Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Oregon Visibility Protection Plan, 12587-12591 [05-5045]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 49 (Tuesday, March 15, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 12587-12591]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-5045]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[Docket  R10-OAR-2005-OR-0002; FRL-7881-4]


Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; 
Oregon Visibility Protection Plan

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

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

SUMMARY: EPA is taking direct final action to approve revisions to the 
Oregon Visibility Protection Plan submitted to EPA on January 22, 2003. 
The revisions are the result of a required periodic review of the 
Visibility Protection Plan conducted by the State, and reflect 
recommendations from the Oregon Visibility Advisory Committee. In 
general, the revisions reflect work the State intends to conduct over 
the next three years. EPA has determined that this submission is a 
general strengthening of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) as it 
expands strategies to protect visibility in Oregon.

DATES: This direct final rule will be effective May 16, 2005, without 
further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comments by April 14, 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-0002, by one of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov. 
Follow the on-line instructions for submitting comments.
     Agency Web site: https://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: Gina Bonifacino, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 
OAWT-107 EPA, Region 10, 1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, Washington 98101.
     Hand Delivery: EPA, Region 10 Service Center, 14th Floor, 
1200 Sixth Ave., Seattle, Washington 98101. Attention: Gina Bonifacino, 
Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, OAWT-107. 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-0002. EPA's policy is that all comments received will be included in 
the public docket without change and may be made available online at 
https://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 EDOCKET 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 https://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 electronically in EDOCKET, in hard copy at EPA, 
Region 10, Office of Air, Waste and Toxics, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle, 
Washington, or in hard copy at the EPA Oregon Operations Office, 811 
SW., 6th Ave., 3rd Floor, Portland, OR 97204 from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gina Bonifacino at telephone number: 
(206) 553-2970, e-mail address: bonifacino.gina@epa.gov, fax number: 
(206) 553-0110, or the above EPA, Region 10 address.

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

Table of Contents

I. Background
    A. What Is Visibility Protection and Why Do We Have It?
    B. What Are the Main Visibility Protections Provided by the 
Federal Rules?
    C. How Has Visibility Been Protected in Oregon?
    D. What Changes Is EPA Approving With This Action?
II. What Are the Required Provisions of a Visibility State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) and How Does Oregon Meet the Requirements 
for Visibility Protection?
    A. Long Term Strategy
    B. Monitoring
    C. BART
III. What Does This Visibility SIP Revision Change and How Do These 
Changes Compare to Federal Requirements?
    A. Provision To Expand the Current Visibility Monitoring 
Network.
    B. Provisions To Improve Smoke Management Coordination Between 
Agricultural Burning and Forestry Burning Programs
    C. Provisions To Increase the Use of Non-Burning Alternatives in 
Agricultural Open Burning and Forestry Burning Programs
    D. Provisions To Improve Fire Emission Inventory and Tracking of 
Burning
    E. Provisions to Change the Periodic Plan Review Period From 
Five to Three years

[[Page 12588]]

    F. Provisions to Remove the Summer Prohibition on Prescribed 
Burning in Northwest Oregon on a Trial Basis
    G. Provisions Establishing Annual Visibility Advisory Committee 
Meetings
IV. Direct Final Action
V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews

I. Background

A. What Is Visibility Protection and Why Do We Have It?

    Section 169A of the Federal Clean Air Act (CAA or Act) requires 
States to protect visibility in mandatory Class I Federal areas. 
Mandatory Class I Federal areas are specified large National Parks or 
Wilderness Areas. In Oregon, there are 12 mandatory Class I Federal 
areas; the Crater Lake National Park, Diamond Peaks Wilderness Area, 
Eagle Cap Wilderness Area, Gearhart Mountain Wilderness Area, Hells 
Canyon Wilderness Area, Mountain Lakes Wilderness Area, Mount Hood 
Wilderness Area, Mount Jefferson Wilderness Area, Mount Washington 
Wilderness Area, Strawberry Mountain Wilderness Area, Three Sisters 
Wilderness Area, and Kalmiopsis Wilderness Area. See 40 CFR 81.425. The 
Federal rules regulating visibility protection are set out in 40 CFR 
part 51, subpart P.

