Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 43959

3. Temporary Certificate of

Documentation. For various reasons, a

permanent Certificate of Documentation

cannot be issued immediately upon

application for documentation or redocumentation. This prevents vessel

owners from operating their vessels

during processing of applications. The

delays in processing are due to the need

to first get a Satisfaction of Mortgage or

a Mortgagee Consent, to the seasonal

fluctuations in the volume of

applications received, and to the limited

amount of equipment and staff available

to process applications. To enable

owners to operate their vessels during

the application process, a temporary

certificate of documentation could be

issued.This would not only reduce

down-time for vessels but also assist law

enforcement and relieve States from

having to issue temporary motorboat

registrations. What information should

the certificate contain? For how long

should it be valid? Who should be

authorized to issue it? How can its use

be controlled? How much should the

issuing person charge?

Procedural

The meeting will be in the form of an

informal workshop open to the public.

It is intended to bring together persons

knowledgeable about the three issues

addressed in this notice to assist the

Coast Guard in answering the questions

raised.

Information on Services for Individuals

With Disabilities

For information on facilities or

services for individuals with disabilities

or to request special assistance at the

meeting, contact Mr. Dennis M. Nelson

as soon as possible.

Dated: August 13, 1997.

Joseph J. Angelo,

Director of Standards, Marine Safety and

Environmental Protection.

[FR Doc. 97–21811 Filed 8–15–97; 8:45am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[PA 058–4039; FRL–5876–5]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Pennsylvania; Proposed Disapproval

of the NOX RACT Determination for

Pennsylvania Power Company

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to

disapprove a State Implementation Plan

(SIP) revision submitted by the

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s

Department of Environmental Protection

(PADEP). This revision withdraws

EPA’s previously proposed approval of

the nitrogen oxide (NOX) reasonably

available control technology (RACT)

determination submitted by PADEP for

Pennsylvania Power Company—New

Castle plant (PPNC), located in

Lawrence County, Pennsylvania and,

instead, proposes to disapprove the SIP

revision pertaining to this facility. The

intended effect of this action is to

propose disapproval of the NOX RACT

determination submitted by PADEP for

PPNC.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before September 17, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

David L. Arnold, Chief, Ozone/CO and

Mobile Sources Section, Mailcode

3AT21, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19107. Copies of the documents relevant

to this action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air, Radiation, and Toxics

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19107; Pennsylvania Department of

Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air

Quality, P.O. Box 8468, 400 Market

Street, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17105.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cynthia H.Stahl, (215) 566–2180, at the

EPA Region III office above or via e-mail

at stahl.cynthia@epamail.epa.gov. While

information may be requested via email, all comments must be submitted

in writing to the EPA Region III address

above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On April 19, 1995, PADEP submitted

a revision to the Pennsylvania SIP

requesting EPA approve RACT

determinations it had made for several

facilities, including PPNC. Only the

RACT determination submitted for

PPNC is the subject of this rulemaking

action. The revision consists of an

operating permit, OP 37–023, for PPNC.

The other plan approvals and operating

permits submitted on April 19, 1995 are

the subject of other rulemaking actions.

On April 9, 1996, EPA published a

direct final rule in the Federal Register

(61 FR 15709). This document stated

that EPA was approving, without prior

proposal, 21 source-specific RACT

determinations made and submitted by

PADEP for facilities located in

Pennsylvania. Included among these 21

source-specific RACT determinations

was one for PPNC. The document also

stated that unless adverse comments

were received within 30 days of

publication, EPA’s RACT

determinations for these 21 facilities

would become final. The accompanying

proposed rulemaking, which appears

with every direct final rule, was also

published on April 9, 1996 ( 61 FR

15744).

On May 8, 1996, New York

Department of Environmental

Conservation submitted a letter stating

that it intended to adversely comment

on EPA’s action to approve PADEP’s

RACT determination for PPNC.

