[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 18 (Friday, January 28, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4023-4026]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-1441]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[OH 159-2; FRL-7862-8]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On September 27, 2003, Ohio requested revisions to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur dioxide (SO2) for
several counties in Ohio, along with a request for redesignation of
Cuyahoga County to attainment for SO2. On July 8, 2004, at
69 FR 41344, EPA proposed to approve the requested revisions and to
redesignate Cuyahoga County as requested. EPA also published a
corresponding direct final rule on the same date, at 69 FR 41336, but
EPA withdrew this direct final rule because it received an adverse
comment. A citizen from New Jersey expressed concern about air
pollution coming east from Ohio and urged EPA to require Ohio power
plants to upgrade their pollution controls. EPA is satisfied that the
SO2 emission limits submitted by Ohio suffice to assure
attainment of the SO2 air quality standard. EPA notes
further that a separate action proposed on January 30, 2004, at 69 FR
4566, known as the Clean Air Interstate Rule, would require significant
reduction in the emissions of SO2 and nitrogen oxides
(NOX) of power plants in Ohio and elsewhere for purposes of
reducing their long-range transported contributions to fine particulate
matter and ozone exposures. EPA also received a comment from an
affected company clarifying the operational status of boilers affected
by the relevant rule. EPA affirms this clarification. Thus, as
proposed, EPA is approving the SO2 rules Ohio submitted,
removing the Federal Implementation Plan rules that these State rules
supersede, and redesignating Cuyahoga County to attainment for
SO2.
DATES: This final rule is effective on February 28, 2005.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the Ohio's submittals and other information are
available for inspection during normal business hours at the following
address: (We recommend that you telephone John Summerhays at (312) 886-
6067, before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
United States Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air
Programs Branch (AR-18J), Criteria Pollutant Section, 77 West Jackson
Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays at (312) 886-6067.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplemental information section is
organized as follows:
I. Synopsis of Ohio's Submittal
II. Review of Comments
III. EPA Action
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. Synopsis of Ohio's Submittal
On September 27, 2003, Ohio requested numerous revisions to its
[[Page 4024]]
State Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur dioxide (SO2).
These revisions principally relate to the nature of the federally
enforceable emission limits for SO2 in several Ohio
counties. For most of the sources affected by this request, the current
limits are the federally promulgated Federal Implementation Plan (FIP)
limits that EPA promulgated in 1976 (with selected subsequent
amendments). Ohio requested that EPA approve numerous State-adopted
emission limits as federally enforceable, which would allow EPA to
delete the corresponding FIP limits.
Ohio's submittal addresses SO2 limits for the following
counties: Adams, Allen, Clermont, Cuyahoga, Lake, Lawrence, Mahoning,
Monroe, Montgomery, Muskingum, Pike, Ross, Washington, and Wood
Counties. For Cuyahoga, Mahoning, Monroe, and Washington Counties, the
submitted limits differ from the current federally enforceable limits.
Ohio provided evidence from modeling that the submitted limits would
provide for attainment of the SO2 standards. For the other
counties, the submitted limits are largely equivalent to current
federally enforceable limits. Finally, Ohio submitted selected
revisions to generic rules with statewide applicability.
The second Ohio request is for EPA to redesignate the Cleveland
area (Cuyahoga County) from a nonattainment area to an attainment area
for SO2. Among the prerequisites to redesignation is that
EPA has approved State adopted rules sufficient to provide for
attainment and to satisfy other planning requirements. Ohio's submittal
and EPA's approval of State limits for Cuyahoga County for replacing
FIP limits addresses this prerequisite. A related, third Ohio request
is that EPA approve Ohio's plan for continuing to attain the
SO2 air quality standard in Cuyahoga County.
EPA published a direct final rule approving Ohio's requests and
redesignating Cuyahoga County to attainment for SO2 on July
8, 2004, at 69 FR 41336. EPA subsequently withdrew this action due to
receipt of a relevant adverse comment. Nevertheless, readers seeking a
more thorough description of Ohio's submittal, EPA's criteria for
reviewing this submittal, and EPA's review of the submittal, may
consult this notice of direct final rulemaking.
II. Review of Comments
In conjunction with its direct final rule, EPA simultaneously
published a proposed rule proposing the same actions, published at 69
FR 41344. EPA received two comment letters in response to this proposed
rule.
