27204 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 96 / Monday, May 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[WA 63–7138; WA58–7133; OR57–7272;

FRL–5824–1]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans and

Redesignation of Areas for Air Quality;

Planning Purposes: States of

Washington and Oregon

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) is redesignating the

Portland/Vancouver (Pdx/Van)

interstate nonattainment area to

attainment for the ozone (O3) air quality

standard and approving a Maintenance

Plan that will insure that the area

remains in attainment. Under the Clean

Air Act, as amended in 1990 (the CAA),

designations can be revised if sufficient

data are available to warrant such

revisions and the request to redesignate

shows that all of the requirements of

section 107(d)(E)(3) of the CAA have

been met. EPA is approving the

Washington and Oregon Maintenance

Plans and other redesignation

submittals because they meet the

Maintenance Plan and redesignation

requirements, and will ensure that the

area remains in attainment. The

approved Maintenance Plans will

become a federally enforceable part of

the Oregon and Washington State

Implementation Plans (SIPs). In this

action, EPA is also approving the

Washington and Oregon 1990 baseline

emission inventories for this area,

revisions to the approved Inspection

and Maintenance (I/M) SIPs of both

States, and a number of other O3

supporting revisions to both SIPs.

DATES: June 18, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the States’

redesignation requests and other

information supporting this action are

available for inspection during normal

business hours at the following

locations: EPA, Office of Air Quality

(OAQ–107), 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

Washington 98101, and at the States’

offices: Washington Department of

Ecology, P.O. Box 47600, Olympia, WA

98504–7600, and Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality, 811 SW Sixth

Avenue, Portland, OR 97204–1390.

Documents which are incorporated by

reference are available for public

inspection at the Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center, EPA,

401 M Street, SW, Washington, D.C.

20460, as well as the above addresses.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sue

Ennes, Office of Air Quality (OAQ–107),

EPA, Seattle, Washington, (206) 553–

6249.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and the

Washington Department of Ecology

(WDOE) submitted Maintenance Plans

and requested redesignation of the Pdx/

Van interstate nonattainment area from

nonattainment to attainment for O3. The

SIP revision requests were submitted by

the WDOE on June 13, 1996, and by

ODEQ on August 30, 1996. No tribal

lands are within the Maintenance Plan

area nor have any tribal lands been

identified as being affected by the

Maintenance Plans.

The Pdx/Van air quality maintenance

area (AQMA) was designated an

interstate O3 nonattainment area in 1978

under the 1977 CAA. On November 15,

1990, the CAA Amendments of 1990

were enacted (Pub. L. 101–549, 104 Stat.

2399, codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q).

Under section 181(a)(1) of the CAA, the

area was further classified as a

‘‘marginal’’ O3 nonattainment area, and

an attainment deadline of November 15,

1993, was established. This interstate

nonattainment area consists of the

southern portion of Clark County,

Washington, and portions of

Multnomah, Clackamas, and

Washington Counties in Oregon.

The AQMA has ambient monitoring

data that show no violations of the O3

national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS) during the period of 1991 to

the present. The WDOE and ODEQ

provided these monitoring data and

modeling and emissions data to support

their redesignation request. On March 7,

1997, EPA proposed to approve the

WDOE’s and ODEQ’s requested

redesignation. In its notice of proposed

approval and redesignation, EPA

reviewed in detail the submittals it was

considering as the basis for its proposed

actions.

II. Response To Comments

The following comments were

received during the public comment

period ending April 7, 1997. EPA’s

response follows each comment.

(1) Comment: The commenter

asserted that, while the Maintenance

Plan for Clark County relies heavily on

expanding the automobile inspection

area, there are no data on hand to

support a theory that auto emissions

from that expanded area are significant

contributors to high ozone events.

