13042 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

1Control techniques guideline documents have

been prepared by USEPA to assist States in defining

RACT for the control of VOC emissions from

2. Executive Order 12778

The Department of the Interior has

conducted the reviews required by

section 2 of Executive Order 12778

(Civil Justice Reform) and has

determined that this rule meets the

applicable standards of subsections (a)

and (b) of that section. However, these

standards are not applicable to the

actual language of State regulatory

programs and program amendments

since each such program is drafted and

promulgated by a specific State, not by

OSM. Under sections 503 and 505 of

SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1253 and 1255) and

the Federal regulations at 30 CFR

730.11, 732.15, and 732.17(h)(10),

decisions on proposed State regulatory

programs and program amendments

submitted by the States must be based

solely on a determination of whether the

submittal is consistent with SMCRA and

its implementing Federal regulations

and whether the other requirements of

30 CFR Parts 730, 731, and 732 have

been met.

3. National Environmental Policy Act

No environmental impact statement is

required for this rule since section

702(d) of SMCRA (30 U.S.C. 1292(d))

provides that agency decisions on

proposed State regulatory program

provisions do not constitute major

Federal actions within the meaning of

section 102(2)(C) of the National

Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C.

4332(2)(C)).

4. Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule does not contain

information collection requirements that

require approval by OMB under the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3507 et seq.).

5. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Department of the Interior has

determined that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). The State submittal

which is the subject of this rule is based

upon counterpart Federal regulations for

which an economic analysis was

prepared and certification made that

such regulations would not have a

significant economic effect upon a

substantial number of small entities.

Accordingly, this rule will ensure that

existing requirements previously

promulgated by OSM will be

implemented by the State. In making the

determination as to whether this rule

would have a significant economic

impact, the Department relied upon the

data and assumptions for the

counterpart Federal regulations.

VII. List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 936

Intergovernmental relations, Surface

mining, Underground mining.

Dated: March 3, 1995.

Charles E. Sandberg,

Acting Assistant Director, Western Support

Center.

For the reasons set out in the

preamble, title 30, chapter VII,

subchapter T of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as set forth

below:

PART 936—OKLAHOMA

1. The authority citation for part 936

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.

2. Section 936.15 is amended by

adding paragraph (o) to read as follows:

§ 936.15 Approval of regulatory program

amendments.

* * * * *

(o) Revisions to the following

provisions of the Oklahoma Coal Rules

and Regulations concerning the small

operator assistance program, as

submitted to OSM on September 14,

1994, and as revised on December 20,

1994, are approved effective March 10,

1995:

Oklahoma Administrative Code (OAC)

460:20–35–1, definitions;

OAC 460:20–35–3 (a)(2), (a)(2) (A), (B),

and (D), and (b), eligibility for

assistance;

OAC 460:20–35–6 (a), (b) (1) through

(6), and (d), program services and data

requirements; and

OAC 460:20–35–7 (a), (a) (2) and (3),

applicant liability.

[FR Doc. 95–5921 Filed 3–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4310–05–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL 12–36–6669; FRL–5167–9]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plan; Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On June 29, 1990, the United

States Environmental Protection Agency

(USEPA) promulgated a Federal

Implementation Plan (FIP) which

contains stationary source volatile

organic compound (VOC) control

measures representing reasonably

available control technology (RACT) for

emission sources located in six

northeastern Illinois (Chicago area)

counties: Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake,

McHenry and Will. Included in

USEPA’s rules was a requirement that

major non-Control Technique Guideline

(CTG) sources be subject to 40 CFR

52.741 (s), (u), (v), (w), or (x). The major

non-CTG limits in 40 CFR 52.741(x)

(would, if not for this rule) apply to the

hot and cold aluminum rolling

operations at the Reynolds Metals

Company’s (Reynolds) McCook Sheet &

Plate Plant in McCook, Illinois (in Cook

County). On August 19, 1991, Reynolds

requested that USEPA reconsider the

application of 40 CFR 52.741(x) to its

facility in McCook, Illinois, and on

October 17, 1991, Reynolds requested

that USEPA promulgate site-specific

RACT limits for its hot and cold rolling

mills. USEPA agreed to reconsider the

RACT control requirements for

Reynolds’ aluminum rolling operations

and, on September 22, 1993, proposed

site-specific RACT control requirements

for these operations. In this rule the

USEPA is promulgating these sitespecific RACT limits.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective

April 10, 1995.

