Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio

Note: EPA no longer updates this information, but it may be useful as a reference or resource.
  [Federal Register: July 8, 2004 (Volume 69, Number 130)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 41335-41343]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr08jy04-12]
[[Page 41336]]

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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[OH 159-1a; FRL-7774-7]
 
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: On September 27, 2003, Ohio requested revisions to the State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) for sulfur dioxide (SO₂) for 
several counties in Ohio, along with a request for redesignation of 
Cuyahoga County to attainment for SO₂. In general, the 
submitted rules are at least equivalent to limitations promulgated by 
EPA in a Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) for the area. Therefore, EPA 
is approving these revisions to the SIP. In conjunction with this 
action, EPA is rescinding the federally promulgated emission 
limitations for SO₂ for these counties. By this pair of 
actions, EPA is replacing FIP limits with SIP limits for the affected 
counties.
    EPA finds Ohio's request for the redesignation of Cuyahoga County 
to attainment for SO₂ approvable. EPA believes that the 
prerequisites for redesignation to attainment are satisfied, including 
meeting the air quality standard, replacing FIP limits with federally 
approved state limits, providing an approvable plan for continued 
attainment, and addressing other relevant planning requirements. 
Therefore, EPA is redesignating Cuyahoga County to attainment for 
SO₂.

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.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OH159 by 
one of the following methods:
    Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.  
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: bortzer.jay@epa.gov.
Fax: (312) 886-5824.
    Mail: You may send written comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Acting 
Chief, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), Environmental Protection Agency, 
77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Hand delivery: Deliver your comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, 
Criteria Pollutant Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR-18J), U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
18th floor, Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    Such deliveries are only accepted during the Regional Office's 
normal hours of operation. The Regional Office's official hours of 
business are Monday through Friday, 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. excluding 
Federal holidays.
    You may request a public hearing. Requests for a hearing should be 
submitted to J. Elmer Bortzer. Interested persons may call John 
Summerhays at (312) 886-6067 to learn if a hearing will be held and the 
date and location of the hearing. Any hearing will be strictly limited 
to the subject matter of this action, the scope of which is discussed 
below.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OH159. EPA's 
policy is that all comments received will be included in the public 
docket without change, 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. Do not submit information that you consider to 
be CBI or otherwise protected through regulations.gov, or e-mail. The 
federal 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 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 Unit I of the SUPPLEMENTARY 
INFORMATION section of this document.''
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in an index. 
Although listed in the index, some information is not publicly 
available, i.e., CBI or other information whose disclosure is 
restricted by statute. Publicly available docket materials are 
available in hard copy at Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, 
Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604. (We recommend that you telephone John Summerhays, 
Environmental Scientist, at (312) 886-6067 before visiting the Region 5 
office.) This Facility is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday 
through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John Summerhays at (312) 886-6067.

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

I. General Information
II. Background on Ohio SO₂
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 e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the 
information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or 
CD-ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD-ROM as 
CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD-ROM the 
specific information that is 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:
    ? Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other 
identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register date and 
page number).
    ? Follow directions--The agency may ask you to respond to 
specific questions or organize comments by referencing a

[[Page 41337]]

Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) part or section number.
    ? Explain why you agree or disagree; suggest alternatives 
and substitute language for your requested changes.
    ? Describe any assumptions and provide any technical 
information and/or data that you used.
    ? If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how 
you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be 
reproduced.
    ? Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and 
suggest alternatives.

