Federal Register: July 8, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 130)
DOCID: FR Doc 04-15202
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Veterans Affairs Department
CFR Citation: 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
OH ID: [OH 159-1a; FRL-7774-7]
NOTICE: Part II
DOCUMENT ACTION: Direct final rule.
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio
DATES: This direct final rule is effective on September 7, 2004, unless EPA receives an adverse written comment or a request for a public hearing by August 9, 2004. If EPA receives an adverse written comment or a request for a public hearing, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of the rule in the Federal Register and will inform the public that the rule will not take effect.
On September 27, 2003, Ohio requested revisions to the State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur dioxide (SO
EPA finds Ohio's request for the redesignation of Cuyahoga County
to attainment for SO
Environmental Protection Agency,
This supplemental information section is organized as follows:
I. General Information
II. Background on Ohio SO
III. Review of Rule Revisions
A. Cuyahoga County
B. Mahoning County
C. Monroe County
D. Washington County
E. Additional counties
F. Additional rule revisions
IV. Review of Redesignation Request for Cuyahoga County
V. EPA's Action
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
I. General Information.
A. Does This Action Apply To Me?
This action applies to industries that produce sulfur dioxide emissions.
B. What Should I Consider As I Prepare My Comments for EPA?
1. Submitting CBI. Do not submit this information to EPA through regulations.gov or email. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CDROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CDROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CDROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI). In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.
2. Tips for Preparing Your Comments. When submitting comments, remember to:
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
II. Background on Ohio SO
This rulemaking action principally addresses the nature of the
federally enforceable emission limits for SO
In most cases, SIPs reflect regulations and related materials that
have been prepared and adopted by the state and approved by EPA
pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air Act. However, in rare cases
EPA uses authority, presently found in section 110(c) of the Clean Air
Act, for federal promulgation of regulations and other plan elements
required by the Clean Air Act. An important element of today's action
is to approve numerous state adopted SO
The second action taken here is to redesignate the Cleveland area
(Cuyahoga County) from a nonattainment area to an attainment area for
The key antecedent to today's action was promulgation of a FIP,
published on August 27, 1976, at 41 FR 36324, establishing
Nevertheless, in an assortment of cases, EPA did not approve the
Most of EPA's rulemakings concerning SO
Today's removal of FIP regulations is contingent on having enforceable superseding State regulations in effect. Today's rulemaking provides for Federal enforceability of superseding State regulations, and invalidation of these State regulations is unlikely because the period for legal challenge of these State regulations has passed without challenge. Nevertheless, if for any reason the State rules become invalidated or otherwise become unenforceable, EPA would view the FIP removal to be invalidated, and EPA would revert to enforcing the FIP regulations removed today.
III. Review of Rule Revisions
Today's rulemaking addresses SO
Criteria for this review 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
3. This is not a relaxation of existing emission limits. A. Cuyahoga County
Following promulgation of FIP limits in 1976, a lawsuit by Republic
Steel Company led to extended reanalysis of Cuyahoga County's
A first step in this additional analysis was to estimate the
concentrations at the two critical receptors that could arise with
unlimited availability of undesulfurized coke oven gas. A second step
was to address the impact of a limit on the availability of undesulfurized coke oven gas. Because the alternatives to
undesulfurized coke oven gas (such as blast furnace gas and natural gas) have lower sulfur content, the restriction on coke oven gas production
(and therefore coke oven gas combustion) significantly reduces overall allowable SO
Most of the Cuyahoga County limits that Ohio submitted in September 2003 are identical to the 1993 FIP limits. The differences between the 2003 State rules and the FIP for Cuyahoga County are of three types: (a) Limit revisions for ISG based on a combination of an increase in emissions allowed at the facility's C1 blast furnace and the shutdown of the number 6 coke battery, (b) a special provision relating to the sulfur content of oil burned at the ISG facility, and (c) establishment of limits for sources that are not identified in the FIP.
Ohio's revised rule allows the ISG facility's C1 blast furnace to
increase emissions from 0.024 to 0.15 pounds per million British
Thermal Units (
The regulation submitted by Ohio requires 0.0
Under one interpretation of Ohio's rules, ISG remains allowed to
produce 265 pounds per hour of H
interpretations is whether the rules require the battery to be shut down.)
