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.’’
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 159 / Monday, August 18, 1997 / Proposed Rules 43963

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stanley Weintraub, (410) 786–4498.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background.

In the Federal Register Document

dated June 18, 1997, there were a

number of technical errors. In

Addendum B of the proposed rule, on

pages 33195 through 33196, the

proposed statistical linking

methodology is discussed. In preparing

the table entitled ‘‘Linking Adjustment

Factors by CPEP,’’ the actual linking

factors were not accurately stated. The

actual factors are shown in the revised

table in this document under the

heading ‘‘Correction of Errors.’’

In addition, in Addendum C, on page

33288, we inadvertently printed

incorrect information for CPT code

92543 (caloric vestibular testing).

The discussion on page 33183 of the

proposed rule indicated that we are

proposing to reduce the relative value

units (RVUs) for CPT code 92543 to 25

percent of what the RVUs would

otherwise have been. As explained in

that material, we are making this

proposal because we plan to permit

physicians and suppliers to bill four

units of service instead of the one until

now permitted. The intent is to reduce

billing confusion regarding these codes

in a budget-neutral way.

In Addendum C of the proposed rule,

the reduction to 25 percent of the RVUs

otherwise applicable was reflected for

the practice expense RVUs, but we

incorrectly published unreduced RVUs

for work and malpractice. The corrected

RVUs appear in this document under

the heading ‘‘Correction of Errors.’’

Correction of Errors

In FR Doc. 97–15817 of June 18, 1997

(62 FR 33158), insert the following

revised table on page 33196:

ADDENDUM B.—LINKING ADJUSTMENT

FACTORS BY CPEP

CPEP

Clinical

labor linking

adjustment

Administrative labor

linking adjustment

CPEP #1 ........... .84 .50

CPEP #2 ........... .40 .36

CPEP #3 ........... .42 .31

CPEP #4 ........... 1.03 .56

CPEP #5 ........... .96 .52

CPEP #6 ........... .80 .46

CPEP #7 ........... 1.00 1.00

CPEP #8 ........... .44 .22

CPEP #9 ........... .54 .35

CPEP #10 ......... .91 .78

CPEP #11 ......... .93 .39

CPEP #12 ......... .55 .24

CPEP #13 ......... .77 .44

CPEP #14 ......... 1.00 1.00

CPEP #15 ......... 1.07 .20

Make the following corrections in

Addendum C for CPT code 92543 on

page 33288:

ADDENDUM C.—RELATIVE VALUE UNITS (RVUS) AND RELATED INFORMATION

CPT 1 /

HCPCS2 MOD Status Description

Physician

work

RVUs 3 4

Direct in

office

practice

expense

RVUs

Direct out

of office

practice

expense

RVUs

Total in

office

practice

expense

RVUs

Total out

of office

practice

expense

RVUs

Malpractice

RVUs

Total in

office

Total out

of office

* * * * * * *

92543 ............ A Caloric vestibular test ........................ 0.10 0.14 0.14 0.20 0.20 0.02 0.32 0.32

92543 26 ....... A Caloric vestibular test ........................ 0.10 0.02 0.02 0.05 0.05 0.01 0.16 0.16

92543 TC ...... A Caloric vestibular test ........................ 0.00 0.12 0.12 0.15 0.15 0.01 0.16 0.16

* * * * * * *

1 CPT codes and descriptions only are copyright 1996 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS apply.

2 Copyright 1994 American Dental Association. All rights reserved.

3 + Indicates RVUs are not for Medicare Payment.

4 * Work RVUs increased in global surgical package.

Section 1848 of the Social Security Act

(42 U.S.C. 1395w–4)

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program No. 93.774, Medicare—

Supplementary Medical Insurance Program)

Dated: August 6, 1997.

Neil J. Stillman,

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Information

Resources Management.

[FR Doc. 97–21730 Filed 8–15–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4120–01–M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 76

[CS Docket No. 97–151; FCC 97–234]

Pole Attachments

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Commission has adopted

a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

seeking comment on its continued

implementation of the pole attachment

provisions of the Telecommunications

Act of 1996. We seek comment on a

methodology to ensure just, reasonable,

and nondiscriminatory maximum pole

attachment and conduit rates for

telecommunications carriers, and on

how to ensure that rates charged for use

of rights of way are just, reasonable and

nondiscriminatory. The Commission

explores this issue to fulfill its

obligation under the

Telecommunications Act of 1996 to

adopt rules concerning pole

attachments. The item will help the

Commission create a record on this

issue, which will assist the Commission

in designing new or amending current

regulations concerning pole

attachments.

DATES: Comments are due on or before

September 26, 1997 and reply

comments on or before October 14,

1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Larry Walke, Cable Services Bureau,

(202) 418–7200. For additional

information concerning the information

collections contained herein, contact

Judy Boley at 202–418–0217, or via the

Internet at jboley@fcc.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a

synopsis of the Commission’s Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking in CS Docket No.

97–151, FCC 97–234, adopted July 1,

1997 and released August 12, 1997. The

full text of this decision is available for

inspection and copying during normal

business hours in the FCC Reference

Center (room 239), 1919 M Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20554, and may be