Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 108 / Monday, June 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 35577

that has not entered into any other

contract, grant, cooperative agreement

or ‘‘other transaction’’ agreement that

provides for audit access by a

government entity in the year prior to

the date of the agreement.

(c) The head of the contracting

activity (HCA) that is carrying out the

agreement may waive the applicability

of the Comptroller General access

requirement if the HCA determines it

would not be in the public interest to

apply the requirement to the agreement.

The waiver will be effective with

respect to the agreement only if the HCA

transmits a notification of the waiver to

the Committees on Armed Services of

the Senate and the House of

Representatives, the Comptroller

General, and the Director, Defense

Procurement before entering into the

agreement. The notification must

include the rationale for the

determination.

(d) The HCA must notify the Director,

Defense Procurement of situations

where there is evidence that the

Comptroller General Access

requirement caused companies to refuse

to participate or otherwise restricted the

Department’s access to companies that

typically do not do business with the

Department.

(e) In no case will the requirement to

examine records under the clause

referenced in paragraph (a) of this

section apply to an agreement where

more than three years have passed after

final payment is made by the

government under such an agreement.

(f) The clause referenced in paragraph

(a) of this section must provide for the

following:

(1) The Comptroller General of the

General of the United States, in the

discretion of the Comptroller General,

shall have access to and the right to

examine records of any party to the

agreement or any entity that participates

in the performance of this agreement

that directly pertain to, and involve

transactions relating to, the agreement.

(2) Excepted from the Comptroller

General Access requirement is any party

to this agreement or any entity that

participates in the performance of the

agreement, or any subordinate element

of such party or entity, that has not

entered into any other contract, grant,

cooperative agreement, or ‘‘other

transaction’’ agreement that provides for

audit access by a government entity in

the year prior to the date of the

agreement.

(3) This clause shall not be construed

to require any party or entity, or any

subordinate element of such party or

entity, that participates in the

performance of the agreement, to create

or maintain any record that is not

otherwise maintained in the ordinary

course of business or pursuant to a

provision of law.

(4) The Comptroller General shall

have access to the records described in

this clause until three years after the

date the final payment is made by the

United States under this agreement.

(5) The recipient of the agreement

shall flow down this provision to any

entity that participates in the

performance of the agreement.

Dated: May 24, 2000.

L.M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 00–13521 Filed 6–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5001–10–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81

[OH 103–1b; FRL–6701–8]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Ohio

Designation of Areas for Air Quality

Planning Purposes; Ohio

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is approving sulfur

dioxide redesignation requests

submitted by the State of Ohio on March

20, 2000, for Coshocton, Gallia, and

Lorain Counties. This request was first

submitted on October 26, 1995. Ohio

subsequently provided supplemental

material to EPA in a letter dated

September 14, 1999. On March 20, 2000,

Ohio submitted final requests to

redesignate Coshocton, Gallia, and

Lorain Counties to attainment of the

National Ambient Air Quality Standards

(NAAQS) for sulfur dioxide (SO2).

EPA is also approving the

maintenance plans for Coshocton,

Gallia, and Lorain Counties. The plans

are intended to ensure maintenance of

the NAAQS for at least 10 years, and

were submitted with the redesignation

requests.

In conjunction with these actions,

EPA is approving state-adopted

emission limits for the following

facilities: in Coshocton County:

Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric—

Conesville Plant; in Gallia County: Ohio

Valley Electric Company—Kyger Creek

Plant and Ohio Power—Gavin Plant;

and in Lorain County: CEI—Avon Lake

Plant, Ohio Edison—Edgewater Plant,

U.S. Steel—Lorain Plant, and B.F.

Goodrich Company—Lorain County

Plant.

EPA is also approving other minor

revisions in the state’s rules for these

three Counties.

On November 23, 1999, EPA received

one comment on the proposal to

redesignate Coshocton, Gallia, and

Lorain Counties. American Electric

Power (AEP) encouraged EPA to take

final action to approve the

redesignation.

DATES: This rule is effective on July 5,

2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Phuong Nguyen at (312) 886–6701.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document wherever

‘‘we’’, ‘‘us’’, or ‘‘our’’ is 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 for this action?

II. How Does the Proposed Submittal

Compare to the Final Submittal?

III. Public Comments and EPA Response

What comments did EPA receive?

IV. Background on Ohio Submittal

1. What information did Ohio submit, and

what were its requests?

