The Secretary's Advisory Committee on Animal Health (the Committee) advises the Secretary of Agriculture on means to prevent, conduct surveillance on, monitor, control, or eradicate animal diseases of national importance. In doing so, the Committee will consider public health, conservation of natural resources, and the stability of livestock economies.

In this document, we are notifying the public of the next meeting of the Committee, which will be conducted as a multisite teleconference. We note that the date of this July 2011 meeting has changed from that provided in our prior notice (76 FR 9537, published February 18, 2011). The agenda for the July 22, 2011, meeting has not yet been finalized, but will be made available on the Committee's Web site as details become available. Additional details regarding the meeting, including the preliminary and final agendas, will be posted on the Committee's Web site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/acah/ in advance of each meeting. APHIS will publish another document in advance of the July 2011 meeting which will provide information on the meeting's agenda.

The meeting will be open to the public, although public attendees will be joined to the meeting in “observation” or “listen-only” mode. Members of the public who wish to join the teleconference may do so by dialing 1-888-790-3291, followed by a public passcode, 1411045.

Questions and written statements for the meeting may be submitted up to 5 working days in advance of the meeting for the Committee's consideration. Questions and written statements may be sent via e-mail to SACAH.Management@aphis.usda.gov or mailed to the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT at the beginning of this document. Statements may also be filed with the Committee after the meeting by sending them to SACAH.Management@aphis.usda.gov.

This notice of meeting is given pursuant to section 10 of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. App. 2).

The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulates the importation of animals and animal products into the United States to guard against the introduction of animal diseases not currently present or prevalent in this country. The regulations in 9 CFR parts 93, 94, and 98 (referred to below as the regulations) prohibit or restrict the importation of specified animals and animal products to prevent the introduction into the United States of various animal diseases, including classical swine fever (CSF), swine vesicular disease (SVD), foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), and rinderpest. These are dangerous and destructive communicable diseases of ruminants and swine.

Sections 94.9 and 94.10 of the regulations list regions of the world that are declared free of or low-risk for CSF. Switzerland and Liechtenstein are not currently listed in these sections. However, the surrounding APHIS-defined European Union (EU) CSF region, which is composed of the 19 Member States of the EU that we currently recognize as a single region with regard to CSF, is listed as low-risk for CSF. Sections 94.24 and 98.38 specify restrictions necessary to mitigate the risk of introducing CSF into the United States via the importation of pork, pork products, live swine, and swine semen from that region.

Section 94.12 of the regulations lists regions that are declared free of SVD. Section 94.13 of the regulations lists regions that have been determined to be free of SVD, but that are subject to certain restrictions because of their proximity to or trading relationships with SVD-affected regions. Switzerland is currently listed in these sections, but Liechtenstein is not.

Section 94.1 of the regulations lists regions of the world that are declared free of rinderpest or free of both rinderpest and FMD. Section 94.11 of the regulations lists regions that have been determined to be free of rinderpest and FMD, but that are subject to certain restrictions because of their proximity to or trading relationships with rinderpest- or FMD-affected regions. Switzerland is currently listed in these sections, but Liechtenstein is not.

Switzerland and Liechtenstein entered into a customs union treaty that took effect in 1924. Under the treaty, Switzerland formulates trade policy measures affecting imports and the agricultural policy of the customs union. In January 2009, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, and the European Commission (EC) fully implemented an agreement to eliminate barriers to trade in agricultural products, including live animals and animal products. As a result, trade between these entities now occurs under the same conditions as trade between EU Member States.

In 2006, the Government of Switzerland requested that APHIS evaluate the animal health status of Switzerland and Liechtenstein with respect to CSF and provided information in support of this request in accordance with 9 CFR part 92, “Importation of Animals and Animal Products; Procedures for Requesting Recognition of Regions.” Under § 92.2, each request for approval to export animals or animal products to the United States from a foreign country must include information concerning the authority, organization, and infrastructure of the veterinary services in the region; the status of the region and adjacent regions with regard to the disease(s) under evaluation; the degree to which the region is separated from regions of higher risk; and livestock demographics and marketing practices. The foreign region must also provide information regarding vaccination against the disease(s) of interest (if practiced); the extent of an active disease control program; movement controls and biosecurity for movement from higher risk regions; disease surveillance; diagnostic laboratory capabilities; and emergency response capacity.

In response to Switzerland's request, APHIS evaluated the risk of introducing CSF virus into the United States via the importation of swine and swine products from Switzerland and Liechtenstein. This evaluation was completed in August of 2009 and may be viewed on the Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room. (Instructions for accessing Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the reading room are provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of this proposed rule.) The evaluation, as well as the information evaluated, may also be viewed at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_export/animals/reg_request.shtml by following the link for “Information previously submitted by Regions requesting export approval and their supporting documentation.”

Our evaluation found no evidence that CSF currently exists in Switzerland or Liechtenstein and demonstrated no immediate and significant risks associated with this disease. Nonetheless, there is a potential for introduction of CSF virus into Switzerland and/or Liechtenstein. This is primarily because Switzerland and Liechtenstein import substantial quantities of pork and pork products from Germany and France, without prohibiting sourcing from restricted areas established due to CSF. In addition, most road and rail traffic from EU Member States into Switzerland is not subject to customs inspection. It is therefore easy for travelers to enter with commodities for personal consumption that are derived from domestic swine or wild boar, from both restricted and nonrestricted areas of EU Member States.

Switzerland and Liechtenstein have adopted EC regulations and controls regarding animal health and abolished border veterinary controls, thereby facilitating free trade in live animals and animal products. These two countries are situated in the middle of a region that APHIS recognizes as low risk for CSF, currently referred to in the regulations as the APHIS-defined EU CSF region. APHIS considers the EU Member States comprising this region to have the same low level of risk due to harmonized EC legislation and free trade on the internal common market, factors that now apply to Switzerland and Liechtenstein as well.

The APHIS-defined EU CSF region is subject to the import conditions specified in § 94.24 for breeding swine, pork, and pork products, and § 98.38 for swine semen. Section 94.24 prohibits sourcing of live swine, pork, and pork products for export to the United States from areas of the EU that are restricted due to CSF in wild boar or domestic swine. The regulations also prohibit commingling of live swine, pork, and pork products for export with such commodities from restricted areas. Section 98.38 prohibits sourcing of swine semen for export to the United States from areas of the EU that are restricted due to CSF in wild boar or domestic swine, as well as commingling of donor boars with live swine from restricted regions.

The prohibition on sourcing from areas of the APHIS-defined EU CSF region that are restricted due to CSF in domestic swine extends until at least 6 months after cleaning and disinfection of the last affected premises. This addresses the possibility of reoccurrence of CSF in domestic swine if restrictions are removed after 30 days, as allowed by EC regulations. The regulations also address the risk associated with potential commingling of pork and pork products for export to the United States with such commodities sourced from restricted areas within the APHIS-defined EU CSF region.

In the risk evaluation, APHIS concludes that the risk profile for the common veterinary area formed by Switzerland and Liechtenstein is similar to that of the APHIS-defined EU CSF region. Applying the provisions of §§ 94.24 and 98.38 to Switzerland and Liechtenstein would address the risk issues discussed above and result in a level of risk that is equivalent to, or less than, that portion of the EU authorized to export breeding swine, swine semen, and pork and pork products to the United States.

Based on the finding of the risk evaluation, we are proposing to add Switzerland and Liechtenstein to the region of Europe (currently referred to in the regulations as the APHIS-defined EU CSF region) that we currently recognize as a low-risk region for CSF and from which breeding swine, swine semen, and pork and pork products may be imported into the United States under certain conditions. In order to add Switzerland and Liechtenstein to this region and provide flexibility in the event that other non-EU countries in Europe may be added to this region in the future, we would amend the regulations to refer to this region as the “APHIS-defined European CSF region.” These proposed actions would relieve some restrictions on the importation into the United States of certain animals and animal products from Switzerland and Liechtenstein, while continuing to protect against the introduction of CSF into the United States.

