[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 197 (Wednesday, October 9, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 52882-52883]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-25940]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[OH101-1a; FRL-5631-3]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is
approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the
State of Ohio on July 18, 1996, which amends the sulfur dioxide
(SO2) regulations applying to Ohio Edison's Sammis and Toronto
Plants in Jefferson County. The revision requested July 18, 1996,
involves reverting to an emission limit option presented in the Federal
Implementation Plan (FIP) for Jefferson County.
DATES: The ``direct final'' approval is effective on December 9, 1996.
If the effective date is delayed, timely notice will be published in
the Federal Register.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the revision request are available for inspection
at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that you telephone Ryan Bahr at
(312) 353-4366 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
Written comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ryan Bahr at (312) 353-4366.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The FIP containing SO2 regulations applying to sources in Ohio
was promulgated on August 27, 1976 (41 FR 36323). The relevant portion
of the current SIP, Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Rule 3745-18-47, was
approved by the USEPA on January 2, 1981 (46 FR 8481). On September 12,
1979, the Governor of Ohio submitted an SO2 control plan to USEPA
for inclusion in the Ohio SIP. In this control plan, the State based
its limits for the Sammis plant on equations specified in the FIP. Thus
the limits applying to the Sammis plant were 1.61 pounds per million
British thermal units actual heat input (#/mmBtu) for boilers 1 through
4 (stacks 1 and 2), and 4.46 #/mmBtu for boilers 5 through 7 (stacks 3
and 4). These limits were submitted to USEPA as part of OAC Rule 3745-
18-47 on February 12, 1980. USEPA approved Rule 3745-18-47 and other
relevant provisions of Chapter 3745-18 in the Federal Register on
January 27, 1981 (45 FR 12266).
II. Summary of State Submittal
Originally, Ohio Edison chose to use two fuel sources with
differing SO2 content at the Sammis facility by using the
equations presented in the FIP to formulate its emission limits. The
company now wishes to make the Sammis facility's operation more
efficient by using a single fuel source and has petitioned the State
for a SIP revision. Ohio's July 18, 1996 submittal to USEPA amends OAC
Rule 3745-18-47 by adding an additional paragraph to section (L)
relating to the Ohio Edison Sammis facility, and adjusting section (M)
for the Toronto facility. The revisions for the Sammis facility provide
a limit of 2.91 #/mmBtu actual heat input from each boiler as an
alternative to the existing boiler specific regulations. Ohio Edison is
keeping both emission limit options for the Sammis facility, and is
required to notify the State ninety days prior to the date of
conversion. The two emission limit options for the Ohio Edison Sammis
plant are the same as those promulgated in the FIP. The provisions in
the State's SIP revision request relating to the Toronto plant consist
of paragraphs (M)(1) and (M)(2). Paragraph (M)(1) limits the Toronto
facility to a maximum SO2 emission rate of 8.1 #/mmBtu from each
boiler. Paragraph (M)(2) specifies a maximum of 2.0 #/mmBtu which goes
into effect with this declaration of Federal approval.
A memorandum from the Director of the USEPA Air Quality Management
Division to the Director of the USEPA Region 5 Air and Radiation
Division entitled ``Response to Request for Guidance on Issues with
Ohio Sulfur Dioxide Federal Implementation Plan,'' dated September 28,
1994, provides guidance on modeling issues associated with the Ohio
SO2 FIP. This memo sets forth three criteria to be met so that FIP
limits for the Sammis plant can be reverted to in the SIP without new
modeling. These criteria are: (1) That the FIP limits are demonstrated
to be adequately protective at the time of promulgation; (2) that there
is not evidence now that the FIP and the associated emission limits are
inadequate to protect the SO2 national ambient air quality
standards (NAAQS); and (3) that the SIP revision is not a relaxation of
existing emission limits.