2. What guidance documents did EPA use

in this rulemaking to evaluate Ohio’s

request?

V. State Implementation Plan (SIP)

1. How do state-adopted emission limits

compare to the FIP limits?

2. What are the sources and emission limits

that will be affected by EPA’s action?

VI. Maintenance Plan

1. How does the maintenance plan apply

in Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain

Counties?

2. What are the maintenance plan

reduction requirements?

VII. Redesignation Evaluation

1. What five criteria did EPA use to review

the redesignation requests?

2. Are these five criteria satisfied for

Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties?

VIII. Final Rulemaking Action

IX. 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 SO2

redesignation requests submitted by the

State of Ohio for Coshocton, Gallia, and

35578 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 108 / Monday, June 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Lorain Counties. EPA is also approving

the maintenance plans for these

counties. In addition, EPA is approving

state-adopted emission limits for

sources in these three counties. EPA

plans separate action on rules 3745–18–

03, 3745–18–04, 3745–18–15, and 3745–

18–71, that Ohio submitted along with

rule revisions for these three counties.

2. Why Is EPA Taking This Action?

EPA is taking this action because the

redesignation requests meet the five

criteria all redesignation requests must

meet. The limits in the submittal are

approvable because they are at least as

stringent as the current set of federally

enforceable limits. Coshocton, Gallia,

and Lorain Counties have been

designated as nonattainment areas for

sulfur dioxide but now meet the sulfur

dioxide NAAQS. The three counties

have plans for keeping their sulfur

dioxide levels within the health and

welfare-based standards for the next 10

years and beyond. The plans require the

three counties to consider impacts of

future activities on air quality and to

manage those activities.

3. What Is the Background for This

Action?

EPA promulgated the applicable

Federal Implementation Plan (FIP) in

1976. The FIP required significant

emission reductions at specific facilities

throughout the state to attain and

maintain the NAAQS for SO2.

On October 5, 1978, Coshocton,

Gallia, and Lorain Counties (among

others) were designated as

nonattainment areas for the primary

sulfur dioxide standards. The state

adopted its own regulations in 1979,

generally imposing limits similar to

those promulgated in the FIP. The state

submitted these regulations for EPA

approval in 1980, including regulations

for Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain

Counties.

The state then withdrew its submittal

for selected sources. These sources are:

1. Coshocton County

—Columbus and Southern Ohio

Electric—Conesville plant

2. Gallia County

—Ohio Valley Electric Company—

Kyger Creek plant

—Ohio Power—Gavin plant

3. Lorain County

—Cleveland Electric Illuminating

(CEI)—Avon Lake plant

—Ohio Edison—Edgewater plant

—U.S. Steel—Lorain plant

—B.F. Goodrich Company

EPA approved this SIP regulation on

January 27, 1981, for Coshocton, Gallia,

and Lorain Counties (46 FR 8481)

except for the source limits withdrawn

by the state. The federally promulgated

FIP regulations, therefore, have

remained in effect for the above sources.

On October 26, 1995, Governor

George Voinovich requested that EPA

redesignate to attainment all remaining

SO2 nonattainment areas within the

State of Ohio, including Coshocton,

Gallia, and Lorain Counties.

On May 28, 1996, EPA Administrator

Browner sent a letter to Governor

Voinovich informing him that the

redesignation request depended on EPA

approval of state-adopted rules, such

that the plan for assuring attainment

would rely on approved State Rules

rather than federally promulgated rules.

On September 14, 1999, Ohio

provided supplemental supporting

material for redesignation requests for

three SO2 nonattainment areas

(Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties)

to EPA.

On October 28, 1999 (64 FR 58018),

EPA proposed approval of the

redesignation requests for Coshocton,

Gallia, and Lorain Counties, the

maintenance plans, and the stateadopted emission limits.

The public comment period on this

proposed approval ended on November

29, 1999; and only one comment, which

was favorable, was received.

II. How Does the Proposed Submittal

Compare to the Final Submittal?

For Gallia County emission limits,

both the proposed and the final

submittals are identical.

For the Coshocton County emission

limits, paragraph (B)(4) of the final

submittal, applying to two diesels at

Columbus Southern Power Company,

Conesville, was deleted based on

evidence from the company’s title V

application that these units no longer

operate. The final submittal indicates

only 3 units (B006, B009, and B010) are

in operation, instead of 5 units

indicated in the proposed submittal.