II. Background on Ohio SO₂

    This rulemaking action principally addresses the nature of the 
federally enforceable emission limits for SO₂ in several 
Ohio counties. Specifically, this action establishes numerous State-
adopted emission limits as federally enforceable, and in turn deletes 
the corresponding federally promulgated FIP limits.
    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 SO₂ regulations that 
will supersede the corresponding federally promulgated regulations.
    The second action taken here is to redesignate the Cleveland area 
(Cuyahoga County) from a nonattainment area to an attainment area for 
SO₂. Among the prerequisites to redesignation is that EPA 
has approved State adopted rules sufficient to provide for attainment 
and to satisfy other planning requirements. Ohio's submittal and EPA's 
approval of State limits for Cuyahoga County for replacing FIP limits 
addresses this prerequisite.
    The key antecedent to today's action was promulgation of a FIP, 
published on August 27, 1976, at 41 FR 36324, establishing 
SO₂ control regulations for 55 Ohio counties. EPA 
promulgated the FIP after Ohio submitted State Implementation Plans for 
SO₂ in 1972 and again in 1974 but withdrew these plans from 
consideration. Then, in 1980, Ohio submitted a comprehensive set of 
SO₂ limits for the State. EPA approved Ohio's limits for a 
majority of its counties on January 27, 1981, at 46 FR 8481. In that 
rulemaking, EPA explained that the approved State adopted rules 
superseded the corresponding FIP limits. EPA has undertaken similar 
rulemaking several times thereafter.
    Nevertheless, in an assortment of cases, EPA did not approve the 
state-adopted SO₂ limits. For some counties, EPA approved 
most limits but did not act on limits for specific sources, for example 
because Ohio withdrew the limits from consideration due to a source's 
concern about the limit. For other counties, EPA did not approve any 
limits, for example because EPA identified deficiencies in the analysis 
underlying the limits. In the absence of an approved State limit, the 
FIP limit remained in effect as the federally enforceable limit.
    Most of EPA's rulemakings concerning SO₂ in Ohio have 
approved State-adopted limits that superseded FIP limits without 
actually removing the FIP rule language from the Code of Federal 
Regulations. Actual removal of Ohio SO₂ FIP rule language 
has occurred on two prior occasions: June 29, 1995, at 60 FR 33915, and 
on January 31, 2002, at 67 FR 4669. The first of these involved no new 
approvals of State rules; instead, it involved removal of previously 
superseded FIP rules, as part of a broader package of actions to remove 
unnecessary language in the Code of Federal Regulations. The second 
previous elimination of FIP rules included approval of State rules for 
some or all of two counties with FIP rules, elimination of FIP rules 
for these counties, and elimination of FIP rules for portions of an 
additional three counties for which EPA had previously approved Ohio's 
rules. (This latter rulemaking also approved State rules for one county 
without corresponding FIP rules.) Today's rulemaking includes similar 
State rule approval and FIP removal as did this latter rulemaking.
    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 SO₂ limits for the 
following counties: Adams, Allen, Clermont, Cuyahoga, Lake, Lawrence, 
Mahoning, Monroe, Montgomery, Muskingum, Pike, Ross, Washington, and 
Wood Counties. For Cuyahoga, Mahoning, Monroe, and Washington Counties, 
the submitted limits differ from the current federally enforceable 
limits. The first four subsections that follow address each of these 
counties individually. The fifth subsection addresses the counties in 
which the submitted limits are largely equivalent to current federally 
enforceable limits. A final subsection addresses revisions to generic 
rules with statewide applicability.
    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 SO₂ national ambient 
air quality standards.
    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 re-analysis of Cuyahoga County's 
SO₂ limits, culminating in promulgation of a new set of 
limits on September 3, 1993, at 58 FR 46867. The preamble of that 
rulemaking describes the re-analysis in more detail. The control 
strategy analysis for Cuyahoga County included routine modeling, 
sufficient to address most sources in the county, plus substantial 
additional analysis for the steelmaking facility now owned by 
International Steel Group (ISG, formerly LTV Steel, which includes the 
merged properties of Republic Steel and J&L Steel). The additional 
analysis addressed the impacts of the combustion of undesulfurized coke 
oven gas and focused on two ``critical receptors'' identified in the 
initial modeling as the two locations most likely to have modeled 
violations.
    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

[[Page 41338]]