Response: EPA has reviewed the

Vancouver portion of the Pdx/Van O3

Redesignation Request/Maintenance

Plan and believes that the Southwest

Air Pollution Control Authority

(SWAPCA) has a reasonable basis for

deciding to expand the maintenance

area. EPA notes that the expansion of

the automobile inspection testing into

Northern Clark County is only one of

several parts of the Vancouver

Maintenance Plan. Emission reductions

are also being obtained from the

approximately 170,000 vehicles in

southern Clark County by: switching to

a more sophisticated emission test

procedure (known as ASM) (setting

ASM standards for exhaust emissions

will result in an enhanced ability to

identify polluting vehicles); gasoline

cap leak checks; stage I and II vapor

controls on gasoline vapors; application

of the EPA national off-road engine rule;

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) Area

Source rules targeting emissions from

consumer products, architectural and

industrial maintenance coatings, and

autobody refinishing; and phase-out of

open burning. Also, new industry or

existing industry modifications will

continue to be subject to Best Available

Control Technology (BACT) and will

still be subject to these controls under

the O3 Maintenance Plan.

SWAPCA has provided the following

Census data to support the expanded

boundary portion of the Vancouver

Maintenance Plan. The 1990 U.S.

Census commuter statistics outlined

below demonstrate North Clark County

motor vehicles are contributing to the

air pollution problem:

—51.9% (5,046 citizens) of Battle

Ground zipcode residents who are

employed commute to the City of

Vancouver and Portland for their

work;

—65.3% (1,162 citizens) of Brush

Prairie zipcode residents who are

employed commute to the City of

Vancouver and Portland for their

work;

—58.4% (2,816) of Ridgefield zipcode

residents who are employed commute

to the City of Vancouver and Portland

for their work; and

—42.5% (2,185) of La Center zipcode

residents who are employed commute

to the City of Vancouver and Portland

for their work.

EPA also notes that SWAPCA’s

decision to expand the automobile

maintenance area was made after

SWAPCA had followed the public

participation requirements that are

established under State law and meet

the requirements of the CAA.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 96 / Monday, May 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 27205

(2) Comment: The same commenter

on the Vancouver Maintenance Plan

wrote that, when the vast amount of

naturally occurring VOCs are taken into

account, it should be obvious that

nitrogen oxides (NOX) are the critical

factor and that the large industrial

sources of that compound must be

considered. Because the commenter

believes it would cost less to equip

industrial sources with NOX controls

than to extend the auto test area for an

equal O3 reduction, the commenter

believes that the Maintenance Plan is

designed to favor industry at public

expense.

Response: Information provided by

SWAPCA to EPA shows that cars make

up about 35% of the VOC emissions and

over 50% of the NOX emissions in the

nonattainment area. The portion of

vehicle miles travelled (VMT) in the

nonattainment area which comes from

North Clark County cars is 15%, which

is substantial. SWAPCA believes that

targeting these emissions with an

expansion of the I/M program will

reduce emissions by approximately 180

tons/year of VOCs and 150 tons/year of

NOX, and will result in an additional

30,000 vehicles being tested every two

years.

The documentation utilized by

SWAPCA supports its views that

additional NOX controls on industry are

not as cost effective as those being

proposed in the Maintenance Plan

($2,500–$7,000/ton for industrial NOX

control versus $100–$2000/ton for a

vehicle inspection program.) The CAA

also targets larger industrial sources

with new permitting requirements.

Therefore, industry will still be required

to complete BACT for any new sources

or modification. Information submitted

by SWAPCA also shows that emissions

from naturally occurring VOCs were

taken into account and that controlling

NOX emissions was considered.

SWAPCA anticipates there will be NOX

reductions from the improved vehicle

inspection program, from continuance

of BACT for industrial sources, and

from the EPA non-road engine rule for

nonroad sources.

(3) Comment: A commenter requested

that EPA not approve the Vancouver

Maintenance Plan until SWAPCA

modifies the emission inventory

contained in the plan and EPA revises

its guidance dealing with projection

inventories contained in Section 3.2.3 of

‘‘Emission Inventory Requirements for

Ozone State Implementation Plans.’’

