Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 33475

(2) Line 2: ‘‘PRIORITY’’; followed by

‘‘PARCELS’’; followed by ‘‘3D.’’

c. ADC. Optional. Minimum 10

pieces.

(1) Line 1: use the presorted Priority

Mail experiment labeling list provided

to participants.

(2) Line 2: use ‘‘PRIORITY’’; followed

by ‘‘PARCELS’’; followed by ‘‘ADC.’’

d. Residual. No minimum.

(1) Line 1: use ‘‘WORKING’’ or

‘‘WKG’’ and label to origin.

(2) Line 2: use ‘‘PRIORITY’’; followed

by ‘‘PARCELS’’; followed by ‘‘WKG.’’

3.3 3-Digit Content Identifier Numbers

(CINs)

PRIORITY MAIL PARCELS—PRESORTED

5-digit parcels ............................................................................................................................................... 160 PRIORITY PARCELS 5D

3-digit parcels ............................................................................................................................................... 161 PRIORITY PARCELS 3D

ADC parcels ................................................................................................................................................. 163 PRIORITY PARCELS ADC

Residual parcels ........................................................................................................................................... 164 PRIORITY PARCELS WKG

3.4 ADC Sacks and Pallets

Pieces in each ADC sack or pallet

must be destined for the same zone,

unless the exact postage is affixed or

MMS under P910 is used, or eligible for

a rate that does not vary by zone.

4.0 OPTIONAL PREPARATION

4.1 General

More than one mail processing

category (letters and flats in trays,

parcels in sacks, loose sackable parcels,

and outside parcels) may be combined

into the same container at the 5-digit

level. Letters and flats in trays and

parcels in sacks may be combined in the

same container at the 3-digit and ADC

levels. Overflow trays or sacks are not

allowed. This will be specified in the

service agreement.

4.2 Flats

Loose flats may be shrink-wrapped

onto pallets for 5-digit, 3-digit, or ADC

destinations with surface transportation

from origin. A minimum volume of 250

pounds per pallet is required. This will

be specified within each service

agreement.

4.3 Parcels

Parcels other than outside parcels

may be directly placed on pallets or in

pallet boxes for destinations with

surface transportation from origin. A

minimum volume of 250 pounds per

pallet is required. This will be specified

within each service agreement.

5.0 RATES AND FEES

5.1 Rate Application

Each presorted Priority Mail

mailpiece is charged the applicable

single-piece Priority Mail rate in

R100.8.0, less a per piece discount,

based upon the level of sortation, as

follows:

Presort Level Per-Piece

Discount

5–Digit ....................................... $0.25

3–Digit ....................................... 0.16

Presort Level Per-Piece

Discount

Area Distribution Center (ADC) 0.12

6.0 REVOCATION

6.1 Discontinued Eligibility

The Manager, Mail Preparation and

Standards may revoke a mailer’s

authorization to participate in the

experiment if that mailer:

a. Provides incorrect data on the

required documentation and appears

unable or unwilling to correct identified

problems.

b. No longer meets the criteria for

participation in the experiment or the

terms of the service agreement.

6.2 Notice

After a revocation notice is issued, the

USPS consults with the mailer and

determines necessary corrective actions

and an implementation schedule for

such actions. At the conclusion of this

schedule the USPS reexamines the

participant’s documentation and

system. Failure to correct identified

problems is sufficient grounds for

revocation of the mailer’s authorization

to participate in the experiment.

6.3 Appeal

The participant may file a written

appeal of revocation within 15 days

from the date of the receipt of the

notice, with evidence explaining why

the authorization should not be revoked.

The appeal must be filed with the

Presorted Priority Mail Experiment

Management Review Board. Decisions

of the Board are final.

* * * * *

As provided by 30 CFR 111.3, notice

of issuance will be published in the

Federal Register.

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 01–15771 Filed 6–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[OH148–1a; FRL–7001–6]

Approval and Promulgation of

Maintenance Plan Revisions; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving a May 31,

2001, request from Ohio for a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision of

the Cleveland/Akron/Lorain ozone

maintenance plan. The maintenance

plan revision establishes a new

transportation conformity mobile source

emissions budget for the year 2006. EPA

is approving the allocation of a portion

of the safety margin for volatile organic

compounds (VOCs) to the area’s 2006

mobile source emissions budget for

transportation conformity purposes.

This allocation will still maintain the

total emissions for the area at or below

the attainment level required by the

transportation conformity regulations.

The transportation conformity budget

for oxides of nitrogen will remain the

same as previously approved in the

maintenance plan.

