[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 167 (Monday, August 30, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47113-47118]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-22319]
[[Page 47113]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[OH 121-1c; FRL-6425-1]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementations; Ohio Designation of
Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is approving emission limits for two sources in Lake
County, Ohio and redesignating Lake and Jefferson Counties to
attainment for SO2. EPA proposed this action on March 17,
1999 along with a direct final rule. On April 15, 1999, EPA received
adverse comments from Weirton Steel Corporation (WSC), West Virginia,
requesting that EPA not redesignate Jefferson County, Ohio to
attainment for SO2. WSC commented that EPA's reliance on the
modeling dating back to 1975 is misplaced and that more current
modeling is needed in order to demonstrate compliance with the
SO2 NAAQS. WSC also commented that some sources located in
Jefferson County, Ohio, are contributing significantly to the
nonattainment problem in Hancock County, West Virginia, and are
interfering with West Virginia's ability to maintain compliance with
the SO2 NAAQS.
EPA has reviewed WSC's comments, disagrees with the comments, and
concludes that Jefferson County should be redesignated to attainment.
Also, because EPA's response to adverse comments for Jefferson
County was to withdraw direct final action for Lake as well as
Jefferson County, today's action reinstates approval of the Lake County
emission limits and redesignation as well as the Jefferson County
redesignation. If refined modeling evidence becomes available that
indicates a need for tighter limits for Jefferson County, as WSC
anticipates, then EPA will require Ohio to adopt the tighter limits as
appropriate at that time.
DATES: This final rule is effective on September 29, 1999.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the revision request and the comments letter are
available for inspection at the following address: Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West
Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604. (We recommend that you
telephone Phuong Nguyen at (312) 886-6701 before visiting the Region 5
office.)
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Phuong Nguyen at (312) 886-6701.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This supplementary information section is
organized as follows:
I. GENERAL INFORMATION
A. What action is EPA taking today?
II. COMMENTS AND RESPONSES
A. Who sent comments?
B. What were the comments and how does EPA respond?
1. Attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
2. 110(a)(2)(D)
III. OTHER PROPOSED ACTION
A. Why is EPA finalizing other proposed action?
IV. CONCLUSION
V. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS
A. Executive Order 12866
B. Executive Order 12875
C. Executive Order 13045
D. Executive Order 13084
E. Regulatory Flexibility Act
F. Unfunded Mandates
G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
I. Petitions for Judicial Review
I. General Information:
What action is EPA taking today?
EPA is approving a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision which
replaces the federally promulgated limits by State promulgated limits
for the two sources in Lake County. In addition, EPA is approving
maintenance plans in Jefferson and Lake Counties, Ohio. Finally, EPA is
redesignating Jefferson and Lake Counties, Ohio to attainment of NAAQS
for sulfur dioxide (SO2).
EPA proposed this action and promulgated this action as a direct
final rule on March 17, 1999. On April 15, 1999, we received objections
to the Jefferson County action from Weirton Steel Corporation (WSC). We
therefore withdrew our direct final approval, addressing Lake as well
as Jefferson County. WSC's objections are discussed at length in the
following section. We have concluded that WSC's comments do not warrant
deferring or rejecting redesignation of Jefferson County. Therefore,
EPA is taking final the action as proposed.
II. Comments and Responses
Who sent comments?
On April 15, 1999, we received adverse comments from WSC of Hancock
County, West Virginia, objecting to the SO2 redesignation
for Jefferson County, Ohio. Hancock County, West Virginia, is adjacent
to Jefferson County, and was designated nonattainment for
SO2 on December 21, 1993 (58 FR 67334). WSC is planning to
do new modeling using a refined model to determine its impact on
SO2 levels and the impact of nearby sources, some of which
are located in Jefferson County, Ohio. WSC's comments thus reflect its
interest in the impact that Jefferson County sources have on
SO2 concentrations in the WSC environs.
What were the comments and how does EPA respond?
WSC's letter included two comments on EPA's proposed rulemaking,
recommending that EPA not redesignate Jefferson County based on
uncertainty of attainment and failure to satisfy Clean Air Act section
110(a)(2)(D). The following sections describe these comments further
and provide EPA's response.
1. Attainment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)
EPA proposed to find Jefferson County attaining the SO2
NAAQS on the basis of compliance of key sources with emission limits.
These limits were set at levels shown to assure attainment by modeling
conducted in 1975. Consequently, we concluded that use of current
emission rates in the approved (1975) modeling analysis would show the
area to be attaining the standards.
