[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 51 (Wednesday, March 17, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 13070-13075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-6256]



[[Page 13070]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[OH121-1a; FRL-6239-3]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving two redesignation requests submitted by the 
State of Ohio. This action, which was requested on October 26, 1995, 
redesignates Lake and Jefferson Counties to attainment of National 
Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide 
(SO2). EPA is also approving the maintenance plans for Lake 
and Jefferson Counties, to ensure maintenance of the NAAQS, which were 
submitted with the redesignation requests. In conjunction with these 
actions, EPA is also approving State-adopted emission limits for the 
Eastlake Plant (currently operated by First Energy, formerly operated 
by Cleveland Electric Illuminating), and the Ohio Rubber Company Plant, 
replacing equivalent limits in the Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 
for Lake County. In the proposed rules section of this Federal 
Register, EPA is proposing approval of, and soliciting comments on, 
this approval. If adverse written comments are received on this action, 
EPA will withdraw this final rule and address the comments received in 
response to this action in a final rule based on the related proposed 
rule. A second public comment period will not be held. Parties 
interested in commenting on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: This ``direct final'' rule is effective on May 17, 1999, unless 
EPA receives adverse written comments by April 16, 1999. If an adverse 
written comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 
the rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that rule will 
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, 
Regulation Development Section. Air Program Branch (AR-18J), 
Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604. Copies of the revision request are available for 
inspection at the following address: Environmental Protection Agency, 
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that you telephone Phuong 
Nguyen at (312) 886-6708 before visiting the Region 5 office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phuong Nguyen at (312) 886-6701.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    The NAAQS for SO2 consists of three standards: Two 
primary standards for the protection of public health and a secondary 
standard for protection of public welfare. The primary SO2 
standards address 24-hour average and annual average ambient 
SO2 concentrations. The secondary standard addresses 3-hr 
average ambient SO2 concentrations (See 40 CFR 50.2-50.5).
    EPA promulgated the FIP regulations in 1976. These regulations 
required significant emission reductions at specific facilities 
throughout the State in order to attain and maintain the NAAQS for 
SO2. On October 5, 1978, Lake and Jefferson Counties (among 
others) were designated nonattainment for the primary standards. The 
State adopted its own regulations in 1979, generally imposing limits 
similar to those promulgated in the FIP. The State submitted these 
regulations for EPA approval in 1980, including regulations for 
Jefferson and Lake Counties. The State withdrew its submittal with 
respect to specified Lake County sources, namely the Eastlake Plant 
(formerly operated by Cleveland Electric Illuminating company), the 
Ohio Rubber Company Plant, and the Painesville Municipal Plant boiler 
number 5. EPA approved these regulations on January 27, 1981 (for 
Jefferson County, 46 FR 8481) and on April 20, 1982 (for Lake County, 
47 FR 16784). Revised regulations for Jefferson County were approved on 
December 9, 1996 (61 FR 52882). However, the federally promulgated FIP 
regulations have remained in effect for the above sources in Lake 
County.
    On October 26, 1995, Governor Voinovich requested that EPA move 
forward with redesignation to attainment for all remaining 
SO2 nonattainment areas within the State of Ohio including 
Lake and Jefferson Counties. On May 28, 1996, EPA Administrator Browner 
sent a letter to Governor Voinovich informing him that the 
redesignation request depended on approval of State adopted rules in 
place of FIP rules. On July 30, 1996, the Director of the Ohio 
Environmental Protection Agency replied by objecting to EPA's position 
that such further materials are a prerequisite for these redesignations 
and requesting that EPA reconsider its position regarding the need for 
Ohio to adopt State rules to replace Federal rules, prior to 
redesignating several areas in Ohio to attainment for sulfur dioxide. 
In a September 25, 1996 letter to the State, EPA reaffirmed its 
position. On August 20, 1998, Ohio submitted material requested by EPA, 
including State adopted limits, to support the State's requests to 
redesignate Lake and Jefferson Counties to attainment with respect to 
SO2.
    The criteria for redesignation to attainment are given in section 
107 (d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (Act). Of particular note is section 
107 (d)(3)(E)(ii), requiring that EPA has fully approved the applicable 
plan. These criteria will be discussed in more detail below.
    The sulfur dioxide nonattainment area in Lake County is described 
as the cities of Eastlake, Lakeline, Mentor (north of US 20 and west of 
SR 306), Timberlake and Willoughby (north of US 20). The only major 
sulfur dioxide source located within this area is the Eastlake Plant. 
The State adopted emission limits for sources at this facility are 
equivalent to those found in the FIP. Compliance with these limits was 
determined by examining information submitted in the facility's Title V 
permit application. The Ohio Rubber Company plant and Painesville 
Municipal Plant are located in the sulfur dioxide attainment portion of 
Lake county, and emissions of these sources are not expected to have a 
significant impact on air quality in the nonattainment portion of the 
county.
    The sulfur dioxide nonattainment area in Jefferson county is 
described as the cities of Steubenville and Mingo Junction, and the 
townships of Steubenville, Island Creek, Cross Creek, Knox and Wells. 
The largest sulfur dioxide sources located within this area are the 
American Electric Power, Cardinal Power Plant and Tidd Plant, both in 
Brilliant; The First Energy, W.H. Sammis Plant in Stratton; The First 
Energy, Toronto Plant, in Toronto; The Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, 
Steubenville South Plant, in Mingo Junction; and the Wheeling-
Pittsburgh Steel, Steubenville North Plant, in Steubenville. The state 
emission limits for sources at these facilities were approved by EPA as 
part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP), effective January 27, 
1981. Revised limits for these sources were approved on December 9, 
1996. Compliance with these limits was determined by examining 
information submitted in the sources' title V permit applications.