This comment concerns SWAPCA’s

decision to not include future emissions

from certain major emitters in the

Longview area, although prior

correspondence from EPA stated that

those sources must be included because

they are within 25 miles of the

boundary of the nonattainment area.

SWAPCA added them to the 1992 base

inventory, but the commenter asserts

SWAPCA did not include projections of

those emissions through the 10 year

maintenance period because it is not

expressly required by EPA’s guidance.

The commenter wrote that the

Weyerhaueser and Longview Fibre pulp

mills in Longview, Washington, are the

largest emitters of NOx and VOCs in the

area, and their emissions are growing as

their new expansions come on stream.

In addition, the prevailing winds in the

summer blow directly from these plants

toward Vancouver. The commenter

believes that it is a gross distortion of

the projected inventories to exclude

them and it has resulted in the

application of controls to other much

smaller emitters that are not equitable.

The commenter also requested that EPA

postpone reclassification of the Pdx/Van

area until these changes are made.

Response: EPA believes the issue

raised in this comment has been

appropriately addressed by SWAPCA in

the Vancouver portion of the O3

Maintenance Plan. Furthermore, EPA

does not believe there is any basis to

delay action on these SIP revisions and

reclassification of this area until

revision of the applicable guidance.

For reclassification of the Pdx/Van

area, a marginal O3 nonattainment area,

EPA requires completion of an emission

inventory. The emission inventory

approach is defined as calculating the

emissions within the nonattainment

area plus industrial source emissions

(greater than 100 tons per year) that are

within a 25 mile radius. The Longview

sources were included in the 1992

emission inventory for point sources in

Appendix D of the Vancouver portion of

the O3 Maintenance Plan.

EPA also requires that the

Maintenance Plan project emissions to

demonstrate the NAAQS for O3 will be

maintained for a 10 year period after

redesignation. More detailed computer

modeling required to justify

redesignation decisions in severe O3

nonattainment areas is not necessary to

support redesignation of a marginal

area.

In deciding to not include the sources

cited by the commenter in the

Maintenance Plan projections, SWAPCA

reasonably relied on a preliminary

screening model to conclude that these

sources contribute between 1% to 10%

of their emissions to the nonattainment

area. SWAPCA decided to wait for the

results of ‘‘future studies’’ before

determining whether additional control

measures are needed on these sources to

maintain healthy air in Clark County. In

reference to the wind direction issue,

SWAPCA’s information indicates that

the closest meteorological station to

Vancouver is the Portland International

Airport. However, SWAPCA is

concerned that the data from the

Portland International Airport are not

representative of the entire Vancouver

area. A review of available windspeed

data on high O3 days by SWAPCA and

ODEQ indicates wind speeds are not

uniform throughout the day in the Pdx/

Van area. Also, winds travel at different

speeds and directions at different

altitudes. Modeling of air pollution

impacts would need to consider these

factors as well as the height of the stacks

and plumes from point sources. In the

fall of 1996, a local meteorological

station was installed in Vancouver

which will better help SWAPCA to

anticipate inversion conditions. In the

Pdx/Van Redesignation Request/

Maintenance Plan, SWAPCA committed

to completing ‘‘future studies’’ to

estimate the contribution of emissions

from these sources to the Pdx/Van O3

area. Additional O3 and NOx monitors

have been purchased which were to be

operational by May 1, 1997. As these

data are collected and additional

funding is obtained for the modeling

efforts, SWAPCA expects it will be

possible to address the issue raised by

this comment using sound scientific

data.

EPA also notes that, if the

Weyerhaeuser and Longview Fibre pulp

mills in Longview expand, they will

undergo Prevention of Significant

Deterioration (PSD) review which

evaluates BACT and also will conduct

an ambient impact analysis to ensure

that the NAAQS and PSD increment

will not be violated.

