6008 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

d–35. Q. Through what medium may

a payor provide the notice required

under section 3405 to a payee?

A. A payor may provide the notice

required under section 3405 (including

the abbreviated notice described in d–27

and the annual notice described in d–

31) to a payee either on a written paper

document or through an electronic

medium reasonably accessible to the

payee. A notice provided through an

electronic medium must be provided

under a system that satisfies the

following requirements:

(a) The system must be reasonably

designed to provide the notice in a

manner no less understandable to the

payee than a written paper document.

(b) At the time the notice is provided,

the payee must be advised that the

payee may request and receive the

notice on a written paper document at

no charge, and, upon request, that

document must be provided to the

payee at no charge.

d–36. Q. Are there examples that

illustrate the provisions of d–35 of this

section?

A. The provisions of d–35 of this

section are illustrated by the following

examples:

Example 1. (i) An employer deferred

compensation plan (Plan A) permits

participants to request distributions by email. Under Plan A’s system for such

transactions, a participant must enter his or

her account number and personal

identification number (PIN); this information

must match that in Plan A’s records in order

for the transaction to proceed. The plan

administrator is the payor. If a participant

requests a distribution from Plan A by e-mail,

the plan administrator provides the

participant with the notice required under

section 3405 by e-mail. The plan

administrator also advises the participant by

e-mail that he or she may request the notice

on a written paper document and that, if the

participant requests the notice on a written

paper document, it will be provided at no

charge. To proceed with the distribution by

e-mail, the participant must acknowledge

receipt, review, and comprehension of the

notice.

(ii) In this Example 1, the plan

administrator does not fail to satisfy the

notice requirement of section 3405 merely

because the notice is provided to the

participant other than through a written

paper document.

Example 2. (i) An employer deferred

compensation plan (Plan B) permits

participants to request distributions through

the Plan B web site (Internet or intranet).

Under Plan B’s system for such transactions,

a participant must enter his or her account

number and personal identification number

(PIN); this information must match that in

Plan B’s records in order for the transaction

to proceed. The plan administrator is the

payor. A participant may request a

distribution from Plan B by following the

applicable instructions on the Plan B web

site. After the participant has requested a

distribution, the participant is automatically

shown a page on the web site containing the

notice required by section 3405. Although

this page of the web site may be printed, the

page also advises the participant that he or

she may request the notice on a written paper

document and that, if the participant requests

the notice on a written paper document, it

will be provided at no charge. To proceed

with the distribution through the web site,

the participant must acknowledge receipt,

review, and comprehension of the notice.

(ii) In this Example 2, the plan

administrator does not fail to satisfy the

notice requirement of section 3405 merely

because the notice is provided to the

participant other than through a written

paper document.

Example 3. (i) An employer deferred

compensation plan (Plan C) permits

participants to request distributions through

Plan C’s automated telephone system. Under

Plan C’s system for such transactions, a

participant must enter his or her account

number and personal identification number

(PIN); this information must match that in

Plan C’s records in order for the transaction

to proceed. The plan administrator is the

payor. A participant may request a

distribution from Plan C by following the

applicable instructions on the automated

telephone system. After the participant has

requested a distribution, the automated

telephone system reads the notice required

by section 3405 to the participant. The

automated telephone system also advises the

participant that he or she may request the

notice on a written paper document and that,

if the participant requests the notice on a

written paper document, it will be provided

at no charge. Before proceeding with the

distribution transaction, the participant must

acknowledge receipt, review, and

comprehension of the notice.

(ii) In this Example 3, the plan

administrator does not fail to satisfy the

notice requirement of section 3405 merely

because the notice is provided to the

participant other than through a written

paper document.

Example 4. (i) Same facts as Example 3,

except that, pursuant to the system for

processing such transactions, a participant

who so requests is transferred to a customer

service representative whose conversation

with the participant is recorded. The

customer service representative provides the

notice required by section 3405 by reading

from a prepared text.

(ii) Conclusion. In this Example 4, the plan

administrator does not fail to satisfy the

notice requirement of section 3405 merely

because the notice is provided to the

participant other than through a written

paper document.

