[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 56 (Thursday, March 21, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11560-11564]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6778]



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


ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[OH78-2-7116; FRL-5440-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans and Designation 
of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The USEPA is approving the Ohio Environmental Protection 
Agency's (OEPA) request for redesignation of Clinton County, Ohio from 
transitional ozone nonattainment to attainment. The USEPA is also 
approving the maintenance plan and emissions inventory for Clinton 
County as a revision to Ohio's State Implementation Plan (SIP) for 
ozone. Clinton County's monitoring data shows that it is already 
meeting the ozone air quality standard. In addition, in order to meet 
USEPA redesignation requirements the State must continue to maintain 
the ozone National Ambient Air Quality Standards for at least ten years 
after the redesignation, or the year 2006. Thus, the State has 
developed a maintenance plan which includes specific contingency 
measures to assure continued compliance with the ozone air quality 
standard. Any monitored violation in Clinton County will trigger these 
contingency measures to reduce ozone levels. In addition, an ambient 
air monitor will remain in operation to verify future attainment status 
of the area.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective on March 21, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the redesignation request, public comments on the 
rulemaking, and other materials relating to this rulemaking are 
available for inspection at the following address: (It is recommended 
that you telephone Fayette Bright at (312) 886-6069, before visiting 
the Region 5 Office.) United States Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard (AR-
18J), Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fayette Bright, Air Programs Branch, 
Regulation Development Section (AR-18J), United States Environmental 
Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6069.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On November 15, 1994, the OEPA submitted to the USEPA a request for 
redesignation of Clinton County, Ohio from transitional nonattainment 
1 to attainment for ozone, and a maintenance plan designed to 
assure continued attainment of the national ambient air quality 
standards for ozone in the Clinton County area. On February 24, 1995, 
the OEPA submitted additional information to the USEPA regarding the 
State public hearing and responses to public comments received 
regarding the redesignation and the maintenance plan. The redesignation 
request was supported by technical information demonstrating that the 
requirements of Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (Act) were 
met. On May 5, 1995, a document was published in the Federal Register 
(60 FR 22337) which proposed approval of the redesignation request the 
maintenance plan, and the emissions inventory.

    \1\  As stated in the proposed rule, Clinton County did not 
experience a violation during the three year period from January 1, 
1987 through December 31, 1989. Therefore, pursuant to Section 
185(A) of the Clean Air Act, it was designated a transitional 
nonattainment area for ozone. Under this classification, the 
requirements of Subpart 2 of Part D of Title 1 of the CAA for ozone 
nonattainment areas were suspended for Clinton County until December 
31, 1991. See 60 FR 22337 (May 5, 1995). After December 31, 1991, 
the requirements were no longer suspended, however, Subpart 2 did 
not contain any new requirements that would apply to a transitional 
area that was not classified under Section 181(a) as marginal or 
above.

[[Page 11561]]

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

II. Summary of Proposed Rulemaking

    The proposed rulemaking detailed how the State submittal fulfilled 
the redesignation requirements of the Act. Specifically, Section 
107(d)(3)(E) of the Act provides for redesignation if: (i) The 
Administrator determines that the area has attained the National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS); (ii) the Administrator has fully 
approved the applicable implementation plan for the area under Section 
110(k); (iii) the Administrator determines that the improvement in air 
quality is due to permanent and enforceable reductions in emissions 
resulting from implementation of the applicable implementation plan and 
applicable Federal air pollutant control regulations and other 
permanent and enforceable reductions; (iv) the Administrator has fully 
approved a maintenance plan for the area as meeting the requirements of 
Section 175(A); (v) the State containing such area has met all 
requirements applicable to the area under Section 110 and Part D. The 
USEPA also provided guidance on redesignation in the General Preamble 
for the Implementation of Title I of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 
1990, 57 FR 13498 (April 16, 1992), supplemented at 57 FR 18070 (April 
28, 1992) and in three key memoranda which were cited in the May 5, 
1995 Federal Register notice. See 60 FR 22337. The following discussion 
expands and clarifies the analysis made in the proposed rule as to how 
the State has fulfilled the Act's redesignation requirements for 
Clinton County.

