[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 108 (Monday, June 5, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 35577-35583]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-13199]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[OH 103-1b; FRL-6701-8]


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

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is approving sulfur dioxide redesignation requests 
submitted by the State of Ohio on March 20, 2000, for Coshocton, 
Gallia, and Lorain Counties. This request was first submitted on 
October 26, 1995. Ohio subsequently provided supplemental material to 
EPA in a letter dated September 14, 1999. On March 20, 2000, Ohio 
submitted final requests to redesignate Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain 
Counties to attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO<INF>2</INF>).
    EPA is also approving the maintenance plans for Coshocton, Gallia, 
and Lorain Counties. The plans are intended to ensure maintenance of 
the NAAQS for at least 10 years, and were submitted with the 
redesignation requests.
    In conjunction with these actions, EPA is approving state-adopted 
emission limits for the following facilities: in Coshocton County: 
Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric--Conesville Plant; in Gallia 
County: Ohio Valley Electric Company--Kyger Creek Plant and Ohio 
Power--Gavin Plant; and in Lorain County: CEI--Avon Lake Plant, Ohio 
Edison--Edgewater Plant, U.S. Steel--Lorain Plant, and B.F. Goodrich 
Company--Lorain County Plant.
    EPA is also approving other minor revisions in the state's rules 
for these three Counties.
    On November 23, 1999, EPA received one comment on the proposal to 
redesignate Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties. American Electric 
Power (AEP) encouraged EPA to take final action to approve the 
redesignation.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 5, 2000.

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'', 
``us'', or ``our'' is used we mean EPA.
    This supplemental information section is organized as follows:

I. General Information
    1. What action is EPA taking today?
    2. Why is EPA taking this action?
    3. What is the background for this action?
II. How Does the Proposed Submittal Compare to the Final Submittal?
III. Public Comments and EPA Response
    What comments did EPA receive?
IV. Background on Ohio Submittal
    1. What information did Ohio submit, and what were its requests?
    2. What guidance documents did EPA use in this rulemaking to 
evaluate Ohio's request?
V. State Implementation Plan (SIP)
    1. How do state-adopted emission limits compare to the FIP 
limits?
    2. What are the sources and emission limits that will be 
affected by EPA's action?
VI. Maintenance Plan
    1. How does the maintenance plan apply in Coshocton, Gallia, and 
Lorain Counties?
    2. What are the maintenance plan reduction requirements?
VII. Redesignation Evaluation
    1. What five criteria did EPA use to review the redesignation 
requests?
    2. Are these five criteria satisfied for Coshocton, Gallia, and 
Lorain Counties?
VIII. Final Rulemaking Action
IX. Administrative Requirements
    A. Executive Order 12866
    B. Executive Order 13045
    C. Executive Order 13084
    D. Executive Order 13132
    E. Regulatory Flexibility
    F. Unfunded Mandates
    G. Submission To Congress and The Comptroller General
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    I. Petitions for Judicial Review

I. General Information

1. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

    In this action, EPA is approving SO<INF>2</INF> redesignation 
requests submitted by the State of Ohio for Coshocton, Gallia, and

[[Page 35578]]

Lorain Counties. EPA is also approving the maintenance plans for these 
counties. In addition, EPA is approving state-adopted emission limits 
for sources in these three counties. EPA plans separate action on rules 
3745-18-03, 3745-18-04, 3745-18-15, and 3745-18-71, that Ohio submitted 
along with rule revisions for these three counties.

2. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

    EPA is taking this action because the redesignation requests meet 
the five criteria all redesignation requests must meet. The limits in 
the submittal are approvable because they are at least as stringent as 
the current set of federally enforceable limits. Coshocton, Gallia, and 
Lorain Counties have been designated as nonattainment areas for sulfur 
dioxide but now meet the sulfur dioxide NAAQS. The three counties have 
plans for keeping their sulfur dioxide levels within the health and 
welfare-based standards for the next 10 years and beyond. The plans 
require the three counties to consider impacts of future activities on 
air quality and to manage those activities.

