[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 134 (Wednesday, July 14, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 37847-37851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-17766]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IL186-1a; FRL-6374-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Illinois

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: On November 14, 1995, May 9, 1996, June 14, 1996, February 1, 
1999, and May 19, 1999, the State of Illinois submitted State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision requests to meet commitments related 
to our conditional approval of Illinois' May 15, 1992, SIP submittal 
for the Lake Calumet (Southeast Chicago), McCook, and Granite City, 
Illinois, Particulate Matter (PM) nonattainment areas. EPA is approving 
the SIP revision request as it applies to the Lake Calumet area, 
including the attainment demonstration for the Lake Calumet PM 
nonattainment area. The SIP revision request corrects, for the Lake 
Calumet PM nonattainment area, all of the deficiencies of the May 15, 
1992, submittal (as discussed in the November 18, 1994, conditional 
approval notice). EPA is also removing the codification of the 
conditional approval and codifying the final portions of Illinois' part 
D plan for the Granite City, Lake Calumet, and McCook moderate PM 
nonattainment areas. EPA is approved the Granite City PM plan, 
effective May 11, 1998, and the McCook PM plan, effective November 9, 
1998.

DATES: This rule is effective on September 13, 1999, unless EPA 
receives written adverse comments by August 13, 1999. If written 
adverse comment is received, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal of 
the rule in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule 
will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: You should mail written comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, 
Chief, Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), 
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, 
Chicago, Illinois 60604.
    You may inspect copies of the revision request and EPA's analysis 
at the following address: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 
5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 
Illinois 60604. (It is recommended that you telephone David Pohlman at 
(312) 886-3299 before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: David Pohlman at (312) 886-3299.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we'', 
``us'', or ``our'' are used we mean EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is the background for this action?
II. How has Illinois corrected the emissions inventory?
    A. Quench towers.
    B. Basic oxygen furnace (BOF) roof monitors.
    C. Rotary kiln incinerator at CWM Chemical Services.
III. What does the revised attainment demonstration predict about 
air quality?
IV. How has Illinois addressed maintenance of the PM National 
Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS)?
V. What has Illinois done to provide opacity limits for coke oven 
combustion stacks?
VI. How has Illinois corrected the wording problems with the State 
rules?
VII. EPA rulemaking action.
VIII. 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. Paperwork Reduction Act
    I. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act
    J. Petitions for Judicial Review

I. What is the background for this action?

    Under section 107(d)(4)(B) of the Clean Air Act (Act), as amended 
on November 15, 1990 (amended Act), certain areas (``initial areas'') 
were designated nonattainment for PM. Under section 188 of the amended 
Act these initial areas were classified as ``moderate''. The initial 
areas included the Lake Calumet, McCook, and Granite City, Illinois, PM 
nonattainment areas.

[[Page 37848]]

The Lake Calumet PM nonattainment area is located on the Southeast side 
of Chicago, and is defined as ``The area bounded on the north by 79th 
Street, on the west by Interstate 57 between Sibley Boulevard and 
Interstate 94 and by Interstate 94 between Interstate 57 and 79th 
Street, on the south by Sibley Boulevard, and on the east by the 
Illinois/Indiana State line.'' (See 40 CFR 81.314) Section 189 of the 
amended Act requires State submittal of a PM SIP for the initial areas 
by November 15, 1991. Illinois submitted the required SIP revision for 
the Lake Calumet, Illinois, PM nonattainment area on May 15, 1992. Upon 
review of Illinois' submittal, we identified several concerns. Illinois 
submitted a letter on March 2, 1994, committing to satisfy all of these 
concerns within one year of final conditional approval. On May 25, 
1994, we proposed to conditionally approve the SIP. Final conditional 
approval was published on November 18, 1994, and became effective on 
December 19, 1994. The final conditional approval allowed the State 
until November 20, 1995, to correct the stated deficiencies. Of the 
five deficiencies, four apply to the Lake Calumet area:
    1. Invalid emissions inventory and attainment demonstration, due to 
underestimated emissions from the roof monitors for the BOF at Acme 
Steel, the quench towers at Acme Steel and LTV Steel, and the rotary 
kiln incinerator at CWM Chemical Services.
    2. Failure to adequately address maintenance of the PM NAAQS for at 
least 3 years beyond the applicable attainment date.
    3. Lack of an opacity limit on coke oven combustion stacks at Acme 
Steel and LTV Steel.
    4. The following enforceability concerns:
    a. Section 212.107, Measurement Methods for Visible Emissions could 
be misinterpreted as requiring use of Method 22 for sources subject to 
opacity limits as well as sources subject to limits on detectability of 
visible emissions.
    b. Inconsistencies in the measurement methods for opacity, visible 
emissions, and ``PM'' in section 212.110, 212.107, 212.108, and 
212.109.
    c. Language in several rules which exempts from mass emissions 
limits those sources having no visible emissions.
    Illinois has since made submittals to correct the remaining 
deficiencies. Based on Illinois' submittals, we are now fully approving 
the SIP for the Lake Calumet area. At this time, we are only acting on 
the portions of those submittals that pertain to the Lake Calumet PM 
nonattainment area, because deficiencies concerning the other areas 
have been addressed. Our approval of the Granite City PM plan became 
effective on May 11, 1998 (see 63 FR 11842), and our approval of the 
McCook PM plan became effective on November 9, 1998 (see 63 FR 47431).