ADDRESSES: The docket for this action

(Docket No. A–92–67), which contains

the public comments, is located for

public inspection and copying at the

following addresses. A reasonable fee

may be charged for copying. We

recommend that you contact Randolph

O. Cano before visiting the Chicago

location and Rachel Romine (202/245–

3639) before visiting the Washington,

D.C. location.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, Regulation Development

Branch, 18th Floor, Southwest, 77

West Jackson Blvd., Chicago, Illinois

60604.

Office of Air and Radiation Docket and

Information Center (Air Docket 6102),

U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Docket No. A–92–67, Room

M1500, Waterside Mall, 401 M Street

SW., Washington, D.C. 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven Rosenthal, Regulation

Development Branch, USEPA Region 5,

(312) 886–6052, at the Chicago address

indicated above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Part D of the Clean Air Act (Act), 42

U.S.C. 7401 et seq., requires that states

adopt rules for major non-CTG 1 sources.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 13043

existing stationary sources. Each individual CTG

recommends a presumptive norm of control

considered reasonably available to a specific source

category.

2USEPA is no longer required to promulgate a

FIP using the modeling results because the

settlement agreement relieves USEPA of such

responsibility in the event that amendments to the

Act establish new deadlines for States to achieve

attainment of the ozone standard. The primary

responsibility for developing any remaining

revisions to Illinois’ SIP belongs to Illinois because

the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 establish

such new deadlines.

3The State of Illinois uses the term ‘‘VOM’’ in its

regulations. For the purposes of this RACT analysis,

this term is considered equivalent to USEPA’s term

‘‘VOC.’’

This requirement is discussed in the

April 4, 1979, General Preamble for

Proposed Rulemaking (44 FR 20372). On

July 21, 1988, Illinois submitted a rule

which covered major (100 tons per year

or more) non-CTG VOC sources. This

rule was disapproved by USEPA on

June 29, 1990 (55 FR 26814), primarily

because its applicability provisions

were inconsistent with USEPA

requirements. Among other defects,

Illinois’ non-CTG rule did not regulate

the rolling operations at Reynolds’

McCook facility.

On April 1, 1987, the State of

Wisconsin filed a complaint in the

United States District Court for the

Eastern District of Wisconsin against

USEPA and sought a judgment that

USEPA, among other requested actions,

be required to promulgate revisions to

the Illinois ozone SIP for northeastern

Illinois. Wisconsin v. Reilly, No. 87–C–

0395, E.D. Wis.

On May 25, 1988, USEPA released a

guidance document titled ‘‘Issues

Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints,

Deficiencies, and Deviations’’ (the ‘‘Blue

Book’’). The purpose of this VOC

guidance document was to identify

deficiencies which must be removed

from existing State Implementation

Plans (SIP) and disapproved in any

proposed SIPs. This document specifies

USEPA’s non-CTG RACT requirements.

On January 18, 1989, the District

Court in Wisconsin v. Reilly ordered

that USEPA promulgate an ozone

implementation plan for northeastern

Illinois within 14 months of the date of

that order. On September 22, 1989,

USEPA and the States of Illinois and

Wisconsin signed a settlement

agreement in an attempt to substitute a

more acceptable schedule for

promulgation of a plan for the control of

ozone in the Chicago area. On

November 6, 1989, the District Court

vacated its prior order and ordered all

further proceedings stayed, pending the

performance of the settlement

agreement.

The settlement agreement called for

the use of a more sophisticated air

quality model, allowed more time for

USEPA to promulgate a FIP using the

model,2 and requires interim emission

reductions while the modeling study is

being performed. The interim emission

reductions consist of Federal

promulgation of required VOM 3 RACT

rules for Illinois to remedy deficiencies

in its State regulations.

