[Federal Register Volume 64, Number 215 (Monday, November 8, 1999)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 60683-60687]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 99-29069]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OK-3-1-5201a; FRL-6470-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Implementation, Plans Oklahoma; 
Visibility Protection

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking direct final action approving a revision to 
the Oklahoma State Implementation Plan (SIP) involving the Oklahoma 
Visibility Protection Plan for the Federal Class I area. This action 
approves the general plan revisions and the long-term strategy and 
removes the disapproval of the Oklahoma SIP and resultant Federal 
Implementation Plan (FIP) for failure to meet the Federal requirements. 
This action does not apply to areas of ``Indian Country'' over which 
the State of Oklahoma has not demonstrated authority.

DATES: This rule is effective on January 7, 2000, without further 
notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment by December 8, 1999. If EPA 
receives such comment, EPA will publish a timely withdrawal in the 
Federal Register informing the public that this rule will not take 
effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this action should be addressed to Mr. 
Thomas H. Diggs, Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD-L), at the EPA Region 
6 Office listed below. Copies of documents relevant to this action are 
available for public inspection during normal business hours at the 
following locations. Anyone wanting to examine these documents should 
make an appointment with the appropriate office at least two working 
days in advance.
    Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning Section 
(6PD-L), 1445 Ross Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733.
    Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality, Air Quality Division, 
707 North Robinson, P.O. Box 1677, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73101-1677.
    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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill Deese of the EPA Region 6 Air 
Planning Section at (214) 665-7253.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Throughout this document wherever ``we,'' 
``us,'' and ``our'' is used, we mean EPA.

I. What Is the Purpose of This Action?

    This action approves the Oklahoma Visibility Protection Plan 
submitted by the Governor of Oklahoma on June 18, 1990, as a revision 
to the Oklahoma SIP. This plan includes revisions to sections 1.4.4(b), 
1.4.4(f), and 1.4.4(g) of the Prevention of Significant Deterioration 
(PSD) rules in the Oklahoma Air Quality Control Regulations. This 
action removes the EPA disapproval of the Oklahoma visibility plan and 
resultant FIPs published in the Federal Register on June 24, 1986 (51 
FR 22937), and November 24, 1987 (52 FR 45137), and codified in 40 CFR 
52.1933.

II. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

    Section 169A of the Federal Clean Air Act (the Act) requires 
visibility protection for mandatory Class I Federal areas where EPA has 
determined that visibility is an important value. Mandatory Class I 
Federal areas are defined as certain national parks, wilderness areas, 
and international parks, as described in section 162(a) of the Act. 
Mandatory Class I Federal areas in each State are listed in 40 CFR part 
81, subpart D--Identification of Mandatory Class I Federal Areas Where 
Visibility is an Important Value.
    Section 169A of the Act specifically required EPA to promulgate 
regulations requiring certain states to amend their SIPs to provide for 
visibility protection. These regulations have been promulgated in 40 
CFR part 51, subpart P, Visibility Protection. See 45 FR 80089, 
December 2, 1980.

III. Does Oklahoma Have Any Federal Class I Areas?

    Oklahoma has one mandatory Class I area. It is the Wichita 
Mountains National Wildlife Refuge in Comanche County near Fort Sill 
Military Reservation.

IV. What Is Meant by Part I and Part II Visibility SIPs?

    In December 1982, the Environmental Defense Fund (EDF) filed suit 
in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California 
alleging that EPA had failed to perform a nondiscretionary duty under 
section 110 of the Act to promulgate visibility SIPs. A negotiated 
settlement agreement between EPA and EDF required EPA to promulgate 
visibility SIPs on a specific schedule. We were required to promulgate 
FIPs for visibility in States where SIPs were deficient with respect to 
the visibility regulations. Specifically, the first part of the 
agreement required us to propose and promulgate FIPs which cover the 
visibility monitoring and new source review (NSR) provisions under 40 
CFR 51.305 and 51.307, respectively. These requirements became known as 
the Part I Visibility SIP requirements. However the settlement allowed 
a State an opportunity to avoid Federal promulgation if it submitted an 
approvable part I SIP by May 6, 1985. Oklahoma was one of the States 
listed as having an inadequate NSR and monitoring plan for visibility 
protection.
    The second part of the settlement agreement required EPA to 
determine the adequacy of the SIPs to meet the remaining provisions of 
the visibility regulations and to propose and promulgate FIPs for 
states with deficient

