+(,121/,1(

Citation: 50 Fed. Reg. 30941 1985 

Content downloaded/printed from HeinOnline

Fri Dec 9 16:52:20 2016

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

 of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license

 agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from 

 uncorrected OCR text.
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 1985 / Rules and Regulations

§ 41.16 Audit costs.

The cost of audits made in accordance

with the provisions of these regulations

are allowable charges to Federal

assistance programs.

(a) The charges may be considered a

direct cost or an allocated indirect cost,

determined in accordance with the

provision of Circular A-87, "Cost

principles for State and local

governments."

(b) Generally, the percentage of costs

charged to Federal assistance programs

for a single audit shall not exceed the

percentage that Federal funds expended

represent of total funds expended by the

recipient during the fiscal year. The

percentage may be exceeded, however,

if appropriate documentation

demonstrates higher actual cost.

(Pub. L. 98-502)

§ 41.17 Sanctions.

The Single Audit Act provides that no

cost may be charged to Federal

assistance programs for audits required

by the Act that are not made in

accordance with these regulations. In

cases of continued inability or

unwillingness to have a proper audit,

Federal agencies must consider other

appropriate sanctions including:

(a) Withholding a percentage of

assistance payments until the audit is

completed satisfactorily,

(b) Withholding or disallowing

overhead costs, and

(c) Suspending the Federal assistance

agreement until the audit is made.

(Pub. L. 98-502)

§ 41.18 Auditor selection.

In arranging for audit services State

and local governments shall follow the

procurement standards prescribed by

Attachment 0 of Circular A-102,

"Uniform requirements for grants to

State and local governments." The

standards provide that while recipients

are encouraged to enter into

intergovernmental agreements for audit

and other services, analysis should be

made to determine whether it would be

more economical to purchase the

services from private firms. In instances

where use of such intergovernmental

agreements are required by State

statutes (e.g., audit services) these

statutes will take precedence. (Pub. L.

98-502)

§ 41.19 Small and minority audit firms.

Small audit firms and audit firms

owned and controlled by socially and

economically disadvantaged individuals

shall have the maximum practicable

opportunity to participate in contracts

awarded to fulfill the requirements of

these regulations. Recipients of Federal

assistance shall take the following steps

to further this goal:

(a) Assure that small audit firms and

audit firms owned and controlled by

socially and economically

disadvantaged individuals are used to

the fullest extent practicable.

(b) Make information on forthcoming

opportunities available and arrange

timeframes for the audit so as to

encourage and facilitate participation by

small audit firms and audit firms owned

and controlled by socially and

economically disadvantaged

individuals.

(c) Consider in the contract process

whether firms competing for larger

audits intend to subcontract with small

audit firms and audit firms owned and

controlled by socially and economically

disadvantaged individuals.

(d) Encourage contracting with small

audit firms or audit firms owned and

controlled by socially and economically

disadvantaged individuals which have

traditionally audited government

programs and, in such cases where this

is not possible, assure that these firms

are given consideration for audit

subcontracting opportunities.

(e) Encourage contracting with

consortiums of small audit firms as

described in paragraph (a) of this

section when a contract is too large for

an individual small audit firm or audit

firm owned and controlled by socially

and economically disadvantaged

individuals.

(f) Use the services and assistance, as

appropriate, of such organizations as the

Small Business Administration in the

solicitation and utilization of small audit

firms or audit firms owned and

controlled by socially and economically

disadvantaged individuals.

(Pub. L. 98-502)

§ 41.20 Reporting.

Each Federal agency will report to the

Director of OMB on or before March 1,

1987, and annually thereafter on the

effectiveness of State arid local

governments in carrying out the

provisions of these regulations. The

report must identify each State or local

government or Indian tribe that, in the

opinion of the agency, is failing to

comply with these regulations.