Therefore, on June 11, 1996, EPA

published a document withdrawing the

final rule approving PADEP’s RACT

determination for PPNC, among other

facilities (61 FR 29483). At the request

of the commenters, EPA also extended

the comment period twice; the last time

until August 2, 1996 (61 FR 29483 and

61 FR 37030).

On June 28, 1996, NYDEC submitted

comments to EPA pertaining to PADEP’s

RACT determination for PPNC. On July

15, 1996 and August 1, 1996, PPNC

submitted comments to EPA addressing

issues raised by NYDEC. On August 2,

1996, Pennsylvania DEP submitted

comments to EPA stating that EPA

should proceed with final approval of

the PPNC RACT determination. The

comments received by EPA are

summarized below and, in more detail,

in the technical support document

(TSD) prepared by EPA in support of

this proposed action to disapprove

PADEP’s SIP revision for PPNC

submitted on April 19, 1995. Copies of

the TSD are available, upon request,

from the EPA Region III office listed in

the ADDRESSES section of this

document.

This action proposing to disapprove

PADEP’s April 19, 1995 SIP revision

request for PPNC being taken under

section 110 of the Clean Air Act.

Comments Received on EPA’s April 9,

1996 Proposal to Approve PADEP’s

RACT Determination for PPNC

NYDEC Comments:

NYDEC states in its June 28, 1996

comment letter that it disagrees with

EPA’s proposal to approve PADEP’s

RACT determination for PPNC. NYDEC

states that it believes that the control

efficiencies for add-on emission controls

are understated in the PADEP technical

support document, the costs for add-on

controls are overstated, the 15-year costrecovery period used in the PPNC RACT

analysis is too short, and that NOX addon control technology is technically and
43960 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

economically feasible for the boilers at

PPNC. In addition, NYDEC states that

another indication that the economic

analysis is flawed is the inconsistency

in final NOX emission limits depending

on how the emission limits are

calculated. NYDEC further states that

PADEP’s acceptance of PPNC’s use of a

lower NOX emission rate (and nonenforceable emission rate) to perform

the cost analysis to show that any

emission controls are infeasible, but a

higher NOX emission rate (i.e. the

proposed RACT emission limits) to

determine total NOX emissions allowed,

is inconsistent with its (NYDEC’s) State

Implementation Plan (SIP) experience in

establishing enforceable emission limits

and determining the cost-effectiveness

of controls for RACT. NYDEC’s

comments included a table of

calculations showing the total NOX

emissions using the proposed RACT

(SIP) emission limits and the calculated

emission limits using the emission caps

proposed as part of the PPNC RACT

determination. NYDEC states that PPNC

appears to have used lower emission

limits to evaluate the economic

feasibility of control options but did not

agree to make those lower emission

limits enforceable as part of the RACT

determination.NYDEC states that the

PADEP October 14, 1996 memorandum

seriously underestimates the

effectiveness of low NOX burner (LNB)

controls. PADEP estimates that emission

reductions of approximately 30% are

expected for the operation of LNB while

NYDEC believes that emission

reductions on the order of 40–50% are

more realistic. NYDEC states that the

Title IV Phase I limits (under the acid

rain program) estimate that reductions

of 40–50% are achievable and at costs

well below those estimated in the PPNC

RACT proposal submitted to PADEP.

Pennsylvania Power—New Castle

Comments:

