[Federal Register Volume 69, Number 21 (Monday, February 2, 2004)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 4856-4861]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 04-1966]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[OH158-1a; FRL-7616-4]


Redesignation and Approval of Ohio Implementation Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is redesignating Lucas County, Ohio to an attainment area 
for sulfur dioxide (SO2). In addition, EPA is approving 
Ohio's plan for continuing to attain the SO2 standards in 
Lucas County. EPA is further approving selected State emission limits. 
Ohio requested these actions on March 25, 1999.

DATES: This rule is effective on March 18, 2004, unless the EPA 
receives relevant adverse written comments by March 3, 2004. If EPA 
receives adverse comment, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the 
rule in the Federal Register and inform the public that the rule will 
not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Acting Chief, Air 
Programs Branch (AR-18J), United States Environmental Protection 
Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Comments may also be submitted electronically or through hand 
delivery/courier, according to the detailed instructions described in 
Part(I)(B)(1)(i) through (iii) of the Supplementary Information 
section. Copies of the State's submittal are available for inspection 
at the following address: (We recommend that you telephone John 
Summerhays at (312) 886-6067 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)
    U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation 
Division (AR-18J), 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays, Criteria Pollutant 
Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886-6067, 
[email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplemental information section is 
organized as follows:

I. General Information
II. Background and Criteria for Review
III. Review of Emission Limit Revisions
IV. Review of Redesignation Request
    A. Has the area attained the standards?
    B. Has EPA fully approved the applicable implementation plan?
    C. Is attainment due to permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions?
    D. Does the maintenance plan assure continued attainment?
    E. Has the State met the requirements of section 110 and part D?
    V. Rulemaking Action
    VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. General Information

A. How Can I Get Copies of This Document and Other Related Information?

    1. The Regional Office has established an official public 
rulemaking file available for inspection at the Regional Office. EPA 
has established an official public rulemaking file for this action 
under ``Region 5 Air Docket OH158''. The official public file consists 
of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public 
comments received, and other information related to this action. 
Although a part of the official docket, the public rulemaking file does 
not include Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other 
information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official 
public rulemaking file is the collection of materials that is available 
for public viewing at the Air Programs Branch, Air

[[Page 4857]]

and Radiation Division, EPA Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604. EPA requests that if at all possible, you 
contact the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT 
section to schedule your inspection. The Regional Office's official 
hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 
excluding Federal holidays.
    2. Electronic Access. You may access this Federal Register document 
electronically through the regulations.gov Web site located at http://www.regulations.gov where you can find, review, and submit comments on 
Federal rules that have been published in the Federal Register, the 
Government's legal newspaper, and are open for comment.
    For public commenters, it is important to note that EPA's policy is 
that public comments, whether submitted electronically or in paper, 
will be made available for public viewing at the EPA Regional Office, 
as EPA receives them and without change, unless the comment contains 
copyrighted material, CBI, or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. When EPA identifies a comment containing 
copyrighted material, EPA will provide a reference to that material in 
the version of the comment that is placed in the official public 
rulemaking file. The entire printed comment, including the copyrighted 
material, will be available at the Regional Office for public 
inspection.

