41346 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

Massachusetts was approved by the Director

of the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: May 22, 2000.

Mindy S. Lubber,

Regional Administrator, EPA New England.

Part 52 of 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 W—Massachusetts

2. Section 52.1120 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(110) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(110) Revisions to the State

Implementation Plan submitted by the

Massachusetts Department of

Environmental Protection on March 29,

1995.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Letter from the Massachusetts

Department of Environmental Protection

dated March 29, 1995 submitting a

revision to the Massachusetts State

Implementation Plan.

(B) The following portions of the

Rules Governing the Control of Air

Pollution for the Commonwealth of

Massachusetts effective on January 27,

1995: 310 Code of Massachusetts

Regulations Section 7.18(29), Bakeries.

3. In § 52.1167 Table 52.1167 is

amended by adding the following new

state citation: 310 CMR 7.18(29),

Bakeries.

§ 52.1167 EPA-approved Massachusetts

State regulations.

TABLE 52.1167.—EPA-APPROVED RULES AND REGULATIONS.

State citation Title/subject

Date submitted by

State

Date approved

by EPA

Federal Register

citation 52.1120(c) Comments/unapproved sections

*******

310 CMR 7.18(29) Bakeries ............. 03/29/95 July 5, 2000 ....... [Insert FR citation from published date].110 Reasonably Available Control

Technology Requirement

(RACT) for bakeries.

*******

[FR Doc. 00–15909 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OR 82–7297a; FRL 6714–7]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans: Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA or we) approves the

following revisions to the Oregon State

Implementation Plan (SIP): the repeal of

Oregon’s Consumer Products Rules, the

repeal of the Architectural Coatings

Rules, the revision and partial repeal of

the Motor Vehicle Refinishings Rules,

and definition revisions. The Oregon

Department of Environmental Quality

(ODEQ) forwarded this submittal to EPA

for inclusion in the Oregon SIP on June

18, 1999. These revisions were

submitted for the purposes of complying

with section 110 and part D of the Clean

Air Act.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on September 5, 2000 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse

comment by August 4, 2000. If adverse

comment is received, EPA will publish

a timely withdrawal of the direct final

rule in the Federal Register and inform

the public that the rule will not take

effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to: Debra Suzuki, EPA,

Office of Air Quality (OAQ–107), 1200

Sixth Avenue, Seattle, Washington

98101.

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, DC 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:

Table of Contents

A. Consumer and Commercial Products

Rules

1. What revisions to the Oregon SIP are we

approving?

2. What Are Consumer and Commercial

Products Rules?

3. What is Ozone?

4. Why are Consumer and Commercial

Products regulated?

5. Why are we repealing Oregon’s Consumer

and Commercial Products Rules from the

SIP now?

6. What are the differences between EPA’s

and Oregon’s rules?

a. General

b. Consumer Products (OAR 340–022–0800

through OAR 340–022–0860)

c. Architectural Coatings (OAR 340–022–

1000 through OAR 340–022–1050)

d. Aerosol Spray Paint (OAR 340–022–0900

through OAR 340–022–0950)

e. Automobile Refinishing Coatings (OAR

340–022–0700 through OAR 340–022–

0760)

7. How will these differences affect VOC

emissions in Portland?

B. VOC Definitions

1. What revisions to the Oregon SIP are we

approving?

2. Why are the VOC Definitions changing?

Summary of Action

Administrative Requirements

A. Consumer and Commercial Products

Rules

1. What Revisions to the Oregon SIP Are

We Approving?

We are approving the repeal of

Oregon’s Consumer Products Rules, the

repeal of the Architectural Coatings

Rules, and a revision and partial repeal

of the Motor Vehicle Refinishings Rules.

2. What Are Consumer and Commercial

Products Rules?

Consumer and Commercial Products

Rules reduce Volatile Organic

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 41347

Compound (VOC) emissions from

categories of products such as consumer

products, architectural coatings,

automobile refinishing coatings,

aerospace coatings, aerosol spray paints,

industrial cleaning solvents, and metal

furniture coatings. VOCs contribute

significantly to the formation of groundlevel ozone.

3. What Is Ozone?

Ozone is an odorless, colorless gas

composed of three atoms of oxygen.

Ozone is major component of smog and

causes adverse health and

environmental impacts when present in

high concentrations at ground level.

Ground-level ozone is not emitted

directly into the air but forms when

VOCs and Nitrogen Oxides (NOX) mix

and react chemically in the presence of

sunlight. Therefore, ozone is controlled

by reducing VOC or NOX emissions.