The modeling presented in the SO2 Control Strategy Technical
Support Document (TSD) from August 1976 showed that no exceedences of
the NAAQS would occur under either SO2 limit option set forth in
the FIP for the Sammis facility. Furthermore, there have not been any
modeling analysis which show the FIP limits to be inadequate. Finally,
since the FIP emission limit options were developed to have equivalent
plant impacts, Ohio's July 18, 1996, submittal would neither decrease
nor increase the allowable impacts of emissions from the Sammis plant,
and would clearly tighten the limits at the Toronto plant. Therefore,
pursuant to the guidance presented in the September 28, 1994,
memorandum, the revision may be approved without submittal of a new
modeling analysis. Additional modeling studies are not required in this
instance because this revision merely reverts to the promulgated FIP
and does not introduce any less stringent regulations than those
approved in the original promulgation on August 27, 1976 (41 FR 36323).
Ohio's July 18, 1996, submittal did not include revisions to or
discussion of compliance test methods. The current SIP, which includes
Jefferson County limits and selected test methods that were
simultaneously approved in 1981, applies the stack test method in OAC
Rule 3745-18-04(D)(1) as the reference test method for evaluating
compliance with the Jefferson County limits. The State's recent
submittal did not request revisions to the applicable test methods.
This indicates that the SIP continues to apply the test methodology in
OAC Rule 3745-18-04(D)(1) as the applicable
[[Page 52883]]
reference test method for all of Jefferson County's sources.
On July 18, 1979, West Virginia requested to revise their SO2
SIP and identified Ohio Edison's Sammis plant to have a significant
impact on the attainment status of Hancock County, West Virginia (44 FR
43298). Portions of Hancock County are currently designated
nonattainment, necessitating further revisions to the area's SIP. If
the modeling conducted by West Virginia to address this requirement
demonstrates that the emission limits for the Sammis Plant do not
protect the NAAQS, then USEPA will require further revisions to the
emission limits which apply to the Sammis Plant as necessary.
III. Final Rulemaking Action
The USEPA is approving Ohio's July 18, 1996, SO2 SIP revision
submittal, which amends OAC Rule 3745-18-47. The USEPA has found that
the emission limits for Ohio Edison's Sammis plant specified in this
SIP revision reinstate FIP limits promulgated previously by USEPA that
are equivalent to the limit in the existing SIP, and that the emissions
limits for Ohio Edison's Toronto plant have been lowered, and concludes
that these revisions may be approved without further modeling support.
The USEPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because
the Agency views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates
no adverse comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal
Register publication, USEPA is publishing a proposal to approve the SIP
revision should significant adverse or critical comments which have not
been previously addressed be filed. This action will be effective
December 9, 1996, unless, by November 8, 1996, such adverse or critical
comments are received.
If USEPA receives such comments, this action will be withdrawn by
publishing a subsequent document that will withdraw the final action.
Public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule
based on this action serving as a proposed rule. The USEPA will not
institute a second comment period on this action. Any parties
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time. If
no such comments are received, the public is advised that this action
will be effective December 9, 1996.
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.
IV. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
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 D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has
exempted this regulatory action from E.O. 12866 review.
B. 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 impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small
entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises,
and government entities with jurisdiction over populations of less than
50,000.
SIP approvals under sections 110 and 301, and subchapter I, part D
of the CAA 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 CAA, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
CAA forbids USEPA 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).
C. Unfunded Mandates
Under Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995,
signed into law on March 22, 1995, USEPA must undertake various actions
in association with any proposed or final rule 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. 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 the private sector, result from this action.
D. Petitions for Judicial Review
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 December 9, 1996. 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
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Sulfur dioxide.
Dated: September 25, 1996.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, title
40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
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 paragraph (c)(111) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1870 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(111) On July 18, 1996, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
submitted a site specific State Implementation Plan revision for Ohio
Edison's Sammis and Toronto plants for Sulfur Dioxide. The revisions
for the Sammis plant provide ``as an alternative'' to the existing
boiler specific regulations a limit of ``2.91 #/mmBtu actual heat input
from each boiler''. The regulation for the Toronto plant reduces
allowable emissions to 2.0 #/mmBtu.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Ohio Administrative Code (OAC) Rule 3745-18-47, effective July
25, 1996.
[FR Doc. 96-25940 Filed 10-8-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