DATES: This rule is effective on August

6, 2001, unless EPA receives adverse

written comments by July 23, 2001. If

adverse comment is received, EPA will

publish a timely withdrawal of the rule

in the Federal Register and inform the

public that the rule will not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to:

J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief, Regulation

Development Section, Air Programs

Branch, (AR–18J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois,

60604.

You may inspect copies of the

documents relevant to this action during

normal business hours at the following

location: Regulation Development

Section, Air Programs Branch, (AR–18J),

33476 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois, 60604.

Please contact Patricia Morris at (312)

353–8656 before visiting the Region 5

office.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Patricia Morris, Environmental

Scientist, Regulation Development

Section, Air Programs Branch (AR–18J),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604, (312) 353–8656.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document wherever

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

EPA.

This Supplementary Information

section is organized as follows:

I. What action is EPA taking today?

II. Who is affected by this action?

III. How did the State support its request?

IV. What is transportation conformity?

V. What is an emissions budget?

VI. What is a safety margin?

VII. How does this action change the

Cleveland/Akron/Lorain ozone maintenance

plan?

VIII. Why is the request approvable?

IX. EPA Action.

X. Administrative Requirements.

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

In this action, we are approving a

revision to the ozone maintenance plan

for Cleveland/Akron/Lorain, Ohio. The

revision will change the mobile source

emissions budget for VOC that is used

for transportation conformity purposes.

The revision will keep the total

emissions for the area at or below the

attainment level required by law. This

action will allow State or local agencies

to maintain air quality while providing

for transportation growth.

II. Who Is Affected by This Action?

Primarily, the transportation sector

(represented by Ohio Department of

Transportation), the metropolitan

planning organizations for Cleveland

and Akron and persons needing to

travel in the Cleveland/Akron/Lorain

area will be affected by this revision.

The proposed transportation plans and

programs for the Cleveland/Akron/

Lorain area must demonstrate

conformity to the emissions budget in

the State Implementation Plan (SIP).

Analysis of the current proposed

transportation plan indicates that it

would produce higher emissions than

currently allowed in the maintenance

plan. The conformity rule, however,

provides that if a ‘‘safety margin’’ exists

in the maintenance plan, then the safety

margin can be allocated to the

transportation sector via the mobile

source budget.

III. How Did the State Support Its

Request?

On May 31, 2001, Ohio submitted to

EPA a SIP revision request for the

Cleveland/Akron/Lorain ozone

maintenance area. A public hearing on

this proposal was held on June 13, 2001.

No one from the public commented on

the proposed revisions.

In the submittal, Ohio requested to

establish a new 2006 mobile source

emissions budget for VOC for the

Cleveland/Akron/Lorain, Ohio, ozone

maintenance area. The State requested

that 10 tons of VOC be allocated from

the maintenance plan’s safety margin of

86.3 tons of VOC. The mobile source

budgets are used for transportation

conformity purposes.

IV. What Is Transportation Conformity?

Transportation conformity means that

the level of emissions from the

transportation sector (cars, trucks and

buses) must be consistent with the

requirements in the SIP to attain and

maintain the air quality standards. The

Clean Air Act, in section 176(c),

requires conformity of transportation

plans, programs and projects to an

implementation plan’s purpose of

attaining and maintaining the National

Ambient Air Quality Standards. On

November 24, 1993, EPA published a

final rule establishing criteria and

procedures for determining if

transportation plans, programs and

projects funded or approved under Title

23 U.S.C. or the Federal Transit Act

conform to the SIP.

The transportation conformity rules

require an ozone maintenance area,

such as Cleveland/Akron/Lorain, to

compare the actual projected emissions

from cars, trucks and buses on the

highway network, to the mobile source

emissions budget established by a

maintenance plan. The Cleveland/

Akron/Lorain area has an approved

ozone maintenance plan. Our approval

of the maintenance plan established the

mobile source emissions budgets for

transportation conformity purposes.

V. What Is an Emissions Budget?

An emissions budget is the projected

level of controlled emissions from the

transportation sector (mobile sources)

that is estimated in the SIP. For

example, the SIP controls emissions

through regulations on fuels and

exhaust levels for cars. The emissions

budget concept is further explained in

the preamble to the November 24, 1993,

transportation conformity rule (58 FR

62188). The preamble also describes

how to establish the mobile source

emissions budget in the SIP and how to

revise the emissions budget. The

transportation conformity rule allows

the mobile source emissions budget to

be changed as long as the total level of

emissions from all sources remains

below the attainment level.