Example 5. (I) Same facts as Example 1,

except that Participant D requested a

distribution by e-mail and then terminated

employment. Participant D no longer has

access to e-mail.

(ii) In this Example 5, Plan A does not

satisfy the notice requirement of section 3405

because the electronic medium through

which the notice is provided is not

reasonably accessible to Participant D. Plan

A must provide the notice required by

section 3405 to Participant D in a written

paper document or by an electronic medium

that is reasonably accessible to Participant D.

PART 602—OMB CONTROL NUMBERS

UNDER THE PAPERWORK

REDUCTION ACT

Par. 6. The authority citation for part

602 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805.

Par. 7. In § 602.101, paragraph (b) is

amended by adding the following entry

in the table in numerical order to read

as follows:

§ 602.101 OMB Control numbers.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

CFR part or section where

identified and described

Current

OMB control

No.

*****

1.402(f)–1 ................................. 1545–1632

*****

1.411(a)–11 .............................. 1545–1632

*****

Robert E. Wenzel,

Deputy Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

Approved: January 20, 2000.

Jonathan Talisman,

Acting Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

[FR Doc. 00–1897 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 62

[Docket No. NH040–7167a; FRL–6532–2]

Approval and Promulgation of State

Plans for Designated Facilities and

Pollutants: New Hampshire; Plan for

Controlling Emissions From Existing

Hospital/Medical/Infectious Waste

Incinerators

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The United States

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)

approves the Sections 111(d)/129 State

Plan submitted by the New Hampshire

Department of Environmental Services

(NHDES) on June 2, 1999. This State

Plan is for implementing and enforcing

provisions at least as protective as the

Emissions Guidelines (EG) applicable to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 6009

existing Hospital/Medical/Infectious

Waste Incinerators (HMIWIs) for which

construction commenced on or before

June 20, 1996.

DATES: This direct final rule is effective

on April 10, 2000 without further notice

unless EPA receives significant, material

and adverse comment by March 9, 2000.

If EPA receives adverse comment, we

will publish a timely withdrawal of the

direct final rule in the Federal Register

and inform the public that the rule will

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: You should address your

written comments to: Mr. Brian

Hennessey, Acting Chief, Air Permits

Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,

U.S. EPA-New England, Region 1, One

Congress Street, Suite 1100 (CAP),

Boston, Massachusetts 02114–2023.

Documents which EPA has

incorporated by reference are available

for public inspection at the Air and

Radiation Docket and Information

Center, Environmental Protection

Agency, 401 M Street, SW, Washington,

D.C. 20460. You may examine copies of

materials the NHDES submitted to EPA

relative to this action during normal

business hours at the following

locations. The interested persons

wanting to examine these documents

should make an appointment with the

appropriate office at least 24 hours

before the day of the visit.

Environmental Protection AgencyNew England, Region 1, Air Permits

Unit, Office of Ecosystem Protection,

Suite 1100, One Congress Street, Boston,

Massachusetts 02114–2023.

New Hampshire Department of

Environmental Services, Air Resources

Division, 6 Hazen Drive, Concord, New

Hampshire 03301, (603) 271–1370.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Courcier at (617) 918–1659.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Table of Contents

I. What action is EPA taking today?

II. Why Does EPA Want To Regulate Air

Emissions From HMIWIs?

III. When did EPA first publish these

requirements?

IV. Who must comply with the requirements?

V. Are any sources exempt from the

requirements?

VI. By what date must HMIWIs in New

Hampshire achieve compliance?

VII. What happens if an HMIWI does not/

cannot meet the requirements by the final

compliance date?

VIII. What options are available to operators

if they cannot achieve compliance within

one year of the effective date of the State

Plan?

IX. What Is a State Plan?

X. What did the state submit as part of its

State Plan?

XI. Why Is EPA Approving New Hampshire’s

State Plan?

XII. Why does EPA need to approve State

Plans?

