Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 44219

accompany any 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 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 approval

action does not include a Federal

mandate that may result in estimated

costs of $100 million or more to 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.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

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

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, EPA

submitted a report containing this rule

and other required information to the

U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of the rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

E. 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 October 20, 1997.

Filing a petition for reconsideration by

the Administrator of this final rule does

not affect the finality of this rule for the

purposes of judicial review nor does it

extend the time within which a petition

for judicial review may be filed, and

shall not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule or action. This action may not

be challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. (See section

307(b)(2)).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Incorporation by

Reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: May 22, 1997.

R.F. McGhee,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of

Federal Regulations, is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart PP—South Carolina

2. In § 52.2120(c), the table is

amended by adding an entry for

Supplement C under the entry

Regulation No. 62.5, Section III, at the

end of Standard No. 7 in the ‘‘Air

pollution Control Regulations for South

Carolina’’ to read as follows:

§ 52.2120 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

AIR POLLUTION CONTROL REGULATIONS FOR SOUTH CAROLINA

State citation Title/subject State effective date EPA approval date Federal Register notice

* * * * * * *

Regulations No. 62.5 Air Pollution Control Standards

* * * * * * *

Section III Enforceability

Standard No. 7 Prevention of Significant Deterioration

* * * * * * *

Supplement C ....................................................... .................... 05/26/96 August 20, 1997 .................................. [Insert citation for page

No. of publication]

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 97–21919 Filed 8–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MO–029–1029; FRL–5875–4]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; State of

Missouri

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is taking final action

to approve revisions to Missouri’s State

Implementation Plan (SIP) concerning

Missouri rules 10 CSR 10–2.260 and 10

CSR 10–5.220, ‘‘Control of Petroleum

Liquid Storage, Loading, and Transfer.’’

The purpose of these revisions is to

modify the required testing periods for

petroleum delivery vessels in the

Kansas City metropolitan area and in

the St. Louis nonattainment area. These

revisions are designed to reduce volatile

organic compound emissions from the

loading and unloading of gasoline

delivery vessels during the ozone

season. The reduction in emissions is

part of the state’s plan under the Clean

Air Act (CAA) to reduce ozone levels in

the St. Louis nonattainment area. This

action will also ensure progress toward

improved air quality in Kansas City.

DATES: This rule is effective on

September 19, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Copies of the documents

relevant to this action are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the: Environmental

Protection Agency, Air Planning and

Development Branch, 726 Minnesota

Avenue, Kansas City, Kansas 66101; and

the EPA Air & Radiation Docket and

Information Center, 401 M Street, SW.,

Washington, DC 20460.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stan

Walker at (913) 551–7494.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

December 27, 1996 (61 FR 68199), the

EPA proposed to approve an
44220 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

amendment to Missouri rules 10 CSR

10–2.260 and 10 CSR 10–5.220,

‘‘Control of Petroleum Liquid, Storage,

Loading, and Transfer.’’ Revisions to 10

CSR 10–2.260 are being submitted to

help Kansas City maintain the ozone

standard. Revisions to 10 CSR 10–2.250

are being submitted as part of the state’s

plan to attain the ozone standard in St.

Louis.

The amendment to Missouri rule 10

CSR 10–2.260 (specific to the Kansas

City metropolitan area) changes the

period for testing tank trucks that have

rubber hoods from April 1 through July

1 to January 1 through May 30 of each

year. The purpose of requiring tank

trucks with rubber hoods to be tested

according to the aforementioned

schedule is to give the state an

opportunity to identify problems or

possible leaks in the gasoline transfer

process before the ozone season. The

testing period for aluminum hoods will

occur throughout each year. This

schedule provides the state the

opportunity to test trucks before the

ozone season, but also provides the

flexibility to continue testing

throughout the year.

In addition, the revisions add two

forms for reporting. One form is a leak

test application which must be

completed by the owner or operator of

the facility and provided to the director

of the Missouri Department of Natural

Resources. This form provides

documentation certifying that testing

requirements have been met. The

second form is a request for exemption

form which must be submitted by

facility personnel to be exempt for the

testing requirements.

The amendment to Missouri rule 10

CSR 10–5.220 (specific to the St. Louis

nonattainment area) requires bulk plants

to use two new forms. One form

requires bulk plants to report the

throughput when they apply for an

exemption. This form requires

information documenting that facilities

are eligible facilities for an exemption.

The second revision requires sources to

submit an application form to obtain a

sticker that certifies passage of required

tests by gasoline tank trucks.

Response to Comments

Comment: The EPA received one

comment with regard to this proposal.

The comment, which was submitted by

Farmland Industries, generally supports

the proposed rulemaking. However, the

commenter was concerned that the

change in the state regulation would

require companies to test their tank

trucks in Missouri even if the testing

requirement may have been fulfilled in

another state.

Response: The EPA understands

Farmland’s concerns and encourages

consistency among states where

possible. However, if state regulations

meet Federal requirements as specified

in section 110 of the Act and related

provisions, the EPA is required to

approve the rule. The EPA has

determined that the rule meets those

requirements, and is, therefore,

approving the rule.

In this particular situation, Missouri

does provide some flexibility regarding

testing in other states. According to the

Missouri rule, if an owner or operator of

a gasoline delivery vessel can

demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the

director, that the vessel has passed a

comparable annual leak test in another

state, the owner or operator shall be

deemed to have satisfied the

requirements of the Missouri rule. The

other state’s leak test program must

require the same gauge pressure and test

procedures, and the test must be

conducted during the same time period

as required under the Missouri rule. For

additional background on this action

and the EPA’s detailed rationale for

approval, please refer to the Technical

Support Document of the

aforementioned notice of proposed

rulemaking (61 FR 68199).