(and therefore coke oven gas combustion) significantly reduces overall 
allowable SO₂ emissions. The challenge in this analysis was 
to identify and address the worst case distribution of the allowable 
undesulfurized coke oven gas resulting in the largest allowable 
impacts. For this purpose, the analysis first allocated coke oven gas 
to the emission point burning coke oven gas with the greatest impact 
per ton of emissions, then to the emissions point with the next 
greatest impact per ton of emissions, and so on, until the available 
coke oven gas was fully allocated. The analysis used a spreadsheet that 
identified the modeled impacts at the two critical receptors per ton of 
emissions and assessed the impacts of various distributions of 
undesulfurized coke oven gas. From this analysis, EPA concluded that 
the worst case distribution of the undesulfurized coke oven gas, in 
combination with source-specific emission limits, would yield 
concentrations below the SO₂ air quality standards.
    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 C-1 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 C-1 blast furnace to 
increase emissions from 0.024 to 0.15 pounds per million British 
Thermal Units (#/MMBTU), corresponding to an increase in 
allowable emissions from 7.7 #/hour to 48.0 #/hour. 
Since most of the SO₂ emitted by the ISG facility arose from 
the combustion of undesulfurized coke oven gas produced by the number 6 
and number 7 coke batteries, the shutdown of the number 6 battery 
yielded a reduction in SO₂ emissions and impacts that is 
much greater than the increase at the C-1 blast furnace.
    The regulation submitted by Ohio requires 0.0 #/hour of 
SO₂ emissions from the ISG facility's number 6 battery. 
However, the regulation also continues to permit production of coke 
oven gas containing 265 of the prior 315 #/hour of hydrogen 
sulfide (H₂S). Based on the difference in molecular weights, 
combustion of 50 fewer pounds per hour of H₂S results in an 
SO₂ emission reduction of 94 #/hour.
    Under one interpretation of Ohio's rules, ISG remains allowed to 
produce 265 pounds per hour of H₂S from the number 6 coke 
battery. Under this interpretation, if ISG in the future becomes 
subject to a restriction prohibiting some or all of this H₂S 
production, it may be possible for ISG to take a shutdown credit for 
new source permitting or other purposes for the implicit associated 
reduction in allowable SO₂ emissions. Under a second 
interpretation of Ohio's rules, the battery is already required to be 
shut down, and no further shutdown credits are available. (The battery 
is in fact shut down, but the difference between the two 
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 #/hour of 
H₂S. EPA is rulemaking only on the question of whether a 
conservative interpretation of Ohio's rules, reflecting a 50 #/
hour reduction in allowable H₂S production in combination 
with a provision for no SO₂ emissions from the number 6 
battery and a 40 #/hour increase in SO₂ emissions 
allowed at the C-1 blast furnace, provides at least as much air quality 
protection as the control strategy of the current FIP.
    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 #/hour 
of H₂S production versus the worst case scenario with 315 
#/hour of H₂S production, the difference is 
combustion of 50 fewer #/hour of H₂S. Both worst 
case scenarios would continue to reflect use of undesulfurized coke 
oven gas at the emission points with the highest impacts per ton of 
emissions. The difference between the two worst case scenarios would be 
the availability of 50 fewer #/hour of H₂S for 
combustion at the emission point with the lowest impact per ton ranking 
that is allocated undesulfurized coke oven gas in the worst case 
allocation. For both critical receptors, the net effect of one less 
pound of emissions from the affected emission point and one more pound 
of emissions from the C-1 blast furnace is a reduction of worst case 
concentrations. Therefore, EPA concludes that the net effect of this 
pair of rule changes is to reduce the modeled SO₂ 
concentration, even if Ohio's rule is interpreted to allow the ISG 
facility's number 6 battery to produce 265 #/hour of H₂S.
    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 #/MMBTU of heat content on 
any day that the facility is burning coke oven gas. The FIP applies 
this limit to all days. Under Ohio's rule, for days when coke oven gas 
is not used (which, with the shutdown of the coke batteries at the ISG 
facility, is always the case), the oil sulfur content is limited by the 
Ohio rules' unit-specific limits applicable to units with the capacity 
to burn oil. For days without coke oven gas, even if the ISG facility 
uses sufficiently sulfur-laden oil to approach these limits for the few 
units that can burn oil, the absence of undesulfurized coke oven gas as 
a fuel will result in most units emitting far less than their limit and 
will clearly yield better air quality. Therefore, this provision on oil 
sulfur content provides adequate air quality protection.
    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 
#/MMBTU for boilers and 6 #/ton of actual process 
weight input. Most of the sources listed in Ohio's rules that are not 
listed in the FIP have boilers, many of which have limits above 1.2 
#/MMBTU. In the attainment demonstration justifying the FIP, 
these sources were included and modeled as having emissions 
corresponding to their State limit. Therefore, EPA is satisfied that 
these limits are an acceptable part of an overall plan that provides 
for attainment. More generally, EPA concludes that in spite of the 
differences between the State rule and the FIP, the State rules serve 
adequately in assuring attainment of the SO₂ standards in 
Cuyahoga County.

