Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 8383

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter of July 12, 1995 from the

Maryland Department of the

Environment transmitting additions,

deletions, and revisions to Maryland’s

State Implementation Plan, pertaining to

volatile organic compound regulations

in Maryland’s air quality regulations,

Code of Maryland Administrative

Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.

(B) The following amendments to

COMAR 26.11.07, pertaining to open

fires, adopted by the Secretary of the

Environment on May 1, 1995, effective

May 22, 1995:

(1) the deletion of sections

26.11.07.01 A and B, definitions for the

terms ‘‘hazardous material’’ and ‘‘I.I.A.

standards.’’

(2) addition of new section

26.11.07.01B, ‘‘Terms Defined.’’

(3) addition of new sections

26.11.07.01B(1) and (2), definitions of

the terms ‘‘excessive lodging’’ and

‘‘forest resource management practices.’’

(4) renumbering of old sections

26.11.07.01C & D, now new sections

26.11.07.01B(3) & (4).

(5) amendments to section

26.11.07.02, pertaining to general

provisions.

(6) amendments to sections

26.11.07.03A, B, and B(1), pertaining to

open fires authorized by control officers.

(7) addition of new section

26.11.07.03C, ‘‘Prohibition on Open

Burning.’’

(8) amendments to section

26.11.07.04, pertaining to open fires

authorized by public officers, including

the addition of new sections (4)—(7).

(9) amendments to section

26.11.07.05, pertaining to open fires

allowed without authorization.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) Remainder of July 12, 1995

Maryland State submittal pertaining to

COMAR 26.11.19.07.

(121) Revisions to the Maryland State

Implementation Plan submitted on July

17, 1995 by the Maryland Department of

the Environment:

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter of July 12, 1995 from the

Maryland Department of the

Environment transmitting additions,

deletions, and revisions to Maryland’s

State Implementation Plan, pertaining to

volatile organic compound regulations

in Maryland’s air quality regulations,

Code of Maryland Administrative

Regulations (COMAR) 26.11.

(B) Amendments to COMAR

26.11.19.02A, pertaining to once-in,

always-in applicability provisions,

consisting of revisions to COMAR

26.11.19.02A(3), and the addition of

new COMAR 26.11.19.02A (4) and (5),

adopted by the Secretary of the

Environment on April 7, 1995, and

effective on May 8, 1995.

(C) Amendments to COMAR

26.11.19.01B, consisting of the addition

of new COMAR 26.11.19.01B(1–1), the

definition for the term ‘‘annual,’’

adopted by the Secretary of the

Environment on April 7, 1995, effective

on May 8, 1995.

(ii) Additional material.

(A) Remainder of July 17, 1995

Maryland State submittal pertaining to

COMAR 26.11.19.02A(3)–(5) and

COMAR 26.11.19.01B(1–1).

[FR Doc. 97–4524 Filed 2–24–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

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
8384 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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 startup 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
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 37 / Tuesday, February 25, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 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-forprofit 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:

§ 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

40 CFR Part 52

[OR34–1–6136a, OR51–7266a, OR58–7273a;

FRL–5680–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans: Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) approves revisions to the

State of Oregon Implementation Plan.

EPA is approving revisions to Oregon

Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter

340, Divisions 21 through 24, 26, 27, 30,

and 34 submitted to EPA on May 28,

1993, and a revision to Division 22

submitted to EPA on September 27,

1995, and revisions to Division 20, 21,

22, 25, 27, and 30 submitted to EPA on

October 8, 1996, to satisfy the

requirements of section 110 of the Clean

Air Act (CAA) and 40 CFR part 51.

DATES: This action 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: Written comments should

be addressed to: Montel Livingston, SIP

Manager, Office of Air Quality (OAQ–

107), EPA, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington 98101.

Documents which are incorporated by

reference are available for public

inspection at the Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20460.

Copies of material submitted to EPA

may be examined during normal

business hours at the following

locations: EPA, Region 10, Office of Air

Quality, 1200 Sixth Avenue (OAQ–107),

Seattle, Washington 98101, and ODEQ.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Catherine Woo, Office of Air Quality

(OAQ–107), EPA, Seattle, Washington

98101, (206) 553–1814.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality (ODEQ)

submitted to EPA revisions to OAR,

Divisions 21–24, 26, 27, 30 and 34, on

May 28, 1993. A separate revision to

Division 22–100, –130, and –137 was

submitted September 27, 1995. A third

revision to Divisions 20, 21, 22, 25, 27,

and 30 was submitted October 8, 1996.

The revisions submitted on May 28,

1993, were State-effective on March 10,

1993. The submittal contained revisions

to Oregon’s General Emission Standards

For Particulate Matter (OAR 340–21–

010, –027, –040, –055 through –230, and

–240 through –245); General Gaseous

Emissions (OAR 340–22–005 through

–100, –104 through –120, and –133

through –640); Rules For Open Burning

(OAR 340–23–022 through –115); Motor

Vehicles Visible Emissions (OAR 340–

24–300 through –307, and –325); Field

Burning Rules (OAR 340–26–001

through –015, and –031 through –055);

Air Pollution Emergencies (OAR 340–

27–010 through –035); Specific Air

Pollution Control Rules For Areas With

Unique Air Quality Control Needs (OAR

340–30–005, –012 through –030, and

–035 through –230); and Residential

Woodheating (OAR 340–34–001 through

–215.)

The revisions submitted on

September 27, 1995, were State-effective

on November 2, 1994. The submittal

contained revisions to Oregon’s

requirements for General Gaseous

Emissions (OAR 340–22–110, 22–130

and 22–137.)