Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 39743

Order 12866, entitled Regulatory

Planning and Review.

B. Executive Order 13045

This final rule is not subject to

Executive Order 13045, entitled

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks, because it is not an

‘‘economically significant’’ action under

Executive Order 12866.

C. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

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 impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

CAA, preparation of a 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) and 7410(k)(3).

C. 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 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 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.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

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. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

E. 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 22,

1998. 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, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Dated: June 19, 1998.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Regional Administrator, Region 4.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, 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 S—Kentucky

2. Section 52.920, is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(87) to read as

follows:

§ 52.920 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(87) Revisions to the Kentucky State

Implementation Plan submitted by the

Natural Resources and Environmental

Protection Cabinet on March 21, 1997.

The regulation being revised is 401 KAR

51:017 Prevention of significant

deterioration of air quality.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

Division of Air Quality regulations 401

KAR 51:017 Prevention of significant

deterioration of air quality effective

March 12, 1997.

(ii) Other material. None.

[FR Doc. 98–19836 Filed 7–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OR 48–1–7263a; FRL–6127–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans: Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) approves revisions to the

Oregon State Implementation Plan (SIP).

EPA is approving revisions to Oregon

Administrative Rules (OAR) Chapter

340, Division 25 submitted to EPA on

August 31, 1995, and October 8, 1996,

to satisfy the requirements of section

110 of the Clean Air Act (CAA) and 40

CFR part 51.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on September 22, 1998, without further

notice, unless EPA receives relevant

adverse comment by August 24, 1998. 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: Montel Livingston, SIP

Manager, Office of Air Quality (OAQ–

107), EPA, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington 98101.
39744 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

1Baseline vent emission rate is defined as a

source’s vent emissions rate during the baseline

period (1977/1978) as defined in OAR 340–28–

0110, expressed as pounds of emissions per

thousand square feet of finished product, on a 1⁄8

inch basis.

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

may be examined during normal

business hours at the following

locations: EPA, Region 10, Office of Air

Quality, 1200 Sixth Avenue (OAQ–107),

Seattle, Washington 98101, and Oregon

Department of Environmental Quality,

811 SW. Sixth Avenue, Portland,

Oregon 97204.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Rindy Ramos, Office of Air Quality

(OAQ–107), EPA, Seattle, Washington

98101, (206) 553-6510.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Introduction

On August 31, 1995, the Oregon

Department of Environmental Quality

(ODEQ) submitted to the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA), a revision to

the Oregon State Implementation Plan

(SIP). This submittal contained a

revision to Oregon Administrative Rules

(OAR), Chapter 340, Division 25.

Specifically, OAR 340–25-305, OAR

340–25–320, and OAR 340–25–325 were

revised. The above revision was adopted

by the state on January 20, 1995, and

became state effective on February 17,

1995. The intent of this revision was to

revise the particulate matter allowable

emission limit.

Subsequently, on October 8, 1996,

another revision to OAR 340–25–320

and OAR 340–25–325 was submitted to

EPA for incorporation into the state’s

federally approved SIP. This revision

was adopted by the state on January 12,

1996, and became state effective January

29, 1996. The purpose of this revision

was to resolve a conflict between the

above rules and Notice of Construction

rules OAR 340–28–800 to OAR 340–28–

820. EPA will discuss both submittals in

this document.

II. Background

OAR 340–25–325

ODEQ originally adopted, as a matter

of state law, the particulate matter

emission standard, OAR 340–25–325,

for the hardboard industry in 1971. It

became part of the federally approved

SIP in 1986. The emission standard set

at that time was 1.0 lb/ksf (1.0 pounds

of particulate matter per 1,000 square

feet of finished product). In establishing

this limit, emissions from exhaust vents

above the hardboard presses were

assumed to be negligible and therefore

were not considered in establishing the

1.0 lb/ksf emission limit. Because they

were assumed to be negligible, the limit

was not intended to require controls on

the vents. Actual emissions from a total

facility (vent and nonvent sources) were

assumed to be less than 1.0 lb/ksf.

