Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 31 / Tuesday, February 15, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 7437
Approved: February 2, 2000. (1) Cash, check, or money order period is called a ‘‘grace period.’’ If the Togo D. West, Jr., directly to VA. insured dies within the 31-day grace Secretary of Veterans Affairs. (2) Allotment from service or period, VA deducts the unpaid retirement pay. premium from the amount of insurance For the reasons explained above, the (3) Automatic deduction from VA payable. Department of Veterans Affairs amends benefits (pension, compensation or (2) If a policyholder pays a premium 38 CFR part 8 as set forth below: insurance dividends (see § 8.4)). after the 31-day grace period, VA will PART 8ÐNATIONAL SERVICE LIFE (4) Pre-authorized debit from a not accept the payment and the policy INSURANCE checking account. lapses effective the date the premium (c) When should policyholders pay was due; Except that VA will accept a 1. The authority citation for part 8 premiums? (1) Unless premiums are premium paid after the 31-day grace continues to read as follows: paid in advance, policyholders must period as a timely payment if: Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1901–1929, pay premiums on the effective date (i) The policyholder pays the 1981–1988, unless otherwise noted. shown on the policy and on the same premium within 61 days of the due 2. Section 8.2 is revised to read as date of each following month. This is date; and follows: called the ‘‘due date.’’ (ii) The policyholder is alive at the (2) Policyholders may pay premiums time the payment is mailed. § 8.2 Payment of premiums. quarterly, semi-annually, or annually in (3) When a policyholder pays the (a) What is a premium? A premium is advance. premium by mail, the postmark date is a payment that a policyholder is (d) What happens if a policyholder the date of payment. required to make for an insurance does not pay a premium on time? (1) (4) When a policyholder pays a policy. When a policyholder pays a premium premium by check or money order (b) How can policyholders pay within 31 days from the ‘‘due date,’’ the which is not honored and it is shown by premiums? Premiums can be paid by: policy remains in force. This 31-day satisfactory evidence that:
The bank did not pay the check or money order because of: Then:
An error by the bank ...... The policyholder has an additional 31 days (from the date stamped on VA's notification letter) to pay the premium and any other premiums due through the current month. An error in the check or money order ...... The policyholder has an additional 31 days (same as above). Lack of funds ...... The premium is considered not paid.
§§ 8.3 and 8.4 [Removed] ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Federal Register and inform the public AGENCY that the rule will not take effect. 3. Sections 8.3 and 8.4 are removed. ADDRESSES: All comments should be § 8.6 [The 1st § 8.6 is Removed] 40 CFR Part 52 addressed to Gregory Crawford at the [KY±109±1±200007a; FRL±6533±2] U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 4. The first § 8.6 entitled ‘‘§ 8.6 Region 4 Air Planning Branch, 61 Payment of premiums; insured in active Approval and Promulgation of Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia service or entitled to retirement pay.’’ is Implementation PlansÐ State: 30303. removed. Approval of Revisions to Kentucky Copies of the State submittal(s) are State Implementation Plan available at the following addresses for §§ 8.5 through 8.8 [Redesignated as §§ 8.3 inspection during normal business AGENCY: Environmental Protection through 8.6] hours: Agency (EPA). Air and Radiation Docket and 5. Sections 8.5 through 8.8 are ACTION: Direct final rule. redesignated as §§ 8.3 through 8.6, Information Center (Air Docket 6102), respectively. SUMMARY: EPA is approving a revision to U.S. Environmental Protection the Jefferson County portion of the Agency, 401 M Street, SW, § 8.9 [Removed] Kentucky State Implementation Plan Washington, DC 20460. (SIP) to allow the Air Pollution Control Environmental Protection Agency, 6. Section 8.9 and the undesignated District of Jefferson County (APCDJC) to Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61 center heading immediately preceding issue Federally enforceable district Forsyth Street, SW, Atlanta, Georgia the section are removed. origin operating permits (FEDOOP). On 30303–8960. Commonwealth of Kentucky, Natural §§ 8.10 through 8.36 [Redesignated as November 10, 1998, the APCDJC §§ 8.7 through 8.33] through the Kentucky Natural Resources Resources and Environmental and Environmental Protection Cabinet Protection Cabinet, 803 Schenkel 7. Sections 8.10 through 8.36 are (KNREPC) submitted a SIP revision Lane, Frankfort, Kentucky 40601. redesignated as §§ 8.7 through 8.33, fulfilling the requirements necessary for Air Pollution Control District of respectively. the FEDOOP program to become Jefferson County, 850 Barret Avenue, Suite 205, Louisville, Kentucky [FR Doc. 00–3456 Filed 2–14–00; 8:45 am] federally enforceable. DATES: This direct final rule is effective 40204. BILLING CODE 8320±01±P April 17, 2000 without further notice, FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: unless EPA receives adverse comment Gregory Crawford, Regulatory Planning by March 16, 2000. If adverse comment Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, is received, EPA will publish a timely Pesticides and Toxics Management withdrawal of the direct final rule in the Division at 404/562–9046.