B. How and to Whom Do I Submit Comments?

    You may submit comments electronically, by mail, or through hand 
delivery/courier. To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the 
appropriate rulemaking identification number by including the text 
``Public comment on proposed rulemaking Region 5 Air Docket OH158'' in 
the subject line on the first page of your comment. Please ensure that 
your comments are submitted within the specified comment period. 
Comments received after the close of the comment period will be marked 
``late.'' EPA is not required to consider these late comments.
    1. Electronically. If you submit an electronic comment as 
prescribed below, EPA recommends that you include your name, mailing 
address, and an e-mail address or other contact information in the body 
of your comment. Also include this contact information on the outside 
of any disk or CD ROM you submit, and in any cover letter accompanying 
the disk or CD ROM. This ensures that you can be identified as the 
submitter of the comment and allows EPA to contact you in case EPA 
cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties or needs further 
information on the substance of your comment. EPA's policy is that EPA 
will not edit your comment, and any identifying or contact information 
provided in the body of a comment will be included as part of the 
comment that is placed in the official public docket. If EPA cannot 
read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you 
for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment.
    i. E-mail. Comments may be sent by electronic mail (e-mail) to 
[email protected]. Please include the text ``Public comment on 
proposed rulemaking Region 5 Air Docket OH158'' in the subject line. 
EPA's e-mail system is not an ``anonymous access'' system. If you send 
an e-mail comment directly without going through Regulations.gov, EPA's 
e-mail system automatically captures your e-mail address. E-mail 
addresses that are automatically captured by EPA's e-mail system are 
included as part of the comment that is placed in the official public 
docket.
    ii. Regulations.gov. Your use of regulations.gov is an alternative 
method of submitting electronic comments to EPA. Go directly to 
regulations.gov at http://www.regulations.gov, then click on the button 
``TO SEARCH FOR REGULATIONS CLICK HERE'', and select Environmental 
Protection Agency as the Agency name to search on. The list of current 
EPA actions available for comment will be listed. Please follow the 
online instructions for submitting comments. The system is an 
``anonymous access'' system, which means EPA will not know your 
identity, e-mail address, or other contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment.
    iii. Disk or CD ROM. You may submit comments on a disk or CD ROM 
that you mail to the mailing address identified in Section 2, directly 
below. These electronic submissions will be accepted in WordPerfect, 
Word or ASCII file format. Avoid the use of special characters and any 
form of encryption.
    2. By Mail. Send your comments to: Jay Bortzer, Acting Chief, Air 
Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Please include 
the text ``Public comment on proposed rulemaking Regional Air Docket 
OH158'' in the subject line on the first page of your comment.
    3. By Hand Delivery or Courier. Deliver your comments to: Jay 
Bortzer, Acting Chief, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
18th floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only accepted 
during the Regional Office's normal hours of operation. The Regional 
Office's official hours of business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 
a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal holidays.

C. How Should I Submit CBI to the Agency?

    Do not submit information that you consider to be CBI 
electronically to EPA. You may claim information that you submit to EPA 
as CBI by marking any part or all of that information as CBI (if you 
submit CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as 
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the 
specific information that is CBI). Information so marked will not be 
disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 
2.
    In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes 
any information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not 
contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion 
in the official public regional rulemaking file. If you submit the copy 
that does not contain CBI on disk or CD ROM, mark the outside of the 
disk or CD ROM clearly that it does not contain CBI. Information not 
marked as CBI will be included in the public file and available for 
public inspection without prior notice. If you have any questions about 
CBI or the procedures for claiming CBI, please consult the person 
identified in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

II. Background and Criteria for Review

    On March 25, 1999, Ohio requested SO2 emission limit 
revisions for three facilities in Lucas County and requested that EPA 
redesignate Lucas County to attainment for SO2. The 
requested emission limit revisions include approval of state limits for 
two facilities and removal of limits for a third facility that has shut 
down.
    The facilities affected by these requested limit revisions are 
currently subject to federally promulgated limits. In 1976, in response 
to the absence of federally enforceable SO2 emission limits 
in Ohio, EPA promulgated a Federal implementation plan (FIP) including 
SO2 emission limits for the State (41 FR 36324, with 
assorted subsequent amendments). Ohio subsequently submitted statewide 
SO2 regulations, most of which EPA approved in 1981 and 
1982. Nevertheless, the three facilities here

[[Page 4858]]

remain subject to FIP limits. The requested revisions would result in a 
Lucas County SIP that relies entirely on State-adopted limits.
    Criteria for judging these limits are given in a memorandum from 
the Director of the Air Quality Management Division of the Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards to the Director of the Air and 
Radiation Division of Region 5, dated September 28, 1994. In brief, EPA 
may approve state limits to replace the federally promulgated limits 
provided the state limits are at least as stringent as the federally 
promulgated limits and provided there is no evidence that the original 
attainment demonstration underlying the limits is invalid. Further 
discussion of these criteria is given below.
    The criteria for redesignating areas from nonattainment to 
attainment are given in section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act. This 
section includes 5 criteria:
    1. Has the area attained the standards?
    2. Has EPA fully approved the applicable implementation plan?
    3. Is attainment due to permanent and enforceable emission 
reductions?
    4. Does the maintenance plan assure continued attainment?
    5. Has the State met the requirements of section 110 and part D?
    EPA guidance on implementing these criteria is given in a 
memorandum from the Director of the Air Quality Management Division to 
the EPA regional air division directors dated September 4, 1992. Lucas 
County poses complex circumstances, posing special issues in applying 
these criteria. For clarity, further discussion of these criteria is 
included as part of the review of Ohio's request.