XIII. Administrative Requirements

I. What Action Is EPA Taking Today?

EPA is approving New Hampshire’s

State Plan submitted on June 2, 1998 for

the control of air emissions from

HMIWIs throughout the State. When

EPA developed the New Source

Performance Standards (NSPS) for

HMIWIs, the Agency simultaneously

developed the Emission Guidelines (EG)

to control air emissions from older

HMIWIs (see 62 FR 48348–48391,

September 15, 1997). New Hampshire

developed a State Plan, as required by

sections 111(d) and 129 of the Clean Air

Act (the Act), to adopt the EG into its

body of regulations, and EPA is acting

today to approve New Hampshire’s

State Plan.

Under section 129 of the Act, the EG

are not federally enforceable. Section

129(b)(2) of the Act requires states to

submit to EPA for approval State Plans

that implement and enforce the EG.

State Plans must be at least as protective

as the EG, and they become federally

enforceable upon approval by EPA. The

procedures for adopting and submitting

State Plans are located in 40 CFR part

60, subpart B.

EPA originally issued the subpart B

provisions on November 17, 1975. EPA

amended subpart B on December 19,

1995, to allow the subparts developed

under section 129 to include

specifications that supersede the general

provisions in subpart B regarding the

schedule for submittal of State Plans,

the stringency of the emission

limitations, and the compliance

schedules, see 60 FR 65414 (December

19, 1995). This action approves the State

Plan submitted by New Hampshire to

implement and enforce the EG, as it

applies to older HMIWI units.

EPA is publishing this approval

action without prior proposal because

the Agency views this as a

noncontroversial action and anticipates

no adverse comments. However, in the

proposed rules section of this Federal

Register publication, EPA is publishing

a separate document that will serve as

the proposal to approve the State Plan

should relevant adverse comments be

filed. If EPA receives no significant,

material, and adverse comments by

March 9, 2000, this action will be

effective April 10, 2000.

If EPA receives significant, material,

and adverse comments by the above

date, the Agency will withdraw this

action before the effective date by

publishing a subsequent document in

the Federal Register that will withdraw

this final action. EPA will address all

public comments received in a

subsequent final rule based on the

parallel proposed rule published in

today’s Federal Register. EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

this action. Any parties interested in

commenting on this action should do so

at this time.

II. Why Does EPA Want To Regulate

Air Emissions From HMIWIs?

When burned, hospital waste and

medical/infectious waste emit various

air pollutants, including hydrochloric

acid, dioxin/furan, toxic metals (lead,

cadmium, and mercury) and particulate

matter. Mercury is highly hazardous and

is of particular concern because it

persists in the environment and

bioaccumulates through the food web.

Serious developmental and adult effects

in humans, primarily damage to the

nervous system, have been associated

with exposures to mercury. Harmful

effects in wildlife have also been

reported; these include nervous system

damage and behavioral and

reproductive deficits. Human and

wildlife exposure to mercury occur

mainly through eating of fish. When

inhaled, mercury vapor attacks also the

lung tissue and is a cumulative poison.

Short-term exposure to mercury in

certain forms can cause hallucinations

and impair consciousness. Long-term

exposure to mercury in certain forms

can affect the central nervous system

and cause kidney damage.

Exposure to particulate matter can

aggravate existing respiratory and

cardiovascular disease and increase risk

of premature death. Hydrochloric acid is

a clear colorless gas. Chronic exposure

to hydrochloric acid has been reported

to cause gastritis, chronic bronchitis,

dermatitis, and photosensitization.

Acute exposure to high levels of

chlorine in humans may result in chest

pain, vomiting, toxic pneumonitis,

pulmonary edema, and death. At lower

levels, chlorine is a potent irritant to the

eyes, the upper respiratory tract, and

lungs.

Exposure to dioxin and furan can

cause skin disorders, cancer, and

reproductive effects such as

endometriosis. These pollutants can

also affect the immune system.

III. When Did EPA First Publish These

Requirements?

The EPA proposed the EG in the

Federal Register on June 20, 1996. On

September 15, 1997, according to

sections 111 and 129 of the Clean Air

Act (Act), the EPA published the final

form of the EG applicable to existing

HMIWIs. The EG are at 40 CFR Part 60,

6010 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Subpart Ce. See 62 FR 48348 and the

Background section.

IV. Who Must Comply With The

Requirements?