(Pub. L. 98-502)

[FR Doc. 85-18121 Filed 7-30-85; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6320-01-M

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[A-9-FRL-2858-3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; North Coast Air

Basin Air Pollution Control

Regulations, State of California

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of final rulemaking.

SUMMARY: This notice approves PSD

rules for the three Districts which make

up the North Coast Air Basin in

California. The Districts in the North

Coast Air Basin (NCAB] adopted

Prevention of Significant Deterioration

(PSD) regulations in late 1981 and early

1982. The regulations were submitted as

a SIP revision on August 6, 1982, and

EPA proposed approval on June 21, 1983.

The Districts revised their rules in 1983

and 1984 in response to the problems

cited in EPA's proposed rulemaking. In

this notice, EPA is approving the revised

rules because they remedy the concerns

defined in the Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 30, 1985.

Copies of the rules are available for

public inspection during normal

business hours at the EPA Region IX

office at the address below and at the

following locations:

EPA Library, Public Information

Reference Unit, 401 "M" Street, SW.,

Washington, D.C. 20460

Office of Federal Register, 1100 "L"

Street, NW., Room 8401, Washington,

D.C.

California State Air Resources Board,

Technical Support Division, 1131 "S"

Street, Sacramento, CA 95814

Mendocino County Air Pollution Control

District, Courthouse, 890 North Bush,

Ukiah, CA 95482

Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution

Control District, 134 A North Street,

Healdsburg, CA 95448

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark C. Brucker, Air Management

Division, Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, (415) 974-7657, FTS

454-7651

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

portion of the notice has five sections:

Background, Supplementary Revisions

(which discusses new submittals from

the District), Public Comments, EPA

Actions, and the Regulatory Process.

30941 I
30942 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 1985 / Rules and Regulations

Background

The Clean Air Act stipulates that each

State Implementation Plan (SIP) shall

include a PSD program. The North Coast

Districts revised their rules in 1981 and

1982 to follow EPA's PSD requirements.

On June 21, 1983 (48 FR 28290), EPA

proposed to approve the NCAB rules.

The proposal was based on the

assumption that the Districts would

modify the rules to clarify certain points

and to address the problems EPA

identified. The Districts did so in 1983

and 1984.

The entire North Coast is designated

either attainment of unclassified for all

criteria pollutants. The Basin includes

the North Coast Unified Air Quality

Management District, which covers

Humboldt, Del Norte and Trinity

Counties, and the separate Districts in

Mendocino County and Northern

Sonoma County.

EPA's regulations for PSD programs

are contained in 40 CFR 51.24,

"Prevention of Significant Deterioration

of Air Quality." EPA has been

administering the PSD program in the

NCAB under the federal PSD permitting

regulation, 40 CFR 52.21.

In the Notic of Proposed Rulemaking,

EPA identified several problems. Four of

those problems were described in the

notice and three others were identified.

The problems are stated in this section

of the notice and the actions taken to

remedy them are described in the

Supplementary Revisions section.

The minor concerns that were

identified in the NPR were the source

definition, stack heights, and the

division of responsibility between the

Districts and EPA.

The problems that were described in

detail are as follows:

(1) There were several areas where

the emission calculation procedures

seemed to conflict with EPA

requirements or were unclear. They did

not clearly require limitations and

emission reductions to be federally

enforceable and there was uncertainty

about how emission baselines are set.

(2) EPA regulations require

notification of either EPA or federal

officials responsible for Class I areas

when sources may affqct these areas.

The Rules did not clearly address how

Class I notification would be handled.

(3) The provisions for public notice

were incomplete. EPA requires that

more information be made available to

the public than the Rules provided for

and the Rules allow for a public hearing,

if required.

(4) State law, not the local rules,

allows permitting of cogeneration

sources which would violate air quality

increments.