[[Page 13071]]

II. SIP Approval

    On August 20, 1998, Ohio submitted material including State adopted 
limits for sources in Lake County. The State requested approval of SIP 
limits for the First Energy Eastlake Plant and the Ohio Rubber Plant in 
place of federally promulgated FIP limits.
    Guidance relevant to the request at issue is provided in a 
September 28, 1994 memorandum from the Director, Air Quality Management 
Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, EPA, to the 
Director, Air and Radiation Division, Region 5, entitled, ``Response to 
Request for Guidance on Issues with Ohio Sulfur Dioxide Federal 
Implementation Plan''. This memo set forth three criteria to be met for 
the approval of State limits that are equivalent to existing FIP limits 
without new modeling. Under the first two criteria, there must be no 
known inadequacy in the original attainment demonstration. Under the 
third criteria, the State limits must reflect no relaxation of existing 
emission limits. All three of these criteria are met by the State 
promulgated SIP limits. Therefore, the revised limits can be considered 
to be adequate to assure attainment without further modeling. 
Consequently, EPA approves adopted revisions to rule OAC 3745-18-49(G) 
(the emission limitations for the First Energy, Eastlake plant) and 
rule OAC 3745-18-49(H) (the emission limitations for the Ohio Rubber 
Company plant). These emission limits are equivalent to the FIP limits 
for Lake County.
    As a result of the limits just discussed, attainment in Lake County 
is assured on the basis of State-adopted, EPA-approved limits. 
Consequently, there is no further need for a federally promulgated 
limit, and the corresponding FIP limits for these sources in Lake 
County can be rescinded.

III. Maintenance Plan Approval

    Ohio's attainment plan for sulfur dioxide provides for attainment 
even with major sources emitting their maximum allowable emissions. 
Therefore, maintenance is provided by assuring that minor source 
impacts do not increase significantly. The principal minor sources are 
distant point sources and diesel vehicles. Title IV reductions and the 
required national conversion to low sulfur diesel fuel were the 
identified maintenance provisions contained in the approved 
redesignation for Washington and Morgan counties in 1994 (59 FR 48403). 
These reductions will also be realized in the other nonattainment 
counties; therefore, this maintenance plan can also be applied for 
these counties. These reductions in minor source emissions, in 
combination with the limits on major source emissions, are expected to 
provide for continued attainment in Jefferson and Lake Counties. 
Therefore, EPA approves the maintenance plan for these two counties.

IV. Redesignation Evaluation Criteria

    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act, as amended in 1990, establishes 
requirements to be met before an area may be redesignated from 
nonattainment to attainment. The criteria used to review redesignation 
requests are derived from the Act. An area can be redesignated to 
attainment if the following conditions are met: (A) The area has 
attained the applicable NAAQS; (B) The area has a fully approved SIP 
under section 110(k) of the Act; (C) The EPA has determined that the 
improvement in air quality in the area is due to permanent and 
enforceable emission reductions; (D) EPA has determined that the 
maintenance plan for the area has met all of the requirements of the 
section 175A of the Act; and, (E) The state has met all requirements 
applicable to the area under section 110 and part D of the Act.