[[Page 60684]]

SIPs. These remaining provisions cover the general plan provisions 
including visibility implementation control strategy (40 CFR 51.302) 
and long-term strategies (section 51.306). These provisions became 
known as the part II visibility SIP requirements. However, the 
settlement agreement allowed a State an opportunity to avoid Federal 
promulgation if it submitted an approvable part II visibility SIP by 
August 31, 1987. Oklahoma was one of the States listed as having an 
inadequate part II visibility protection SIP.
    For more information on details of the provisions of the settlement 
agreement, see EPA's announcement of the agreement at 49 FR 20647 (May 
16, 1984).

V. Why Did EPA Disapprove the Oklahoma Visibility SIP?

    On October 23, 1984 (49 FR 42670), we proposed to disapprove the 
SIPs of 34 states, including Oklahoma, for failure to meet the 
visibility monitoring and visibility NSR requirements and proposed to 
incorporate Federal visibility regulations into the State plans.
    On July 12, 1985, to avoid the national disapproval action, the 
Governor of Oklahoma submitted to us the Oklahoma Visibility Protection 
Plan (1985 Plan). On April 7, 1986 (51 FR 13029), we proposed to 
disapprove the 1985 Plan because it did not include an approvable part 
I visibility monitoring strategy required in 40 CFR 51.305 and the plan 
did not include an approvable NSR portion required in 40 CFR 51.307. 
The 1985 Plan incorporated existing Oklahoma Air Pollution Control 
Regulation, section 1.4.4(f)(7), Post-construction Monitoring, stating 
that the permit application would be reviewed for compliance with all 
current and applicable Oklahoma Air Pollution Control Regulations. 
However, the State failed to adopt additional regulations to meet the 
requirements in 40 CFR 51.307, Visibility NSR. A review of the existing 
Oklahoma section 1.4.4(g), Source Impacting Class I Areas, did not meet 
these NSR requirements.
    On June 24, 1986 (51 FR 22937), we published a final disapproval of 
the Oklahoma Visibility Protection Plan submitted on June 12, 1985, and 
promulgated a FIP. The disapproval and the FIP promulgation, codified 
at 40 CFR 52.1933(a) and (b), incorporated into the Oklahoma SIP the 
Federal requirements in 40 CFR 52.26, Visibility monitoring strategy; 
Sec. 52.27, Protection of visibility from sources in attainment areas; 
and Sec. 52.28, Protection of visibility from sources in nonattainment 
areas.
    On March 12, 1987 (52 FR 7802), EPA proposed to disapprove the SIPs 
of States (including Oklahoma) which failed to comply with the 
provisions of 40 CFR 51.302 and 51.306. The EPA was required by the EDF 
settlement agreement to promulgate visibility SIPs on a specific 
schedule. For States (including Oklahoma) which failed to submit a part 
II visibility protection SIP by August 31, 1987, EPA was required to 
promulgate a part II FIP. These FIPs were promulgated in the Federal 
Register on November 24, 1987 (52 FR 45137). The disapproval of the 
Oklahoma SIP and the FIP promulgation, codified in 40 CFR 52.1933(c), 
incorporated into the Oklahoma SIP the requirements of 40 CFR 52.29, 
Visibility long-term strategy.

