26564 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. versus U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

U.S.C. 7410(a)(2).

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 approval

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. This federal action

approves pre-existing requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new federal requirements.

Accordingly, no additional costs to

State, local, or tribal governments, or to

the private sector, result from this

action.

The Regional Administrator’s

decision to approve or disapprove the

SIP revision will be based on whether

it meets the requirements of section

110(a)(2)(A)–(K) of the Clean Air Act, as

amended, and EPA regulations in 40

CFR Part 51.

The Congressional Review Act

The Congressional Review Act, 5

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides

that before a rule may take effect, the

agency promulgating the rule must

submit a rule report, which includes a

copy of the rule, to each House of the

Congress and to the Comptroller General

of the United States. EPA will submit 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 United

States prior to publication of the rule in

the Federal Register. This rule is not a

‘‘major rule’’ as defined by 5 U.S.C.

804(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Intergovernmental

relations, Ozone, Volatile organic

compounds.

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

Dated: April 30, 1998.

William J. Muszynski,

Deputy Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 98–12720 Filed 5–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[MD067–3025b; FRL–6012–6]

Approval and Promulgation of Air

Quality Implementation Plans;

Maryland; Definition of the Term

‘‘Major Stationary Source of VOC’’

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to approve the

State Implementation Plan (SIP)

revision submitted by the State of

Maryland. This revision pertain to

amendments to Maryland’s definition of

the term major stationary source of

volatile organic compounds (VOC). In

the Final Rules section of this Federal

Register, EPA is approving the State’s

SIP revision as a direct final rule

without prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

SIP revision 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 proposed

rule, no further activity is contemplated

in relation to this rule. 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 on this

proposed rule. 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.

DATES: Comments must be received in

writing by June 12, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

David L. Arnold, Chief, Ozone and

Mobile Sources Section, Mailcode

3AP21, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region III, 841 Chestnut

Building, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19107. 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, 841 Chestnut Building,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107 and

the Maryland Department of the

Environment, 2500 Broening Highway,

Baltimore, Maryland, 21224.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Maria A. Pino, (215) 566–2181, at the

EPA Region III address above, or via email at pino.maria@epamail.epa.gov.

While information may be requested via

e-mail, any comments must be

submitted in writing to the EPA Region

III address above.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the Direct Final

action of the same title, pertaining to

revisions to Maryland’s definition of the

term ‘‘major stationary source of VOC,’’

which is located in the Rules and

Regulations Section of this Federal

Register.

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

Dated: April 24, 1998.

Thomas Voltaggio,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region III.

[FR Doc. 98–12717 Filed 5–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL–6012–2]

Approval of Section 112(l) Authority for

Hazardous Air Pollutants;

Perchloroethylene Air Emission

Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities;

State of California; South Coast Air

Quality Management District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: Pursuant to section 112(l) of

the Clean Air Act (CAA) and through

the California Air Resources Board,

South Coast Air Quality Management

District (SCAQMD) requested approval

to implement and enforce its ‘‘Rule

1421: Control of Perchloroethylene

Emissions from Dry Cleaning Systems’’

(Rule 1421) in place of the ‘‘National

Perchloroethylene Air Emission

Standards for Dry Cleaning Facilities’’

(dry cleaning NESHAP) for area sources

under SCAQMD’s jurisdiction. In the

Rules section of this Federal Register,

EPA is granting SCAQMD the authority

to implement and enforce Rule 1421 in

place of the dry cleaning NESHAP for

area sources under SCAQMD’s

jurisdiction as a direct final rule without

prior proposal because the Agency

views this as a noncontroversial action
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 92 /Wednesday, May 13, 1998 / Proposed Rules 26565

and anticipates no adverse comments. A

detailed rationale for this approval is set

forth in the direct final rule. If no

relevant adverse comments are received

in response to this document, no further

activity is contemplated in relation to

this proposed rule. If EPA receives

relevant adverse comments, the direct

final rule will not take effect and all

public comments received will be

addressed in a subsequent final rule

based on this proposed rule. The EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this proposal. Any parties

interested in commenting on this

proposal should do so at this time.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

must be received in writing by June 12,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on this

action should be addressed to: Andrew

Steckel, Rulemaking Office (AIR–4), Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

Copies of the submitted request are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region IX office during normal business

hours.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mae

Wang, Rulemaking Office (AIR–4), Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901,

Telephone: (415) 744–1200.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

document concerns SCAQMD Rule

1421, Control of Perchloroethylene

Emissions from Dry Cleaning Systems,

revised on June 13, 1997. For further

information, please see the information

provided in the direct final action

which is located in the Rules section of

this Federal Register.