One additional issue arose after the

1983 notice. Two court decisions

concerning stack heights led EPA to

impose new restrictions on approval of

PSD rules. In response to EPA's resulting

policy the Districts have cooperated by

revising their Rules to prohibit credit for

stacks which exceed "good engineering

practice" heights. EPA and the Districts

have also agreed that EPA will retain

PSD permitting authority for sources

which are major under EPA's regulation

and which would either have stacks

Submittal date

Mendocino County

Dec. 3, 1984 ..................................

Apr. 19. 1934 ......................................

Aug. 6, 1982 .......................................

North Coast Unified

July 10, 1984 ......................................

Mar. 14, 0 84 .....................................

Aug. 6, 1982. .............. (Del Note. Humboldt and Trinity

Counties)

Northern Sonoma County

June 21, 1985 ....................................

Oct. 19, 1984 .....................

Aug. 6, 1982 .......................................

With respect to the four major

problems cited in the 1983 notice and

described above, the following actions

were taken:

(1) The Districts revised several parts

of their rules to clarify emission

calculation procedures and to ensure

that they fully meet all of EPA's

requirements.

(2) The Districts agreed to take

responsibility for informing officials

responsible for Class I areas of any

projects that may effect those areas.

They revised their rules accordingly.

(3) The APCD's expanded the public

notice section of the rules to include all

of the provisions that EPA requested.

(4) Districts agreed to have EPA retain

permitting authority for those PSD

higher than 65 meters or which plan to

use dispersion techniques. When EPA

issues its final stack height regulations

the Districts can adopt requirements to

satisfy the regulations and EPA would

then be able to drop its permitting of

those sources.

Copies of EPA's detailed evaluation of

the rules are available at EPA's Region

IX office listed earlier in this notice.

Supplementary Revisions

These rules have been revised several

times. The submittals that EPA is

approving are as follows:

Definitions.

Permits.

New source review.

Standards.

Defiritions.

Permit requirements.

New Source review.

Exclusions.

Definitions.

Environmental assessment.

Action on applications.

Definitions.

Permit requirements.

Permits.

New source review.

Definitions.

Definitions.

Permit requirements.

New source review.

Exclusions.

Environmental assessment.

Action on applications.

New source review.

Definitions.

Permits.

New source review.

Definitions.

Definitions.

Permit requirments.

Environmental assessment.

New source review.

Action on applications.

Exclusions.

sources that would cause increment

problems because of state law, since the

Districts do not have any power to

correct the problems by themselves. The

Districts also pointed out that many

sources which claim to be cogeneration

sources do not in fact meet the

definition provided by state law and are

not exempted from any of the District's

requirements.

Public Comments

EPA received two comment letters,

one from North Coast Unified AQMD

and one from Pacific Gas and Electric

(PG&E). The District's letter and

subsequent discussions clarified some

aspects of cogeneration source

permitting and have been reflected in

Rule

130 (b2, m l,p3, s7) ..........................................

Chapter II .............................

220 (a)(2), (b) ......................................................

(3,4.6.8,9) ............................................................

130 ................................. 200 ........................................................................

220 (a)(1&3), (b) .................................................

(l,2,5,7J,(c) .......................................................... 260 .................................................. : ..................... 130(bl,m l,p5,2) ................................................

210 ........................................................................

230 ........................................................................

130(b2,m l,p3,s7) ............................ ;.., ................

200(c)(3-6) ........................................................... Chapter II ............................................................

220 a~b .................................................................

130 ...................................................................... 130(bl.m 2,nl,p5,s2) ...........................................

200 (s),(b),(c)(1-2),(d) ........................................ 220(c) ................................................................. 260 ........................................................................

210 .......................................................................

230 ......................... ........................................

220 (a) .................................................................

130 (b2,m l,s7,p3ap3) ......................................

Chapter II ............................................................

220(b) ..................................................................

130 .................... . . ..............

130(blnl,p5,s2) ................................................

200 ..................................................................

210 .......................................................................

220(c) ........................................................... 230 ..................................................................