3. What Is the Background for This Action?

    EPA promulgated the applicable Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in 
1976. The FIP required significant emission reductions at specific 
facilities throughout the state to attain and maintain the NAAQS for 
SO<INF>2</INF>.
    On October 5, 1978, Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties (among 
others) were designated as nonattainment areas for the primary sulfur 
dioxide 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 Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties.
    The state then withdrew its submittal for selected sources. These 
sources are:

1. Coshocton County
    --Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric--Conesville plant
2. Gallia County
    --Ohio Valley Electric Company--Kyger Creek plant
    --Ohio Power--Gavin plant
3. Lorain County
    --Cleveland Electric Illuminating (CEI)--Avon Lake plant
    --Ohio Edison--Edgewater plant
    --U.S. Steel--Lorain plant
    --B.F. Goodrich Company

    EPA approved this SIP regulation on January 27, 1981, for 
Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties (46 FR 8481) except for the 
source limits withdrawn by the state. The federally promulgated FIP 
regulations, therefore, have remained in effect for the above sources.
    On October 26, 1995, Governor George Voinovich requested that EPA 
redesignate to attainment all remaining SO<INF>2</INF> nonattainment 
areas within the State of Ohio, including Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain 
Counties.
    On May 28, 1996, EPA Administrator Browner sent a letter to 
Governor Voinovich informing him that the redesignation request 
depended on EPA approval of state-adopted rules, such that the plan for 
assuring attainment would rely on approved State Rules rather than 
federally promulgated rules.
    On September 14, 1999, Ohio provided supplemental supporting 
material for redesignation requests for three SO<INF>2</INF> 
nonattainment areas (Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties) to EPA.
    On October 28, 1999 (64 FR 58018), EPA proposed approval of the 
redesignation requests for Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties, the 
maintenance plans, and the state-adopted emission limits.
    The public comment period on this proposed approval ended on 
November 29, 1999; and only one comment, which was favorable, was 
received.

II. How Does the Proposed Submittal Compare to the Final Submittal?

    For Gallia County emission limits, both the proposed and the final 
submittals are identical.
    For the Coshocton County emission limits, paragraph (B)(4) of the 
final submittal, applying to two diesels at Columbus Southern Power 
Company, Conesville, was deleted based on evidence from the company's 
title V application that these units no longer operate. The final 
submittal indicates only 3 units (B006, B009, and B010) are in 
operation, instead of 5 units indicated in the proposed submittal.
    For the Lorain County emission limits, paragraph (C) of the final 
submittal, applying to the General Motors Corporation, Fisher Body 
Division, was removed because this facility has been shutdown for 15 
years. For the Avon Lake Plant, the state had two options in 3745-18-
53, (B)(1) and (B)(2) or (B)(3) and (B)(4), for setting the facility's 
boilers' emission limits. Since the source only implements the strategy 
inherent in (B)(1) and (2), the limits in (B)(3) and (B)(4) had become 
irrelevant and were removed from the final state rule.

III. Public Comments and EPA Response

What Comments Did EPA Receive?

    On November 23, 1999, EPA received one letter commenting on the 
proposed rulemaking. This letter, from AEP, encouraged EPA to take 
final action to approve the request as proposed. EPA received no 
adverse comments on this proposed rulemaking, and for the reasons 
provided in the proposal, concludes that the adopted emission limits, 
maintenance plans, and redesignation request for these counties should 
be approved.

IV. Background on Ohio Submittal

1. What Information Did Ohio Submit, and What Were Its Requests?

    In June 1999, Ohio e-mailed copies of proposed rule revisions for 
Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties to EPA. On September 14, 1999, 
Ohio submitted additional material requested by EPA to support the 
state's requests to redesignate these Counties to attainment with 
respect to SO<INF>2</INF>. On March 20, 2000, Ohio submitted final rule 
revisions with its final request for redesignation of these Counties to 
attainment for SO<INF>2</INF>. In addition, the state requested 
approval for the SO<INF>2</INF> maintenance plans for Coshocton, 
Gallia, and Lorain Counties.

