Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 23783 

adopted by voluntary consensus 

standards bodies. 

This proposed rule does not use 

technical standards. Therefore, we did 

not consider the use of voluntary 

consensus standards. 

Environment 

We have analyzed this proposed rule 

under Commandant Instruction 

M16475.lD and Department of 

Homeland Security Management 

Directive 5100.1, which guide the Coast 

Guard in complying with the National 

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 

(NEPA) (42 U.S.C. 4321–4370f), and 

have made a preliminary determination 

that there are no factors in this case that 

would limit the use of a categorical 

exclusion under section 2.B.2 of the 

Instruction. Therefore, we believe that 

this rule should be categorically 

excluded, under figure 2–1, paragraph 

(34)(g), of the Instruction, from further 

environmental documentation because 

we would be establishing a safety zone. 

A preliminary ‘‘Environmental Analysis 

Check List’’ and a draft ‘‘Categorical 

Exclusion Determination’’ are available 

in the docket where indicated under 

ADDRESSES. Comments on this section 

will be considered before we make the 

final decision on whether the rule 

should be categorically excluded from 

further environmental review. 

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165 

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation 

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Security measures, 

Waterways. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Coast Guard proposes to 

amend 33 CFR part 165 as follows: 

PART 165—REGULATED NAVIGATION 

AREAS AND LIMITED ACCESS AREAS 

1. The authority citation for part 165 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1226, 1231; 46 U.S.C. 

Chapter 701; 50 U.S.C. 191, 195; 33 CFR 

1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5; Pub. L. 

107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department of 

Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1. 

2. Add § 165.T11–178 to read as 

follows: 

§ 165.T11–178 Safety Zone; Independence 

Day Fireworks, Lower Colorado River, 

Laughlin, NV. 

(a) Location. The limits of this 

temporary safety zone include all areas 

within 980 feet of the anchored firing 

barge. The firing barge will be anchored 

adjacent to the AVI Resort and Casino, 

centered in the navigational channel 

between Laughlin Bridge and the 

northwest point of the AVI Resort and 

Casino Cove, Lower Colorado River, 

Laughlin, NV in position 35[deg]00’45’’ 

N, 114[deg]38’16’’ W. 

(b) Effective Period. This safety zone 

will be in effect from 8 p.m. until the 

end of the fireworks show on July 7, 

2007. The event is scheduled to 

conclude no later than 9:45 p.m. 

However, if the display concludes prior 

to the scheduled termination time, the 

Captain of the Port will cease 

enforcement of this safety zone and will 

announce that fact via Broadcast Notice 

to Mariners. 

(c) Regulations. In accordance with 

the general regulations in § 165.23 of 

this part, entry into, transit through, or 

anchoring within this zone by all 

vessels is prohibited, unless authorized 

by the Captain of the Port, or his 

designated representative. Mariners 

requesting permission to transit through 

the safety zone may request 

authorization to do so from the U.S. 

Coast Guard Patrol Commander. The 

U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Commander 

may be contacted via VHF–FM Channel 

16. 

(d) Enforcement. All persons and 

vessels shall comply with the 

instructions of the Coast Guard Captain 

of the Port or the designated on-scene 

patrol personnel. Patrol personnel can 

be comprised of commissioned, warrant, 

and petty officers of the Coast Guard 

onboard Coast Guard, Coast Guard 

Auxiliary, local, State, and Federal law 

enforcement vessels. Upon being hailed 

by U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel by 

siren, radio, flashing light, or other 

means, the operator of a vessel shall 

proceed as directed. The Coast Guard 

may be assisted by other Federal, State, 

or local agencies. 

Dated: April 5, 2007. 

C.V. Strangfeld, 

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the 

Port, San Diego. 

[FR Doc. E7–8317 Filed 4–30–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–15–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2006–0546; FRL–8308–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of Ohio 

SO2 Air Quality Implementation Plans 

and Designation of Areas 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

an assortment of rules, submitted by 

Ohio on May 16, 2006, setting limits on 

sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions. Most 

significantly, EPA is proposing to 

approve rules for Franklin, Stark and 

Summit Counties and for one source in 

Sandusky County that are currently 

regulated under limits that EPA 

promulgated in 1976 as a Federal 

Implementation Plan (FIP). If finalized, 

this action would provide that the entire 

FIP for SO2 in Ohio would be 

superseded by approved State limits. 

Consequently, EPA is proposing to 

rescind the entire FIP. EPA is also 

proposing to approve several 

substantive rule revisions and to 

approve numerous Ohio rules that 

update various company names and 

unit identifications. Finally, since this 

rulemaking resolves the issues which 

led a court to remand the designation 

for a portion of Summit County to EPA 

for reconsideration, EPA is proposing to 

promulgate a designation of attainment 

for the presently undesignated portion 

of this county. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before May 31, 2007. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2007–0546, by one of the 

following methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: mooney.john@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 886–5824. 