On July 15, 1996 and August 1, 1996,

the firm of Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver

& Jacobsen submitted comments to EPA

on behalf of their client, Pennsylvania

Power Company. In summary, the

commenter states that the Company

pursued a Company-wide NOX emission

reduction strategy to achieve 55% NOX

reduction consistent with the goals of

the Ozone Transport Commission’s

(OTC) NOX Memorandum of

Understanding (NOX MOU). The

commenter also states that the NOX

emission caps agreed to by PPNC for

Units 3 –5 represent a 55% NOX

emission reduction from potential

emission levels. The commenter further

states that the New Castle plant—s

emissions are small relative to the rest

of the Pennsylvania Power System and

that PPNC’s Units 3—5 represent 12%

of the total Pennsylvania Power System

NOX emissions. The commenter, on

behalf of the Company, states that its

Mansfield plant has installed low-NOX

burners and, that these, in combination

with lowered emissions from the shut

down of PPNC’s units 1 and 2, result in

Pennsylvania Power achieving a 51%

potential emission reduction. PPNC

states that determination made by

PADEP that any control technology is

technically or economically infeasible,

was based on existing Pennsylvania

regulations. The commenter asserts that

the determination was made by relying

upon procedures approved by EPA for

making NOX RACT determinations and

by relying on emission caps for units 3,

4, and 5 to restrict capacity and

emissions. These emission caps were

factored into the RACT determination,

resulting in unreasonable costs for addon controls. These procedures were

referenced as: 25 Pa Code § 129.91 and

‘‘PADER, Guidance Document on

Reasonably Available Control

Technology for Sources of NOX

Emissions (March 10, 1994).’’ The

commenter states that the RACT

determination for PPNC submitted by

PADEP was supported by accompanying

documentation, which included a

description of the control technology

options, costs, and control effectiveness.

The commenter cites the PA NOX RACT

guidance document and EPA’s March

16, 1994 memorandum as part of its

evidence that the technically feasible

control options were properly deemed

economically infeasible. The commenter

included as part of its comments,

additional vendor information, supplied

to support the RACT determination, that

add-on controls are economically

infeasible for the PPNC units. The

commenter states that the vendor has

extensive experience in the design and

installation of low NOX burners

including those at Ohio Edison/Penn

Power’s Edgewater, Sammis, and

Mansfield plants. The commenter

concludes that the selection of no

controls as RACT for the PPNC boilers

is a legitimate RACT determination

using the PADEP and EPA policies and

guidance. The Company believes that

substituting NYDEC’s analysis for the

one done by PADEP, or substituting data

submitted by NYDEC for that originally

considered by PADEP, would be a

violation of the principles of

administrative law.

Pennsylvania DEP Comments:

On August 2, 1996, Pennsylvania DEP

submitted a short statement that it sees

no justifiable reason to change its RACT

determination and urged EPA to

approve the PPNC RACT determination

as it was submitted. In addition to

PADEP’s August 2, 1996 letter, EPA

received, via fax on July 29, 1996, a

document showing how PADEP

calculated the NOX RACT emission

limitation for PPNC unit 3 using

continuous emission monitoring (CEM)

data. The actual methodology is

contained in the March 1996

Pennsylvania NOX RACT Guidance

Document, which has not been

submitted or approved as part of the

Pennsylvania SIP. The faxed material

shows the data used by PADEP to

calculate the PPNC NOX emission

limits. Briefly, the PADEP formula used

to calculate a NOX emission limit

specifies the use of the mean 30-day

NOX CEM average plus 2.78 standard

deviations. Using this formula, PADEP

calculated the NOX emission limit for

unit 3 (using first- and second-quarter

1995 CEM data) to be 0.531 +

2.78(0.0929) = 0.79 lbs/mmBTU. The

NOX emission limits for units 4 and 5

were calculated similarly.

Relevant Information

A survey of other boilers similar to

PPNC’s (dry-bottom, wall-fired, coal

burning) show that in the ozone

transport region (OTR), which includes

the states in the northeast U.S.,

uncontrolled emission levels average

0.54 lbs NOX/mmBTU. Controlled

emission levels for this same group of

boilers can meet, on average, 0.47 lbs

NOX/mmBTU. The add-on controls

generally used for these boilers are low

NOX burners. Across the country, which

would include areas that are designated

attainment for ozone and are, therefore,

not required to implement NOX RACT,

uncontrolled emission levels for boilers

similar to PPNC average 0.72 lbs NOX/

mmBTU. Controlled emissions for this

nationwide group of boilers average 0.47

lbs NOX/mmBTU. In EPA Region III

(consisting of the states Pennsylvania,

Maryland, Delaware, Virginia, West

Virginia and the District of Columbia),

there are 31 boiler units that are of

similar type to PPNC’s boilers. Fortyfive percent of these 31 boilers have low

NOX burners installed. There are 20

boiler units that are similar to PPNC’s

boilers in Pennsylvania; 55% of these

boilers have low NOX burners or LNB

with overfired air installed as emission

controls.