2. What Guidance Documents Did EPA Use in This Rulemaking To Evaluate 
Ohio's Requests?

    Guidance for review of these requests includes 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 memorandum sets 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 criterion, 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, as adopted and submitted on 
March 20, 2000, are adequate to assure attainment without further 
modeling.
    Another guidance document relevant to this rulemaking is an April 
21, 1983, memorandum entitled ``Section 107 Designation Policy 
Summary,'' from the

[[Page 35579]]

Director of EPA's Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, which 
requires eight consecutive quarters of data showing SO<INF>2</INF> 
NAAQS attainment before an area can be redesignated. A county violates 
the NAAQS when its SO<INF>2</INF> level exceeds the NAAQS more than 
once in any year. Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties have eight 
consecutive quarters of data showing SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS attainment. 
As discussed below, modeling-based evidence also indicates attainment 
of the SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS.
    Finally, a September 4, 1992 EPA policy memorandum on ``Procedures 
for Processing Requests to Redesignate Areas to Attainment'' was also 
relevant to this rulemaking. This memorandum explains that additional 
dispersion modeling is not required in support of an SO<INF>2</INF> 
redesignation request if an adequate modeled attainment demonstration 
was previously submitted and approved as part of the implemented SIP, 
and no indication of an existing air quality deficiency exists. These 
conditions are met here.

V. State Implementation Plan (SIP)

1. How Do State-Adopted Emission Limits Compare to the FIP Limits?

    For facilities that are currently subject to FIP limits, the final 
state-adopted emission limits are equivalent to the FIP limits. A few 
emission points at these facilities have State limits but no FIP 
limits; approval of these State limits obviously increase the 
stringency of the SIP.
    In Gallia County, for facilities currently subject to FIP limits, 
the State rules impose the same limits on the same set of emission 
points as the FIP. In Lorain County, the state's rules include limits 
for soaking pit process operations and seamless rotary furnace for USS/
KOBE. In Coshocton County, the State's rules include limits for diesels 
and auxiliary boiler for Columbus Southern Power Company. Because these 
emission points are not currently subject to federally enforceable 
limits, these limits enhance the stringency of the State's plan.
    The FIP limits at issue will become suspended upon approval of 
these submitted SIP limits, but would become applicable again if for 
any reason these SIP limits were rescinded in the future.

2. What Are the Sources and Emission Limits That Will Be Affected by 
EPA's Action?

    The principal sources affected by this rulemaking are sources for 
which FIP limits are being superseded by limits in approved state 
rules. The table below lists these sources.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
               County names                         State rules                                            Source names
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coshocton County.........................  --OAC 3745-18-22 (B)........  --Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric--Conesville.
Gallia County............................  --OAC 3745-18-33 (B)........  --Ohio Valley Electric Company--Kyger Creek.
                                           --OAC 3745-18-33 (D)........  --Ohio Power--Gavin.
Lorain County............................  --OAC 3745-18-53 (B)........  --CEI--Avon Lake.
                                           --OAC 3745-18-53 (D)........  --Ohio Edison--Edgewater Plant.
                                           --OAC 3745-18-53 (E)........  --U.S. Steel
                                           --OAC 3745-18-53 (G)........  --B.F. Goodrich.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This rulemaking also approves the removal of obsolete State limits that 
the State adopted in its final rulemaking.

VI. Maintenance Plan

1. How Does the Maintenance Plan Apply in Coshocton, Gallia, Lorain 
Counties?

    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.

2. What Are the Maintenance Plan Reduction Requirements?

    Clean Air Act Title IV reductions and the required national 
conversion to low sulfur diesel fuel are the identified maintenance 
plan provisions for Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties.

VII. Redesignation Evaluation

1. What Five Criteria Did EPA Use To Review the Redesignation Requests?

    Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act (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 five 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) The EPA has determined that the maintenance plan for the area 
has met all of the requirements of section 175A of the Act.
    (E) The state has met all requirements applicable to the area under 
section 110 and part D of the Act.

2. Are These Five Criteria Satisfied for Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain 
Counties?

A. Demonstrated Attainment of the NAAQS
    Relevant Agency guidance is provided in both the April 21, 1983, 
and September 4, 1992 guidance documents cited above. The April 21, 
1983 memorandum explains that eight consecutive quarters of data 
showing SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS attainment are required for redesignation. 
The September 4, 1992 guidance explains that the area must have no more 
than one exceedance per year.
    Ohio's September 14, 1999 submittal provides ambient monitoring 
data showing that Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties have met the 
NAAQS for the years 1994-1999.
    Dispersion modeling is commonly used to demonstrate attainment of 
the SO<INF>2</INF> NAAQS. A modeling analysis was done in 1976 to show 
that, under all allowed operating scenarios, the emission limits in 
these three counties' SO<INF>2</INF> SIPs would lead to attainment and 
maintenance of the SO<INF>2</INF> standards. According to the September 
4, 1992 memorandum, no further dispersion modeling is needed for the 
counties' redesignation. Ohio has provided evidence that sources in 
these counties are complying with these limits.
    Based on this evidence, EPA concludes that emissions are 
sufficiently low to assure attainment throughout these 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.
    EPA's guidance for implementing section 110 of the Act is discussed 
in