However, subsequent to the state

adoption of the emission standard,

testing of the vents have shown that

they are not negligible as originally

assumed and therefore, the standard

was set too low for existing plants to

demonstrate compliance. To correct this

matter, ODEQ has revised the rule to

account for the press vents particulate

matter emissions and has submitted the

revised rule for inclusion in the

federally approved SIP.

However, even though the actual

emissions of a particular facility will not

be allowed to increase, the revision will

result in an increase in allowable

emissions. And, because the current

emission limits are part of the federally

approved SIP, a demonstration that the

revision will not have an adverse impact

on air quality is needed.

III. Discussion

A. August 31, 1995 Submittal

1. OAR 340–25–325: The August 1995

rule revision to OAR 340–25–325

corrects the emission limit by including

press vent emissions. The revision

keeps the current limit as it applies to

all non-vent emissions sources at a plant

and limits vent emissions at each

affected plant to their baseline level or

a set maximum level. The revised rule

does not result in an increase in actual

emissions; rather it reflects a correction

allowed by OAR 340–028–1020(7)(e)

when errors are found or better data is

available for calculating PSELs.

The revision creates a new limit

calculated from baseline 1 emissions. A

plant’s limit would be the sum of vent

emissions and the lesser of baseline

non-vent emissions or 1.0 lb/ksf (the

original limit). In no case could the

emission rate exceed 2.0 lb/ksf. The

effect would be to hold total emissions

to what they would have been at

baseline had the press/cooling vents

emissions been taken into account, or

less if baseline non-vent emissions were

greater than 1.0, or if the total exceeds

2.0 lb/ksf.

2. OAR 340–25–305: The August 1995

revision to OAR 340–25-305 added the

definition for ‘‘baseline vent emission

rate’’, clarified the definition of EPA

Method 9, and added the definition for

‘‘press/cooling vent’’ to the definitions

section of Chapter 340, Division 25,

Statewide Rules—Board Products

Industries.

3. OAR 340–25–320: The revision to

OAR 340–25–320 was housekeeping in

nature and corrected a cross referencing

problem with another rule. The revision

required that any person who proposed

to control windblown particulate

emissions from truck dump storage

areas other than by enclosure, had to

apply to ODEQ for authorization to

utilize alternative controls. The rule was

revised to require the application to be

submitted pursuant to OAR 340–28–800

through 820 instead of OAR 340–20–020

through 030.

B. October 8, 1996 Submittal

1. OAR 340–25–320 and 340–25–523:

The October 1996 submittal was also

housekeeping in nature. OAR 340–25–

320(1)(c) Particleboard Manufacturing

Operations—Truck Dump and Storage

Areas and OAR 340–25–325(1)(c)

Hardboard Manufacturing Operations—

Truck Dump and Storage Areas were

revised by deleting the reference to OAR

340–28–800 to 820. A conflict existed

because OAR 340–28–810(2) restricted

OAR 340–28–800 through 820 from

applying to federal operating permit

program sources. Because the state

wanted all sources to be subject to OAR

340–25-320(1)(c) and OAR 340–25–

325(1)(c), reference to OAR 340–28–800

to 820 was deleted.

IV. Sources Affected

A total of seven hardboard

manufacturing plants are affected by the

revision to OAR 340–25–325. Six plants

are located in areas currently designated

unclassified for particulate matter with

an aerodynamic diameter less than or

equal to a nominal 10 micrometers (PM–

10). One of these six plants, Collins

Products LLC, is located directly outside

the Klamath Falls PM–10 nonattainment

area. The seventh plant, a Jeld Wen, Inc.

facility is located inside the boundary of

the Klamath Falls PM–10 nonattainment

area.

A. Analysis of Revision

1. Facilities located in areas

unclassified for PM–10: In accordance

with Section 110(l) of the Clean Air Act

(CAA), EPA Region 10 required either a

demonstration or documentation that

the PM–10 National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) and

visibility would be protected and

documentation that the revision would

not allow a violation of the Prevention

of Significant Deterioration (PSD)

requirement.
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 39745

2See letter from Gregory A. Green, Administrator

Air Quality Division, ODEQ to Anita Frankel, Air

Director, USEPA, Region 10 dated April 8, 1997.

3See memorandum dated December 27, 1997,

from Richard D. Wilson, Acting Assistant

Administrator for Air and Radiation, to Regional

Administrators entitled Guidance for Implementing

the 1-Hour Ozone and Pre-existing PM10 NAAQS.