A review of the CEM data for PPNC

shows that NOX emissions at this

facility, which does not have any NOX

add-on controls, have been between 14

and 58% lower than the RACT emission

limits proposed by the Company and

determined by PADEP to be RACT. No

CEM data is available for units 1 and 2

since the CEM requirement did not start
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 43961

1 25 Pennsylvania Code, Chapter 121, definition

of RACT; December 9, 1976 memorandum from

Roger Strelow, Assistant Administrator for Air and

Waste Management, to all Regional Administrators.

until after those units were shut down.

The CEM data for units 3 through 5 are

available from the last quarter of 1993

through the last quarter of 1996. The

CEM data is required to be reported by

the Company to both PADEP and EPA.

Under the Clean Air Act’s Title IV

(Acid Rain) requirements, EPA

conducted final rulemaking for the

Phase I, Group I boilers (including drybottom, wall-fired units such as PPNC’s)

(60 FR 18751, April 13, 1995). This final

rule was the result of a court ordered

remand of the March 22, 1994 Phase I,

Group I boilers final rulemaking (FR

CITE). Both the March 22, 1994 and the

April 13, 1995 rulemakings state that

LNB technology is a technically feasible

and cost effective option for utility

boilers such as PPNC’s. The April 1995

rule states that LNB costs are on the

order of $226/ton NOX removed and

proposes an emission limit of 0.5 lbs

NOX/mmBTU. The information gathered

under the acid rain provisions of the Act

are relevant and pertinent to the PPNC

RACT determination. Other literature

pertaining to utility boilers and

feasibility of controls also indicate that

the installation of NOX controls is cost

effective. This information is discussed

in more detail in the TSD prepared for

this proposal which is included in the

rulemaking docket and available to the

public.

Prior to PPNC’s July 1994 NOX RACT

proposal to PADEP, and during the time

that PPNC and PADEP were working to

develop a RACT proposal for submittal

to EPA, EPA proposed NOX emission

limitations under the Title IV acid rain

program. EPA’s acid rain proposal

occurred in November 1992 and was

finalized in March 1994. The March

1994 rule was later vacated and EPA

reissued the final rule in December

1996. Under the acid rain program, on

May 10, 1994, PPNC applied to accept

federally enforceable permit conditions

to limit the NOX emissions at units 1

and 2 to no more than 0.5 lbs/mmBTU

on an annual average. Units 1 and 2

were volunteered by the Company as

Phase I substitution units, meaning that

in exchange for the 0.5 lbs/mmBTU

emission limits on those boilers, the

Pennsylvania Power parent company

would be allowed to have boilers

elsewhere in the Company, subject to

the acid rain Phase I requirements,

continue to emit at higher than

otherwise allowable levels. EPA

approved the Company’s request

through a permit issued on November

28, 1994, prior to the PPNC NOX RACT

submittal date of April 19, 1995.

The currently operating units 3–5 are

Phase II acid rain units and will be

subject to compliance with a 0.5 lbs

NOX/mmBTU, annual average, emission

limit by the year 2000. On December 26,

1996, the Company requested early

compliance with the Phase II

requirements. In so doing, PPNC units 3

through 5 will be required to meet the

Phase II requirements by January 1,

1997. The early election option allows

sources to meet the Phase II

requirements prior to the compliance

date and relieves those sources from

meeting the more stringent emission

limit of 0.46 lbs/mmBTU until 2009.

PPNC would have otherwise been

required to meet this more stringent

emission limitation by 2000.

EPA’s Analysis

EPA has reviewed and considered all

the information submitted by the

commenters and has reconsidered its

original decision based on those

comments. The RACT determination,

including the emission limits, as

submitted by PADEP on April 19, 1995

and proposed for approval by EPA on

April 9, 1996 (61 FR 15709) cannot be

supported in light of all available

information, including the additional

information and comments submitted

by PADEP and PPNC during the public

comment period and other relevant

publicly available information.

