Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 34101

215.61 RATE GROUPS 1—Continued

Weight not over (lb.) 2

Rate groups

1 and 2

(Canada, Mexico, and St.

Pierre &

Miquelon)

Rate groups

3 and 7

Rate groups

4 and 6 Rate group 5 Rate group 8

46 ......................................................................................... 142.00 219.00 293.00 448.00 531.00

47 ......................................................................................... 143.00 223.00 298.00 455.00 540.00

48 ......................................................................................... 145.00 226.00 303.00 463.00 548.00

49 ......................................................................................... 147.00 230.00 308.00 470.00 557.00

50 ......................................................................................... 148.00 233.00 313.00 478.00 566.00

51 ......................................................................................... 148.00 233.00 313.00 478.00 566.00

52 ......................................................................................... 152.00 240.00 323.00 492.00 583.00

53 ......................................................................................... 152.00 240.00 323.00 492.00 583.00

54 ......................................................................................... 154.00 247.00 333.00 505.00 601.00

55 ......................................................................................... 154.00 247.00 333.00 505.00 601.00

56 ......................................................................................... 156.00 254.00 343.00 516.00 617.00

57 ......................................................................................... 156.00 254.00 343.00 516.00 617.00

58 ......................................................................................... 159.00 261.00 353.00 527.00 633.00

59 ......................................................................................... 159.00 261.00 353.00 527.00 633.00

60 ......................................................................................... 161.00 268.00 363.00 538.00 649.00

61 ......................................................................................... 161.00 268.00 363.00 538.00 649.00

62 ......................................................................................... 164.00 275.00 373.00 549.00 666.00

63 ......................................................................................... 164.00 275.00 373.00 549.00 666.00

64 ......................................................................................... 166.00 282.00 383.00 560.00 684.00

65 ......................................................................................... 166.00 282.00 383.00 560.00 684.00

66 ......................................................................................... 168.00 289.00 393.00 571.00 701.00

67 ......................................................................................... 168.00 289.00 393.00 571.00 701.00

68 ......................................................................................... 171.00 296.00 403.00 583.00 718.00

69 ......................................................................................... 171.00 296.00 403.00 583.00 718.00

70 ......................................................................................... 173.00 303.00 413.00 594.00 735.00

1See the Individual Country Listings for the postage rates that are applicable to each PMGG destination country.

2 Maximum weight limit is 70 pounds to all destination countries.

* * * * *

[The Individual Country Listing pages

in the International Mail Manual will be

revised to reflect the availability of

Priority Mail Global Guaranteed service

and the applicable postage rates.]

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 00–12971 Filed 5–25–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA–184–0229; FRL–6585–9]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision, Bay

Area Air Quality Management District,

South Coast Air Quality Management

District, San Diego County Air

Pollution Control District, and

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution

Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is finalizing the approval

of revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) proposed in

the Federal Register on January 19,

2000. These revisions concern Bay Area

Air Quality Management District

(BAAQMD) Rule 8.45, Motor Vehicle

and Mobile Equipment Coating

Operations; South Coast Air Quality

Management District (SCAQMD) Rule

1151, Motor Vehicle and Mobile

Equipment Non-Assembly Line Coating

Operation; San Diego County Air

Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD)

Rule 67.19, Coatings and Printing Inks

Manufacturing Operations, and

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution

Control District (MBUAPCD) Rule 425,

Use of Cutback Asphalt. This approval

action will incorporate these rules into

the federally approved SIP. The

intended effect of finalizing this action

is to regulate emissions of volatile

organic compounds (VOCs) according to

the requirements of the Clean Air Act,

as amended in 1990 (CAA or the Act).