4. Mail: John M. Mooney, Chief, 

Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs 

Branch (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson 

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand Delivery: John M. Mooney, 

Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. Such deliveries are only 

accepted during the Regional Office 

normal hours of operation, and special 

arrangements should be made for 

deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding Federal 

holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2006– 

0546. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
23784 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Do not submit information that you 

consider to be CBI or otherwise 

protected through www.regulations.gov 

or e-mail. The www.regulations.gov Web 

site is an ‘‘anonymous access’’ system, 

which means EPA will not know your 

identity or contact information unless 

you provide it in the body of your 

comment. If you send an e-mail 

comment directly to EPA without going 

through www.regulations.gov your email address will be automatically 

captured and included as part of the 

comment that is placed in the public 

docket and made available on the 

Internet. If you submit an electronic 

comment, EPA recommends that you 

include your name and other contact 

information in the body of your 

comment and with any disk or CD–ROM 

you submit. 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. Electronic files should avoid 

the use of special characters, any form 

of encryption, and be free of any defects 

or viruses. For additional instructions 

on submitting comments, go to Section 

I of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION

section of this document. 

Docket: All documents in the docket 

are listed in the www.regulations.gov 

index. Although listed in the index, 

some information is not publicly 

available, e.g., CBI or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, will be publicly 

available only in hard copy. Publicly 

available docket materials are available 

either electronically in 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at 

the Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. This Facility is open 

from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 

through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. We recommend that you 

telephone John Summerhays at (312) 

886–6067 before visiting the Region 5 

office. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John 

Summerhays, Criteria Pollutant Section, 

Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6067, 

summerhays.john@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This 

supplementary information section is 

arranged as follows: 

I. Background 

II. Review of Ohio’s Submittal 

A. General Rules 

B. Rules To Replace FIP Rules 

C. Additional Substantive Rule Revisions 

D. Rules With Only Name Changes or 

Other Administrative Changes 

E. Designation of Summit County 

III. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

IV. What Should I Consider as I Prepare My 

Comments for EPA? 

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews 

I. Background 

Ohio submitted its original State 

Implementation Plan on January 30, 

1972, which EPA partially approved on 

May 31, 1972, and fully approved on 

September 22, 1972. After a court 

remanded this approval for EPA to 

solicit public comments on the 

rulemaking, Ohio withdrew its 

submittal of rules for SO2. In the 

absence of State rules for SO2, EPA 

promulgated a Federal Implementation 

Plan (FIP) for SO2 on August 27, 1976, 

with numerous subsequent 

amendments. The FIP provided limits 

for 55 Ohio counties. 

On September 12, 1979, Ohio 

submitted a plan with limits for SO2 in 

all 88 Ohio counties. This plan relied on 

a set of rules that included 6 rules 

governing general provisions such as 

test methods and compliance schedules, 

plus one rule for each of the 88 counties 

setting emission limits for sources in the 

county. On January 27, 1981, at 46 FR 

8481, EPA approved most of the 6 

general rules and approved rules for 

parts of 13 counties and all of 61 

counties. That rulemaking action also 

disapproved rules for Summit County 

because EPA concluded that the limits 

did not provide for attainment. That 

rulemaking notice provided further 

history of regulation of SO2 emissions in 

Ohio as of that date. 

On April 20, 1982, at 47 FR 16784, 

EPA approved rules for parts of 3 

additional counties and all of another 

three additional counties. EPA approved 

rules for an additional county on June 

30, 1982, at 47 FR 28377. EPA approved 

subsequently submitted Ohio SO2 rules 

on May 20, 1988 (at 53 FR 18087), 

August 23, 1994 (at 59 FR 43290), 

October 9, 1996 (at 61 FR 52882), March 

30, 1998 (at 63 FR 15091), June 5, 2000 

(at 65 FR 35577), January 31, 2002 (at 

67 FR 4669), February 2, 2004 (at 69 FR 

4856), and January 28, 2005 (at 70 FR 

4023). 

As a result of these prior rulemakings, 

EPA has approved State rules for all 

sources in 84 of Ohio’s 88 counties and 

for all but one source in an 85th county. 

Counties for which sources remain 

subject to the FIP include Franklin 

County (full county), Stark County (full 

county), Summit County (full county), 

and Sandusky County (only for Martin 

Marietta). Ohio submitted further rules 

on May 16, 2006, most significantly 

including State rules to replace these 

Federal rules. 

In 1978, EPA designated numerous 

areas in Ohio as nonattainment for the 

SO2 air quality standard. EPA interprets 

section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) of the Clean Air 

Act, as amended in 1990, to require 

approval of state regulations rather than 

promulgation of a FIP as a prerequisite 

for redesignation of areas from 

nonattainment to attainment. Thus, 

some of Ohio’s prior submittals of state 

rules to replace federal rules served in 

part to satisfy this prerequisite for 

redesignation from nonattainment to 

attainment. 

As stated in 40 CFR 52.1881(a), 

‘‘[w]here USEPA has approved the 

State’s sulfur dioxide plan, those 

regulations supersede the federal sulfur 

dioxide plan contained in [40 CFR 

52.1881(b)] and 40 CFR 52.1882.’’ On 

June 29, 1995, at 60 FR 33915, EPA 

rescinded numerous federally 

promulgated Ohio SO2 rules, observing 

that the ‘‘superseded rules have no 

effect and are unenforceable, and thus 

no longer need be retained in the CFR.’’ 