Therefore, EPA is hereby withdrawing

its April 9, 1996 proposed approval of

PADEP RACT determination for PPNC

and is proposing, instead, to disapprove

PADEP’s RACT determination for PPNC

submitted to EPA on April 19, 1995.

EPA initially proposed to approve the

emission limits determined by PADEP

to be RACT because the PPNC RACT

submittal, on its face, including the

analysis done by PADEP (without

reference to relevant information in

existence but not contained in the

submittal) appeared to meet the criteria

for RACT determinations. EPA

understood from PADEP that its

analysis, as described in its technical

support document for the PPNC RACT

determination, was performed in

accordance with proper procedures.

However, due to the submittal of

adverse comments, EPA has reviewed

the issues raised regarding the PPNC

RACT proposal and determined that the

information provided does not support

PADEP’s RACT determination for PPNC.

All five boilers, including units 1 and

2 that are now shut down, are drybottom, single-wall-fired, coal-burning

boilers. Units 1 and 2 were the smallest

boilers at this facility and were rated at

495 mmBTU/hr and 640 mmBTU/hr,

respectively. Units 3 through 5 are rated

at 1029, 1029, and 1325 mmBTU/hr,

respectively. The cost infeasibility

arguments for the installation of any

controls at PPNC are not supported by

the body of literature and information

available, particularly in light of the fact

that many other dry-bottom, wall-fired,

coal burning boilers have been able to

install emission controls and meet lower

emission limits. Fundamentally, neither

PPNC nor PADEP has adequately

demonstrated that the installation of

emission controls is not technically or

economically feasible. Details of the

information pertaining to PPNC are

discussed in the accompanying TSD

available from the EPA Region III listed

in the ADDRESSES section of this

document.

Furthermore, although units 1 and 2

were shut down in 1993, the Company

agreed to accept an effective, federally

enforceable NOX emission limit of 0.5

lbs/mmBTU under the acid rain

program. Therefore, EPA has

determined that the proposed RACT

limits of 0.93 lbs NOX/mmBTU and 0.90

lbs NOX/mmBTU for units 1 and 2,

respectively, are too high.

Additionally, PADEP has

subsequently submitted a separate

request to EPA to approve the early

implementation of the acid rain Phase II

emission limits of 0.5 lbs NOX/mmBTU

for units 3, 4 and 5. Therefore, the

proposed NOX RACT limits of 0.79 lbs/

mmBTU, 0.72 lbs/mmBTU and 1.01 lbs/

mmBTU are also too high. Without

additional analysis and information, it

would be erroneous and premature to

conclude that the limits in the acid rain

permit are RACT. Therefore, any

statements in this document regarding

the acid rain requirements should not be

construed as pre-determining what

RACT might be for the PPNC boilers.

The CEM data for units 3 through 5

indicate that even without emission

controls, the NOX emission rates for

these units are well below the proposed

NOX RACT emission limits of 0.79 lbs/

mmBTU, 0.72 lbs/mmBTU and 1.01 lbs/

mmBTU for units 3, 4 and 5,

respectively. Please refer to the TSD for

a summary of the CEM data. Therefore,

EPA believes that the proposed NOX

RACT emission limits are too high and

do not represent the ‘‘lowest emission

rate [PPNC] is capable of meeting by the

application of control technology that is

reasonably available considering

technological and economic

feasibility.’’ 1

The public notice and comment

procedures required by the Federal

rulemaking process for actions taken to

approve or disapprove SIP revisions,
43962 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules

including PADEP’s source-specific SIP

revisions to determine RACT on a caseby -case basis for companies such as

PPNC, allows interested parties to

comment on whether the information,

rationale, procedure and conclusions

are appropriate for the subject source(s).

The process is designed to allow

interested parties to question the

proposal by challenging EPA’s rationale

for its rulemaking action, including

pointing out gaps in information or

information that may have been

overlooked in the original proposal. By

its re-analysis, performed subsequent to

and in consideration of the issues raised

by NYDEC’s comments, EPA has

determined that PPNC did not follow

the Pennsylvania RACT regulation or

EPA’s requirements when it submitted

its RACT proposal to PADEP.