The federal Clean Air Act requires

EPA to set health-based standards for

six commonly occurring air pollutants,

including ozone. These standards are

referred to as the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS). The Clean

Air Act also requires each state to

develop and implement a SIP for

meeting and maintaining the NAAQS

within their state.

4. Why Are Consumer and Commercial

Products Regulated?

The Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990 included a new requirement

(Section 183(e)) for regulating consumer

and commercial products. Section

183(e) directs EPA to conduct a study of

VOC emissions from consumer and

commercial products. Based on this

study, EPA is required to schedule for

regulation the categories of products

that have the potential to contribute to

ozone nonattainment. EPA completed

the study and a report to Congress in

1995 and also published the schedule

for regulation in a Federal Register

document (60 FR 15264) on March 23,

1995. The schedule was subsequently

revised on March 18, 1999 (64 FR

13422).

In the past, the Portland area failed to

meet the ozone NAAQS and was

designated as a non-attainment area in

1978. The Governor of Oregon

appointed a Task Force in 1992 to

ensure the maintenance of the ozone

standard. One of the strategies the Task

Force selected was to reduce VOCs from

consumer and commercial products.

The promulgation of EPA’s Consumer

and Commercial Products Rules was

delayed beyond the time when Portland

needed the VOC reductions to meet its

emission targets. Therefore, in 1995,

Oregon adopted its own rules for

Portland for Consumer Products,

Architectural Coatings, Aerosol Spray

Paint, and Motor Vehicle Refinishings

in the Portland Ozone Maintenance

Plan. On May 19, 1997, after Oregon had

demonstrated that the Portland area had

attained the ozone NAAQS, EPA

redesignated the area as an ozone

attainment area and approved the

maintenance plan as a part of the SIP

(62 FR 27204).

5. Why Are We Repealing Oregon’s

Consumer and Commercial Products

Rules From the SIP Now?

Oregon developed its rules with the

intention of repealing them when EPA’s

rules took effect. On September 11,

1998, EPA finalized federal rules for

Consumer Products (63 FR 48819),

Architectural Coatings (63 FR 48848),

and Automobile Refinishing Coatings

(63 FR 48806). These measures apply

nationwide and provide consistency for

the regulated community. In May of

1999, Oregon adopted revisions to their

administrative rules to amend and

repeal their Consumer and Commercial

Products Rules.

6. What Are the Differences Between

EPA’s and Oregon’s Rules?

a. General: EPA’s national rules apply

to the manufacturers, importers, and

distributors (for the Consumer Products

Rule) of the products, so VOC content

is controlled at the source. Since

Oregon’s rules only applied in the

Portland area, they also had to restrict

the sale and commercial application of

the products.

b. Consumer Products (OAR 340–022–

0800 through OAR 340–022–0860): The

Consumer Products Rules establish VOC

limits for a variety of household

products such as hair sprays, air

fresheners, windshield washer fluids,

cleaners, and antiperspirants. Oregon’s

rules are more stringent than EPA’s

rules in two categories of products,

windshield washer fluid and nail polish

remover.

c. Architectural Coatings (OAR 340–

022–1000 through OAR 340–022–1050):

The Architectural Coatings Rules

establish VOC limits for paint for all

‘‘stationary structures’’ (houses,

industrial equipment, traffic markings,

etc.). The EPA VOC limits are more

stringent than Oregon in four categories

(alkali resistant primers, swimming pool

coatings, opaque below ground wood

preservatives, and lacquer stains), while

Oregon’s limits are more stringent in

nine categories (antenna coatings,

calcimine recoaters, clear shellacs,

concrete curing and sealing compounds,

concrete surface retarders, conversion

varnishes, faux finishes, stain

controllers, and zone marking coatings).

EPA’s rules allow manufacturers to

produce high VOC coatings if they pay

an ‘‘exceedance fee’’ of $2,500 per ton

of VOC in excess of the applicable VOC

content limit. EPA’s rules also allow

each manufacturer and importer to

exempt the VOC used in small volume

products. The exemption begins at

twenty-five tons per year for each

manufacturer and importer, but

decreases to ten tons per year in 2002.