These revised rules control VOC

emissions from automobile refinishing,

coating and ink manufacturing and use

of cutback asphalt. Thus, EPA is

finalizing the approval of these

revisions into the California SIP under

provisions of the CAA regarding EPA

action on SIP submittals, SIPs for

national primary and secondary ambient

air quality standards and plan

requirements for nonattainment areas.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

June 26, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the rule revisions

and EPA’s evaluation reports for these

rules are available for public inspection

at EPA’s Region IX office during normal

business hours. Copies of the submitted

rule revisions are available for

inspection at the following locations:

Rulemaking Office (AIR–4), Air

Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region IX, 75

Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA

94105

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812

Bay Area Air Quality Management

District, 939 Ellis Street, San

Francisco, CA 94109

South Coast Air Quality Management

District, 21865 E. Copley, Diamond

Bar, CA 91765

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution

Control District, 24580 Silver Cloud

Court, Monterey, CA 93940

San Diego County Air Pollution Control

District, 9150 Chesapeake Drive, San

Diego, CA 92123

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cynthia G. Allen, Rulemaking Office

34102 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

(AIR–4), Air Division, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901, (415) 744–

1189.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

EPA is approving Bay Area Air

Quality Management District

(BAAQMD) Rule 8.45, Motor Vehicle

and Mobile Equipment Coating

Operations; South Coast Air Quality

Management District (SCAQMD) Rule

1151, Motor Vehicle and Mobile

Equipment Non-Assembly Line Coating

Operations; San Diego County Air

Pollution Control District (SDCAPCD)

Rule 67.19, Coatings and Printing Inks

Manufacturing Operations, and

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution

Control District (MBUAPCD) Rule 425,

Use of Cutback Asphalt. These rules

were submitted by the California Air

Resources Board (CARB) to EPA on

August 1, 1997, February 16, 1999,

October 18, 1996, and June 3, 1997,

respectively.

II. Background

On January 19, 2000 (see 65 FR 2921)

EPA proposed to approve the following

rules: BAAQMD Rule 8.45, Motor

Vehicle and Mobile Equipment Coating

Operations; SCAQMD Rule 1151, Motor

Vehicle and Mobile Equipment NonAssembly Line Coating Operations;

SDCAPCD Rule 67.19, Coatings and

Printing Inks Manufacturing Operations,

and MBUAPCD Rule 425, Use of

Cutback Asphalt. BAAQMD adopted

Rule 8.45 on November 6, 1996;

SCAQMD adopted Rule 1151 on

December 11, 1998; SDCAPCD adopted

Rule 67.19 on May 15, 1996; and

MBUAPCD adopted Rule 425 on March

26, 1997. These rules were submitted in

response to EPA’s 1988 SIP Call and the

CAA section 182(a)(2)(A) requirement

that nonattainment areas fix their

reasonable available control technology

(RACT) rules for ozone in accordance

with EPA guidance that interpreted the

requirements of the pre-amendment Act.

A detailed discussion of the background

for each of the above rules and

nonattainment areas is provided in the

proposed rule (PR) cited above.

EPA has evaluated all of the above

rules for consistency with the

requirements of the CAA and EPA

regulations and EPA’s interpretation of

these requirements as expressed in the

various EPA policy guidance documents

referenced in the PR. EPA is finalizing

the proposed approval of these rules in

order to strengthen the SIP. A

discussion of the submitted rules are as

follows:

BAAQMD Rule 8.45, Motor Vehicle

and Mobile Equipment Coating

Operations includes the following

significant changes from the current SIP:

• Section 231, Volatile Organic

Compounds, was amended by adding

acetone, parachlorobenzotrifluoride

(PCBTF), and cyclic, branched, or

linear, fully methylated siloxanes (VMS)

to the list of exempt compounds in

conformance with EPA and CARB

action.

• Section 601, ‘‘Analysis of Samples’’

was amended by adding BAAQMD

Method 41 to analyze samples

containing PCBTF, and BAAQMD

Method 43 to analyze samples

containing VMS.

• Section 602, ‘‘Determination of

Emissions’’ was amended by adding the

following sentence: For the purpose of

determining abatement device

efficiency, any acetone, PCBTF or VMS

shall be included as a VOC.

SCAQMD Rule 1151, Motor Vehicles

and Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly

Line Coating Operations, includes the

following significant changes from the

current SIP:

• Effective December 12, 1998 and

until April 1, 1998 the Group II

multistage topcoat composite VOC limit

was raised to 4.5 lbs/gal. The preDecember 12, 1998 limit of 3.5 lbs/gal

limit was reinstated on April 1, 1999;

• A 10% usage limitation on a

monthly basis was added for specialty

coatings;

• Expanded the prohibition of sale

clause;

• Added the requirement that

manufacturers must offer for sale by

January 1, 1999 clearcoats having VOC

content of 2.1 lbs/gal or less; and

• Added an exemption for topcoats

applied to prototype motor vehicles.

