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
13046 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

enforce the rule; state statutes,

regulations, and other provisions that

contain the appropriate authority to

implement and enforce the rule, a

demonstration of adequate resources, a

schedule demonstrating expeditious

implementation of the rule, and a plan

that assures expeditious compliance by

all sources subject to the rule. Utah,

concurrently with its request for

delegation, submitted documentation

demonstrating it meets the criteria

necessary for granting approval.

As required by 40 CFR 63.91(a)(2), the

EPA is seeking public comments for 30

days. The comments shall be submitted

concurrently to the State of Utah and to

EPA. The State of Utah can then submit

a response to the comments to EPA.

EPA is approving the State of Utah’s

request for delegation as a direct final

rule without prior proposal because

EPA views this as a noncontroversial

action and anticipates no adverse

comments. If no adverse comments are

received in response to this rule, this

Federal Register notice will serve as the

final notice of the approval to delegate

the implementation and enforcement of

this program. The effective date will be

60 days from the date of this publication

and no further activity will be

contemplated in relation to this rule. If

EPA receives adverse comments, the

direct final rule will be withdrawn and

all public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on the accompanying proposed

rule which appears in the Proposed

Rule Section of this Federal Register.

However, EPA will not institute a

second comment period on this action.

Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

Final Action

Through review of the documentation

submitted to EPA and knowledge of

Utah’s implementation activities for

these standards, EPA has determined

that the State of Utah meets all of the

statutory and regulatory requirements

established by Section 112 of the Clean

Air Act, as amended in 1990, and 40

CFR Part 63 for the implementation and

enforcement of the National Emission

Standards for Coke Oven Batteries.

Therefore, pursuant to Section 112(l) of

the Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990,

42 U.S.C. 7412(l), and 40 CFR Part 63,

EPA hereby delegates its authority to the

State of Utah for the implementation

and enforcement of the National

Emission Standards for Coke Oven

Batteries for all sources located, or to be

located in the State of Utah.

Please note that not all authorities for

the NESHAP can be delegated to the

state. The EPA Administrator retains

authority to implement those portions of

the national emission standards and

their general provisions that require

approval of equivalency determinations

and alternative test methods, decisionmaking to ensure national consistency,

and EPA rulemaking to implement.

Sections not delegable include, but are

not limited, to the authorities listed as

not delegable in 40 CFR part 63, subpart

L, under Delegation of Authority.

As these National Emission Standards

for Coke Oven Batteries are updated,

Utah should revise its rules and

regulations accordingly and in a timely

manner.

EPA retains concurrent enforcement

authority. If at any time there is a

conflict between the state and federal

regulations, the federal regulations must

be applied if they are more stringent

than the state regulations.

Effective May 9, 1995 all notices,

reports, and other correspondence

required under 40 CFR part 63, subpart

L, should be sent to the State of Utah

rather than to EPA Region VIII, Denver,

Colorado.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Intergovernmental relations.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7412.

Dated: February 23, 1995.

Kerrigan Clough,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region VIII.

[FR Doc. 95–5978 Filed 3–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

40 CFR Part 70

[NM002; FRL–5169–6]

Clean Air Act Interim Approval of

Operating Permits Program; City of

Albuquerque Environmental Health

Department, Air Pollution Control

Division

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Informational notice.

SUMMARY: The EPA published without

prior proposal a Federal Register (FR)

notice promulgating interim approval of

the operating permits program

submitted by the New Mexico

Governor’s designee, Mr. Lawrence

Rael, for the City of Albuquerque as

Chief Administrative Officer, and for

Bernalillo County as the administrative

head of the Albuquerque/Bernalillo

County Operating Permits Program, for

the purpose of complying with the

Federal requirements of an approved

program to issue operating permits to all

major stationary sources, and to certain

other sources with the exception of

Indian Lands. This submittal for the

operating permits program was made by

the City of Albuquerque on April 4,

1994. EPA’s direct final approval was

published on January 10, 1995 (60 FR

2527).

The EPA subsequently received

comments from the American Forest

and Paper Association (AF&PA) on the

action. Two comments were received

from this commenter: one with respect

to the definition of ‘‘Title I

modification’’ and the other regarding

the implementation of section 112(g). A

letter from National Environmental

Development Association/Clean Air

Regulatory Project was received by the

EPA approximately two weeks after the

close of the public comment period.

That letter set out the same comments

expressed by the AF&PA, and will be

added to the EPA’s docket for the

approval of the Albuquerque Operating

Permits Program although not discussed

further in this notice.

With respect to the definition of Title

I modification, the AF&PA noted that

the Albuquerque definition of ‘‘Title I

modification’’ does not include changes

reviewed under a minor source

preconstruction review program

(‘‘minor NSR changes’’). AF&PA stated

its belief that this was consistent with

the relatively narrow definition of Title

I modification which AF&PA believed is

contained in the current Part 70 rules.

The AF&PA also noted that EPA has

recently proposed changing its current

definition of ‘‘Title I modification’’ to

expressly include virtually any change

that constitutes a modification under

any provision of Title I of the Act. 59

FR 44572 (August 29, 1994). The

AF&PA noted that EPA in prior months

had conditioned either interim or full

approval of several States’ operating

permit programs on the adoption of

such a definition, which is broader than

that contained in the Albuquerque

Operating Permits Program. However,

the AF&PA noted that EPA was now

taking no position on the Albuquerque

Operating Permits Program definition of

‘‘Title I modification’’ as grounds for

either interim approval or disapproval

of the program. The AF&PA in its

comments stated that it supports this

new approach by EPA of not taking a

position on Albuquerque’s narrower

definition.

Because this comment is not adverse

to the position taken by EPA in its

Direct Final Rule approving the

Albuquerque Operating Permits

Program, it does not require the

withdrawal of the Direct Final Rule