33772 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures,

Waterways.

Temporary Regulations

For the reasons discussed in the

preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33

CFR Part 165, as follows:

PART 165—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 165

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;

33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.04–6, and 160.5;

49 CFR 1.46.

2. A temporary § 165.T 07–015 is

added to read as follows:

§ 165.T07–015 Safety zones; Miami,

Florida.

(a) Regulated areas. (1) Fireworks

area. (i) Location. All waters within 100

yards of the M/V POINT

COUNTERPOINT II; and, all waters

within an area bounded on the north by

the Venetian Causeway West

drawbridge, a line drawn from the

southwest corner of Biscayne Island to

the northwest corner of Watson Island,

and a line drawn from the southwest

corner of Watson Island near the

seaplane ramp to the northeast corner of

the American Airlines Arena property

water frontage.

(ii) Regulations. In accordance with

the general regulations in 165.23 of this

part, no vessel shall enter the fireworks

display fallout area during the

enforcement period unless otherwise

authorized by the U.S. Coast Guard

Captain of the Port.

(iii) Enforcement period. This section

becomes effective at 9 p.m. Eastern

Daylight Time (EDT) and terminates at

11 p.m. EDT on June 9, 2000, unless

terminated earlier by the U. S. Coast

Guard Captain of the Port.

(2) Parade of sail area.—(i) Location.

A temporary safety zone is established

to include all waters in the Port of

Miami within the turning basin at the

west end of Main Channel bounded by

the bridges connecting Dodge and

Watson Islands with the mainland,

Main Channel, Lummus Island Cut east

of a line extending northward from the

west end of Fisher Island, Government

Cut, Bar Cut, Outer Bar Cut, and 100

yards on either side of the Bar Cut and

Outer Bar Cut short range navigational

aids, seaward to Miami Lighted Buoy M

(LLNR 10455–895).

(ii) Regulations. In accordance with

the general regulations in 165.23 of this

part, entry into this zone is prohibited

to all non-parade related vessels without

the prior permission of the U. S. Coast

Guard Captain of the Port.

(iii) Enforcement period. This section

becomes effective at 10 a.m. EDT and

terminates at 4 p.m. EDT on June 10,

2000, unless terminated earlier by the

U.S. Coast Guard Captain of the Port.

(b) Dates. This section becomes

effective at 9 p.m., EDT on June 9, 2000,

and terminates at 4 p.m., EDT on June

10, 2000.

Dated: May 17, 2000.

L.J. Bowling,

Captain, U. S. Coast Guard, Captain of the

Port, Miami Zone.

[FR Doc. 00–13195 Filed 5–24–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–15–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OR 76–7291; FRL–6601–1]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans: Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: 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.

DATES: This rule is effective May 25,

2000.

ADDRESSES: 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Debra Suzuki, EPA, Office of Air

Quality (OAQ–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue,

Seattle, Washington 98101, (206) 553–

0985.

SUPPLEMENTARY 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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 33773

revision 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 preexisting 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Volatile organic compounds.

Note: 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.

33774 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 102 / Thursday, May 25, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: March 16, 2000.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator, Region 10.

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.

Subpart MM—Oregon

2. Section 52.1970 is amended by

adding paragraph (c) (131) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1970 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 271

[FRL–6704–7]

Minnesota: Final Authorization of State

Hazardous Waste Management

Program Revisions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Immediate final rule.

SUMMARY: Minnesota has applied to EPA

for Final authorization of the changes to

its hazardous waste program under the

Resource Conservation and Recovery

Act (RCRA). EPA has determined that

these changes satisfy all requirements

needed to qualify for Final

authorization, and is authorizing the

State’s changes through this immediate

final action. EPA is publishing this rule

to authorize the changes without a prior

proposal because we believe this action

is not controversial and do not expect

comments that oppose it. Unless we get

written comments which oppose this

authorization during the comment

period, the decision to authorize

Minnesota’s changes to their hazardous

waste program will take effect as

provided below. If we get comments

that oppose this action, we will publish

a document in the Federal Register

withdrawing this rule before it takes

effect and a separate document in the

proposed rules section of this Federal

Register will serve as a proposal to

authorize the changes.

DATES: This Final authorization will

become effective on August 23, 2000

unless EPA receives adverse written

comment by June 26, 2000. If EPA

receives such comment, it will publish

a timely withdrawal of this immediate

final rule in the Federal Register and

inform the public that this authorization

will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments

referring to Docket Number Minnesota

ARA 8, to Gary Westefer, Minnesota

Regulatory Specialist, U.S. EPA Region

5, DM–7J, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 886–7450.

We must receive your comments by

June 26, 2000. You can view and copy

Minnesota’s application from 9:00 am to

4:00 pm at the following addresses:

Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,

520 Lafayette Road, North, St. Paul,

Minnesota 55155, contact Nathan

Cooley at (651) 297–7544; or EPA

Region 5, contact Gary Westefer at the

following address.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary

Westefer, Minnesota Regulatory

Specialist, U.S. EPA Region 5, DM–7J,

77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604, (312) 886–7450.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Why Are Revisions to State

Programs Necessary?

States which have received final

authorization from EPA under RCRA

section 3006(b), 42 U.S.C. 6926(b), must

maintain a hazardous waste program

that is equivalent to, consistent with,

and no less stringent than the Federal

program. As the Federal program

changes, States must change their

programs and ask EPA to authorize the

changes. Changes to State programs may

be necessary when Federal or State

statutory or regulatory authority is

modified or when certain other changes

occur. Most commonly, States must

change their programs because of

changes to EPA’s regulations in 40 Code

of Federal Regulations (CFR) parts 124,

260 through 266, 268, 270, 273 and 279.

B. What Decisions Have We Made in

This Rule?

We conclude that Minnesota’s

application to revise its authorized

program meets all of the statutory and

regulatory requirements established by

RCRA. Therefore, we grant Minnesota

Final authorization to operate its

hazardous waste program with the

changes described in the authorization

application. Minnesota has

responsibility for permitting Treatment,

Storage, and Disposal Facilities (TSDFs)

within its borders (except in Indian

Country) and for carrying out the

aspects of the RCRA program described

in its revised program application,

subject to the limitations of the

Hazardous and Solid Waste

Amendments of 1984 (HSWA). New

federal requirements and prohibitions

imposed by Federal regulations that

EPA promulgates under the authority of

HSWA take effect in authorized States

before they are authorized for the

requirements. Thus, EPA will

implement those requirements and

prohibitions in Minnesota, including

issuing permits, until the State is

granted authorization to do so.

C. What Is the Effect of Today’s

Authorization Decision?

The effect of this decision is that a

facility in Minnesota subject to RCRA

will now have to comply with the

authorized State requirements instead of

the equivalent federal requirements in

order to comply with RCRA. Minnesota

has enforcement responsibilities under

its state hazardous waste program for

violations of such program, but EPA

maintains independent authority under

RCRA sections 3007, 3008, 3013, and

7003, which include, among others, the

authority to conduct inspections and

require monitoring, tests, analyses or

reports and to enforce RCRA

requirements and suspend or revoke

permits.

This action does not impose

additional requirements on the

regulated community because the

regulations for which Minnesota is

being authorized by today’s action are

already effective, and are not changed

by today’s action.