B. What Are the Main Visibility Protections Provided by the Federal 
Rules?

    The Clean Air Act sets out a goal of preventing any future and 
remedying any existing impairment of visibility in mandatory Class I 
Federal areas. See 42 U.S.C. 7491. Employing a close coordination 
process among the state and the Federal Land Managers (FLM), the 
Federal rules require monitoring of visibility in mandatory Class I 
Federal areas, as well as the development of a long-term strategy for 
making reasonable progress towards the national visibility goal. The 
visibility protection rules also provide for an assessment of 
visibility impacts from any new or major modification that may affect 
mandatory Class I Federal areas. Additionally, in the event that a 
Federal Land Manager certifies impairment of visibility in a mandatory 
Class I Federal area that could be caused, or contributed to, by an 
existing stationary facility, emission limitations representing Best 
Available Retrofit Technology (BART) must be imposed on the facility.
    The Federal visibility rules were modified in 1999 to include 
provisions for addressing regional haze. See 64 FR 35714. Regional haze 
is visibility impairment which results from the cumulative impact of 
emissions from many point and non-point sources. All states are 
currently in the process of developing revisions to their SIPs to 
address the regional haze provisions. The SIP submission under 
discussion in this action is not required to comply with the regional 
haze provisions of 40 CFR part 51, subpart P until December 2007. We 
note that Oregon submitted a Regional Haze Section 309 Plan 
(Requirements related to the Grand Canyon Visibility Transport 
Commission) on December 18, 2003. See 49 CFR part 51, section 309. EPA 
has not acted on the December 18, 2003 Regional Haze section 309 Plan 
submission as of the date of this action.

C. How has Visibility Been Protected in Oregon?

    On November 22, 1988, EPA approved visibility protection provisions 
into Oregon's State Implementation Plan (53 FR 47188). Oregon's 
visibility protection provisions are at Oregon Administrative Rules 
(OAR) 340-200-040, Section 5.2. The visibility protection SIP provided 
three approaches to visibility protection: (1) A short-term strategy to 
be accomplished over a five year period to mitigate existing visibility 
impairment; (2) a long-range strategy to reduce fine particle emissions 
from agricultural field burning and forest prescribed burning over a 
10-15 year period; and (3) on-going visibility protection afforded 
through the New Source Review permitting process. EPA approved the 
visibility SIP because it conformed to the Federal visibility 
protection provisions outlined in 40 CFR 51.300, subpart P. On November 
1, 2001, EPA approved changes to Oregon's regulations as proposed 
revisions to the visibility SIP. See 66 FR 55105. The 2001 revisions 
built on the programs established in the earlier visibility SIP. 
Focusing on vegetative burning, the 2001 revisions: (1) Expanded the 
period during which restrictions to protect visibility apply by 
approximately 15 days; (2) incorporated the Class I area visibility 
protection provisions of the Union and Jefferson County field burning 
ordinances (Union County Ordinance 1992-4 passed May 6, 1992, 
and Jefferson County Ordinance 0-58-89 passed May 31, 1989); 
(3) reduced the annual acreage allowed for research and hardwood 
conversion burning from 1200 to 600 acres per year; and (4) revised the 
Willamette Valley field burning restriction emergency clause to allow 
hardship requests for visibility protection exemptions beyond August 
10th of each year. In addition to these changes, the 2001 revisions 
proposed to decrease the frequency of the formal review of the 
visibility program by the Department of Environmental Quality from 
three to five years. However, EPA took no action on this provision 
because Federal visibility protection regulations require the states to 
review the visibility program every three years. See 40 CFR 51.306(c). 
Thus, the three year review period remained in the SIP. As discussed 
below, the January, 2003 SIP submission revises the review period back 
to three years.

D. What Changes Is EPA Approving With This Action?

    The January, 2003 submission contains expanded strategies to 
protect visibility in Oregon. Thus, EPA has determined that the 
submission is a general strengthening of the SIP. The expanded 
strategies include a provision to expand the current visibility 
monitoring network subject to available funding, provisions to improve 
smoke management coordination between agricultural burning and forestry 
burning programs, provisions to increase the use of non-burning 
alternatives in agricultural open burning and forestry burning 
programs, and provisions to improve fire emission inventory and 
tracking of burning. In addition to these provisions, the January 2003 
submission reorganized the content of the plan, made minor editorial 
changes for housekeeping purposes, and removed the short term strategy 
prohibiting prescribed burning from July 1-September 15. EPA has 
determined that the reorganization of the plan is non-substantive and 
the revision removing summer prohibition on prescribed burning is not a 
relaxation of the SIP. Accordingly, EPA is taking direct final action 
to approve the revisions to the Oregon Visibility Protection Plan 
contained in the January 2003 submission. The revisions, and EPA's 
rationale for approving the revisions are described below in section 
III.

