Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 29659

Secretary of Commerce within 30 days

of receipt of the Department’s

determination of ownership rights. The

decision reached by the Secretary of

Commerce will be communicated to the

employee.

13. Section 1.659 is amended by

removing ‘‘patentability’’ and adding, in

its place, ‘‘a determination of ownership

rights’’; by removing ‘‘may’’ and adding,

in its place, ‘‘will’’; by removing ‘‘patent

consideration.’’ and adding, in its place,

‘‘an ownership determination where the

employee idea or suggestion involves an

invention. The employee shall be

directed to submit a disclosure of

invention in accordance with these

regulations if such has not been

previously submitted.’’

§ 1.660 [Removed]

14. Section 1.660 is removed.

§ 1.661 [Redesignated as § 1.660]

15. Section 1.661 is redesignated as

§ 1.660.

16. Newly redesignated § 1.660 is

revised to read as follows:

§ 1.660 Expeditious handling.

No patent may be granted where the

invention has been in public use or

publicly disclosed for more than one

year before filing of a patent application.

Hence, submissions involving

inventions should be made as promptly

as possible in order to avoid delay

which might jeopardize title to the

invention or impair the rights of the

inventor or the Government.

§ 1.662 [Redesignated as § 1.661]

17. Section 1.662 is redesignated as

§ 1.661.

§ 1.663 [Redesignated as § 1.662]

18. Section 1.663 is redesignated as

§ 1.662.

§ 1.666 [Redesignated as § 1.663]

19. Section 1.666 is redesignated as

§ 1.663.

20. Newly redesignated § 1.663 is

revised to read as follows:

§ 1.663 Licensing of Government-owned

inventions.

(a) The licensing of Governmentowned inventions under VA control and

custody will be conducted pursuant to

the regulations on the licensing of

Government-owned inventions

contained in 37 CFR part 404, and 15

U.S.C. 3710a, as appropriate.

(b) Any person whose application for

a license in an invention under VA

control and custody has been denied;

whose license in such an invention has

been modified or terminated, in whole

or in part; or who timely filed a written

objection in response to a proposal to

grant an exclusive or partially exclusive

license in an invention under VA

control or custody, may, if damaged,

appeal any decision or determination

concerning the grant, denial,

interpretation, modification, or

termination of a license to the Secretary

of Veterans Affairs. Such appeal shall be

in writing; shall set forth with

specificity the basis of the appeal; and

shall be postmarked not later than 60

days after the action being appealed.

Upon request of the appellant, such

appeal may be considered by one to

three persons appointed on a case-bycase basis by the Secretary of Veterans

Affairs. Such a request will be granted

only if it accompanies the written

appeal. Appellant may appear and be

represented by counsel before such a

panel, which will sit in Washington,

DC. If the appeal challenges a decision

to grant an exclusive or partially

exclusive license in an invention under

VA control or custody, the licensee shall

be furnished a copy of the appeal, shall

be given the opportunity to respond in

writing, may appear and be represented

by counsel at any hearing requested by

appellant, and may request a hearing if

appellant has not, under the same terms

and conditions, at which the appellant

may also appear and be represented by

counsel.

[FR Doc. 96–14844 Filed 6–11–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 014–0003a FRL–5464–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, Five

Local Air Pollution Control Districts

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action on revisions to the California

State Implementation Plan. The

revisions concern rules from the

following: El Dorado County Air

Pollution Control District (EDCAPCD),

Kern County Air Pollution Control

District (KCAPCD), Placer County Air

Pollution Control District (PCAPCD),

Santa Barbara County Air Pollution

Control District (SBCAPCD), and South

Coast Air Quality Management District

(SCAQMD). These new and revised

rules control VOC emissions from

graphic arts operations. This approval

action will incorporate these rules into

the federally approved SIP. The

intended effect of approving these rules

is to regulate emissions of volatile

organic compounds (VOCs) in

accordance with the requirements of the

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990

(CAA or the Act). In addition, the final

action on the SBCAPCD rule serves as

a final determination that the finding of

nonsubmittal for this rule has been

corrected and that on the effective date

of this action, the Federal

Implementation Plan (FIP) clocks is

stopped. Thus, EPA is finalizing the

approval of these revisions into the

California SIP under provisions of the

CAA regarding EPA action on SIP

submittals, SIPs for national primary

and secondary ambient air quality

standards and plan requirements for

nonattainment areas.

