Approval and Promulgation of Implementations; Ohio Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Ohio

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