In a related matter, certain conditions in the regulations for importation of breeding swine, swine semen, and pork and pork products from the APHIS-defined EU CSF region refer to the roles and responsibilities of the competent veterinary authority of EU Member States within the region. However, since neither Switzerland nor Liechtenstein are Member States of the EU, we are proposing to remove such references from the regulations and instead simply refer to the competent veterinary authority.

Finally, as noted above, the regulations currently list Switzerland, but not Liechtenstein, as free of SVD, FMD, and rinderpest, subject to the restrictions described in §§ 94.11 and 94.13 of the regulations. FMD was last detected in Liechtenstein in 1964. Neither SVD nor rinderpest has ever been reported in Liechtenstein. Switzerland and Liechtenstein formed a common veterinary area with an integrated veterinary system in 1924 and have effectively been a single region with regard to veterinary controls on animal health since that time. For these reasons, we are also proposing to add Liechtenstein to the list of regions recognized as free of SVD, and to the list of SVD-free regions whose exports of pork and pork products to the United States are subject to certain restrictions to prevent the introduction of SVD into this country. In addition, we are proposing to add Liechtenstein to the list of regions recognized as free of FMD and rinderpest and also to the list of FMD- and rinderpest-free regions whose exports of ruminant and swine meat and products to the United States are subject to certain restrictions to prevent the introduction of FMD and rinderpest into this country.

These proposed actions would ensure that Liechtenstein is afforded the same status as Switzerland with regard to these diseases, while continuing to protect against the introduction of CSF, SVD, FMD, and rinderpest into the United States.

This proposed rule is subject to Executive Order 12866. However, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review under Executive Order 12866.

In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, we have analyzed the potential economic effects of this action on small entities.

Our analysis identifies U.S. swine producers as the small entities potentially affected by the provisions of the rule, but also notes that Switzerland and Liechtenstein have, historically, exported a minimal amount of swine or swine products. Copies of the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov)

Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.

This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.

This proposed rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. ).

Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR parts 93, 94, and 98 as follows:

We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2011-0518; Directorate Identifier 2010-NM-150-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments.

We will post all comments we receive, without change, to http://www.regulations.gov, including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD.

We have received reports of events of excessive rudder pedal inputs that resulted in high vertical stabilizer loads on Airbus Model A300-600 and A310 series airplanes. In one case, the in-flight separation of the vertical stabilizer resulted from loads beyond ultimate design that were created by the pilot making excessive rudder pedal reversals. In another incident, during stall recovery, the airplane accelerations were so high that the rudder travel limiter was not capable of appropriately limiting rudder travel. Rudder pedal inputs in this case also resulted in high vertical stabilizer loads. Contributing to these rudder pedal inputs were characteristics of the rudder system design. Rudder pedal sensitivity on Model A300-600 and A310 series airplanes is greater than that of other transport category airplane designs. Such rudder control sensitivity could result in rudder over-control and contribute to hazardous rudder pedal inputs such as rudder reversals. Hazardous rudder pedal inputs could result in loads that exceed ultimate design loads, potentially causing failure of the vertical stabilizer and consequent reduced controllability of the airplane.

Currently, there are no service instructions to address this unsafe condition. However, one option under consideration consists of a modification to the rudder control system that is called the pedal travel limiter unit (PTLU). The PTLU limits rudder pedal stroke and allows the yaw damper to decrease the rudder deflection. The PTLU also provides limiting rates that ensure that rudder travel is appropriately limited during high acceleration maneuvers. Other potential design changes are also under review. We anticipate that one of these design changes will be approved within three years and will meet the requirements of this proposed AD.

These airplanes are manufactured in France and are type certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement.

We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all relevant information and determined that the unsafe condition described previously is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design.

The proposed AD would require actions to address this unsafe condition.

We estimate that this proposed AD would affect 215 airplanes of U.S. registry.

One way, but not the only way, to modify the rudder control system is to install a PTLU. The following table provides the estimated costs for U.S. operators to comply with this proposed AD if a PTLU is installed based on preliminary information provided by the manufacturer.

Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority.

We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action.

We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would not have a substantial direct effect 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.

For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation:

1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866,

2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979), and

3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

You can find our regulatory evaluation and the estimated costs of compliance in the AD Docket.

Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows:

Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments, as they may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic, environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.

Communications should identify both docket numbers (FAA Docket No. FAA 2011-0403 and Airspace Docket No. 11-AWP-3) and be submitted in triplicate to the Docket Management System (see ADDRESSES section for address and phone number). You may also submit comments through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov.

Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this action must submit with those comments a self-addressed stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to FAA Docket No. FAA-2011-0403 and Airspace Docket No. 11-AWP-3”. The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the commenter.

All communications received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal contained in this action may be changed in light of comments received. All comments submitted will be available for examination in the public docket both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed in the docket.

An electronic copy of this document may be downloaded through the Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. Recently published rulemaking documents can also be accessed through the FAA's Web page at http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/air_traffic/publications/airspace_amendments/.

You may review the public docket containing the proposal, any comments received, and any final disposition in person in the Dockets Office (see the ADDRESSES section for the address and phone number) between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. An informal docket may also be examined during normal business hours at the Northwest Mountain Regional Office of the Federal Aviation Administration, Air Traffic Organization, Western Service Center, Operations Support Group, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, WA 98057.

Persons interested in being placed on a mailing list for future NPRM's should contact the FAA's Office of Rulemaking, (202) 267-9677, for a copy of Advisory Circular No. 11-2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking Distribution System, which describes the application procedure.

The FAA is proposing an amendment to Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) Part 71 by creating additional Class E airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface at Alturas, CA, to accommodate aircraft using RNAV (GPS) standard instrument approach procedures at Alturas Municipal Airport. This action would enhance the safety and management of aircraft operations at Alturas Municipal Airport.

Class E airspace designations are published in paragraph 6005, of FAA Order 7400.9U, dated August 18, 2010, and effective September 15, 2010, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in this document will be published subsequently in this Order.

The FAA has determined this proposed regulation only involves an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current. Therefore, this proposed regulation; (1) Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a “significant rule” under DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified this proposed rule, when promulgated, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.

The FAA's authority to issue rules regarding aviation safety is found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. Subtitle 1, Section 106, describes the authority for the FAA Administrator. Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, describes in more detail the scope of the agency's authority. This rulemaking is promulgated under the authority described in Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that section, the FAA is charged with prescribing regulations to assign the use of the airspace necessary to ensure the safety of aircraft and the efficient use of airspace. This regulation is within the scope of that authority as it would create additional controlled airspace at Alturas Municipal Airport, Alturas, CA.

Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:

General Background

Many veterans who are disabled due to complex chronic disease or traumatic injury may be unable to live safely and independently, or may have health care needs that exceed the capabilities of their families. Many of these veterans are placed in nursing homes. However, with the proper support, many veterans who previously would have been placed in nursing homes can continue to live in a home and delay, or totally avoid, the need for nursing home care. VA's community residential care program, specifically authorized by 38 U.S.C. 1730 and implemented at 38 CFR 17.61 through 17.72, has provided health care supervision to eligible veterans who are not able to live independently and have no suitable family or significant others to provide needed supervision and supportive care.

A medical foster home is a specific type of community residential care facility that provides home-based care to a small number of residents with serious chronic disease and disability. Under 38 U.S.C. 1730 as implemented by 38 CFR 17.61(b), community residential care is not a substitute for nursing home care. A medical foster home provides a greater level of care than a community residential care facility (and in this respect a medical foster home is more analogous to nursing home care), while allowing veterans to live in a home-like setting and maintain a greater degree of independence. VA interprets 38 U.S.C. 1730 as authorizing a medical foster home program, as a subset of the community residential care program. In particular, we believe medical foster homes fit within the type of facility authorized by section 1730(f), since they provide “room and board and * * * limited personal care.” The medical foster home program is targeted to the needs of veterans who meet the eligibility criteria, which we would establish in proposed 38 CFR 17.73(c).

