[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 24 (Monday, February 5, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 4246-4248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-2250]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[WV035-6001; FRL-5416-5]


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

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

ACTION: Proposed rule.

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

SUMMARY: On November 22, 1995, the State of West Virginia submitted to 
EPA a revised attainment demonstration for the Follansbee, West 
Virginia nonattainment area for particulate matter with an aerodynamic 
diameter less than or equal to 10 micrometers (PM-10). West Virginia 
submitted these revisions to address deficiencies identified by EPA in 
a final limited disapproval of the particulate matter plans published 
in the Federal Register on July 25, 1994 (59 FR 37696). Today, EPA is 
proposing to approve West Virginia's demonstration. By separate notice 
today, EPA is making an interim final determination that the revised 
demonstration remedies the deficiencies identified in the rulemaking of 
July 25, 1994. As a result, the sanctions which could have resulted 
from the July 1994 rulemaking shall not apply.

DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received by March 6, 
1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Marcia L. Spink, Associate 
Director, Air 

[[Page 4247]]
Programs, Mailcode 3AT00, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
III, 841 Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107. Copies of 
the documents relevant to this action are available for public 
inspection during normal business hours at the Air, Radiation, and 
Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III, 841 
Chestnut Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania and the West Virginia 
Department of Environmental Protection, Office of Air Quality, 1558 
Washington Street, East, Charleston, West Virginia.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas A. Casey, (215) 597-2746, at 
the EPA Region III address above (Mailcode 3AT22) or via e-mail at 
[email protected].
    While information may be requested via e-mail, comments must be 
submitted in writing to the EPA Region III address above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Requirements for PM-10 Nonattainment Areas

    The air quality planning requirements for moderate PM-10 
nonattainment areas are set out in subparts 1 and 4 of Title I of the 
Clean Air Act (Act). EPA has issued a ``General Preamble'' describing 
EPA's preliminary views on how EPA intends to review SIP's and SIP 
revisions submitted under Title I of the Act, including those State 
submittals containing moderate PM-10 nonattainment area SIP 
requirements (see generally 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992) and 57 FR 
18070 (April 28, 1992)).
    Upon enactment of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, all Group I 
areas (and Group II areas that had monitored violations before January 
1, 1989) were designated nonattainment by operation of law. A list of 
these initial nonattainment areas, including the Follansbee area in 
Brooke County, West Virginia and the adjacent Steubenville area in 
neighboring Jefferson County, Ohio, was published on March 15, 1991 (56 
FR 11101) with corrections on May 20, 1991 (56 FR 23105).1

    \1\  The Follansbee, West Virginia nonattainment area was 
defined in this notice as the area bounded on the north by the 
Market Street Bridge, on the east by West Virginia Route 2, on the 
south by the extension of the southern boundary of Steubenville 
Township, Jefferson County, Ohio, and on the West by the Ohio/West 
Virginia border.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Those States containing initial moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas 
were required to submit to EPA, among other things, the following by 
November 15, 1991:
    1. Provisions to assure that reasonably available control measures 
(RACM) (including such reductions in emissions from existing sources in 
the area as may be obtained through the adoption, at a minimum, of 
reasonably available control technology--RACT) shall be implemented no 
later than December 10, 1993;
    2. Either a demonstration (including air quality modeling) that the 
plan will provide for attainment as expeditiously as practicable but no 
later than December 31, 1994 or a demonstration that attainment by that 
date is impracticable;
    3. Quantitative milestones which are to be achieved every 3 years 
and which demonstrate reasonable further progress (RFP) toward 
attainment by December 31, 1994; and
    4. Provisions to assure that the control requirements applicable to 
major stationary sources of PM-10 also apply to major stationary 
sources of PM-10 precursors except where the Administrator determines 
that such sources do not contribute significantly to PM-10 levels which 
exceed the national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) in the area. 
See sections 172(c), 188, and 189 of the Act.
    Some provisions were due at later dates. States with initial 
moderate PM-10 nonattainment areas were required to submit permit 
programs for the construction and operation of new and modified major 
stationary sources of PM-10 by June 30, 1992 (see section 189(a)). Such 
States also must submit contingency measures by November 15, 1993 which 
become effective without further action by the State or EPA, upon a 
determination by EPA that the area has failed to achieve RFP or to 
attain the PM-10 NAAQS by the applicable statutory deadline. See 
section 172(c)(9) and 57 FR 13543-44.