On January 28, 2005, at 70 FR 4023, in 

conjunction with approving State rules 

for several counties, EPA rescinded the 

corresponding federally promulgated 

rules (where applicable) that were 

superseded by these State rules. As a 

result, what remains of the federally 

promulgated rules are the following: 

—40 CFR 52.1881 paragraphs (b)(1) 

through (b)(6), providing definitions 

and other general provisions, 

—40 CFR 52.1881 paragraphs (b)(7) 

through (b)(10), providing limits for 

sources in Franklin, Sandusky 

(Martin-Marietta only), Stark, and 

Summit Counties, respectively, and 

—40 CFR 52.1882, providing schedules 

for compliance with the federally 

promulgated limits. 

Ohio law requires that the State 

review its regulations every five years. 

Ohio conducted this review and 

concluded that amendments were 

warranted for 4 of its 6 general rules and 

40 of its county-specific rules. Since the 

regulations remain necessary for the 

State to continue to attain the SO2 air 

quality standards, and since only in a 

few cases did information become 

available warranting a revision to 

emission limits, most of the revisions 

reflect administrative changes such as 

updating company names and 

correcting unit identifications. Ohio 

adopted these rules effective January 13, 

2006, and submitted them to USEPA on 

May 16, 2006. 

Ohio currently has no areas 

designated nonattainment for SO2. The 

final area redesignated from 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 23785 

nonattainment to attainment was in 

Cuyahoga County, which was 

redesignated on January 28, 2005, at 70 

FR 4023. 

However, a portion of one county, 

Summit County, has no designation. As 

the result of a 1980 remand by the Court 

of Appeals for the 6th Circuit, in PPG 

Industries, Inc. v. Costle (630 F.2d 462), 

this area has been undesignated pending 

EPA’s review of modeling analyses for 

the area. Such a review is an inherent 

part of EPA’s review of the adequacy of 

the rules Ohio submitted regulating SO2

emissions in Summit County. 

Consequently, in conjunction with 

submitting a rule for SO2 emissions in 

Summit County, Ohio also requested 

that EPA reestablish a designation for 

this area, requesting that EPA designate 

this area as attaining the SO2 standard. 

In 1981, EPA published multiple 

rulemaking notices that led to EPA 

taking no action on provisions of Ohio 

SO2 regulations that provided for 

compliance on a 30-day average basis. 

EPA has approved only a stack test 

method (reflecting a 3-hour average) and 

other tests reflecting averaging times of 

generally 24 hours or less. On February 

11, 1980, at 45 FR 9101, EPA published 

notice that EPA would nevertheless give 

priority to cases in which companies 

were violating SO2 limits on a 30-day 

average basis or exceeding the limit on 

any day by more than 50 percent. This 

policy remains in effect, and today’s 

rulemaking makes no change with 

respect to this issue. 

II. Review of Ohio’s Submittal 

On May 16, 2006, Ohio EPA 

submitted 4 amended general SO2 rules 

and 40 county-specific SO2 rules. The 

county-specific rules include 4 rules 

that were submitted to supersede 

remaining FIP rules, 4 rules that include 

substantive revisions to the limits, and 

32 rules which only change company 

names or unit identifications or make 

other such administrative changes. Ohio 

supplemented this submittal with an 

email from William Spires to John 

Summerhays dated February 22, 2007, 

providing supplemental information 

regarding a source in Sandusky County 

and requesting that EPA establish a 

designation of attainment for Summit 

County. 

A. General Rules 

Ohio submitted revisions to four of its 

six general SO2 rules: Ohio 

Administrative Code (OAC) 3745–18– 

01, 3745–18–02, 3745–18–03, and 3745– 

18–06. Rule 3745–18–01, entitled 

‘‘Definitions,’’ was modified to update 

the referencing of test methods in the 

Code of Federal Regulations, to retain 

only a general referencing of methods 

adopted by the American Society for 

Testing and Materials, to update the 

Web site from which the Code of 

Federal Regulations may be obtained, 

and to make editorial changes in the 

referencing of relevant material. Rule 

3745–18–02, entitled ‘‘Ambient air 

quality standards—sulfur dioxide,’’ was 

modified only to add a preliminary note 

referring readers to Rule 3745–18–01 to 

find dates for applicable reference 

material and to specify which location 

of 40 CFR part 50 (namely, Appendix A) 

contains the test method to be used in 

assessing ambient air quality. Rule 

3745–18–03, entitled ‘‘Attainment dates 

and compliance time schedules,’’ was 

revised to correct several facility 

identification numbers and to correct 

other referencing errors. The updated 

Web site in Rule 3745–18–01 is 

incorrect: Instead of ending ‘‘ecfr’’, the 

Web site ends in ‘‘cfr,’’ to read http:// 

www.access.gpo.gov/cfr (or http:// 

www.access.gpo.gov/cfr). However, this 

error does not change the stringency of 

any limits. Indeed, all of the changes to 

Rules 3745–18–01, 3745–18–02, and 

3745–18–03 may be considered 

administrative changes that do not 

change the substance of the SIP. EPA 

believes that all of these revisions are 

approvable. 