II. What Are the Required Provisions of a Visibility State 
Implementation Plan (SIP) and How Does Oregon Meet the Requirements for 
Visibility Protection?

    40 CFR 51.302 provides the requirements for Visibility SIPs. These 
requirements and how the Oregon Visibility SIP meets these requirements 
are summarized below.

A. Long-Term Strategy

    The SIP needs to include a long-term (10-15 year) strategy that 
includes emission limitations, schedules of compliance, and other 
measures as deemed necessary to make reasonable progress toward the 
national goal. See

[[Page 12589]]

40 CFR 51.302(c)(2)(i). In general, Section 5.8.2 of the proposed SIP 
revision provides a discussion of the long-term strategy, including 
measures for stationary sources, mobile sources, area sources, and 
interstate coordination.
    The long-term strategy must include:
     A strategy for evaluating visibility in mandatory Class I 
Federal areas by visual observation or other appropriate monitoring 
techniques. See 40 CFR Part 51.305(a). Section 5.6 of the January 2003 
submission provides for monitoring through the IMPROVE monitoring 
network and Oregon DEQ's real-time monitoring network to help identify 
sources and the degree of impairment in Cascade Class I areas.
     A provision for the available visibility data and provide 
a mechanism for its use in decisions required by the regulations. See 
40 CFR 51.305(b). Section 5.7 of the January 2003 submission provides 
for the development and use of available data for SIP review and 
development.
     A strategy to address any existing impairment the Federal 
Land Manager certifies to the State and integral vista of which the 
Federal Land Manager notifies the State at least 6 months prior to plan 
submission. See 40 CFR 51.306(a)(1). Sections 5.3 and 5.5 of the 
January 2003 submission contain strategies covering existing impairment 
in Federal mandatory Class I areas. Section 5.9 of the January 2003 
submission discusses integral vistas.
     A discussion, with reasonable specificity, why the long-
term strategy is adequate for making reasonable progress. See 40 CFR 
51.306(a)(3). Section 5.8.2 of the January 2003 SIP submission 
discusses all source categories, the control measures that apply to 
them, and a qualitative assessment of how these are adequate for making 
reasonable progress. Section 5.8 of the proposed January 2003 SIP 
submission discusses the evaluation of progress toward achieving the 
national visibility goal.
     Coordination of the long-term strategy with other existing 
plans and goals, including those provided by affected Federal Land 
Managers. See 40 CFR 51.306(a)(3). Section 5.7 of the January 2003 
submission describes the procedure for periodic program reviews and 
revision of the SIP. The procedures include consultation with Federal 
Land Managers for the review of the visibility SIP and New Source 
Review rules, annual Visibility Committee meetings and periodic plan 
review and assessments.
     Provisions for periodic review of not less than every 
three years See 40 CFR 51.306(c). The review must include consultation 
with the appropriate Federal Land Managers and the State must provide a 
report to the public and EPA that includes an assessment of:
    (1) Progress achieved in remedying existing impairment;
    (2) The ability of the long-term strategy to prevent future 
impairment;
    (3) Any change in visibility since the last report;
    (4) Additional measures, including the need for SIP revisions that 
may be needed to assure reasonable progress;
    (5) The progress achieved in implementing BART and meeting other 
schedules set forth in the long-term strategy; and
    (6) The impact of any exemption granted under 40 CFR 51.303.
    (7) The need for BART to remedy existing visibility impairment of 
any integral vista.
    Section 5.7 of the January 2003 SIP submission directs the State to 
conduct a three year periodic review and assessment and provide a 
report summarizing the periodic plan review and assessment to State and 
Federal Land Managers, EPA and other interested parties.
     Provisions for review of the impacts of any new or 
modified major stationary source. See 40 CFR 51.306(d). The Oregon 
Department of Environmental Quality rules for the prevention of 
significant deterioration of air quality (provisions of OAR chapter 
340, Divisions 200, 202, 209, 212, 216, 222, 224, 225, and 268), as in 
effect on October 8, 2002, are approved as meeting the requirements of 
title I, part C, subpart 1 of the Clean Air Act, as in effect on July 
1, 2002, for preventing significant deterioration of air quality. See 
68 FR 2891(January 22, 2003).