VerDate 27
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: in accordance with the approved construction permit, at the time of operating permit program) and provide public notice. Jefferson County will I. Background that permits which do not conform to provide public notice of proposed On November 10, 1998, the APCDJC, the operating permit program issuance, renewal, or revision of a through the KNREPC, submitted a SIP requirements and the requirements of FEDOOP in the newspaper having the revision to make certain permits issued EPA’s underlying regulations may be largest bona fide paid circulation in under the APCDJC existing minor deemed not ‘‘Federally enforceable’’ by Jefferson County, Kentucky. source operating permit program EPA. Regulation 2.17, sections 3.1 and Federally enforceable. The revision was 3.2 address this criterion and meet this III. Final Action added to comply with EPA requirement. The source shall comply EPA is approving the aforementioned requirements specified in the Federal with all terms and conditions in a changes to the SIP because they are Register notice entitled ‘‘Requirements FEDOOP, including subsequent consistent with the Clean Air Act and for the Preparation, Adoption, and revisions. All terms and conditions in a EPA requirements. The EPA is Submittal of Implementation Plans; FEDOOP, including those requirements publishing this rule without prior Approval and Promulgation of designed to limit a source’s potential to proposal because the Agency views this Implementation Plans’’ (see 54 FR emit, are enforceable by EPA. as a noncontroversial submittal and 27274, June 28, 1989). Criterion 3. The state operating permit anticipates no adverse comments. EPA has always had and continues to program must require that all emission However, in the proposed rules section have the authority to enforce state and limitations, controls, and other of this Federal Register publication, local permits that are issued under requirements imposed by such permits EPA is publishing a separate document permit programs approved into the SIP. will be at least as stringent as any that will serve as the proposal to However, EPA has not always applicable limitations and requirements approve the SIP revision should adverse recognized as valid certain state and contained in the SIP, or enforceable comments be filed. This rule will be local permits which purport to limit a under the SIP, and that the program may effective April 17, 2000 without further source’s potential to emit. The principle not issue permits that waive, or make notice unless the Agency receives purpose for adopting this regulation is less stringent, any limitations or adverse comments by March 15, 2000. to give APCDJC a Federally recognized requirements contained in or issued If the EPA receives such comments, means of expeditiously restricting pursuant to the SIP, or that are then EPA will publish a document potential emissions such that sources otherwise ‘‘federally enforceable’’ (e.g. withdrawing the final rule and can avoid major source permitting standards established under sections informing the public that the rule will requirements. A key mechanism for 111 and 112 of the Clean Air Act not take effect. All public comments such limitations is the use of the (CAA)). received will then be addressed in a Federally enforceable state or local Regulation 2.17, section 3.4 contains subsequent final rule based on the operating permits. The term ‘‘Federally regulatory provisions which state that proposed rule. The EPA will not enforceable,’’ when used in the context permits issued by the APCDJC will be at institute a second comment period. of permits which limit potential to emit, least as stringent as standards Parties interested in commenting should means ‘‘Federally recognized.’’ The established pursuant to sections 111 and do so at this time. If no such comments voluntary revision that is the subject of 112 of the CAA. are received, the public is advised that this action approves Regulation 2.17, Criterion 4. The limitations, controls, this rule will be effective on April 17, Federally Enforceable District Origin and requirements of the state’s operating 2000 and no further action will be taken Operating Permits, into the Jefferson permits must be permanent, on the proposed rule. County portion of the Kentucky SIP. quantifiable, and otherwise enforceable This rule and the materials provided by as a practical matter. Regulation 2.17, Nothing in this action should be the APCDJC satisfy the five criteria section 5.3 contains regulatory construed as making any determination outlined in the June 28, 1989, Federal provisions which satisfy this criterion. or expressing any position regarding Register notice. Refer to section II of this The terms and conditions of all permits