Rule 3745–18–06 was revised to add 

jet engine test stands to a list of source 

types that are exempt from the emission 

limits given in Ohio’s rules for any day 

that the equipment burns only natural 

gas. EPA has approved this exemption 

as previously worded, on January 28, 

2005, at 70 FR 4023 (see also 69 FR 

41336, dated July 8, 2004). The first 

listed source type is fuel burning 

equipment. Thus, this rule revision may 

be considered simply a clarification that 

jet engine test stands shall have the 

exemption that fuel burning equipment 

has. In any case, the SO2 emissions from 

burning natural gas from jet engine test 

stands is sufficiently low that this 

combustion need not be subject to any 

specific emission regulation. The rule 

was also subject to a minor 

rearrangement. EPA believes this rule is 

approvable. 

B. Rules To Replace FIP Rules 

As noted above, FIP rules remain in 

4 counties: Franklin, Sandusky 

(applicable only to Martin Marietta), 

Stark, and Summit Counties. Ohio 

submitted rules for each of these 

counties to replace the FIP rules. 

For Franklin and Summit Counties, 

Ohio amended its rules to assure that all 

sources with emission limits in the FIP 

have the same limits in the State rules. 

Criteria for EPA’s review of these rules 

are described in guidance issued from 

the Director of the Air Quality 

Management Division to the Director of 

Region 5’s Air and Radiation Division 

on September 28, 1994. This 

memorandum recommended approving 

State rules in place of FIP rules if three 

criteria are met: 

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. The rules do not relax existing 

emission limits. EPA believes that these 

criteria are satisfied, i.e., that limits 

were appropriately demonstrated at the 

time of FIP promulgation to provide for 

attainment, that no subsequent evidence 

suggests otherwise, and that the State’s 

rules provide limits that are fully as 

stringent as the existing FIP limits. The 

State rules also establish limits for 

sources that are not included either in 

the FIP rules or in the modeling that 

demonstrated that the FIP limits provide 

for attainment. Therefore, EPA believes 

that the rules for Franklin and Summit 

County may be approved and may 

supersede the existing FIP rules. 

As noted above, EPA disapproved the 

State’s rules for Summit County in 1981, 

stating that modeling evidence 

indicated that the limits did not assure 

attainment. Those rules differed 

substantially from the FIP limits and 

relied on a separate modeling analysis. 

The prior disapproval did not in any 

way indicate inadequacy of the FIP 

limits to assure attainment. EPA 

continues to believe that the FIP limits 

for Summit County provide for 

attainment. Thus, since the State rules 

have been modified to reflect the FIP 

limits, EPA believes the rules now 

provide for attainment, and the prior 

disapproval is moot. 

For Stark County, as with Franklin 

and Summit Counties, the State 

amended its rules as necessary for 

sources regulated under the FIP to have 

limits that match those of the FIP. The 

Stark County rules also tighten the 

limits for one source not regulated 

under the FIP, namely Canton Drop 

Forge. Modeling was conducted to 

assess impacts of this source and other 

nearby sources. This modeling used 

AERMOD, which is EPA’s 

recommended model for this 

application. The modeling included 

emissions from all significant sources in 

this portion of Stark County. The 

modeling used 1988 to 1992 

meteorological data for Akron, and the 

modeling considered the potential 

downwash effects of the buildings of 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
23786 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Canton Drop Forge and reflected the 

terrain elevations of the ambient 

receptor locations analyzed. Based on 

its review, EPA finds that this modeling 

was properly conducted and finds that 

the modeling demonstrates that the 

State’s limits provide for attainment in 

this part of Stark County. For the rest of 

the County, EPA believes that modeling 

conducted in support of the FIP 

continues to represent a suitable 

demonstration that the remainder of the 

County will attain the standard. 

For Sandusky County, only one 

source, Martin Marietta, remains subject 

to FIP rules. The FIP imposes a limit of 

15.42 pounds of SO2 per ton of material 

input into the lime kiln. Ohio’s Rule 

3745–18–78 (E) imposes a limit of 25 

pounds per ton of product. A 

comparison of these limits requires a 

comparison of the quantity of material 

input to the quantity of lime produced. 

Ohio notes in its supplemental 

submittal that the weight ratio of 

limestone input to lime produced is 

commonly about two to one, and the 

ratio of total material input including 

fuel (coke and/or coal) is significantly 

higher than that. Since the FIP limit 

involves dividing emissions from each 

kiln by the larger quantity of input 

material, the corresponding limit on a 

per ton of product basis (i.e. the limit 

that would allow the same total 

emissions from the plant) would be a 

substantially higher number. In 

particular, the FIP limit corresponds to 

a limit on a per ton of product basis that 

is well over two times the number of 

pounds allowed on a per ton of input 

material basis, i.e. well over 30 pounds 

per ton of product. Thus, EPA believes 

that Ohio’s limit is significantly more 

stringent. Furthermore, the Federal limit 

sets a limit on the emissions ‘‘from any 

stack.’’ The facility has multiple stacks, 

and the federal limit arguably allows 

15.42 pounds per ton of material input 

from each stack, which would allow 

several times that much emissions in 

total. The state rule avoids this potential 

confusion by clearly imposing a limit on 

total emissions per ton of product. For 

these reasons, EPA believes that Ohio’s 

limit may be approved as a replacement 

for the FIP limit. 