EPA will not agree to delay the

approval of the Maintenance Plan and

the redesignation of this area to

attainment. Under Title I of the CAA,

Congress established a system of state

and federal cooperation. EPA is required

to establish the NAAQS, i.e., the level

at which air quality is determined to be

protective of human health. However,

the States take the primary lead in

determining the measures necessary to

attain and maintain the NAAQS. These

measures are incorporated into the SIP.

The CAA requires EPA to approve a SIP

submission that meets the requirements

of the CAA. If the State fulfills its

obligations in developing a SIP that

meets the requirements of the CAA, EPA

has no authority to supplement or revise

that plan with a federal implementation

plan. Because the States have submitted

a Maintenance Plan that complies with

the CAA, EPA must approve the
27206 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 96 / Monday, May 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Maintenance Plan under section

110(k)(3). Furthermore, since the States

have met the redesignation

requirements to demonstrate that the air

quality meets the NAAQS, EPA believes

the air quality is sufficient to protect the

public health and, therefore, EPA

cannot reject the redesignation request

on this basis. Since the States submitted

Maintenance Plans and Redesignation

Requests that comply with the Act, and

there is no issue about whether the

States have the authority to implement

the measures included in the

submission, EPA has no basis for

modifying the State’s selection of the

measures in the Maintenance Plan.

(4) Comment: The United Associated

of Fitters and Apprentices, Local #290

objected to the EPA approvals of the

revisions to the Oregon SIP because,

under Oregon law, Local #290 has no

legal standing to represent the rights of

their members in judicial proceedings

involving ODEQ permits. This comment

asserts that EPA’s delegation of CAA

enforcement, from EPA to Oregon

ODEQ, ‘‘is premised on ODEQ’s

allowing individuals to exercise their

constitutionally-granted

representational rights, for groups to

which they belong, to appeal DEQ’s

decisions, including but not limited to

DEQ permits issued under the Clean Air

(and Clean Water) Acts.’’ Because Local

#290 believes that ODEQ does not allow

a group such as Local #290 to seek

judicial review of a permit issued by

ODEQ, it vehemently objects to EPA

granting any further delegated authority

to enforce the CAA and Clean Water

Act. Furthermore, Local ι290 asks that

EPA rescind any existing delegations of

CAA enforcement authority, unless and

until ODEQ grants groups in Oregon the

legal standing to represent the rights of

their members in judicial proceedings

involving ODEQ permits.

Response: This comment is not

relevant to the actions EPA is taking in

this notice. Title I of the CAA, which

establishes requirements for SIPs and

designation actions, contains no

provisions governing judicial review of

permits issued by a State. EPA finds that

ODEQ has met the public participation

requirements of Title I of the CAA.

Therefore, EPA does not agree to delay

its actions on the SIP revisions that are

the subject of this notice or to delay its

redesignation to attainment of the Pdx/

Van O3 area for the reason cited by the

commenter. However, EPA is pursuing

the matter of Oregon’s judicial review in

the context of Title V of the CAA, which

requires that a State provide judicial

review of its actions. For purposes of

ODEQ’s Title V program, which EPA

has approved, EPA will evaluate

whether State law meets the

requirements of the CAA.

III. Final Action

EPA is redesignating to attainment the

Portland, Oregon; and Vancouver,

Washington, interstate O3 area because

ODEQ and WDOE have demonstrated

compliance with the requirements of

section 107(d)(3)(E) for redesignation.

EPA is approving the Portland and

Vancouver O3 Maintenance Plans as

meeting the requirements of the CAA,

including the requirements set forth in

EPA regulations and guidance.

EPA also is approving the 1990 O3

Emission Inventories, changes to the

New Source Review (NSR) programs,

regulations implementing the hybrid

low enhanced I/M programs, an

expanded vehicle inspection boundary,

minor Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) rule changes

(Vancouver only), Employee Commute

Options rule (Portland only), Voluntary

Parking Ratio rule (Portland only), Plant

Site Emission Limits (PSEL)

management rules (Portland only), and

local area source supporting rules.