For the Lorain County emission

limits, paragraph (C) of the final

submittal, applying to the General

Motors Corporation, Fisher Body

Division, was removed because this

facility has been shutdown for 15 years.

For the Avon Lake Plant, the state had

two options in 3745–18–53, (B)(1) and

(B)(2) or (B)(3) and (B)(4), for setting the

facility’s boilers’ emission limits. Since

the source only implements the strategy

inherent in (B)(1) and (2), the limits in

(B)(3) and (B)(4) had become irrelevant

and were removed from the final state

rule.

III. Public Comments and EPA

Response

What Comments Did EPA Receive?

On November 23, 1999, EPA received

one letter commenting on the proposed

rulemaking. This letter, from AEP,

encouraged EPA to take final action to

approve the request as proposed. EPA

received no adverse comments on this

proposed rulemaking, and for the

reasons provided in the proposal,

concludes that the adopted emission

limits, maintenance plans, and

redesignation request for these counties

should be approved.

IV. Background on Ohio Submittal

1. What Information Did Ohio Submit,

and What Were Its Requests?

In June 1999, Ohio e-mailed copies of

proposed rule revisions for Coshocton,

Gallia, and Lorain Counties to EPA. On

September 14, 1999, Ohio submitted

additional material requested by EPA to

support the state’s requests to

redesignate these Counties to attainment

with respect to SO2. On March 20, 2000,

Ohio submitted final rule revisions with

its final request for redesignation of

these Counties to attainment for SO2. In

addition, the state requested approval

for the SO2 maintenance plans for

Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties.

2. What Guidance Documents Did EPA

Use in This Rulemaking To Evaluate

Ohio’s Requests?

Guidance for review of these requests

includes a September 28, 1994,

memorandum from the Director, Air

Quality Management Division, Office of

Air Quality Planning and Standards,

EPA, to the Director, Air and Radiation

Division, Region 5, entitled, ‘‘Response

to Request for Guidance on Issues with

Ohio Sulfur Dioxide Federal

Implementation Plan.’’

This memorandum sets forth three

criteria to be met for the approval of

state limits that are equivalent to

existing FIP limits without new

modeling. Under the first two criteria,

there must be no known inadequacy in

the original attainment demonstration.

Under the third criterion, the state

limits must reflect no relaxation of

existing emission limits.

All three of these criteria are met by

the state-promulgated SIP limits.

Therefore, the revised limits, as adopted

and submitted on March 20, 2000, are

adequate to assure attainment without

further modeling.

Another guidance document relevant

to this rulemaking is an April 21, 1983,

memorandum entitled ‘‘Section 107

Designation Policy Summary,’’ from the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 108 / Monday, June 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 35579

Director of EPA’s Office of Air Quality

Planning and Standards, which requires

eight consecutive quarters of data

showing SO2 NAAQS attainment before

an area can be redesignated. A county

violates the NAAQS when its SO2 level

exceeds the NAAQS more than once in

any year. Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain

Counties have eight consecutive

quarters of data showing SO2 NAAQS

attainment. As discussed below,

modeling-based evidence also indicates

attainment of the SO2 NAAQS.

Finally, a September 4, 1992 EPA

policy memorandum on ‘‘Procedures for

Processing Requests to Redesignate

Areas to Attainment’’ was also relevant

to this rulemaking. This memorandum

explains that additional dispersion

modeling is not required in support of

an SO2 redesignation request if an

adequate modeled attainment

demonstration was previously

submitted and approved as part of the

implemented SIP, and no indication of

an existing air quality deficiency exists.

These conditions are met here.

V. State Implementation Plan (SIP)

1. How Do State-Adopted Emission

Limits Compare to the FIP Limits?

For facilities that are currently subject

to FIP limits, the final state-adopted

emission limits are equivalent to the FIP

limits. A few emission points at these

facilities have State limits but no FIP

limits; approval of these State limits

obviously increase the stringency of the

SIP.

In Gallia County, for facilities

currently subject to FIP limits, the State

rules impose the same limits on the

same set of emission points as the FIP.

In Lorain County, the state’s rules

include limits for soaking pit process

operations and seamless rotary furnace

for USS/KOBE. In Coshocton County,

the State’s rules include limits for

diesels and auxiliary boiler for

Columbus Southern Power Company.

Because these emission points are not

currently subject to federally

enforceable limits, these limits enhance

the stringency of the State’s plan.

