29956 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

First, seven of the commenters

mentioned the size of the proposed rate

change, 15 percent for publishers’

periodicals to countries other than

Canada and Mexico and 20 percent for

items to Mexico. Second, two mailers

questioned the timing of the change,

stating that budgets have already been

set for the year, the increased expense

is unanticipated, and subscription rates

cannot be changed. Third, two

commenters questioned the reliability of

the cost data used by the Postal Service

to set the new rates and requested that

the Postal service re-examine the cost

studies that underlie the rates.

The Postal Service believes the cost

information on which it based the

proposed publishers’ periodicals rates is

correct. This cost information comes

from the same data systems used to

develop domestic rates. Those systems

are reviewed by the Postal Rates

Commission during domestic rate

proceedings and the international

revenue and cost information is

furnished to the Postal Rate Commission

for its annual report to the Congress.

The rate changes proposed by the

Postal Service are necessary to enable

the rates of the affected categories of

printed matter to better align with the

costs involved in providing the service.

However, the Postal Service believes

that the commenters have raised valid

concerns about the timing of the

proposed rates for publishers’

periodicals. By agreeing to defer the

implementation date for that component

of the rate change proposal, the Postal

Service is seeking to provide affected

mailers with additional time to

incorporate postal rate adjustments into

their corporate business plans.

Accordingly, the proposed surface

rates for regular printed matter and

small packets to Mexico and for books

and sheet music to all countries except

Canada will take effect at 12:01 a.m.,

May 28, 2000. The implementation date

for the publishers’ periodical rates to all

countries except Canada is being

deferred to 12:01 a.m., January 13, 2001.

The Postal Service hereby adopts the

following postal rates and amends the

International Mail Manual, which is

incorporated by reference in the Code of

Federal Regulations. See 39 CFR 20.1.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 20

Foreign relations, International postal

services.

PART 20—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 39 CFR

part 20 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 552(a); 39 U.S.C. 401,

404, 407, 408.

2. The International Mail Manual is

amended to incorporate the following

postal rates:

I. MEXICO—REGULAR PRINTED MATTER AND SMALL PACKETS (SURFACE)

Weight not over

Rate

Lb. Oz.

0 1 $0.72

0 2 0.96

0 3 1.27

0 4 1.50

0 5 1.80

0 6 1.80

0 7 2.22

0 8 2.22

0 9 2.63

0 10 2.63

0 11 2.96

0 12 2.96

0 13 3.37

0 14 3.37

0 15 3.77

1 0 3.77

1 2 4.12

1 4 4.46

1 6 4.81

1 8 5.16

1 10 5.50

1 12 5.84

1 14 6.19

2 0 6.54

3 0 8.84

4 0 11.15

Each additional pound or

fraction of a pound

$2.30

(Note: Maximum weight is 4 pounds for

small packets and 11 pounds for regular

printed matter.)

II. BOOKS AND SHEET MUSIC

(SURFACE)

Weight not over

(Lbs.) Mexico

All other countries (except

Canada and

Mexico)

1 .......................... $2.26 $2.24

2 .......................... 3.94 3.97

3 .......................... 5.38 5.35

4 .......................... 6.82 6.73

5 .......................... 8.26 8.11

6 .......................... 9.70 9.49

7 .......................... 11.14 10.87

8 .......................... 12.58 12.25

9 .......................... 14.02 13.63

10 ........................ 15.46 15.01

11 ........................ 16.90 16.39

III. PUBLISHERS’ PERIODICALS

(SURFACE)

Weight not over

Mexico

All other countries (except

Canada and

Mexico) Lb. Oz.

0 1 $0.48 $0.44

0 2 0.60 0.55

0 3 0.78 0.71

0 4 0.90 0.83

0 5 1.13 1.05

0 6 1.13 1.05

0 7 1.36 1.27

0 8 1.36 1.27

0 9 1.57 1.50

0 10 1.57 1.50

0 11 1.80 1.71

0 12 1.80 1.71

0 13 2.03 1.93

0 14 2.03 1.93

0 15 2.26 2.15

0 16 2.26 2.15

0 18 2.46 2.36

0 20 2.68 2.56

0 22 2.88 2.77

0 24 3.10 2.98

0 26 3.30 3.19

0 28 3.52 3.39

0 30 3.72 3.60

0 32 3.94 3.81

3 0 5.38 5.13

4 0 6.82 6.45

5 0 8.26 7.77

6 0 9.70 9.10

7 0 11.14 10.42

8 0 12.58 11.74

9 0 14.02 13.06

10 0 15.46 14.39

11 0 16.90 15.71

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 00–11700 Filed 5–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OR–77–7292–a; FRL–6582–9]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plans: Oregon RACT

Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA Region 10 is approving

Oregon’s reasonably available control

technology (RACT) rule amendments for

volatile organic compounds (VOC) as

revision to the state implementation

plan (SIP). These amendments were

submitted to EPA on December 7, 1998

and were adopted by the Oregon

Environmental Quality Commission on

September 17, 1998 to be effective on

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 29957

October 12, 1998. After publishing

public notices in newspapers of general

circulation, Oregon Department of

Environmental Quality (ODEQ) held

public hearings on July 15, 1998 in

Corvallis, and on July 16, 1998 in

Portland. The ODEQ did not receive any

written or oral public comments

affecting the proposed RACT rule

amendments.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on July 10, 2000 without further notice,

unless EPA receives adverse comment

by June 9, 2000. If adverse comment is

received, EPA will publish a timely

withdrawal of the direct final rule in the

Federal Register and inform the public

that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments must be

submitted to Mr. Mahbubul Islam,

Environmental Scientist, Office of Air

Quality, EPA Region 10, 1200 Sixth

Avenue, Seattle, WA 98101. Copies of

the technical support document are

available for public review at the EPA

Region 10 office during normal business

hours. Copies of documents relative to

this action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations. The

interested persons wishing to examine

these documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least 24 hours before the visiting day.

Oregon Department of Environmental

Quality, Air Quality Division, 811 SW

Sixth Avenue, Portland, OR 97204–

1390. Telephone: (503) 229–5696.

Documents which are incorporated by

reference are available for public

inspection at the Air and Radiation

Docket and Information Center,

Environmental Protection Agency, 410

M Street, SW, Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Mahbubul Islam, Environmental

Scientist, Office of Air Quality, EPA

Region 10, 1200 Sixth Avenue, Seattle,

WA 98101, Telephone: (206) 553–6985.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. What Is RACT?

RACT is the lowest emission

limitation that a particular source or

source category is capable of meeting by

the application of control technology

that is reasonably available considering

technological and economic feasibility.

The Portland ozone maintenance plan

relies on RACT as a emission reduction

strategy to maintain compliance with

the standard for the next ten years. This

rule addresses changes to RACT for

existing sources of VOC’s in Portland,

Salem, and Medford areas.

There are two types of RACT which

are applicable to sources: categorical

and source-specific. The categorical

RACT applies to a group of sources

which have similar operations. The non

categorical or source-specific RACT is

applicable to sources which do not fit

into one of the established RACT

categories but have potential to emit in

excess of 100 ton VOC’s per year before

considering any add-on controls.

II. What Does This Rule Making Affect?

This rule making is needed to change

the applicability of non-categorical

RACT which is based on the definition

of potential to emit (PTE). The revised

rule makes the Oregon’s definition of

PTE consistent with the federal

definition. The PTE for a source is now

defined as the maximum emission

capacity of a stationary source based on

its physical and operational design

without any add-on controls. In April

1997, the ODEQ proposed and adopted

this new definition of PTE as a

temporary rule as a part of the Portland

ozone maintenance plan. The current

rule will make the temporary rule

permanent. Prior to the temporary rule,

credits were given for any add-on

control technology when PTE was

calculated to determine applicability of

the RACT requirements. The new rule

requires an analysis based on precontrol conditions.

This rule approves a change in permit

processing for the gasoline dispensing

facilities. Currently, stage I and stage II

permits are issued on an annual basis

with annual fee collection. The new rule

will allow permits to be issued for 10

years and fees to be collected on a

biennial basis. This does not affect the

requirements of the permit or the

amount of permit fees, only the duration

and frequency of collection. The change

was necessary to reduce ODEQ’s staff

workload by decreasing the frequency of

permit issuance and fee collection, and

providing greater clarity and

consistency in implementation.

In this rule, the vapor balance

requirement for stage I/II sources is

changed from a throughput of 10,000

gallons (30 day rolling average) to a

capacity of 1500 gallons. This change

was needed to maintain consistency and

keep sources from alternating from

being subject to the rules to not being

subject to the rules based on their

monthly throughput. The change

exempts existing small (less than 1500

gallon) tanks from the submerged fill

and vapor balance requirements. The

new tanks of the same size are exempt

from the vapor balance requirement

only. This change could in theory allow

small facilities to avoid control

requirements, but in reality sources

having such a small capacity do not

exist. Also, the changes are not a

relaxation of the existing rules, because

gas dispensing facilities that have

monthly throughput in excess of 10,000

gallons also have storage tanks which

are larger than 1500 gallons. Thus, the

same control requirement that is

currently subject to the 10,000 gallon

throughput trigger will be subject to the

1500 gallon capacity trigger.

