Environmental Protection Agency.
Pursuant to procedures described in the January 19, 1989 Federal Register, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or we) recently approved a minor State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision submitted by the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ). This submittal includes the following changes to the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) 340-028-0110 (Definitions): a revision of the definition of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC), typographical corrections, updated reference dates, and the renumbering of several definitions. The VOC definition was revised to delist parachlorobenzotriflouride (PCBTF) and cyclic, branched, or linear completely methylated siloxanes from the definition of VOC. This document lists the revision we approved and incorporates the relevant material into the Code of Federal Regulations.
This rule is effective May 25, 2000.
Documents which are incorporated by reference are available for public inspection at the Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M Street SW, Washington, D.C. 20460. Copies of material submitted to EPA and other information supporting this action may be examined during normal business hours at the following locations: EPA, Region 10, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101 and Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, 811 SW Sixth Avenue, Portland, Oregon 97204-1390.Start Further Info
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Debra Suzuki, EPA, Office of Air Quality (OAQ-107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 553-0985.End Further Info End Preamble Start Supplemental Information
We approved the following minor SIP revision request under section 110(a) of the Clean Air Act (Act):
|State||Subject matter||Date of submission||Date of approval|
|OR||Definitions: Revised the definition of VOC (delist parachlorobenzotriflouride (PCBTF) and cyclic, branched, or linear completely methylated siloxanes) consistent with changes in the federal definition, made typographical corrections, updated reference dates, and incorporated the renumbering of several definitions||12-3-98||6-16-99|
We took no action on the definitions relating to the Compliance Assurance Monitoring (CAM) Rule and on Tables 1 through 3. Please note that since these SIP revisions were adopted by the state, other modifications to Oregon's rules may have been adopted by the Environmental Quality Commission and submitted to EPA for approval (e.g. the rule recodification package). Approval of this SIP revision does not rescind any local rule amendments that were subsequently filed and submitted. We determined that this SIP revision complies with all applicable requirements of the Act and EPA policy and regulations concerning such revisions. Due to the minor nature of this revision, we concluded that conducting notice-and-comment rulemaking prior to approving this Start Printed Page 33773revision would have been “unnecessary and contrary to the public interest”, and therefore, was not required by the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(b). This SIP approval became final and effective on the date of EPA approval listed above.
I. Administrative Requirements
A. Executive Order 12866
A. Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is not a “significant regulatory action” and therefore is not subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. This action merely approves state law as meeting federal requirements and imposes no additional requirements beyond those imposed by state law. Accordingly, the Administrator certifies 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.). Because this rule approves pre-existing requirements under state law and does not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by state law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4). For the same reason, this rule also does not significantly or uniquely affect the communities of tribal governments, as specified by Executive Order 13084 (63 FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it merely approves a state rule implementing a federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically significant.
In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. As required by section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61 FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing this rule, EPA has taken the necessary steps to eliminate drafting errors and ambiguity, minimize potential litigation, and provide a clear legal standard for affected conduct. EPA has complied with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the takings implications of the rule in accordance with the “Attorney General's Supplemental Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of Unanticipated Takings” issued under the executive order. This rule does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
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 action is not a “major rule” as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This rule became effective on June 16, 1999.
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 July 24, 2000. 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).)
B. Oregon Notice Provision
During EPA's review of a SIP revision involving Oregon's statutory authority, a problem was detected which affected the enforceability of point source permit limitations. EPA determined that, because the five-day advance notice provision required by ORS 468.126(1) (1991) bars civil penalties from being imposed for certain permit violations, ORS 468 fails to provide the adequate enforcement authority that a state must demonstrate to obtain SIP approval, as specified in section 110 of the Clean Air Act and 40 CFR 51.230. Accordingly, the requirement to provide such notice would preclude federal approval of a section 110 SIP revision.
To correct the problem the Governor of Oregon signed into law new legislation amending ORS 468.126 on September 3, 1993. This amendment added paragraph ORS 468.126(2)(e) which provides that the five-day advance notice required by ORS 468.126(1) does not apply if the notice requirement will disqualify a state program from federal approval or delegation. ODEQ responded to EPA's understanding of the application of ORS 468.126(2)(e) and agreed that, because federal statutory requirements preclude the use of the five-day advance notice provision, no advance notice will be required for violations of SIP requirements contained in permits.
C. Oregon Audit Privilege
Another enforcement issue concerns Oregon's audit privilege and immunity law. Nothing in this action should be construed as making any determination or expressing any position regarding Oregon's Audit Privilege Act, ORS 468.963 enacted in 1993, or its impact upon any approved provision in the SIP, including the revision at issue here. The action taken herein does not express or imply any viewpoint on the question of whether there are legal deficiencies in this or any other Clean Air Act Program resulting from the effect of Oregon's audit privilege and immunity law. A state audit privilege and immunity law can affect only state enforcement and cannot have any impact on federal enforcement authorities. EPA may at any time invoke its authority under the Clean Air Act, including, for example, sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the requirements or prohibitions of the state plan, independently of any state enforcement effort. In addition, citizen enforcement under section 304 of the Clean Air Act is likewise unaffected by a state audit privilege or immunity law.Start List of Subjects
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
- Environmental protection
- Air pollution control
- Incorporation by reference
- Intergovernmental relations
- Volatile organic compounds
Incorporation by reference of the Implementation Plan for the State of Oregon was approved by the Director of the Office of Federal Register on July 1, 1982.Start Signature
Dated: March 16, 2000.
Regional Administrator, Region 10.
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:End Amendment Part Start Part
PART 52—[AMENDED]End Part Start Amendment Part
1. The authority citation for Part 52 continues to read as follows:End Amendment Part
Subpart MM—OregonStart Amendment Part
2. Section 52.1970 is amended by adding paragraph (c) (131) to read as follows:End Amendment Part
(c) * * *
(131) On December 3, 1998, the Director of the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) submitted a revision to the definition section of the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR), as effective October 14, 1998.
(i) Incorporation by reference.
(A) OAR 340-028-0110, as effective October 14, 1998, except for the following: (16) Capture system, (25) Continuous compliance determination method, (27) Control device, (29) Data, (39)(b) Emission Limitation and Emission Standard, (47) Exceedance, (48) Excursion, (55) Inherent process equipment, (67) Monitoring, (86) Pollutant-specific emissions unit, (88) Predictive emission monitoring system (PEMS), Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3.
(B) Remove the following provision from the current incorporation by reference: OAR 340-028-0110, as effective October 6, 1995, except for Table 1, Table 2, and Table 3.
[FR Doc. 00-13070 Filed 5-24-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P