VI. Review of the 1990 Oklahoma Visibility Plan

    On June 18, 1990, the Governor of Oklahoma submitted to EPA a 
revised Oklahoma visibility protection plan to meet the part I and part 
II requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart P, Visibility Protection. 
The plan, entitled ``Visibility Protection Plan'' (1990 Plan), was 
developed by the Air Quality Service of the Oklahoma State Department 
of Health.
    The EPA has reviewed the State's submittal and developed an 
evaluation report entitled ``Evaluation Report for the Oklahoma 
Visibility Protection Plan.''
    The text of the 1990 Plan is similar to the text of the 1985 Plan. 
The major difference in the plans is that the 1990 Plan includes 
section 1.4.4(b) and revised sections 1.4.4(f) and 1.4.4(g) of the PSD 
regulations in Oklahoma Air Quality Control Regulations. The revisions 
to sections 1.4.4(f) and 1.4.4(g) are as amended by the Oklahoma State 
Department of Health on July 9, 1987, effective August 10, 1987.
    All definitions in section 1.4.4(b), Definitions, in the June 18, 
1990, submittal have already been approved by EPA or have been 
superceded by revisions submitted after June 18, 1990.
    Section 1.4.4(f), Air Quality Impact Evaluation, was revised to 
include visibility impact evaluation requirements and gives the 
Commissioner authority to require monitoring of visibility in any 
Federal Class I area near the proposed new stationary source or major 
modification.
    Section 1.4.4(g), Sources Impacting Class I Areas, was revised to 
require the Commissioner to notify the Federal Land Manager (FLM) of 
the receipt of any analysis of the anticipated impacts on visibility in 
any Federal Class I area, and include a complete copy of the permit 
application of any proposed new major stationary source or major 
modification that may effect visibility in any Federal Class I area. 
The Commissioner is required to consider any timely analysis performed 
by the FLM that he receives. Where the Commissioner finds that such an 
analysis does not demonstrate to the satisfaction of the State that an 
adverse impact will result in the Federal Class I area, the 
Commissioner will, in the notice of public hearing on the permit 
application, either explain his decision or give notice as to where the 
explanation can be obtained. The revisions also added to section 
1.4.4(g) the definitions of ``Adverse impact on visibility,'' ``Natural 
conditions,'' ``Visibility impairment,'' ``Federal land manager,'' and 
``Installation.''
    As stated above, the Wichita Mountains National Wildlife Refuge in 
Comanche County near Fort Sill Military Reservation is the only 
mandatory Class I area in Oklahoma. The refuge is managed by the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife Service. The 1990 Plan commits the State to 
visibility protection within the refuge boundary consistent with the 
Act and EPA's regulatory requirements. In addition, the SIP is to be 
reviewed every three years consistent with the requirements of 40 CFR 
51.306(c) and revised as necessary. The strategy which the State plan 
adopted includes a determination that there is no existing visibility 
impairment in the one mandatory Class I Federal area in Oklahoma that 
is reasonably attributable to specific sources. Currently, there are no 
integral vistas in Oklahoma.
    States do not have jurisdiction over ``Indian Country'' (as defined 
in 18 U.S.C. 1151, and referenced in 40 CFR 51.1(i)) unless 
specifically granted by Congress. Since the State of Oklahoma has not 
submitted a demonstration of authority over ``Indian Country,'' we are 
limiting our approval to those areas that do not constitute Indian 
Country. For a more detailed discussion of Tribal authority under the 
Act, see 59 FR 43956 (August 25, 1994) and 63 FR 7254 (February 12, 
1998).
    Based on our review, we find that the approval of sections 1.4.4(f) 
and 1.4.4(g) will result in the Oklahoma SIP regulations meeting all of 
the Federal NSR requirements of 40 CFR part 51, subpart P, Visibility 
Protection. Section 8, Visibility Monitoring Program, of the 1990 Plan, 
provides that the Oklahoma State Department of Health will monitor the 
background visibility conditions in the mandatory Class I Federal area 
by monthly review of local airport visibility data as collected by the

[[Page 60685]]