Comment: A citizen from New Jersey commented: ``This agency must
examine this with a view to any Ohio poisonous air that comes east,
impacting New Jersey, New York, and Connecticut. EPA has a duty and
responsibility to guarantee clean air to those east of Ohio, as well as
Ohio residents. We need the highest standards for Ohio.
Power plants have had at least fifty years to upgrade their plants.
There is absolutely no reason if they have failed to upgrade, other
than a desire to pollute. It is time to clean up our air.''
Response: In this action, EPA is evaluating the adequacy of Ohio's
limits for assuring attainment of the SO2 air quality
standards. In general, the highest concentrations of SO2
arise within a few kilometers of a source or sources that emit
SO2; nevertheless, EPA has examined evidence related to the
longer range impacts and believes that Ohio sources are not causing
violations of the SO2 standards or interfering with
attainment of the SO2 standards in the cited eastern states.
At the same time, EPA is taking separate actions to address the impacts
of SO2 emitted from power plants in Ohio and elsewhere on
concentrations of other air pollutants. In particular, in order to
address long-range impacts of power plant emissions on concentrations
of fine particulate matter and ozone, EPA has proposed to require
significant reductions of emissions of SO2 and
NOX from power plants throughout the Eastern United States,
including Ohio. This proposal was published on January 30, 2004, at 69
FR 4566, and EPA intends to publish final action on this proposal later
this year.
Comment: MW Custom Papers commented to clarify the operational
status of the boilers at a mill, formerly known as a Mead Corporation
facility, which it operates in Ross County, Ohio. The commenter
highlighted a statement in the preamble section of the direct final
rulemaking discussing Ross County rules, stating ``The FIP limit for
boilers at this source is 0.00/MMBTU, based on anticipation
that these boilers would be shut down; however, these boilers did not
in fact shut down.'' The commenter explains that four boilers,
corresponding to stacks 1, 2, 3, and 4, were in fact shut down as
anticipated, but three other boilers (boilers 5, 7 and 8) were not shut
down and were never intended to be shut down. Indeed, the commenter
notes, while the FIP expressly requires zero emissions from stacks 1
through 4, the attainment analysis assumes nonzero emissions for the
other three boilers. The commenter requests that EPA provide this
explanation in its final rulemaking.
Response: The preamble to the direct final rulemaking reflected a
confusion between boilers slated for shutdown and boilers (not
mentioned in the FIP regulations but given explicit limits in Ohio's
rules) that were slated for continued operation. EPA acknowledges its
error and appreciates the clarification. Thus, Ohio's rules reflect the
same operations as the FIP, i.e., boilers for stacks 1 through 4 shut
down and boilers 5, 7, and 8 operating with nonzero limits, and the
company in fact shut down the boilers it intended to shut down. This
explanation provides a clarified basis for approving Ohio's Ross County
limits.
III. EPA Action
This rulemaking approves numerous SO2 limits adopted and
submitted by Ohio, many of which replace limits that EPA promulgated as
part of a FIP. EPA is approving rules for Adams County (limits for
Dayton Power & Light-Stuart Station), Allen County (limits for the
Marsulex facility), Clermont County (limits for Cincinnati Gas &
Electric-Beckjord Station), Cuyahoga County (full rule), Lake County
(full rule), Lawrence County (limits for the Allied Chemical facility),
Mahoning County (full rule), Monroe County (full rule), Montgomery
County (limits for the Glatfelter and Miami Paper facilities),
Muskingum County (Armco Steel), Pike County (limits for the Portsmouth
Diffusion Plant), Ross County (limits for the MW Custom Papers
facility), Washington County (full rule), and Wood County (Libby-Owens-
Ford Plants 4 & 8 and Plant 6).
In those cases where the affected plants are subject to FIP limits,
the approved State rules supersede the FIP limits. In today's action,
EPA is removing the FIP rules that have thus been superseded.
EPA is redesignating Cuyahoga County to attainment for
SO2. EPA is also approving Ohio's plan for maintenance of
the SO2 air quality standard in Cuyahoga County.
IV. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For this
reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211,
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action
merely approves state law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes
no additional
[[Page 4025]]
requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the
Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule
approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose
any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it
does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely
affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4).
This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65
FR 67249, November 9, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves state rules
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically
significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
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 March 29, 2005. 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
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
Dated: January 13, 2005.
Michael O. Leavitt,
Administrator.