EPA is not choosing between these two interpretations today. That
is, EPA is not rulemaking today on whether Ohio's rule requires
shutdown of the ISG facility's number 6 battery (and thus termination
of coke oven gas production) or whether credits would be granted in the
future for eliminating the nominal allowance for producing (and combusting) coke oven gas containing 265
EPA is examining the air quality impact of these changes in
allowable emissions using the attainment demonstration underlying the
current FIP. Comparing the worst case scenario with 265
The second difference between Ohio's rule and the FIP involves the
limit on sulfur content of oil combusted at the ISG facility. Ohio's
rule provides that the sulfur content of oil combusted at the ISG
facility shall be limited to 0.525
A third difference between Ohio's rule and the FIP is the explicit
inclusion in Ohio's rules of several sources that are not explicitly
regulated in the FIP. The FIP establishes generic limits of 1.2
B. Mahoning County
As in Cuyahoga County, currently all federally enforceable
Youngstown Thermal (previously Ohio Edison/North Avenue)The State limit is rounded to a slightly tighter limit than the FIP limit.
Youngstown Sinter (limited in the FIP by the generic limit of 1.0
Whitacre GreerThe State has raised the limit to equal the limit in the FIP.
Lonardo GreenhouseState and FIP limits are identical.
Thus the principal issue in reviewing these limits is whether Ohio has justified the increased limit for the Youngstown Sinter Plant.
Ohio's justification for increasing the limit for the Youngstown
Sinter Plant is based on the shutdown of a nearby U.S. Steel facility.
Although the U.S. Steel facility is not identified in either the FIP or
the State rules, the facility was included in the modeling analysis
underlying the FIP. Ohio noted that the emission decrease from the
shutdown of the U.S. Steel facility, which Ohio calculates as a
reduction of 1703 tons per year of SO
C. Monroe County
The Ormet facility was addressed in an attainment plan developed for the Ohio Power Kammer Plant in neighboring Marshall County, West Virginia. EPA approved the attainment plan and the associated West Virginia limits on August 2, 2000, at 65 FR 47339. That rulemaking notice provides a complete discussion of the CALPUFF modeling conducted to define the necessary limits and the other elements of the attainment plan. This attainment plan indicated the need for Ohio to reduce the limits for the Ormet facility below the generic limits that are currently federally enforceable (reflecting a Statewide formula establishing an emission limit based on process weight rate), though the limits did not need to be reduced below actual current Ormet emission rates. EPA concludes that these revised limits, in combination with the approved West Virginia limits, provide for attainment in the area.
D. Washington County
Ohio submitted rules for Washington County that reduced the
emission limit for American Municipal Power's Gorsuch Generating
Station from 9.5
E. Additional Counties
In the 1980s, although Ohio submitted regulations applicable to most sources in the State, Ohio withdrew or did not submit limits for numerous sources. Consequently, the federally enforceable limits for numerous sources are FIP limits. In addition, in a few cases, a source is subject to no federally enforceable limits because Ohio withdrew or did not submit limits for sources that lacked applicable FIP limits. Ohio's submittal of September 27, 2003, addresses this situation by submitting rules for many of these sources. This submittal includes limits for Adams County (Dayton Power & LightStuart Station), Allen County (Marsulex), Clermont County (Cincinnati Gas & ElectricBeckjord Station), Lawrence County (Allied Chemical), Montgomery County (Glatfelter and Miami Paper), Muskingum County (AK Steel), Pike County (Portsmouth Diffusion Plant), Ross County (Mead), and Wood County (LibbyOwensFord Plants 4 & 8 and Plant 6). In addition, Ohio submitted revised rules for Lake County (Lubrizol) and Muskingum County (Armco Steel). The following is a brief synopsis of these limits:
Adams CountyThe limit for Dayton Power & LightStuart Station is equivalent to the current FIP limit.
Allen CountyNo FIP limits apply. Approval of these limits provides for a complete set of limits for Allen County.
Clermont CountyThe FIP subjects the Cincinnati Gas & Electric
Beckjord Station to either a plantwide limit of 2.02
Lake CountyOhio revised these regulations for one source, the Lubrizol facility, most notably to have its regulations match the contents of the Findings and Orders issued by the State to this facility. EPA approved the Findings and Orders on June 12, 2001, at 66 FR 31552. The revised regulation also identifies the limits resulting from Ohio's generic limitation for several emissions points that did not previously have explicit emission limits. Since all of these limits are equivalent to currently federally enforceable limits, EPA finds these revisions approvable.
Lawrence CountyThe State limit is slightly tighter than the FIP limit.
Montgomery CountyThe State limits for the Glatfelter and Miami Paper facilities are equivalent to the generic Montgomery County FIP limit to which these sources are currently subject.
Muskingum CountyFor Armco Steel Corporation (now known as AK Steel), Ohio retained the previously approved emission limit but removed a limit on hours of operation that was not necessary to provide for attainment.
Pike CountyThe State limit for the Portsmouth Diffusion Plant is equivalent to the FIP limit.