VI. What Is a Safety Margin?

A ‘‘safety margin’’ is the difference

between the attainment level of

emissions (from all sources) and the

projected level of emissions (from all

sources) in the maintenance plan. The

attainment level of emissions is the

level of emissions during one of the

years in which the area met the air

quality health standard. For example:

Cleveland/Akron/Lorain was

monitoring attainment of the one hour

ozone standard during 1993, and the

1993 level was used for the attainment

year inventory in the approved

maintenance plan. The emissions from

point, area and mobile sources in 1993

equaled 458.5 tons per day of VOC and

495.1 tons per day of oxides of nitrogen

( NOX). The Ohio Environmental

Protection Agency projected emissions

out to the year 2006 and projected a

total of 338.3 tons per day of VOC and

453.6 tons per day of NOX from all

sources in Cleveland/Akron/Lorain. The

safety margin for Cleveland/Akron/

Lorain is calculated to be the difference

between these amounts or 120.2 tons

per day of VOC and 41.5 tons per day

of NOX.

In 1997, part of the safety margin for

both VOC and NOX was allocated to

mobile sources (see 62 FR 44903

published on August 25, 1997). The

remaining safety margin for the area

after the allocation in 1997 is 86.3 tons

per day VOC and 12.5 tons per day

NOX. Table 1 gives detailed information

on the estimated emissions from each

source category and the safety margin

calculation after the 1997 allocation of

the safety margin to the mobile source

budgets.

The 2006 emission projections reflect

the point, area and mobile source

reductions and are illustrated in Table

1.

TABLE 1.— NOX AND VOC EMISSIONS

BUDGET; AND SAFETY MARGIN DETERMINATIONS, CLEVELAND/AKRON/

LORAIN

[Tons/day]

Source category

VOC

emissions

1993 2006

Point ...................................... 75.7 88.6

Mobile (on road) ................... 181.4 82.7

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 33477

TABLE 1.— NOX AND VOC EMISSIONS

BUDGET; AND SAFETY MARGIN DETERMINATIONS, CLEVELAND/AKRON/

LORAIN—Continued

[Tons/day]

Source category

VOC

emissions

1993 2006

Area ...................................... 201.4 200.9

Totals ................................ 458.5 372.2

Safety Margin = 1993 total emissions—2006

total emissions = 86.3 tons/day VOC

Source category

NOX

emissions

1993 2006

Point ...................................... 254.6 298.0

Mobile (on road) ................... 159.9 104.4

Area ...................................... 80.6 80.2

Totals ................................ 495.1 482.6

Safety Margin = 1993 total emissions—2006

total emissions = 12.5 tons/day NOX

The emissions are projected to

maintain the area’s air quality consistent

with the air quality health standard. The

safety margin credit can be allocated to

the transportation sector. The total

emission level, even with this allocation

will be below the attainment level, or

safety level, and thus is acceptable. The

safety margin is the extra safety [points]

that can be allocated as long as the total

level is maintained.

VII. How Does This Action Change the

Cleveland/Akron/Lorain Ozone

Maintenance Plan?

It raises the VOC emissions budget for

mobile sources. The maintenance plan

is designed to provide for future growth

while still maintaining the ozone air

quality standard. Growth in industries,

population, and traffic is offset with

reductions from cleaner cars and other

emission reduction programs. Through

the maintenance plan the State and

local agencies can manage and maintain

air quality while providing for growth.

In the submittal, Ohio requested to

allocate part of the area’s safety margin

to the mobile source emissions budget.

The Cleveland/Akron/Lorain/Lorain

area’s safety margin is the difference

between the 1993 attainment inventory

year and the 2006 projected emissions

inventory (86.3 tons/day VOC safety

margin, and 12.5 tons/day NOX safety

margin) as shown in Table 1. The SIP

revision requests the allocation of 10

tons/day VOC into the area’s mobile

source VOC emissions budget from the

safety margin. The 2006 mobile source

VOC emissions budget showing the

safety margin allocations are outlined in

Table 2. The mobile source VOC

emissions budget in Table 2 will be

used for transportation conformity

purposes.

Table 2 below illustrates that the

requested portion of the safety margin

can be allocated to the 2006 VOC mobile

source budget and that total emissions

will still remain at or below the 1993

attainment level of total emissions for

the Cleveland/Akron/Lorain

maintenance area. Since the area would

still be at or below the 1993 attainment

level for the total emissions, this

allocation is allowed by the conformity

rule. The NOX budget and safety margin

will remain the same.