[[Page 35580]]

the General Preamble to Title I (44 FR 20372, April 14, 1979; and 57 FR 
13498, April 16, 1992). The SO<INF>2</INF> SIP for Coshocton, Gallia, 
and Lorain Counties met the requirements of section 110 of the Act, and 
EPA approved the SIP on January 27, 1981, except that EPA did not take 
action for a limited set of sources.
    State limits for the remaining set of specific sources in 
Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties are being approved in this 
rulemaking. For convenience, EPA is rulemaking on rules for entire 
affected Counties, and is approving additional minor revisions in these 
Counties.
C. Permanent and Enforceable Reductions in Emissions
    Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties attained the SO<INF>2</INF> 
standards by implementing the SO<INF>2</INF> SIP controls. The 
reductions in emissions primarily come from converting some fuel-
burning sources to lower sulfur content fuels, and to shutting down 
various types of sources. The use of lower-sulfur ``cleaner'' fuels is 
ensured by the facilities' air emission permits and federally 
enforceable SIP regulations.
D. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan
    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. EPA is approving the maintenance 
plan in today's action.
E. Part D and Other Section 110 Requirements
    With today's approval of limits submitted on March 20, 2000, along 
with the approval of limits and attainment demonstrations published on 
January 27, 1981 (46 FR 8481), Ohio has met the relevant requirements.

VIII. Final Rulemaking Action

    In summary, EPA is approving state-adopted emission limits for 7 
sources in Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties, as well as approving 
minor revisions for other sources in these Counties. EPA is also 
approving the SO<INF>2</INF> maintenance plan for Coshocton, Gallia, 
and Lorain Counties 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, September 14, 
1999 and on March 20, 2000.

IX. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

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

B. 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 
Executive Order 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 
alternatives considered by the Agency.
    This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13045 because it does 
not involve decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or 
safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13084

    Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is 
not required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects 
the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes 
substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the 
Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults 
with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 
13084 requires EPA to provide to the Office of Management and Budget, 
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, Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to develop 
an effective process permitting elected officials 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. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian Tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 do not apply to 
this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

    Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) revokes and replaces 
Executive Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 (Enhancing the 
Intergovernmental Partnership). Executive Order 13132 requires EPA to 
develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely input 
by state and local officials in the development of regulatory policies 
that have federalism implications.'' ``Policies that have federalism 
implications'' is defined in the Executive Order to include regulations 
that 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.'' Under Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that has federalism implications, that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs, and that is not required by statute, unless 
the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct 
compliance costs incurred by state and local governments, or EPA 
consults with state and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation. EPA also may not issue a regulation 
that has federalism implications and that preempts state law unless the 
Agency consults with state and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    This rule will 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, because it 
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. Thus, the 
requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order do not apply to this 
rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility

    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.

[[Page 35581]]

Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit 
enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
    This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial 
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and 
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new 
requirements but simply approve requirements that the state is already 
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not 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 
Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such 
grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under sections 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 
costs to state, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate; or to 
the 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.
    EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not 
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs 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 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).

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act 
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing 
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with 
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards'' 
(VCS) if available and applicable when developing programs and policies 
unless doing so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise 
impractical.
    The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's 
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to 
the use of VCS.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for 
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court 
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by August 4, 2000. 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, Intergovermental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

40 CFR Part 81

    Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.

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

    Dated: May 5, 2000.
Norman Niedergang,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, Chapter I of the 
Code of Federal Regulations are 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.

Subpart KK--Ohio

    2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(121) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1870  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (121) On March 20, 2000, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 
submitted rules to control sulfur dioxide emissions in Coshocton, 
Gallia and Lorain Counties.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. Rules OAC 3745-18-22; OAC 3745-18-
33; and OAC 3745-18-53. Adopted March 1, 2000; effective March 21, 
2000.