DATES: This action is effective on

August 12, 1996, unless adverse or

critical comments are received by July

12, 1996. If the effective date is delayed,

a timely notice will be published in the

Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the rules and

EPA’s evaluation report for each rule are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region IX office during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted rules are

available for inspection at the following

locations:

Rulemaking Section (A–5–3), Air and

Toxics Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102), 401 ‘‘M’’ Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95814

El Dorado County APCD, 2850 Fairlane

Court, Placerville, CA 95667

Kern County APCD, 2700 M. Street,

Suite 290, Bakersfield, CA 93301

Placer County APCD, 11464 B. Avenue,

Auburn, CA 95603

Santa Barbara County APCD, 26

Castilian Drive, B–23 Goleta, CA

93117

South Coast AQMD, 21865 E. Copley

Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765–4182.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Erik H. Beck, Rulemaking Section (A–5–

3), Air and Toxics Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105, Telephone: (415)

744–1190. Internet E-mail:

beck.erik@epamail.epa.gov.
29660 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

1Among other things, the pre-amendment

guidance consists of those portions of the proposed

post-1987 ozone and carbon monoxide policy that

concern RACT, 52 FR 45044 (November 24, 1987);

‘‘Issues Relating to VOC Regulation Cutpoints,

Deficiencies, and Deviations, Clarification to

Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register

Notice’’ (Blue Book) (notice of availability was

published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1988);

and the existing control technique guidelines

(CTGs).

2The Los Angeles—South Coast Air Basin,

Sacramento Metro Area, and the Santa Barbara—

Santa Maria—Lompoc Area retained their

designation of nonattainment and were classified by

operation of law pursuant to sections 107(d) and

181(a) upon the date of enactment of the CAA. See

55 FR 56694 (November 6, 1991). However, on

April 25, 1995, EPA published a final rule granting

the State’s request to reclassify the Sacramento

Metro Area to severe from serious (60 CFR 20237).

This reclassification became effective on June 1,

1995.

3Note Bene: KCAPCD Rule 410.7 applies to that

portion of Kern County which falls outside the San

Joaquin Valley Unified Air Pollution Control

District. This area is known as the Southeast Desert

Non-Air Quality Management Area, and its ozone

designation is unclassified.

4EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Applicability

The rules being approved into the

California SIP include: EDCAPCD Rule

231 ‘‘Graphic Arts Operations’’;

KCAPCD Rule 410.7, ‘‘Graphic Arts’’;

PCAPCD Rule 239, ‘‘Graphic Arts

Operations’’; SBCAPCD Rule 354,

‘‘Graphic Arts’’; and SCAQMD Rule

1130.1, ‘‘Screen Printing Operations’’.

These rules were submitted by the

California Air Resources Board (CARB)

to EPA on the following dates in

respective order: November 30, 1994,

May 30, 1991, October 13, 1995, July 13,

1994, and November 18, 1993. All of

these rules are in effect throughout their

respective districts, except PCAPCD

Rule 239. This rule is applicable only

within that part of Placer County that

lies within the Sacramento Valley Air

Basin.

Background

On March 3, 1978, EPA promulgated

a list of ozone nonattainment areas

under the provisions of the Clean Air

Act, as amended in 1977 (1977 Act or

pre-amended Act), that included the

Southeast Desert Modified Air Quality

Management Area, Santa Barbara—

Santa Maria—Lompoc Area, Sacramento

Metro Area (which includes portions of

El Dorado County and Placer County),

and the Los Angeles—South Coast Air

Basin. 43 FR 8964, 40 CFR 81.305. On

May 26, 1988, EPA notified the

Governor of California, pursuant to

section 110(a)(2)(H) of the 1977 Act, that

the EDCAPCD, KCAPCD, PCAPCD,

SBCAPCD, and the SCAQMD portions

of the California SIP were inadequate to

attain and maintain the ozone standard

and requested that deficiencies in the

existing SIP be corrected (EPA’s SIPCall). On November 15, 1990, the Clean

Air Act Amendments of 1990 were

enacted. Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat.

2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

In amended section 182(a)(2)(A) of the

CAA, Congress statutorily adopted the

requirement that nonattainment areas

fix their deficient reasonably available

control technology (RACT) rules for

ozone and established a deadline of May

15, 1991 for states to submit corrections

of those deficiencies.

