[Federal Register Volume 60, Number 208 (Friday, October 27, 1995)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 54946-54949]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 95-26656]



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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH70-1-6780a; FRL-5302-6]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: USEPA is approving the plan revision that Ohio submitted to 
address high lead concentrations measured near the Master Metals 
secondary lead smelter in central Cleveland. This revision subjects 
this smelter to strict emissions limits and operating restrictions and 
will ensure that lead concentrations in this area are reduced 
sufficiently to meet the health-based air quality standard.

DATES: This action is effective December 26, 1995 unless adverse or 
critical comments are received by November 27, 1995. If the effective 
date is delayed, 

[[Page 54947]]
timely notice will be published in the Federal Register.

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.
    Copies of the SIP revision and USEPA's analysis are available for 
public inspection during normal business hours at the following 
addresses: United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air 
and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AE-17J), Chicago, 
Illinois 60604; and Office of Air and Radiation (OAR), Docket and 
Information Center (Air Docket 6102) Room M1500, United States 
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 
20460.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Review of State Submittal

    On October 28, 1992, the United States Environmental Protection 
Agency (USEPA) notified the Governor of the State of Ohio that its 
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for lead for the unclassified portion 
of Cuyahoga County was inadequate. This SIP call was based on 
monitoring in the area showing quarterly average concentrations as high 
as 28 micrograms per cubic meter (g/m3), well above the 
quarterly average air quality standard of 1.5 g/m3. 
Announcement of the notification of SIP inadequacy and accompanying 
call for a SIP revision (``SIP call'') was published in the Federal 
Register on March 2, 1993, at 58 FR 11967. The remainder of Cuyahoga 
County has no significant sources of lead, has no designation, and has 
an adequate SIP.
    Ohio submitted the required SIP revision on October 7, 1994. USEPA 
notified Ohio that this was a complete submittal on November 17, 1994.
    The primary cause of the high monitored concentrations is a 
secondary lead smelter owned by Master Metals, Inc. This is the only 
significant source of emissions in this area; other emissions are 
appropriate to address as background contributors. On October 14, 1992, 
the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency (``Ohio'') issued an order to 
Master Metals providing that the facility would be shut down unless 
various specified improvements in emissions control were implemented at 
the facility. Master Metals failed to implement these improvements. 
Therefore, on August 5, 1993, Ohio required an immediate shutdown of 
the facility, and stated that no further operations were to occur at 
the facility until the required improvements were made. This facility 
remains shut down at this time. Therefore, the rules adopted by Ohio 
will have practical effect only if the present owner or a future owner 
elects to make the improvements demanded by Ohio.

Summary of Submittal

    Attached to the cover letter of Ohio's submittal are eight 
attachments. The first and most important of these attachments is the 
adopted set of rules that limit lead emissions. Five attachments 
pertain to the modeled demonstration that these limits assure 
attainment. Specifically, the attachments include a summary of the 
modeling analysis, documentation of the estimation of allowable 
emissions and stack parameters, documentation of the analysis of 
background concentrations, a copy of the model inputs, and copies of 
the model outputs. Finally, the last two attachments address 
administrative requirements, specifically a completed completeness 
checklist and materials relating to the public hearing on the issue.
    Ohio submitted four of the rules in Chapter 3745-71 of the Ohio 
Administrative Code, a chapter of rules entitled ``Lead Emissions.'' 
The first rule is Rule 3745-71-01, entitled ``Definitions,'' which now 
defines lead to include gaseous as well as solid lead and defines 
calendar quarter. The second rule is Rule 3745-71-03, entitled 
``Methods of ambient air measurement,'' which specifies the monitoring 
method to be used to assess whether the ambient air quality standard is 
being attained. The third rule is Rule 3745-71-05, entitled ``Emissions 
test methods and procedures and reporting requirements for new and 
existing sources.'' This rule provides that stack tests for lead 
emissions are to be based on Method 12 in Appendix A of Title 40 Code 
of Federal Regulations Part 60 (40 CFR part 60), and establishes 
various reporting requirements and test methods that accompany 
limitations established in Rule 3745-71-06 for the Master Metals 
smelter. The fourth rule is Rule 3745-71-06, entitled ``Source specific 
emission limits,'' which provides numerous emission and operational 
limitations and currently exclusively addresses the Master Metals 
smelter. Specifically, the rule sets emission limits for the rotary 
furnaces, pot furnaces, and casting shop, requires enclosing all these 
operations within a building maintained at ``negative pressure'' (i.e. 
less that ambient pressure), requires venting these sources such that 
their emissions pass through a secondary control system, sets a limit 
on emissions from the secondary control system, requires no visible 
emissions from materials handling, requires a specified road dust 
suppression program, sets a status quo-based quarterly production cap, 
and sets a five percent opacity limit on stack emissions. Although Ohio 
also previously adopted Rule 3745-71-02 (setting the national ambient 
air quality standard as a State standard as well) and Rule 3745-71-04 
(setting a 1981 attainment deadline), these rules were not included in 
this submittal nor approved previously by USEPA.
    The rules adopted and submitted by Ohio provide clear and 
enforceable limitations on emissions from the Master Metals secondary 
lead smelter. Stack emissions are subject to specific emissions 
limitations, to be measured by the method delineated and recommended by 
USEPA in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The requirement for building 
enclosure is straightforward. Although USEPA has not recommended test 
methods for assessing reduced pressure inside enclosed space, Ohio has 
included an appropriate method with its rule, and so the rule should 
provide enforceable assurances that the specified operations are indeed 
enclosed and that their emissions in fact pass through the secondary 
control device. The road dust suppression program is adequately 
specific, given the moderate control efficiency which the program is 
designed to achieve. In summary, the rules satisfy the criteria for the 
rules to be enforceable.
    A second criterion that the rules must satisfy is that they limit 
emissions sufficiently to assure attainment of the lead standard. As 
noted above, Ohio submitted a modeling analysis assessing the adequacy 
of its rules for assuring attainment. USEPA requires such analyses to 
satisfy modeling guidance given in Appendix W of 40 CFR part 51.
    Since lead has a quarterly average standard, Ohio used the Long 
Term version of the Industrial Source Complex model (Version 2, known 
as ISCLT2), run in regulatory default mode. Receptors were placed at a 
spacing of 50 to 75 meters apart along the facility's fenceline, 100 
meters apart on a rectangular grid out to about 500 meters in the four 
main compass 