    3. Section 52.1881 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4) and 
(a)(8) and by adding paragraph (a)(14) 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, 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 (except Painesville Municipal Plant boiler number 
5), Lawrence County (except Allied Chemical-South Point), Licking 
County, Logan County, Lorain County, Lucas County (except Gulf Oil 
Company,

[[Page 35582]]

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), 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, 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), Butler County, Clermont County (Cincinnati Gas & Electric-
Beckjord), Cuyahoga County, Franklin County, Lake County (Painesville 
Municipal Plant boiler number 5), Lawrence County (Allied Chemical-
South Point), 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).
* * * * *
    (14) On March 20, 2000, the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency 
submitted maintenance plans for Coshocton, Gallia and Lorain 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 C--Section 107 Attainment Status Designations

    2. The table in Sec. 81.336 entitled ``Ohio--SO<INF>2</INF>'' is 
amended to read as follows:


Sec. 81.336  Ohio.

* * * * *

                                                    Ohio--SO<INF>2</INF>
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                               Does not meet    Does not meet                      Better than
               Designated area                    primary         secondary        Cannot be         national
                                                 standards        standards        classified       standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Athens County...............................  ...............  ...............  ...............               X
Clermont County.............................  ...............  ...............  ...............               X
Columbiana County...........................  ...............  ...............  ...............               X
Coshocton County............................  ...............  ...............  ...............               X
Cuyahoga County:
    The Cities of Bay Village, Westlake,      ...............  ...............  ...............               X
     North Olmsted, Olmsted Falls, Rock
     River, Fairview Park, Berea, Middleburg
     Heights, Strongsville, North Royalton,
     Broadview Heights, Brecksville and the
     Townships of Olmsted and Riveredge.....
    The remainder of Cuyahoga County........               X   ...............  ...............  ...............
Gallia County...............................  ...............  ...............  ...............               X
Greene County...............................  ...............  ...............  ...............               X
Hamilton County.............................  ...............  ...............  ...............               X
Jefferson County:
    The Cities of Steubenville and Mingo      ...............  ...............  ...............               X
     Junction, Townships of Steubenville,
     Island Creek, Cross Creek, Knox and
     Wells..................................
    The remainder of Jefferson County.......  ...............  ...............  ...............               X
Lake County:
    The Cities of Eastlake, Timberlake,       ...............  ...............  ...............               X
     Lakeline, 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...............................  ...............  ...............  ...............               X
Lucas County:
    The area east of Route 23 and west of                  X   ...............  ...............  ...............
     the eastern boundary of Oregon Township
    The remainder of Lucas County...........  ...............  ...............  ...............               X
Mahoning County.............................  ...............  ...............  ...............               X
Montgomery County...........................  ...............  ...............  ...............               X
Morgan County:
    Center Township.........................  ...............  ...............  ...............               X
    The remainder of Morgan County..........  ...............  ...............  ...............               X
Summit County:
    Area bounded by the following lines--              (\1\)            (\1\)            (\1\)            (\1\)
     north--Interstate 76, east--Route 93,
     south--Vanderhoof Road, west--Summit
     County line............................
    Area bounded by the following lines--     ...............  ...............  ...............            \2\X
     north--Bath 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    ...............  ...............  ...............            \2\X
     line: Route 80 east to Route 91, Route
     91 north to the county line............
    The remainder of Summit County..........  ...............  ...............  ...............            \3\X
Trumbull County.............................  ...............  ...............  ...............            \3\X

[[Page 35583]]

 
Washington County:
    Waterford Township......................  ...............  ...............  ...............               X
    The remainder of Washington County......  ...............  ...............  ...............               X
All other counties in the State of Ohio.....  ...............  ...............  ...............              X
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<SUP>1</SUP> This area remains undesignated at this time as a result of a court remand in PPG Industries, Inc. v. Costle,
  630 F.2d 462 (6th Cir. 1980).
<SUP>2</SUP> This area was affected by the Sixth Circuit Court remand but has since been designated.
<SUP>3</SUP> This area was not affected by the court remand in PPG Industries, Inc. v. Costle 630 F.2d 462 (6th Cir. 1980).

* * * * *
[FR Doc. 00-13199 Filed 6-2-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P