Section 182(a)(2)(A) applies to areas

designated as nonattainment prior to

enactment of the amendments and

classified as marginal or above as of the

date of enactment. It requires such areas

to adopt and correct RACT rules

pursuant to pre-amended section 172(b)

as interpreted in pre-amendment

guidance.1 EPA’s SIP-Call used that

guidance to indicate the necessary

corrections for specific nonattainment

areas. The Los Angeles—South Coast

Air Basin is classified as extreme. The

Sacramento Metro Area is classified as

severe. The Santa Barbara—Santa

Maria—Lompoc Area is classified as

moderate; 2 therefore, these areas were

subject to the RACT fix-up requirement

and the May 15, 1991 deadline.3

The State of California submitted

many RACT rules for incorporation into

its SIP on the rule submittal dates listed

in the Applicability section above,

including the rules being acted on in

this document. This document

addresses EPA’s direct-final action for

EDCAPCD Rule 231 ‘‘Graphic Arts

Operations’’; KCAPCD Rule 410.7,

‘‘Graphic Arts’’; PCAPCD Rule 239

‘‘Graphic Arts Operations’’; SBCAPCD

Rule 354, ‘‘Graphic Arts’’; and SCAQMD

Rule 1130.1, ‘‘Screen Printing

Operations’’. EDCAPCD adopted Rule

231 on September 27, 1994. KCAPCD

adopted Rule 410.7 on May 6, 1991.

PCAPCD adopted Rule 239 on June 8,

1995. SBCAPCD adopted Rule 354 on

June 28, 1994. SCAQMD adopted Rule

1130.1 on July 9, 1993.

These submitted rules were found to

be complete on the following respective

dates: January 30, 1995 (Rule 231); July

10, 1991 (Rule 410.7); November 28,

1995 (Rule 239); July 22, 1994 (Rule

354); and December 23, 1993 (Rule

1130.1). The completeness

determinations were made pursuant to

EPA’s completeness criteria that are set

forth in 40 CFR part 51 Appendix V.4

These rules control VOC emissions

from graphic arts operations such as

screen printing, flexography,

rotogravure, and others. VOCs

contribute to the production of ground

level ozone and smog. These rules were

originally adopted as part of their air

pollution control agencies’ efforts to

achieve the National Ambient Air

Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone

and in response to EPA’s SIP-Call and

the section 182(a)(2)(A) CAA

requirement. The following is EPA’s

evaluation and final action for this rule.

EPA Evaluation and Action

In determining the approvability of a

VOC rule, EPA must evaluate the rule

for consistency with the requirements of

the CAA and EPA regulations, as found

in section 110 and part D of the CAA

and 40 CFR part 51 (Requirements for

Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans). The EPA

interpretation of these requirements,

which forms the basis for today’s action,

appears in the various EPA policy

guidance documents listed in footnote

1. Among those provisions is the

requirement that a VOC rule must, at a

minimum, provide for the

implementation of RACT for stationary

sources of VOC emissions. This

requirement was carried forth from the

pre-amended Act.

For the purpose of assisting state and

local agencies in developing RACT

rules, EPA prepared a series of Control

Technique Guideline (CTG) documents.

The CTGs are based on the underlying

requirements of the Act and specify the

presumptive norms for what is RACT

for specific source categories. Under the

CAA, Congress ratified EPA’s use of

these documents, as well as other

Agency policy, for requiring States to

‘‘fix-up’’ their RACT rules. See section

182(a)(2)(A). The CTG applicable to all

of these rules, except SCAQMD Rule

1130.1, ‘‘Screen Printing Operations’’, is

entitled, OAQPS Guideline Series—

Control of Volatile Organic Emissions

from Existing Stationary Sources—

Volume VII: Graphic Arts—Rotogravure

and Flexography (Document Number

EPA–450/2–78–033). No CTG applies to

SCAQMD Rule 1130.1. Accordingly,

Rule 1130.1 was evaluated against

interpretations of EPA policy found in

the Blue Book, referred to in footnote 1.

The CTG and the Blue Book have been

set forth to ensure that VOC rules are

fully enforceable and strengthen or

maintain the SIP.

EDCAPCD Rule 231 ‘‘Graphic Arts

Operations’’; PCAPCD Rule 239

‘‘Graphic Arts Operations’’; SBCAPCD

Rule 354, ‘‘Graphic Arts’’; and SCAQMD

Rule 1130.1, ‘‘Screen Printing
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 29661

Operations’’, are new rules being

approved into the SIP for the first time.

