[Federal Register Volume 62, Number 37 (Tuesday, February 25, 1997)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8383-8385]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 97-4522]


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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52

[OH102-1a; FRL-5675-5]


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 August 30, 1996, which provides Ford Motor Company an 
extended exemption from opacity limitations for start-up of coal-fired 
boilers at its Cleveland Engine Plant 1. This revision extends the 
exemption for these boilers from 3 hours to 6 hours after start-up.

DATES: The ``direct final'' approval is effective on April 28, 1997 
unless adverse or critical comments are received by March 27, 1997. 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 John Summerhays 
at (312) 886-6067 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: John Summerhays at (312) 886-6067.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    In the first version of Ohio particulate matter regulations 
approved by USEPA, i.e., Ohio's 1972 SIP submittal, Ohio's regulations 
imposed a limitation on opacity without any exemptions for special 
circumstances. However, as experience was gained enforcing this 
limitation, the State identified a number of circumstances in which 
compliance with the limitation could be considered an unreasonable 
requirement. One type of such circumstances is the start-up of a 
boiler, before stable combustion conditions have been achieved. In rule 
revisions adopted in the early 1980s, the State exempted sources from 
the opacity limitation for a period of six hours after start-up of a 
boiler. USEPA accepted the principle of exempting boilers from the 
opacity limitation for a period necessary to achieve stable combustion, 
but objected to provision of an automatic six hour exemption. USEPA 
recommended instead that Ohio provide a three hour exemption, with 
provision that Ohio could request longer exemptions for specific 
sources on a case-by-case basis.
    Pursuant to USEPA's recommendation, Ohio in 1991 modified its rule 
on opacity, Rule 3745-17-07, in accordance with USEPA's 
recommendations. Paragraph (A)(3)(b)(ii) states that:

the visible particulate emission limitations established in 
paragraph (A)(1) of this rule shall not apply to * * * the start-up 
of * * * any fuel burning equipment which are uncontrolled or which 
are equipped solely with mechanical collectors * * * , for a period 
of not more than three hours from the moment of start-up, provided 
that the director may incorporate a longer start-up time period in 
the permit * * * for such source for which an applicant demonstrates 
to the satisfaction of the director that the longer time period is 
required.

    Paragraph (D) of this rule then states that:

Any revision approved by the director in accordance with paragraph 
(A)(3)(a)(ii) [et al.] shall not revise the federally enforceable 
requirements of the state implementation plan until approved by the 
U.S. environmental protection agency.

    USEPA approved Rule 3745-17-07, including the above language, on 
May 27, 1994, at 59 FR 27464.

II. Review of State Submittal

    In this submittal, Ohio requests that the start-up exemption from 
opacity limitations be extended from three hours to six hours for coal-
fired boilers at Ford's Cleveland Engine Plant 1, pursuant to 
Paragraphs (A)(3)(a)(ii) and (D) of its Rule 3745-17-07. The

[[Page 8384]]