Ross CountyThe State limit for recovery furnaces at the Mead
facility are equivalent to the FIP limit. The FIP limit for boilers at
this source is 0.00
Wood CountyThe State limits for LibbyOwensFord Plants 4 & 8 and Plant 6 are equivalent to the generic
Wood County FIP limit to which these sources are currently subject.
EPA has reviewed these rules, finds their limits to be at least equivalent to the limits in the FIP, and finds that the attainment demonstration that yielded these limits remains a valid basis for approving these limits.
F. Additional Rule Revisions
In addition to the revisions of source limits, Ohio adopted and submitted selected revisions to its general sulfur dioxide rules. The following paragraphs describe and review these revisions.
Rule 37451801, entitled ``Definitions and incorporation by reference,'' is changed by adding a definition of natural gas and by adding a list of materials incorporated by reference into the rule, principally consisting of test methods. These revisions are approvable.
For Rule 37451804, Ohio specifically requests rulemaking on
paragraphs (F) and (J). Paragraph (F)(4) provides that sources that are
burning natural gas may be considered to have zero SO
Rule 37451806 provides that sources burning only natural gas are
exempt from the limits of Chapter 374518, insofar as emissions are
certain to be below applicable limits. The revision again removes the
specific criteria of heat content and sulfur content, instead relying
on the definition of natural gas in Rule 37451801(B)(9). EPA finds
that these criteria are not needed to assure minimal SO
IV. Review of Redesignation Request for Cuyahoga County
Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air Act identifies five criteria for redesignating areas from nonattainment to attainment. The following addresses these criteria in turn:
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(i) makes redesignation contingent on EPA
determining that the area is attaining the applicable standard. The
available monitoring data indicate that Cuyahoga County is attaining
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(ii) requires that Ohio have addressed all applicable planning requirements. This rulemaking, approving state rules to replace the FIP rules that previously addressed applicable requirements, provides that Ohio has now addressed all applicable planning requirements.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iii) requires that the air quality improvement leading to attainment be the result of permanent and enforceable emission reductions. Attainment in Cuyahoga County was the result of a combination of switches to lower sulfur fuel and installation of control equipment necessitated by applicable permanent and enforceable emission limits.
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(iv) requires a maintenance plan assuring
continued attainment. Ohio's submittal of September 27, 2003, includes
a maintenance plan. The core of this maintenance plan is the emission
limits for key sources in Cuyahoga County, which provide for attainment
even if these sources operate at full capacity emitting at their full
allowable levels. The only additional condition for assuring
maintenance is to assure that background concentrations remain at or
below current levels. Ohio's maintenance plan reflects existing federal
measures, including the acid rain program and rules that require lower
sulfur fuels for gasolinefueled and dieselfueled vehicles. Both the
emission reductions in recent years from the acid rain program and the
reductions in motor vehicle SO
concentrations will remain below levels defined in the 1980s for attainment planning purposes. Therefore, Ohio's maintenance plan assures continued attainment of the SO
Section 107(d)(3)(E)(v) requires that the State has met all
planning requirements for the area under Clean Air Act Section 110 and
Part D of Title I. With this submittal and the rules therein, Ohio now
satisfies all requirements for SO
V. EPA Action
This rulemaking approves numerous SO
In those cases where the affected plants are subject to FIP limits, the approved State rules supersede the FIP limits. In today's action, EPA is removing the FIP rules that have thus been superseded.
EPA is redesignating Cuyahoga County to attainment for
In the proposed rules section of this Federal Register, we are
simultaneously proposing approval of the same submitted plan revision.
If we receive adverse comments by August 9, 2004, we will publish a
timely withdrawal in the Federal Register to notify the public that the
direct final rule will not take effect, and we will address the
comments in a subsequent final rule based on the proposal. If we do not
receive timely adverse comments, the direct final rule will be
effective without further notice on September 7, 2004. This will
incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP. Any parties interested in commenting must do so at this time.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review.''
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., OMB must [[Page 41341]]
approve all ``collections of information'' by EPA. The Act defines ``collection of information'' as a requirement for ``answers to * * * identical reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed on ten or more persons * * *'' 44 U.S.C. 3502(3)(A). Because this action does not create any new requirements but simply approves requirements that the State is already imposing, the Paperwork Reduction Act does not apply to this rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) generally requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small notforprofit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
This rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities because approvals of preexisting state rules 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 FederalState 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, 25566 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
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 costeffective 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 being 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 preexisting 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. E. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
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.
F. Executive Order 13175, Coordination With Indian Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175, entitled ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000),
requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful
and timely input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory
policies that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have
tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. Because
this rule merely approves a state rule implementing a Federal standard
and imposes no new requirements, it will not have substantial direct
effects on tribal governments, 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. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children From Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
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.