EPA notes that, as part of its SIP

submission, Oregon and Washington

included adequate backup plans for

contingencies to ensure continued

attainment of the NAAQS and to meet

the emission reduction targets of the

submittals approved today. For

example, the contingency plans for both

states provide assurances that

contingency measures will be adopted

within 12 months after a violation of the

NAAQS occurs and implemented

within a specified period of time.

Similarly, if Oregon’s Voluntary Parking

Ratio or the Public Education and

Incentive programs fail to achieve

emission reductions equal to the target

set in the Maintenance Plan, ODEQ has

furnished a commitment to adopt

backup measures by a date certain. EPA

finds that there is adequate assurance

that the planned emission reductions

will be achieved and they are therefore

approved for credit in the Maintenance

Plan. Additional regulations specific to

Washington only and Oregon only are

described below.

Washington

The regulations EPA is approving

now for the Vancouver, Washington,

portion are found in the following. EPA

is approving only those changes to

SWAPCA’s NSR rules that relate to the

new maintenance area NSR provisions

and EPA will be taking action on the

remaining portions of the December 11,

1996, NSR submittal in a separate

action.

—SWAPCA 400 ‘‘General Regulations

for Air Pollution Sources’’ 400–030

Definitions (except for the second

sentence of subsections (14) and (49),

and subsection (84)), –101 Sources

Exempt from Registration

Requirements, –109 Notice of

Construction Application (except

subsections (3)(b), (3)(c), (3)(g), (3)(h),

and (3)(i)), –110 New Source Review,

–111 Requirements for Sources in a

Maintenance Area, –112

Requirements for new Sources in

Nonattainment Areas, –113

Requirements for New Sources in

Attainment or Nonclassifiable Areas,

–114 Requirements for Replacement

or Substantial Alteration of Emission

Control Technology at an Existing

Stationary Source, –116 Maintenance

of Equipment, and –190 Requirements

for Nonattainment Areas.

—SWAPCA 490 ‘‘Emission Standards

and Controls for Sources Emitting

Volatile Organic Compounds’’ 490–

010 Policy and Purpose, –020

Definitions, –025 General

Applicability, –030 Registration and

Reporting, –040 Requirements, –080

Exceptions and Alternative Methods,

–090 New Source Review, –200

Petroleum Refinery Equipment Leaks,

–201 Petroleum Liquid Storage in

External Floating Roof Tanks, –202

Leaks from Gasoline Transport Tanks

and Vapor Collection Systems, –203

Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning

Systems, –204 Graphic Arts Systems,

–205 Surface Coating of

Miscellaneous Metal Parts and

Products, –207 Surface Coating of

Flatwood Paneling, –208 Aerospace

Assembly and Component Coating.

—SWAPCA 491 ‘‘Emission Standards

and Controls for Sources Emitting

Gasoline Vapors’’ 491–010 Policy and

Purpose, –015 Applicability, –020

Definitions, –030 Registration, –040

Gasoline Vapor Control Requirements

(Stage I and II), –050 Failures,

Certification, Testing and

Recordkeeping, –060 Severability.

—SWAPCA 493 ‘‘VOC Area Source

Rules’’ 493–100 Consumer Products

(Reserved), –200–010 Applicability,

–020 Definitions, –030 Spray Paint

Standards and Exemptions, –040

Requirements for Manufacture, Sale

and Use of Spray Paint, –050

Recordkeeping and Reporting

Requirements, –060 Inspection and

Testing Requirements, 493–300–010

Applicability, –020 Definitions, –030

Standards, –040 Requirements for

Manufacture, Sale and Use of

Architectural Coatings, –050

Recordkeeping and Reporting

Requirements, –060 Inspection and

Testing Requirements, –400–010
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 96 / Monday, May 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 27207

Applicability, –020 Definitions, –030

Coating Standards and Exemptions,

–040 Requirements for Manufacture

and Sale of Coatings, –050

Requirements for Motor Vehicle

Refinishing in Vancouver AQMA,

–060 Recordkeeping and Reporting

Requirments, –070 Inspection and

Testing Requirements, –500–010

Applicability, –020 Compliance

Extensions, –030 Exemption From

Disclosure to the Public, –040 Future

Review.