200 .......................................................................
Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 1985 /'.Rules and Regulations

clarification of EPA's Evaluation Report.

The PG&E letter addressed issues which

primarily concern EPA's PSD

regulations, rather than whether or not

EPA should approve these rules.

EPA Actions

In this notice, EPA is taking two

actions:

1. EPA is approving the North Coast

rules under Section 110 of the Clean Air

Act and Part C, Subpart 1, (PDS) and is

incorporating them into the California

State Implementation Plan (SIP).

2. EPA is rescinding 40 CFR 52.270,

except for (a) major cogeneration

sources and modification which would cause increment violations, (b) sources

subject to stack height credit

restrictions, (c) sources of Indian lands,

and (d) sources for which EPA has

issued PSD permits.

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this rule from the

requirements of Section 3 of Executive

Order 12291.

Incorporation by reference of the

State Implementation Plan for the State

of California was approved by the

Director of the Federal Register on July

1, 1982.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Air pollution control agency,

Incorporation by reference, Ozone,

Sulfur oxides, Nitrogen dioxide, Lead,

Particulate matter, Carbon, monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental

relations.

Dated: May 14, 1985.

Lee M. Thomas,

Administator.

PART 52 -- AMENDED]

Subpart F of Part 52, Chapter I, Title

40 of the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

Subpart F-California

1. The authority citation for Part 52

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7642.

2. Section 52.220 is amended by

adding (c)(124)(vi)(B), (c)(vii)(B),

(c)(viii)(B), (c)(ix)(B), and (c)(x)(B),

(c)(153)(ii)(B), (c)(154)(i)(B),

(c)(155)(v)(B), (c)(156(vi), (c)(158)(i)(B),

and (c)(162) as follows:

§ 52.220 Identification of plan. * * * * .

(c) * * *

(124) * * *

(vi) * * *

(B) New or amended rules 210 and

230.

(vii) * * *

(B)'New or amended rules 210 and

230.

(viii) * * *

(B) New or amended rules 130 (bI, ml,

p5, s2), 210, and 230.

(ix) * * * (B) New or amended rules 130, 130

(bi, nl, p5, and 200, s2), 210, 220(c), and

260.

x] * *

(B) New or amended rules 210 and

230.

* * * * * *

(153) * * * (it) * * *

(B) New or amended rules, 130, 130

(bi, m2, nl, p5, s2), 200 (a), (b), (c)(1-2),

and (d), 220(c), and 260.

(154) * * *

i) * * *

(B) New or amended rules, 130, 200,

220(a)(1&3), (b)(1, 2, 5, and 7), (c), and

260.

(155) * * *

v) * * *

(B) New or amended rules 130 (b2, ml,

p3, and s7), Chapter II, 200 (c)(3-6) and

220 (a) and (b).

(156) * * *

(vi) Northern Sonoma County APCD.

(A) New or amended rules 130 (b2,

ml, p3, p3a, and s7), Chapter II, 220(B). * * * * * *

(158) * * *

(i) * * *

(B) New or amended rules 130 (b2, ml,

p3, s7), Chapter II, 220 (a)(2) aid (b)(3, 4,

6, 8 and 9). • * * * * *

(162) Revised regulations for the

following APCD were submitted on June

21, 1985 by the Governor's designee.

(i) Northern Sonoma County APCD.

(A) Amended rule 220 (a). • * * * * *

3. Section 52.270 is amended by

adding paragraphs (b)(2) through (b)(4)

to read as follows:

§ 52.270 Significant deterioration of air

quality.

(b) * * * (2) The PSD rules for the North Coast

Unified Air Quality Management

District are approved under Part C,

Subpart 1, of the Clean Air Act.

However, EPA is retaining authority to

apply § 52.21 in certain cases. The

provisions of § 52.21 (b) through (w) are

therefore incorporated and made a part

of the state plan for California for the

North Coast Unified Air Quality

Management District for:

(i) Those cogeneration and resource

recovery projects which are major

stationary sources or major

modifications under § 52.21 and which

would cause violations of PSD

increments.