Oregon’s rules do not contain either of

these provisions.

d. Aerosol Spray Paint (OAR 340–

022–0900 through OAR 340–022–0950):

The Aerosol Spray Paint Rules limit the

VOC content of paint sold in aerosol

cans. EPA’s rules for aerosol spray paint

is not scheduled to be promulgated until

2001. Therefore, this portion of Oregon’s

rules is retained.

e. Automobile Refinishing Coatings

(OAR 340–022–0700 through OAR 340–

022–0760): The Automobile Refinishing

Coatings Rules set VOC limits for

automotive coatings. Oregon’s rules

require painters to use efficient High

Volume/Low Pressure (HVLP) spray

guns and spray gun cleaning equipment

to further reduce solvent emissions,

which is not required in the EPA rules.

Therefore, the provisions of Oregon’s

regulations regarding the use of HVLP

spray guns and spray gun cleaning

equipment are retained in the SIP.

Additionally, EPA’s rules exempt

lacquer topcoats, while Oregon’s rules

do not.

7. How Will These Differences Affect

VOC Emissions in Portland?

ODEQ submitted a demonstration

showing that the EPA rules will achieve

VOC reductions at least as significant as

the existing Consumer and Commercial

Products Rules in the Portland Ozone

Maintenance Plan (based on EPA’s VOC

reduction estimates published in the

Final Rules). ODEQ’s rules only apply to

the Portland area, so noncomplying

products inevitably leak into Portland

from the outlying region. EPA’s rules

apply uniformly across the nation and

consequently achieve a much higher

degree of rule effectiveness. Therefore,

Oregon’s Consumer and Commercial

Products Rules can be removed from the

SIP with no deleterious effect on any

NAAQS, Prevention of Significant

Deterioration increment, or visibility in

Class I areas.

41348 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

B. VOC Definitions

1. What Revisions to the Oregon SIP Are

We Approving?

The June 18, 1999 submittal included

revisions to the VOC definitions in OAR

340–022–0102 and OAR 340–028–0110.

The VOC definitions were revised to

delist 17 compounds from the

definitions of VOC. The delisted

compounds are: difluoromethane (HFC–

32); ethylfluoride (HFC–161);

1,1,1,3,3,3-hexafluoropropane (HFC–

236fa); 1,1,2,2,3-pentafluoropropane

(HFC–245ca); 1,1,2,3,3-

pentafluoropropane (HFC–245ea);

1,1,1,2,3-pentafluoropropane (HFC–

245eb); 1,1,1,3,3-pentafluoropropane

(HFC–245fa); 1,1,1,2,3,3-

hexafluoropropane (HFC–236ea);

1,1,1,3,3-pentafluorobutane (HFC–

365mfc); chlorofluoromethane (HCFC–

31); 1-chloro-1-fluoroethane (HCFC–

151a); 1,2-dichloro-1,1,2-trifluoroethane

(HCFC–123a); 1,1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4-

nonafluoro-4-methoxy-butane

(C4F9OCH3); 2-

(difluoromethoxymethyl)-1,1,1,2,3,3,3-

heptafluoropropane ((CF3)2CFCF2OCH3);

1-ethoxy-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,4-

nonafluorobutane (C4F9OC2H5); 2-

(ethoxydifluoromethyl)-1,1,1,2,3,3,3-

heptafluoropropane

((CF3)2CFCF2OC2H5); and methyl

acetate. The proposed amendments also

add a technical clarification that these

VOC definitions relate to ground-level

(tropospheric) ozone and not to ozone

depleting reactions in the stratosphere.

2. Why Are the VOC Definitions

Changing?

EPA modified the federal definition of

VOC in 40 CFR 51.100(s) by adding

additional compounds that are

exempted from the VOC definition due

to their negligible photochemical

reactivity. This SIP revision will make

the state and federal definitions of VOC

consistent.

Summary of Action

While EPA’s Consumer and

Commercial Products Rules are slightly

less stringent than ODEQ’s rules as

detailed above, ODEQ has demonstrated

that the VOC reductions relied upon in

the Portland Ozone Maintenance Plan

will not be adversely affected by the

substitution of EPA’s national rules for

Oregon’s rules. Therefore, we are

approving the repeal of Oregon’s

Consumer Products Rules, the repeal of

the Architectural Coatings Rules, and a

revision and partial repeal of the Motor

Vehicle Refinishings Rules. The SIP

revision to the VOC definitions will

make the state and federal definitions

consistent, and therefore we are also

approving this revision.

The list below identifies the revisions

we are approving and the rules we are

repealing from the SIP, with the state

effective date of the rules in

parentheses. The effective date of

Oregon’s repeal of the Consumer

Products Rules was June 10, 1999. The

effective date of Oregon’s revision and

partial repeal of the Motor Vehicle

Refinishings Rules was July 12, 1999.