The amendments to SWAPCA 400,

490, and 491 became State-effective on

November 21, 1996. The amendments to

SWAPCA 493 became State-effective on

May 25, 1996.

EPA also approves the Washington I/

M SIP revision (WAC 173–422, sections

–030, –050, –060, –070, –170, and

–190), which was adopted by the State

on November 9, 1996.

Oregon

For the Portland, Oregon, portion,

EPA approves the following regulations.

—OAR 340–028 ‘‘New Source Review’’

340–020–0047 State of Oregon Clean

Air Act Implementation Plan, –028–

0110 Definitions, –1900 Applicability,

–1910 Procedural Requirements,

–1920 Review of New Sources and

Modifications for Compliance with

Regulations, –1930 Requirements for

Sources in Nonattainment Areas,

–1935 Requirements for Sources in

Maintenance Areas, –1940 Prevention

of Significant Deterioration

Requirements for Sources in

Attainment or Unclassified Areas,

–1960 Baseline for Determining Credit

for Offsets, –1970 Requirements for

Net Air Quality Benefit, –2000

Visibility Impact, –030–0111

Emissions Offsets. State-effective date

November 26, 1996.

—OAR 340–022 ‘‘Stage II Vapor

Recovery Regulations’’ 022–0400

Purpose, –0401 Definitions, –0402

General Provisions, –0403

Compliance Schedules. State-effective

date August 14, 1996.

—OAR 340–022 ‘‘Area Source VOC

Regulations’’ 022–0700 Motor Vehicle

Refinishing Applicability, –0710

Definitions, –0720 Coating Standards

and Exemptions, –0730 Requirements

for Manufacture and Sale of Coatings,

–0740 Requirements for Motor

Vehicle Refinishing in Portland

AQMA, –0750 Recordkeeping and

Reporting Requirements, –0760

Inspection and Testing Requirements,

–0800 Consumer Products

Applicability, –0810 Definitions,

–0820 Consumer Products Standards

and Exemptions, –0830 Requirements

for Manufacture and Sale of

Consumer Products, –0840 Innovative

Products, –0850 Recordkeeping and

Reporting Requirements, –0860

Inspection and Testing Requirements,

–0900 Spray Paint Applicability,

–0910 Definitions, –0920 Spray Paint

Standards and Exemptions, –0930

Requirements for Manufacture, Sale

and Use of Spray Paint, –0940

Recordkeeping and Reporting

Requirements, –0950 Inspection and

Testing Requirements, –1000

Architectural Coatings Applicability,

–1010 Definitions, –1020 Standards,

–1030 Requirements for Manufacture,

Sale and Use of Architectural Coating,

–1040 Recordkeeping and Reporting

Requirements, –1050 Inspection and

Testing Requirements, –1100 Area

Source Common Provisions

Applicability, –1110 Compliance

Extensions, –1120 Exemption from

Disclosure to the Public, –1130 Future

Review. State-effective date August

14, 1996.

EPA also approves the Industrial

Emissions Management Program

Regulations (OAR 340–030–0700

through –340–030–0740); Employee

Commute Options Program Regulations

(OAR 340–030–0800 through –340–030–

1080); Voluntary Maximum Parking

Ratios Program Regulations (OAR 340–

030–1100 through –340–030–1190). The

above three amendments to the OAR

became State-effective on August 14,

1996. The following three amendments

became State-effective on August 19,

1996: Definitions of Boundaries (OAR

340–031–0500); Nonattainment Areas

(OAR 340–031–0520); Maintenance

Areas (OAR 340–031–0530).

EPA approves the amendment to

Oregon’s Motor Vehicle Inspection and

Maintenance Area Boundary (OAR 340–

024–0301), effective August 12, 1996.