(ii) Those projects which are major

stationary sources of major

modifications under § 52.21 and which

would either have stacks taller than 65

meters or would use "dispersion

techniques" as defined in § 51.1.

(iii) Sources for which EPA has issued

permits under § 52.21, including the

following permits and any others for

which applications are received by July

31, 1985;

(A) Arcata Lumber Co. (NC 78-01;

November 8, 1979),

(B) Northcoast Paving (NC 79-03; July

5, 1979),

(C) PG&E Buhne Pt. (NC 77-05).

(3) The PSD rules for the Mendocino

County Air Pollution Control District are

approved under Part C, Subpart 1, of the

Clean Air Act. However, EPA is

retaining authority to apply § 52.21 in

certain cases. The provisions of § 52.21

(b) through (w) are therefore

incorporated and made a part of the

state plan for California for the

Mendocino County Air Pollution Control

District for:

(i) Those cogeneration and resource

recovery projects which are major

stationary sources or major

modifications under § 52.21 and which

would cause violations of PSD

increments.

(ii) Those projects which are major

stationary sources or major

modifications under § 52.21 and which

would either have stacks taller than 65

meters or would use "dispersion

techniques" as defined in § 51.1.

(iii) Any sources for which EPA has

issued permits under § 52.21, including

any permits for which applications are

received by July 31, 1985.

(4) The PSD rules for the Northern

Sonoma County Air Pollution Control

District are approved under Part C,

Subpart 1, of the Clean Air Act.

However, EPA is retaining authority to

apply § 52.21 in certain cases. The

provisions of § 52.21 (b) through (w) are

therefore incorporated and made a part

of the state plan for California for the

Northern Sonoma County Air Pollution

Control District for:

(i) Those cogeneration and resource

recovery projects which are major

stationary sources or major

modifications under § 52.21 and which

would cause violations of PSD

increments.

(ii) Those projects which are major

stationary sources or major

modifications under § 52.21 and which

would either have stacks taller than 65

130943
30944 Federal Register / Vol. 50, No. 147 / Wednesday, July 31, 1985 / Rules and Regulations

meters or would use "dispersion

techniques" as defined in § 51.1.

•(iii) Any sources for which EPA has

issued permits under § 52.21, including

any permits for which applications are

received by July 31, 1985.

[FR Doc. 85-15922 Filed 7-30-85; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560-60-M

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Health Care Financing Administration

42 CFR Part 412

Medicare Program; Court Ordered

Regulations Regarding, Prospective

Payment Amounts and Administrative

Review Will Not Become Effective

AGENCY: Health Care Financing

Administration (HCFA], HHS.

ACTION: Notice that regulations will not

take effect; removal of regulations.

SUMMARY: Interim rules providing for

certain adjustments to Medicare

propective payment rates and

modifications to the provider appeal

process were published on July 1, 1985

solely in response to an order of the

United States District Court for the

Northern District of California in

Redbud Hospital District v. Heckler, No.

C-84-4382 MHP dated June 14, 1985.

That portion of the district court order

requiring the Secretary to promulgate

nationwide regulations was recently

stayed by United States Supreme Court

Justice Rehnquist, pending the

determination of the Secretary's appeal

of the case to the United States Court of

Appeals for Ninth Circuit. Heckler v.

Redbud Hospital District, No. A-32.

(Rehnquist, Circuit Justice, July 24, 19852.

This document is to notify the public

that the interim final rules have, by

operation of that decision, been

automatically revoked. They will not

become effective on August 1, 1985.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 24, 1985.