National Weather Service in Lawton, Oklahoma, airport located 22 miles 
southeast of the Wichita Mountains Wilderness and the Fort Sill 
Military Reservation airport located 19 miles southeast of the 
Wilderness in almost flat terrain. The airport visibility data should 
be representative of the conditions in the Class I area. The 1990 Plan 
includes an emission inventory of sources within 55 kilometers radius 
from the Wichita Mountains Refuge. The Oklahoma State Department of 
Health determined that there are no existing sources with a 55 
kilometer radius from the Refuge with emissions that would 
significantly impact upon the Federal Class I area.
    The Department will consider any available visibility data for use 
in making its decisions. The Department will coordinate with the FLM in 
conducting any monitoring of visibility in the mandatory Federal Class 
I area.
    Our review also finds that the State of Oklahoma has satisfied the 
visibility general plan requirements of 40 CFR 51.302 and 51.306. These 
are the part II requirements for visibility long-term strategy and for 
implementation control strategies. The FLM has been afforded the 
opportunity to identify visibility impairment and to recommend elements 
for inclusion in the long-term strategy. The State has accorded the FLM 
opportunities to participate and comment on its visibility SIP 
revision. Comments by the FLM were submitted to the State during the 
State's public notice period, and they were considered by the State and 
incorporated where applicable. The State has committed in the SIP to 
consult continually with the FLM on the review and implementation of 
the visibility program.
    The 1990 Plan contains the following provisions of the part II 
Visibility Protection Plan requirements:
    (1) A determination that there is no existing visibility impairment 
that is reasonably attributable to specific sources,
    (2) A discussion of the SIP elements and how each element of the 
plan relates to the national goal, and
    (3) A long-term (10-15 years) strategy.
    Since no existing reasonably attributable impairment has been 
identified, all elements of the plan are intended to prevent future 
impairment of visibility. If existing reasonably attributable 
impairment is later identified, the State will revise its plan to 
remedy the impairment. The part II revision consists of a narrative 
only, no regulatory revisions. Currently, there are no integral vistas 
in Oklahoma.
    The Oklahoma visibility long-term strategy section included the 
following:
    (1) Coordination with the FLM;
    (2) Consideration of the six required factors for a long-term 
strategy;
    (3) A provision for the review of the impact of new sources, and 
discussion of current visibility monitoring efforts; and
    (4) Provisions for periodic review (i.e., every three years) of the 
plan, which review must include consultation with the FLM and a report 
to the public and to EPA on progress toward the national goal.

VII. Final Action

    We are approving the Oklahoma ``Visibility Protection Plan'' 
submitted by the Governor on June 18, 1990. We are approving revisions 
to sections 1.4.4(f) and 1.4.4(g) of the Oklahoma Air Pollution Control 
Regulations in the Oklahoma SIP submitted with the plan. We are 
removing and reserving 40 CFR 52.1933, Visibility Protection, because 
the Oklahoma SIP meets the requirements of section 169A of the Act and 
EPA's regulatory requirements.
    The EPA is publishing this rule without prior proposal because we 
view this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipate no adverse 
comments. However, in the ``Proposed Rules'' section of today's Federal 
Register publication, we are publishing a separate document that will 
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision if adverse comments 
are received. This rule will be effective on January 7, 2000, without 
further notice unless we receive adverse comment by December 8, 1999. 
If EPA receives adverse comments, we will publish a timely withdrawal 
in the Federal Register informing the public that the rule will not 
take effect. We will address all public comments in a subsequent final 
rule based on the proposed rule. We will not institute a second comment 
period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting must do so 
at this time.

VIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

    The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has exempted this 
regulatory action from E.O. 12866, entitled ``Regulatory Planning and 
Review.''

B. Executive Orders on Federalism

    Under E.O. 12875, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute and that creates a mandate upon a State, local or 
tribal government, unless the Federal government provides the funds 
necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by those 
governments, or EPA consults with those governments. If EPA complies by 
consulting, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to provide to the OMB a description 
of the extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of 
affected State, local and tribal governments, the nature of their 
concerns, copies of any written communications from the governments, 
and a statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In 
addition, E.O. 12875 requires EPA to develop an effective process 
permitting elected officials and other representatives of State, local 
and tribal governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the 
development of regulatory proposals containing significant unfunded 
mandates.''
    Today's rule does not create a mandate on State, local, or tribal 
governments. The rule does not impose any enforceable rules on any of 
these entities. This action does not create any new requirements but 
simply approves requirements that the State is already imposing. 
Accordingly, the requirements of section 1(a) of E.O. 12875 do not 
apply to this rule.
    On August 4, 1999, President Clinton issued a new E.O. on 
federalism, E.O. 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999), which will take 
effect on November 2, 1999. In the interim, the current E.O. 12612 (52 
FR 41685, October 30, 1987), on federalism still applies. This rule 
will not have a substantial direct effect on 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 E.O. 12612. The rule affects only one 
State, and does not alter the relationship or the distribution of power 
and responsibilities established in the Act.