Through the medical foster home program, VA recognizes and approves certain medical foster homes for the placement of veterans. When a veteran is placed in an approved medical foster home, VA will provide inspections of the home, oversight, and medical foster home caregiver training. If a medical foster home does not meet our criteria for approval, VA will not provide these benefits and services, which, in turn, may discourage veterans from seeking to be placed in that home. Thus, the process of obtaining and maintaining VA approval has a substantial and vital impact on the lives of veterans, and is useful to medical foster homes.

Currently, VA does not have regulations specifically targeted at governing medical foster homes, and, when necessary and appropriate, we have relied upon the regulations that govern all community residential care facilities, industry standards, and VA policy and practice to ensure the safety and quality of approved VA medical foster homes. However, many of our current regulations governing community residential care cannot or should not apply to medical foster homes. For example, the life safety provisions in 38 CFR 17.63 refer to industry standards that specifically govern facilities with four or more residents, while medical foster homes, by definition, provide care to three or fewer residents. By establishing these regulations, we intend to make clear to the public the criteria which VA will use when deciding whether to approve a medical foster home. Moreover, our current regulations applicable to community residential care facilities do not adequately protect bedridden patients. The current regulations are only intended to address homes where personal care services are provided to veterans and are not intended to address bedridden patients.

This proposed rule would reflect current practice and policy and would require approved facilities to conform with applicable state and local regulations. The proposed rule is also based, as much as possible, on our current regulations governing community residential care. Because the proposed rule would reflect industry standards and current VA policy and procedures, we do not expect that it would have a significant or adverse impact on medical foster homes that are currently approved by VA, or on those that are not approved but who would seek approval under the proposed rule.

Proposed § 17.73(a) would briefly describe the purpose of the medical foster home program, and clarify that a choice to become a resident in a medical foster home is a voluntary decision on the part of the veteran. The proposed regulation would note that VA's role is limited to referring veterans to approved medical foster homes, and that only veteran residents placed in approved homes can depend on VA to provide ongoing oversight and inspections of the home.

Proposed § 17.73(b) would contain definitions applicable to the medical foster homes program. These proposed definitions are consistent with current practice and policy.

“Labeled” would have a definition consistent with the definition established in the 2009 edition of the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) 101, Life Safety Code, Chapter 3, 3.2.4. Although proposed § 17.74(a)(3) would make chapter 3 of the NFPA 101 applicable to medical foster homes, we believe it would be useful to include a definition of this term in our regulations. Defining “labeled” this way would ensure that medical foster homes adhere to certain standards when utilizing equipment.

We would define “medical foster home” as “a private home in which a medical foster home caregiver provides care to a veteran resident and: (1) The medical foster home caregiver lives in the medical foster home; (2) the medical foster home caregiver owns or rents the medical foster home; and (3) there are not more than three residents receiving care (including veteran and non-veteran residents).” This definition would adequately identify and distinguish medical foster homes from other types of community residential care facilities that are governed by current §§ 17.61 through 17.72. In addition, this definition reflects the intended purpose of a medical foster home, which is to provide care in a small, privately owned, residential-type facility.

The proposed definition of “medical foster home caregiver” would be “the primary person who provides care to a veteran resident.” This would typically entail providing a safe environment, room and board, supervision, and personal assistance, as appropriate for each veteran. We would use the phrase “primary person” because relief caregivers may assist the medical foster home caregiver, as noted in the proposed definition.

We would include a definition of “placement” that clarifies that VA does not “place” veterans in medical foster homes; rather, placement “refers to the voluntary decision by a veteran to become a resident in an approved medical foster home.”

We would define a “veteran resident” to be an eligible veteran residing in an approved medical foster home. This definition is necessary to clarify that only veterans placed in approved homes can depend on VA to provide ongoing oversight and inspections of the home.

Proposed § 17.73(c) would outline eligibility criteria that must be met before VA will refer a veteran to a medical foster home. We propose to condition eligibility on three criteria.

In proposed § 17.73(c)(1), we would condition eligibility on the veteran being unable to live independently safely, or being in need of nursing home level care. These alternate criteria are necessary because medical foster homes are intended to provide a higher level of care than most community residential care facilities. Medical foster homes are designed to be alternatives to nursing home care, or to provide support for veterans who do not live with a family member who is able to provide needed care and assistance. These alternate criteria will ensure that the medical foster home program reaches these types of veterans.

In proposed § 17.73(c)(2), we would condition eligibility on enrollment in either a VA Home Based Primary Care or VA Spinal Cord Injury Homecare program. VA Home Based Primary Care (HBPC) is a home care program designed to meet the longitudinal, primary care needs of an aging veteran population with complex, chronic, disabling disease. In contrast to the episodic, time-limited and focused skilled-care services reimbursed by other funding mechanisms such as Medicare, HBPC provides comprehensive longitudinal care of patients often for the remainder of their lives. HBPC provides cost effective primary care services in the home and includes palliative care, rehabilitation, disease management, and coordination of care. One of the principle requirements of VA HBPC program is an interdisciplinary team that includes a physician medical director, a program director, and staff from nursing, social work, rehabilitation, dietetics, and pharmacy. Other services frequently needed include pastoral care and mental health.

Similar to the HBPC, the Spinal Cord Injury (SCI) Homecare program consists of interdisciplinary services as an integral part of SCI outpatient services. The SCI Homecare program supports the transition and medical needs of patients in the home setting, decreasing the need for hospitalization when possible. The program provides a full range of care for all enrolled veterans who have sustained a spinal cord injury or have a stable neurologic impairment of the spinal cord.

Requiring participation in either HBPC or SCI Homecare Program is necessary because these are currently the only two VA programs through which we can use an interdisciplinary medical team to treat, or supervise the treatment of, medically complex veterans placed in the community. The criterion is consistent with current practice; currently, any veteran who wishes to be placed in a medical foster home must enroll in either a VA Home Based Primary Care or VA Spinal Cord Injury Homecare program. Similarly, when VA identifies veterans who might benefit from placement in a medical foster home, we require them first to enroll in one of these care programs, and then refer them to an approved medical foster home for placement. Again, as of the publication of this proposed rule, all veterans placed in medical foster homes are enrolled in one of the two programs identified in proposed paragraph (c)(2), and these are currently the only two VA programs that service the population of veterans who could benefit from medical foster home placement. Because VA may establish programs similar to the HBPC or SCI Homecare program in the future, we would also include as part of the eligibility criteria “similar VA interdisciplinary program designed to assist medically complex veterans living in the home.” Such programs would have similar missions ( i.e., offering clinically sufficient care in a secure home environment) to HBPC and SCI Homecare program, and similar clinical staff dedicated to fulfill that mission.

In proposed § 17.73(c)(3) we would require VA approval of the medical foster home in accordance with proposed § 17.73(d). This would premise eligibility on the medical foster home having met the standards in proposed § 17.74.

Proposed § 17.73(d) would make the procedures for approving medical foster homes identical to the procedures for approving community residential care facilities. We have determined that current approval procedures for community residential care facilities would be adequate, irrespective of the smaller, less institutionalized nature of medical foster homes and the differing criteria for approval. This is because the salient concerns in the approval of medical foster homes are very similar to the factors to be considered in the approval of community residential care facilities, namely, the fitness of the facility for providing a safe and comfortable environment for veteran residents. Accordingly, proposed paragraph (d) is substantively identical to the first (undesignated) paragraph of current § 17.63. Additionally, proposed § 17.73(d) would prescribe that the approval process is governed by the approval process for community residential care facilities in current §§ 17.65 through 17.72.

Proposed § 17.73(e) would establish the duties of medical foster home caregivers. We propose to require that the medical foster home caregiver, with assistance from relief caregivers, provide a safe environment, room and board, supervision, and personal assistance, as appropriate for each veteran.