Kentucky’s audit privilege and penalty notice for the analysis of each of the issued must be permanent, quantifiable, immunity law Kentucky—‘‘KRS 224.01– criteria. and otherwise enforceable as a practical 040’’ or its impact upon any approved matter. provision in the SIP, including the II. Analysis of the Submittal Criterion 5. The state operating revision at issue here. The action taken Criterion 1. The county’s operating permits must be issued subject to public herein does not express or imply any permit program (i.e. the regulations or participation. This means that the viewpoint on the question of whether other administrative framework APCDJC agrees, as part of their program, there are legal deficiencies in this or any describing how such permits are issued) to provide EPA and the public with other Clean Air Act program resulting must be submitted to and approved by timely notice of the proposal and from the effect of Kentucky’s audit EPA as a SIP revision. issuance of such permits, and to provide privilege and immunity law. A state On November 10, 1998, the APCDJC EPA, on a timely basis, with a copy of audit privilege and immunity law can through the KNREPC submitted a SIP each proposed ( or draft) and final affect only state enforcement and cannot revision request to EPA consisting of permit intended to be ‘‘Federally have any impact on federal enforcement revisions to Regulation 2.17, Federally enforceable.’’ This process must also authorities. EPA may at any time invoke Enforceable District Origin Operating provide for an opportunity for public its authority under the Clean Air Act, Permits, amending the APCDJC existing comment on the permit applications including, for example, sections 113, stationary source requirements to prior to issuance of the final permits. 167, 205, 211 or 213, to enforce the include provisions to issue FEDOOP. Regulation 2.17, sections 6.1 and 8.1 requirements or prohibitions of the state Criterion 2. The SIP revision must meet this criterion. Jefferson County plan, independently of any state impose a legal obligation that operating will provide EPA with notice of enforcement effort. In addition, citizen permit holders adhere to the terms and proposed issuance, renewal, or revision enforcement under section 304 of the limitations of such permits (or of a FEDOOP or, pursuant to section 8.5, Clean Air Act is likewise unaffected by subsequent revisions of the permit made administrative incorporation of a a state audit privilege or immunity law.
VerDate 27
IV. Administrative Requirements environmental health or safety risk that number of small entities because SIP EPA has reason to believe may have a approvals under section 110 and A. Executive Order 12866 disproportionate effect on children. If subchapter I, part D of the Clean Air Act The Office of Management and Budget the regulatory action meets both criteria, do not create any new requirements but (OMB) has exempted this regulatory the Agency must evaluate the simply approve requirements that the action from Executive Order 12866, environmental health or safety effects of State is already imposing. Therefore, entitled ‘‘Regulatory Planning and the planned rule on children, and because the Federal SIP approval does Review.’’ explain why the planned regulation is not create any new requirements, I preferable to other potentially effective certify that this action will not have a B. Executive Orders on Federalism and reasonably feasible alternatives significant economic impact on a Executive Order 13132 considered by the Agency. substantial number of small entities. This rule is not subject to Executive Moreover, due to the nature of the Federalism (64 FR 43255, August 10, Order 13045 because it does not involve Federal-State relationship under the 1999) revokes and replaces Executive decisions intended to mitigate Clean Air Act, preparation of flexibility Orders 12612 (Federalism) and 12875 environmental health or safety risks. analysis would constitute Federal (Enhancing the Intergovernmental inquiry into the economic Partnership). Executive Order 13132 D. Executive Order 13084 reasonableness of state action. The requires EPA to develop an accountable Under Executive Order 13084, EPA Clean Air Act forbids EPA to base its process to ensure ‘‘meaningful and may not issue a regulation that is not actions concerning SIPs on such timely input by State and local officials required by statute, that significantly grounds. Union Electric Co., v. U.S. in the development of regulatory affects or uniquely affects the EPA, 427 U.S. 246, 255–66 (1976); 42 policies that have federalism communities of Indian tribal U.S.C. 7410(a)(2). implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have governments, and that imposes federalism implications’’ is defined in substantial