C. Executive Order 13045

    Executive Order 13045, entitled ``Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 
1997), applies to any rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically 
significant'' as defined under E.O. 12866, and (2) concerns an 
environmental health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may 
have a disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action 
meets both criteria, the Agency must evaluate the environmental health 
or safety effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the 
planned regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and 
reasonably feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets E.O. 13045 as applying only to those regulatory 
actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the 
analysis required

[[Page 60686]]

under section 5-501 of the Order has the potential to influence the 
regulation. This final rule is not subject to E.O. 13045 because it 
approves a State program.

D. Executive Order 13084

    Under E.O. 13084, EPA may not issue a regulation that is not 
required by statute, that significantly or uniquely affects the 
communities of Indian tribal governments, and that imposes substantial 
direct compliance costs on those communities, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA consults with those 
governments. If EPA complies by consulting, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to 
provide to the OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble 
to the rule, a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation 
with representatives of affected tribal governments, a summary of the 
nature of their concerns, and a statement supporting the need to issue 
the regulation. In addition, E.O. 13084 requires EPA to develop an 
effective process permitting elected officials and other 
representatives of Indian tribal governments ``to provide meaningful 
and timely input in the development of regulatory policies on matters 
that significantly or uniquely affect their communities.''
    Today's rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. This action does not involve 
or impose any requirements that affect Indian tribes. Accordingly, the 
requirements of section 3(b) of E.O. 13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

    The Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., generally 
requires an agency to conduct a regulatory flexibility analysis of any 
rule subject to notice and comment rulemaking requirements unless the 
agency certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Small entities 
include small businesses, small not-for-profit enterprises, and small 
governmental jurisdictions. This final rule will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities because SIP approvals 
under section 110 and subchapter I, part D of the 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 
create any new requirements, I certify that this action will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-State relationship under the 
Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis would constitute Federal 
inquiry into the economic reasonableness of state action. The Act 
forbids EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such grounds. See 
Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255-66 (1976); 42 U.S.C. 
7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

    Under section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 
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 annual 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.
    The EPA has determined that the approval action promulgated does 
not include a Federal mandate that may result in estimated annual 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.

G. 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. The 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 can 
not 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 January 7, 2000.

H. Petitions for Judicial Review

    Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act, petitions for judicial review 
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for 
the appropriate circuit by January 7, 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).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

    Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Carbon monoxide, 
Incorporation by reference, Intergovernmental relations, Lead, Nitrogen 
oxides, Ozone, Particulate matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 
requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: October 27, 1999.
Myron O. Knudson,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 6.

    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 SS--Oklahoma

    2. Section 52.1920 is amended by adding paragraph (c)(49) to read 
as follows:


Sec. 52.1920  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (49) Oklahoma visibility protection plan submitted by the Governor 
of Oklahoma on June 18, 1990.
    (i) Incorporation by reference. Oklahoma Air Pollution Control 
Regulations, Sections 1.4.4(f)(2), 1.4.4(f)(7), 1.4.4(f)(11), and 
1.4.4(g), as amended by the Oklahoma State Department of Health on July 
9, 1987, effective August 10, 1987.
    (ii) Additional information. ``Oklahoma Visibility Protection 
Plan,'' submitted by the Governor of Oklahoma on June 18, 1990.
    2. Section 52.1933 is removed and reserved.

[[Page 60687]]

Sec. 52.1933  [Reserved]

[FR Doc. 99-29069 Filed 11-5-99; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-U