Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 31121

B. 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.

SIP approvals under section 110 and

subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act

do not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, the

Regional Administrator certifies that it

does not have a significant impact on

any small entities affected. Moreover,

due to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the CAA, preparation

of a flexibility analysis would constitute

Federal inquiry into the economic

reasonableness of state action. The

Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. Union Electric Co. v. U.S. EPA,

427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 U.S.C.

7410(a)(2) and 7410(k)(3).

C. 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 promulgated 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 requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

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).

E. 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 August 7, 1998.

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).)

F. Executive Order 13045

Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks. Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), applies to any

rule that is (1) likely to be

‘‘economically significant’’ as defined

under Executive Order 12866, and (2)

the Agency has reason to believe that

the environmental health or safety risk

addressed by the rule may have a

disproportionate effect on children. If a

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,

‘‘Protection of Children from

Environmental Health Risks and Safety

Risks’’ because this is not an

‘‘economically significant’’ regulatory

action as defined by E.O. 12866, and

because it does not involve decisions on

environmental health or safety risks that

may disproportionately affect children.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference,

Intergovernmental relations, Ozone,

Particulate matter, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: April 27, 1998.

A. Stanley Meiburg,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.

Part 52 of chapter I, title 40, Code of

Federal Regulations, is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart RR—Tennessee

2. Section 52.2220, is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(161) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2220 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(161) Revisions to the Knox County

portion of the Tennessee state

implementation plan submitted to EPA

by the State of Tennessee on December

24, 1996 and June 18, 1997, concerning

process particulate emissions and

volatile organic compounds (VOC) were

approved.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

(A) Section 19.2 of the Knox County

Air Pollution Control Regulation

‘‘Process Particulate Emissions’’

effective December 11, 1996.

(B) Section 46.2.A.34 of the Knox

County Air Pollution Control Regulation

‘‘Volatile Organic Compounds’’ effective

June 11, 1997.

(ii) Other material. None.

[FR Doc. 98–15022 Filed 6–5–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[TX95–1–7379a FRL–6104–2]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plan; Texas; Revisions

to 30 TAC Chapter 115 for Control of

Volatile Organic Emissions From

Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning

Systems

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).
31122 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is approving

revisions to the State Implementation

Plan (SIP) in order to repeal rules which

are no longer required. The

requirements of 30 TAC Chapter 115,

sections 115.521–115.527 and 115.529

for controlling emissions from

perchloroethylene (perc) dry cleaners

are being repealed. In a February 7,

1996, Federal Register action, for

purposes of preparing SIP’s to attain the

national ambient air quality standards

(NAAQS) for ozone under title I of the

Clean Air Act (Act), EPA excluded perc

from the Federal definition of Volatile

Organic Compound (VOC) due to perc’s

negligible photochemical reactivity.

Emissions from perc dry cleaners will

continue to be regulated by the perc dry

cleaning National Emission Standards

for Hazardous Air Pollutants which EPA

promulgated on September 22, 1993.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This direct final rule is

effective on August 7, 1998 without

further notice, unless EPA receives

adverse comment by July 8, 1998. If

adverse comment is received, EPA will

publish a timely withdrawal of the

direct final rule in the Federal Register

and inform the public that the rule did

not take effect.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be addressed to Mr. Thomas H. Diggs,

Chief, Air Planning Section (6PD–L), at

the EPA Regional Office listed below.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

final action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following locations.

Interested persons wanting to examine

these documents should make an

appointment with the appropriate office

at least two working days in advance.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 6, Multimedia Planning and

Permitting Division, 1445 Ross Avenue,

Suite 700, Dallas, TX 75202–2733.

Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission (TNRCC), Office of Air

Quality, 12100 Park 35 Circle, Austin,

Texas 78753.

Documents which are 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.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Ken Boyce, Air Planning Section

(6PD–L), Environmental Protection

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700,

Dallas, Texas 75202, telephone: (214)

665–7259.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The EPA’s purpose in promulgation of

the general definition of VOC (40 CFR

51.100(s)) is for use in the preparation

of SIP’s designed to achieve and

maintain the NAAQS for ozone. That

definition of VOC lists several

compounds which are considered to

have negligible photochemical reactivity

and, therefore, are exempt from the VOC

definition. Based on the criteria used to

judge the reactivity of compounds for

this list, EPA determined that perc

should be added to the list of

compounds as not contributing

substantially to the formation of ground

level ozone. On February 7, 1996, in 61

FR 4588, EPA excluded perc as a VOC.

The result of this action is that States

are not allowed to continue to take

credit for perc reductions in ozone nonattainment planning.

EPA will not enforce measures

controlling perc as part of a federallyapproved ozone SIP. The recently

promulgated NESHAP increases public

health protection above levels achieved

by the formerly applicable Control

Techniques Guideline (CTG). The

exclusion of perc from the definition of

VOC means that for purposes of ozone

control, the perc dry cleaning CTG no

longer has the legal status of a CTG. As

a result of the change in status of the

perc CTG, states are no longer required

to have rules based upon the CTG. The

State’s Chapter 115 rule for perc was

based on the CTG and is therefore no

longer required. States may still use the

CTG as a source of technical

information for developing rules to

control toxic materials. While the rules

are no longer necessary for ozone

control, EPA is regulating perc as a

hazardous air pollutant under section

112 of the 1990 amendments to the

Federal Clean Air Act. Maintaining the

SIP rules for perc would be largely

duplicative of these requirements. In

addition, any existing dry cleaners

currently complying with the Chapter

115 perc dry cleaning rules are likely to

continue using their add-on controls

due to the value of the recovered perc.

Therefore, the Chapter 115 perc dry

cleaning rules can be repealed.