All HMIWIs that commenced

construction on or before June 20, 1996

must comply with these requirements.

V. Are Any Sources Exempt From the

Requirements?

The following incinerator source

categories are exempt from the federal

requirements for HMIWIs:

(1) Incinerators that burn only

pathological, low-level radiation, and/or

chemotherapeutic waste (all defined in

section 60.51c). However, the owner or

operator must notify the EPA

Administrator of an exemption claim

and the owner or operator must keep

records of the periods of time when only

pathological, low-level radioactive, and/

or chemotherapeutic waste is burned.

(2) Any unit required to have a permit

under section 3005 of the Solid Waste

Disposal Act.

(3) Incinerators that are subject to the

NSPS and/or EG for Municipal Waste

Combustors.

(4) Existing incinerators, processing

operations, or boilers that co-fire

medical/infectious waste or hospital

waste with other fuels or wastes and

that combust less than ten percent or

less medical/infectious waste and

hospital waste by weight (on a calendar

quarter basis). However, the owner or

operator must notify the EPA

Administrator of an exemption claim

and the owner or operator must keep

records of the amount of each fuel and

waste fired.

VI. By What Date Must HMIWIs in New

Hampshire Achieve Compliance?

All existing HMIWIs in the state of

New Hampshire must comply with

these requirements within one year of

the effective date of EPA approval of

this plan, unless NHDES grants an

extension. However, final compliance

must be achieved by September 15,

2002.

VII. What Happens If an HMIWI Does

Not/Cannot Meet the Requirements by

the Final Compliance Date?

Any existing HMIWI that fails to meet

the requirements by September 15, 2002

must shut down. The unit will not be

allowed to start up until the owner/

operator installs the controls necessary

to meet the requirements.

VIII. What Options Are Available to

Operators If They Cannot Achieve

Compliance Within One Year of the

Effective Date of the State Plan?

If an HMIWI cannot achieve

compliance within one year of the

effective date of EPA approval of the

State Plan, the operator must agree to

meet certain increments of progress

until they achieve compliance. The

State Rule details the increments of

progress for the affected HMIWIs.

IX. What Is a State Plan?

Section 111(d) of the Act requires that

pollutants controlled under NSPS must

also be controlled at older sources in the

same source category. Once an NSPS is

issued, EPA then publishes an EG

applicable to the control of the same

pollutant from existing (designated)

facilities. States with designated

facilities must then develop State Plans

to adopt the EG into their body of

regulations. States must also include in

their State Plans other elements, such as

inventories, legal authority, and public

participation documentation, to

demonstrate their ability to enforce the

State Plans.

X. What did the state submit as part of

its State Plan?

The State of New Hampshire

submitted its Sections 111(d)/129 State

Plan to EPA for approval on June 2,

1999 and supplemented it on November

1, 1999. The State adopted the EG

requirements into the New Hampshire

Code of Administrative Rules Env–A–

3500, ‘‘Hospital/Medical/Infectious

Waste Incineration’’ on January 29, 1999

and promulgated certain revisions on

October 30, 1999. The State Plan

contains:

1. A demonstration of the State’s legal

authority to implement the State Plan.

2. New Hampshire Rule CHAPTER

Env–A–3500, ‘‘Hospital/Medical/

Infectious Waste Incineration’’ as the

enforceable mechanism.

3. An inventory of the sources on

pages 4 and 5 of the State Plan.

4. An emissions inventory on pages 5

and 6 of the State Plan.

5. Emission limits, at least as

protective as the EG, that are contained

in Env–A–3505. (Please note that the

State’s mercury limit of 0.055 ‘‘g/dscm

is more stringent than EPA’s EG.)

6. Provisions for compliance

schedules that are contained in Env–A–

3507.

7. Testing, monitoring, and inspection

requirements that are contained in Env–

A–3510, 3511, and 3512.

8. Reporting and Recordkeeping

requirements that are contained in Env–

A–3513.

9. Operator training and qualification

requirements that are contained in Env–

A–3506.

10. Requirements for the development

of a Waste Management Plan that are

contained in Env–A–3509.

11. A record of the public notice and

hearing requirements that are contained

in Appendices D and E of the State Plan.

12. Provisions for state progress

reports to EPA that are contained on

page 10 of the State Plan.

13. Title V permit application due

date requirements that are contained in

Env–A–3514 and are due on September

1, 2000.

14. A final compliance date of

September 15, 2002.

XI. Why Is EPA Approving New

Hampshire’s State Plan?

EPA has evaluated the HMIWI State

Plan submitted by New Hampshire for

consistency with the Act, EPA

guidelines and policy. EPA has

determined that New Hampshire’s State

Plan meets all requirements and,

therefore, EPA is approving New

Hampshire’s Plan to implement and

enforce the EG, as it applies to older

HMIWIs.

EPA’s approval of New Hampshire’s

State Plan is based on our findings that:

(1) NHDES provided adequate public

notice of public hearings for the

proposed rule-making that allows New

Hampshire to carry out and enforce

provisions that are at least as protective

as the EG for HMIWIs, and

(2) NHDES demonstrated legal

authority to adopt emission standards

and compliance schedules applicable to

the designated facilities; enforce

applicable laws, regulations, standards

and compliance schedules; seek

injunctive relief; obtain information

necessary to determine compliance;

require record keeping; conduct

inspections and tests; require the use of

monitors; require emission reports of

owners and operators; and make

emission data publicly available.

A detailed discussion of EPA’s

evaluation of the State Plan is included

in the technical support document

(TSD) located in the official file for this

action and available from the EPA

contact listed above. The State Plan

meets all of the applicable approval

criteria.

XII. Why Does EPA Need to Approve

State Plans?

Under section 129 of the Act,

emission guidelines are not federally

enforceable. Section 129(b)(2) of the Act

requires states to submit State Plans to

EPA for approval. Each state must show

that its State Plan will carry out and

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 6011

enforce the emission guidelines. State

Plans must be at least as protective as

the emission guidelines, and they

become federally enforceable upon

EPA’s approval.

The procedures for adopting and

submitting State Plans are in 40 CFR

Part 60, Subpart B. EPA originally

issued the Subpart B provisions on

November 17, 1975. EPA amended

Subpart B on December 19, 1995, to

allow the subparts developed under

Section 129 to include specifications

that supersede the general provisions in

Subpart B regarding the schedule for

submittal of State Plans, the stringency

of the emission limitations, and the

compliance schedules. See 60 FR 65414.

XIII. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order (E.O.)

12866, entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning

and Review.’’

B. 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 final 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 an existing 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.

C. 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 E.O.

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 E.O. 13045

because it does not involve decisions

intended to mitigate environmental

health or safety risks that EPA has

reason to believe may have a

disproportionate effect on children.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under E.O. 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. If the mandate is

unfunded, EPA must 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, E. O. 13084

requires EPA to develop an effective

process permitting elected 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 action does not create any

new requirements on any entity affected

by this State Plan. Thus, the action will

not significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of E.O.

13084 do not apply to this rule.

E. 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.

State Plan approvals under section

111(d) and section 129(b)(2) of the Clean

Air Act do not create any new

requirements on any entity affected by

this rule, including small entities. They

simply approve requirements that the

state is already imposing. Furthermore,

in developing the HMIWI emission

guidelines and standards, EPA prepared

a written statement pursuant to the

Regulatory Flexibility Act which it

published in the 1997 promulgation

notice (see 62 FR 48348). In accordance

with EPA’s determination in issuing the

1997 HMIWI emission guidelines, this

State Plan does not include any new

requirements that will have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Therefore,

because the Federal 111(d) Plan

approval does not impose any new

requirements and pursuant to section

605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act,

the Regional Administrator certifies that

this rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities.

F. 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 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

6012 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 26 / Tuesday, February 8, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

statutory requirements. Section 203

requires EPA to establish a plan for

informing and advising any small

governments that may be significantly

or uniquely impacted on by the rule.