The FIP limits at issue will become

suspended upon approval of these

submitted SIP limits, but would become

applicable again if for any reason these

SIP limits were rescinded in the future.

2. What Are the Sources and Emission

Limits That Will Be Affected by EPA’s

Action?

The principal sources affected by this

rulemaking are sources for which FIP

limits are being superseded by limits in

approved state rules. The table below

lists these sources.

County names State rules Source names

Coshocton County ..................................... —OAC 3745–18–22 (B) ............................ —Columbus and Southern Ohio Electric—Conesville.

Gallia County ............................................. —OAC 3745–18–33 (B) ............................ —Ohio Valley Electric Company—Kyger Creek.

—OAC 3745–18–33 (D) ............................ —Ohio Power—Gavin.

Lorain County ............................................. —OAC 3745–18–53 (B) ............................ —CEI—Avon Lake.

—OAC 3745–18–53 (D) ............................ —Ohio Edison—Edgewater Plant.

—OAC 3745–18–53 (E) ............................ —U.S. Steel

—OAC 3745–18–53 (G) ........................... —B.F. Goodrich.

This rulemaking also approves the

removal of obsolete State limits that the

State adopted in its final rulemaking.

VI. Maintenance Plan

1. How Does the Maintenance Plan

Apply in Coshocton, Gallia, Lorain

Counties?

Ohio’s attainment plan for sulfur

dioxide provides for attainment even

with major sources emitting their

maximum allowable emissions.

Therefore, maintenance is provided by

assuring that minor source impacts do

not increase significantly. The principal

minor sources are distant point sources

and diesel vehicles.

2. What Are the Maintenance Plan

Reduction Requirements?

Clean Air Act Title IV reductions and

the required national conversion to low

sulfur diesel fuel are the identified

maintenance plan provisions for

Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties.

VII. Redesignation Evaluation

1. What Five Criteria Did EPA Use To

Review the Redesignation Requests?

Section 107(d)(3)(E) of the Clean Air

Act (Act), as amended in 1990,

establishes requirements to be met

before an area may be redesignated from

nonattainment to attainment. The

criteria used to review redesignation

requests are derived from the Act. An

area can be redesignated to attainment

if the following five conditions are met:

(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.

2. Are These Five Criteria Satisfied for

Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties?

A. Demonstrated Attainment of the

NAAQS

Relevant Agency guidance is provided

in both the April 21, 1983, and

September 4, 1992 guidance documents

cited above. The April 21, 1983

memorandum explains that eight

consecutive quarters of data showing

SO2 NAAQS attainment are required for

redesignation. The September 4, 1992

guidance explains that the area must

have no more than one exceedance per

year.

Ohio’s September 14, 1999 submittal

provides ambient monitoring data

showing that Coshocton, Gallia, and

Lorain Counties have met the NAAQS

for the years 1994–1999.

Dispersion modeling is commonly

used to demonstrate attainment of the

SO2 NAAQS. A modeling analysis was

done in 1976 to show that, under all

allowed operating scenarios, the

emission limits in these three counties’

SO2 SIPs would lead to attainment and

maintenance of the SO2 standards.

According to the September 4, 1992

memorandum, no further dispersion

modeling is needed for the counties’

redesignation. Ohio has provided

evidence that sources in these counties

are complying with these limits.

Based on this evidence, EPA

concludes that emissions are

sufficiently low to assure attainment

throughout these areas currently

designated nonattainment.

B. Fully Approved SIP

The SIP for the area at issue must be

fully approved under section 110(k) of

the Act and must satisfy all

requirements that apply.

EPA’s guidance for implementing

section 110 of the Act is discussed in

35580 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 108 / Monday, June 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

the General Preamble to Title I (44 FR

20372, April 14, 1979; and 57 FR 13498,

April 16, 1992). The SO2 SIP for

Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties

met the requirements of section 110 of

the Act, and EPA approved the SIP on

January 27, 1981, except that EPA did

not take action for a limited set of

sources.

State limits for the remaining set of

specific sources in Coshocton, Gallia,

and Lorain Counties are being approved

in this rulemaking. For convenience,

EPA is rulemaking on rules for entire

affected Counties, and is approving

additional minor revisions in these

Counties.

C. Permanent and Enforceable

Reductions in Emissions

Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain

Counties attained the SO2 standards by

implementing the SO2 SIP controls. The

reductions in emissions primarily come

from converting some fuel-burning

sources to lower sulfur content fuels,

and to shutting down various types of

sources. The use of lower-sulfur

‘‘cleaner’’ fuels is ensured by the

facilities’ air emission permits and

federally enforceable SIP regulations.

