[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 83 (Tuesday, May 1, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 23783-23789]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-8295]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[EPA-R05-OAR-2006-0546; FRL-8308-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Ohio SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
(SO<INF>2</INF>) 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> in Ohio would be superseded by approved State limits.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: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#88e5e7e7e6edf1a6e2e7e0e6c8edf8e9a6efe7fe"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="a0cdcfcfcec5d98ecacfc8cee0c5d0c18ec7cfd6">[email protected]</span></a>.
    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.

[[Page 23784]]

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 e-mail 
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, <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#c5b6b0a8a8a0b7ada4bcb6ebafaaadab85a0b5a4eba2aab3"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="f380869e9e96819b928a80dd999c9b9db3968392dd949c85">[email protected]</span></a>.

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 SO<INF>2</INF>. In the absence of State rules 
for SO<INF>2</INF>, EPA promulgated a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) 
for SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF>. The final area redesignated from

[[Page 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 
emissions in Summit County. Consequently, in conjunction with 
submitting a rule for SO<INF>2</INF> emissions in Summit County, Ohio 
also requested that EPA reestablish a designation for this area, 
requesting that EPA designate this area as attaining the SO<INF>2</INF> 
standard.
    In 1981, EPA published multiple rulemaking notices that led to EPA 
taking no action on provisions of Ohio SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> rules and 40 county-specific SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 
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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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

[[Page 23786]]

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 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 <greek-i>/MM Btu just for boiler number 6 with a limit of 
5.9 <greek-i>/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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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.

[[Page 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 
SO<INF>2</INF> emission limits. EPA has identified one facility 
elsewhere in Summit County as a high priority violator with excess 
SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 SO<INF>2</INF> 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 county-specific 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.

[[Page 23788]]

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:


Sec.  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).


Sec.  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),

[[Page 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).
* * * * *


Sec.  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 Sec.  81.336 entitled ``Ohio--SO<INF>2</INF>'' is 
amended by removing the three footnotes and revising the entries for 
Summit and Trumbull Counties 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
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
Summit County...................  ...................  ...................  ...................               X
Trumbull County.................  ...................  ...................  ...................               X
 
                                                  * * * * * * *
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. E7-8295 Filed 4-30-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>