This rule also contains a number of

housekeeping, numbering and language

changes, to reduce redundancy and

ensure consistency. The revised

language in the rules is intended to

improve clarity and avoid confusion.

The sections of the Oregon rules

affected or modified in this rule making

package are as follows: OAR 340–022–

0100 through 340–022–0130; OAR 340–

022–0170 through 340–022-0180; OAR

340–022–0300 through 340–022–0403;

(RACT rules).

III. Administrative Requirements

Executive Orders

A. 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.

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 preexisting 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).

For the same reason, this rule also does

not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This rule will

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), because it 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 (62 FR

29958 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

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. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this rule, EPA has taken the necessary

steps to eliminate drafting errors and

ambiguity, minimize potential litigation,

and provide a clear legal standard for

affected conduct. EPA has complied

with Executive Order 12630 (53 FR

8859, March 15, 1988) by examining the

takings implications of the rule in

accordance with the ‘‘Attorney

General’s Supplemental Guidelines for

the Evaluation of Risk and Avoidance of

Unanticipated Takings’’ issued under

the executive order. 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. 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). This rule

will be effective July 10, 2000 unless

EPA receives adverse written comments

by July 9, 2000.

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 10, 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).)

B. Oregon Notice Provision

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. EPA determined that,

because the five-day advance notice

provision required by ORS 468.126(1)

(1991) bars civil penalties from being

imposed for certain permit violations,

ORS 468 fails to provide the adequate

enforcement authority that a state must

demonstrate to obtain SIP approval, as

specified in section 110 of the Clean Air

Act and 40 CFR 51.230. Accordingly,

the requirement to provide such notice

would preclude federal approval of a

section 110 SIP revision.

To correct the problem the Governor

of Oregon signed into law new

legislation amending ORS 468.126 on

September 3, 1993. This amendment

added paragraph ORS 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 a state

program from federal approval or

delegation. ODEQ responded to EPA’s

understanding of the application of ORS

468.126(2)(e) and agreed that, because

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.

C. Oregon Audit Privilege

Another enforcement issue concerns

Oregon’s audit privilege and immunity

law. Nothing in this action should be

construed as making any determination

or expressing any position regarding

Oregon’s Audit Privilege Act, ORS

468.963 enacted in 1993, or its impact

upon any approved provision in the SIP,

including the revision at issue here. The

action taken herein does not express or

imply any viewpoint on the question of

whether there are legal deficiencies in

this or any other Clean Air Act Program

resulting from the effect of Oregon’s

audit privilege and immunity law. A

state audit privilege and immunity law

can affect only state enforcement and

cannot have any impact on federal

enforcement authorities. EPA may at

any time invoke its authority under the

Clean Air Act, including, for example,

sections 113, 167, 205, 211 or 213, to

enforce the requirements or prohibitions

of the state plan, independently of any

state enforcement effort. In addition,

citizen enforcement under section 304

of the Clean Air Act is likewise

unaffected by a state audit privilege or

immunity law.

List of Subjects 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: March 1, 2000.

Chuck Findley,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 10.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1.The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart MM—Oregon

2. Section 52.1970 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(130) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1970 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(130) The Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA) approves various

amendments to the Oregon State RACT

rules for volatile organic compounds

which are contained in a submittal to

EPA, dated December 7, 1998.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) EPA is approving the revised

Oregon Regulations, as effective October

12, 1998: OAR 340–022–0100; OAR

340–022–0102; OAR 340–022–0104;

OAR 340–022–0106; OAR 340–022–

0107; OAR 340-022–110; OAR 340–022–

0120; OAR 340–022–0125; OAR 340–

022–0130; OAR 340–022–0170; OAR

340–022–0175; OAR 340–022–0180;

OAR 340–022–0300; OAR 340–022–

0400; OAR 340–022–0401; and OAR

340–022–0402.

(B) EPA is repealing/removing the

following provision from the current

incorporation by reference: OAR 340–

022–0403, as effective August 14, 1996.

3. Section 52.1972 is amended by

revising the section to read as follows:

§ 52.1972 Approval Status.

With the exceptions set forth in this

subpart, the Administrator approves

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 91 / Wednesday, May 10, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 29959

Oregon’s plan for the attainment and

maintenancce of the national standards

under section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

[FR Doc. 00–11671 Filed 5–9–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[IN 119–1a; FRL–6601–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans and Designation

of Areas for Air Quality Planning

Purposes; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a

redesignation request submitted by the

State of Indiana. This action, which

Indiana requested on March 2, 2000,

redesignates Marion County

(Indianapolis) to attainment of the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for lead. In addition, EPA is

also approving a maintenance plan for

Marion County. The plan is designed to

ensure maintenance of the lead NAAQS

for at least 10 years. Indiana submitted

the maintenance plan with the

redesignation request.