4See memorandum dated January 27, 1988, from

Gerald A. Emison, Director, Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, to Director, Air and Toxics

Division, Region X, entitled ‘‘Grandfathering’’ of

Requirements for Pending SIP Revisions.

Bearing in mind the original intent of

the rule revision, ODEQ and the region

agreed upon the following methodology:

(1) for those sources which had not

changed their mode of operation since

baseline, the region would not require a

PSD analysis instead a written

justification including emission

calculations would be acceptable; and

(2) for those sources whose method of

operation had changed since the

hardboard rule was promulgated and

the change resulted in emission

increases above the significant threshold

levels, a complete PSD analysis would

be required. Sources that would be

subject to a PSD analysis would also

have to undergo a visibility analysis.

However, a PSD increment analysis

for all affected sources would not be

required. Since the press vents were in

operation when baseline was

established (1977/1978), and the rule

revision does not allow for an increase

in actual emissions, a PSD increment

analysis was not required. The rule, by

itself, does not allow for increment

consumption.

For NAAQS purposes, the assumption

is made that since these sources are not

located in a nonattainment area (the

areas are unclassified) and emissions

from the press vents have been

occurring since 1977/1978, increasing

the allowable limit to reflect actual

emissions would not adversely affect air

quality. The information before EPA

does not indicate that an air quality

problem currently exists.

Visibility requirements are addressed

through the fact that this revision does

not allow for an increase in actual

emissions above those accounted for in

Oregon’s long term visibility strategy.

Again, as discussed above, the SIP

revision only establishes allowable

emissions equal to or less than baseline

emissions.

2. Facility located inside the Klamath

Falls PM–10 nonattainment area: It is

EPA position that the revision to OAR

340–025–325 is subject to Section 193 of

the CAA, as amended, for a source

located in one of Oregon’s PM–10

nonattainment areas. And therefore, the

revision must demonstrate that the

increase in allowable emissions will not

have an adverse impact on timely

attainment of the PM–10 National

Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) in those areas. Also, the

demonstration must ensure that

emission reductions equivalent to those

required by the current SIP rule are

achieved. This position is based on the

fact that the rule was part of the

federally approved SIP before enactment

of the Clean Air Act Amendments

(CAAA) of 1990. The only source

located inside a PM–10 nonattainment

area affected by this rule revision is the

Jeld Wen, Inc. facility in Klamath Falls.

On September 22, 1995, ODEQ

submitted a revision to the November

15, 1991, attainment plan for the

Klamath Falls PM–10 nonattainment

area. This revision addressed, among

other things, the above Section 193

requirement. A review of the area’s

attainment demonstration indicated that

the increase in allowable emissions

would not adversely impact air quality.

The 1991 attainment plan and 1995

revision to the plan have both been

approved by EPA. See 61 FR 28531

(June 5, 1996) and 62 FR 18047 (April

14, 1997) for details. It is EPA’s position

that the requirements of Section 193

have been satisfied.

3. Facility located outside the

Klamath Falls PM–10 nonattainment

area: One of the facilities affected by

this revision, Collins Products LLC, is

located outside the boundary of the

Klamath Falls PM–10 nonattainment

area. During assessment of the source’s

impact on the nonattainment area, a

1995 dispersion modeling analysis

indicated that a violation of the 24-hour

PM–10 NAAQS existed in an

unmonitored location outside the

nonattainment area boundary. To

address the modeled violation, and

allow EPA to approve the hardboard

rule as it applies to Collins Products,

Collins Products agreed to the

installation of additional control devices

and a reduction in permitted allowable

emissions. Through the installation of

three baghouses and the reduction in

allowable emissions, Collins Products

was able to demonstrate compliance

with the 24-hour PM–10 NAAQS. The

requirement to install additional control

devices and the reduction in permitted

emission limits have been incorporated

into their Air Contaminant Discharge

Permit (ACDP). 2 An addendum to their

ACDP was issued on June 2, 1997.