A. The Area Must Have Attained the Ozone NAAQS.

    There is a 2-step process to determining whether an area has 
violated the ozone NAAQS which both tallies the number of monitored 
exceedances and accounts for any time the monitor was not operating or 
operating improperly. The first step is to determine the number of 
expected exceedances for each year of the last three years from each 
monitoring site. The second step is to determine the area's average 
expected exceedance rate over the most recent three year period. 
Pursuant to 40 C.F.R. 50.9, this rate cannot exceed 1.0.
    The OEPA submitted monitoring data for Clinton County for the years 
1977 through 1994. The monitor recorded 5 exceedances of the ozone 
NAAQS in 1983. This resulted in an average expectant exceedance rate of 
greater than 1.0. Consequently, Clinton County was found to be in 
violation of the NAAQS. On November 15, 1990, Clinton County retained 
its nonattainment designation and was classified as a transitional area 
based on monitoring data for 1987, 1988 and 1989. Clinton County 
exceeded the NAAQS for ozone for the years 1988, 1989, and 1993, during 
which there were only single exceedances during each of these years. In 
addition, monitoring data shows that no exceedances were monitored 
during 1995. Because Clinton County had only one exceedance during the 
last three years of complete monitoring data (1993-1995), the average 
expected exceedance rate is 0.33 per year, which falls below the 
average expected exceedance rate of 1.0. Thus, Clinton County currently 
meets the ozone NAAQS and has been in attainment since 1986.

B. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved State Implementation Plan (SIP) 
Under Section 110(k)

    Because Clinton County is classified as a transitional area for 
ozone, it is only required to submit an emissions inventory as a SIP 
revision.\2\ This final rulemaking also approves the emissions 
inventory for the Clinton County area which has been included as part 
of the maintenance plan.\3\ Consequently, the area has satisfied the 
second requirement.

    \2\ September 4, 1992 memorandum issued by John Calcagni, 
Director, Air Quality Management Division, entitled ``Procedures for 
Processing Requests to Attainment''.
    \3\ The September 4, 1992 memorandum issued by John Calcagni, 
Director, Air Quality Management Division, entitled, ``Procedures 
for Processing Requests to Attainment,'' allows approval action on 
the SIP elements and the redesignation request to occur 
simultaneously.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

C. The Improvement in Air Quality Must Be Due to Permanent and 
Enforceable Reductions in Emissions Resulting From Implementation of 
the SIP and Applicable Federal Air Pollutant Control Regulations and 
Other Permanent and Enforceable Reductions

    The State of Ohio did not rely on new SIP measures to meet this 
requirement because there were no new emission reduction programs 
required by the CAA to be approved into the SIP. Instead, the State 
demonstrated that the improvement in air quality was due to the Federal 
Motor Vehicle Emissions Control Program (FMVCP) required at 40 Code of 
Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 86 and the lower fuel volatility 
requirements at 40 CFR Part 80. Both of these requirements are 
permanent measures enforceable by the Federal government.
    The State has also shown that in Clinton County, actual total VOC 
emissions were reduced by approximately two (2) tons per day from 1990 
to 1993. The State attributes these results exclusively to reductions 
in mobile source emissions. The mobile source emission reductions were 
the result of the lower fuel volatility program and the FMVCP. 
Consequently, the third requirement has also been met.

D. The Area Must Have a Fully Approved Maintenance Plan Meeting the 
Requirements of Section 175(A)

    The OEPA has met the applicable requirements by submitting a 
maintenance plan consisting of emission inventories for area, point, 
and mobile sources of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), Nitrogen Oxides 
(NOX), and Carbon Monoxide (CO) emissions. This maintenance plan 
also includes a contingency plan with defined measures to be 
implemented in accordance with a specified schedule, as presented in 
Section II. D of the May 5, 1995 proposed rule. Additionally, any 
monitored violation in Clinton County would also trigger contingency 
measures in the counties comprising the Cincinnati moderate 
nonattainment area. (The State has also developed rules and an 
implementation plan to place a program in operation in the event a 
violation in any of these areas occur).
    The current RVP requirement in the State of Ohio is 9.0 pounds per 
square inch (psi).\4\ There is a 1 psi waiver available for retailers 
and blenders who use ethanol as an octane enhancer/additive. This 
waiver would still be available with the State's low-RVP program in the 
event it is implemented. The low-RVP program and other measures on 
Ohio's list of contingency measures are new measures that are not 
currently in place in the area.