D. Fully Approved Maintenance Plan

EPA has concluded that the

combination of limitations on maximum

allowable emissions from major point

sources and implementation of

programs that will yield reductions in

minor source emissions will assure

maintenance of the standards. EPA is

approving the maintenance plan in

today’s action.

E. Part D and Other Section 110

Requirements

With today’s approval of limits

submitted on March 20, 2000, along

with the approval of limits and

attainment demonstrations published on

January 27, 1981 (46 FR 8481), Ohio has

met the relevant requirements.

VIII. Final Rulemaking Action

In summary, EPA is approving stateadopted emission limits for 7 sources in

Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain Counties,

as well as approving minor revisions for

other sources in these Counties. EPA is

also approving the SO2 maintenance

plan for Coshocton, Gallia, and Lorain

Counties as adequately ensuring that

attainment will be maintained. Finally,

EPA is approving redesignation requests

from the State of Ohio which were

submitted on October 26, 1995,

September 14, 1999 and on March 20,

2000.

IX. 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

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, 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, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to 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 officials 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. This action

does not involve or impose any

requirements that affect Indian Tribes.

Accordingly, the requirements of

section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084

do not apply to this rule.

D. Executive Order 13132

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, 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

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 108 / Monday, June 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 35581

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions.

This 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 sections 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.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated 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 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 action 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 August 4, 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).)

List of Subjects

40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovermental relations,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sulfur dioxide.

40 CFR Part 81

Air pollution control, National parks,

Wilderness areas.

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

Dated: May 5, 2000.

Norman Niedergang,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, title 40, Chapter I of the Code

of Federal Regulations are 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 52.1870 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(121) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1870 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(121) On March 20, 2000, the Ohio

Environmental Protection Agency

submitted rules to control sulfur dioxide

emissions in Coshocton, Gallia and

Lorain Counties.

(i) Incorporation by reference. Rules

OAC 3745–18–22; OAC 3745–18–33;

and OAC 3745–18–53. Adopted March

1, 2000; effective March 21, 2000.

3. Section 52.1881 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a)(4) and (a)(8) and

by adding paragraph (a)(14) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1881 Control strategy: Sulfur oxides

(sulfur dioxide).

(a) * * *

(4) Approval-EPA approves the sulfur

dioxide emission limits for the

following counties: Adams County

(except Dayton Power & Light-Stuart),

Allen County (except Cairo Chemical),

Ashland County, Ashtabula County,

Athens County, Auglaize County,

Belmont County, Brown County, Carroll

County, Champaign County, Clark

County, Clermont County, (except

Cincinnati Gas & Electric-Beckjord),

Clinton County, Columbiana County,

Coshocton County, Crawford County,

Darke County, Defiance County,

Delaware County, Erie County, Fairfield

County, Fayette County, Fulton County,

Gallia County, Geauga County, Greene

County, Guernsey County, Hamilton

County, Hancock County, Hardin

County, Harrison County, Henry

County, Highland County, Hocking

County, Holmes County, Huron County,

Jackson County, Jefferson County, Knox

County, Lake County (except Painesville

Municipal Plant boiler number 5),

Lawrence County (except Allied

Chemical-South Point), Licking County,

Logan County, Lorain County, Lucas

County (except Gulf Oil Company,

35582 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 108 / Monday, June 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Coulton Chemical Company, Phillips

Chemical Company and Sun Oil

Company), Madison County, Marion

County, Medina County, Meigs County,

Mercer County, Miami County, Monroe

County, Morgan County, Montgomery

County (except Bergstrom Paper, Miami

Paper), Morrow County, Muskingum

County, Noble County, Ottawa County,

Paulding County, Perry County,

Pickaway County, Pike County (except

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant),

Portage County, Preble County, Putnam

County, Richland County, Ross County

(except Mead Corporation), Sandusky

County (except Martin Marietta

Chemicals), Scioto County, Seneca

County, Shelby County, Trumbull

County, Tuscarawas County, Union

County, Van Wert County, Vinton

County, Warren County, Washington

County (except Shell Chemical), Wayne

County, Williams County, Wood County

(except Libbey-Owens-Ford Plants Nos.

4 and 8 and No. 6), and Wyandot

County.