TABLE 2.—ALLOCATION OF SAFETY

MARGIN TO THE 2006 MOBILE

SOURCE EMISSIONS BUDGET,

CLEVELAND/AKRON/LORAIN

[Tons/day]

Source category

VOC

emissions

1993 2006

Point ...................................... 75.7 88.6

Mobile (on road) ................... 181.4 92.7

Area ...................................... 201.4 200.9

Totals ................................ 458.5 382.2

Remaining Safety Margin = 1993 total emissions—2006 total emissions = 76.3 tons/day

VOC

VIII. Why Is the Request Approvable?

After review of the SIP revision

request, EPA finds that the requested

allocation of the safety margin for the

Cleveland/Akron/Lorain area is

approvable because the new mobile

source emissions budget for VOC

maintains the total emissions for the

area at or below the attainment year

inventory level as required by the

transportation conformity regulations.

This allocation is allowed by the

conformity rule since the area would

still be at or below the 1993 attainment

level for the total emissions.

IX. EPA Action

EPA is approving the requested

allocation of the safety margin to the

mobile source VOC emission budget for

the Cleveland/Akron/Lorain ozone

maintenance area.

EPA is publishing this action without

prior proposal because EPA views this

as a noncontroversial revision and

anticipates no adverse comments.

However, in a separate document in this

Federal Register publication, EPA is

proposing to approve the SIP revision

should adverse written comments be

filed. This action will be effective

without further notice unless EPA

receives relevant adverse written

comment by July 23, 2001. Should the

Agency receive such comments, it will

publish a final rule informing the public

that this action will not take effect. Any

parties interested in commenting on this

action should do so at this time. If no

such comments are received, the public

is advised that this action will be

effective on August 6, 2001.

X. Administrative Requirements

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).

This rule also does 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 9, 2000), nor

will it 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

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

33478 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 121 / Friday, June 22, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

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 August 6, 2001 unless

EPA receives adverse written comments

by July 23, 2001.

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 August 21, 2001.

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, Hydrocarbons, Ozone,

Nitrogen oxides, Transportation

conformity.

Dated: June 14, 2001.

David A. Ullrich,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

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 KK—Ohio

2. Section 52.1885 is amended by

adding paragraph (a)(15) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1885 Control strategy: ozone.

(a) * * *

(15) Approval—On May 31, 2001,

Ohio submitted a revision to the ozone

maintenance plan for the Cleveland/

Akron/Lorain area. The revision

consists of allocating a portion of the

Cleveland/Akron/Lorain area’s NOX

safety margin to the transportation

conformity mobile source emissions

budget. The mobile source emissions

budgets for transportation conformity

purposes for the Cleveland/Akron/

Lorain area are now: 92.7 tons per day

of volatile organic compound emissions

for the year 2006 and 104.4 tons per day

of oxides of nitrogen emissions for the

year 2006. This approval only changes

the VOC transportation conformity

emission budget for Cleveland/Akron/

Lorain.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 01–15749 Filed 6–21–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 180

[OPP–301120; FRL–6778–7]

RIN 2070–AB78

Cyprodinil; Time-Limited Pesticide

Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This regulation establishes

time-limited tolerances for residues of

cyprodinil in or on strawberry, dry bulb

onion, and green onion. IR-4 requested

these tolerances under the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act, as amended by

the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996.

These tolerances will expire on

December 31, 2003.

DATES: This regulation is effective June

22, 2001. Objections and requests for

hearings, identified by docket control

number OPP–301120, must be received

by EPA on or before August 21, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written objections and

hearing requests may be submitted by

mail, in person, or by courier. Please

follow the detailed instructions for each

method as provided in Unit VI. of the

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION. To ensure

proper receipt by EPA, your objections

and hearing requests must identify

docket control number OPP–301120 in

the subject line on the first page of your

response.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: Hoyt Jamerson, Registration

Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide

Programs, Environmental Protection

Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,

Washington, DC 20460; telephone

number: (703) 308–9368; and e-mail

address: jamerson.hoyt@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. General Information

A. Does this Action Apply to Me?

You may be affected by this action if

you are an agricultural producer, food

manufacturer, or pesticide

manufacturer. Potentially affected

categories and entities may include, but

are not limited to:

Categories NAICS codes

Examples of

potentially affected entities

Industry 111 Crop production

112 Animal production

311 Food manufacturing

32532 Pesticide

manufacturing

This listing is not intended to be

exhaustive, but rather provides a guide

for readers regarding entities likely to be

affected by this action. Other types of

entities not listed in the table could also

be affected. The North American

Industrial Classification System

(NAICS) codes have been provided to

assist you and others in determining

whether or not this action might apply

to certain entities. If you have questions

regarding the applicability of this action

to a particular entity, consult the person

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.