III. Review of Emission Limit Revisions

    EPA approved the attainment plan and most limits for Lucas County 
on June 30, 1982 (47 FR 28375). However, at Ohio's request, EPA did not 
rulemake at that time on limits for facilities owned by Sun Oil 
Company, Gulf Oil Company, Phillips Chemical, and Coulton Chemical. 
Consequently, the FIP limits remained in effect for these facilities.
    On March 3, 1998, EPA approved State limits for the Sun Oil Company 
facility (see 63 FR 15091). For the other three facilities, FIP limits 
remain in effect. Ohio is now requesting EPA rulemaking on State limits 
for the Gulf Oil facility and for the former Coulton Chemical facility 
(now owned by Marsulex, Inc.). Ohio requested that EPA delete limits in 
the FIP for Phillips Petroleum Company's Philblack facility, since that 
facility no longer exists. These requested revisions would result in 
the state implementation plan for SO2 in Lucas County 
relying entirely on federally approved state limits.
    Criteria for judging these limits are given in a memorandum from 
the Director of the Air Quality Management Division of the Office of 
Air Quality Planning and Standards to the Director of the Air and 
Radiation Division of Region 5, dated September 28, 1994. The criteria 
are:
    1. That the FIP demonstrated the limits were adequately protective 
at the time of promulgation.
    2. There is no evidence now that the FIP and associated emission 
limits are inadequate to protect the SO2 national ambient 
air quality standards.
    3. This is not a relaxation of existing emission limits.
    EPA concludes that these criteria are met. The original FIP limits 
reflect a modeling analysis that demonstrated that these limits would 
suffice to attain the standards. EPA has no evidence that these limits 
are inadequate. For the Gulf Oil and former Coulton Chemical 
facilities, the state limits are essentially identical to corresponding 
FIP limits. Since the Philblack facility no longer operates, the FIP 
limits are irrelevant in assessing whether the State limits provide 
equal air quality protection as the FIP.
    EPA is not revising the FIP in this rulemaking. EPA anticipates 
removing the FIP limits for the Philblack facility in a future 
rulemaking that will also address other FIP limits that EPA expects to 
become moot due to approval of corresponding state limits. Despite the 
temporary continuance of FIP limits for this shut down facility, 
today's action provides that Ohio has a fully approved state plan 
providing for attainment of the SO2 standards in Lucas 
County.

IV. Review of Redesignation Request

A. Has the Area Attained the Standards?

    The first prerequisite for a redesignation to attainment, given in 
Clean Air Act section 107(d)(3)(E)(i), is that ``[EPA] determines that 
the area has attained [the standard]''. For some pollutants, this 
determination relies solely on air quality monitoring data. However, 
for SO2, monitoring data alone is generally insufficient to 
assess an area's attainment status. EPA's guidance memorandum of 
September 4, 1992, states that for SO2 and specified other 
pollutants, ``dispersion modeling will generally be necessary to 
evaluate comprehensively sources' impacts.''
    Typically, attainment planning for SO2 involves 
dispersion modeling used to demonstrate that the emission limits 
adopted by the state suffice to assure attainment. With such modeling 
available, EPA can generally determine an area to be attaining the 
standard without further modeling, provided monitoring data also 
support that determination. If all sources are emitting at or below the 
levels included in the modeling done during attainment planning, then 
clearly similar modeling using the lower actual emission rates would 
show the area to be attaining the standard by a larger margin.
    The situation in Lucas County was more complicated. At the time of 
Ohio's request for redesignation, available evidence indicated that an 
important SO2 source in Lucas County, owned by Marsulex, was 
emitting more than the emissions level included for that source in the 
State's attainment demonstration. This emission increase arose from an 
expansion in production without a corresponding decrease in emissions 
per unit of production. This in turn indicated that the County may have 
been violating the SO2 air quality standard. More precisely, 
the normal means of finding an area to be attaining the SO2 
standards, by finding that sources are emitting below the levels found 
by dispersion modeling to assure attainment, could not be applied here. 
Since EPA did not have a full assessment of air quality under those 
circumstances in Lucas County (and, in fact, the criteria for such an 
assessment are unclear), EPA was unable to determine that the area was 
attaining the standard.
    More recently, Marsulex modified its process and reduced emissions 
for the facility to levels below those included for it in the State's 
attainment demonstration for Lucas County. Ohio in its submittal stated 
that other major SO2 sources are complying with applicable 
SIP limits, such that these facilities would also be emitting less than 
the levels included in the approved attainment demonstration. This fact 
(and the absence of monitored violations) means that EPA may now 
determine that the area is attaining the standard on the basis that 
emissions are lower and therefore air quality is better than with the 
modeled attainment demonstration.