On December 27, 1989, USEPA

proposed major non-CTG rules

consistent with its May 25, 1988, VOC

guidance (54 FR 53080). The non-CTG

rules proposed for promulgation by

USEPA covered Reynolds’ aluminum

rolling operations. On June 29, 1990,

USEPA took final action to promulgate

major non-CTG rules. 55 FR 26814.

On August 29, 1990, Reynolds filed a

petition for review of USEPA’s June 29,

1990, rulemaking in the United States

Court of Appeals for the Seventh

Circuit. Nine other parties filed

petitions for review, which were

ultimately consolidated by the Court as

Illinois Environmental Regulatory

Group (‘‘IERG’’) et al. v. Reilly, No. 90–

2778.

On August 19, 1991, Reynolds

requested that USEPA reconsider the

FIP rule as it applies to its aluminum

rolling operations and on October 17,

1991, Reynolds requested the adoption

of site-specific RACT limits for its hot

and cold rolling mills. On November 20,

1991, USEPA announced its intention to

reconsider its non-CTG rules as they

apply to Reynolds, and issued a threemonth stay of the applicable rule

pending reconsideration, pursuant to

section 307(d)(7)(B) of the Act, 42 U.S.C.

7607(d)(7)(B). 56 FR 58501. In addition,

on November 20, 1991, USEPA

proposed to extend the three-month

stay, but only as long as necessary to

complete reconsideration. 56 FR 58528.

On June 23, 1992, USEPA extended the

stay beyond the 3-month period, for as

long as necessary to complete

reconsideration of its non-CTG rules for

Reynolds’ aluminum rolling operations.

57 FR 27935.

As a result of USEPA’s decision to

reconsider the Federal rules as applied

to Reynolds, USEPA reviewed

information regarding Reynolds’ rolling

operations and, on September 22, 1993

(58 FR 49254), proposed to promulgate

site-specific RACT control requirements

for Reynolds’ aluminum rolling

operations. On October 20, 1993,

Reynolds submitted comments in

response to the proposed rule.

II. Discussion of Reynolds’ Comments

Reynolds stated in its comments on

the proposal that it supports USEPA’s

promulgation of the site-specific RACT

control requirements for its aluminum

rolling operations. However, it

requested ‘‘the following minor changes

to the proposed rule to better reflect our

current operations.’’ These comments

were clarified in a July 20, 1994,

discussion with the author of Reynolds’

comments. Reynolds’ comments and

USEPA’s analysis of these comments

follow.

A. Reynolds stated that the preamble

should be made consistent with the

regulatory language regarding lubricant

cooling requirements. Reynolds

requested that the part of the preamble

titled ‘‘RACT Demonstration for Cold

Rolling Operations’’ be modified by

stating that ‘‘* * * RACT should

reasonably require that sump oil

temperatures be maintained at 150

degrees F or less.’’ instead of ‘‘* * *

RACT should reasonably require that

sump oil temperatures be maintained at

150 degrees F.’’ USEPA agrees with the

point of Reynolds’ comment and clearly

intended for 150 degrees F to be a

maximum temperature because VOC

emissions are reduced at lower

temperatures. The regulation that

USEPA is promulgating for Reynolds is

consistent with a maximum temperature

requirement of 150 degrees F.

B. In its notice of proposed

rulemaking (NPR), USEPA specified the

use of ‘‘severely hydrotreated mineral

seal oil’’ (a lubricant) for Reynolds’ cold

rolling mills. USEPA further specified

that the initial and final boiling points

of the lubricant must be between 460

degrees F and 635 degrees F, as

determined by a distillation range test

using ASTM method D86–90.