B. Mahoning County

    As in Cuyahoga County, currently all federally enforceable 
SO₂ limits in Mahoning County reflect the federally 
promulgated limits of the FIP. Comparison of the State rules to the FIP 
is complicated by the numerous facility ownership changes that occurred 
between the time the FIP was promulgated and the time the State rules 
were first adopted. The comparison is simplified by the shutdown of 
numerous facilities. The following is a synopsis of this comparison for 
the four key remaining facilities that are addressed in the FIP:

[[Page 41339]]

    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 
#/ton of process weight input)--The State seeks to raise the 
limit to 3.3 #/ton of process weight input.
    Whitacre Greer--The State has raised the limit to equal the limit 
in the FIP.
    Lonardo Greenhouse--State 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 SO₂, is greater than the 
emissions increase at the Youngstown Sinter Plant, which Ohio 
calculates as allowing an increase of 1293 tons per year. Ohio further 
provided results of a modeling analysis addressing the net effects of 
the increase in the allowable emissions from the Youngstown Sinter 
Plant and the shutdown of the U.S. Steel facility. This analysis was 
conducted in accordance with the Emission Trading Policy Statement 
published by EPA on December 4, 1986, at 51 FR 43814. Since the area 
includes some complex terrain, the analysis used both the ISCST3 model 
and the CTSCREEN model to assess the impact of the emission changes 
inherent in this revision and the shutdown of the U.S. Steel facility. 
This analysis showed that selected receptors more influenced by the 
Youngstown Sinter Plant would have a net concentration increase but 
that these increases were small. Specifically, the analysis indicated 
that at all receptors, the limit revisions would yield either a 
decrease in concentrations or an increase by an amount smaller than the 
levels defined in the Emission Trading Policy Statement as significant. 
Further, this pair of sources are somewhat distant from other sources 
(and former sources) in Mahoning County, suggesting that concentrations 
from other sources, to which this net impact is added, are relatively 
low. Therefore, EPA concludes that the revised limit for the Youngstown 
Sinter Plant continues to provide for attainment.

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 State-wide 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 #/MMBTU to 4.5 #/MMBTU. Ohio explained 
that this limit was necessitated by modeling during new source 
permitting of another source that showed this limit reduction to be 
needed to assure attainment in the area. Ohio did not submit this 
modeling as part of its submittal. Nevertheless, this limit reduction 
clearly improves air quality protection. Therefore, EPA approves this 
revision.

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 & Light-Stuart Station), Allen 
County (Marsulex), Clermont County (Cincinnati Gas & Electric-Beckjord 
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 
(Libby-Owens-Ford 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 County--The limit for Dayton Power & Light-Stuart Station is 
equivalent to the current FIP limit.
    Allen County--No FIP limits apply. Approval of these limits 
provides for a complete set of limits for Allen County.
    Clermont County--The FIP subjects the Cincinnati Gas & Electric-
Beckjord Station to either a plant-wide limit of 2.02 #/MMBTU 
or an equivalent set of equations addressing use of multiple coal 
supplies at different stacks. Ohio's limits for this source reflect two 
coal supplies and satisfy the equation version of the FIP requirements. 
Thus, the State limits are equivalent to the FIP limits.
    Lake County--Ohio 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 County--The State limit is slightly tighter than the FIP 
limit.
    Montgomery County--The 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 County--For 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 County--The State limit for the Portsmouth Diffusion Plant is 
equivalent to the FIP limit.
    Ross County--The 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 #/MMBTU, based on anticipation that these 
boilers would shut down; however, the boilers did not in fact shut 
down. The State limit reflects the emissions for these boilers included 
in the FIP attainment demonstration.
    Wood County--The State limits for Libby-Owens-Ford Plants 4 & 8 and 
Plant 6 are equivalent to the generic

[[Page 41340]]

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 3745-18-01, 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 3745-18-04, 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 SO₂ 
emissions. The revision removes the specific criteria of heat content 
and sulfur content, recognizing that natural gas uniformly has low 
sulfur content and so such criteria are not needed to assure that 
sources burning natural gas will have minimal SO₂ emissions. 
Paragraph (J) provides for test methods for the Lubrizol facility in 
Lake County, including the continuous emission monitoring that is 
needed to address compliance with the interconnected array of limits in 
effect at this facility. EPA finds the revised rules equally as 
protective as the prior provisions.
    Rule 3745-18-06 provides that sources burning only natural gas are 
exempt from the limits of Chapter 3745-18, 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 3745-18-01(B)(9). EPA finds 
that these criteria are not needed to assure minimal SO₂ 
from combustion of natural gas.