EPA has previously approved Ohio’s 

rule for other sources in Sandusky 

County. The amended rule updates the 

names of three companies and deletes 

one source from the rule but makes no 

substantive changes in the limits. EPA 

believes that the full rule is approvable. 

C. Additional Substantive Rule 

Revisions 

Two additional rules include 

substantive revisions to applicable 

limits. The first is for Auglaize County. 

The applicable attainment 

demonstration, approved on January 27, 

1981 at 46 FR 8481, provides for 

emissions above the county’s generic 

limit of 2.6 pounds per million BTU for 

several emission points at the Saint 

Mary’s municipal power plant, but the 

previously approved rules only 

authorize emissions above that generic 

limit for one unit. Ohio amended its 

rules to replace a limit of 6.5 ι/MM Btu 

just for boiler number 6 with a limit of 

5.9 ι/MM Btu applicable to both the 

number 6 and the number 5 boilers. The 

previously approved attainment 

demonstration demonstrates that these 

limits will provide for attainment, so 

these amendments are approvable. 

For Cuyahoga County, Ohio amended 

its rules to incorporate an additional 

general emission limit. In the Cuyahoga 

County rules that EPA approved in 

January 2005, Ohio had generally 

amended the rules to match the 

federally promulgated rules for this 

county. In particular, Ohio adopted the 

federally promulgated generic limit for 

coal-fired boilers with greater than 350 

MM Btu per hour heat input. However, 

the State had failed to adopt the 

federally promulgated generic limit for 

coal-fired boilers with heat input 

between 10 MM Btu and 350 MM Btu 

per hour. The rule submitted on May 16, 

2006 adds this second generic limit that 

applies to smaller boilers. This limit is 

part of the plan that has been 

demonstrated to provide for attainment, 

and so the addition of this limit is 

approvable. 

D. Rules With Only Name Changes or 

Other Administrative Changes 

As a result of its periodic rule review, 

Ohio amended numerous rules to 

update company names, to correct 

various unit identifications, and to 

correct typographical errors. In addition 

to making these types of amendments in 

the rules discussed above, Ohio made 

these types of revisions to the rules for 

34 additional counties. The counties for 

which Ohio submitted such rules are 

Allen, Ashtabula, Athens, Butler, 

Champaign, Clark, Erie, Fairfield, 

Geauga, Greene, Hamilton, Hancock, 

Lake Lawrence, Lorain, Lucas, Marion, 

Miami, Montgomery, Muskingum, 

Ottawa, Paulding, Pike, Richland, Ross, 

Scioto, Seneca, Shelby, Trumbull, 

Tuscarawas, Van Wert, Washington, 

Wayne, and Wood Counties. 

Ohio amended two rules because a 

source had been addressed in an 

incorrect county’s rules. Specifically, a 

facility owned by Archer Daniels 

Midland (formerly A.E. Staley) is 

located in Hancock County, not Seneca 

County, and so Ohio removed this 

facility’s limits from the Seneca County 

rule (Rule 3745–18–80) and inserted the 

identical limits in the Hancock County 

rule (Rule 3745–18–38). 

These various revisions do not affect 

the stringency of the SIP but do enhance 

the clarity of the applicability of these 

limits. Therefore, these revised rules are 

approvable. 

E. Designation of Summit County 

EPA published its initial designations 

on October 5, 1978, at 43 FR 46011. The 

designation for SO2 for a portion of 

Summit County, Ohio, was litigated, 

with the result that the Court of Appeals 

for the Sixth Circuit remanded the 

designation to EPA for reconsideration. 

See PPG Industries, Inc. v. Costle 630 

F2d 462 (6th Cir. 1980). EPA’s original 

nonattainment designation was based in 

large part on dispersion modeling 

analyses indicating that attainment 

could not be assured without reductions 

in allowable emissions from sources in 

the county. Thus, the remand was 

accompanied by an injunction to 

reassess the modeling analyses and the 

adequacy of the emission limits to 

assure attainment. Although EPA has 

subsequently reestablished designations 

for some portions of the county, an 

important part of the county remains 

undesignated. Since this rulemaking 

addresses the court’s request for EPA to 

reconsider the modeling analysis of 

limits necessary to assure attainment, 

Ohio requested that EPA also reestablish 

a designation for this area, in particular 

requesting that EPA designate the area 

attainment. 

As discussed above, Ohio has 

requested approval of emission limits 

that match the limits of the FIP, i.e. 

limits which modeling underlying the 

FIP have demonstrated to provide for 

attainment. Therefore, no further review 

of the modeling underlying the State 

limits of 1979 is necessary, and EPA 

may proceed to establish a designation 

for the portion of Summit County that 

is presently undesignated. 