I. Final Action

The EPA is taking final action to

approve amendments to rules 10 CSR

10–2.260 and 10 CSR 10–5.220 as a

revision to the Missouri SIP.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP shall be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors, and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

II. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from Executive Order 12866 review.

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the CAA do not

create any new requirements but simply

approve requirements that the state is

already imposing. Therefore, because

the Federal SIP approval does not

impose any new requirements, the

Administrator certifies that it does not

have a significant impact on any small

entities affected. Moreover, due to the

nature of the Federal-state relationship

under the CAA, preparation of a

regulatory flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The CAA forbids the EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

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

E.P.A., 427 U.S. 246, 256–66 (S.Ct.

1976); 42 U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)).

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed

into law on March 22, 1995, the 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, the 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 the EPA to

establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rule.

The EPA has determined that the

approval action promulgated does not

include a Federal mandate that may

result in estimated costs of $100 million

or more to either state, local, or tribal

governments in the aggregate, or to the

private sector. This Federal action

approves preexisting requirements

under state or local law, and imposes no

new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to state, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

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

by the Small Business Regulatory

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, the

EPA submitted a report containing this

rule and other required information to

the U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of

Representatives, and the Comptroller

General of the General Accounting

Office prior to publication of this rule in

today’s Federal Register. This rule is

not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5

U.S.C. 804(2).

E. Petitions for Judicial Review

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

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by October 20, 1997. Filing a

petition for reconsideration by the

Administrator of this final rule does not

affect the finality of this rule for the
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 161 / Wednesday, August 20, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 44221

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, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Intergovernmental relations,

Lead, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides, Volatile organic compounds.

Dated: July 31, 1997.

William Rice,

Acting Regional Administrator.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Subpart AA—Missouri

2. Section 52.1320 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(99) to read as

follows:

§ 52.1320 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(99) Revisions to the ozone attainment

plan were submitted by the Governor on

February 1, 1996.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10–2.260,

‘‘Control of Petroleum Liquid Storage,

Loading, and Transfer,’’ effective

December 30, 1995.

(B) Missouri Rule 10 CSR 10–5.220,

‘‘Control of Petroleum Liquid Storage,

Loading, and Transfer,’’ effective

December 30, 1995.

[FR Doc. 97–22064 Filed 8–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Health Care Financing Administration

42 CFR Part 488

[HSQ–156–CN]

RIN 0938–

Medicare and Medicaid Programs;

Survey, Certification and Enforcement

of Skilled Nursing Facilities and

Nursing Facilities

AGENCY: Health Care Financing

Administration (HCFA), HHS.

ACTION: Correcting amendment.

SUMMARY: In the November 10, 1994

issue of the Federal Register (FR Doc.

94–27703) (59 FR 56116), we

established rules for survey of skilled

nursing facilities that participate in the

Medicare program, and nursing facilities

that participate in the Medicaid

program. We also established remedies

that we impose on facilities that do not

comply with Federal participation

requirements, as alternatives to program

termination. This amendment corrects

an error in that document.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 1, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Kathy Lochary, (410) 786–6770.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On November 10, 1994, we published

in the Federal Register, at 59 FR 56116,

a final rule that established significant

revisions to the process we use to

survey skilled nursing facilities that

participate in the Medicare program,

and nursing facilities that participate in

the Medicaid program. The rule also

established, as alternatives to, or in

addition to, termination, remedies that

we impose on facilities that do not

comply with the Federal participation

requirements.

On September 28, 1995, we published

in the Federal Register, at 60 FR 50115,

a correction notice that made many

corrections to the final rule. One of

those corrections was to § 488.434(a)(1).

Need for Additional Correction

Sections 488.434(a)(1) and 488.436(a)

both refer to a HCFA civil money

penalty written notice. When we

corrected an inadvertent error in

terminology in § 488.434(a)(1), we failed

to make a corresponding change in

terminology in § 488.436(a). We are now

making that correction to § 488.436(a)

by removing the words ‘‘of intent to

impose’’ from the phrase ‘‘notice of

intent to impose the civil money

penalty’’ and adding the word

‘‘imposing’’ to the phrase. Therefore, the

phrase ‘‘notice of intent to impose the

civil money penalty’’ is corrected to

read ‘‘notice imposing the civil money

penalty.’’

List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 488

Health facilities, Medicare, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, 42 CFR Part 488 is

corrected by making the following

correcting amendment:

PART 488—SURVEY, CERTIFICATION,

AND ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES

1. The authority citation for part 488

continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 1102 and 1871 of the

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1302 and

1895hh).

§ 488.436 [Corrected]

2. In § 488.436 paragraph (a), the

phrase ‘‘notice of intent to impose the

civil money penalty’’ is corrected to

read ‘‘notice imposing the civil money

penalty’’.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program No. 93.778, Medical Assistance

Program; and Program No. 93.774,

Medicare—Supplementary Medical

Insurance Program)

Dated: August 11, 1997.

Neil J. Stillman,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information

Resources Management.

[FR Doc. 97–22036 Filed 8–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4120–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Parts 204 and 253

[DFARS Case 97–D013]

Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement; Contract

Action Reporting

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DOD).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Director of Defense

Procurement has issued a final rule

amending the Defense Federal

Acquisition Regulation Supplement

(DFARS) to revise DD Form 350 and DD

Form 1057 contract action reporting

requirements for compliance with the

Clinger-Cohen Act of 1996 and for

enhancement of data collection

procedures.

EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Melissa Rider, PDUSD (A&T) DP (DAR),

IMD 3D139, 3062 Defense Pentagon,

Washington, DC 20301–3062.