B. Monitoring

    The plan must contain an assessment of visibility impairment and a 
discussion of how each element of the plan relates to preventing future 
or remedying existing impairment. See 40 CFR 51.302(c)(2)(ii). Section 
5.8 of the 2003 submission provides a description of control strategies 
and how these control strategies are directed at preventing future and 
remedying existing impairment.

C. BART

    The plan must contain emission limitations representing BART for 
any existing facility that meets the requirements of 40 CFR 51.301(e), 
and for which impairment has been certified by the Federal Land 
Managers and for which the State has determined such impairment is 
reasonably attributed to that source. See 40 CFR 51.302(c)(2)(iii).
    Section 5.10 of the January 2003 submission contains a discussion 
of BART eligible sources in Oregon. Based on visibility monitoring and 
analysis, the State has not determined that existing impairment in any 
mandatory Class I Federal area for which impairment has been certified 
can be reasonably attributed to a specific major stationary source.

III. What Does This Visibility SIP Revision Change and How Do These 
Changes Compare to Federal Requirements?

A. Provision To Expand the Current Visibility Monitoring Network

    Since the early 1980's, the Oregon Department of Environmental 
Quality has conducted visibility monitoring annually, at a minimum, 
from July to September in the Class I areas in the Oregon Cascade 
Mountain Range. The January 2003 SIP revision proposes to expand this 
monitoring network statewide to evaluate visibility in all Class 1 
areas in Oregon. The expanded monitoring is contingent on Oregon 
Department of Environmental Quality securing necessary funds.

B. Provisions To Improve Smoke Management Coordination Between 
Agricultural Burning and Forestry Burning Programs

    There are four smoke management programs operating in Oregon that 
help protect visibility in Class I areas in the summer months. These 
programs are operated by the Oregon Department of Forestry, the Oregon 
Department of Agriculture and Jefferson and Union County governments. 
The programs control open field burning of grass straw residue in 
different parts of the state and forestry burning throughout the State. 
Section 5.8.1.1 of the January 2003 SIP revision directs the Oregon 
Department of Environmental Quality to make efforts to ensure on an on-
going basis that good coordination is achieved between these smoke 
management programs.

C. Provisions To Increase the Use of Non-Burning Alternatives in 
Agricultural Open Burning and Forestry Burning Programs

    The long-term strategy for Willamette Valley field burning includes 
an ongoing research and development program investigating alternatives 
to open field burning. Under state law, the Oregon Department of 
Agriculture is required to conduct an on-going research and development 
program to

[[Page 12590]]

seek, develop, and promote viable alternatives to open field burning. 
Alternatives include straw utilization, minimum tillage, less-than-
annual burning and alternate crops not requiring burning. Sections 
5.8.2.3 of the January 2003 submission reiterates the Department of 
Environmental Quality's continued coordination with the Oregon 
Department of Agriculture to encourage alternatives to field burning.

D. Provisions To Improve Fire Emission Inventory and Tracking of 
Burning

    Smoke management program managers in Oregon track their own burning 
and prepare annual reports that are submitted to the Oregon Department 
of Environmental Quality. Burning information is collected and 
submitted to the Department in various formats. The Department is 
evaluating an approach to better coordinate accurate emissions data for 
these programs as well as surveying other areas of the state where 
significant burning occurs and develop new ways of tracking emissions 
where possible.

E. Provisions To Change the Periodic Plan Review Period From Five to 
Three Years

    Federal visibility rules require a three year review and assessment 
of the effectiveness of visibility strategies. See 40 CFR 51.306. In a 
1993 submission to EPA, Oregon revised its Visibility Plan to change 
the review period from three to five years. EPA did not act on Oregon's 
revision changing the periodic review period from three to five years 
because Federal visibility protection regulations require the states to 
review and revise as necessary the visibility program every three 
years. See 66 FR 55105. Section 5.7.2 of the January, 2003 submission 
directs the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality to change 
periodic plan review back to every three years.