Due to the fact that the Medical Foster Home program pre-dates this proposed rule, and that proposed §§ 17.73 and 17.74 conform to current practice and enforcement policy, VA does not believe there are any approved medical foster homes that are not presently in compliance with the requirements of this proposed rule.

Proposed § 17.74(a) is based on current § 17.63(a). Proposed § 17.74(a)(1) and (2) are substantively identical to § 17.63(a)(1) and (3), except that we would add in proposed paragraph (a)(2) that “[v]entilation for cook stoves is not required.” We have determined that it is not necessary to impose this requirement on these smaller, home-based facilities that provide food for a small number of residents. Proposed § 17.74(a)(3) is similar to current § 17.63(a)(2), except that it would make chapters 1 through 11, 24, and section 33.7 of the NFPA 101 applicable to medical foster homes.

Proposed § 17.74(b) would prescribe the community residential care facility standards that also would be applicable to medical foster homes. We note that we would make current § 17.63(k), regarding the cost of community residential care, applicable to medical foster homes, but the reference would be to § 17.63(k) as it is proposed to be amended.

Beginning with proposed § 17.74(c), we would set forth unique standards applicable to medical foster homes. Proposed paragraph (c), and most of the paragraphs that follow, would adopt and/or modify existing regulatory or NFPA standards to make them appropriate for medical foster homes, or would address safety standards imposed by VA because we believe that they are appropriate for such homes. We believe that the standards set forth in the proposed rule are clear and straightforward, and plainly necessary for the safety and comfort of medical foster home residents, but a few of these paragraphs warrant specific discussion. Moreover, all medical foster homes currently recognized by VA conform to these NFPA standards.

Proposed paragraph (c) would require the medical foster home to plan and facilitate appropriate recreational and leisure activities because this requirement will help ensure the quality of life of the veteran resident(s). It is consistent with the current practice of all medical foster homes currently recognized by VA.

Proposed § 17.74(d) would contain standards for bedrooms in medical foster homes, just as current § 17.63(e) establishes such standards for other community residential care facilities. We propose to require each veteran resident to have a bedroom (1) with a door that closes and latches; (2) that contains a suitable bed and appropriate furniture; and (3) that is single occupancy, unless the veteran agrees to a multi-occupant bedroom. We have determined that these requirements are necessary for the comfort of those who reside in medical foster homes, but due to the size of most medical foster homes, ordinarily a single family dwelling, we decline to set a minimum bedroom size as in § 17.63(e).

Proposed § 17.74(e) would establish a temporary exception to chapter 24 of the NFPA 101, which is made applicable by paragraph (a)(3), concerning windows used as a secondary means of escape. Due to their small size and residential character, we expect some medical foster homes may not initially have windows that are in compliance with the requirements of chapter 24. Rather than failing to approve an otherwise acceptable medical foster home on this basis, we propose to provisionally approve a medical foster home, provided that the secondary means of escape is brought into compliance no later than 60 days after a veteran resident is placed in the home. While current § 17.65 provides for a 12-month provisional approval period, or such time as the parties determine is reasonably necessary for correcting deficiencies in community residential care facilities, that section provides a maximum length of time for all potential deficiencies, including deficiencies more problematic than issues with windows. We have determined that 60 days is a reasonable period of time to achieve compliance with this important, but relatively straightforward, requirement.

Proposed § 17.74(f) would permit special locking devices that do not conform to section 7.2.1.5 of NFPA 101 where the clinical needs of the veteran require specialized security measures, so long as there is written approval for the alternate device from both the VA clinician, as well as the VA fire/safety specialist or the Director of the VA Medical Center of jurisdiction. Nonstandard locking devices might be used for patient safety—particularly, to address concerns caused by “wandering” patients. The Life Safety Code does not allow such locking devices, which is why we need to establish this exception.

Proposed § 17.74(g) would concern smoke and carbon monoxide (CO) detectors. Due to their small size and residential character, some medical foster homes may not have detection systems that specifically meet the requirements of the proposed paragraph. We therefore propose to allow a 60-day provisional approval period for a medical foster home that mitigates risk through the use of battery-operated single station alarms for smoke and CO detection. In proposed paragraph (g)(1), we would require that homes install smoke detectors or smoke alarms in accordance with sections 24.3.4.1 or 24.3.4.2 of NFPA 101. We recognize that a UL985-listed household fire warning system or a UL864-listed fire alarm system would be permissible in these facilities, and note that the cited NFPA 101 sections are consistent with this recognition.

Proposed § 17.74(h) concerns sprinkler systems. Sprinkler systems would not be required in all medical foster homes. Rather, we would require sprinkler systems only when they are required by the NFPA, which only requires sprinkler systems for new construction pursuant to NFPA 13. However, when a medical foster home contains a sprinkler system, whether it was installed to comply with NFPA 13 or simply due to the wishes of the medical foster home caregiver, we would require it to be inspected, tested, and maintained in accordance with NFPA 25. This is to ensure that sprinkler systems in medical foster homes are in good working order and can safely be relied upon.

In § 17.74(o)(1), we would prescribe that “[u]se of extension cords must be limited” without prescribing any specific standard. It is not possible to prescribe a specific requirement, such as limiting the use to four or less extension cords, because different facilities will have different needs. By stating that the use must be limited, we intend to discourage the use of extension cords and to allow our field inspectors to use their expertise to determine whether a particular medical foster home is relying inappropriately on the use of extension cords. Extension cords could become overloaded if users attach equipment that draws more amperage (current) than the amperage for which the cord is rated. Drawing more current than the cord is rated for could result in overheating of the cord and presents a fire hazard. Extension cords should not be used as a branch circuit of the home electrical system. Rather, fixed circuits should be installed. If the extension cords are run through doorways, the action of the door over time could wear off the outer insulation of the cord, resulting in a shock hazard. The insulation could also become worn off if the extension cord is run under the carpeting. Extension cords could also create a tripping hazard.

In proposed § 17.74(o)(2), we would require that flammable or combustible liquids and other hazardous material be safely and properly stored in either the original, labeled container, or in a safety can as defined by NPFA 30 (2008 edition). This is to ensure that dangerous materials are only kept in containers that are specifically designed to store them as safely as possible, rather than in ordinary household containers which might increase fire risk associated with those materials.

In proposed § 17.74(p), we would prescribe special requirements for emergency egress and relocation drills in order to ensure that medical foster homes have a workable plan to be able to evacuate all residents in case of an emergency. In particular, in paragraph (p)(2), we would require that the medical foster home caregiver “demonstrate the ability to evacuate all occupants within three minutes to a point of safety outside of the medical foster home that has access to a public way.” The term “all occupants” means every person in the home at the time of the emergency egress and relocation drill, including non-residents. Although the purpose of the proposed rule is to establish requirements for the approval of medical foster homes for use by veteran residents, we do not believe that it is realistic merely to demonstrate the ability to evacuate all veteran-residents. In a real emergency, the medical foster home caregiver will need to ensure the timely evacuation of up to three residents and any other persons inside the home. As such, we would require a demonstration of such ability. For any home that fails to meet the evacuation requirements of proposed paragraph (p)(2), we would in paragraph (p)(3) allow a 60-day provisional approval during which time the medical foster home must establish an alternative to such evacuation. During that provisional approval period, VA inspectors would be authorized to require the home to increase its fire protection measures. Facilities that are unable to comply with paragraph (p)(2) would be required to implement one of the remedial options outlined in paragraph (p)(3), both of which are reasonable ways to ensure the safety of veteran residents in the event of a fire at the home.

In proposed § 17.74(q), we would incorporate all records requirements contained in current § 17.63(i), except for the “statement of needed care” requirement, because no such statement is required for medical foster homes. The statement is not needed because interdisciplinary VA clinical teams provide direct assistance to the veteran and medical foster home caregiver pursuant to the requirement that the veteran be enrolled in one of the programs identified in the proposed definition of veteran resident in § 17.73.