* * * * *

(8) No Action-EPA is neither

approving nor disapproving the

emission limitations for the following

counties/sources pending further

review: Adams County (Dayton Power &

Light-Stuart), Allen County (Cairo

Chemical), Butler County, Clermont

County (Cincinnati Gas & ElectricBeckjord), Cuyahoga County, Franklin

County, Lake County (Painesville

Municipal Plant boiler number 5),

Lawrence County (Allied ChemicalSouth Point), Lucas County (Gulf Oil

Company, Coulton Chemical Company,

Phillips Chemical Company and Sun

Oil Company), Mahoning County,

Montgomery County (Bergstrom Paper

and Miami Paper), Pike County

(Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant),

Stark County, Washington County (Shell

Chemical Company), and Wood County

(Libbey-Owens-Ford Plants Nos. 4 and 8

and No. 6).

* * * * *

(14) On March 20, 2000, the Ohio

Environmental Protection Agency

submitted maintenance plans for

Coshocton, Gallia and Lorain Counties.

* * * * *

PART 81—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 81

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart C—Section 107 Attainment

Status Designations

2. The table in § 81.336 entitled

‘‘Ohio—SO2’’ is amended to read as

follows:

§ 81.336 Ohio.

* * * * *

OHIO—SO2

Designated area

Does not meet

primary

standards

Does not meet

secondary

standards

Cannot be

classified

Better than

national

standards

Athens County ................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ X

Clermont County .............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ X

Columbiana County ......................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ X

Coshocton County ........................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ X

Cuyahoga County:

The Cities of Bay Village, Westlake, North Olmsted, Olmsted Falls,

Rock River, Fairview Park, Berea, Middleburg Heights, Strongsville,

North Royalton, Broadview Heights, Brecksville and the Townships of

Olmsted and Riveredge ........................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ X

The remainder of Cuyahoga County ........................................................ X ........................ ........................ ........................

Gallia County ................................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ X

Greene County ................................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ X

Hamilton County .............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ X

Jefferson County:

The Cities of Steubenville and Mingo Junction, Townships of Steubenville, Island Creek, Cross Creek, Knox and Wells ................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ X

The remainder of Jefferson County .......................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ X

Lake County:

The Cities of Eastlake, Timberlake, Lakeline, Willoughby (north of U.S.

20) and Mentor (north of U.S. 20, west of S.R. 306) ........................... ........................ ........................ ........................ X

The remainder of Lake County ................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ X

Lorain County .................................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ X

Lucas County:

The area east of Route 23 and west of the eastern boundary of Oregon Township ...................................................................................... X ........................ ........................ ........................

The remainder of Lucas County ............................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ X

Mahoning County ............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ X

Montgomery County ........................................................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ X

Morgan County:

Center Township ...................................................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ X

The remainder of Morgan County ............................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ X

Summit County:

Area bounded by the following lines—north—Interstate 76, east—Route

93, south—Vanderhoof Road, west—Summit County line ................... (1) (1) (1) (1)

Area bounded by the following lines— north—Bath Road (48 east to

Route 8, Route 8 north to Barlow Road, Barlow Road east to county

line, east—Summit/Portage county line, south—Interstate 76 to

Route 93, Route 93 south to Route 619, Route 619 east to county

line, west—Summit/Medina county line ................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 2X

Entire area northwest of the following line: Route 80 east to Route 91,

Route 91 north to the county line ......................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ 2X

The remainder of Summit County ............................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ 3X

Trumbull County .............................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ 3X

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 108 / Monday, June 5, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 35583

OHIO—SO2—Continued

Designated area

Does not meet

primary

standards

Does not meet

secondary

standards

Cannot be

classified

Better than

national

standards

Washington County:

Waterford Township ................................................................................. ........................ ........................ ........................ X

The remainder of Washington County ..................................................... ........................ ........................ ........................ X

All other counties in the State of Ohio ............................................................ ........................ ........................ ........................ X

1This area remains undesignated at this time as a result of a court remand in PPG Industries, Inc. v. Costle, 630 F.2d 462 (6th Cir. 1980). 2This area was affected by the Sixth Circuit Court remand but has since been designated.

3This area was not affected by the court remand in PPG Industries, Inc. v. Costle 630 F.2d 462 (6th Cir. 1980).