Air quality monitoring data from 2003 

to 2006 indicate that SO2 concentrations 

in Summit County are well below the 

standards, generally about a third the 

level of the standards or less. For the 24- 

hour standard of 365 ug/m3 (commonly 

the controlling standard), the high 

second high value (i.e., after computing 

the second high value for each 

monitoring site for each year, the 

highest of these second high values) is 

141 ug/m3. Compared to the annual 

standard of 80 ug/m3, the highest value 

is 24 ug/m3. Compared to the 3-hour 

standard of 1300 ug/m3, the high 

second high value is 382 ug/m3. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 23787 

Modeling evidence also indicates that 

the relevant portion of Summit County 

is attaining the standard. EPA believes 

there are no companies within the 

undesignated area significantly violating 

their SO2 emission limits. EPA has 

identified one facility elsewhere in 

Summit County as a high priority 

violator with excess SO2 emissions. 

However, this facility is approximately 

5 kilometers from the nearest edge of the 

undesignated area. Furthermore, 

whereas the attainment modeling for the 

undesignated part of Summit County 

reflects emissions from several 

significant sources, including Firestone 

Rubber (a Barberton facility of a division 

called Seiberling Tire and Rubber 

Company), Midwest Rubber Company, 

and Ohio Brass, these facilities have 

now shut down. Therefore, if the 

modeling underlying the attainment 

demonstration were redone with current 

actual emission rates replacing 

maximum allowable emissions, the 

results of this modeling would show 

that SO2 concentrations in the 

undesignated area are well below the 

standard. Therefore, EPA believes that 

this area should be designated 

attainment. While EPA has not analyzed 

whether the excess emissions noted 

above might be causing violations of the 

air quality standards elsewhere in the 

county, EPA believes that any such 

violations will be resolved by its current 

enforcement action, so that no change in 

the attainment designation of the 

remainder of the county is warranted. 

Thus, in combination, EPA believes that 

all of Summit County should be 

designated as attaining the SO2

standards. 

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air 

Act describes several prerequisites for 

redesignation of areas from 

nonattainment to attainment. Because 

the relevant portion of Summit County 

is not designated nonattainment and in 

fact has no designation, these provisions 

of Section 107(d)(3)(E) are not germane 

here. 

III. What Action Is EPA Taking? 

EPA is proposing to approve 44 rules 

for SO2 in Ohio, including 4 general 

rules, 4 county-specific rules that 

replace FIP rules, 2 county-specific 

rules that incorporate substantive 

changes in limits, and 34 countyspecific rules that reflect only 

administrative changes such as updating 

company names. EPA is also proposing 

to establish an attainment designation 

for the portion of Summit County that 

is presently undesignated. For 

simplicity, EPA is proposing to combine 

the designations into a single 

designation for the entire county rather 

than have separate designations for four 

subdivisions of the county. 

By this action, EPA is proposing that 

state rules would supersede the last 

remaining portions of the FIP that was 

promulgated in 1976 et seq. Therefore, 

the FIP may be removed from the CFR 

if and when EPA makes final the action 

proposed today. Even after the FIP is 

removed, EPA may continue to take 

enforcement action against violations of 

the FIP limits discovered to have 

occurred during the time the FIP was in 

effect. 

Today’s notice provides proposed 

revisions to the CFR to implement the 

actions proposed here. EPA is proposing 

to rescind the entirety of 40 CFR 

52.1881(b) (including general provisions 

and county-specific limits) and of 40 

CFR 52.1882 (providing FIP compliance 

schedules). Since EPA is proposing that 

Ohio has approvable rules for the entire 

State, EPA is proposing to rescind the 

sections of 40 CFR 52.1881(a) that 

identify counties for which EPA has 

taken no action or has disapproved the 

state’s plan. EPA is proposing to replace 

the listing of counties having approved 

rules with a rule-by-rule listing of 

approved rules. EPA is proposing that 

the action concerning the designation of 

Summit County would establish a 

simplified, county-wide designation of 

attainment. Since EPA is proposing to 

address the court remand that has 

affected the designations for Summit 

County, EPA is proposing to rescind the 

footnotes that identify the effects of the 

remand. (EPA is also proposing to 

rescind the footnote that was 

inadvertently applied to the designation 

of Trumbull County.) 

IV. What Should I Consider as I 

Prepare My Comments for EPA? 

When submitting comments, 

remember to: 

1. Identify the rulemaking by docket 

number and other identifying 

information (subject heading, Federal 

Register date and page number). 

2. Follow directions—The EPA may 

ask you to respond to specific questions 

or organize comments by referencing a 

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part 

or section number. 

3. Explain why you agree or disagree; 

suggest alternatives and substitute 

language for your requested changes. 

4. Describe any assumptions and 

provide any technical information and/ 

or data that you used. 

5. If you estimate potential costs or 

burdens, explain how you arrived at 

your estimate in sufficient detail to 

allow for it to be reproduced. 

6. Provide specific examples to 

illustrate your concerns, and suggest 

alternatives. 

7. Explain your views as clearly as 

possible, avoiding the use of profanity 

or personal threats. 

8. Make sure to submit your 

comments by the comment period 

deadline identified. 

V. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Executive Order 12866: Regulatory 

Planning and Review 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, September 30, 1993), this action 

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

and therefore is not subject to review by 

the Office of Management and Budget. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This proposed 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.). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

This proposed action merely proposes 

to approve state law as meeting Federal 

requirements and imposes no additional 

requirements beyond those imposed by 

state law. Accordingly, the 

Administrator certifies that this 

proposed 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 proposes to approve 

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 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 

proposes to approve 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. 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
23788 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 

Executive Order 13175: Consultation 

and Coordination With Indian Tribal 

Governments 

This proposed 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 13045: Protection of 

Children From Environmental Health 

and Safety Risks 

This proposed 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. 