West Virginia's 1991 Submittal

    Pursuant to these requirements, West Virginia submitted a SIP 
revision request for the Follansbee area on November 15, 1991. The 
submittal contained bilateral consent orders between the State of West 
Virginia and six companies requiring reductions in PM-10 emissions from 
six sources in the Follansbee area; an air quality modeling analysis 
intended to demonstrate that West Virginia's SIP, once revised to 
include the consent orders, would be sufficient to attain the PM-10 
NAAQS in the Follansbee area; and other supporting information, such as 
RACT analyses and an analysis of PM-10 precursors.
    On July 25, 1994, EPA took final limited approval and limited 
disapproval actions on West Virginia's 1991 submittal (59 FR 37696). 
EPA approved the six consent orders for incorporation into the SIP and 
determined, among other things, that the revised SIP provided for RACM. 
EPA disapproved certain elements of the attainment demonstration 
because of technical inadequacies. Specifically, there were errors in 
estimates of emissions from coke oven batteries; there was no analysis 
of intermediate terrain (terrain between stack height and plume 
height); and the demonstration included non-guideline use of the 
Gaussian-Plume Multiple Source Air Quality Algorithm (RAM) dispersion 
model in a meteorologically rural area. The notice of proposed 
rulemaking (59 FR 988) and Technical Support Document to that 
rulemaking provides detailed descriptions of these deficiencies and 
documents other deficiencies that are more directly related to sources 
in Ohio, such as the underestimation of emissions from basic oxygen 
furnaces.
    EPA took no action on the contingency measures contained in the 
1991 SIP submittal with respect to the requirements of 179(c)(9) of the 
Act. The General Preamble to Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990 established a November 15, 1993 deadline for State submittal of 
contingency plans. EPA will take action on the contingency measures in 
a separate rulemaking.

West Virginia's 1995 Submittal

    On November 22, 1995, West Virginia submitted to EPA additions to 
its 1991 attainment demonstration and emissions inventory for the 
Follansbee area. While the revised demonstration and inventory rest 
largely on the same data as the 1991 submittal, several changes were 
made. Specifically, coke oven battery emission estimates were 
corrected; the entire emissions inventory was remodeled using EPA's 
newly available ISC3 (Industrial Source Complex) model (incorporating 
an intermediate terrain analysis and a revised area source algorithm); 
the meteorological data were reprocessed using the Meteorological 
Processor for Regulatory Models (MPRM); the coordinates of several 
sources, which were in error in the original submittal, were corrected; 
and certain annual emission rate estimates were refined.
    The result of the revised modeling is that West Virginia's SIP (as 
revised in 1991), along with Ohio's SIP, is sufficient to attain the 
NAAQS. The analysis shows that, even if all sources emit at their 
maximum allowable emission rates, the 24-hour PM-10 

[[Page 4248]]
concentration will not exceed 150 g/m\3\ more than once per 
year in any location in the area. Similarly, the demonstration shows 
that, in the attainment year, the annual PM-10 concentration will not 
exceed the annual PM-10 NAAQS of 50 g/m\3\. The analysis is 
also sufficient to demonstrate that the PM-10 NAAQS will be maintained 
in future years because the population the area not increasing. The 
analysis was performed in a manner that is consistent with the 
Guideline on Air Quality Models (40 CFR 51 Appendix W). For more 
details regarding the attainment demonstration, see the Technical 
Support Document.
    These revisions correct the deficiencies that resulted in EPA's 
limited disapproval of the attainment demonstration and emissions 
inventory.

II. Today's Proposal

    Today, EPA is proposing to approve West Virginia's November 22, 
1995 additions to its attainment demonstration and to approve the 
demonstration as meeting the requirements of section 189(a)(1)(B) for 
an attainment demonstration and the 172(c)(3) requirement for an 
accurate emissions inventory. By separate notice today, EPA is making 
an interim final determination that the revised demonstration remedies 
the deficiencies identified in the rulemaking of July 25, 1994. As a 
result, the sanctions which could have resulted from the July 1994 
rulemaking shall not apply.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting or 
allowing or establishing a precedent for any future request for 
revision to any state implementation plan. Each request for revision to 
the state implementation plan shall be considered separately in light 
of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in 
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
    SIP approvals under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the 
Clean Air 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, the 
Administrator certifies that it does not have a significant impact on 
any small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the 
Federal-State relationship under the CAA, preparation of a flexibility 
analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic 
reasonableness of state action. The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base 
its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. 
EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA 
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of 
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604. 
Alternatively, EPA may certify that the rule will not have a 
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small 
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, 
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than 
50,000.
    Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA 
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action proposed/promulgated 
does not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs 
of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments 
in the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action 
approves pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and 
imposes no new Federal requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs 
to State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, 
result from this action.
    This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature 
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the 
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a 
July 10, 1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has 
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
    The Administrator's decision to approve or disapprove West 
Virginia's PM-10 attainment demonstration and emissions inventory for 
the Follansbee area will be based on whether it meets the requirements 
of section 110(a)(2)(A)-(K) and part D of the Clean Air Act, as 
amended, and EPA regulations in 40 CFR Part 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Intergovernmental 
relations, Particulate matter.

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

    Dated: January 25, 1996.

W. Michael McCabe,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 96-2250 Filed 2-2-96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-50-P