These rules have the following

significant features:

• Control emissions of VOC from

rotogravure and flexography printing

and coating equipment (except

SCAQMD Rule 1130.1);

• Option of using emission control

equipment or using reduced VOC

content inks and coatings;

• Test methods for VOC content of

coatings and inks;

• Test methods for determining

capture efficiency of an emission

control device;

• Rule exemptions for firms emitting

small quantities of VOC.

In addition to the features listed

above, SCAQMD Rule 1130.1 has the

following additional features:

• Control of VOC emissions from

screen printing operations;

• Test methods for metal content of

inks;

KCAPCD’s submitted Rule 410.7

‘‘Graphic Arts,’’ includes the following

significant changes from the current SIP:

• Comprehensive revision of rule

definitions;

• Extension of the rule’s applicability

to include letterpress, lithography, and

screen printing;

• Addition of recordkeeping

requirements;

• Addition of test methods;

• Requirement to reduce VOC

emissions from cleanup operations;

• Modified control device efficiency

standards to require more stringent

controls.

EPA has evaluated the submitted

rules and has determined that they are

consistent with the CAA, EPA

regulations, and EPA policy. Therefore,

the following district rules are being

approved under section 110(k)(3) of the

CAA as meeting the requirements of

section 110(a) and Part D: EDCAPCD

Rule 231 ‘‘Graphic Arts Operations’’;

KCAPCD Rule 410.7, ‘‘Graphic Arts’’;

PCAPCD Rule 239 ‘‘Graphic Arts

Operations’’; SBCAPCD Rule 354,

‘‘Graphic Arts’’; and SCAQMD Rule

1130.1, ‘‘Screen Printing Operations’’.

Therefore, if this direct final action is

not withdrawn, on August 12, 1996, the

FIP clock associated with SBCAPCD

Rule 354 is stopped.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

EPA is publishing this document

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

amendment and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in a separate

document in this Federal Register

publication, the EPA is proposing to

approve the SIP revision should adverse

or critical comments be filed. This

action will be effective August 12, 1996,

unless, by July 12, 1996, adverse or

critical comments are received.

If the EPA receives such comments,

this action will be withdrawn before the

effective date by publishing a

subsequent document that will

withdraw the final action. All public

comments received will then be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this action serving as a

proposed rule. The 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. If no such comments are

received, the public is advised that this

action will be effective August 12, 1996.

Regulatory Process

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et. seq., EPA 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, EPA 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-for-profit

enterprises and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under sections 110 and

301(a) and subchapter I, Part D of the

CAA do not create any new

requirements, but simply approve

requirements that the State is already

imposing. Therefore, because the

Federal SIP-approval does not impose

any new requirements, I certify that it

does not have a significant impact on

any small entities affected. Moreover,

due to the nature of the Federal-state

relationship under the CAA, preparation

of a regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (S. Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410 (a)(2).

Unfunded Mandates

Under Sections 202, 203, and 205 of

the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995 (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’),

signed into law on March 22, 1995, EPA

must undertake various actions in

association with proposed or final rules

that include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to the private sector or to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate.

Through submission of this state

implementation plan or plan revision,

the State and any affected local or tribal

governments have elected to adopt the

program provided for under Part D of

the Clean Air Act. These rules may bind

State, local, and tribal governments to

perform certain actions and also require

the private sector to perform certain

duties. The rules being approved by this

action will impose no new requirements

because affected sources are already

subject to these regulations under State

law. Therefore, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments or to

the private sector result from this action.

EPA has also determined that this final

action does not include a mandate that

may result in estimated costs of $100

million or more to State, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate or to the

private sector.

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

action from review under Executive

Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

California was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: April 13, 1996.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

Subpart F of 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.
29662 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(185)(i)(A)(9),

(194)(i)(G), (198)(i)(K), (207)(i)(B)(2),

and (225)(i)(B)(3) to read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(185) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(9) Rule 410.7, adopted May 6, 1991.

* * * * *

(194) * * *

(i) * * *

(G) South Coast Air Quality

Management District.

(1) Rule 1130.1, adopted July 9, 1993.

* * * * *

(198) * * *

(i) * * *

(K) Santa Barbara County Air

Pollution Control District.

(1) Rule 354, adopted June 28, 1994.

* * * * *

(207) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) * * *

(2) Rule 231, adopted September 27,

1994.

* * * * *

(225) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) * * *

(3) Rule 239, adopted June 8, 1995.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 96–14784 Filed 6–11–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–W

40 CFR Part 52

[OH91–2; FRL–5506–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: On November 3, 1995, Ohio

submitted revisions to its particulate

matter plans for the Cleveland and

Steubenville nonattainment areas. These

revisions were submitted to address

plan deficiencies that were identified by

EPA in a final limited disapproval of the

particulate matter plans published in

the Federal Register on May 27, 1994.

For the Cleveland area, these revisions

provide earlier attainment of the air

quality standard and correct the

deficient test method disapproved in

that rulemaking. For the Steubenville

area, these revisions include an

administrative order for tightening

controls at Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel’s

basic oxygen furnace, and provide a

fully updated modeling analysis

demonstrating that the plan assures

attainment. EPA is approving these

revisions and terminating the potential

for sanctions based on the deficiencies

identified in the rulemaking of May 27,

1994.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

July 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision

and USEPA’s analysis are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the following

addresses:

United States Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard

(AR–18J), Chicago, Illinois 60604; and

Office of Air and Radiation (OAR),

Docket and Information Center (Air

Docket 6102) Room M1500, United

States Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John Summerhays, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), United States

Environmental Protection, Region 5,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–6067.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Ohio submitted major revisions to its

particulate matter regulations on

November 14, 1991, with supplemental

submittals on December 4, 1991, and

January 8, 1992. EPA proposed

rulemaking on these submittals on

August 3, 1993, at 58 FR 41218, and

published a notice of final rulemaking

on May 27, 1994, at 59 FR 27464,

granting limited approval/limited

disapproval of these submittals.

Although EPA approved most of Ohio’s

regulations, EPA concluded that Ohio

had not satisfied selected requirements

of the Clean Air Act applicable to its

two particulate matter nonattainment

areas, i.e., Cuyahoga County (including

Cleveland) and the Steubenville area.

This represented a disapproval finding

under Section 179(a)(2), thus initiating

an 18-month period after which

sanctions were to be imposed in these

areas under Section 179(b) unless or

until the deficiencies are remedied.

On November 3, 1995, Ohio

submitted further revisions to its

particulate matter plans, seeking to

remedy the deficiencies identified in

EPA’s May 1994 rulemaking. On

January 23, 1996 (at 61 FR 1727), EPA

proposed to approve the State’s

submittal and proposed to conclude that

all particulate matter SIP requirements

were satisfied (except for new source

review requirements, which were not

addressed in either the January 1996 or

the May 1994 rulemaking and are being

addressed separately). Simultaneously,

EPA issued an interim final

determination that the deficiencies had

been remedied (at 61 FR 1720), thereby

staying application of sanctions.

In brief, for Cuyahoga County, the

deficiencies were (1) failure to satisfy

requirements for Reasonably Available

Control Measures (RACM) by December

1992; and (2) failure to assure

attainment due to deficiencies in the

test method applicable to coke

quenching. EPA proposed to find that

these deficiencies were addressed when

Ohio revised its rules to require a

control strategy adequate to satisfy

RACM requirements by December 1993

and improved the test method for coke

quenching. For the Steubenville area,

the deficiency was an inadequate

attainment demonstration due to, among

other factors, inadequate accounting for

emissions from Wheeling-Pittsburgh

Steel’s basic oxygen furnace. EPA

proposed to find this deficiency

remedied by submittal of Findings and

Orders issued by Ohio to WheelingPittsburgh Steel requiring tightened

control of basic oxygen furnace

emissions and a revised attainment

demonstration. A more detailed

discussion of the prior deficiencies is

provided in the Federal Register of May

27, 1994 (59 FR 27464), and a summary

of that discussion and a more extensive

discussion of Ohio’s submittal which

remedied those deficiencies is provided

in the notice of proposed rulemaking of

January 23, 1996 (61 FR 1727). Today’s

rule is final action on Ohio’s November

1995 submittal and final action with

respect to the previously identified

deficiencies.

At the time of the proposed

rulemaking, Ohio had conducted a

public hearing in connection with its

Cuyahoga County rule revisions but had

not yet held and submitted

documentation of a public hearing with

respect to revisions to the Steubenville

area attainment demonstration. The

State held a public hearing on the

Steubenville area revisions on January

22, 1996, and provided materials to EPA

documenting this hearing and

demonstrating satisfaction of related

public comment requirements in its

December 21, 1995, and March 13, 1996,

submittals. EPA has evaluated these

materials and has concluded that the

relevant procedural requirements have

been satisfied.