Reynolds requested that it be allowed

some flexibility in the specification of

the cold rolling lubricant type that is

allowed in case improved lubricants

become available. More specifically, it

requested the ability to use a low vapor

pressure (as determined by the

distillation range test discussed above)

organic lubricant and not be limited to

the use of ‘‘severely hydrotreated

mineral seal oil.’’ Reynolds’ request is

reasonable because the lubricant

emissions are a function of the initial

boiling point and it has not requested

that the initial boiling point of 460

degrees F be changed. This lubricant

RACT control requirement is, therefore,

revised in this final rule, consistent with

Reynolds’ request.

C. The proposed rule limits the inlet

sump rolling lubricant temperature to

150 degrees F for Reynolds’ cold rolling
13044 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

4Since USEPA is taking this action pursuant to

section 110(k)(6), USEPA believes that section 193

of the Act (the savings clause) is inapplicable. By

its terms, section 110(k)(6) does not require any

additional submission or evidence. Section 193

requires an assurance of equivalency for any

revision. In order to provide for equivalency, the

State would need to provide for compensating

reductions. USEPA believes that this conflict

should be resolved concluding that section

110(k)(6) is not constrained by the savings clause

requirement of equivalent reductions. USEPA

believes that the state and the sources within the

state should not have to bear the burden of

additional reductions where USEPA lacked

important site-specific information at the time of an

initial promulgation. This is particularly true in the

case of FIPs, where USEPA takes the lead in

developing the regulations and is not merely acting

on state-submitted regulations.

5As discussed earlier, USEPA was required to

promulgate the June 29, 1990 FIP regulations under

the tight timeframe ordered by the Court in

Wisconsin v. Reilly.

mills and 200 degrees F for its hot

rolling mills. In its comments Reynolds

states that, in some cases, the lubricant

is heated or cooled after the sump but

prior to the lubricant nozzles. Thus,

measuring temperature in the inlet

sump may not always be representative.

USEPA agrees with Reynolds that the

temperature of the inlet lubricant

supply measured after the inlet sump

would be more reflective of the asapplied lubricant temperature and,

therefore, the final rule allows

temperature measurement after the inlet

sump.

D. The proposed rule requires chart

recorders for coolant temperature

monitoring and coolant temperature

recording charts to satisfy recordkeeping

requirements. Although Reynolds has

installed chart recorders, it would like

the option of moving to an electronic

data system in the future. USEPA agrees

that the use of electronic temperature

recorders is an acceptable alternative,

and could greatly facilitate data review.

Therefore, the final rule allows use of

electronic data recorders.

III. Specific RACT Control

Requirements and Test Methods

A. Cold Rolling Mills

RACT for the aluminum sheet cold

rolling mills Nos. 1 and 7 at the McCook

Sheet & Plate plant is the use of a low

vapor pressure (as determined by

distillation range testing) organic

lubricant and a maximum inlet supply

rolling lubricant temperature of 150°F.

Compliance shall be demonstrated by a

monthly distillation range analysis of a

grab rolling lubricant sample from each

operating mill and daily rolling

lubricant temperature readings in the

inlet supply feeding each mill.

All incoming shipments of lubricant

for the Nos. 1 and 7 cold mills must be

sampled and each sample must undergo

a distillation range test using ASTM

method D86–90, ‘‘Standard Test Method

for Distillation of Petroleum Products.’’

The initial and final boiling points of

the lubricant must be between 460°F

and 635°F. Also, for the cold mills,

samples of the as-applied lubricants

must be taken on a monthly basis to

verify, using ASTM method D86–90,

that the boiling points are between

460°F and 635°F.

B. Hot Rolling Mills

RACT for the aluminum sheet and

plate hot rolling mills, 120 inch, 96

inch, 80 inch and 145 inch mills, at the

McCook Sheet & Plate plant is the use

of an oil/water emulsion (rolling

lubricant) not to exceed 15% by weight

of petroleum-based oil and additives

and a maximum inlet supply rolling

lubricant temperature of 200°F.

Compliance shall be demonstrated by a

monthly analysis of a grab rolling

lubricant sample from each operating

mill and daily temperature readings in

the inlet supply feeding each mill.

