Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 17081

GLOBAL PACKAGE LINK TO JAPAN—Continued

Weight not over (pounds)

Price per item ($)

Premium Standard Economy Returns

32 ...................................................................................................................................... 107.47 142.30 .................... 94.70

33 ...................................................................................................................................... 110.34 145.17 .................... 97.50

34 ...................................................................................................................................... 113.21 151.16 .................... 100.40

35 ...................................................................................................................................... 116.08 154.03 .................... 103.20

36 ...................................................................................................................................... 118.95 160.02 .................... 106.00

37 ...................................................................................................................................... 121.82 162.89 .................... 108.80

38 ...................................................................................................................................... 124.69 168.88 .................... 111.60

39 ...................................................................................................................................... 127.56 171.75 .................... 114.40

40 ...................................................................................................................................... 130.43 177.73 .................... 117.20

41 ...................................................................................................................................... 141.15 191.23 .................... 120.00

42 ...................................................................................................................................... 144.19 197.57 .................... 122.80

43 ...................................................................................................................................... 147.23 200.61 .................... 125.60

44 ...................................................................................................................................... 150.27 203.65 .................... 128.40

Discounts for GPL service to Japan are

as follows:

a. 25,000 to 100,000 packages: 0%

b. 100,001 to 250,000 packages: 4.75%

c. 250,001 to 500,000 packages:

additional 5.75%

d. 500,001 to 1,000,000 packages:

additional 6.00%

e. More than 1,000,000 packages:

additional 6.25%

8. Effective April 9, 1997, the

individual country listing for Canada is

amended by removing the following

Global Package Link information:

DESCRIPTION, DELIVERY OPTIONS,

PROCESSING FACILITIES,

PROCESSING AND ACCEPTANCE

[Only the part not referring to Ground

Gateway Acceptance], REQUIRED

PACKAGE SPECIFIC INFORMATION,

INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY,

CATALOG HARMONIZATION,

POSTAGE, SIZE AND WEIGHT

LIMITS, CUSTOMS and

PREPARATION REQUIREMENTS.

[The following items will be retained in

the country page:]

PROCESSING AND ACCEPTANCE

[Only the part explaining the Ground

Gateway acceptance, including within

500 Miles and More than 500 miles.]

The Rate Chart [With the three levels of

service, Air Courier, Ground Courier,

Ground Gateway and return service

rates.]

* * * * *

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief Counsel Legislative.

[FR Doc. 97–8861 Filed 4–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MN40–01–6988a; FRL–5694–4]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Implementation Plan; Minnesota;

Enhanced Monitoring

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: This final action approves the

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

submitted by the State of Minnesota.

The State’s revision expands the types

of testing and monitoring data,

including stack and process monitoring,

which can be used directly for

compliance certifications and

enforcement.

DATES: This ‘‘direct final’’ rule is

effective June 9, 1997 unless

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

receives adverse or critical comments by

May 9, 1997. If the effective date is

delayed, timely notice will be published

in the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available at

the above address for public inspection

during normal business hours.

Comments may be mailed to: Carlton

T. Nash, United States Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, Air and

Radiation Division, Air Programs

Branch (AR–18J), 77 West Jackson

Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois, 60604.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Brad

J. Beeson at (312) 353–4779.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

In 1990, Section 114 of the Clean Air

Act (Act) was amended to require the

Administrator of EPA to promulgate

rules implementing an enhanced

monitoring and compliance program for

major stationary sources of air pollution.

EPA determined that certain SIPs may

preclude EPA and the States from

implementing such a program because

the SIPs may be interpeted to limit the

types of testing and monitoring data that

may be used for determining

compliance and establishing violations.

Therefore, EPA issued a SIP call to those

States whose SIPs may have limited the

types of testing and monitoring data that

may be used for determining

compliance and establishing violations.

On March 24, 1994, EPA issued a SIP

call to the State of Minnesota to revise

its SIP. As part of the SIP call EPA

provided draft SIP language to the State.

The SIP call clarified that any

monitoring approved for the source (and

included in a federally enforceable

operating permit) may form the basis of

the compliance certification, and that

any credible evidence may be used for

purposes of enforcement in Federal

court.