B. Has EPA Fully Approved the Applicable Implementation Plan?

    The principal relevant element of the SIP required under part D of 
Title I of the Clean Air Act for SO2 in Lucas County is a 
plan for attaining the standards. As noted in a previous section, EPA 
approved Ohio's plan for SO2 in Lucas County on June 30, 
1982,

[[Page 4859]]

at 47 FR 28375, except that EPA did not act on limits for four sources. 
Although EPA subsequently approved limits for one of these sources (the 
Sun Oil facility), the federally promulgated FIP remained in effect for 
the other three sources.
    EPA informed Ohio of its view that a federally promulgated measure 
does not constitute an ``approved plan'' as required under section 
107(d)(3)(E)(ii). In EPA's view, this section can only be satisfied by 
EPA approval of rules and related plan elements that the state had 
submitted. The request by Ohio for EPA to approve limits for the Gulf 
Oil Company and Coulton Chemical facilities and to remove limits for 
Phillips Chemical's Philblack plant were intended to provide that all 
limits needed to ensure attainment in Lucas County are State adopted, 
EPA approved limits. Today's action to approve the limits for the Gulf 
Oil Company and Coulton Chemical facilities addresses this need for 
these two facilities. Since the Philblack plant is shut down, limits 
for this facility are unnecessary for the State's attainment plan. EPA 
thus concludes that it has now fully approved the State's attainment 
plan for this area, including approval of all limits needed to assure 
attainment in this area.

C. Is Attainment Due to Permanent and Enforceable Emission Reductions?

    For most facilities in Lucas County, including most of the 
facilities that Ohio's modeling has demonstrated to be the key 
contributors to prior air quality problems, permanent and enforceable 
emission reductions are mandated by emission limits in Ohio's SIP. To 
meet these limits, some facilities switched to burning lower sulfur 
fuel and some facilities installed air pollution control equipment. 
These emission limits, adopted in Ohio Administrative Code Chapter 
3745-18 and approved by EPA (as compiled at http://www.epa.gov/region5/air/sips/sips.htm), assure the permanence of these emission reductions.
    EPA pursued additional assurances that the air quality improvement 
attributable to the recent emission reductions at the Marsulex facility 
will be permanent and enforceable. These assurances are provided in the 
Title V permit for Marsulex that Ohio issued on January 9, 2004, 
clarifying that Marsulex' Lucas County facility must meet the relevant 
new source performance standard, which reflects a substantially lower 
emission limit than the SIP limit. With this limit for the Marsulex 
facility and SIP limits for other facilities, EPA concludes that 
permanent and enforceable emission reductions have enabled Lucas County 
to attain the standards.

D. Does the Maintenance Plan Assure Continued Attainment?

    Under section 175A of the Clean Air Act, maintenance plans must 
demonstrate continued attainment of the standards for 10 years after 
the redesignation. For SO2, the core of most maintenance 
plans is the attainment plan. Since the attainment plan generally 
reflects dispersion modeling based on maximum allowable emissions for 
major SO2 emitters, the limits on these sources' emissions 
adopted to attain the standards also help assure maintenance of the 
standards.
    With the major sources thus limited to attainment level emissions, 
the only remaining question for maintenance is whether ``background'' 
sources can be expected to increase or decrease emissions. Ohio notes 
that background concentrations can be expected to decline. Ohio 
attributes this expected decline to requirements for lower sulfur 
contents for gasoline and diesel fuel and ongoing national sulfur 
dioxide emission limitations from the acid rain program. EPA concurs 
with Ohio's expectations. EPA thus concludes that these reductions in 
background concentrations in conjunction with the permanent limitations 
on SO2 emissions from the major sources in Lucas County 
assure that the area will continue to attain the SO2 
standard.

E. Has the State Met the Requirements of Section 110 and Part D?

    This criterion requires that the state has met the requirements of 
Clean Air Act section 110 and part D. The principal relevant 
requirement is for an approved attainment plan, which EPA approved on 
June 30, 1982 (47 FR 28375).
    The discussion above of the second criterion, requiring a fully 
approved SIP, notes EPA's belief that that criterion is not met with 
federally promulgated rules, and that that criterion requires approval 
of a submittal that the state has adopted and submitted pursuant to 
section 110. Similarly for this fourth criterion, EPA believes that the 
criterion can be met only by the state adopting and submitting rules 
and other material that EPA finds to satisfy section 110 and part D. 
That is, EPA believes that this criterion is not satisfied if some of 
the rules needed to satisfy section 110 and part D were federally 
promulgated rather than state adopted and federally approved.
    Recognizing this EPA view, Ohio submitted the limits which remained 
on a FIP-basis. EPA is approving these limits in today's action. As a 
result, Ohio now has satisfied the applicable requirements of section 
110 and part D.