EPA approves the Oregon I/M revisions

to OAR 340–24–0100, –0300, –0305,

–0306, –0307, –0308, –0309, –0312,

–0314 (with the exception of all

language in (4)(a) referring to a ‘‘sixth

hill extrapolation’’), –0318, –0320,

–0325, –0330, –0332, –0335, –0337,

–0340, –0355, –0357, and –0360, State

effective on November 26, 1996. EPA

also approves the deletion of OAR 340–

24–0310, –0315, and –0350, State

effective on November 26, 1996.

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. Even though the SIP does

not contain additional point source

controls to attain the standard, existing

and federally approved point source

emission limitations are relied upon to

maintain and demonstrate attainment

with the O3 NAAQS. EPA determined

that, because the five-day advance

notice provision required by ORS.126(1)

(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 CAA and

40 CFR 51.230. Accordingly, the

requirement to provide such notice

would preclude federal approval of a O3

nonattainment area SIP revision. EPA

notified Oregon of the deficiency. 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 responded to EPA’s

understanding of the application of

468.126(2)(e) and agreed that, if 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.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to any SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989, (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget (OMB) has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

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
27208 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 96 / Monday, May 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

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, the

Administrator certifies 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).

Redesignation of an area to attainment

under section 107(d)(3)(E) of the CAA

does not impose any new requirements

on small entities. Redesignation is an

action that affects the status of a

geographical area and does not impose

any regulatory requirements on sources.

The Administrator certifies that the

approval of the redesignation request

will not affect a substantial number of

small entities.

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 on 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

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A), as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted 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 General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s 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 July 18, 1997.

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

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

Dated: April 30, 1997.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator.

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 MM—Oregon

2. Section 52.1970 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(120) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1970 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(120) The Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and the

Washington Department of Ecology

(WDOE) submitted Maintenance Plans

that demonstrate continued attainment

of the NAAQS for O3 and requested

redesignation of the Pdx/Van interstate

nonattainment area from nonattainment

to attainment for O3. The SIP revision

requests were submitted by the WDOE

on June 13, 1996, and by ODEQ on

August 30, 1996. A number of other O3

supporting revisions were included in

this submittal, such as: the 1990 O3

Emission Inventories; changes to the

NSR programs; regulations

implementing the hybrid low enhanced

I/M programs; an expanded vehicle

inspection boundary; minor RACT rule

changes (Vancouver only); Employee

Commute Options rule (Portland only);

Voluntary Parking Ratio rule (Portland

only); PSEL management rules (Portland

only); and local area source supporting

rules. 

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Ozone Maintenance Plan and

Redesignation Request for the Portland/

Vancouver AQMA (Oregon Portion)

effective August 14, 1996.

(B) Oregon Inspection and

Maintenance SIP revision to Section 5.4;

OAR 340–024–0100, –0300, –0305,

–0306, –0307, –0308, –0309, –0312

(with the exception of all language in (4)

(a) referring to a ‘‘sixth hill

extrapolation’’), –0314 , –0318, –0320,

–0325, –0330, –0332, –0335, –0337,

–0340, –0355, –0357, and –0360, State

effective on November 26, 1996.

(C) New Source Review: OAR 340–

020–0047; OAR 340–028–0110, 1900

through 1940, 1960, 1970, and 2000;

OAR 340–030–0111, State effective on

November 26, 1996.