The effective date of Oregon’s repeal of

the Architectural Coatings Rules was

March 13, 2000.

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 the EPA for approval (e.g.

the rule recodification package).

Approval of the SIP revisions discussed

in this action does not rescind any local

rule amendments that were

subsequently filed and submitted.

A. The Revisions EPA is Approving Into

the SIP

OAR 340–022–0102 (73)—Definitions

(5–21–99)

OAR 340–028–0110 (139)—Definitions

(5–21–99)

Motor Vehicle Refinishing

OAR 340–022–0700—Applicability (7–

12–99)

OAR 340–022–0710—Definitions (7–12–

99)

OAR 340–022–0740—Requirements for

Motor Vehicle Refinishing in

Portland AQMA (7–12–99)

OAR 340–022–0760—Inspecting and

Testing Requirements (7–12–99)

B. The Revisions EPA is Removing From

the SIP

OAR 340–022–0102 (73)—Definitions

(5–9–97)

OAR 340–028–0110 (139)—Definitions

(10–14–98)

Consumer Products

OAR 340–022–0800—Applicability (5–

25–95)

OAR 340–022–0810—Definitions (8–14–

96)

OAR 340–022–0820—Consumer

Product Standards and Exemptions

(5–25–95)

OAR 340–022–0830—Requirements for

Manufacture and Sale of Consumer

Products (5-25–95)

OAR 340–022–0840—Innovative

Products (10–22–96)

OAR 340–022–0850—Recordkeeping

and Reporting Requirements (5–25–

95)

OAR 340–022–0860—Inspection and

Testing Requirements (5–25–95)

Motor Vehicle Refinishing

OAR 340–022–0700—Applicability (5–

25–95)

OAR 340–022–0710—Definitions (8–14–

96)

OAR 340–022–0720—Coating Standards

and Exemptions (5–25–95)

OAR 340–022–0730—Requirements for

Manufacture and Sale of Coatings

(5–25–95)

OAR 340–022–0740—Requirements for

Motor Vehicle Refinishing in

Portland AQMA (5–25–95)

OAR 340–022–0750—Recordkeeping

and Reporting Requirements (5–25–

95)

OAR 340–022–0760—Inspecting and

Testing Requirements (5–25–95)

Architectural Coatings

OAR 340–022–1000—Applicability (5–

25–95)

OAR 340–022–1010—Definitions (8–14–

96)

OAR 340–022–1020—Standards (5–25–

95)

OAR 340–022–1030—Requirements for

Manufacture, Sale and Use of

Architectural Coating (5–25–95)

OAR 340–022–1040—Recordkeeping

and Reporting Requirements (5–25–

95)

OAR 340–022–1050—Inspection and

Testing Requirements (5–25–95)

EPA is publishing this rule without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial

submittal and anticipates no adverse

comments. However, in the proposed

rules section of this Federal Register

publication, EPA is publishing a

separate document that will serve as the

proposal to approve the SIP revision

should adverse comments be filed. This

rule will be effective September 5, 2000

without further notice unless the

Agency receives adverse comments by

August 4, 2000.

If the EPA receives such comments,

then EPA will publish a notice

withdrawing the final rule and

informing the public that the rule will

not take effect. All public comments

received will then be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period.

Parties interested in commenting should

do so at this time. If no such comments

are received, the public is advised that

this rule will be effective on September

5, 2000 and no further action will be

taken on the proposed rule.

Administrative Requirements

A. Under Executive Order 12866 (58

FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this action

is not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 41349

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

will be effective September 5, 2000

unless EPA receives adverse written

comments by August 4, 2000.

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 5,

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,

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, 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.

Dated: May 22, 2000.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator, Region 10.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

41350 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 129 / Wednesday, July 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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)(132) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1970 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(132) On June 18, 1999, the Director

of the Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality (ODEQ)

submitted a SIP revision to repeal the

Consumer Products Rules, repeal the

Architectural Coatings Rules, revise and

partially repeal the Motor Vehicle

Refinishings Rules, and revise the

Volatile Organic Compounds

definitions.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Oregon Administrative Rule

(OAR) 340–022–0102 (73) and OAR

340–028–0110 (139), as effective May

21, 1999; and OAR 340–022–0700, OAR

340–022–0710, OAR 340–022–0740, and

OAR 340–022–0760, as effective July 12,

1999.

