[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 148 (Wednesday, August 3, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 44481-44483]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-15338]


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

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[R10-OAR-2005-OR-0005; FRL-7944-1]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Oregon; Correcting Amendment

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule; correcting amendments.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to correct an error in the 
instructions amending the Code of Federal Regulations in the notice 
which approved the removal of Oregon's control technology guidelines 
for perchloroethylene (perc) dry cleaning systems and related 
definitions and provisions, published on December 1,

[[Page 44482]]

2004. Perc is a solvent commonly used in dry cleaning, maskant 
operations, and degreasing operations. In the document published on 
December 1, 2004 (69 FR 69823), EPA inadvertently listed an incorrect 
State effective date in the incorporation by reference section which 
listed revised provisions of the Oregon Administrative Rules. This 
action corrects the erroneous date so that the appropriate version of 
the Oregon Administrative Rules is incorporated by reference.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective October 3, 2005, 
without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by 
September 2, 2005. If adverse comments are received, EPA will publish a 
timely withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Federal Register 
informing the public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. R10-OAR-
2005-OR-0005, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web Site: http://www.epa.gov/edocket. EDOCKET, 
EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, is EPA's preferred 
method for receiving comments. Follow the on-line instructions for 
submitting comments.
     Mail: Colleen Huck, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, AWT-
107, EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, Washington 98101.
     Hand Delivery: Colleen Huck, Office of Air, Waste and 
Toxics, AWT-107, 9th Floor, EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, 
Washington 98101. Such deliveries are only accepted during normal hours 
of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of 
boxed information.
    Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. R10-OAR-2005-
OR-0005. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in 
the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
http://www.epa.gov/edocket, including any personal information 
provided, unless the comment includes information claimed to be 
Confidential Business Information (CBI) or other information whose 
disclosure is restricted by statute. Do not submit information that you 
consider to be CBI or otherwise protected through EDOCKET, 
regulations.gov, or e-mail. The EPA EDOCKET and the Federal 
regulations.gov Web site are ``anonymous access'' systems, which means 
EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you 
provide it in the body of your comment. If you send an e-mail comment 
directly to EPA without going through E-DOCKET or regulations.gov, your 
e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of 
the comment that is placed in the public docket and made available on 
the Internet. If you submit an electronic comment, EPA recommends that 
you include your name and other contact information in the body of your 
comment and with any disk or CD-ROM you submit. If EPA cannot read your 
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for 
clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. Electronic 
files should avoid the use of special characters, any form of 
encryption, and be free of any defects or viruses.
    Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the EDOCKET index 
at http://www.epa.gov/edocket. Although listed in the index, some 
information is not publicly available, such as CBI or other information 
whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Certain other material, such 
as copyrighted material, is not placed on the Internet and will be 
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket 
materials are available either electronically in EDOCKET or in hard 
copy at EPA, Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth 
Avenue, Seattle, Washington, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. Monday through 
Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Colleen Huck at telephone number: 
(206) 553-1770, e-mail address: [email protected], fax number: (206) 
553-0110, or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

    On December 1, 2004 (69 FR 69823), EPA approved a revision to the 
Oregon State Implementation Plan (SIP) removing control technology 
guidelines for perc dry cleaning systems and related definitions and 
provisions contained in Oregon Administrative Rules (OAR) chapter 340, 
Division 232. On February 7, 1996, (61 FR 4588) EPA had excluded perc 
from the Federal definition of volatile organic compounds for purposes 
of preparing SIPs for attainment of the national ambient air quality 
standards for ozone. Therefore, States were no longer required to have 
rules based on EPA's perc dry cleaning control technology guidelines 
included in their SIPs. Because of this, the State of Oregon, Division 
of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) repealed its control technology 
guidelines for perc dry cleaning systems and the related definitions 
and provisions on December 7, 2001, and submitted the repeal as a 
formal SIP revision. The State requested approval of the removal of the 
perc rules because maintaining the SIP rules for perc was no longer 
required for ozone control and would have been largely duplicative of 
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPs) 
under which emissions from perc dry cleaning systems are still 
regulated.
    In approving the revision, EPA inadvertently listed the State 
effective date as October 14, 1999, rather than the correct State 
effective date of the repeal of the perc rules which was December 26, 
2001. The error was made in the incorporation by reference section of 
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) amendatory instructions at the 
end of the notice. EPA's intention was to approve and incorporate by 
reference the more recent version of OAR 340-232-010 and -030, which 
was effective December 26, 2001. This document corrects the erroneous 
amendatory language.