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–13199 Filed 6–2–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Office of the Secretary

Office of Inspector General

42 CFR Parts 1001, 1003, 1005 and

1006

RIN 0991–AA90

Health Care Programs: Fraud and

Abuse; Revised OIG Civil Money

Penalties Resulting From Public Law

104–191

AGENCY: Office of Inspector General

(OIG), HHS.

ACTION: Final rule; correction

amendments.

SUMMARY: This document contains

several corrections to the final

regulations which were published in the

Federal Register on Wednesday, April

26, 2000 (65 FR 24400). These

regulations revised the OIG’s civil

money penalty (CMP) authorities in

conjunction with new or revised

provisions set forth in the Health

Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act of 1996, and

codified a number of technical

corrections to the regulations governing

the OIG’s sanction authorities.

Inadvertent errors appeared in the text

of the regulations concerning the

knowledge standard in § 1003.102 (a)(6),

and in § 1005.7 with respect to

discovery. In addition, an incorrect

cross-reference was cited in the

definition for the term ‘‘preventive

care,’’ as set forth in part 1003. As a

result, we are making corrections to 42

CFR 1003.101, 1003.102(a) and 1005.7

to assure the technical correctness of

these regulations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 5, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Joel

Schaer, (202) 619–0089, OIG

Regulations Officer.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The HHS

Office of Inspector General (OIG) issued

final regulations on April 26, 2000 (65

FR 24400) that revised the OIG’s CMP

authorities, in conjunction with new

and revised provisions set forth in the

Health Insurance Portability and

Accountability Act of 1996, Public Law

104–191. Among other provisions, this

final rulemaking codified new CMPs for

excluded individuals retaining

ownership or control interest in an

entity; upcoding and claims for

medically unnecessary services; offering

inducements to beneficiaries; and false

certification of eligibility for home

health services. The rule also codified a

number of technical corrections to the

regulations governing OIG’s sanction

authorities. In that final rule, several

inadvertent errors appeared in the

regulations text and are now being

corrected.

CMP Knowledge Standard—

§ 1003.102(a)(6)

In the preamble discussion regarding

revisions to § 1003.102(a)(6), addressing

the submission of claims for services

that are medically unnecessary, we

indicated that this paragraph was being

amended to include the ‘‘knows or

should know’’ standard found in the

statute and in the revision to

§ 1003.102(a)(1) to ensure that it is not

the OIG’s intent to subject providers to

penalties for legitimate disagreements

over the medical necessity of items and

services or for honest mistakes or errors

(65 FR 24403). As indicated in that

discussion, while the knowledge

standard in the statute requires that

providers assume responsibility for

appropriate billing of their services, the

OIG intends to impose CMPs only after

establishing that a provider knew that a

billed item or service was not medically

necessary, or that he or she deliberately

ignored or recklessly disregarded such

information. Accordingly, we indicated

that we were revising § 1003.102(a)(6)

by adding the words ‘‘knows or should

know’’ to have the paragraph read as:

‘‘An item or service that a person knows

or should know is medically

unnecessary, and which is part of a

pattern of such claims.’’ (emphasis

added). This language was inadvertently

omitted from the revised regulations

text. In order to be consistent with the

preamble discussion, we are correcting

the omission that occurred in

§ 1003.102(a)(6).

Discovery—§ 1005.7

In summarizing the provisions of the

final rule, we indicated that we were

amending § 1005.7 to provide for

motions to compel discovery once a

request for production of documents has

been received. The preamble stated that

any objections to a request for the

production of documents will have to be

filed with the opposing party within 15

days of receiving the discovery request,

and that the party seeking the

production of documents may then file

a motion to compel discovery within 15

days, unless a lengthier time frame is set

by the administrative law judge (ALJ)

(65 FR 24412–13). This discretion

afforded to the ALJ to grant an extension

was inadvertently omitted from the

regulations text in § 1005.7(e). We are

correcting this omission by

redesignating existing paragraph (e)(3)

in this section to read as (e)(4) and by

adding a new paragraph (e)(3) to address

the ALJ’s discretion in extending the

appropriate time frames

Preventive Care—§ 1003.101

In the definition for ‘‘preventive care’’

appearing in § 1003.101, the definition

incorrectly cites § 1003.102(b)(13) as the

applicable cross-reference. We are

amending this definition to cite the

correct cross-reference, which is to the

term ‘‘remuneration’’ that is set forth in

this same section.

Amendatory Language to § 1003.103(a)

Introductory Text and

§ 1003.105(a)(1)(i)

We are amending the language in the

introductory text for § 1003.103(a) and