II. State Submittal

On March 14, 1995, the Minnesota

Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) made

an official plan submission in response

to the EPA’s SIP call. The submittal

included the State’s public notice

requesting comments or a public

hearing on the proposed rule changes.

No public comments were received nor

was there a request for a public hearing.

The submittal also included

Minnesota Statute §§ 7007.0800 Subpart

6 and 7017.0100 Subpart 1 and 2. These

rules were amended to comply with the

new enhanced monitoring requirements.

III. Analysis of State Submittal

The model rule provided by the EPA

consisted of two parts. The first part of

the model rule concerned compliance

certification, while the second part

concerns enforcement.
17082 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

A. Compliance Certifications

EPA’s model rule concerning

compliance certification provides that

for the purpose of submission of

compliance certifications the owner or

operator is not prohibited from using an

enhanced monitoring protocol approved

for the source pursuant to 40 CFR Part

64, or any other monitoring method

approved for the source pursuant to 40

CFR 70.6(a)(3) and incorporated into a

federally enforceable operating permit.

The amended rules submitted by

MPCA clearly meet the requirements

established in EPA’s model rule.

Subpart 6 of § 7007.0800 refers not only

to the Federal SIP, but to all ‘‘applicable

requirements,’’ which would include all

MPCA rules that regulate emission

permit sources. All Federal SIP

provisions are by definition included

with ‘‘applicable requirements,’’ in

Subpart 7, § 7007.0100.

Similarily Subpart 6 of § 7007.0800

will cover not only all Federally

enforceable permits, but also any

monitoring method issued as part of a

State permit even if it is not federally

enforceable.

B. Enforcement

EPA’s suggested language concerning

enforcement provides that ‘‘any credible

evidence’’ may be used for the purpose

of establishing whether a person has

violated the applicable sections of the

SIP. In addition, EPA’s model rule lists

methods that are to be considered

presumptively credible evidence of

whether a violation occurred at a

source, as well as which testing,

monitoring or information gathering

methods are presumptively credible.

The amended rules submitted by

MPCA clearly meet the requirements

established in EPA’s model rule. The

language added to § 7017, Subparts 1

and 2, gives evidentiary standing to

essentially any monitoring method

which a source is required to use by

either an applicable requirement or a

compliance document, and to any other

credible evidence. The definitions of

applicable requirement and compliance

document are so broad as to include all

the sources of monitoring requirements

listed in EPA’s model rule.

C. Concluding Statement

In large part the State’s rule follows

the EPA’s model rule. In fact, the State

only deviates from EPA’s model rule by

expanding its coverage. Minnesota’s

amendments go beyond the scope of the

model rule to not just the specific

situations that the EPA expressed

concern about, but also similar

situations coming under the MPCA’s

jurisdiction. Therefore, EPA believes

this revision will enhance the State’s

capability for determining compliance

with, and for establishing violations of,

the underlying emission limitations.

IV. Action

The EPA is approving a revision to

Minnesota’s SIP. The revision expands

the types of testing and monitoring data,

including stack and process monitoring,

which can be used directly for

compliance certifications and

enforcement.

V. Administrative Requirements

A. Applicability to Future SIP Decisions

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting, allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. The EPA

shall consider each request for revision

to the SIP in light of specific technical,

economic, and environmental factors

and in relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

B. Executive Order 12866

This action has been classified as a

Table 3 action for signature by the

Regional Administrator under the

procedures published in the Federal

Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR

2214–2225), as revised by a July 10,

1995 memorandum from Mary Nichols,

Assistant Administrator for Air and

Radiation. The Office of Management

and Budget has exempted this

regulatory action from E.O. 12866

review.

C. Regulatory Flexibility

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., EPA must prepare

a regulatory flexibility analysis

assessing the impact of any proposed or

final rule on small entities (5 U.S.C. 603

and 604). Alternatively, EPA may certify

that the rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Small entities include small

businesses, small not-for-profit

enterprises, and government entities

with jurisdiction over populations of

less than 50,000.

This approval does not create any

new requirements. Therefore, I certify

that this action does not have a

significant impact on any small entities

affected. Moreover, due to the nature of

the Federal-State relationship under the

Act, preparation of the regulatory

flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of the State action. The

Act forbids EPA to base its actions

concerning SIPs on such grounds.