Furthermore, EPA has determined that

PADEP, in reviewing and analyzing

PPNC’s RACT proposal, did not

determine and impose RACT in

accordance with its regulation’s

definition and the Federal definition of

RACT. EPA’s reconsideration of the

PPNC RACT as a result of such public

comment is the kind of action supported

by the law.

Both Pennsylvania and the Company

indicated that they relied on the

Pennsylvania’s March 10, 1994 RACT

guidance document in developing the

PPNC RACT proposal. This RACT

guidance document was not submitted

by PADEP with the April 19, 1995 PPNC

RACT package nor at any other time as

part of the SIP revision. The Company

included this document in its July 15,

1996 response to EPA’s proposed

rulemaking notice. In a June 26, 1997

letter to PA DEP, EPA stated that it had

no record of this document being

subjected to public notice and comment.

Furthermore, EPA stated that the March

10, 1994 DEP RACT guidance document

contained procedures and methods that

EPA finds inconsistent with the

definition of RACT. Consequently,

following the procedures in the March

10, 1994 DEP RACT guidance document

does not guarantee that the RACT

proposal is approvable by EPA. EPA has

determined that the PPNC RACT

proposal is not supported by the

information in the record. EPA’s review

of this material indicates the proposed

RACT emission limits for PPNC

submitted on April 19, 1995 are

unsubstantiated and cannot be

approved. EPA is soliciting public

comments on the issues discussed in

this document and on other relevant

matters. These comments will be fully

considered before taking final action.

Interested parties may participate in the

Federal rulemaking procedure by

submitting written comments to the

EPA Regional office listed in the

ADDRESSES section of this document.

Proposed Action

EPA is withdrawing the proposed

approval published on April 9, 1996 in

the Federal Register and is, instead,

proposing to disapprove the RACT

determination submitted by PADEP on

April 19, 1995 for the Pennsylvania

Power—New Castle plant, located in

Lawrence County.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any state

implementation plan. Each request for

revision to the state implementation

plan shall be considered separately in

light of specific technical, economic,

and environmental factors and in

relation to relevant statutory and

regulatory requirements.

Administrative Requirements

Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from E.O. 12866 review.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

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 proposed action impacts one

source, Pennsylvania Power’s New

Castle plant. Therefore, EPA certifies

that this disapproval action does not

have a significant impact on small

entities.Furthermore, as explained in

this document, the request does not

meet the requirements of the Clean Air

Act and EPA cannot approve the

request. Therefore, EPA has no option

but to propose to disapprove the

submittal.

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 private sector, of $100

million or more. Under section 205,

EPA must select the most cost-effective

and least burdensome alternative that

achieves the objectives of the rule and

is consistent with statutory

requirements. Section 203 requires EPA

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule. EPA has

determined that the disapproval action

proposed 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.

The Administrator’s decision to

approve or disapprove the SIP revision

submitted by PADEP for Pennsylvania

Power’s New Castle plant will be based

on whether it meets the requirements of

section 110(a)(2)(A)-(K) and part D of

the Clean Air Act, as amended, and EPA

regulations in 40 CFR part 51.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: August 8, 1997.

Thomas Voltaggio,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 97–21805 Filed 8–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Health Care Financing Administration

42 CFR Parts 400, 405, 410, and 414

[BPD–884–CN]

RIN 0938–AH94

Medicare Program; Revisions to

Payment Policies Under the Physician

Fee Schedule, Other Part B Payment

Policies, and Establishment of the

Clinical Psychologist Fee Schedule for

Calendar Year 1998; Correction

AGENCY: Health Care Financing

Administration (HCFA), HHS.

ACTION: Correction of proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document corrects

technical errors that appeared in the

proposed rule published in the Federal

Register on June 18, 1997 entitled

‘‘Medicare Program; Revisions to

Payment Policies Under the Physician

Fee Schedule, Other Part B Payment

Policies, and Establishment of the

Clinical Psychologist Fee Schedule for

Calendar Year 1998.’’