    \4\  Federal RVP requirements are found at 40 CFR Section 80.27. 
As of the summer of 1992, gasoline RVP could not exceed 9.0 psi 
during the months of May through September. There is a special 
provision for fuels blended to a 10 volume percent ethanol. The 
provision allows the RVP to exceed 9.0 psi up to 10.0 psi.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

E. The Area Must Have Met All Applicable Requirements Under Section 110 
and Part D

    Ohio has also met this requirement, as detailed in a discussion in 
the May 5, 1995 Federal Register proposed approval of the redesignation 
request at 60 FR 22343.
    The proposed rulemaking also presented summary tables of VOC 
emissions, CO emissions, and NOX emissions projections for Clinton 
County. The tables for VOC and NOX are presented below.

[[Page 11562]]


                                       Summary of VOC Emissions (tons/day)                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                1990 base    1993 attain   1996 proj.    1999 proj.    2002 proj.    2006 proj. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.......................          0.0           0.0           0.0           0.0           0.0           0.0 
Area........................         11.3          11.33         11.36         11.39         11.42         11.47
Mobile......................          5.04          3.27          2.82          2.80          2.31          2.42
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals................         16.34         14.60         14.18         14.19         13.73         13.89
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                       Summary of NOX Emissions (tons/day)                                      
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                 1990 base   1993 attain   1996 proj.    1999 proj.    2002 proj.    2006 proj. 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point.......................          0.0           0.0           0.0           0.0           0.0           0.0 
Area........................          1.62          1.63          1.64          1.64          1.65          1.66
Mobile......................          4.80          4.19          3.69          3.65          3.13          3.25
                             -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Totals................          6.42          5.82          5.33          5.29          4.78          4.91
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The VOC and NOX emissions projected for the year 2006 in the 
above tables are considered emission budgets for purposes of 
transportation conformity. Section 176 of the CAA sets forth the 
requirement that the federal government and metropolitan planning 
organizations may not support transportation activities that do not 
conform to the purpose of the SIP. This is generally known as 
``transportation conformity.'' In the Maintenance Plan portion of the 
SIP an emissions budget is established for certain areas. This budget 
is the amount of emissions that the area must remain below in order to 
maintain the ozone standard. Clinton County is designated as a 
transitional nonattainment area that is generally downwind of the 
Cincinnati Metropolitan area. The Clinton County area does not have any 
major stationary sources of emissions and is considered a relatively 
small source of emissions. In addition, the last violation of the ozone 
NAAQS in Clinton County occurred in 1983.

Public Comment/USEPA Response

    In response to USEPA's request for written comments on the proposed 
rulemaking, USEPA received comments from the Miami Group of the Ohio 
Chapter of the Sierra Club (the Miami Group). The Miami Group submitted 
comments regarding the redesignation of both the Cincinnati and the 
Clinton County areas.\5\ Because this final rulemaking only addresses 
the redesignation of the Clinton County area, the following discussion 
summarizes and responds only to the Miami Group's comments insofar as 
they concerned the redesignation of the Clinton County area. USEPA will 
respond to the Miami Group's comments regarding the redesignation of 
the Cincinnati area in any final rulemaking regarding the redesignation 
of the Cincinnati area.