Oregon’s ACDP regulations are part of

the federally approved SIP and their

permits are federallly enforceable. (See

40 CFR 52.1988).

B. July 18, 1997 Revision to the PM–10

NAAQS

On July 18, 1997, EPA revised the PM

NAAQS (see 62 FR 38651). This

revision changed the form of the 24-

hour PM–10 standard, retained the

annual standard, and added 24-hour

and annual standards for PM with an

aerometric mean diameter less than 2.5

micrometers (PM–2.5). Section 50.3 of

40 CFR Part 50 was also revised to

remove the requirement to correct the

temperature and pressure of measured

PM concentrations to standard reference

conditions. The revised PM NAAQS and

their associated appendices became

effective on September 16, 1997.

However, the PM–10 NAAQS in effect

before September 16, 1997, (pre-existing

standard) was not revoked upon

establishing the revised PM NAAQS. 3

Additionally, it is EPA’s opinion that

the submittal conforms to EPA’s

guidance for ‘‘Grandfathering’.4 EPA has

developed guidance on applying

previously applicable standards to

pending SIP revisions where the

relevant requirements have changed

since the state prepared the SIP

submittal. The submittal conforms to

the applicable CAA requirements for the

pre-existing PM–10 NAAQS.

V. Summary of Action

Section 110(l) of the CAA provides

that EPA may not approve a revision to

a state’s SIP that would interfere with

any applicable requirement concerning

attainment and reasonable further

progress or any other applicable

requirement of the Act. EPA has

thoroughly evaluated the above revision

and is approving the revisions to OAR

Chapter 340, Division 25, as submitted

on August 31, 1995, and October 8,

1996.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors, and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

EPA is publishing this rule without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial

amendment 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 relevant adverse comments be

filed. This rule will be effective

September 22, 1998, without further

notice unless the Agency receives
39746 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

relevant adverse comments by August

24, 1998.

If the EPA receives such comments,

then EPA will publish a document

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.

Only parties interested in commenting

on this rule should do so at this time.

If no such comments are received, the

public is advised that this rule will be

effective on September 22, 1998, and no

further action will be taken on the

proposed rule.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866 and 13045

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866, entitled,

‘‘Regulatory Planning and Review’’

review.

The final rule is not subject to E.O.

13045, entitled, ‘‘Protection of Children

from Environmental Health Risks and

Safety Risks’’ because it is not an

‘‘economically significant’’ action under

E.O. 12866.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603

and 604. Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, Part D, of the CAA do not

create any new requirements, but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the federal SIP-approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

CAA, preparation of a regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of State action. The CAA

forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. E.P.A., 427 U.S.

246, 256–66 (S.Ct. 1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2).

C. 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 costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate, or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under Section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective 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 as promulgated does not include

a Federal mandate that may result in

estimated 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.

D. 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. Section 804,

however, exempts from section 801 the

following types of rules: rules of

particular applicability; rules relating to

agency management or personnel; and

rules of agency organization, procedure,

or practice that do not substantially

affect the rights or obligations of nonagency parties. 5 U.S.C. 804(3). EPA is

not required to submit a rule report

regarding today’s action under section

801 because this is a rule of particular

applicability.

E. 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 22,

1998. 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), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2).

F. Oregon’s Audit Privilege Act

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.

G. Oregon’s Advance Notice Prior to

Penalty

In reviewing previous SIP revisions,

EPA determined that because the fiveday advance notice provision required

by ORS 468.126(1) enacted in 1991, bars

civil penalties from being imposed for

certain permit violations, ORS 468 fails

to provide the adequate enforcement

authority the 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

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 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 the State’s program from

federal approval or delegation. ODEQ

has responded to EPA’s understanding

of the application of 468.126(2)(e) and

agrees that, if federal statutory
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 142 / Friday, July 24, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 39747

1See 34 FR 8186, April 30, 1971, and 50 FR

25544, June 19, 1985, codified at 40 CFR 50.11.

Nitrogen dioxide is a light brown gas that can

irritate the lungs and lower resistance to respiratory

infections such as influenza. The principal sources

of nitrogen oxides are high-temperature combustion

processes, such as those occurring in motor vehicles

and power plants.