In proposed § 17.74(s), we would authorize approval of equivalencies in extremely rare circumstances, and only when the equivalencies are in accordance with NFPA 101, section 1.4.3, and with the approval of the appropriate Veterans Health Administration, Veterans Integrated Service Network (VISN) Director. These criteria are designed to ensure that equivalencies are only granted when the equivalency will not endanger resident safety, the medical foster home cannot comply with all requirements of this part without prohibitive expense, and when VA's decision not to approve the medical foster home in question would lead to a shortage of approved medical foster homes in a given area. Further, we would require that a veteran placed in the home be given notice of the equivalencies and the reasons for them. This notice would describe the equivalency with particularity, including identifying the exempted requirement and explaining why the exemption is necessary. We intend that veterans would make informed choices when they decide to live in a medical foster home that has been granted an equivalency. We would limit the authority to grant an equivalency to circumstances where the technical requirements of the proposed rule would cause an undue expense, there is no other nearby home to provide an adequate alternative, and the equivalency is in the best interest of the veteran. This might occur, e.g., when a veteran wishes to be placed in a home located near his or her family's residence, but that home fails to meet a requirement such as that the windows are a quarter of an inch too small to meet the proposed § 17.74(e) standard. If such a defect can be remedied without imposing a cost on the medical foster home that the VISN Director considers undue expense, an equivalency would not be authorized. If there is no adequate alternative to the equivalency and the VISN Director determines the equivalency is in the best interest of the veteran, it would be authorized.

Proposed § 17.74(u)(1) would clarify that payment for the charges to veterans for the cost of medical foster home care is not the responsibility of the U.S. Government. However, paragraphs (u)(2) and (3) would prescribe requirements designed to ensure that medical foster homes approved by VA do not charge usurious rates or rates that are not comparable to the rates charged to non-veterans in the same or comparable medical foster homes. We also want to ensure that we do not approve a home that dramatically increases the rates charged to a veteran resident after the veteran has moved into the home, without a reasonable basis for such increase (such as a worsening of the veteran's condition requiring an increased level of care). These provisions are designed to allow the medical foster home to charge an appropriate rate based on the level of care and supervision required by the particular veteran, but are also designed to ensure that VA does not approve a home that charges unfair rates. They are also designed to be flexible, based on the resources of the particular medical foster home. We note that it is only in very rare cases that VA would use costs as a reason to not approve a medical foster home. We also note that this “costs” paragraph is significantly different from the one applicable to other community residential care facilities, i.e., current § 17.63(k), because of the higher degree of medical complexity and care required by medical foster home residents. It is not feasible to apply an across-the-board base rate for each facility as we did with Community Residential Care facilities in § 17.63(k) because the higher degree of medical complexity associated with each veteran means that appropriate levels of care and therefore costs will vary widely between medical foster home patients.

Proposed § 17.74(t) would incorporate by reference the NFPA standards identified in proposed §§ 17.73 and 17.74. Because of the unique nature of medical foster homes, we cannot rely solely on particular, existing NFPA publications, as we do with other community residential care and housing regulations. On February 24, 2011, VA published in the Federal Register , at 76 FR 10246, a final rule to establish a centralized regulation (38 CFR 17.1) for incorporations by reference in part 17 of title 38 CFR. This proposed rule would incorporate by reference the versions of the NFPA standards that are current as of the date of publication of the proposed rule. In the future, we will amend this regulation if and when the incorporated NFPA standards are changed in a way that we believe is relevant to medical foster homes. We believe that this will assist medical foster homes in clearly identifying whether any changes are required based on changes to the NFPA codes cited herein.

We propose to amend our regulations to require medical foster homes seeking VA approval to meet the requirements of the following NFPA codes and standards: NFPA 10, Standard for Portable Fire Extinguishers (2010 edition); NFPA 13, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems (2010 edition); NFPA 13D, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in One- and Two-Family Dwellings and Manufactured Homes (2010 edition); NFPA 13R, Standard for the Installation of Sprinkler Systems in Residential Occupancies Up To and Including Four Stories in Height (2010 edition); NFPA 25, Standard for the Inspection, Testing, and Maintenance of Water-Based Fire Protection Systems (2008 edition); NFPA 30, Flammable and Combustible Liquids Code (2008 edition); NFPA 72, National Fire Alarm and Signaling Code (2010 edition); and NFPA 720, Standard for the Installation of Carbon Monoxide (CO) Detection and Warning Equipment (2009 edition). We also propose to amend our regulations to require medical foster homes seeking VA approval to meet the requirements of the following chapters and/or sections of NFPA 101, National Fire Protection Association's Life Safety Code (NFPA 101) (2009 edition): Chapters 1 through 11, 24, and section 33.7.

This action is necessary to ensure that medical foster homes meet current industry-wide safety standards. We will request that the Office of the Federal Register approve our incorporation by references.

These materials for which we are seeking incorporation by reference are available for inspection at the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Regulations Management (02REG), 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420, or at the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). For information on the availability of this material at NARA, call (202) 741-6030, or go to: http://www.archives.gov/federal--register/code--of--federal--regulations/ibr--locations.html . Copies may be obtained from the National Fire Protection Association, Battery March Park, Quincy, MA 02269. (For ordering information, call toll-free 1-800-344-3555.)

Currently § 17.1 contains the materials that are incorporated by reference (IBR) for part 17. The Office of the Federal Register requires that if an agency has established an IBR section, then all approvals must be listed in that part. We, therefore, propose to amend § 17.1(b) to add the new IBR approvals contained in this proposed rulemaking.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in an expenditure by state, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any given year. The proposed rule would have no such effect on state, local, and Tribal governments, or on the private sector.

This proposed rule includes a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521) that requires approval by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Accordingly, under section 3507(d) of the Act, VA has submitted a copy of this rulemaking to OMB for review. OMB assigns a control number for each collection of information it approves. Except for emergency approvals under 44 U.S.C. 3507(j), VA may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Proposed § 17.74(q) contains a collection of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521). If OMB does not approve the collection of information as requested, VA will immediately remove the provisions containing a collection of information or take such other action as is directed by OMB.

Comments on the collection of information contained in this proposed rule should be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget, Attention: Desk Officer for the Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC 20503, with copies sent by mail or hand delivery to: Director, Office of Regulation Policy and Management (02REG), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 20420; fax to (202) 273-9026; or through http://www.Regulations.gov . Comments should indicate that they are submitted in response to “RIN 2900-AN80-Medical Foster Homes.”

OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of information contained in this proposed rule between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register . Therefore, a comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect the deadline for the public to comment on the proposed rule.

VA considers comments by the public on proposed collections of information in—

• Evaluating whether the proposed collections of information are necessary for the proper performance of the functions of VA, including whether the information will have practical utility;

• Evaluating the accuracy of VA's estimate of the burden of the proposed collections of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the information to be collected; and

• Minimizing the burden of the collections of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.

The proposed amendments to title 38 CFR chapter 17 contain collections of information under the Paperwork Reduction Act for which we are requesting approval by OMB.

Title: Medical Foster Homes.

Summary of collection of information: Paragraph (q) would require medical foster homes to comply with the recordkeeping requirements of 38 CFR 17.63(i) regarding facility records, and must document all inspection, testing, drills and maintenance activities required by this section. Such documentation must be maintained for 3 years or for the period specified by the applicable NFPA standard, whichever is longer. Documentation of emergency egress and relocation drills must include the date, time of day, length of time to evacuate the home, the name of each medical foster home caregiver who participated, the name of each resident, whether the resident participated, and whether the resident required assistance.

Description of the need for information and proposed use of information: The information is needed to ensure the safety of veteran residents because medical foster homes operate in a residential setting in the community.

Description of likely respondents: Medical foster homes who seek to be approved by VA.

Estimated number of respondents per year: 300 medical foster homes.