Authority: This action is issued under the

authority of Section 112 of the Clean Air Act,

as amended, 42 U.S.C., Section 7412.

Dated: April 10, 1998.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 98–12429 Filed 5–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 131

[FRL–OW–6013–4]

RIN–2040–AC65

Water Quality Standards for Alabama

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency.

ACTION: Proposed Rule; Re-opening of

public comment period.

SUMMARY: EPA is re-opening the public

comment period on the proposed water

quality standards that would be

applicable to certain waters of the

United States in the State of Alabama.

DATES: EPA will now accept public

comments on this proposed rulemaking

until June 3, 1998. Comments

postmarked after this date may not be

considered.

ADDRESSES: An original plus 2 copies,

and if possible an electronic version of

comments either in WordPerfect or

ASCII format, should be addressed to

Fritz Wagener, Water Quality Standards

Coordinator, U.S. EPA Region 4, Water

Management Division, Atlanta Federal

Center, 61 Forsyth Street S.W., Atlanta,

Georgia, 30303–3104. The

administrative record for this proposed

rule is available for public inspection at

U.S. EPA Region 4, Water Management

Division, 15th Floor, Atlanta Federal

Center, 61 Forsyth Street S.W., Atlanta,

Georgia, 30303–3104, between 8:00 a.m.

to 4:30 p.m. Copies of all or portions of

the record will be made available for a

charge of 20 cents per page.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Fritz

Wagener, Water Quality Standards

Coordinator, U.S. EPA Region 4, Water

Management Division, Atlanta Federal

Center, 61 Forsyth Street S.W., Atlanta,

Georgia, 30303–3104 (telephone: 404–

562–9267).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

proposed rule appeared in the Federal

Register on March 5, 1998 (63 FR

10799) and provided for a public

comment period of 60 days which

closed on May 4, 1998. EPA has

received requests from several

interested parties for additional time to

comment. These parties cited difficulty

in obtaining and reviewing certain

documents referenced in the

administrative record within the

comment period provided by EPA.

Dated: May 7, 1998.

Robert Perciasepe,

Assistant Administrator for Water.

[FR Doc. 98–12690 Filed 5–12–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Health Care Financing Administration

42 CFR Parts 405, 412, and 413

[HCFA–1003–CN]

RIN 0938–AI22

Medicare Program; Changes to the

Hospital Inpatient Prospective

Payment Systems and Fiscal Year 1999

Rates; Corrections

AGENCY: Health Care Financing

Administration (HCFA), HHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; correction.

SUMMARY: In the May 8, 1998 issue of

the Federal Register (63 FR 25575), we

published a proposed rule to revise the

Medicare hospital inpatient prospective

payment systems for operating costs and

capital-related costs to implement

necessary changes arising from our

continuing experience with the system.

This document corrects technical errors

made in that document.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Nancy Edwards, (410) 786–4531,

Operating Prospective Payment, DRG,

and Wage Index Issues.

Tzvi Hefter, (410) 786–4487, Capital

Prospective Payment, Excluded

Hospitals, and Graduate Medical

Education Issues.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the May

8, 1998 proposed rule, we addressed

caps on the target amounts for cost

reporting periods beginning in FY 1999

for hospitals excluded from the hospital

inpatient prospective payment systems.

The caps that we published

inadvertently reflect updates to the

amounts published in the August 29,

1997 final rule with comment period (62

FR 46019), rather than updates to the

corrected amounts published in the

March 6, 1998 correction notice for the

final rule with comment period (63 FR

11148). This document corrects that

error. Also incorrect amounts were

listed in Tables 1A, 1C, 1D, 1E, and 1F.

We inadvertently published the

amounts from the August 29, 1997 final

rule with comment period. Therefore,

we are making the following corrections

to the proposed rule:

1. On page 25601, end of the third

column, the table is replaced with the

following:

(1) Psychiatric hospitals and units:

$10,797

(2) Rehabilitation hospitals and units:

$19,582

(3) Long-term care hospitals: $38,630

2. On pages 25620 through 26521,

Tables 1A, 1C, 1D, 1E, and 1F are

corrected to read as follows: