Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62679

2000 deadline date for submittal of

comments on this proposed action to

approve this SIP revision submitted by

the State of Maryland. The EPA is

providing a shortened time period for

comment for two reasons. As an initial

matter, this revision is non-controversial

and EPA does not expect comment as

Maryland’s OTC NOX Budget Program is

based upon the model rule developed

by the NESCAUM and MARAMA states.

The two enforceable consent agreements

between MDE and the Baltimore Gas

and Electric Company and the Potomac

Electric Power Company are sourcespecific and affect no other facilities.

Moreover, this SIP revision is necessary

for full approval of the attainment

demonstration SIP for the Metropolitan

Washington, D.C. ozone nonattainment

area. The EPA is currently under an

obligation to complete rulemaking by

November 15, 2000 fully approving the

attainment demonstration for the

Metropolitan Washington, D.C. ozone

nonattainment area or, in the

alternative, proposing a federal

implementation plan.

Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ and therefore is not subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget. This action merely proposes to

approve state law as meeting federal

requirements and imposes no additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. Accordingly, the

Administrator certifies that this

proposed rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Because this rule proposes to

approve pre-existing requirements

under state law and does not impose

any additional enforceable duty beyond

that required by state law, it does not

contain any unfunded mandate or

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–4). For the same

reason, this proposed rule also does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This proposed

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 (64

FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it

merely proposes to approve a 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. This proposed rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant. In reviewing

SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to

approve state choices, provided that

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air

Act. In this context, in the absence of a

prior existing requirement for the State

to use voluntary consensus standards

(VCS), EPA has no authority to

disapprove a SIP submission for failure

to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this proposed rule, EPA has taken the

necessary steps to eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity, minimize

potential litigation, and provide a clear

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA

has complied with Executive Order

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by

examining the takings implications of

the rule in accordance with the

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk

and Avoidance of Unanticipated

Takings’ issued under the executive

order. This action to propose approval

of Maryland NOX Budget Program rule

does not impose an information

collection burden under the provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: October 13, 2000.

Thomas Voltaggio,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 00–26902 Filed 10–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[DC048–2022; FRL–6887–8]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; District

of Columbia; Nitrogen Oxides Budget

Program

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

a State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the District of

Columbia (the District). This revision

implements the District’s portion of the

Ozone Transport Commission’s (OTC)

September 27, 1994 Memorandum of

Understanding (MOU) which describes

a regional nitrogen oxides ( NOX) cap

and trade program that will significantly

reduce NOX emissions generated within

the Ozone Transport Region (OTR). The

intended effect of this action is to

propose approval of the District’s

regulations entitled, NOX Emissions

Budget Program as a SIP revision in

accordance with the requirements of the

Clean Air Act.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before November 9, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be

mailed to David L. Arnold, Chief, Ozone

& Mobile Sources Branch, Mailcode

3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air Protection Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and

District of Columbia Department of

Public Health, Air Quality Division, 51

N Street, N.E., Washington, DC 20002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cristina Fernandez, (215) 814–2178, or

via e-mail at

fernandez.cristina@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

On August 28, 2000, the District’s

Department of Health submitted a

revision to its SIP. The revision to the

SIP includes the addition of a new

Chapter 10, Nitrogen Oxides Emissions

Budget Program, to Title 20 of the

District of Columbia Municipal

Regulations (DCMR).

The District’s NOX Budget Program

regulations are part of a regional NOX

62680 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules

reduction program based upon an MOU

drawn between the member states of the

OTC. The OTC adopted a MOU on

September 27, 1994, committing the

signatory states to the development and

implementation of a two phase regionwide reduction in NOX emissions by

1999 and 2003, respectively. As

reasonably available control technology

(RACT) to reduce NOX emissions was

required to be implemented by May of

1995, the MOU refers to the reduction

in NOX emissions to be achieved by

1999 as Phase II; and the reduction in

NOX emissions to be achieved by 2003

as Phase III. The OTC member states

include Maine, New Hampshire,

Vermont, Massachusetts, Connecticut,

Rhode Island, New York, New Jersey,

Pennsylvania, Maryland, Delaware, the

northern counties of Virginia, and the

District of Columbia. All of the OTC

members, with the exception of the

Commonwealth of Virginia, signed the

September 27, 1994 MOU. The OTC

MOU requires a reduction in ozone

season NOX emissions from utility and

large industrial combustion facilities

within the OTR to further the effort to

achieve the health-based National

Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS)

for ozone. In the MOU, the OTC states

agreed to propose regulations for the

control of NOX emissions in accordance

with the following guidelines:

1. The level of NOX required would be

established from a 1990 baseline

emissions level.

2. The reduction would vary by

location, or zone, and would be

implemented in two phases utilizing a

region wide trading program.

3. The reduction would be

determined based on the less stringent

of each of the following:

a. By May 1, 1999, the affected

facilities in the inner zone shall reduce

their rate of NOX emissions by 65%

from baseline, or emit NOX at a rate no

greater than 0.20 pounds per million

Btu. (This is a Phase II requirement.)

b. By May 1, 1999, the affected

facilities in the outer zone shall reduce

their rate of NOX emissions by 55%

from baseline, or shall emit NOX at a

rate no greater than 0.20 pounds per

million Btu. (This is a Phase II

requirement.)

c. By May 1, 2003, the affected

facilities in the inner and outer zones

shall reduce their rate of NOX emissions

by 75% from baseline, or shall emit

NOX at a rate no greater than 0.15

pounds per million Btu. (This is a Phase

III requirement.)

d. By May 1, 2003, the affected

facilities in the Northern zone shall

reduce their rate of NOX emissions by

55% from baseline, or shall emit NOX at

a rate no greater than 0.20 pounds per

million Btu. (This is a Phase III

requirement.)

A Task Force of representatives from

the OTC states, organized through the

Northeast States for Coordinated Air

Use Management (NESCAUM) and the

Mid-Atlantic Regional Air Management

Association (MARAMA), was charged

with the task of developing a Model

Rule that would implement the program

defined by the OTC MOU. During 1995

and 1996, the NESCAUM/MARAMA

NOX Budget Task Force worked with

EPA and developed a model rule as a

template for OTC states to adopt their

own rules to implement the OTC MOU.

The model was issued May 1, 1996. The

model rule was developed by and for

the OTC states to implement the Phase

II reductions called for in the MOU to

be achieved by May 1, 1999. The model

rule does not include the

implementation of Phase III.

The regulations of the District’s NOX

Budget Program, 20 DCMR 1000, are

based solely upon the ‘‘NESCAUM/

MARAMA NOX Budget Rule’’ issued in

May 1, 1996. The model rule was

developed by the states in the OTR

using the EPA’s economic incentive

rules (67 FR 16690) which were

published on April 7, 1994, as the

general regulatory framework.

The District of Columbia’s OTC NOX

Budget Program establishes NOX

emission allowances for each ozone

season of each year from May 1st

through September 30th. This program

identifies the budgeted sources and

identifies the number of allowances

each budget source is allocated.

The District’s NOX Budget Program

includes the adoption of a new chapter:

Chapter 10—Nitrogen Oxides Emissions

Budget Program. Chapter 10—Nitrogen

Oxides Emissions Budget Program is

divided in fourteen sections: (1000)

Applicability; (1001) General

Provisions; (1002) Allowance

Allocation; (1003) Permits; (1004)

Allowance Transfer and Use; (1005)

Allowance Banking; (1006) NOX

Allowance Tracking System; (1007)

Emission Monitoring; (1008) Record

Keeping; (1009) Reporting; (1010) Endof-Season Reconciliation; (1011)

Compliance Certification; (1012)

Penalties; (1013) Program Audit; (1099)

Definitions and Abbreviations.

II. Proposed Action

EPA is proposing to approve the SIP

revision request submitted for parallel

processing by the District’s Department

of Health on August 28, 2000. The SIP

revision consists of the District’s

proposed Chapter 10—Nitrogen Oxides

Emissions Budget Program, for

implementing Phase II of the OTC’s

MOU to reduce nitrogen oxides.

This revision is being proposed under

a procedure called parallel processing,

whereby EPA proposes rulemaking

action concurrently with a state’s

procedures for amending its regulations.

If the proposed revision is substantially

changed in areas other than those

identified in this notice, EPA will

evaluate those changes and may publish

another proposed rulemaking. If no

substantial changes are made other than

those areas cited in this notice, we will

publish a final rulemaking on the

revision. The final rulemaking action by

EPA will occur only after the SIP

revision has been adopted by the

District of Columbia and submitted

formally to EPA for incorporation into

the SIP. 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

notice. These comments will be

considered before taking any final

action. EPA calls your attention to the

November 9, 2000 deadline date for

submittal of comments on this proposed

action to approve this SIP revision

submitted by the District of Columbia.

The EPA is providing a shortened time

period for comment for two reasons. As

an initial matter, these revisions are

non-controversial and EPA does not

expect comment because the District

adopted the model rule developed by

the NESCAUM and MARAMA states.

Moreover, these SIP revisions are

necessary for full approval of the

attainment demonstration SIP for the

Metropolitan Washington, D.C. ozone

nonattainment area. The EPA is

currently under an obligation to

complete rulemaking by November 15,

2000 fully approving the attainment

demonstration for the Metropolitan

Washington, D.C. ozone nonattainment

area or, in the alternative, proposing a

federal implementation plan.

III. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ and therefore is not subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget. This action merely proposes to

approve state law as meeting federal

requirements and imposes no additional

requirements beyond those imposed by

state law. Accordingly, the

Administrator certifies that this

proposed rule will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities under the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.). Because this rule proposes to

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 203 / Thursday, October 19, 2000 / Proposed Rules 62681

approve pre-existing requirements

under state law and does not impose

any additional enforceable duty beyond

that required by state law, it does not

contain any unfunded mandate or

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments, as described in the

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

(Public Law 104–4). For the same

reason, this proposed rule also does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of tribal governments, as

specified by Executive Order 13084 (63

FR 27655, May 10, 1998). This proposed

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 (64

FR 43255, August 10, 1999), because it

merely proposes to approve a 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. This proposed rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant. In reviewing

SIP submissions, EPA’s role is to

approve state choices, provided that

they meet the criteria of the Clean Air

Act. In this context, in the absence of a

prior existing requirement for the State

to use voluntary consensus standards

(VCS), EPA has no authority to

disapprove a SIP submission for failure

to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this proposed rule, EPA has taken the

necessary steps to eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity, minimize

potential litigation, and provide a clear

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA

has complied with Executive Order

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by

examining the takings implications of

the rule in accordance with the

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk

and Avoidance of Unanticipated

Takings’’ issued under the Executive

order. This proposed rule to approve the

District of Columbia’s Nitrogen Oxides

Emissions Budget Program regulations

to implement Phase II of the OTC MOU

does not impose an information

collection burden under the provisions

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,

Ozone, Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.

Dated: October 13, 2000.

Thomas Voltaggio,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 00–26901 Filed 10–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[VA109–5050b; FRL–6887–6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans; Virginia;

Approval of Approval of Removal of

TSP Ambient Standards

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve a

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the

Commonwealth of Virginia for the

purpose of removing references to total

suspended particulate (TSP) ambient

standards and levels from its regulations

for ambient air quality standards and for

air pollution episode prevention. In the

Final Rules section of this Federal

Register, EPA is approving the State’s

SIP submittal as a direct final rule

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

submittal and anticipates no adverse

comments. A detailed rationale for the

approval is set forth in the direct final

rule. If no adverse comments are

received in response to this action, no

further activity is contemplated. If EPA

receives adverse comments, the direct

final rule will be withdrawn and all

public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based upon this proposed rule. EPA will

not institute a second comment period.

Any parties interested in commenting

on this action should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments must be received in

writing by November 20, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Mr. Denis Lohman,

Acting Chief, Technical Assessment

Branch, Mailcode 3AP22, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the Air Protection Division,

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region III, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103; and

Virginia Department of Environmental

Quality, 629 East Main Street,

Richmond, Virginia, 23219.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ruth E. Knapp, (215) 814–2191, at the

EPA Region III address above, or by email at knapp.ruth@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For

further information on this SIP revision

related to removal of TSP ambient

standards and levels from Virginia’s

regulations, please see the information

provided in the direct final action, with

the same title, that is located in the

‘‘Rules and Regulations’’ section of this

Federal Register publication.

Dated: October 5, 2000.

Bradley M. Campbell,

Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 00–26909 Filed 10–18–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Health Care Financing Administration

42 CFR Part 410

[HCFA–1088–P]

RIN 0938–AJ71

Medicare Program; Clinical Social

Worker Services

AGENCY: Health Care Financing

Administration (HCFA), HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would

permit separate Medicare Part B

payment for certain psychotherapy

services of clinical social workers

furnished to a skilled nursing facility

resident whose stay is not covered by

Medicare. This rule would benefit

residents of skilled nursing facilities

who receive psychological services from

clinical social workers.

DATES: We will consider comments if

we receive them at the appropriate

address, as provided below, no later

than 5 p.m. on December 18, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments (one

original and three copies) to the

following address ONLY: Health Care

Financing Administration, Department

of Health and Human Services,