There is currently no version of

SDCAPCD’s Rule 67.19, Coatings and

Printing Inks Manufacturing Operations,

in the SIP. The submitted rule includes

the following provisions:

• Applicability section;

• Exemption for sources emitting less

than 15 lbs/day;

• Sources emitting less than 50 tons/

year are exempted from the

requirements of emission control

systems;

• Storage tanks of less than 550 gal

capacity, or those used exclusively for

epoxies or water based coatings are

exempted from the requirements of

submerged fill pipes;

• A definition section;

• Equipment and workmanship

standards;

• Option to comply by using

abatement equipment;

• Recordkeeping provisions; and

• Test methods.

Earlier versions of this rule were

adopted on June 7, 1994, and March 7,

1995. While EPA can only act on the

most recently submitted version, EPA

reviewed relevant materials associated

with the superseded versions.

MBUAPCD submitted Rule 425, Use of

Cutback Asphalt, includes the following

significant changes from the current SIP:

• Use of the term ‘‘petroleum

solvent’’ is now used consistently

throughout the rule. Prior to this

revision, the term organic solvents and

petroleum solvents were used

interchangeably leading to confusion in

the implementation and enforcement of

the rule. The rule has been revised to

enhance clarity.

• An additional change was made to

the ‘‘effective date’’ section. The rule as

revised is now effective on the date of

adoption.

A detailed discussion of the rules

provisions and evaluation has been

provided in the PRs and in technical

support documents (TSDs) available at

EPA’s Region IX office. TSDs prepared

by EPA are dated November 2, 1998 for

MBUAPCD Rule 425, December 1999 for

SDCAPCD Rule 67.19, SCAQMD Rule

1151, and BAAQMD Regulation 8–45.

III. Response to Public Comments

A 30-day public comment period was

provided in the PR (see 65 FR 2921).

EPA received no comments during this

period and one comment after the 30

days expired. This comment was

submitted by the National Paint &

Coatings Association (NPCA), dated

February 25, 2000, and only concerned

SCAQMD Rule 1151. Although this

comment was submitted and received

after close of the comment period, we

are acknowledging the comment in this

action and summarizing NPCA’s

primary concern.

NPCA is concerned with the

prohibition of sale provision contained

in Rule 1151, paragraph (d)(2). NPCA

specifically objects to EPA’s

characterization in proposing approval

of Rule 1151, that SCAQMD has

‘‘expanded the prohibition of sale

clause.’’ EPA believes this

characterization is correct, however, and

directs the commenter to page 9 of the

December 1998 final staff report

associated with SCAQMD’s adoption of

the submitted rule.

Nothing in this comment has caused

EPA to change the rationale for

proposing approval of SCAQMD 1151 or

the other rules.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 34103

IV. EPA Action

EPA is finalizing action to approve

BAAQMD Rule 8.45, Motor Vehicle and

Mobile Equipment Coating Operations;

SCAQMD Rule 1151, Motor Vehicle and

Mobile Equipment Non-Assembly Line

Coating Operations; SDCAPCD Rule

67.19, Coatings and Printing Inks

Manufacturing Operations, and

MBUAPCD Rule 425, Use of Cutback

Asphalt for inclusion into the California

SIP. EPA is approving these rules under

section 110(k)(3) as meeting the

requirements of section 110(a) and Part

D of the CAA. This approval action will

incorporate these rules into the federally

approved SIP. The intended effect of

approving these rules are to regulate

emissions of VOCs according to

requirements of the CAA.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866,

entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and

Review.’’

B. 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 Executive

Order 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.

This rule is not subject to Executive

Order 13045 because it does not involve

decisions intended to mitigate

environmental health or safety risks.

C. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084,

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may

not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly

affects 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. If the mandate is

unfunded, EPA must provide to the

Office of Management and Budget, 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, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to develop an effective

process permitting elected 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. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

Executive Order 13121, entitled

Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10,

1999) revokes and replaces Executive

Orders 12612, Federalism and 12875,

Enhancing the Intergovernmental

Partnership. Executive Order 13132

requires EPA to develop an accountable

process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and

timely input by State and local officials

in the development of regulatory

policies that have federalism

implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have

federalism implications’’ is defined in

the Executive Order to include

regulations that 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.’’ Under

Executive Order 13132, EPA may not

issue a regulation that has federalism

implications, that imposes substantial

direct compliance costs, and that is not

required by statute, unless the Federal

government provides the funds

necessary to pay the direct compliance

costs incurred by State and local

governments, or EPA consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation. EPA also may not issue a

regulation that has federalism

implications and that preempts State

law unless the Agency consults with

State and local officials early in the

process of developing the proposed

regulation.

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. Thus, the requirements of

section 6 of the Executive Order do not

apply to this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

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 Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not 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

Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility

analysis would constitute Federal

inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

F. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must

prepare a budgetary impact statement to

accompany any proposed or final rule

that includes a Federal mandate that

may result in estimated 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

34104 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 103 / Friday, May 26, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

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. 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 rule is not a ‘‘major’’ rule as

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2).

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12 of the National Technology

Transfer and Advancement Act

(NTTAA) of 1995 requires Federal

agencies to evaluate existing technical

standards when developing a new

regulation. To comply with NTTAA,

EPA must consider and use ‘‘voluntary

consensus standards’’ (VCS) if available

and applicable when developing

programs and policies unless doing so

would be inconsistent with applicable

law or otherwise impractical.

The EPA believes that VCS are

inapplicable to this action. Today’s

action does not require the public to

perform activities conducive to the use

of VCS.

I. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean

Air Act, petitions for judicial review of

this action must be filed in the United

States Court of Appeals for the

appropriate circuit by July 25, 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).)

Lists of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: April 12, 2000.

John Wise,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

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 F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding paragraphs (c)(241)(i)(A)(5),

(c)(248)(i)(F), (c)(258)(i)(A)(3) and

(c)(262)(i)(C)(2) to read as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(241) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(5) Rule 67.19, adopted May 15, 1996.

* * * * *

(248) * * *

(i) * * *

(F) * * *

(1) Regulation 8, Rule 45, adopted on

November 6, 1996.

* * * * *

(258) * * *

(i) * * *

(A) * * *

(3) Rule 425, adopted on March 26,

1997.

* * * * *

(262) * * *

(i) * * *

(C) * * *

(2) Rule 1151, adopted on December

11, 1998.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–13200 Filed 5–25–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[PA152–4099a; FRL–6705–7]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Air Quality Plans for Designated

Facilities and Pollutants; Allegheny

County, Pennsylvania; Control of

Emissions from Existing Hospital/

Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators;

Correction

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule; correcting

amendment.

SUMMARY: This document corrects minor

errors in the text of rule language in a

published final rule pertaining to EPA’s

approval of the Allegheny County,

Pennsylvania hospital/medical/

/infectious waste incinerator (HMIWI)

111(d)/129 plan submitted by the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 6, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James B. Topsale, (215) 814–2190 or by

e-mail at topsale.jim@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document wherever

‘‘we,’’ or ‘‘our’’ are used, we mean EPA.

On April 7, 2000 (65 FR 18249), we

published a final rulemaking action

announcing our approval of the

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania

hospital/medical/infectious waste

incinerator (HMIWI) 111(d)/129 plan

submitted by the Commonwealth of

Pennsylvania. In the text of that

document, we inadvertently made two

minors. Neither the rationale for nor the

intent of the April 7, 2000 direct final

rule was affected by these minor errors.

This action simply corrects the

erroneous language in the published

final rulemaking.

To the final rule (FR Docket 00–8660)

published in the Federal Register on

April 7, 2000 (65 FR 18249), we are

making the following corrections:

(1) On page 18251 in the first column,

the revised rule language to the second

answer (A.) is corrected to read, ‘‘* * *

meeting the maximum achievable

control technology * * *’’.

The word ‘‘available’’ was

inadvertently inserted in place of

‘‘achievable’’.

(2) On page 18252 in the third column

under § 62.9662 Effective Date, the text

is revised to read, ‘‘The effective date of

the plan is June 6, 2000.’’

The phrase ‘‘* * * for municipal

solid waste landfills * * *’’ was

inadvertently included in the sentence

and is hereby deleted.