(B) Remove the following provisions

from the current incorporation by

reference: OAR 340–022-0102 (73), as

effective May 9, 1997; OAR 340–028–

0110 (139), as effective October 14,

1998; OAR 340–022–0800, OAR 340–

022–0820, OAR 340–022–0830, OAR

340–022–0850, and OAR 340–022–0860,

OAR 340–022–0700, OAR 340–022–

0720, OAR 340–022–0730, OAR 340–

022-0740, OAR 340–022–0750, OAR

340–022–0760, OAR 340–022–1000,

OAR 340–022–1020, OAR 340–022–

1030, OAR 340–022–1040, and OAR

340–022–1050 as effective May 25,

1995; OAR 340–022–0840, as effective

October 22, 1996; and OAR 340–022–

710, OAR 340–022–810, OAR 340–022–

1010, as effective August 14, 1996.

[FR Doc. 00–16068 Filed 7–3–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN105–1a; FRL–6720–2]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plan; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving Indiana’s

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision request to control emissions of

volatile organic compounds (VOCs)

from steel mill sinter plants in Lake and

Porter Counties. The Indiana

Department of Environmental

Management (IDEM) submitted the SIP

revision request on April 6, 1999. The

revision applies to integrated steel mills

in Lake and Porter Counties, and

provides for limits on emissions of

VOCs from those facilities. VOC

emissions are a precursor of groundlevel ozone, commonly known as smog.

High ozone levels are detrimental to

human health and contribute to upper

respiratory ailments such as asthma.

DATES: This rule is effective on

September 5, 2000, unless EPA receives

relevant adverse written comments by

August 4, 2000. If EPA receives adverse

written comment, it will publish a

timely withdrawal of the rule in the

Federal Register and inform the public

that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent 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 can inspect copies of

the State Plan submittal at the following

address: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. (We recommend

you contact Francisco J. Acevedo,

Environmental Protection Specialist, at

(312) 886–6061 before visiting the

Region 5 office).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Francisco J. Acevedo, Environmental

Protection Specialist, at (312) 886–6061.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document wherever

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used we mean

EPA.

Table of Contents

I. What is EPA approving in this action?

II. Why did Indiana submit a sinter plant SIP

revision request?

III. Who is affected by the Indiana sinter

plant SIP revision?

IV. What does the Indiana sinter plant SIP

revision require?

V. Where are the Indiana sinter plant

requirements codified?

VI. What public review opportunities did

Indiana provide?

VII. EPA Rulemaking Action.

VIII. Administrative Requirements.

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Executive Order 13045

C. Executive Order 13084

D. Executive Order 13132

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

F. Unfunded Mandates

G. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

I. What Is EPA Approving in This

Action?

We are approving Indiana’s rule (IAC

8–13) that regulates emissions of VOCs

from steel mill sinter plants in Lake and

Porter Counties. Our approval makes the

Indiana sinter plant rule part of the

federally enforceable SIP under the

Clean Air Act (Act).

II. Why Did Indiana Submit a Sinter

Plant SIP Revision Request?

Lake and Porter Counties are

classified under the Act as severe

nonattainment for ozone. High ozone

levels are detrimental to human health

and contribute to upper respiratory

ailments such as asthma. The sintering

process at steel mills emits significant

amounts of VOC, and Indiana has

identified reductions in emissions from

the sintering process as making an

important contribution toward

improving air quality and attaining the

ambient ozone air quality standard.

III. Who Is Affected by the Indiana

Sinter Plant SIP Revision?

The SIP revision requirements are

applicable to all steel mill sinter plant

operations in Lake and Porter Counties.

According to Indiana, there are four

existing sinter plants operating in Lake

and Porter Counties. Three are located

in Lake County: LTV Steel Company,

Inland Steel Company and U.S. Steel,

Gary Works; and, one is located in

Porter County: Bethlehem Steel.

IV. What Does the Indiana Sinter Plant

SIP Revision Require?

The rule establishes three types of

VOC emission limits for the period from

May 1 through September 30 for sinter

plant windbox exhaust gas VOC

emissions: a seasonal cap, a maximum

daily limit, and a lower daily limit for

days on which an exceedance of the

national ambient air quality standard for

ozone is predicted to be likely. The

emission limits are based on a VOC

emission rate equal to twenty-five

hundredths (0.25) pounds per sinter

produced and a daily sinter production

rate. In addition, from October 1

through April 30, sinter plant windbox

exhaust gas VOC emissions are limited

to thirty-six hundredths (0.36) pound

per ton of sinter produced. The rule also

contains control measure operation,

maintenance, and monitoring

requirements, and record keeping and

reporting requirements.