Union Electric Co. v. U.S. E.P.A., 427

U.S. 246, 256–66 (1976).

D. 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 costs to State,

local, or tribal governments in the

aggregate; or to the private sector, of

$100 million or more. Under Section

205, EPA must select the most costeffective and least burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule and is consistent with

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the

approval action promulgated today does

not include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated 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 preexisting requirements under State or

local law, and imposes no new Federal

requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or the private sector,

result from this action.

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by June 9, 1997. 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)).

F. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) of the

APA amended by the Small Business

Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of

1996, EPA submitted 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 General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2) of the APA as amended.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 68 / Wednesday, April 9, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 17083

List of Subjects in 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: February 7, 1997.

Michelle D. Jordan,

Acting Regional Administrator.

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. 7401–7671q.

Subpart Y—Minnesota

2. Section 52.1220 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(44) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(44) This revision provides for data

which have been collected under the

enhanced monitoring and operating

permit programs to be used for

compliance certifications and

enforcement actions.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Minnesota Statutes, sections

7007.0800 Subpart 6.C.(5), 7017.0100

Subparts 1 and 2, both effective

February 28, 1995.

[FR Doc. 97–8969 Filed 4–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA126–0030; FRL–5804–5]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California—

Ozone

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule; correction.

SUMMARY: This action corrects language

to Title 40 of the Code of Federal

Regulations that appeared in two final

rules published in the Federal Register

on January 8, 1997 and one direct final

rule published in the Federal Register

on January 17, 1997.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

on April 9, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Julie

A. Rose, Rulemaking Office, Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105,

Telephone: (415) 744–1184.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

January 8, 1997 at 62 FR 1149 and 62

FR 1187, EPA published two final

rulemaking actions approving various

sections of the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP). Also, on

January 17, 1997 at 62 FR 2597, EPA

published a direct final rulemaking

action approving sections of the

California SIP. All three of these actions

resulted in amendments to 40 CFR Part

52, Subpart F. These amendments

which incorporated material by

reference into section 52.220,

Identification of plan, subparagraph

(c)(213) do not accurately reflect the

three regulatory actions. These

amendments are being corrected in this

action. In addition, the January 17, 1997

action contained two omissions which

appeared in 40 CFR 52.220,

subparagraphs (c)(207)(i)(E) and

(c)(225)(i)(E). These subparagraphs

should have been identified as

Monterey Bay Unified Air Pollution

Control District. The identification of

these two subparagraphs is also being

corrected in this action.

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this action is

not a ‘‘significant regulatory action’’

and, is therefore not subject to review by

the Office of Management and Budget.

In addition, this action does not impose

any enforceable duty or contain any

unfunded mandate as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(P.L. 104–4), or require prior

consultation with State officials as

specified by Executive Order 12875 (58

FR 58093, October 28, 1993), or involve

special consideration of environmental

justice related issues as required by

Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,

February 16, 1994).

Because this action is not subject to

notice-and-comment requirements

under the Administrative Procedure Act

or any other statute, it is not subject to

the provisions of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).

Under 5 U.S.C. 801(a)(1)(A) as added

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted 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 General Accounting

Office prior to publication of this rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

List 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.

Note: Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State of

California was approved by the Director of

the Federal Register on July 1, 1982.

Dated: March 14, 1997.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator.

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. 7401–7671q.

Subpart F—California

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

revising paragraphs (c)(207)(i)(E),

(c)(213) and (c)(225)(i)(E) to read as

follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(207) * * *

(i) * * *

(E) Monterey Bay Unified Air

Pollution Control District.

* * * * *

(213) California Statewide Emission

Inventory submitted on March 30, 1995,

by the Governor’s designee.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) California Air Resources Board.

(1) 1990 Base-Year Emission

Inventory for Ozone Nonattainment

Areas in California.

(i) Sacramento, San Diego, San

Joaquin Valley, South Coast, Southeast

Desert, Ventura.

(ii) Santa Barbara.

(iii) Monterey Bay Area.

* * * * *

(225) * * *

(i) * * *

(E) Monterey Bay Unified Air

Pollution Control District.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–9007 Filed 4–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P