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 
the SO₂ standards. In addition, Ohio submitted evidence that 
Cuyahoga County sources are complying with applicable emission limits, 
which indicates that modeling using the same meteorological data as the 
attainment demonstration but using actual emissions data would also 
show attainment. For these reasons, EPA concludes that Cuyahoga County 
is attaining the SO₂ air quality standard.
    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 gasoline-fueled and diesel-fueled vehicles. Both the 
emission reductions in recent years from the acid rain program and the 
reductions in motor vehicle SO₂ emissions expected in the 
next few years will assure that background SO₂ 
concentrations will remain below levels defined in the 1980s for 
attainment planning purposes. Therefore, Ohio's maintenance plan 
assures continued attainment of the SO₂ standards for the 
foreseeable future.
    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 SO₂ in Cuyahoga County under 
Section 110 and Part D of Title I. Thus, all five prerequisites for 
redesignation Cuyahoga County to attainment for SO₂ have 
been satisfied.

V. EPA Action

    This rulemaking approves numerous SO₂ limits adopted and 
submitted by Ohio to replace limits that EPA promulgated as part of a 
FIP. EPA is approving rules for Adams County (limits for Dayton Power & 
Light-Stuart Station), Allen County (limits for the Marsulex facility), 
Clermont County (limits for Cincinnati Gas & Electric-Beckjord 
Station), Cuyahoga County (full rule), Lake County (full rule), 
Lawrence County (limits for the Allied Chemical facility), Mahoning 
County (full rule), Monroe County (full rule), Montgomery County 
(limits for the Glatfelter and Miami Paper facilities), Muskingum 
County (Armco Steel), Pike County (limits for the Portsmouth Diffusion 
Plant), Ross County (limits for the Mead facility), Washington County 
(full rule), and Wood County (Libby-Owens-Ford Plants 4 & 8 and Plant 6).
    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 
SO₂. EPA is also approving Ohio's plan for maintenance of 
the SO₂ air quality standard in Cuyahoga County.
    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 not-for-profit 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 Federal-State relationship under 
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute 
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The 
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such 
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

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 cost-effective and least burdensome alternative 
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with 
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan 
for informing and advising any small governments that may be 
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
    EPA has determined that the approval action 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 
pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new 
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or 
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.

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'' (59 FR 22951, 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,
Administrator.

? For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 52, chapter I, title 40 of 
the Code of Federal Regulations is 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)(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 3745-18-01, 3745-18-04, and 3745-
18-06, relating to natural gas use, as well as special provisions in 
Rule 3745-18-04 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 source-specific 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 3745-18-01; OAC 3745-18-04(F); OAC 3745-18-04(J); OAC 
3745-18-06; OAC 3745-18-24; OAC 3745-18-49; OAC 3745-18-56; OAC 3745-
18-62; and OAC 3745-18-90. Adopted August 19, 2003, effective September 
1, 2003.
    (B) Rules OAC 3745-18-07(B); OAC 3745-18-08(H); OAC 3745-18-19(B); 
OAC 3745-18-66(C); OAC 3745-18-72(B);, effective May 11, 1987.
    (C) OAC 3745-18-50(C); OAC 3745-18-77(B); effective December 28, 1979.
    (D) OAC 3745-18-63 (K) and (L); and OAC 3745-18-93 (B) and (C); 
effective November 1, 1984.
    (ii) Additional material--Letter 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) Approval-EPA 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 Action-EPA 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

[[Page 41343]]

(b)(8), (b)(9), and (b)(10), respectively, and removing paragraphs 
(b)(29) and (b)(30).

PART 81--[AMENDED]

? 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.

                              Ohio--SO2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
                   Does not meet   Does not meet               Better than
Designated area       primary        secondary      Cannot be    national
                     standards       standards      classified   standards
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

                                                  * * * * * * *
Cuyahoga County....  ...........  .............  .............      X

                                                  * * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 04-15202 Filed 7-7-04; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Notices For
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
1995
1994
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Ohio

Local Navigation