II. Final action

This action approves a revision to

TNRCC Regulation V (30 TAC Chapter

115) which removes regulations

concerning perc dry cleaning systems

from the Texas SIP submitted by the

Governor of Texas on November 12,

1997.

The EPA is publishing this rule

without a prior proposal because the

Agency views this as a noncontroversial

amendment 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 SIP revision

should relevant adverse comments be

filed. This direct final rule is effective

on August 7, 1998 without further

notice, unless EPA receives adverse

comment by July 8, 1998. If adverse

comment is received, EPA will publish

a timely withdrawal of the direct final

rule in the Federal Register and inform

the public that the rule did not take

effect.

If EPA receives such comments, then

EPA will publish a document

withdrawing the final rule and

informing the public that the rule did

not take effect. All public comments

received will then be addressed in a

subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule. The EPA will not

institute a second comment period on

the proposed rule. Only parties

interested in commenting on the

proposed rule should do so at this time.

If no such comments are received, the

public is advised that this rule will be

effective on August 7, 1998 and no

further action will be taken on the

proposed rule.

Nothing in this action should be

construed as permitting or allowing or

establishing a precedent for any future

request for revision to any SIP. Each

request for revision to the SIP will be

considered separately in light of specific

technical, economic, and environmental

factors and in relation to relevant

statutory and regulatory requirements.

III. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

has exempted this regulatory action

from E.O. 12866 review.

B. 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. See 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-forprofit enterprises, and government

entities with jurisdiction over

populations of less than 50,000.

The SIP approvals under section 110

and subchapter I, part D of the Act do

not create any new requirements but

simply approve requirements that the

State is already imposing. Therefore,
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 109 / Monday, June 8, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 31123

because the Federal SIP approval does

not impose any new requirements, I

certify that it does not have a significant

impact on any small entities affected.

Moreover, due to the nature of the

Federal-State relationship under the

Act, preparation of a flexibility analysis

would constitute Federal inquiry into

the economic reasonableness of State

action. The Act forbids EPA to base its

actions concerning SIPs on such

grounds. See Union Electric Co. v. U.S.

EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42

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

C. Unfunded Mandates

Under section 202 of the Unfunded

Mandates Reform Act of 1995, 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

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.

The EPA has determined that the

approval action promulgated 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 preexisting requirements

under State or local law, and imposes

no new requirements. Accordingly, no

additional costs to State, local, or tribal

governments, or to the private sector,

result from this action.

D. Submission to Congress and the

Comptroller General

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. The 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).

E. Executive Order 13045: Protection of

Children From Environmental Health

Risks and Safety Risks

This final rule is not subject to E.O.

13045, entitled ‘‘Protection of Children

from Environmental Health Risks and

Safety Risks’’ (62 FR 19885, April 23,

1997), because this is not an

economically significant regulatory

action as defined by E.O. 12866. The

environmental risks or safety risks

addressed by this action do not have a

disproportionate effect on children.

F. Petitions for Judicial Review

Under section 307(b)(1) of the Act,

petitions for judicial review of this

action must be filed in the United States

Court of Appeals for the appropriate

circuit by August 7, 1998. 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

will not postpone the effectiveness of

such rule action. This action may not be

challenged later in proceedings to

enforce its requirements. See section

307(b)(2).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Incorporation by reference, Ozone,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, and Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: May 12, 1998.

Jerry Clifford,

Deputy Regional Administrator, Region 6.

Part 52, chapter I, title 40 of the Code

of Federal Regulations is amended as

follows:

PART 52—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 52

continues to read as follows:

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

Subpart SS—Texas

2. Section 52.2270 is amended by

adding paragraph (c)(110) to read as

follows:

§ 52.2270 Identification of plan.

* * * * *

(c) * * *

(110) Revision to the Texas State

Implementation Plan adopted by the

Texas Natural Resource Conservation

Commission (TNRCC) on October 15,

1997, and submitted by the Governor on

November 12, 1997, repealing the

Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning

Systems regulations from the Texas SIP.

(i) Incorporation by reference.

TNRCC Order Docket No. 97–0534–

RUL issued October 21, 1997, repealing

Perchloroethylene Dry Cleaning

Systems regulations (Sections 115.521

to 115.529) from 30 TAC Chapter 115.

(ii) Additional materials.

(A) letter from the Governor of Texas

dated November 12, 1997, submitting

amendments to 30 TAC Chapter 115 for

approval as a revision to the SIP.

[FR Doc. 98–15018 Filed 6–5–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Health Care Financing Administration

42 CFR Part 420

[HCFA–6144–FC]

RIN 0938–AH86

Medicare Program; Incentive

Programs-Fraud and Abuse

AGENCY: Health Care Financing

Administration (HCFA), HHS.

ACTION: Final rule with comment period.

SUMMARY: This final rule with comment

period establishes a program for

payment to individuals who provide

information on Medicare fraud and

abuse or other sanctionable activities.

This final rule implements section

203(b) of the Health Insurance

Portability and Accountability Act of

1996.

DATES: Effective date: This final rule is

effective July 8, 1998. Comment period:

Comments will be considered if we

receive them at the appropriate address,

as provided below, no later than 5 p.m.

on August 7. 1998.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments (1

original and 3 copies) to the following

address: Health Care Financing

Administration, Department of Health

and Human Services, Attention: HCFA–

6144–FC, P.O. Box 26688, Baltimore,

MD 21207–0488.

If you prefer, you may deliver your

written comments (1 original and 3

copies) to one of the following

addresses:

Room 309–G, Hubert H. Humphrey

Building, 7500 Independence Avenue,

SW., Washington, DC 20201, or

Room C5–09–26, 7500 Security

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21244–

1850.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Delilah Schmitt, (410) 786–4300.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Comments

may also be submitted electronically to