F. Provisions To Remove the Summer Prohibition on Prescribed Burning in 
Northwest Oregon on a Trial Basis

    Oregon's Visibility Protection Plan defines prescribed burning as 
the controlled application of fire to wildland fuels in either their 
natural or modified state, under such conditions of weather, fuel and 
soil moisture, as allows the fire to be confined to a predetermined 
area while producing the intensity of heat and rate of fire spread 
required to meet planned objectives including silviculture, wildlife 
habitat management, grazing and fire hazard reduction. Prior to the 
adoption of the Visibility Plan in 1986, prescribed burning in 
Northwest Oregon during the summer months impaired visibility in 
several Cascade Class 1 areas. See 53 FR 47188. The 1986 Plan 
prohibited prescribed burning in Western Oregon counties between July 1 
and September 15, with certain exemptions. For example, one exemption 
allowed burning on days when natural visibility impairment exists. 
Another allowed for a hardship exemption at the beginning of summer if 
poor weather conditions and other factors significantly hindered 
burning in the spring. After reviewing the Visibility Protection Plan, 
including the prescribed burning strategies, the Visibility Advisory 
Committee recommended removing the summertime prohibition on prescribed 
burning. In the January, 2003 submission, Oregon removed the summertime 
prohibition on prescribed burning. According to the January 2003 
submission, over the last fifteen years, most prescribed burning has 
been intentionally shifted to spring and fall months, and the remaining 
burning has decreased due to an overall decline in timber harvesting in 
Western Oregon.
    EPA has determined that the removal of the summer prescribed 
burning prohibition meets the requirements of Section 110(l) of the 
Act. Section 110(l) of the Act states that a SIP revision can not be 
approved if the revision would interfere with any applicable 
requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress 
towards attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
(NAAQS) or any other applicable requirements of the Act. EPA has 
determined that the removal of the summertime prohibition on burning 
will not interfere with the attainment and reasonable further progress 
towards attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards 
maintenance of the NAAQS, or any other applicable requirements of the 
Act. EPA believes that even without the summertime prohibition on 
prescribed burning, the other elements in the long term and short term 
strategy will provide protection from summertime visibility impairment. 
These elements include:
    (1) Oregon's Smoke Management Plan. Oregon's Smoke Management Plan 
provides protection from summertime visibility impairment from 
prescribed burning. Oregon's Smoke Management Plan was approved into 
the SIP in 1988 and is designed to manage smoke impacts from the 
burning of silvicultural wastes and the prescribed burning of forests. 
See 53 FR 47188. In November 2001, EPA approved changes to Oregon's 
Smoke Management Plan to strengthen visibility protection of Class 1 
areas, and to provide for additional protections around nonattainment 
areas for particulate matter. See 66 FR 55015. Under the Smoke 
Management Program, efforts will be made to conduct all prescribed 
burning in Western Oregon during the spring and fall months, and;
    (2) The Visibility Protection Period. The Visibility Protection 
Period (July 1 to September 15) remains in place. During the Visibility 
Protection Period, other short term strategies, such as the open field 
burning programs, provide protection from summertime visibility 
impairment.

G. Provisions Establishing Annual Visibility Advisory Committee 
Meetings

    Under the prior Visibility Protection Plan, the Visibility Advisory 
Committee was required to convene only for the periodic plan review. In 
order to keep better informed of visibility trends and conditions, the 
Committee recommended holding an annual meeting, in addition to the 
three year periodic review meetings. The January 2003 submission 
requires the Committee to hold an annual meeting. This annual meeting 
will be open to the public, the news media and other interested 
persons. Topics to be addressed will include a review of the monitoring 
data, and assessment of visibility trends and sources contributing to 
visibility impairment, and discussion of reasonable progress toward 
achievement of the national visibility goal.
    EPA has determined that these revisions to the Oregon Visibility 
Protection Plan submitted on January 22, 2003 constitute a general 
strengthening of the State Implementation Plan (SIP), and is taking 
direct final action to approve these revisions.

V. 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 May 
16, 2005, without further notice, unless EPA receives adverse comment 
by April 14, 2005. If a 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 adverse public 
comments received will then be addressed in a subsequent final rule 
based on the proposed rule. EPA will

[[Page 12591]]

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.

V. 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 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 (Pub. L. 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. 
section 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 May 16, 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, Particulate matter, Reporting 
and record keeping requirements.

    Dated: February 24, 2005.
Kathryn M. Davidson,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

0
Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is 
amended as follows:

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 adding paragraph (c)(144) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  52.1970  Identification of plan.

* * * * *
    (c) * * *
    (144) The Oregon Department of Environmental Quality submitted a 
Visibility SIP revision on January 22, 2003. EPA approves these 
revisions.
    (i) Incorporation by reference.
    (A) OAR 340-200-0040, Sections 5.2-5.11, effective May 3, 2002.

[FR Doc. 05-5045 Filed 3-14-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P