H. Executive Order 13211, Actions That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
This rule is not subject to Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act [[Page 41342]]
(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.
J. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule will be effective September 7, 2004, unless EPA receives adverse written comments by August 9, 2004.
K. 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 September 7, 2004. Filing a
petition for reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule
does not affect the finality of this rule for the purposes of judicial
review nor does it extend the time within which a petition for judicial
review may be filed, and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such
rule or action. This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).)
List of Subjects
40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur dioxide.
40 CFR Part 81
Air pollution control, National parks, Wilderness areas.
Dated: June 10, 2004.
Michael O. Leavitt,
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(129) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1870 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(129) On September 27, 2003, the Ohio Environmental Protection agency submitted revised rules for sulfur dioxide. The submittal includes revised provisions in Rules 37451801, 37451804, and 3745 1806, relating to natural gas use, as well as special provisions in Rule 37451804 for compliance testing for Lubrizol in Lake County. The submittal includes recently revised limits Ohio in Cuyahoga, Lake, Mahoning, Monroe, and Washington Counties, as well as previously adopted sourcespecific limits in Adams, Allen, Clermont, Lawrence, Montgomery, Muskingum, Pike, Ross, and Wood Counties that had not previously been subject to EPA rulemaking.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Rules OAC 37451801; OAC 37451804(F); OAC 37451804(J); OAC 37451806; OAC 37451824; OAC 37451849; OAC 37451856; OAC 3745 1862; and OAC 37451890. Adopted August 19, 2003, effective September 1, 2003.
(B) Rules OAC 37451807(B); OAC 37451808(H); OAC 37451819(B); OAC 37451866(C); OAC 37451872(B);, effective May 11, 1987.
(C) OAC 37451850(C); OAC 37451877(B); effective December 28, 1979.
(D) OAC 37451863 (K) and (L); and OAC 37451893 (B) and (C); effective November 1, 1984.
(ii) Additional materialLetter from Robert Hodanbosi to Thomas Skinner dated September 27, 2003.
3. Section 52.1881 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(8) and adding paragraph (a)(15) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1881 Control strategy: Sulfur Oxides (sulfur dioxide). (a) * * *
(4) ApprovalEPA approves the sulfur dioxide emission limits for the following counties: Adams County, Allen County, Ashland County, Ashtabula County, Athens County, Auglaize County, Belmont County, Brown County, Butler County, Carroll County, Champaign County, Clark County, Clermont County, Clinton County, Columbiana County, Coshocton County, Crawford County, Cuyahoga County, Darke County, Defiance County, Delaware County, Erie County, Fairfield County, Fayette County, Fulton County, Gallia County, Geauga County, Greene County, Guernsey County, Hamilton County, Hancock County, Hardin County, Harrison County, Henry County, Highland County, Hocking County, Holmes County, Huron County, Jackson County, Jefferson County, Knox County, Lake County, Lawrence County, Licking County, Logan County, Lorain County, Lucas County, Madison County, Mahoning County, Marion County, Medina County, Meigs County, Mercer County, Miami County, Monroe County, Montgomery County, Morgan County, Morrow County, Muskingum County, Noble County, Ottawa County, Paulding County, Perry County, Pickaway County, Pike County, Portage County, Preble County, Putnam County, Richland County, Ross County, 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, Wayne County, Williams County, Wood County, and Wyandot County.
* * * * *
(8) No ActionEPA is neither approving nor disapproving the emission limitations for the following counties/sources pending further review: Franklin County, Sandusky County (Martin Marietta Chemicals), and Stark County.
* * * * *
(15) On September 27, 2003, Ohio submitted maintenance plans for sulfur dioxide in Cuyahoga County and Lucas County.
* * * * *
3. Section 52.1881 is further amended by removing paragraphs (b)(7) through (b)(15), redesignating paragraph (b)(16) (Franklin County) as (b)(7), removing paragraphs (b)(17) through (b)(25), redesignating paragraphs (b)(26) (Sandusky County), (b)(27) (Stark County) and (b)(28) (Summit County) as
(b)(8), (b)(9), and (b)(10), respectively, and removing paragraphs (b)(29) and (b)(30).
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. Section 81.336 is amended by revising the entry for ``Cuyahoga County'' in the sulfur dioxide table to read as follows:
Sec. 81.336 Ohio.
OhioSO2 Does not meet Does not meet Better than Designated area primary secondary Cannot be national standards standards classified standards * * * * * * * Cuyahoga County........................ ................ ................ ................ X * * * * * * * * * * * *
[FR Doc. 0415202 Filed 7704; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 656050P
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
John Summerhays at (312) 886-6067.