In developing the HMIWI emission

guidelines and standards, EPA prepared

a written statement pursuant to section

202 of the Unfunded Mandates Act

which it published in the 1997

promulgation notice (see 60 FR 48374 to

48378). The EPA has determined that

this State Plan does not include any

new Federal mandates above those

previously considered during

promulgation of the 1997 HMIWI

guidelines. The State Plan does include

an emission limitation for mercury that

will be more stringent than the limit

required by the EG. However, that limit

is not the result of a Federal mandate.

In approving the State Plan, EPA is

approving pre-existing requirements

under State law and imposing no new

requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from EPA’s approval of State Plan

provisions that may be more stringent

than the EG requirements, nor will

EPA’s approval of the State Plan

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. Thus, this action is not

subject to the requirements of sections

202, 203, 204, and 205 of the Unfunded

Mandates Act.

G. Submission to Congress and the

General Accounting Office

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

amended 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).

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act of 1995 (‘‘NTTAA’’), Public Law

104–113, section 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272

note) directs EPA to use voluntary

consensus standards in its regulatory

activities unless to do so would be

inconsistent with applicable law or

otherwise impractical. Voluntary

consensus standards are technical

standards (e.g., materials specifications,

test methods, sampling procedures, and

business practices) that are developed or

adopted by voluntary consensus bodies.

The NTTAA directs EPA to provide

Congress, through OMB, explanations

when the Agency decides not to use

available and applicable voluntary

consensus standards.

In approving or disapproving State

Plans under section 129 of the Clean Air

Act, EPA does not have the authority to

revise or rewrite the State’s rule, so the

Agency does not have authority to

require the use of particular voluntary

consensus standards. Accordingly, EPA

has not sought to identify or require the

State to use voluntary consensus

standards. Furthermore, New

Hampshire’s Plan incorporates by

reference test methods and sampling

procedures for existing HMIWI units

already established by the emissions

guidelines for HMIWIs at 40 CFR Part

60, Subpart Ce, and does not establish

new technical standards for HMIWIs.

Therefore, the requirements of the

NTTAA are not applicable to this final

rule.

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 April 10, 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), 42 U.S.C. 7607(b)(2). EPA

encourages interested parties to

comment in response to the proposed

rule rather than petition for judicial

review, unless the objection arises after

the comment period allowed for in the

proposal.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 62

Administrative practice and

procedure, Air pollution control,

Environmental protection,

Intergovernmental relations, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements, Sulfur

oxides.

Dated: January 20, 2000.

Mindy S. Lubber,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 1.

40 CFR Part 62 is amended as follows:

PART 62—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 62

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7642.

Subpart EE—New Hampshire

2. Section 62.7325 is amended by

adding paragraphs (b)(2) and (c)(2) to

read as follows:

§ 62.7325 Identification of plan.

(b) * * *

(2) Control of air emissions from

existing hospital/medical/infectious

waste incinerators, submitted on June 2,

1999.

(c) * * *

(2) Hospital/medical/infectious waste

incinerators.

3. Part 62 is amended by adding a

new § 62.7450 and a new undesignated

center heading to Subpart EE to read as

follows:

Air Emissions From Existing Hospital/

Medical/Infectious Waste Incinerators

§ 62.7450 Identification of sources.

(a) The plan applies to existing

hospital/medical/infectious waste

incinerators for which construction

commenced on or before June 20, 1996.

(b) [Reserved].

[FR Doc. 00–2472 Filed 2–7–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of the Secretary

43 CFR Part 11

RIN 1090–AA72

Natural Resource Damage

Assessments—Type A Procedures

AGENCY: Department of the Interior.

ACTION: Final rule: correcting

amendments.

SUMMARY: On May 7, 1996, the

Department of the Interior published a

final rule establishing two simplified, or

‘‘type A,’’ procedures for assessing

natural resource damages under the

Comprehensive Environmental

Response, Compensation, and Liability

Act. 61 FR 20559. Those procedures

incorporated two computer models. The

Department made a number of technical

corrections to the models on November

10, 1997. 62 FR 60457. This rule makes

additional technical corrections to those

models.

DATES: This final rule is effective

February 8, 2000. The incorporation by

reference of the publications listed in

this rule was approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of February 8,

2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Rosenberger at (202) 208–3301.