A. Demonstrated Attainment of the NAAQS

    As explained in an April 21, 1983, memorandum ``Section 107 
Designation Policy Summary'' from the Director of the Office of Air 
Quality Planning and Standards, eight consecutive quarters of data 
showing SO2 NAAQS attainment are required for redesignation. 
A violation of NAAQS occurs when more than one exceedance of the 
SO2 NAAQS is recorded in any year (40 CFR 50.4). Ohio's 
August 3, 1998, submittal provided ambient monitoring data showing that 
Lake and Jefferson Counties have met the NAAQS for the years 1992-1998, 
the most recent consecutive years with quality-assured monitoring data. 
There has not been a monitored violation of the NAAQS for sulfur 
dioxide within the state for over 15 years.
    Dispersion modeling is commonly used to demonstrate attainment of 
the SO2 NAAQS. A September 4, 1992 EPA policy memorandum on 
``procedures for processing requests to redesignate areas to 
attainment'' explains that additional dispersion modeling is not 
required in support of an SO2 redesignation request if an 
adequate modeled attainment demonstration is submitted and approved as 
part of the implemented SIP, and no indication of an existing air 
quality deficiency exists. Modeling was performed in 1976 to show that, 
under all allowed operating scenarios, the emission limit in these two 
counties' SO2 SIPs would lead to attainment and maintenance 
of the SO2 standards.
    These approvals were based on modeling showing that compliance with 
the submitted limits would assure attainment of the standards. 
Therefore, an important part of Ohio's August 20, 1998 submittal was 
evidence that sources are complying with applicable limits. This 
evidence is in the form of certifications of compliance by the affected 
sources, pursuant to certification requirements of Title V. Based on 
this evidence, EPA concludes that emissions are sufficiently low as to 
assure attainment throughout the areas currently designated 
nonattainment.

B. Fully Approved SIP

    The SIP for the area at issue must be fully approved under section 
110(k) of the Act and must satisfy all requirements that apply to the 
area. EPA's guidance for implementing section 110 of the Act is 
discussed in the General Preamble to Title I (44 FR 20372, April 14, 
1979, and 57 FR 13498, April 16, 1992). The SO2 SIP for 
Jefferson County and for most of Lake County met the requirements of 
section 110 of the Act and were approved by EPA on January 27, 1981 (46 
FR 8481) and on April 20, 1982 (47 FR 16784), respectively. Also on 
December 9, 1996, EPA approved a SIP revision submitted by State of 
Ohio which amends the SO2 regulations applying to First 
Energy's Sammis and Toronto Plants in Jefferson County. This revision 
involves reverting to an emission limit option presented in the FIP for 
Jefferson County. State limits for the remainder of Lake County (except 
for the Painesville Municipal Plant) are being approved in this 
rulemaking. The SIP supplemented a set of general Statewide 
SO2 limitations with a set of individual emission limits for 
specific sources in the respective counties.

C. Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions

    Lake and Jefferson Counties' attainment of the SO2 
standards can be attributed to the implementation of the SO2 
SIP controls and other permanent emission reductions. On January 27, 
1981 and also on April 20, 1982, EPA approved the control strategies 
and emissions limits in Ohio's SO2 SIP for Jefferson and for 
Lake (except for Eastlake plant, Ohio Rubber Company plant, and 
Painesville Municipal plant boiler number 5) Counties respectively,

[[Page 13072]]

which rendered them federally enforceable. The regulations are 
permanent, and any future revisions to the rules must be submitted to 
and approved by EPA.
    The major emissions of SO2 in Jefferson County are due 
to power plants and steelmaking operations and the major emissions of 
SO2 in Lake County are due to power plant and combustion 
sources. The reductions in SO2 emissions are due primarily 
to the conversion of some fuel-burning sources to lower sulfur content 
fuels, and to the shutdown of various types of sources. The use of 
lower-sulfur ``cleaner'' fuels is reflected in the facilities'' air 
permits and federally enforceable SIP regulations.

D. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan

    As discussed above, EPA has concluded that the combination of 
limitations on maximum allowable emissions from major point sources and 
implementation of programs that will yield reductions in minor source 
emissions will assure maintenance of the standards.

E. Part D and Other Section 110 Requirements

    EPA approved the SO2 SIPs for Jefferson County on 
January 27, 1981, and later on December 9, 1996, and for Lake County on 
April 20, 1982. Several of the section 110 requirements were revised in 
the 1990 amendments to the Act. These existing SIPs conform with the 
new provisions of the Act. The plans provide for the implementation of 
reasonably available control measures for SO2 under Ohio's 
SIP rule. As required by part D of the Act, Ohio has a fully approved 
and implemented New Source Review Plan. The existing Prevention of 
Significant Deterioration program, which was federally delegated for 
all attainment areas, will apply in all of Lake and Jefferson Counties 
subsequent to redesignation.

V. Final Rulemaking Action

    EPA has completed an analysis of the SIP revision request based on 
a review of material presented, and has determined that the revisions 
for the First Energy Eastlake plant and Ohio Rubber Company Plant are 
approvable. In addition, EPA is also approving the SO2 
maintenance plan for Lake and Jefferson Counties, which were submitted 
with the redesignation request, as adequately ensuring that attainment 
will be maintained. Finally, EPA is approving redesignation requests 
from the State of Ohio which were submitted on October 26, 1995 and is 
redesignating those portions of Lake and Jefferson counties currently 
designated nonattainment to attainment for SO2.
    EPA is publishing this action without prior proposal because EPA 
views this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse 
comments. However, in a separate document in this Federal Register 
publication, EPA is proposing to approve the State Plan should adverse 
written comments be filed. This action will be effective without 
further notice unless EPA receives relevant adverse written comment by 
April 16, 1999. Should EPA receive such comments, it will publish a 
final rule informing the public that this action will not take effect. 
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 on May 17, 1999.

VI. Administration Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 12866, entitled 
``Regulatory Planing and Review.''

B. Executive Order 12875: Enhancing Intergovernmental Partnerships

    Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local or 
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance cost incurred by those 
governments. If the mandate is unfunded , EPA must provide to the OMB a 
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with 
representatives of affected State, local and tribal governments, the 
nature of their concerns, copies of any written communications from the 
governments, and a statement supporting the need to issue the 
regulation. In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elective official and other 
representatives of State, local and tribal governments ``to provide 
meaningful and timely input in the development of regulatory proposals 
containing significant unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not 
create a mandate on State, local or tribal governments. The rule does 
not imposes any enforceable duties on these entities. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13084: Consultation and Coordination With Indian 
Tribal Governments

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on these communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded, 
EPA must provide to the OMB in a separately identified section of the 
preamble to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior 
consultation with representatives of affected tribal governments, a 
summary of the nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the 
need to issue the regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to 
develop an effective process permitting elected and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.'' Today's rule 
does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of Indian 
tribal governments. Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of 
E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

D. Executive Order 13045

    Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) is 
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O. 
12866, and (2) concerns an environmental health or safety risk that EPA 
has reason to believe may have a disproportionate effect on children. 
If the regulatory action meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate 
the environmental health or safety effects of the planned rule on 
children, and explain why the planned regulation is preferable to other 
potentially effective and reasonably feasible alternative considered by 
the Agency. EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the 
potential to influence the regulation. This action is not subject to 
E.O. 13045 because it approves a state rule implementing a previously 
promulgated health or safety-based Federal standard, and preserves the 
existing level of pollution control for the affected areas.

[[Page 13073]]

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency 
to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to 
notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies 
that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small 
businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small governmental 
jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant impact on a 
substantial number of small entities because plan approvals under 
section 110 do not create any new requirements but simply approve 
requirements that the State is already imposing. Therefore, because the 
federal approval does not create any new requirements, I certify that 
this action will not have a significant economic impact on a 
substantial number of small entities. 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 EPA to base its actions 
on such grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 
(1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 
(``Unfunded Mandates Act''), signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA 
must prepare a budgetary impact statement to accompany any proposed or 
final rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in estimated 
annual cost to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or 
to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under Section 205, EPA must 
select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that 
achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with statutory 
requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan for 
informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly 
or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does 
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual cost 
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 requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, 
local, or tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from 
this action.