(D) Supporting Regulations approved

as part of the Ozone non-attainment

redesignation package: OAR 340–022–

0400, –0401, –0402, –0403, –0700,

–0710, –0720, –0730, –0740, –0750,

–0760, –0800, –0810, –0820, –0830,

–0840, –0850, –0860, –0900, –0910,

–0920, –0930, –0940, –0950, –1000,

–1010, –1020, –1030, –1040, –1050,

–1100, –1110, –1120, –1130, State

effective on 8/14/96; OAR 340–024–

0301, State effective on 8/12/96; OAR

340–030–0700, –0710, –0720, –0730,

–0740, –0800, –0810, –0820, –0830,

–0840, –0850, –0860, –0870, –0880,

–0890, –0900, –0910, –0920, –0930,

–0940, –0950, –0960, –0970, –0980,

–0990, –1000, –1010, –1020, –1030,

–1040, –1050, –1060, –1070, –1080,

–1100, –1110, –1120, –1130, –1140,

–1150, –1160, –1170, –1180, –1190,

State effective on 8/14/96; and OAR

340–031–0500, –0520, –0530, State

effective on 8/19/96.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 96 / Monday, May 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 27209

Subpart WW—Washington

3. Section 52.2470 is amended by

adding paragraph (c) (72) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2470 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(73) The Washington Department of

Ecology (WDOE) and the Oregon

Department of Environmental Quality

(ODEQ) submitted Maintenance Plans

that demonstrate continued attainment

of the NAAQS for O3 and requested

redesignation of the Pdx/Van interstate

nonattainment area from nonattainment

to attainment for O3. The SIP revision

requests were submitted by the WDOE

on June 13, 1996, and by ODEQ on

August 30, 1996. A number of other O3

supporting revisions are included in

this submittal they are: the 1990 O3

Emission Inventories; changes to the

NSR programs; regulations

implementing the hybrid low enhanced

I/M programs; an expanded vehicle

inspection boundary; minor RACT rule

changes (Vancouver only); Employee

Commute Options rule (Portland only);

Voluntary Parking Ratio rule (Portland

only); PSEL management rules (Portland

only); and local area source supporting

rules.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Vancouver, Washington Ozone

Maintenance Plan and Redesignation

Request—state adopted June, 17, 1996.

(B) Washington Inspection and

Maintenance SIP revision WAC 173

422–030, –050, –060, –070, –170,

–190—State adopted November 9, 1996.

(C) NSR: SWAPCA 400–030 (except

for the second sentence of subsections

(14) and (49), and subsection (84)), 101,

109 (except subsections (3)(b), (3)(c),

(3)(g), (3)(h), and (3)(i)), 110, 111, 112,

113, 114, 116, and 190, effective

November 21, 1996.

(D) Supporting Rules.

(1) SWAPCA 491–010, –015, –020,

–030, –040, –050, –060,—State-effective

on November 1, 1996.

(2) SWAPCA 490–010, –020, –025,

–030, –040, –080, –090, –200, –201,

–202, –203, –204, –205, –207, –208—

State effective November 21, 1996.

(3) SWAPCA 493–100, 493–200–010,

–020, –030, –040, –050, –060, 493–300–

010, –020, –030, –040, –050, –060, 493–

400–010, –020, –030, –040, –050, –060,

–070, 493–500–010, –020, –030, –040,—

State effective May 26, 1996.

PART 81—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

2. In § 81.338, the table entitled

‘‘Oregon-Ozone’’ is amended by revising

the entry for the ‘‘Portland-Vancouver

AQMA Area’’ to read as follows:

§ 81.338 Oregon.

* * * * *

OREGON—OZONE

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

Portland-Vancouver AQMA Area ..................................................................................... .................... Attainment ....................

Air Quality Maintenance Area

Clackamas County (part)

Multnomah County (part)

Washington County (part)

* * * * * * *

1This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * * *

3. In § 81.348 the table entitled, ‘‘Washington-Ozone’’ is amended by revising the entry for the ‘‘Portland—Vancouver

AQMA Area’’ to read as follows:

§ 81.348 Washington.

* * * * *

WASHINGTON—OZONE

Designated area

Designation Classification

Date 1 Type Date 1 Type

Portland-Vancouver AQMA Area ..................................................................................... .................... Attainment ....................

Clark County (part)

Air Quality Maintenance Area

* * * * * * *

1This date is November 15, 1990, unless otherwise noted.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–12919 Filed 5–16–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P