Estimated frequency of responses per year: 6 times per year.

Estimated total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden: 600 hours.

Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Executive Order classifies a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by OMB unless OMB waives such review, as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or state, local, or Tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action planned or taken by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

The economic, interagency, legal, and policy implications of this proposed rule have been examined, and it has been determined not to be a significant regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.

The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. In addition to having an effect on individuals (veterans), the proposed rule would have an insignificant economic impact on a few small entities. Most of the minimum standards that would be established by this rulemaking are already required by state and local regulations, and medical foster homes should already be in compliance with those regulations or with the current NFPA codes. Any additional costs for compliance with the proposed rule would constitute an inconsequential amount of the operational costs of such facilities. Accordingly, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance numbers and titles for the programs affected by this document are 64.005, Grants to States for Construction of State Home Facilities; 64.007, Blind Rehabilitation Centers; 64.008, Veterans Domiciliary Care; 64.009, Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, Veterans Nursing Home Care; 64.011, Veterans Dental Care; 64.012, Veterans Prescription Service; 64.013, Veterans Prosthetic Appliances; 64.014, Veterans State Domiciliary Care; 64.015, Veterans State Nursing Home Care; 64.016, Veterans State Hospital Care; 64.018, Sharing Specialized Medical Resources; 64.019, Veterans Rehabilitation Alcohol and Drug Dependence; 64.022, Veterans Home Based Primary Care.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. John R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on May 11, 2011, for publication.

For the reasons set forth in the preamble, the Department of Veterans Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR part 17 as follows:

The goal of the National Cemetery Administration (NCA) is to ensure that the burial needs of veterans and eligible family members are met by providing a burial opportunity in veterans cemeteries. In the past, NCA has done this by building and maintaining national veterans cemeteries and by providing, through the State Cemetery Grants Service, grants to States to establish, expand or improve State veterans cemeteries. Research indicates that veterans and their families use veterans cemeteries when they are located a reasonable distance from their residence. Thus, VA's current regulations encourage States to provide burial service to our Nation's veterans by operating veterans cemeteries in areas where the most number of veterans would benefit. State veterans cemeteries complement VA national cemeteries and are critical to meeting VA's goal of providing burial access to over 90 percent of veterans and their eligible family members. Under VA's cemetery grants service, the Federal government provides up to 100 percent of the cost of development associated with the establishment, expansion, and improvement of a veterans cemetery, as well as the cost of initial operating equipment.

We propose to expand VA's regulations to address the eligibility to apply for VA cemetery grants of the approximately 565 Federally-recognized Tribal Organizations that reside on trust lands. In coordination with the expansion of eligibility, we propose to change the part heading of part 39 to “AID FOR THE ESTABLISHMENT, EXPANSION, AND IMPROVEMENT, OR OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE, OF VETERANS CEMETERIES” and the name of the “State Cemetery Grants Service” to the hereinafter, “Veterans Cemetery Grants Service” or “VCGS”. These revisions are necessary to more accurately describe VA's cemetery grant service and to clarify the purpose of this service to the public, which is to provide veterans cemetery grants to States and Tribal Organizations.

Subsection 2408(f), of Title 38, of the United States Code, as added by section 403 of the “Veterans Benefits, Health Care, and Information Technology Act of 2006” establishes eligibility for Tribal Organizations to apply for grants for veterans cemeteries on trust lands. 38 U.S.C. 2408(f); Public Law 109-461, 120 Stat. 3403 (Dec. 22, 2006). For the purposes of subsection 2408(f), the term “trust land” is defined as “any land that (A) is held in trust by the United States for Native Americans; (B) is subject to restrictions on alienation imposed by the United States on Indian lands (including native Hawaiian homelands); (C) is owned by a Regional Corporation or a Village Corporation as such terms are defined in * * * the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act * * *; or (D) is on any island in the Pacific Ocean if such land is, by cultural tradition, communally-owned land, as determined by the Secretary.” See 38 U.S.C. 2408(f)(3)(B); 38 U.S.C. 3765(1). Similarly, the term “[T]ribal [O]rganization” is defined for purposes of subsection 2408(f) as “the recognized governing body of any Indian Tribe; any legally established organization of Indians which is controlled, sanctioned, or chartered by such governing body or which is democratically elected by the adult members of the Indian community to be served by such organization and which includes the maximum participation of Indians in all phases of its activities,” and includes “the Department of Hawaiian Homelands * * * and such other organizations as the Secretary may prescribe.” See 38 U.S.C. 2408(f)(3)(A); 38 U.S.C. 3765(4); see also 25 U.S.C. 450b(l). VA proposes to add these terms to the definition section included in part 39 of Title 38 for consistency purposes. We also propose to include the definition of “Indian Tribe” found in 25 U.S.C. 450b(e).

Further, we note that the proposed definition of “Tribal Organization” is subject to the caveat mentioned in 25 U.S.C. 450b(l), which provides that, “in any case where a contract is let or grant made to an organization to perform services benefiting more than one Indian Tribe, the approval of each such Indian Tribe shall be a prerequisite to the letting or making of such contract or grant.” 25 U.S.C. 450b(l). VA proposes to add explanatory notes to § 39.31(c)(3) and § 39.81(c)(3) to clarify how this caveat would apply in the context of Veterans Cemetery Grants. Under the proposed § 39.31(c)(3) and § 39.81(c)(3), States and Tribal Organizations are required to provide written assurance that they possess the legal authority to apply for grants. The explanatory notes would further provide that: “In any case where a Tribal Organization is applying for a grant for a cemetery on land held in trust for more than one Indian Tribe, written assurance that the Tribal Organization possesses the legal authority to apply for the grant includes certification that the Tribal Organization has obtained approval of each such Indian Tribe.” Without such approval the Tribal Organization would lack legal authority because it would not be in compliance with 25 U.S.C. 450b(l).

Prior to the enactment of subsection 2408(f), Tribal Organizations were not eligible to apply for VA cemetery grants. This expanded statutory authority allows VA to award grants to Tribal Organizations in the same manner and under the same conditions as it does to States. Based on this authority, VA encourages Tribal Organizations to provide burial service to our Nation's veterans by operating veterans cemeteries on trust lands in areas where the most number of veterans would benefit. VA recognizes that Tribes are sovereign nations with a unique legal status and a relationship to the Federal government that is different than that of States. VA believes that Congress did not intend to alter this relationship when it authorized veteran cemetery grants to Tribal Organizations to be made in the same manner, and under the same conditions, as veteran cemetery grants to States. Rather, the purpose was to reflect an intent that, insofar as possible, Tribal Organizations should assume a role in participating in the veterans cemetery grant program on trust lands comparable to the role States play outside of trust lands. By awarding VA cemetery grants to Tribal Organizations through the Veterans Cemetery Grant Service, VA will partner with Tribal Organization recipients who are committed to serve the burial needs of veterans and their eligible family members.

This proposed rule would amend 38 CFR part 39 and place in regulation the statutory authority of VA to grant awards to Tribal Organizations for establishing, expanding, and improving veterans cemeteries on trust lands. The proposed rule adheres as closely as possible to the procedures and requirements for States to apply for cemetery grants. For purposes of clarity, we propose to revise the regulatory text in part 39, subparts A, B, C, and D, to incorporate references to Tribal Organizations in the current regulations.

This proposed rule would expand the preapplication requirement to all VCGS grants by removing the phrase “more than $100,000” from 38 CFR 39.31(a). The preapplication requirements would be applicable to both States and Tribal Organizations. The preapplication process serves as a means of validating the need for a project, and opening lines of communication between NCA and potential participating States and Tribal Organizations for VCGS grants. Congress mandated, through the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999, the streamlining and simplification of Federal grant administrative procedures and reporting requirements to relieve burdens associated with the grant application process and to improve the delivery of services to the public. Public Law 106-107, 113 Stat. 1486 (Nov. 20, 1999). In efforts to comply with this mandate VA now processes all VCGS grant applications and awards through Grants.gov, which does not differentiate between applications that exceed $100,000 and those below this threshold. To make VA's regulations consistent with the functions of Grants.gov and to improve communication throughout the grant application process, we propose to expand section 39.31(a) to require preapplications for all cemetery grants. Also, by making the preapplication requirement uniform for all applicants VA would further streamline the VCGS grant application process in accordance with the Federal Financial Assistance Management Improvement Act of 1999.