G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General

    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the 
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally 
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating 
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, 
to each house of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the 
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other 
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of 
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior 
to the publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This rule is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by May 17, 1999. 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: February 26, 1999.
Jo Lynn Traub,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, 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 et seq.

    2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding (c)(118) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.1870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (118) On October 26, 1995, and August 20, 1998, Ohio submitted 
material including State adopted limits for Lake County, and requested 
approval of limits for the Ohio First Energy Eastlake Plant and the 
Ohio Rubber Company Plant.
    (i) Incorporation by reference
    (A) Rule 3745-18-49 (G) and (H) of the Ohio Administrative Code, 
effective May 11, 1987.
    3. Section 52.1881 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4) and 
(a)(8) and adding paragraph (a)(13) to read as follows:


Sec. 52.1881  Control strategy; Sulfur oxide (sulfur dioxide).

    (a) * * *
    (4) Approval-EPA approves the sulfur dioxide emission limits for 
the following counties: Adams County (except Dayton Power & Light-
Stuart), Allen County (except Cairo Chemical), Ashland County, 
Ashtabula County, Athens County, Auglaize County, Belmont County, Brown 
County, Carroll County, Champaign County, Clark County, Clermont 
County, (except Cincinnati Gas & Electric-Beckjord), Clinton County, 
Columbiana County, Coshocton County, (except Columbus & Southern Ohio 
Electric-Conesville), Crawford County, Darke County, Defiance County, 
Delaware County, Erie County, Fairfield County, Fayette County, Fulton 
County, Gallia County (except Ohio Valley Electric Company-Kyger Creek 
and Ohio Power-Gavin), 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 (except 
Painesville Municipal Plant boiler number 5) , Lawrence County (except 
Allied Chemical-South Point), Licking County, Logan County, Lorain 
County (except Ohio Edison-Edgewater, Cleveland Electric Illuminating-
Avon Lake, U.S. Steel-Lorain, and B.F. Goodrich), Lucas County (except 
Gulf Oil Company, Coulton Chemical Company, Phillips Chemical Company 
and Sun Oil Company), Madison County, Marion County, Medina County, 
Meigs County, Mercer County, Miami County, Monroe County, Morgan 
County, Montgomery County (except Bergstrom Paper, Miami Paper, 
Bergstrom Paper, Morrow County, Muskingum County, Noble County, Ottawa 
County, Paulding County, Perry County, Pickaway

[[Page 13074]]

County, Pike County (except Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant), 
Portage County, Preble County, Putnam County, Richland County, Ross 
County (except Mead Corporation), 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 (except Shell 
Chemical), Wayne County, Williams County, Wood County (except Libbey-
Owens-Ford Plants Nos. 4 and 8 and No. 6), and Wyandot County.
* * * * *
    (8) No Action-EPA is neither approving nor disapproving the 
emission limitations for the following counties on sources pending 
further review: Adams County (Dayton Power & Light-Stuart), Allen 
County (Cairo Chemical), Butler County, Clermont County (Cincinnati Gas 
& Electric-Beckjord), Coshocton County (Columbus & Southern Ohio 
Electric-Conesville), Cuyahoga County, Franklin County, Gallia County 
(Ohio Valley Electric Company-Kyger Creek, and Ohio Power-Gavin), Lake 
County (Painesville Municipal Plant boiler number 5), Lawrence County 
(Allied Chemical-South Point), Lorain County (Ohio Edison-Edgewater 
Plant, Cleveland Electric Illuminating Avon Lake, U.S. Steel-Lorain, 
and B.F. Goodrich), Lucas County (Gulf Oil Company, Coulton Chemical 
Company, Phillips Chemical Company and Sun Oil Company), Mahoning 
County, Montgomery County (Bergstrom Paper and Miami Paper), Pike 
County (Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant), Stark County, Washington 
County (Shell Chemical Company), and Wood County (Libbey-Owens-Ford 
Plants Nos. 4 and 8 and No. 6).
* * * * *
    (13) In a letter dated October 26, 1995, Ohio submitted a 
maintenance plan for sulfur dioxide in Lake and Jefferson Counties.
* * * * *

PART 81--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart K K--Ohio

    2. In Sec. 81.336 the table entitled ``Ohio SO2'' is 
revised to read as follows:


Sec. 81.336  Ohio.