0
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]
0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart KK--Ohio
0
2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(129) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.1870 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(129) On September 27, 2003, the Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency submitted revised rules for sulfur dioxide. The submittal
includes revised provisions in Rules 3745-18-01, 3745-18-04, and 3745-
18-06, relating to natural gas use, as well as special provisions in
Rule 3745-18-04 for compliance testing for Lubrizol in Lake County. The
submittal includes recently revised Ohio limits in Cuyahoga, Lake,
Mahoning, Monroe, and Washington Counties, as well as previously
adopted source-specific limits in Adams, Allen, Clermont, Lawrence,
Montgomery, Muskingum, Pike, Ross, and Wood Counties that had not
previously been subject to EPA rulemaking.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Rules OAC 3745-18-01; OAC 3745-18-04(F); OAC 3745-18-04(J); OAC
3745-18-06; OAC 3745-18-24; OAC 3745-18-49; OAC 3745-18-56; OAC 3745-
18-62; and OAC 3745-18-90. Adopted August 19, 2003, effective September
1, 2003.
(B) Rules OAC 3745-18-07(B); OAC 3745-18-08(H); OAC 3745-18-19(B);
OAC 3745-18-66(C); OAC 3745-18-72(B);, effective May 11, 1987.
(C) OAC 3745-18-50(C); OAC 3745-18-77(B); effective December 28,
1979.
(D) OAC 3745-18-63(K) and (L); and OAC 3745-18-93(B) and (C);
effective December 1, 1984.
(ii) Additional material--Letter from Robert Hodanbosi, Chief of
the Division of Air Pollution Control of the Ohio EPA, to Thomas
Skinner, Regional Administrator for Region 5 of USEPA, dated September
27, 2003.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 52.1881 is amended as follows:
0
a. By revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(8) and adding paragraph
(a)(15).
0
b. By removing paragraphs (b)(7) through (b)(15), redesignating
paragraph (b)(16) as (b)(7), removing paragraphs (b)(17) through
(b)(25), redesignating paragraphs (b)(26), (b)(27) and (b)(28) as
(b)(8), (b)(9), and (b)(10), respectively, and removing paragraphs
(b)(29) and (b)(30).
Sec. 52.1881 Control strategy: Sulfur Oxides (sulfur dioxide).
(a) * * *
(4) Approval--EPA approves the sulfur dioxide emission limits for
the following counties: Adams County, Allen County, Ashland County,
Ashtabula County, Athens County, Auglaize County, Belmont County, Brown
County, Butler County, Carroll County, Champaign County, Clark County,
Clermont County, Clinton County, Columbiana County, Coshocton County,
Crawford County, Cuyahoga County, Darke County, Defiance County,
Delaware County, Erie County, Fairfield County, Fayette County, Fulton
County, Gallia County, Geauga County, Greene County, Guernsey County,
Hamilton County, Hancock County, Hardin County, Harrison County, Henry
County, Highland County, Hocking County, Holmes County, Huron County,
Jackson County, Jefferson County, Knox County, Lake County, Lawrence
County, Licking County, Logan County, Lorain County, Lucas County,
Madison County, Mahoning County, Marion County, Medina County, Meigs
County, Mercer County, Miami County, Monroe County, Montgomery County,
Morgan County, Morrow County, Muskingum County,
[[Page 4026]]
Noble County, Ottawa County, Paulding County, Perry County, Pickaway
County, Pike County, Portage County, Preble County, Putnam County,
Richland County, Ross County, Sandusky County (except Martin Marietta
Chemicals), Scioto County, Seneca County, Shelby County, Trumbull
County, Tuscarawas County, Union County, Van Wert County, Vinton
County, Warren County, Washington County, Wayne County, Williams
County, Wood County, and Wyandot County.
* * * * *
(8) No Action--EPA is neither approving nor disapproving the
emission limitations for the following counties/sources pending further
review: Franklin County, Sandusky County (Martin Marietta Chemicals),
and Stark County.
* * * * *
(15) On September 27, 2003, Ohio submitted maintenance plans for
sulfur dioxide in Cuyahoga County and Lucas County.
* * * * *
PART 81--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
0
2. In Sec. 81.336 the Ohio-SO2 table is amended by revising
the entry for Cuyahoga County to read as follows:
Sec. 81.336 Ohio.
Ohio-SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does not meet Does not meet Better than
Designated area primary secondary Cannot be national
standards standards classified standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Cuyahoga County................................ .............. .............. .............. X
* * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-1441 Filed 1-27-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P