Executive Order 13211: Actions That 

Significantly Affect Energy Supply, 

Distribution, or Use 

Because it is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866 or a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action,’’ 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). 

National Technology Transfer 

Advancement Act 

Section 12(d) of the National 

Technology Transfer and Advancement 

Act of 1995 (NTTAA), 15 U.S.C. 272, 

requires Federal agencies to use 

technical standards that are developed 

or adopted by voluntary consensus to 

carry out policy objectives, so long as 

such standards are not inconsistent with 

applicable law or otherwise impractical. 

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s 

role is to approve state choices, 

provided that they meet the criteria of 

the Clean Air Act. Absent a prior 

existing requirement for the state to use 

voluntary consensus standards, EPA has 

no authority to disapprove a SIP 

submission for failure to use such 

standards, and it would thus be 

inconsistent with applicable law for 

EPA to use voluntary consensus 

standards in place of a program 

submission that otherwise satisfies the 

provisions of the Clean Air Act. 

Therefore, the requirements of section 

12(d) of the NTTAA do not apply. 

List of Subjects 

40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Intergovernmental relations, 

Sulfur oxides. 

40 CFR Part 81 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, National parks, Sulfur 

dioxide, Wilderness areas. 

Dated: April 19, 2007. 

Bharat Mathur, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, parts 52 and 81, chapter I, of 

title 40 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations are proposed to be 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)(136) to read as 

follows: 

§ 52.1870 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * 

(136) On May 16, 2006, Ohio 

submitted numerous regulations for 

sulfur dioxide. These regulations were 

submitted to replace the remaining 

federally promulgated regulations, to 

make selected revisions to applicable 

limits, and to update company names 

and make other similar administrative 

changes. 

(i) Incorporation by reference. Ohio 

Administrative Code Rules 3745–18–01, 

3745–18–02, 3745–18–03, 3745–18–06, 

3745–18–08, 3745–18–10, 3745–18–11, 

3745–18–12, 3745–18–15, 3745–18–17, 

3745–18–18, 3745–18–24, 3745–18–28, 

3745–18–29, 3745–18–31, 3745–18–34, 

3745–18–35, 3745–18–37, 3745–18–38, 

3745–18–49, 3745–18–50, 3745–18–53, 

3745–18–54, 3745–18–57, 3745–18–61, 

3745–18–63, 3745–18–66, 3745–18–68, 

3745–18–69, 3745–18–72, 3745–18–76, 

3745–18–77, 3745–18–78, 3745–18–79, 

3745–18–80, 3745–18–81, 3745–18–82, 

3745–18–83, 3745–18–84, 3745–18–85, 

3745–18–87, 3745–18–90, 3745–18–91, 

and 3745–18–93, adopted on January 

13, 2006, effective January 23, 2006. 

(ii) Additional material. Letter from 

Joseph P. Koncelik, Director, Ohio EPA, 

to Bharat Mathur, EPA Region 5, dated 

May 16, 2006, with attachments 

providing supporting material. 

3. Section 52.1881 is amended as 

follows: 

a. By revising paragraph (a)(4). 

b. By removing and reserving 

paragraphs (a)(7), (a)(8), and (b). 

§ 52.1881 Control strategy: Sulfur oxides 

(sulfur dioxide). 

(a) * * * 

(4) Notwithstanding the portions of 

Ohio’s sulfur dioxide rules identified in 

this section that EPA has either 

disapproved or taken no action on, EPA 

has approved a complete plan 

addressing all counties in the State of 

Ohio. EPA has approved the following 

rules, supplemented by any additional 

approved rules specified in 40 CFR 

52.1870: 