In addition, VA proposes to revise 38 CFR 39.31(d) to allow for the differences in the structure of Tribal Organizations and States. We propose to no longer require in all cases the submission of “legislation, as enacted into law, authorizing the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the facility as a veterans cemetery” as a preapplication requirement. We acknowledge that Tribal Organizations, and even some States, may establish authorization to apply for a veterans cemetery grant and to comply with VA requirements by some other means than by enacting legislation. Thus, we propose to revise § 39.31(d) to require that, “[t]he State or Tribal Organization must submit a copy of the State or Tribal Organization action authorizing the establishment, maintenance, and operation of the facility as a veterans cemetery in accordance with 38 CFR 39.10(a). If the State or Tribal Organization action is based on legislation, enacted into law, then the legislation must be submitted.”

The proposed rule would not change the existing grant prioritization process and retains the same four priority groups as the current part 39. Thus, in accordance with 38 U.S.C. 2408, Tribal Organizations will compete with States in the prioritization process. Given that there are no existing Tribal veteran cemeteries, we anticipate that the initial grant applications from Tribal Organizations will likely fall into Priority Group 2 (projects for the establishment of new veterans cemeteries).

Once a project is approved for funding, VA may award a grant up to 100 percent of the amount requested, provided that sufficient funds are available. The entire VCGS annual budget is allocated to grants for projects that would establish, expand, and improve State and Tribal veterans cemeteries. Any funds remaining at the end of the year are carried into the next year and allocated to grants for projects the following year.

This proposed rule requires all States or Tribal Organizations seeking a grant to submit a preapplication through http://www.cem.va.gov/cem/scg_grants.asp. All forms are available and downloadable at http://www.cem.va.gov/cem/scg_grants.asp.

Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The Executive Order classifies a “significant regulatory action,” requiring review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), as any regulatory action that is likely to result in a rule that may: (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or Tribal governments or communities; (2) create a serious inconsistency or interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order.

The economic, interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy implications of this proposed rule have been examined, and it has been determined that it would not be a significant regulatory action under the Executive Order.

Executive Order 13175 provides that Federal agencies may not issue a regulation that has Tribal implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance costs on Tribal governments, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance costs incurred by the Tribal Organizations or the Federal agency consults with Tribal officials early in the process of developing the proposed regulation and develops a Tribal summary impact statement. VA's cemetery grant program for Tribal Organizations is required by statute, which specifically provides that the grants shall be “made in the same manner, and under the same conditions, as grants to States are made.” In addition, participation is voluntary and 100 percent of the development costs for an approved project are provided by VA. Thus, Executive Order 13175 requirements are not applicable. However, in the spirit of the Executive Order, VA has communicated with the Tribal Organizations regarding the proposed regulatory grant application process. On January 28, 2008, an informational letter was sent to each of the Federally-recognized Indian Tribes informing them that “American Indian Tribal grants will be considered in the same manner as State veterans cemetery grants under the authority of title 38 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 39.” Further, on February 22, 2008, a conference call took place between senior VA officials and representatives designated by Tribal leadership of Federally-recognized Tribes to discuss the grant application process. Senior NCA officials and representatives continue to meet with and communicate with Tribal Organizations that are interested in the grant program. VA has not received any written comments regarding the subject of this proposed regulation from Tribal Organizations, but welcomes their input during the 60-day comment period following publication of the proposed rule.

The Secretary hereby certifies that this proposed rule would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The Secretary acknowledges that this proposed rule may affect some Tribal governments that may be considered small entities; however, the economic impact is not significant. This proposed rule will not impose any mandatory requirements or costs on Tribal governments as a whole and will only affect those that choose to apply for veterans cemetery grants. To the extent that small entities are affected, the impact of this amendment is both minimal and entirely beneficial. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that agencies prepare an assessment of anticipated costs and benefits before issuing any rule that may result in an expenditure by State, local, or Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more (adjusted annually for inflation) in any year. This proposed rule would have no such effect on State and local governments, or on the private sector. While the proposed rule may result in some expenditures by Tribal governments, the aggregate amount of such expenditures is estimated to be significantly less than $100 million.

This proposed rule would require Tribal Organizations to submit information to obtain grants under VA's Veterans Cemetery Grants Service. The collections of information referenced in this proposed rule have been approved by OMB and have been assigned OMB control numbers 0348-0002, 4040-0004, 4040-0008, 4040-0009, and 2900-0559 in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3521).

The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program number and title for this proposed rule is 64.203, Tribal Organizations Cemetery Grants.

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, or designee, approved this document and authorized the undersigned to sign and submit the document to the Office of the Federal Register for publication electronically as an official document of the Department of Veterans Affairs. John R. Gingrich, Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs, approved this document on May 13, 2011, for publication.

For the reasons set out in the preamble, VA proposes to amend 38 CFR part 39 as follows:

For the purpose of this document, we are giving meaning to certain words or initials as follows:

(i) The words or initials Act or CAA mean or refer to the Clean Air Act, unless the context indicates otherwise.

(ii) The words EPA, we, us or our mean or refer to the United States Environmental Protection Agency.

(iii) The initials SIP mean or refer to State Implementation Plan.

1. Submitting Confidential Business Information (CBI). Do not submit CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or e-mail. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information on a disk or CD ROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CD ROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CD ROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

2. Tips for preparing your comments. When submitting comments, remember to:

Identify the rulemaking by docket number and other identifying information (subject heading, Federal Register , date, and page number);

Follow directions and organize your comments;

Explain why you agree or disagree;

Suggest alternatives and substitute language for your requested changes;

Describe any assumptions and provide any technical information and/or data that you used;

If you estimate potential costs or burdens, explain how you arrived at your estimate in sufficient detail to allow for it to be reproduced;

Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns, and suggest alternatives;

Explain your views as clearly as possible, avoiding the use of profanity or personal threats; and,

Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline identified.

On July 18, 1997, EPA promulgated new NAAQS for ozone based on 8-hour average concentrations. The 8-hour averaging period replaced the previous 1-hour averaging period, and the level of the NAAQS was changed from 0.12 parts per million (ppm) to 0.08 ppm (62 FR 38856). By statute, SIPs meeting the requirements of sections 110(a)(1) and (2) are to be submitted by states within three years after promulgation of a new or revised standard. Section 110(a)(2) provides basic requirements for SIPs, including emissions inventories, monitoring, and modeling, to assure attainment and maintenance of the standards. These requirements are set out in several “infrastructure elements,” listed in section 110(a)(2).

Section 110(a) imposes the obligation upon states to make a SIP submission to EPA for a new or revised NAAQS, and the contents of that submission may vary depending upon the facts and circumstances. In particular, the data and analytical tools available at the time the state develops and submits the SIP for a new or revised NAAQS affects the content of the submission. The contents of such SIP submissions may also vary depending upon what provisions the state's existing SIP already contains. In the case of the 1997 ozone NAAQS, states typically have met the basic program elements required in section 110(a)(2) through earlier SIP submissions in connection with previous NAAQS. In a guidance issued on October 2, 2007, EPA noted that, to the extent an existing SIP already meets the section 110(a)(2) requirements, states need only to certify that fact via a letter to EPA. 1

On March 27, 2008, EPA published a final rule entitled, “Completeness Findings for Section 110(a) State Implementation Plans for the 8-hour Ozone NAAQS” (73 FR 16205). In the rule, EPA made a finding for each state that it had submitted or had failed to submit a complete SIP that provided the basic program elements of section 110(a)(2) necessary to implement the 1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS. In particular, EPA found that the State of Montana had submitted a complete SIP to meet these requirements.

