```

[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 129 (Wednesday, July 5, 2000)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 41346-41350]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-16068]

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

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

[[Page 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 ground-level 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.

[[Page 41348]]

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''

[[Page 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 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 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:

[[Page 41350]]

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:

Sec. 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
```