2EPA’s monitoring requirements for NO2 are

codified at 40 CFR 50, Appendix F. In determining

whether an NO2 nonattainment area has attained

the NAAQS, EPA considers not only the most

recent four quarters of monitored ambient air

quality data available, but also the previous four

quarters of monitoring data ‘‘to assure that the

current indication of attainment was not the result

of a single year’s data reflecting unrepresentative

meteorological conditions.’’ 43 FR 8962 (March 3,

1978).

3By the date of enactment of the 1990

amendments, the South Coast was the only

remaining area in the country designated as

nonattainment for NO2. For a description of the

boundaries of the South Coast Air Basin (also

known as the Los Angeles-South Coast Air Basin

Area), see 40 CFR 81.305. The nonattainment area

includes all of Orange County and the non-desert

portions of Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and

Riverside Counties.

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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Particulate matter.

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: July 9, 1998.

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—State of Oregon

2. Section 52.1970 is amended by

adding paragraph (c) (126) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1970 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(126) On August 31, 1995, and

October 8, 1996, the Director of ODEQ

submitted to the Regional Administrator

of EPA revisions to its Oregon SIP: the

Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR)

Chapter 340, Division 25, Specific

Industrial Standards (OAR 340–25–305,

320 and 325).

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) August 31, 1995, letter from

ODEQ to EPA submitting a revision to

the Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR);

OAR 340–25–305, State effective on

February 17, 1995.

(B) October 8, 1996, letter from ODEQ

to EPA submitting a revision to the

Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR);

OAR 340–25–320 and OAR 340–25–325,

State effective on January 29, 1996.

[FR Doc. 98–19834 Filed 7–23–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[CA–189–0078(a); FRL–6127–1]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans and

Redesignation of the South Coast Air

Basin in California to Attainment for

Nitrogen Dioxide

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final

action on attainment and maintenance

plans and a request submitted by the

California Air Resources Board (CARB)

to redesignate the South Coast Air Basin

(South Coast) from nonattainment to

attainment for the National Ambient Air

Quality Standards (NAAQS) for

Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2). Under the

Clean Air Act (CAA), designations can

be revised if sufficient data are available

to warrant such revisions. In this action,

EPA is approving the attainment and

maintenance plans as revisions to the

California State Implementation Plan

(SIP), and EPA is also approving the

State’s request to redesignate the South

Coast to attainment because the plans

and request meet the requirements set

forth in the CAA.

EPA is publishing this rule without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial

amendment 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

and grant the redesignation request

should relevant adverse comments be

filed.

DATES: This rule is effective September

22, 1998 unless the Agency receives

relevant adverse comments to the

rulemaking by August 24, 1998. 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: Comments should be

addressed to the EPA contact below.

The rulemaking docket for this notice

may be inspected and copied at the

following location during normal

business hours. A reasonable fee may be

charged for copying parts of the docket.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 9, Air Division, Air Planning

Office (AIR–2), 75 Hawthorne Street,

San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the SIP materials are also

available for inspection at the addresses

listed below:

California Air Resources Board, 2020 L

Street, Sacramento, CA 92123–1095

South Coast Air Quality Management

District, 21865 E. Copley Drive,

Diamond Bar, CA 91765–4182

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dave Jesson, Air Planning Office (AIR–

2), Air Division, U.S. EPA, Region 9, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105–3901. Telephone: (415) 744–

1288.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Clean Air Act Requirements

Under section 109 of the CAA, EPA

established primary and secondary

NAAQS for NO2 in 1971, and slightly

revised the NAAQS in 1985.1 The level

of both the primary and secondary

NAAQS is 0.053 parts per million

(ppm), or 100 micrograms per cubic

meter, annual arithmetic mean

concentration. The standards are

attained when the annual arithmetic

mean concentration in a calendar year is

less than or equal to 0.053 ppm, based

upon hourly data that are at least 75%

complete.2

The Federal CAA was substantially

amended in 1990 to establish new

planning requirements and attainment

deadlines for the NAAQS. Under

section 107(d)(1)(C) of the amended Act,

an area designated nonattainment prior

to enactment of the 1990 amendments

(as was the South Coast Air Basin) was

designated nonattainment by operation

of law.3 Under section 191 of the Act,

an NO2 area designated nonattainment

under section 107(d) was required to

submit to EPA within 18 months of the