(i) Rules as effective in Ohio on 

December 28, 1979: OAC 3745–18–04 

(measurement methods)—except for five 

disapproved paragraphs ((D)(2), (D)(3), 

(E)(2), (E)(3), and (E)(4)) and three 

paragraphs approved later ((D)(8), (D)(9), 

and (E)(7)), OAC 3745–18–05 (ambient 

monitoring), OAC 3745–18–08 (Allen)— 

except for one paragraph approved later 

(Cairo Chemical), OAC 3745–18–09 

(Ashland County), OAC 3745–18–13 

(Belmont), OAC 3745–18–14 (Brown), 

OAC 3745–18–16 (Carroll), OAC 3745– 

18–19 (Clermont)—except for one 

paragraph approved later (CG&E 

Beckjord), OAC 3745–18–20 (Clinton), 

OAC 3745–18–21 (Columbiana), OAC 

3745–18–23 (Crawford), OAC 3745–18– 

25 (Darke), OAC 3745–18–26 (Defiance), 

OAC 3745–18–27 (Delaware), OAC 

3745–18–30 (Fayette), OAC 3745–18–32 

(Fulton), OAC 3745–18–36 (Guernsey), 

OAC 3745–18–39 (Hardin), OAC 3745– 

18–40 (Harrison), OAC 3745–18–41 

(Henry), OAC 3745–18–42 (Highland), 

OAC 3745–18–43 (Hocking), OAC 3745– 

18–44 (Holmes), OAC 3745–18–45 

(Huron), OAC 3745–18–46 (Jackson), 

OAC 3745–18–48 (Knox), OAC 3745– 

18–51 (Licking), OAC 3745–18–52 

(Logan), OAC 3745–18–55 (Madison), 

OAC 3745–18–58 (Medina), OAC 3745– 

18–59 (Meigs), OAC 3745–18–60 

(Mercer), OAC 3745–18–62 (Monroe), 

OAC 3745–18–64 (Morgan)—except for 

one paragraph approved later (OP 

Muskinghum River), OAC 3745–18–65 

(Morrow), OAC 3745–18–67 (Noble), 

OAC 3745–18–70 (Perry), OAC 3745– 

18–73 (Portage), OAC 3745–18–74 

(Preble), OAC 3745–18–75 (Putnam), 

OAC 3745–18–86 (Union), OAC 3745– 

18–88 (Vinton), OAC 3745–18–89 

(Warren), OAC 3745–18–92 (Williams), 

and OAC 3745–18–94 (Wyandot); 

(ii) Rules as effective in Ohio on 

October 1, 1982: OAC 3745–18–64 (B) 

(OP Muskinghum River in Morgan 

County); 

(iii) Rules as effective in Ohio on 

October 31, 1991: OAC 3745–18–04 

(D)(7), (D)(8)(a) to (D)(8)(e), (E)(5), 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 83 / Tuesday, May 1, 2007 / Proposed Rules 23789 

(E)(6)(a), (E)(6)(b), (F), (G)(1) to (G)(4), 

and (I); 

(iv) Rules as effective in Ohio on July 

25, 1996: OAC 3745–18–47 (Jefferson); 

(v) Rules as effective in Ohio on 

March 21, 2006: OAC 3745–18–22 

(Coshocton), OAC 3745–18–33 (Gallia), 

and OAC 3745–18–71 (Pickaway); 

(vi) Rules as effective in Ohio on 

September 1, 2003: OAC 3745–18–56 

(Mahoning); and 

(vii) Rules as effective in Ohio on 

January 23, 2006: OAC 3745–18–01 

(definitions), OAC 3745–18–02 (air 

quality standards), OAC 3745–18–03 

(compliance dates), OAC 3745–18–06 

(general provisions), OAC 3745–18–07 

(Adams), OAC 3745–18–10 (Ashtabula), 

OAC 3745–18–11 (Athens), OAC 3745– 

18–12 (Auglaize), OAC 3745–18–15 

(Butler), OAC 3745–18–17 (Champaign), 

OAC 3745–18–18 (Clark), OAC 3745– 

18–24 (Cuyahoga), OAC 3745–18–28 

(Erie), OAC 3745–18–29 (Fairfield), 

OAC 3745–18–31 (Franklin), OAC 

3745–18–34 (Geauga), OAC 3745–18–35 

(Greene), OAC 3745–18–37 (Hamilton), 

OAC 3745–18–38 (Hancock), OAC 

3745–18–49 (Lake), OAC 3745–18–50 

(Lawrence), OAC 3745–18–53 (Lorain), 

OAC 3745–18–54 (Lucas), OAC 3745– 

18–57 (Marion), OAC 3745–18–61 

(Miami), OAC 3745–18–63 

(Montgomery), OAC 3745–18–66 

(Muskingum), OAC 3745–18–68 

(Ottawa), OAC 3745–18–69 (Paulding), 

OAC 3745–18–72 (Pike), OAC 3745–18– 

76 (Richland), OAC 3745–18–77 (Ross), 

OAC 3745–18–78 (Sandusky), OAC 

3745–18–79 (Scioto), OAC 3745–18–80 

(Seneca), OAC 3745–18–81 (Shelby), 

OAC 3745–18–82 (Stark), OAC 3745– 

18–83 (Summit), OAC 3745–18–84 

(Trumbull), OAC 3745–18–85 

(Tuscarawas), OAC 3745–18–87 (Van 

Wert), OAC 3745–18–90 (Washington), 

OAC 3745–18–91 (Wayne), and OAC 

3745–18–93 (Wood). 

* * * * * 

§ 52.1882 [Removed] 

4. Section 52.1882 is removed and 

reserved. 

PART 81—[AMENDED] 

5. 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 

6. The table in § 81.336 entitled 

‘‘Ohio—SO2’’ is amended by removing 

the three footnotes and revising the 

entries for Summit and Trumbull 

Counties to read as follows: 

§ 81.336 Ohio. 

* * * * * 

OHIO—SO2

Designated area Does not meet primary 

standards 

Does not meet secondary 

standards Cannot be classified 

Better than 

national 

standards 

* * * * * * * 

Summit County ....................... ................................................ ................................................ ................................................ X 

Trumbull County ..................... ................................................ ................................................ ................................................ X 

* * * * * * * 

[FR Doc. E7–8295 Filed 4–30–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


rmajette on DSK29S0YB1PROD with MISCELLANEOUS