II. How has Illinois corrected the emissions inventory?

    The first deficiency was an incomplete emissions inventory and 
attainment demonstration due to underestimated emissions from the roof 
monitors for the BOF at Acme Steel, the quench towers at Acme Steel and 
LTV Steel, and the rotary kiln incinerator at CWM Chemical Services. We 
pointed out that emissions from these sources were underestimated in 
the 1992 emissions inventory.

A. Quench Towers

    The emissions inventory issue concerning the quench tower emissions 
calculations involved the use of ``clean water'' emission factor. 
(Clean water is defined as water with  1500 mg/l total 
dissolved solids (TDS.) Dirty water is defined as  5000 mg/l 
TDS.) We had argued that, because Illinois' rules allow weekly 
averaging and the PM standard is based on 24-hour measurements, 
Illinois' quench rule could allow significantly dirtier water than the 
1200mg/l TDS limit suggests, and should, therefore, be modeled using 
the dirty water emission factor. Illinois submitted records of quench 
water TDS concentrations which show that daily concentrations rarely 
approach 1500 mg/l, let alone 5000 mg/l (Appendix 2 to Attachment 17 of 
Illinois' May 9, 1996, submittal). Based on the information provided by 
Illinois, we agree that the use of the clean water emission factor was 
appropriate.

B. BOF Roof Monitors

    To correct the problem of underestimated emissions from the Acme 
Steel BOF roof monitors, Illinois adopted and submitted to the EPA a 
20%, 3 minute average opacity limit on the Acme Steel BOF roof monitors 
(Attachment 6 of Illinois' February 1, 1999, submittal). Illinois also 
submitted a revised emissions inventory, which includes emissions from 
the BOF roof monitors. We agree that the revised emissions estimates 
are appropriate, given the tightened opacity limit.

C. Rotary Kiln Incinerator at CWM Chemical Services

    The final emissions inventory issue was underestimated emissions 
from the rotary kiln incinerator at CWM Chemical Services. Illinois 
indicated in the May 9, 1996, submittal that this kiln is no longer 
operating. Therefore, this is no longer an issue.

III. What does the revised attainment demonstration predict about 
air quality?

    In the submitted modeled attainment demonstration, which uses 5 
years of meteorological data, a violation of the 24-hour NAAQS is 
indicated when six exceedances of the 24-hour standard are predicted. 
Each receptor's predicted 6th highest 24-hour value is, therefore, 
compared to the standard. The 24-hour PM standard is 150 micrograms per 
cubic meter (g/m\3\). The highest, sixth highest predicted 24-
hour PM concentration at any receptor in the Lake Calumet nonattainment 
area was 119.2 g/m\3\. Thus, the modeling analysis predicts 
that the 24-hour NAAQS will be met.
    A modeled violation of the annual PM standard is indicated when any 
receptor's 5 year arithmetic mean annual PM concentration exceeds the 
annual PM standard of 50 g/m\3\. The highest arithmetic mean 
annual PM concentration predicted by the modeling for the Lake Calumet 
area was 47.01 g/m\3\. Therefore, the modeling analysis 
predicts that the annual PM NAAQS will be met.