    \5\ USEPA's proposed rule in the May 5, 1995 Federal Register 
notice at 60 FR 22343 addressed OEPA's request for both the 
redesignation of the Ohio portion of the Cincinnati area and the 
Clinton County area.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Comment: The area has not yet proven that it has attained the 
NAAQS. The NAAQS for ozone are not fully protective of the public 
health and the environment. The area has reached attainment previously 
only to be followed by violations. Additionally, the ozone monitoring 
network may be insufficient and no consideration is given to downwind 
areas.
    Response: The current ozone standard was set to protect public 
health. The OEPA has shown that the Clinton County area meets the 
NAAQS, as described in both this final rulemaking and in the proposed 
rulemaking published on May 5, 1995. In addition, the ozone monitoring 
network has been determined by USEPA, to be representative of ambient 
air concentrations of ozone in the Clinton County area. In addition, 
the monitoring network will remain in operation after the redesignation 
to attainment to verify the future attainment status of the area.
    Finally, as stated in the proposed rule, the USEPA intends to 
address the transport or downwind area issue through Section 110 of the 
Act, based on a domain-wide modeling analysis. The domain-wide modeling 
analysis involves modeling the eastern portion of the United States in 
an effort to better understand what is needed in this region to reduce 
the amount of transported ozone and ozone precursors such as volatile 
organic compounds and oxides of nitrogen, so that the ozone NAAQS can 
be achieved in all areas across the region. Section 110 of the CAA 
requires that SIPs contain adequate provisions to prohibit sources or 
emissions activities within the State from contributing to 
nonattainment, or interfering with maintenance in any other state with 
respect to the NAAQS. USEPA expects to use its authority under the CAA 
to require states to revise their SIPs to meet this requirement.
    Comment: The improvement in air quality is not due to permanent and 
enforceable reductions in emissions. The lack of violations of the 
ozone NAAQS may be due to voluntary controls. Increasing vehicle miles 
travelled will result in increasing emissions, offsetting reductions 
from the removal of older vehicles. There are inconsistencies in the 
Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and growth projections between the SIP, 
the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), and the redesignation 
request.
    Response: The State reasonably attributed improvement in air 
quality to be primarily due to two Federal programs: the FMVCP and the 
lower Reid Vapor Pressure (RVP) program, both of which are permanent 
and Federally enforceable. The transportation projections were 
calculated using methods consistent with USEPA guidance. The 
differences in VMT growth projections are slight and do not affect the 
approval of the redesignation package. The year 2006 total VOC emission 
totals as detailed in this rulemaking set the budget for transportation 
conformity purposes. While VMT is increasing in Clinton County, the 
vehicles in the area are producing less pollution per vehicle due to 
the FMVCP. This offsets the growth in VMT and results in less pollution 
from the mobile sources sector. Emissions projections using USEPA's 
mobile emissions model to estimate vehicle emissions combined with the 
VMT projections for Clinton County confirm this conclusion.
    Comment: The transportation modeling and emission analysis is 
flawed and makes it impossible for the maintenance plan to succeed. 
Changes in VMT brought about by changes in highway systems or land 
development have not been adequately addressed.
    Response: The approach used to estimate mobile source emissions is 
reasonable and in accordance with USEPA guidance. The Mobile 5a model

[[Page 11563]]
is the appropriate model to use to predict emission factors which can 
be applied to VMT to obtain emission projections. Additionally, mobile 
source inventories will be updated at least once every three years to 
incorporate new VMT estimates and revised USEPA mobile emission models.
    Comment: If the area is redesignated to attainment, stationary 
sources will be allowed to grow uncontrolled.
    Response: Currently, no major sources are located in the Clinton 
County area. Any major new sources located in this area would be 
subject to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (PSD) requirements 
at 40 C.F.R. Sec. 52.21. These regulations require major new sources 
and major modifications of existing sources to use Best Available 
Control Technology (BACT). In addition, any allowable emission 
increases from such new construction could not cause or contribute to 
air pollution in the area. The maintenance plan prepared for Clinton 
County also relies on contingency measures to correct any future 
violations. These contingency measures would be implemented in the 
event the standard is violated.
    Comment: The contingency plan is based on insufficient control 
measures and the implementation schedule is too long.
    Response: The contingency plan is adequate. It contains 12 possible 
measures. Moreover, it is not limited to the list of 12 measures in the 
submittal. For example, the State may select other control measures 
based on cost-effectiveness, VOC reduction potential, economic and 
social consideration, or other factors. The implementation schedule 
calls for a VOC control program to be implemented as expeditiously as 
possible and to be in place no later than 12 months from the 
verification that a violation of the ozone National Ambient Air Quality 
Standards (NAAQS) has occurred. USEPA believes that this schedule 
satisfies the requirement of section 175A that contingency measures 
promptly correct any violations and is consistent with schedules 
contained in numerous other maintenance plans approved by USEPA.
    Comment: The Long Range Plan contains emission projections which 
are insupportable.
    Response: Ohio demonstrated that by considering the growth in the 
area (including VMT growth) and present controls on existing emission 
sources, emissions will remain below the attainment year inventory 
through the year 2006. In projecting mobile source emissions, Ohio 
obtained VMT based on the TRANPLAN Model which uses traffic counting 
data for the year 1990. To forecast VMT to the year 2006, Ohio used 
growth parameters based on modeling of the Long Range Transportation 
Plan (future highway network). This modeling process incorporated 
population growth estimates from Ohio Data Users Center, employment 
forecasts, and other forecasts regarding socio-economic data. USEPA 
considers the methodology which was used to project emissions to be 
reasonable.