FOR FURTH!-R INFORMATiON CONTACT:

Linda Magno, 301-594-9343.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

interim final rules published in the

Federal Register on July 1, 1985, 50 FR

27208 (Federal Register Document

Number: 85-15816), would have

modified the process for determining the

Medicare prospective payment rate for

inpatient hospital services to take into

account extraordinary and unusual

costs incurred after the base year; the

special needs of hospital serving

disproportionate numbers of Medicare

and low-income patients; and the

special needs of sole community

hospitals. In addition, they would have

modified the requirements for

administrative review of the hospitalspecific portion of a hospital's PPS rate.

In issuing those regulations, the

Department indicated that it was doing

so solely in response to the court order

in Redbud Hospital District v. Heckler,

No. C-84-4382 MHP, June 14, 1985. Since

the Department did not agree with the

court's conclusion that the regulations

were required under the Medicare Act, it

specified that the regulations would not

become effective and would be

automatically invalidated if the court's

order was stayed, vacated or otherwise

rendered ineffective.

On July 24, 1985, United States

Supreme Court Justice Rehnquist, as

Circuit Justice, stayed the order of the

district court insofar as it required the

Secretary to promulgate and apply

nationwide regulations. Heckler v.

Redbud Hospital District, No. A-32

(Rehnquist, Circuit justice, July 24, 1985).

As indicated in the July 1, 1985

publication, this stay automatically

invalidated the interim rules issued on

that date, and had the effect of revoking

those regulations before their effective

date. This document serves as notice to

the public that the interim final rales,

published on July 1, 1985, to be included

at 42 CFR Part 412, Subpart H are, by

their own terms, revoked and will not

become effective on August 1, 1985.

List of Subjects in 42 CFR Part 412

Cancer hospitals, Christian Science

sanatoria, Discharges and transfers,

Inpatient hospital services, Medicare,

Outlier cases, Prospective payment,

Referral centers, Renal tranop~anat'on

centers, Sole community hcsp.itals.

PART 412-PROSPECTIVE PAYMENT

SYSTEM FOR INPATIENT HOSPITAL

SERVICES

1. The authority citation fuw Part 4.2

reads aa follows:

Authority: Sacs. 1102, 1871, and 11386 of the

Social Security Act as amended (42 U.S.C.

1302, 1305hh, and 1395ww).

Supbart H (§§ 412.200-412.204)-

[Removed]

2. For the reasons set out in the

preamble, 42 CFR Part 412, Subpart H

(§§ 412.200 through 412.204) published

July 1, 1985, is hereby removed.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Programs No. 13.773, Medicare-Hospital

Insurance Program)

Dated: July 29, 1985.

Carolyne K. Davis,

Administrotor, Health Care Financing

Administration.

FR Doc. 85-18243 Filed 7-30-85; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4120-03-M

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

Oversight of the Broadcast Rules In

Regard to Temporary and Emergency

Operation

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This action amends certain

sections of Part 73 of the Commission's

rules.

This action is taken by the

Commission in its continuing effort to

eliminate unnecessary requirements

placed upon licensees of broadcast

radio stations. Specifically, it eliminates

the requirement, in certain

circumstances, that permittees and

licensees of AM radio stations must

request a Special Temporary

Authorization (STA) before undertaking

ce tain modes of temporary operation.

Instead, it institutes a procedure

whereby various modes of temporary

operation may be commenced

automatically upon the permittee's or

licensee's notification to the

Commission that such operation is being

undertaken in accordance with the

revised rules. In addition, certain rules

have been editorially restructured and

cross-referenced to make their use

easier for the public.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 31, 1985.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gary R. Thayer, Mass Media Bureau,

(202] 632-7010.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

List or Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73

Radio broadcasting.

Order

In the Matter of Oversight of the Broadi~ast

Rules in Regard to Temporary and

Emergency Operations.

Adopted: July 11, 1985.

Released: July 18,1985.

By the Chief, Mass Media Bureau.

1. This Order is part of our continuing

effort to review and update our

broadcast rules. In this Order, we are

focusing on the rules pertaining to

Special Temporary Authorizations