20426 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 74 / Monday, April 17, 2000 / Proposed Rules

1EPA adopted the completeness criteria on

February 16, 1990 (55 FR 5830) and, pursuant to

section 110(k)(1)(A) of the CAA, revised the criteria

on August 26, 1991 (56 FR 42216). 2 ‘‘Issues Relating to VOC regulation Cutpoints,

Deficiencies, and Deviation, Clarification to

Appendix D of November 24, 1987 Federal Register

document’’ (Blue Book) (notice of availability was

published in the Federal Register on May 25, 1988).

to establish a plan for informing and

advising any small governments that

may be significantly or uniquely

impacted by the rules.

EPA has determined that the approval

action promulgated does not include a

Federal mandate that may result in

estimated annual 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

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

Dated: April 3, 2000.

Laura Yoshii,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 00–9395 Filed 4–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 226–0233; FRL–6578–3]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; California State

Implementation Plan Revision; Tehama

Air Pollution Control District

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve

a revision to the California State

Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone.

The revision concerns the control of

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) for the Tehama

Air Pollution Control District

(TCAPCD). The revision concerns

TCAPCD Rule 4.14 for the control of

oxides of nitrogen (NOX) emissions from

fuel burning equipment. The intended

effect of proposing approval of this rule

is to regulate emissions of NOX in

accordance with the requirements of the

Clean Air Act, as amended in 1990

(CAA or the Act). EPA’s final action on

this proposed rule will incorporate this

rule into the Federally approved SIP.

EPA has evaluated this rule and is

proposing to approve it under

provisions of the CAA regarding EPA

actions on SIP submittals, SIPs for

national primary and secondary ambient

air quality standards (NAAQS), and

plan requirements for nonattainment

areas.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before May 17, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed

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 rule and EPA’s

evaluation report of the rule are

available for public inspection at EPA’s

Region IX office during normal business

hours. Copies of the submitted rule are

also available for inspection at the

following locations:

Environmental Protection Agency, Air

Docket (6102) 401 ‘‘M’’ Street, S.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20460.

California Air Resources Board,

Stationary Source Division, Rule

Evaluation Section, 2020 ‘‘L’’ Street,

Sacramento, CA 95812.

Tehama County APCD, P.O. Box 38

(1750 Walnut Street) Red Bluff, CA

96080.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ed

Addison, Rulemaking Office, AIR–4, Air

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region IX, 75 Hawthorne

Street, San Francisco, CA 94105–3901,

Telephone: (415) 744–1160.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Applicability

The rule being proposed for approval

into the California SIP is Tehama Air

Pollution Control District Rule 4.14,

Fuel Burning Equipment. Rule 4.14 was

submitted by the State of California to

EPA on May 13, 1999.

II. Background

On November 15, 1990, the Clean Air

Act Amendments of 1990 were enacted.

Public Law 101–549, 104 Stat. 2399,

codified at 42 U.S.C. 7401–7671q.

On November 25, 1992, EPA

published a proposed rule entitled,

‘‘State Implementation Plans; Nitrogen

Oxides Supplement to the General

Preamble; Clean Air Act Amendments

of 1990 Implementation of Title I;

Proposed Rule,’’ (the NOX Supplement).

The NOX Supplement should be

referred to for further information on the

NOX requirements.

This document addresses EPA’s

proposed action for Tehama Air

Pollution Control District Rule 4.14,

Fuel Burning Equipment, adopted by

the TCAPCD on November 3, 1998. The

State of California submitted Rule 4.14

to EPA May 13, 1999. Rule 4.14 was

found to be complete on May 26, 1999,

pursuant to EPA’s completeness criteria

that are set forth in 40 CFR part 51,

appendix V.1

NOX emissions contribute to the

production of ground level ozone and

smog. TCAPCD Rule 4.14 specifies

exhaust emission standards for NOX,

and was originally adopted as part of

TCAPCD’s effort to maintain the

National Ambient Air Quality Standard

(NAAQS) for ozone, and in response to

the CAA requirements cited above. The

following is EPA’s evaluation and

proposed action for the rule.