DATES: This ‘‘direct final’’ rule is

effective on July 10, 2000, unless EPA

receives adverse written comments by

June 9, 2000. If EPA receives an adverse

written comment, EPA will publish a

timely withdrawal of the rule in the

Federal Register and will inform the

public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: You may send written

comments to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J),

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

Copies of the revision request are

available for inspection at the following

address: Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. (We recommend

that you telephone Phuong Nguyen,

Environmental Scientist, at (312) 886–

6701 before visiting the Region 5 office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Phuong Nguyen at (312) 886–6701.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document wherever

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used we mean

EPA. This supplemental information

section is organized as follows:

I. General Information

1. What action is EPA taking today?

2. Why is EPA taking this action?

3. What is the background of this action?

II. Evaluation of the Redesignation Request

1. What criteria did EPA use to review the

redesignation request?

2. Did Indiana satisfy these criteria for

Marion County?

III. Maintenance Plan

What are the maintenance plan

requirements and how does the submission

meet maintenance plan requirements?

IV. Final Rulemaking Action

What action is EPA taking?

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

B. Executive Order 13045

C. Executive Order 13084

D. Executive Order 13132

E. Regulatory Flexibility

F. Unfunded Mandates

G. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

I. Petitions For Judicial Review

I. General Information

1. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

In this action, EPA is approving the

lead redesignation request submitted by

the State of Indiana for Marion County.

In addition, EPA is also approving the

lead maintenance plan for this County.

2. Why IS EPA Taking This Action?

EPA is taking this action because the

redesignation request meets the five

applicable Clean Air Act (Act) criteria.

EPA designated Marion County as a

nonattainment area for lead on

November 6, 1991 (56 FR 56694).

Marion County now, however, meets the

lead NAAQS. Indiana reported that

there have been no exceedances

documented in Marion County at any

monitoring site since the second quarter

of 1994. Therefore, the monitoring data

show that the NAAQS for lead has been

attained in all portions of Marion

County. The State has developed a

maintenance plan for keeping lead

levels within the health-based air

quality standard for the next 10 years

and beyond. This maintenance plan

requires the County to consider impacts

of future activities on air quality and to

manage those activities.

3. What Is the Background for This

Action?

On November 6, 1991, EPA

designated a small portion of Franklin

Township, Marion County, Indiana as a

primary nonattainment area for the lead

NAAQS (56 FR 56694). On the same

date, EPA designated another small

portion of Wayne Township, in Marion

County, Indiana as an unclassifiable

area for lead.

Section 191(a) of the Act requires that

States containing areas designated

nonattainment for certain pollutants,

including lead, submit a revision to

their State Implementation Plan (SIP)

meeting the requirements of part D,

Title I of the Act, within 18 months of

the nonattainment designation.

Section 192(a) of the Act further

provides that SIPs must provide for

attainment of the applicable NAAQS as

expeditiously as practicable, but no later

than 5 years from the date of the

nonattainment designation.

On March 23, 1994, the State

submitted a revised rule (326 IAC 15)

and supplemented the submittal on

September 21, 1994. EPA deemed the

submittal complete in a September 23,

1994 letter, and approved the rule as

part of the SIP on May 3, 1995 (60 FR

21717), fulfilling the requirement of

section 192(a).

On February 25, 1997, Refined Metals

Corporation sent a letter to the

Indianapolis Environmental Resources

Management Division (ERMD) stating

that all operations at its facility would

cease on February 28, 1997. On March

13, 1997, the Indianapolis ERMD

received a second letter from the

company requesting termination of its

current operating permit. The company

also withdrew its title V permit

application. The Refined Metals facility

was the only major lead source in the

current nonattainment portion of

Marion County.

II. Evaluation of the Redesignation

Request

1. What Criteria Did EPA Use to Review

the Redesignation Request?

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Act, as

amended in 1990, establishes five

requirements to be met before EPA may

designate an area from nonattainment to

attainment. These are:

(A) The area has attained the

applicable NAAQS.

(B) The area has a fully-approved SIP

under section 110(k) of the Act.

(C) The EPA has determined that the

improvement in air quality in the area

is due to permanent and enforceable

emission reductions.

(D) The EPA has determined that the

maintenance plan for the area has met

all of the requirements of section 175A

of the Act.

(E) The State has met all requirements

applicable to the area under section 110

and part D of the Act.