II. Direct Final Action

    EPA is publishing this action without a prior proposal because EPA 
views this as a noncontroversial amendment and anticipates no adverse 
comments. In the proposed rules section of this Federal Register 
publication, however, EPA is publishing a separate document that will 
serve as the proposal to approve the SIP revision should relevant 
adverse comments be filed. This direct final rule is effective on 
October 3, 2005 without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse 
comment by September 2, 2005. 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 did not take effect. All 
public comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final 
rule based on the proposed rule. EPA will not institute a second 
comment period on this action. Any parties interested in commenting 
must do so at this time. Please note that if EPA receives adverse 
comment on an amendment, paragraph, or section of this rule, EPA may 
adopt as final those provisions of the rule that are not the subject of 
an adverse comment.

III. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this 
action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' and therefore is not 
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget. For

[[Page 44483]]

this reason, this action is also not subject to Executive Order 13211, 
``Actions Concerning Regulations That Significantly Affect Energy 
Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001). This action 
merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and imposes 
no additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. 
Accordingly, the Administrator certifies that this rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because 
this rule approves pre-existing requirements under State law and does 
not impose any additional enforceable duty beyond that required by 
State law, it does not contain any unfunded mandate or significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, as described in the Unfunded 
Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-4).
    This rule also does not have tribal implications because it will 
not have a substantial direct effect on one or more Indian tribes, on 
the relationship between the Federal Government and Indian tribes, or 
on the distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal 
Government and Indian tribes, as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 
FR 67249, November 6, 2000). This action also does not have Federalism 
implications because it does not have substantial direct effects on the 
States, on the relationship between the national government and the 
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the 
various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 
FR 43255, August 10, 1999). This action merely approves a State rule 
implementing a Federal standard, and does not alter the relationship or 
the distribution of power and responsibilities established in the Clean 
Air Act. This rule also is not subject to Executive Order 13045 
``Protection of Children from Environmental Health Risks and Safety 
Risks'' (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not economically 
significant.
    In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve state 
choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. In 
this context, in the absence of a prior existing requirement for the 
State to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS), EPA has no authority 
to disapprove a SIP submission for failure to use VCS. It would thus be 
inconsistent with applicable law for EPA, when it reviews a SIP 
submission, to use VCS in place of a SIP submission that otherwise 
satisfies the provisions of the Clean Air Act. Thus, the requirements 
of section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) do not apply. This rule does not 
impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
    The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. section 801 et seq., as 
added by the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 
1996, generally provides that before a rule may take effect, the agency 
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy 
of the rule, to each House of the Congress and to the Comptroller 
General of the United States. EPA will submit a report containing this 
rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House 
of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United States 
prior to publication of the rule in the Federal Register. A major rule 
cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in the Federal 
Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by 5 U.S.C. 
804(2).
    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 October 3, 2005. 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, Incorporation by 
reference, Intergovernmental relations, Ozone, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements, Volatile organic compounds.

    Dated: July 18, 2005.
Julie M. Hagensen,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

0
Chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is corrected by 
making the following correcting amendment:

PART 52--[AMENDED]

0
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Subpart MM--Oregon

0
2. Section 52.1970 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(143)(i)(A) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  52.1970  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (143) * * *
    (i) * * *
    (A) The following sections of the Oregon Administrative Rules 340: 
232-0010 and 232-0030, as effective December 26, 2001.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 05-15338 Filed 8-2-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P