* * * * *

                                                    Ohio--SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            Does not      Does not
                                                              meet          meet        Cannot be    Better than
                     Designated area                         primary      secondary    classified     national
                                                            standards     standards                   standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Athens County...........................................  ............  ............  ............            X
Clermont County.........................................  ............  ............  ............            X
Columbiana County.......................................  ............  ............  ............            X
Coshocton County:
    Franklin Township...................................           X1
    The remainder of Coshocton County...................  ............  ............  ............           X1
Cuyahoga County:
    The Cities of Bay Village, Westlake, North Olmsted,   ............  ............  ............            X
     Olmsted Falls, Rock River, Fairview Park, Berea,
     Middleburg Hts., Strongsville, North Royalton,
     Broadview Hts., Brecksville and the Townships of
     Olmsted and Riveredge..............................
    The remainder of Cuyahoga County....................            X
Gallia County:
    Addison Township....................................  ............           X1
    The remainder of Gallia County......................  ............  ............  ............           X1
Greene County...........................................  ............  ............  ............            X
Hamilton County:
    The City of Cincinnati bounded on the west by 175     ............  ............  ............           X1
     and U.S. Route 127, and on the south by the Ohio
     and Little Miami Rivers; the Cities of Norwood,
     Fairfax, Silverton, Golf Manor, Amberly, Deer Park,
     Arlington Heights, Elwood Place, and St. Bernard...
    The remainder of Hamilton County....................  ............  ............  ............           X1
Jefferson County:
    Cities of Steubenville & Mingo Junction, Townships    ............  ............  ............            X
     of Steubenville, Island Creek, Cross Creek, Knox
     and Wells..........................................
    The remainder of Jefferson County...................  ............  ............  ............           X1
Lake County:
    The Cities of Eastlake, Timberlake, Lakeline,         ............  ............  ............            X
     Willoughby (north of U.S. 20), and Mentor (north of
     U.S. 20 west of S.R. 306)..........................
    The remainder of Lake County........................  ............  ............  ............            X
Lorain County:
    Area bounded on the north by the Norfolk and Western            X
     Railroad Tracks, on the east by State Route 301
     (Abbe Road), on the south by State Route 254, and
     on the west by Oberlin Road........................
    The remainder of Lorain County......................  ............  ............  ............            X
Lucas County:
    The area east of Rte. 23 & west of eastern boundary            X1
     of Oregon Township.................................
    The remainder of Lucas County.......................  ............  ............  ............           X1
Mahoning County.........................................  ............  ............  ............            X
Montgomery County.......................................  ............  ............  ............            X
Morgan County...........................................  ............  ............  ............            X
    Center Township.....................................  ............  ............  ............           X1
    The remainder of Morgan County......................  ............  ............  ............           X1
Summit County:

[[Page 13075]]

 
    Area bounded by the following lines--North--          ............  ............  ............            X
     Interstate 76, East--Route 93, South--Vanderhoof
     Road, West--Summit County Line.....................
    Area bounded by the following lines--North--Bath                2             2             2             2
     Road (48 east to Route 8, Route 8 north to Barlow
     Road, Barlow Road east to county line, East--Summit/
     Portage County line, South Interstate 76 to Route
     93, Route 93 south to Route 619, Route 619 east to
     County line, West-Summit/Medina County line........
    Entire area northwest of the following line Route 80  ............  ............  ............           X3
     east to Route 91, Route 91 north to the County line
    The remainder of Summit County......................  ............  ............  ............           X4
Trumbull County.........................................  ............  ............  ............            X
Washington County.......................................  ............  ............  ............            X
    Waterford Township..................................  ............  ............  ............            X
    The remainder of Washington County..................  ............  ............  ............            X
All other counties in the State of Ohio.................  ............  ............  ............          X1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA designation replaces State designation.
\2\ This area remains undesignated at this time as a result of a court remand in PPG Industries, Inc. vs.
  Costle, 630 F.2d 462 (6th Cir. 1980).
\3\ This area was affected by the Sixth Circuit Court remand but has since been designated.
\4\ The area was not affected by the court remand in PPG Industries, Inc. vs. Costle, 630 F.2d 462 (6th Cir.
  1980).

[FR Doc. 99-6256 Filed 3-16-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P