III. Rulemaking Action

    Clinton County, which is located to the northeast of the City of 
Cincinnati, is being redesignated from transitional nonattainment to 
attainment for ozone. In the proposed rulemaking published on May 5, 
1995, USEPA detailed how the Clinton County portion of the submittal 
met the redesignation requirements of Section 107(d)(3)(E). See 60 FR 
22337.
    USEPA received comments pertaining to the proposed rulemaking. The 
comments were considered and responses were detailed in the above 
section of this notice. The USEPA believes that the redesignation 
requirements of Section 107(d) are satisfied and is taking final action 
to approve the request for redesignation to attainment and to approve 
the maintenance plan and emissions inventory for Clinton County, Ohio.
    USEPA finds that there is good cause for this redesignation, 
maintenance plan and emissions inventory to become effective 
immediately upon publication because a delayed effective date is 
unnecessary due to the nature of a redesignation to attainment, which 
exempts the area from certain Act requirements that would otherwise 
apply to it. The immediate effective date for this redesignation, 
maintenance plan and emissions inventory is authorized under both 5 
U.S.C. 553(d)(1), which provides that rulemaking actions may become 
effective less than 30 days after publication if the rule ``grants or 
recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction'' and section 
553(d)(3), which allows an effective date less than 30 days after 
publication ``as otherwise provided by the agency for good cause found 
and published with the rule.''
    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 a July 10, 1995 
memorandum from Mary D. Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and 
Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has 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. Redesignation of an area to attainment under section 
107(d)(3)(E) of the Act does not impose any new requirements on small 
entities. Redesignation is an action that affects the status of a 
geographical area and does not impose any regulatory requirements on 
sources. The Administrator certifies that the approval of the 
redesignation request will not affect a substantial number of small 
entities. 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, the 
Administrator certifies 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. U.S. 
E.P.A., 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, 
USEPA 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.
    Through submission of the state implementation plan or plan 
revisions approved in this action, the State and any affected local or 
tribal governments have elected to adopt the program

[[Page 11564]]
provided for under section 175A of the Clean Air Act. The rules and 
commitments being proposed for approval in this action may bind State, 
local and tribal governments to perform certain actions and also may 
ultimately lead to the private sector being required to perform certain 
duties. To the extent that the rules and commitments being proposed for 
approval by this action will impose or lead to the imposition of any 
mandate upon the State, local or tribal governments either as the owner 
or operator of a source or as a regulator, or would impose or lead to 
the imposition of any mandate upon the private sector, USEPA's action 
will impose no new requirements; such sources are already subject to 
these requirements under State law. Accordingly, no additional costs to 
State, local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, will 
result from this action. The USEPA has also determined that this action 
does not include a mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 
million or more to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate 
or to the private sector.
    Under Section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by May 20, 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

40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental Protection, Air pollution control, Ozone, Nitrogen 
oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control.

    Dated: March 1, 1996.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.

    Chapter 1, 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 52.1885 is amended by adding paragraphs (b)(9) and (y) 
to read as follows:


Sec. 52.1885  Control Strategy: Ozone.

* * * * *
    (b) * * *
    (9) Clinton County
* * * * *
    (y) Approval--The 1990 base-year ozone emissions inventory 
requirement of Section 182(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act has been 
satisfied for Clinton County.

PART 81--DESIGNATION OF AREAS FOR AIR QUALITY PLANNING PURPOSES-
OHIO

    1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
    Authority: 42. U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
    2. In Sec. 81.336 the ozone table is amended by revising the entry 
for the Clinton County Area to read as follows:


Sec. 81.336  Ohio

* * * * *

                                                                       Ohio--Ozone                                                                      
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                           Designation                                               Classification                     
         Designated area          ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Date\1\                         Type                          Date                         Type          
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                                        
                   *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  
Clinton County Area, Clinton       March 21, 1996.................  Attainment...............                                                           
 County.                                                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                                        
                                                                                                                                                        
                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                  *                   
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ This date is November 15, 1990 unless otherwise noted.                                                                                              

[FR Doc. 96-6778 Filed 3-20-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P