WSC's first comment disagrees with using 1975 modeling for
determining the attainment status of Jefferson County. WSC believes
that new modeling is needed for this purpose. WSC is preparing a
protocol to submit to the West Virginia Department of Environmental
Protection (WVDEP) to model SO2 sources around the Weirton
area. This modeling will include most of the largest sources in
Jefferson County. WSC recommended that EPA defer rulemaking on the
Jefferson County redesignation request until the new modeling is
available.
EPA recognizes that new modeling techniques have become available
since 1975 and are recommended by the current modeling guidelines for
new modeling analyses. On other hand, the 1975 modeling, which EPA
approved on January 27, 1981, is the best currently available evidence
as to Jefferson County's attainment situation. WSC provided no results
from more current modeling to suggest that Jefferson County is
violating the NAAQS, and WSC provided no basis or rationale to expect
that new modeling would show violations. EPA customarily evaluates
SO2 redesignation requests based on available evidence
rather than requiring updated modeling. In the absence of updated
modeling showing violations, EPA continues to believe based on
available evidence that Jefferson County is attaining the
SO2 NAAQS.
[[Page 47114]]
Implicit in WSC's comments is a view that modeling is necessary to
assess whether the SO2 NAAQS is being attained. Although the
relative merits of modeling and monitoring data vary, EPA generally
shares WSC's view. Consequently, if WSC prepares modeling meeting
current modeling guidelines, EPA expects Ohio and West Virginia to work
together to revise limits as necessary to assure attainment throughout
the area. As appropriate, EPA will at that time reevaluate the
attainment status of Jefferson County.
2. Section 110(a)(2)(D)
WSC's second comment is based on section 110(a)(2)(D) of the Clean
Air Act. WSC claimed that some sources located in Jefferson County,
Ohio, are contributing significantly to the nonattainment problem in
Weirton and interfering with Hancock County, West Virginia's ability to
maintain compliance with the SO2 NAAQS. WSC believes that
the results of its proposed modeling will demonstrate this significant
contribution of Jefferson County sources to Hancock County
nonattainment. WSC also commented that the previously conducted
SO2 modeling has shown that these large sources of
SO2 in Jefferson County are significant contributors to
SO2 nonattaiment in and around the Weirton area.
When EPA approved Ohio's SIP, EPA made no determination that the
SIP did not comply with the interstate transport provisions under the
predecessor to section 110(a)(2)(D). As indicated in a memorandum from
John Calcagni, Director of Air Quality Management Division, to Regional
Air Division Directors, September 4, 1992, EPA takes the position that
when acting on a redesignation request that may implicate section
110(a)(2)(D), EPA may rely on prior approvals of the SIP, and EPA is
not obligated to review whether, at the time EPA is approving the
redesignation request, the State is in compliance with section
110(a)(2)(D). EPA most recently took this position in approving a
request to redesignate the Cleveland-Akron-Lorain Ohio as attainment
for ozone. The US Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld EPA's
action against a challenge based on grounds similar to those presented
by the commenter concerning today's action. Southwestern Pennsylvania
Growth Alliance v. Browner, 144 F.2d 984 (6th Cir. 1999).
In addition, it should be emphasized that WSC has not yet presented
to EPA modeling that would substantiate WSC's position that Jefferson
County sources are contributing significantly to Hancock County
nonattainment. Given the unanswered questions as to the respective
impacts of Jefferson and Hancock County sources and their relative ease
of control, EPA cannot conclude at this time that Jefferson County
sources are contributing significantly to nonattainment in the Weirton
area.
We understand that the efforts by WSC and West Virginia to satisfy
nonattainment planning requirements for Hancock County, West Virginia,
may supply much of the information that EPA would need before it could
find a violation of section 110(a)(2)(D). WSC should provide to EPA the
details of its modeling results, the percent impact of sources in
Jefferson County vs. WSC and other sources, the sources' control
strategy options, and the schedule by which WSC is expecting to come
into compliance with applicable emission limits.
As planning for Hancock County proceeds, EPA expects Ohio and West
Virginia to work together to assure that all relevant sources have
limits sufficient to assure attainment throughout the Weirton area. EPA
expects the modeling analysis to include a number of Ohio sources.
Depending on the results of that modeling, EPA expects that the States
will consider a variety of control strategy options, including options
involving reduced emission limits at Ohio facilities. We expect that
Ohio and West Virginia would then agree on a strategy and make any
necessary rule revisions accordingly. Nevertheless, if WSC and West
Virginia develop information that Ohio sources contribute significantly
to nonattainment in Hancock County (including information that controls
of these Ohio sources would be an equitable part of a Weirton area
control strategy), and Ohio fails to adopt appropriate emission limits,
then this information should be provided to EPA. If warranted EPA would
consider requiring Ohio to submit a SIP revision to implement necessary
controls, or West Virginia may submit a petition under section 126(b)
seeking controls on the Jefferson County sources.