[[Page 54948]]
directions from the facility, and an additional set of points 250 
meters further out. For meteorological data, Ohio used quarterly 
stability array (STAR) data from the Cleveland weather station for each 
quarter from 1987 to 1991. Ohio developed a background concentration by 
averaging concentrations for those days and monitors determined to 
represent concentrations upwind of the Master Metals smelter, thereby 
concluding that the background concentration was 0.222 (g/
m3).
    Ohio's attainment demonstration necessarily reflects assumptions 
about hypothetical emission rates and emission release characteristics 
that would be expected were the facility to recommence operations. Ohio 
of course assumed that resumption of operations would involve resumed 
use of the existing two rotary furnaces, the existing two pot furnaces, 
and the existing casting shop. Rule 3745-71-06 specifies limits both on 
emissions per ton of lead product and on maximum total hourly emissions 
from each of these sources and specifies a maximum quarterly lead 
production rate reflecting historic production levels. Ohio's 
attainment demonstration reflects a quarterly average allowable 
emission rate based on the allowable emissions per ton of lead product 
and the allowable quarterly production rate, and uses historic emission 
release characteristics. Similarly, the analysis includes emissions for 
the secondary control device based on its hourly emissions limit. More 
speculative are the emissions release characteristics of this required 
but currently nonexistent device, which Ohio based on a supplier's 
proposed design. The attainment demonstration further reflects historic 
levels of emissions from facility roadways, using the equation in AP-42 
for estimating particulate matter emissions, assuming the particulate 
matter emissions are 100 percent lead, and assuming 34 percent control 
for the sweeping program mandated in Rule 3745-71-06.
    Ohio used the dispersion model recommended for this situation in 
USEPA guidance that was current at the time of its submittal. Although 
USEPA has more recently modified its guidance to recommend a revised 
version of ISC known as ISC3, USEPA's grandfathering policy clearly 
provides that the use of ISC2 in this case is approvable. Ohio has used 
emission inputs, meteorological inputs, and modeling procedures that 
are also in accordance with USEPA guidance. This modeling shows a 
maximum concentration of 0.430 (g/m3), at a receptor 
approximately 100 meters from Master Metals' lead smelter. 
Concentration estimates are lower at receptors farther from the 
smelter. Therefore, Ohio has suitably demonstrated that its rules 
assure attainment throughout the area of concern.
    A third criterion that Ohio's submittal must satisfy is that proper 
procedures were followed in adopting the rules such that they will 
withstand legal challenge. Ohio's submittal includes materials 
demonstrating that the public had suitable opportunity to comment on 
draft rules and that other procedural requirements for State rule 
adoption were also followed. This criterion has been satisfied.

II. Rulemaking Action

    The regulations in Ohio's submittal impose strict limits on the 
types of emissions that caused the previous high monitored 
concentrations of lead. These regulations are enforceable, and Ohio has 
demonstrated that these regulations assure attainment of the lead 
standard in the area. Therefore, USEPA is approving Ohio's submittal, 
and is concluding that Ohio's SIP for lead is no longer inadequate.
    The USEPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because 
USEPA views this action as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates 
no adverse comments. However, USEPA is publishing a separate document 
in today's Federal Register, which constitutes a ``proposed approval'' 
of the requested SIP revision and clarifies that the rulemaking will 
not be deemed final if timely adverse or critical comments are filed. 
The ``direct final'' approval shall be effective on December 26, 1995, 
unless USEPA receives adverse or critical comments by November 27, 
1995. If USEPA receives comments adverse to or critical of the approval 
discussed above, USEPA will publish a Federal Register document which 
withdraws this final action. All public comments received will then be 
addressed in a subsequent rulemaking document.
    Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing 
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any 
SIP. USEPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP 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 3 action by the Regional 
Administrator under the procedures published in the Federal Register on 
January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by an October 4, 1993 
memorandum from Michael H. Shapiro, Acting Assistant Administrator for 
Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
    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 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
    Under Sections 202, 203 and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 
of 1995 (``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, 
EPA must undertake various actions in association with proposed or 
final rules that include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
costs of $100 million or more to the private sector, or to State, 
local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated today 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.
    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 26, 

[[Page 54949]]
1995. 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, Incorporation by reference, 
Intergovernmental relations, Lead, 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: September 13, 1995.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.

    Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations, chapter I, part 52, 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.

Subpart KK--Ohio

    2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(106) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (106) On October 7, 1994, Ohio submitted four rules in Chapter 
3745-71 of the Ohio Administrative Code, entitled ``Lead Emissions,'' 
and submitted a modeling demonstration that the limitations in these 
rules assure attainment of the lead standard in central Cleveland.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. Rules 3745-71-01, 3745-71-03, 3745-
71-05, and 3745-71-06, all adopted September 22, 1994, and effective 
October 4, 1994.
    (ii) Additional material. A submittal letter from the Director of 
the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, with attachments documenting 
a modeling analysis of lead concentrations near the Master Metals 
secondary lead smelter.

[FR Doc. 95-26656 Filed 10-26-95; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P