The lubricants at each hot mill must

be sampled and tested, for the

percentage of oil and water, on a

monthly basis. ASTM Method D95–83

(Reapproved 1990), ‘‘Standard Test

Method For Water in Petroleum

Products and Bituminous Materials by

Distillation’’, shall be used to determine

the percent by weight of petroleumbased oil and additives.

C. Coolant Temperature Monitoring

Coolant temperatures shall be

monitored at all of the rolling mills by

use of thermocouple probes and chart

recorders or electronic data recorders.

The probes sense the coolant

temperatures at the supply side to the

mills.

D. Recordkeeping

All distillation test results for cold

mill lubricants, all percent oil test

results for hot mill lubricants, all

coolant temperature recording charts

and/or temperature data obtained from

electronic data recorders, and all oil/

water emulsion formulation records

shall be kept on file, and be available for

inspection by USEPA, for three years.

IV. Compliance Date

A compliance date of four months

from promulgation is required so that

Reynolds has adequate time to comply

with revised recordkeeping

requirements.

V. Summary and Conclusions

This rule establishes site-specific

RACT requirements, revised

recordkeeping requirements, and

revised test methods for Reynold’s

aluminum rolling mills. These

requirements are consistent with

USEPA’s notice of proposed rulemaking

as modified by Reynolds’ comments.

The use of lower VOC emitting

lubricants and lubricant temperature

control has been previously approved

by USEPA as RACT for another

aluminum rolling mill (55 FR 33904).

Compliance with the revised emission

limits and recordkeeping requirements

must be achieved four months from

USEPA’s publication of this rule. Also,

as proposed, the USEPA is withdrawing

the June 23, 1992, stay.

USEPA is taking this action pursuant

to its authority under section 110(k)(6)

of the Act to correct through rulemaking

any plan or plan revision.4 The USEPA

is interpreting this provision to

authorize USEPA to make corrections to

a promulgated regulation when it is

shown to USEPA’s satisfaction that the

information made available to USEPA at

the time of promulgation is

subsequently demonstrated to have been

clearly inadequate, and other

information persuasively supports a

change in the regulation. See 57 FR

6762 at 6763 (November 30, 1992). In

this case, the information made

available to USEPA during the

rulemaking for Reynolds was clearly

inadequate for the development of a

site-specific RACT determination.5

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866

review.

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., USEPA must

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, USEPA may

certify that the rule will not have a

significant impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Small entities

include small businesses, small not-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

This action involves only one source,

Reynolds Metals Company. (Reynolds is

not a small entity.) Therefore, USEPA

certifies that this RACT promulgation

does not have a significant impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by May 9, 1995. Filing a petition

for reconsideration by the Administrator

of this final rule does not affect the

finality of this rule for the purpose of
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 13045

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 in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone.

Dated: February 28, 1995.

Carol M. Browner,

Administrator.

For the reasons set out 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. 7401–7671q.

Subpart O—Illinois

Section 52.741 is amended by adding

a new paragraph (x)(7) and revising

paragraph (z)(4) as follows:

§ 52.741 Control strategy: Ozone control

measures for Cook, DuPage, Kane, Lake,

McHenry, and Will Counties.

* * * * *

(x) * * *

(7) The control, recordkeeping, and

monitoring requirements in this

paragraph apply to the aluminum

rolling mills at the Reynolds Metals

Company’s McCook Sheet & Plate Plant

in McCook, Illinois (Cook County)

instead of the control requirements and

test methods in the other parts of

paragraph (x), and the recordkeeping

requirements in paragraph (y) of this

section. All of the following

requirements must be met by Reynolds

on and after July 7, 1995.

(i) Only organic lubricants with initial

and final boiling points between 460

degrees F and 635 degrees F, as

determined by a distillation range test

using ASTM method D86–90, are

allowed to be used at Reynolds’

aluminum sheet cold rolling mills

numbers 1 and 7. All incoming

shipments of organic lubricant for the

number 1 and 7 mills must be sampled

and each sample must undergo a

distillation range test to determine the

initial and final boiling points using

ASTM method D86–90. A grab rolling

lubricant sample shall be taken from

each operating mill on a monthly basis

and each sample must undergo a

distillation range test, to determine the

initial and final boiling points, using

ASTM method D86–90.