V. Rulemaking Action

    EPA is approving limits for the Gulf Oil Company and the Marsulex 
facility (formerly owned by Coulton Chemical Company). EPA is 
redesignating Lucas County, Ohio, to attainment for SO2. 
Finally, EPA is approving Ohio's maintenance plan for this area.
    The approved limits for the Gulf Oil Company and Marsulex 
facilities supersede the corresponding FIP limits. EPA is not formally 
removing those FIP limits but anticipates doing so in a future 
rulemaking.
    Clean Air Act section 107(d)(3)(E) identifies five prerequisites 
for redesignation of areas from nonattainment to attainment. EPA 
concludes that these criteria are met with respect to SO2 in 
Lucas County.
    EPA is publishing these actions without a prior proposal because we 
view these as noncontroversial actions and anticipate no adverse 
comments. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal 
Register, EPA is publishing a separate document that will serve as the 
proposal to approve the redesignation and maintenance plan if adverse 
comments are filed. This rule will be effective on March 18, 2004, 
without further notice unless we receive relevant adverse written 
comment by March 3, 2004. If the EPA receives adverse comment, we will 
publish a final rule informing the public that this rule will not take 
effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final rule 
based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment 
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting on these 
actions must do so at this time.

VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review

    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.

Executive Order 13211: Actions Concerning Regulations That 
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use

    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).

[[Page 4860]]

Regulatory Flexibility Act

    This action merely approves state law as meeting Federal 
requirements and imposes no additional 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.).

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    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).

Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian Tribal 
Governments

    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).

Executive Order 13132: Federalism

    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 a state rule implementing a 
Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the 
distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air 
Act.

Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental Health 
and Safety Risks

    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.

National Technology Transfer Advancement Act

    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.

Paperwork Reduction Act

    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.).

Congressional Review Act

    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 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 action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    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 2, 2004. 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, Intergovernmental 
relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

    Dated: January 20, 2004.
Bharat Mathur,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

0
Chapter 1, 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 52.1881 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(8) 
to read as follows:


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 (except Dayton Power & Light-
Stuart), Allen County (except Cairo Chemical), Ashland County, 
Ashtabula County, Athens County, Auglaize County, Belmont County, Brown 
County, Butler County, Carroll County, Champaign County, Clark County, 
Clermont County, (except Cincinnati Gas & Electric-Beckjord), Clinton 
County, Columbiana County, Coshocton County, Crawford 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 (except Allied Chemical-South 
Point), Licking County, Logan County, Lorain County, Lucas County, 
Madison County, Marion County, Medina County, Meigs County, Mercer 
County, Miami County, Monroe County, Montgomery County (except 
Bergstrom Paper, Miami Paper), Morgan County, Morrow County, Muskingum 
County, Noble County, Ottawa County, Paulding County, Perry County, 
Pickaway 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,

[[Page 4861]]

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/sources pending further 
review: Adams County (Dayton Power & Light-Stuart), Allen County (Cairo 
Chemical), Clermont County (Cincinnati Gas & Electric-Beckjord), 
Cuyahoga County, Franklin County, Lawrence County (Allied Chemical-
South Point), Mahoning County, Montgomery County (Bergstrom Paper and 
Miami Paper), Pike County (Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant), Ross 
County (Mead corporation), Sandusky County (Martin Marietta Chemicals), 
Stark County, Washington County (Shell Chemical Company), and Wood 
County (Libbey-Owens-Ford Plants Nos. 4 and 8 and No. 6).
* * * * *

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. Section 81.336 is amended by revising the sulfur dioxide table entry 
for Lucas County to read as follows:


Sec. 81.336  Ohio.

* * * * *

                                                    Ohio--SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                   Better than
         Designated area             Does not meet        Does not meet          Cannot be          national
                                   primary standards   secondary standards      classified          standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Lucas County: The area east of    ...................  ...................  ..................  X
 Route 23 and west of the
 eastern boundary of Oregon
 Township.
The remainder of Lucas County:
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 04-1966 Filed 1-30-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P