III. Other Proposed Action
Why is EPA finalizing other proposed action?
On March 17, 1999, EPA approved the SIP revision request submitted
by the State of Ohio, which replaced the federally promulgated limits
by state promulgated limits for two sources (First Energy, Eastlake
Plant and Ohio Rubber Company) in Lake County, Ohio. In addition we
also approved the SO2 maintenance plan and the redesignation
request for Lake and Jefferson Counties.
On May 10, 1999, we withdrew our direct final approval for both
Lake and Jefferson Counties due to the adverse comments we had received
from WSC on the Jefferson County redesignation. We received no adverse
comments on the actions other than redesignation of Jefferson County.
We continue to believe that the submitted State emission limits for the
two Lake County sources are equivalent and suitable replacements for
the current federally promulgated limits, that the maintenance plans
for the two counties are adequate to assure continued attainment, and
that Lake County has satisfied all the requirements in section
107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation. Therefore, EPA is finalizing these
actions as proposed on March 17, 1999.
IV. Conclusion
EPA has reviewed all of the comments submitted in response to the
Jefferson County SO2 redesignation. First, although WSC
believes that new modeling meeting current modeling guidelines must be
used to assess whether violations of the SO2 air quality
standards are occurring near some Ohio sources, EPA believes that it is
appropriate to continue to rely on the existing modeling underlying the
current approved Ohio limits, which suggests that the area is attaining
the standard. Second, sources located in Jefferson County have not been
shown to contribute significantly to a violation of the SO2
NAAQS near Weirton Steel Corporation. Therefore, EPA has not concluded
and cannot conclude that section 110(a)(2)(D) is violated, and instead
must conclude that Ohio has satisfied the fifth prerequisite for
redesignation by satisfying all requirements of section 110 including
section 110 (a)(2)(D). Consequently, EPA is redesignating Jefferson
County to attainment.
EPA is also approving two SIP revisions in Lake County, approving
maintenance plan for the two counties, and redesignating Lake County to
attainment. Finally, the codification for this rulemaking corrects a
longstanding omission in Title 40, Sec. 52.1881(a)(8) by reinserting
the sources in Ross and Sandusky Counties for which no action has been
taken.
V. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.)
[[Page 47115]]
12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and Review.''
B. Executive Order 12875
Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a state, local, or
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those
governments. If the mandate is unfunded, EPA must provide to the Office
of Management and Budget a description of the extent of EPA's prior
consultation with representatives of affected state, local, and tribal
governments, the nature of their concerns, copies of written
communications from the governments, and a statement supporting the
need to issue the regulation.
In addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective
process permitting elected officials and other representatives of
state, local, and tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely
input in the development of regulatory proposals containing significant
unfunded mandates.'' Today's rule does not create a mandate on state,
local or tribal governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable
duties on these entities. Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a)
of E.O. 12875 do not apply to this rule.
C. Executive Order 13045
Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety
Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is
determined to be ``economically significant'' as defined under E.O.
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 E.O. 13045 because it does not involve
decisions intended to mitigate environmental health or safety risks.
D. Executive Order 13084
Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not
required by statute, that significantly affects or uniquely affects the
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance
costs incurred by the tribal governments. If the mandate is unfunded,
EPA must provide to the Office of Management and Budget, in a
separately identified section of the preamble to the rule, a
description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with
representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the nature
of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue the
regulation.
In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an effective
process permitting elected and other representatives of Indian tribal
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect
their communities.'' Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely
affect the communities of Indian tribal governments. Accordingly, the
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.
E. 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 final rule will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities because SIP approvals under section 110 and
subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act do not create any new
requirements but simply approve requirements that the State is already
imposing. Therefore, because the Federal SIP approval does not create
any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under
the Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility analysis would constitute
Federal inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The
Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976);
42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).
F. Unfunded Mandates
Under section 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
annual costs to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate;
or to private sector, of $100 million or more. Under section 205, EPA
must select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with
statutory requirements. Section 203 requires EPA to establish a plan
for informing and advising any small governments that may be
significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule.
EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does not
include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual costs of
$100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal governments in
the aggregate, or to the private sector. This Federal action approves
pre-existing requirements under State or local law, and imposes no new
requirements. Accordingly, no additional costs to State, local, or
tribal governments, or to the private sector, result from this action.
G. Submission to Congress and the Comptroller General
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, generally
provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency promulgating
the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy of the rule,
to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller General of the
United States. EPA will submit a report containing this rule and other
required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of
Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States prior
to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule cannot
take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal
Register. This rule is not a ``major'' rule as defined by 5 U.S.C.