submittal provides various evidence in support of this extension. In 
correspondence from an engineering consulting firm to Ford dated 
November 27, 1991, evidence was provided that starting up these boilers 
in less than six to ten hours (for a ``cold'' start-up) would be 
injurious to the heat transfer tubes in the boiler and would thereby 
create a safety hazard. A second type of evidence is data on the 
duration of opacity in excess of baseline limits during routine start-
ups of these boilers. These data indicate that excess opacity 
essentially always exceeds the baseline opacity limit for at least some 
time after start-up, that excess opacity often occurs beyond three 
hours and up to six hours after start-up, and that excess opacity 
rarely occurs after 6 hours after start-up of these boilers.
    Ohio's submittal includes a letter from USEPA, suggesting the 
possibility of avoiding an extended period of excess opacity by 
providing for use of natural gas as a fuel while the boilers are being 
started up. The submittal also includes a response to this suggestion 
from Ford's engineering consultant, dated March 10, 1995 (attached to 
correspondence from a law firm representing Ford dated March 13, 1995). 
This response provides cost estimates for installing burners capable of 
gas firing during boiler start-up, supplementing information included 
in the earlier document as to the historic frequency of start-ups of 
these boilers, indicating that provision for use of gas firing during 
start-up would impose high costs and would provide relatively little 
emissions reduction.
    The State's submittal further includes a comment received from the 
Gas Research Institute during its public comment period. The Gas 
Research Institute commented that gas firing during start-up can be 
implemented at reasonable cost, and described selected cases where this 
approach has in fact been implemented. Notably, the costs cited by the 
Gas Research Institute in a case it describes are comparable to the 
cost estimates developed by Ford's consultant. The principal difference 
is that the Gas Research Institute notes that installation of gas-fired 
alternative burners would minimize emissions during ash-pulling and 
soot-blowing as well as during start-ups, and indicates that the costs 
of gas burner installation are reasonable when one considers the full 
range of benefits. Ohio did not provide an explicit review of this 
comment; nevertheless, by virtue of its request for an extension of the 
start-up exemption for Ford, the State can be presumed to have 
continued to compare costs for gas firing only against the benefits of 
start-up emissions reductions, and concluded that these costs would be 
unreasonable and disproportionate to the relevant reduction in 
emissions. In any case, USEPA has approved a State-wide exemption from 
the general stack opacity limit during ash-pulling and soot-blowing for 
certain classes of boilers that include Ford's boilers, and no 
rationale has been provided that these exemptions should not apply to 
Ford. Therefore, USEPA is comparing the costs of gas burner 
installation solely against the benefits of emissions reductions during 
start-up, and concludes that the cost of gas burner installation is not 
warranted.
    The State is authorized to adopt the extension to the exemption 
from the opacity limit both as a condition in a permit to operate and 
as a provision in an administrative order. Ohio adopted both 
instruments, but requested USEPA action only on the administrative 
order. USEPA is rulemaking only on the order, for consistency with the 
State's request, and because the order does not expire.
    USEPA guidance states that relaxations in particulate matter 
limitations must be evaluated as to whether the relaxation creates the 
potential for violation of the air quality standard. In this case, 
although the revision would add three hours after start-up when 
previously applicable opacity limits would no longer apply, the mass 
emissions limitations for these boilers remain in effect throughout the 
start-up period and thereafter. The extension of the exemption from the 
opacity limit is judged not to significantly affect USEPA's ability to 
assure achievement of the mass emissions level which has been shown to 
suffice to assure attainment. Therefore, no additional analyses are 
needed in this case to demonstrate that attainment remains assured 
notwithstanding this extension of the opacity limit exemption.

III. Final Rulemaking Action

    USEPA has reviewed the State's request for extending the exemption 
from opacity limits for the boilers at Ford Motor Company's Cleveland 
Engine Plant 1 from three hours to six hours after start-up, and has 
reviewed the materials provided by the State in conjunction with this 
request. USEPA concurs that as these boilers are currently configured, 
start-up in a manner that would avoid exceedance of opacity limits 
beyond three hours after start-up would cause unreasonable wear on the 
equipment and an unreasonable risk to plant personnel. USEPA further 
concurs that boiler modifications to accommodate natural gas firing 
during start-up would impose unreasonable costs relative to the 
quantity of reduction of start-up emissions that such modifications 
would provide. Therefore, USEPA is approving the State's request to 
extend the period of exemption from opacity limits for start-up of 
Ford's Cleveland Engine Plant 1.
    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 April 
28, 1997 unless, by March 27, 1997 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 today's final 
action. Public comments received will be addressed in a subsequent 
final rule based on the proposed action published elsewhere in today's 
Federal Register. 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 April 28, 1997.
    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.

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 review under Executive Order 
12866.

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

[[Page 8385]]

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 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, 
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 April 28, 1997. 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, Particulate matter.

    Dated: January 30, 1997.
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.

Subpart KK--Ohio

    2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(113) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (113) On August 30, 1996, Ohio submitted a request to extend the 
exemption from opacity limits for the boilers at Ford's Cleveland 
Engine Plant 1 to six hours after start-up.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Findings and Orders for boilers number 1 through number 5 at 
Ford's Cleveland Engine Plant 1, signed by Donald Schregardus on May 
31, 1996.

[FR Doc. 97-4522 Filed 2-24-97; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P