direct compliance costs on F. Unfunded Mandates the Executive Order to include those communities, unless the Federal Under section 202 of the Unfunded regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct government provides the funds Mandates Reform Act of 1995 effects on the States, on the relationship necessary to pay the direct compliance (‘‘Unfunded Mandates Act’’), signed between the national government and costs incurred by the tribal into law on March 22, 1995, EPA must the States, or on the distribution of governments. If the mandate is prepare a budgetary impact statement to power and responsibilities among the unfunded, EPA must provide to the accompany any proposed or final rule various levels of government.’’ Under Office of Management and Budget, in a that includes a Federal mandate that Executive Order 13132, EPA may not separately identified section of the may result in estimated annual costs to issue a regulation that has federalism preamble to the rule, a description of State, local, or tribal governments in the implications, that imposes substantial the extent of EPA’s prior consultation aggregate; or to private sector, of $100 direct compliance costs, and that is not with representatives of affected tribal million or more. Under section 205, required by statute, unless the Federal governments, a summary of the nature EPA must select the most cost-effective government provides the funds of their concerns, and a statement and least burdensome alternative that necessary to pay the direct compliance supporting the need to issue the achieves the objectives of the rule and costs incurred by State and local regulation. is consistent with statutory governments, or EPA consults with In addition, Executive Order 13084 requirements. Section 203 requires EPA State and local officials early in the requires EPA to develop an effective to establish a plan for informing and process of developing the proposed process permitting elected and other advising any small governments that regulation. EPA also may not issue a representatives of Indian tribal may be significantly or uniquely regulation that has federalism governments ‘‘to provide meaningful impacted by the rule. implications and that preempts State and timely input in the development of EPA has determined that the approval law unless the Agency consults with regulatory policies on matters that action promulgated does not include a State and local officials early in the significantly or uniquely affect their Federal mandate that may result in process of developing the proposed communities.’’ Today’s rule does not estimated annual costs of $100 million regulation. significantly or uniquely affect the or more to either State, local, or tribal This final rule will not have communities of Indian tribal governments in the aggregate, or to the substantial direct effects on the States, governments. Accordingly, the private sector. This Federal action on the relationship between the national requirements of section 3(b) of approves pre-existing requirements government and the States, or on the Executive Order 13084 do not apply to under State or local law, and imposes distribution of power and this rule. no new requirements. Accordingly, no responsibilities among the various additional costs to State, local, or tribal levels of government, as specified in E. Regulatory Flexibility Act governments, or to the private sector, Executive Order 13132. Thus, the The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) result from this action. requirements of section 6 of the generally requires an agency to conduct Executive Order do not apply to this a regulatory flexibility analysis of any G. Submission to Congress and the rule. rule subject to notice and comment Comptroller General rulemaking requirements unless the The Congressional Review Act, 5 C. Executive Order 13045 agency certifies that the rule will not U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small Protection of Children from have a significant economic impact on Business Regulatory Enforcement Environmental Health Risks and Safety a substantial number of small entities. Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides Risks (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997), Small entities include small businesses, that before a rule may take effect, the applies to any rule that: (1) Is small not-for-profit enterprises, and agency promulgating the rule must determined to be ‘‘economically small governmental jurisdictions. submit a rule report, which includes a significant’’ as defined under Executive This final rule will not have a copy of the rule, to each House of the Order 12866, and (2) concerns an significant impact on a substantial Congress and to the Comptroller General
VerDate 27
VerDate 27