IV. How has Illinois addressed maintenance of the PM NAAQS?

    The second deficiency was Illinois' failure to adequately address 
maintenance of the PM NAAQS for at least 3 years beyond the applicable 
attainment date. Because of the length of time it may take to determine 
whether an area has attained the standards, EPA recommends that PM 
nonattainment area SIP submittals demonstrate maintenance of the PM 
NAAQS for at least 3 years beyond the applicable attainment date. (See 
an August 20, 1991, memorandum from Fred H. Renner, Jr. to Regional Air 
Branch Chiefs titled ``Questions and Answers for Particulate Matter, 
Sulfur Dioxide, and Lead'') Illinois' May 15, 1992, submittal took 
growth into account in the modeling analysis, but did not adequately 
address maintenance of the NAAQS for PM.
    The attainment date was December 31, 1994. Therefore, Illinois 
needs to show maintenance up to December 31, 1997. In the May 9, 1996, 
submittal, Illinois used ambient monitoring data to show that 
background concentrations of PM were no higher in 1995 than they were 
in 1991, and there are no significant trends in background PM 
concentrations from 1989 to 1995.

[[Page 37849]]

Illinois concluded from this analysis that the effects of growth on 
ambient PM concentrations in the Lake Calumet PM nonattainment area 
will continue to be negligible through the end of the maintenance 
period. Since the maintenance period has passed, this issue is no 
longer relevant.

V. What has Illinois done to provide opacity limits for coke oven 
combustion stacks?

    The third deficiency was the lack of an opacity limit on coke oven 
combustion stacks at Acme Steel and LTV Steel. Because coke oven 
operations are generally covered by special opacity limits, Illinois' 
SIP exempts coke oven sources from the statewide 30 percent opacity 
limit. We approved this State exemption on September 3, 1981. We later 
realized that this exemption left coke oven combustion stacks without 
an opacity limit. Coke oven combustion stacks in Illinois are subject 
to grain loading limits which require stack tests for compliance 
determinations. Because stack tests can take months to perform and only 
last a few hours, an opacity limit, for which compliance can be 
determined by visual observations, is needed to ensure continuous 
compliance. We cited this deficiency in the November 18, 1994, 
conditional approval of Illinois' PM nonattainment area SIP submittal.
    In response to the conditional approval of Illinois' PM plan, the 
State adopted a 30 percent opacity limit for coke oven combustion 
stacks. However, this rule also includes an exemption for ``when a leak 
between any coke oven and the oven's vertical or crossover flue(s) is 
being repaired * * *'' for up to 3 hours per repair. The EPA believes 
this rule is unacceptable. (See 62 FR 39199.)
    In a February 1, 1999, letter, Illinois submitted a revised 
construction permit for Acme Steel. The permit, which was issued on 
January 11, 1999, includes a 30 percent opacity limit, and states that 
coke oven combustion stacks at Acme are not covered by the repair 
opacity exemption in 35 IAC 212.443(g)(2).
    On May 19, 1999, Illinois submitted a revised Federally Enforceable 
State Operating Permit for LTV Steel which includes a 30 percent 
opacity limit, and limits the repair opacity exemption in 35 IAC 
212.443(g)(2). The permit was issued on May 14, 1999. The permit limits 
the exemption to a particular type of repair where the ovens are 
pressurized for purposes of detecting and repairing leaks at tie-in 
joints. It also limits opacity during exemption periods to 60 percent. 
The permit further limits excess opacity to 3 hours per day and 20 
hours per month. Mass emission limits continue to apply during repair 
exemption periods. We recognize that this type of repair can cause 
excess opacity, and that these repairs are necessary at the LTV 
facility due to tie-in joints resulting from an end-flue 
rehabilitation. The limits in the permit are stringent enough to ensure 
that excess opacity during repair periods is kept to a minimum, while 
still allowing the repairs to occur. We agree that the limits in the 
May 14, 1999, permit correct the previously-cited deficiency. This 
issue is resolved as it applies to LTV Steel.

VI. How has Illinois corrected the wording problems with the State 
rules?

    The final issue from the November 18, 1994, conditional approval 
notice involves wording problems in several of Illinois' rules. The 
State has corrected these rules, and we approved the revised rules on 
March 11, 1998 (see 63 FR 11842). See the March 11, 1998, Federal 
Register notice for a discussion of these corrections.