Section 110(a)(1) provides the procedural and timing requirements for SIP submissions after a new or revised NAAQS is promulgated. Section 110(a)(2) lists specific elements the SIP must contain or satisfy. These infrastructure elements include requirements, such as modeling, monitoring, and emissions inventories, which are designed to assure attainment and maintenance of the NAAQS. The elements that are the subject of this action are listed below.

• 110(a)(2)(A): Emission limits and other control measures.

• 110(a)(2)(B): Ambient air quality monitoring/data system.

• 110(a)(2)(C): Program for enforcement of control measures.

• 110(a)(2)(D)(ii): Interstate and international pollution.

• 110(a)(2)(E): Adequate resources and authority.

• 110(a)(2)(F): Stationary source monitoring and reporting.

• 110(a)(2)(G): Emergency powers.

• 110(a)(2)(H): Future SIP revisions.

• 110(a)(2)(J): Consultation with government officials; public notification; and prevention of significant deterioration (PSD) and visibility protection.

• 110(a)(2)(K): Air quality modeling/data.

• 110(a)(2)(L): Permitting fees.

• 110(a)(2)(M): Consultation/participation by affected local entities.

A detailed discussion of each of these elements is contained in the next section.

Two elements identified in section 110(a)(2) are not governed by the three year submission deadline of section 110(a)(1) and are therefore not addressed in this action. These elements relate to part D of Title I of the CAA, and submissions to satisfy them are not due within three years after promulgation of a new or revised NAAQS, but rather are due at the same time nonattainment area plan requirements are due under section 172. The two elements are: (i) section 110(a)(2)(C) to the extent it refers to permit programs (known as “nonattainment new source review (NSR)”) required under part D, and (ii) section 110(a)(2)(I), pertaining to the nonattainment planning requirements of part D. As a result, this action does not address infrastructure elements related to the nonattainment NSR portion of section 110(a)(2)(C) or related to 110(a)(2)(I).

This action also does not address the “interstate transport” requirements of element 110(a)(2)(D)(i). In a separate action, EPA approved the State's submission to meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(D)(i) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS (73 FR 10150).

1. Emission limits and other control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(A) requires SIPs to include enforceable emission limitations and other control measures, means, or techniques (including economic incentives such as fees, marketable permits, and auctions of emissions rights), as well as schedules and timetables for compliance as may be necessary or appropriate to meet the applicable requirements of this Act.

a. Montana's response to this requirement: Enforceable control measures exist to protect the ozone NAAQS throughout the State. Montana implements a stationary source permit program which requires subject sources to demonstrate emissions will not cause or contribute to a violation of any NAAQS (Administrative Rules of Montana (ARM) 17.8.749). Subject sources are further required to utilize best available control technology (BACT) when installing emission controls (ARM 17.8.752). Montana also regulates open burning and subjects those conducting open burning to BACT requirements as well (Title 17, Chapter 8, Subchapter 6).

Except for specific control measures adopted in Montana Board of Environmental Review (BER) orders, the emission limits and other air pollution control regulations are contained in the following subchapters of Title 17, Chapter 8, ARM: Subchapter 1—General Provisions; Subchapter 2—Emission Standards; Subchapter 4—Stack Heights and Dispersion Techniques; Subchapter 6—Open Burning; Subchapter 7—Permit, Construction and Operation of Air Contaminant Sources; Subchapter 8—Prevention of Significant Deterioration of Air Quality; Subchapter 9—Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources or Major Modifications Locating within Nonattainment Areas; Subchapter 10—Preconstruction Permit Requirements for Major Stationary Sources or Major Modifications Locating within Attainment or Unclassified Areas; Subchapter 16—Emission Control Requirements for Oil and Gas Well Facilities Operating Prior to Issuance of a Montana Air Quality Permit.

b. EPA analysis: Montana's SIP meets the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS, subject to the following clarifications. First, this infrastructure element does not require the submittal of regulations or emission limitations developed specifically for attaining the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Furthermore, Montana has no areas designated as nonattainment for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. Montana primarily regulates emissions of ozone and ozone precursors through its SIP-approved major and minor source permitting programs. The SIP also contains limitations for emissions of hydrocarbons from storage and processing of petroleum products. See ARM 17.8.324. This suffices, in the case of Montana, to meet the requirements of 110(a)(2)(A) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS.

Second, in this action, EPA is not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing state rules with regard to director's discretion or variance provisions. A number of states have such provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance (52 FR 45109, Nov. 24, 1987), and the Agency plans to take action in the future to address such state regulations. In the meantime, EPA encourages any state having a director's discretion or variance provision which is contrary to the CAA and EPA guidance to take steps to correct the deficiency as soon as possible.

Finally, in this action, EPA is also not proposing to approve or disapprove any existing SIP provisions with regard to excess emissions during startup, shutdown, or malfunction (SSM) of operations at a facility. A number of states have SSM provisions which are contrary to the CAA and existing EPA guidance  3 and the Agency plans to address such state regulations in the future. In the meantime, EPA encourages any state having a deficient SSM provision to take steps to correct it as soon as possible.

2. Ambient air quality monitoring/data system: Section 110(a)(2)(B) requires SIPs to provide for establishment and operation of appropriate devices, methods, systems, and procedures necessary to (i) monitor, compile, and analyze data on ambient air quality, and (ii) upon request, make such data available to the Administrator.

a. Montana's response to this requirement: On an annual basis, the Department of Environmental Quality (“Department” or “DEQ”) evaluates trends in industrial and economic development, meteorology, and population growth and makes other scientific, social, and geographic observations regarding areas of the State which may be adversely affected by the impact of criteria pollutants. Based on this information, the Department identifies potential air pollution “hotspots.” The Department, with participation and input from local control program staff and other interested persons, makes decisions regarding monitor type, location, and schedules for monitoring air quality in these hotspots. The Department makes the product of this decision making process, the annual monitoring network plan, available for public inspection prior to submission to EPA.

Pursuant to its Quality Assurance Project Plans, the Department makes arrangements to operate and maintain Federal reference monitors and establishes Federally-approved protocols for sample collection, handling, and analysis. Ambient air monitoring data is subject to strict quality assurance/quality control processes. Air monitoring data is included in the AIRS database.

Montana has monitored the Billings area for ambient ozone levels since June 2005. No exeedences have been recorded.

The provisions in state law for the collection and analysis of ambient air quality data are contained in the CAA of Montana (MT CAA), 75-2-101 et seq., MCA, and, specifically, 75-2-112, MCA, Powers and Responsibilities of Department.

b. EPA analysis: Montana's air monitoring programs and data systems meet the requirements of CAA section 110(a)(2)(B) for the 1997 ozone NAAQS. The 2009-2010 Montana Annual Monitoring Network Plan (AMNP), dated June 2009, was approved by EPA Region 8 on August 24, 2010.

3. Program for enforcement of control measures: Section 110(a)(2)(C) requires SIPs to include a program to provide for the enforcement of the measures described in subparagraph (A), and regulation of the modification and construction of any stationary source within the areas covered by the plan as necessary to assure that NAAQS are achieved, including a permit program as required in parts C and D.

a. Montana's response to this requirement: Congress directed states to develop and implement measures to prevent significant deterioration (PSD) of air quality pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 7470, et seq. and 7501, et seq. Pursuant to ARM 17.8.130, sources subject to the provisions of Title 17, Chapter 8, subchapters 8, 9, and 10, ARM, regulating construction of new or modified stationary sources consistent with PSD and NSR requirements, shall be subject to enforcement. The Department has the authority to issue a notice of violation, complaint regarding the source violation, and an order to take corrective action.

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal, including the dates they were adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

On January 13, 2011 and May 12, 2011, EPA determined that the submittals for SMAQMD Rules 214 and 203, respectively, met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR