--APPROVAL AND PROMULGATION OF IMPLEMENTATION PLANS

    1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

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

    2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding new paragraph (c)(97) to 
read as follows:


Sec. 52.1870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (97) On November 14, 1991, December 4, 1991, and January 8, 1992, 
OEPA submitted revisions to its particulate matter plan, including 
Statewide rule revisions, rule revisions for specific facilities in 
Cuyahoga and Jefferson Counties, and supplemental materials to address 
the requirements of Part D of Title I of the Clean Air Act for the 
Cuyahoga and Jefferson County nonattainment areas. Rules 3745-17-
03(B)(10)(c) and 3745-17-12(P)(6)(a) (concerning quench water limits) 
are not approved.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Rule 3745-17-01--Definitions, effective December 6, 1991.
    (B) Rule 3745-17-02--Ambient air quality standards, effective June 
14, 1991.
    (C) Rule 3745-17-03--Measurement methods and procedures, effective 
December 6, 1991, except for paragraph (B)(10)(c) which is disapproved.
    (D) Rule 3745-17-04--Compliance time schedules, effective December 
6, 1991.
    (E) Rule 3745-17-07--Control of visible particulate emissions from 
stationary sources, effective June 14, 1991.
    (F) Rule 3745-17-08--Restriction of emission of fugitive dust, 
effective June 14, 1991.
    (G) Rule 3745-17-09--Restrictions on particulate emissions and 
odors from incinerators, effective July 9, 1991.
    (H) Rule 3745-17-10--Restrictions on particulate emissions from 
fuel burning equipment, effective June 14, 1991.
    (I) Rule 3745-17-11--Restrictions on particulate emissions from 
industrial processes, effective June 14, 1991.
    (J) Rule 3745-17-12--Additional restrictions on particulate 
emissions from specific air contaminant sources in Cuyahoga County, 
effective December 6, 1991, except for paragraph (P)(6)(a) which is 
disapproved.
    (K) Rule 3745-17-13--Additional restrictions on particulate 
emissions from specific air contaminant sources in Jefferson County, 
effective December 6, 1991.
    (L) Rule 3745-17-14--Contingency plan requirements for Cuyahoga and 
Jefferson Counties, effective December 6, 1991.
    (M) Rule 3745-75-01--Applicability and definitions, effective July 
9, 1991.
    (N) Rule 3745-75-02--Emission limits, effective July 9, 1991.
    (O) Rule 3745-75-03--Design parameters and operating restrictions, 
effective July 9, 1991.
    (P) Rule 3745-75-04--Monitoring requirements, effective July 9, 
1991.
    (Q) Rule 3745-75-05--Recordkeeping, effective July 9, 1991.
    (R) Rule 3745-75-06--Certification and compliance time schedules, 
effective July 9, 1991.
    (ii) Additional information.
    (A) Appendices A through P to a letter from Donald Schregardus to 
Valdas Adamkus dated November 14, 1991, providing emissions inventories 
and modeling demonstrations of attainment for the Cleveland and 
Steubenville areas and providing other related information.
    (B) A letter from Donald Schregardus to Valdas Adamkus dated 
December 4, 1991, and attachments, supplementing the November 14, 1991, 
submittal.
    (C) A letter from Donald Schregardus to Valdas Adamkus dated 
January 8, 1992, and attachments, supplementing the November 14, 1991, 
submittal.
* * * * *
    3. Section 52.1880 is amended by revising paragraph (d) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.1880  Control strategy: particulate matter.

* * * * *
    (d) Part D--Limited Disapproval--Notwithstanding the approval of 
rules as specified in Sec. 52.1870(c)(97), USEPA disapproves the plan 
for Cuyahoga County because the plan fails to require timely 
implementation of reasonably available control measures and fails to 
assure attainment, and USEPA disapproves the plan for Jefferson County 
because the plan fails to assure attainment.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 94-12919 Filed 5-26-94; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P