804(2).
H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
Section 12 of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal agencies to evaluate existing
technical standards when developing a new regulation. To comply with
NTTAA, EPA must consider and use ``voluntary consensus standards''
(VCS) if available
[[Page 47116]]
and applicable when developing programs and policies unless doing so
would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical.
The EPA believes that VCS are inapplicable to this action. Today's
action does not require the public to perform activities conducive to
the use of VCS.
I. Petitions for Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act, petitions for
judicial review of this action must be filed in the United States Court
of Appeals for the appropriate circuit by October 29, 1999. 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).) (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
Environmental protection, Air pollution control.
Dated: August 5, 1999.
Francis X. Lyons,
Regional Administrator, Region 5.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, 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.
2. Section 52.1870 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(118) to read
as follows:
Sec. 52.1870 Identification of plan.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(118) On August 20, 1998, Ohio submitted material including State
adopted limits for Lake County, and requested approval of limits for
the Ohio First Energy Eastlake Plant and the Ohio Rubber Company Plant.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) Rule 3745-18-49 (G) and (H) of the Ohio Administrative Code,
effective May 11, 1987.
3. Section 52.1881 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(4) and
(a)(8) and adding paragraph (a)(13) to read as follows:
Sec. 52.1881 Control strategy; Sulfur oxide (sulfur dioxide).
(a) * * *
(4) Approval--EPA approves the sulfur dioxide emission limits for
the following counties: Adams County (except Dayton Power & Light--
Stuart), Allen County (except Cairo Chemical), Ashland County,
Ashtabula County, Athens County, Auglaize County, Belmont County, Brown
County, Carroll County, Champaign County, Clark County, Clermont County
(except Cincinnati Gas & Electric--Beckjord), Clinton County,
Columbiana County, Coshocton County (except Columbus & Southern Ohio
Electric--Conesville), Crawford County, Darke County, Defiance County,
Delaware County, Erie County, Fairfield County, Fayette County, Fulton
County, Gallia County (except Ohio Valley Electric Company--Kyger Creek
and Ohio Power--Gavin), Geauga County, Greene County, Guernsey County,
Hamilton County, Hancock County, Hardin County, Harrison County, Henry
County, Highland County, Hocking County, Holmes County, Huron County,
Jackson County, Jefferson County, Knox County, Lake County (except
Painesville Municipal Plant boiler number 5) , Lawrence County (except
Allied Chemical--South Point), Licking County, Logan County, Lorain
County (except Ohio Edison--Edgewater, Cleveland Electric
Illuminating--Avon Lake, U.S. Steel--Lorain, and B.F. Goodrich), Lucas
County (except Gulf Oil Company, Coulton Chemical Company, and Phillips
Chemical Company), Madison County, Marion County, Medina County, Meigs
County, Mercer County, Miami County, Monroe County, Morgan County,
Montgomery County (except Bergstrom Paper and Miami Paper), Morrow
County, Muskingum County, Noble County, Ottawa County, Paulding County,
Perry County, Pickaway County, Pike County (except Portsmouth Gaseous
Diffusion Plant), Portage County, Preble County, Putnam County,
Richland County, Ross County (except Mead Corporation), Sandusky County
(except Martin Marietta Chemicals), Scioto County, Seneca County,
Shelby County, Trumbull County, Tuscarawas County, Union County, Van
Wert County, Vinton County, Warren County, Washington County (except
Shell Chemical), Wayne County, Williams County, Wood County (except
Libbey-Owens-Ford Plants Nos. 4 and 8 and No. 6), and Wyandot County.
* * * * *
(8) No Action--EPA is neither approving nor disapproving the
emission limitations for the following counties on sources pending
further review: Adams County (Dayton Power & Light--Stuart), Allen
County (Cairo Chemical), Butler County, Clermont County (Cincinnati Gas
& Electric--Beckjord), Coshocton County (Columbus & Southern Ohio
Electric--Conesville), Cuyahoga County, Franklin County, Gallia County
(Ohio Valley Electric Company--Kyger Creek, and Ohio Power--Gavin),
Lake County (Painesville Municipal Plant boiler number 5), Lawrence
County (Allied Chemical--South Point), Lorain County (Ohio Edison--
Edgewater Plant, Cleveland Electric Illuminating--Avon Lake, U.S.
Steel--Lorain, and B.F. Goodrich), Lucas County (Gulf Oil Company,
Coulton Chemical Company, and Phillips Chemical Company), Mahoning
County, Montgomery County (Bergstrom Paper and Miami Paper), Pike
County (Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant), Ross County (Mead
Corporation), Sandusky County (Martin Marietta Chemicals), Stark
County, Washington County (Shell Chemical Company), and Wood County
(Libbey-Owens-Ford Plants Nos. 4 and 8 and No. 6).