III. EPA Evaluation and Proposed

Action

In determining the approvability of a

NOX rule, EPA must evaluate the rule

for consistency with the requirements of

the CAA and EPA regulations, as found

in section 110 and part D of the CAA

and 40 CFR part 51 (Requirements for

Preparation, Adoption, and Submittal of

Implementation Plans). The EPA

interpretation of these requirements,

which forms the basis for today’s action,

appears in the NOX Supplement (57 FR

55620) and various other EPA policy

guidance documents.2

The California Air Resources Board

(CARB) has developed a guidance

document entitled, ‘‘California Clean

Air Act Guidance, Determination of

Reasonably Available Control

Technology and Best Available Retrofit

Control Technology for Institutional,

Industrial and Commercial Boilers,

Steam Generators and Process Heaters,’’

July 18, 1991. EPA has used CARB’s

Determination, dated July 18, 1991, in

evaluating Rule 4.14 for consistency

with the CAA’s requirements. In

general, EPA uses the guidance

documents cited above, as well as other

relevant and applicable guidance

documents, to ensure that submitted

NOX rules meet Federal RACT

requirements and are fully enforceable

and strengthen or maintain the SIP.

There is currently a July 12, 1990,

EPA approved (55 FR 28624) version of

Tehama County Air Pollution Control

District Rule 4.14, Fuel Burning

Equipment, in the SIP. Submitted Rule

4.14 includes the following provisions:

• General provisions including

applicability, exemptions, and

definitions.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 74 / Monday, April 17, 2000 / Proposed Rules 20427

• Exhaust emissions standards for

oxides of nitrogen (NOX).

• Compliance and monitoring

requirements including compliance

schedule, reporting requirements,

monitoring and record keeping, and test

methods.

Rules submitted to EPA for approval

as revisions to the SIP must be fully

enforceable, must maintain or

strengthen the SIP and must conform

with EPA policy in order to be approved

by EPA. When reviewing rules for SIP

approvability, EPA evaluates

enforceability elements such as test

methods, record keeping, and

compliance testing in addition to

guidance regarding emission limits. The

submitted version of Rule 4.14

strengthens the SIP through the addition

of enforceable measures such as record

keeping, test methods, definitions, and

more stringent compliance testing. The

submitted version of Rule 4.14 relaxes

the SIP by exempting sources subject to

Rules 4.31, 4.34 and 4.37. EPA is

separately acting on these rules and

believes that they generally adequately

control the sources exempted from Rule

4.14. A more detailed discussion of the

sources controlled and the controls

required can be found in the Technical

Support Document (TSD), dated January

25, 2000, which is available from the

U.S. EPA, Region IX office.

EPA, in light of Rules 4.31, 4.34 and

4.37, has evaluated the submitted rule

and has determined that it is consistent

with the CAA, EPA regulations and EPA

policy. Therefore, Tehama County Air

Pollution Control District Rule 4.14 is

being proposed for approval under

section 110(k)(3) of the CAA as meeting

the requirements of section 110(a),

section 182(b)(2), section 182(f) and the

NOx Supplement to the General

Preamble.

IV. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866

The Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) has exempted this regulatory

action from Executive Order 12866,

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 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

approves 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. 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 Executive

Order 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 Executive Order 13045

because it is does not involve decisions

intended to mitigate environmental

health or safety risks.

D. Executive Order 13084

Under Executive Order 13084,

Consultation and Coordination with

Indian Tribal Governments, EPA may

not issue a regulation that is not

required by statute, that significantly 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, or EPA consults with

those governments. If EPA complies by

consulting, Executive Order 13084

requires EPA to 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,

Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to

develop an effective process permitting

elected officials 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 rule does not

significantly or uniquely affect the

communities of Indian tribal

governments. Accordingly, the

requirements of section 3(b) of

Executive Order 13084 do not apply to

this rule.

E. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)

generally requires an agency to conduct

a regulatory flexibility analysis of any

rule subject to notice and comment

rulemaking requirements unless the

agency certifies that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Small entities include small businesses,

small not-for-profit enterprises, and

small governmental jurisdictions. This

final rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities because 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 create

any new requirements, I certify that this

action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. Moreover, due

to the nature of the Federal-State

relationship under the Clean Air Act,

preparation of flexibility analysis would

constitute Federal inquiry into the

economic reasonableness of state action.

The Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base

20428 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 74 / Monday, April 17, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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).

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 annual 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 annual 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.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Hydrocarbons,

Intergovernmental relations, Nitrogen

dioxide, Ozone, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Volatile

organic compounds.

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

Dated: April 3, 2000.

Laura Yoshii,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 00–9394 Filed 4–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

45 CFR Part 60

RIN 0906–AA41

National Practitioner Data Bank for

Adverse Information on Physicians

and Other Health Care Practitioners:

Medical Malpractice Payments

Reporting Requirements

AGENCY: Health Resources and Services

Administration, DHHS.

ACTION: Proposed rule; status.

SUMMARY: The Health Resources and

Services Administration (HRSA) is

announcing its intention to issue a

second Notice of proposed Rulemaking

(NPRM) on National Practitioner Data

Bank (NPDB) Medical Malpractice

payments Reporting Requirements

following a period of data gathering and

evaluation. This will involve a new 60-

day public comment period for the

revised proposal.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas C. Croft, 301–443–2300.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Proposed

rules regarding amending the medical

malpractice payment reporting

requirements for the NPDB were

published on December 24, 1998 (63 FR

71255). More than 120 comments on the

proposed rule were received. Given the

large number of thoughtful comments

and the high level of concern that was

voiced about the potential impact of the

proposal as published, HRSA believes it

is imperative to gather additional data

and conduct further analyses before

proceeding. A new NPRM then will be

published for public comment, with a

goal of publishing the revised proposal

by the end of 2000. The decision to

publish another NPRM with its

associated public comment period

means that new final regulations likely

will be implemented in 2001.

Authority: Secs. 401–432 of the Health

Care Quality Improvement Act of 1986, Pub.

L. 99–660, 100 Stat. 3784–3794, as amended

by sec. 402 of Pub. L. 100–177, 101 Stat.

1007–1008 (42 U.S.C. 11101–11152).

Dated: October 19, 1999.

Claude Earl Fox,

Administrator, Health Resources and Services

Administration.

Approved: December 3, 1999.

Donna E. Shalala,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 00–9470 Filed 4–14–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–15–M

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 622

[I.D. 040600B]

South Atlantic Fishery Management

Council; Public Hearings

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration,

Commerce.

ACTION: Public hearings; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The South Atlantic Fishery

Management Council (Council), in

cooperation with the Caribbean Fishery

Management Council, will convene 17

public hearings regarding the draft

Fishery Management Plan for the

Dolphin and Wahoo Fishery of the

Atlantic, Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico

(draft FMP). The overall goal of the FMP

is to provide a comprehensive

management structure for dolphin and

wahoo in the Atlantic, Gulf, and

Caribbean exclusive economic zone

(EEZ). The FMP will take a

precautionary approach in conserving

these fishery resources, achieving

optimum yield (OY), and maintaining

current allocations among user groups.

DATES: The Council will accept written

comments on the draft FMP through

July 7, 2000. The public hearings will be

held in May and June of 2000. See

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION for specific

dates and times of the public hearings.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to Bob Mahood, Executive

Director, South Atlantic Fishery

Management Council, One Southpark

Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407–

4699. Copies of the draft FMP are

available from Kim Iverson, South

Atlantic Fishery Management Council,

One Southpark Circle, Suite 306,

Charleston, SC 29407–4699; telephone:

843–571–4366. See SUPPLEMENTARY

INFORMATION for specific locations.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kim

Iverson, South Atlantic Fishery

Management Council, One Southpark

Circle, Suite 306, Charleston, SC 29407–

4699; telephone: 843–571–4366; fax:

843–769–4520; email address:

kim.iverson@noaa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Management Measures

The draft FMP provides for the

following: Establishment of

management units for dolphin and

wahoo; proposed dealer, vessel and