(ii) An oil/water emulsion, with no

more than 15 percent by weight of

petroleum-based oil and additives, shall

be the only lubricant used at Reynolds’

aluminum sheet and plate hot rolling

mills, 120 inch, 96 inch, 80 inch, and

145 inch mills. A grab rolling lubricant

sample shall be taken from each

operating mill on a monthly basis and

each sample shall be tested for the

percent by weight of petroleum-based

oil and additives by ASTM Method

D95–83.

(iii) The temperature of the inlet

supply of rolling lubricant for

aluminum sheet cold rolling mills

numbers 1 and 7 shall not exceed

150 °F, as measured at or after (but prior

to the lubricant nozzles) the inlet sump.

The temperature of the inlet supply of

rolling lubricant for the aluminum sheet

and plate hot rolling mills, 120 inch, 96

inch, 80 inch, and 145 inch mills shall

not exceed 200 °F, as measured at or

after (but prior to the lubricant nozzles)

the inlet sump. Coolant temperatures

shall be monitored at all the rolling

mills by use of thermocouple probes

and chart recorders or electronic data

recorders.

(iv) All distillation test results for cold

mill lubricants, all percent oil test

results for hot mill lubricants, all

coolant temperature recording charts

and/or temperature data obtained from

electronic data recorders, and all oil/

water emulsion formulation records,

shall be kept on file, and be available for

inspection by USEPA, for three years.

* * * * *

(z) * * *

(4) 40 CFR 52.741(e), only as it

applies to Riverside Laboratories

Incorporated, is stayed from June 12,

1992, until USEPA completes its

reconsideration for Riverside.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–6002 Filed 3–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL–5170–1]

Approval of Delegation of Authority;

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants; Coke Oven

Batteries; Utah

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is granting delegation of

authority to the State of Utah to

implement and enforce the National

Emission Standards for Coke Oven

Batteries. The Governor of Utah

requested delegation from EPA Region

VIII in a letter dated August 18, 1994.

EPA has reviewed the application and

has reached a decision that the State of

Utah has satisfied all of the

requirements necessary to qualify for

approval of delegation. The effect of this

action allows the State of Utah to

implement and enforce Clean Air Act

standards for coke oven batteries.

DATES: This action is effective May 9,

1995 unless adverse comments are

received by April 10, 1995. If the

effective date is delayed due to

comments, timely notice will be

published in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be submitted to Patricia D. Hull,

Director, Air, Radiation & Toxics

Division, Environmental Protection

Agency, Region VIII, 999 18th Street,

Suite 500, Denver, Colorado 80202–

2466 and concurrently to Russell A.

Roberts, Director, Division of Air

Quality, Department of Environmental

Quality, 1950 West North Temple, Salt

Lake City, Utah 84114–4820. A docket

containing State of Utah’s submittal is

available for public inspection during

normal business hours at the above

locations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T.

Scott Whitmore at (303) 293–1758.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The 1990 Amendments to the Clean

Air Act provide a congressional

mandate to establish emission standards

regulating coke oven emissions. Under

section 112(d)(8), the EPA must

promulgate standards based on

specified minimum requirements and

work practice regulations. On October

27, 1993, the EPA met this requirement

by promulgating in the Federal Register

(58 FR 57534) the national standards for

coke oven emissions. The standard

applies to all existing coke oven

batteries, including by-product and

nonrecovery coke oven batteries, and to

all new coke oven batteries constructed

on or after December 4, 1992.

On August 18, 1994 the Governor of

Utah requested delegation of authority

to implement and enforce 40 CFR Part

63, Subpart L, National Emission

Standards for Coke Oven Batteries. Prior

to this request, the State of Utah

implemented the criteria for delegation

as described in 40 CFR 63.91(b), Criteria

common to all approval options.

Criteria for approval to delegate include

a written finding by the State Attorney

General that the State has the necessary

legal authority to implement and