* * * * *
(13) In a letter dated October 26, 1995, Ohio submitted a
maintenance plan for sulfur dioxide in Lake and Jefferson Counties.
* * * * *
PART 81--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 81 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
2. In Sec. 81.336 the table entitled ``Ohio SO2'' is
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 81.336 Ohio.
* * * * *
[[Page 47117]]
Ohio--SO2
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Does not meet Does not meet Better than
Designated area primary secondary Cannot be national
standards standards classified standards
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Athens County................................... .............. .............. .............. X
Clermont County................................. .............. .............. .............. X
Columbiana County............................... .............. .............. .............. X
Coshocton County: X \1\ .............. .............. ..............
The remainder of Coshocton County........... .............. .............. .............. X \1\
Cuyahoga County:
The Cities of Bay Village, Westlake, North .............. .............. .............. X
Olmsted, Olmsted Falls, Rock River,
Fairview Park, Berea, Middleburg Hts.,
Strongsville, North Royalton, Broadview
Hts., Brecksville and the Townships of
Olmsted and Riveredge......................
The remainder of Cuyahoga County............ X .............. .............. ..............
Gallia County:
Addison Township............................ .............. X \1\ .............. ..............
The remainder of Gallia County.............. .............. .............. .............. X \1\
Greene County................................... .............. .............. .............. X
Hamilton County:
The City of Cincinnati bounded on the west .............. .............. .............. X \1\
by 175 and U.S. Route 127, and on the south
by the Ohio and Little Miami Rivers; the
Cities of Norwood, Fairfax, Silverton, Golf
Manor, Amberly, Deer Park, Arlington
Heights, Elwood Place, and St. Bernard.....
The remainder of Hamilton County............ .............. .............. .............. X \1\
Jefferson County:
Cities of Steubenville & Mingo Junction, .............. .............. .............. X
Townships of Steubenville, Island Creek,
Cross Creek, Knox and Wells................
The remainder of Jefferson County........... .............. .............. .............. X \1\
Lake County:
The Cities of Eastlake, Timberlake, .............. .............. .............. X
Lakeline, Willoughby (north of U.S. 20),
and Mentor (north of U.S. 20 west of S.R.
306).......................................
The remainder of Lake County................ .............. .............. .............. X
Lorain County:
Area bounded on the north by the Norfolk and X .............. .............. ..............
Western Railroad Tracks, on the east by
State Route 301 (Abbe Road), on the south
by State Route 254, and on the west by
Oberlin Road...............................
The remainder of Lorain County.............. .............. .............. .............. X
Lucas County:
The area east of Rte. 23 & west of eastern X \1\ .............. .............. ..............
boundary of Oregon Township................
The remainder of Lucas County............... .............. .............. .............. X \1\
Mahoning County................................. .............. .............. .............. X
Montgomery County............................... .............. .............. .............. X
Morgan County:
Center Township............................. .............. .............. .............. X \1\
The remainder of Morgan County.............. .............. .............. .............. X \1\
Summit County:
Area bounded by the following lines--North-- .............. .............. .............. X
Interstate 76, East--Route 93, South--
Vanderhoof Road, West--Summit County Line..
Area bounded by the following lines--North-- (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\)
Bath Road (48 east to Route 8, Route 8
north to Barlow Road, Barlow Road east to
county line, East--Summit/Portage County
line, South Interstate 76 to Route 93,
Route 93 south to Route 619, Route 619 east
to County line, West-Summit/Medina County
line.......................................
Entire area northwest of the following line .............. .............. .............. X \3\
Route 80 east to Route 91, Route 91 north
to the County line.........................
The remainder of Summit County.............. .............. .............. .............. X \4\
Trumbull County................................. .............. .............. .............. X
Washington County............................... .............. .............. .............. X
Waterford Township.......................... .............. .............. .............. X
The remainder of Washington County.......... .............. .............. .............. X
All other counties in the State of Ohio......... .............. .............. .............. X \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA designation replaces State designation.
\2\ This area remains undesignated at this time as a result of a court remand in PPG Industries, Inc. vs.
Costle, 630 F.2d 462 (6th Cir. 1980).
\3\ This area was affected by the Sixth Circuit Court remand but has since been designated.
\4\ The area was not affected by the court remand in PPG Industries, Inc. vs. Costle, 630 F.2d 462 (6th Cir.
1980).
[[Page 47118]]
[FR Doc. 99-22319 Filed 8-27-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P