VII. EPA Rulemaking Action

    Illinois has corrected all of the deficiencies listed in the 
November 18, 1994, conditional approval as they relate to the Lake 
Calumet PM nonattainment area. Because Illinois has met all of the 
commitments of the conditional approval, we are approving the plan for 
the Lake Calumet PM nonattainment area. With this approval, Illinois 
has fulfilled all Clean Air Act requirements for Part D plans for the 
Lake Calumet, Granite City, and McCook moderate PM nonattainment areas.
    Since all issues involving the conditional approval have been 
resolved, we are removing the codification of the conditional approval 
from the Code of Federal Regulations, Title 40, Sec. 52.719. We are 
also fully approving 5 rules which we conditionally approved in our 
November 18, 1994, action. These rules, 35 Illinois Administrative Code 
212.113, 212.210, 212.302, 212.309, and 212.316 were included in the 
conditional approval, but no deficiencies were identified with them. 
The rules were later resubmitted by Illinois on June 14, 1996.
    We are publishing this rule without prior proposal because we view 
this as a noncontroversial revision and anticipate no adverse comments. 
However, in a separate document in this Federal Register publication, 
we are proposing to approve the SIP revision should written adverse 
comments be filed. This rule will become effective without further 
notice unless we receive relevant adverse written comment by August 13, 
1999, as indicated above. Should we receive such comments, we will 
publish a final rule informing you that this rule will not take effect. 
Any parties interested in commenting on this action should do so at 
this time. If no such comments are received, you are advised that this 
action will be effective on September 13, 1999.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from Executive Order (E.O.) 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

[[Page 37850]]

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. Paperwork Reduction Act

    This action does not contain any information collection 
requirements which requires OMB approval under the Paperwork Reduction 
Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

I. 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 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.

J. 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 September 13, 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).)

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Incorporation by 
reference, Particulate matter.

    Dated: June 23, 1999.
Jerri-Anne Garl,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

    For the reasons stated 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 et seq.

[[Page 37851]]

Subpart O--Illinois

    2. Section 52.719 is removed and reserved.
    3. Section 52.720 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(150) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.720  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (150) On November 14, 1995, May 9, 1996, June 14, 1996, February 1, 
1999, and May 19, 1999, the State of Illinois submitted State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) revision requests to meet commitments related 
to the conditional approval of Illinois' May 15, 1992, SIP submittal 
for the Lake Calumet (Southeast Chicago), McCook, and Granite City, 
Illinois, Particulate Matter (PM) nonattainment areas. The EPA is 
approving the SIP revision request as it applies to the Lake Calumet 
area. The SIP revision request corrects, for the Lake Calumet PM 
nonattainment area, all of the deficiencies of the May 15, 1992, 
submittal.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) Illinois Administrative Code Title 35: Environmental 
Protection, Subtitle B: Air Pollution, Chapter I: Pollution Control 
Board, Subchapter c: Emission Standards and Limitations for Stationary 
Sources, Part 212: Visible and Particulate Matter Emissions, Subpart A: 
General, Section 212.113; Subpart E: Particulate Matter from Fuel 
Combustion Sources, Section 212.210; Subpart K: Fugitive Particulate 
Matter, Sections 212.302, 212.309, and 212.316. Adopted at 20 Illinois 
Register 7605, effective May 22, 1996.
    (B) Federally Enforceable State Operating Permit--Special: 
Application Number 98120091, Issued on May 14, 1999, to LTV Steel 
Company, Inc.
    4. Section 52.725 is amended by adding paragraph (g) to read as 
follows:


Sec. 52.725  Control strategy: Particulates.

* * * * *
    (g) Approval--On May 5, 1992, November 14, 1995, May 9, 1996, June 
14, 1996, February 3, 1997, October 16, 1997, October 21, 1997, 
February 1, 1999, and May 19, 1999, Illinois submitted SIP revision 
requests to meet the Part D particulate matter (PM) nonattainment plan 
requirements for the Lake Calumet, Granite City and McCook moderate PM 
nonattainment areas. The submittals include federally enforceable 
construction permit, application number 93040047, issued on January 11, 
1999, to Acme Steel Company. The part D plans for these areas are 
approved.

[FR Doc. 99-17766 Filed 7-13-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P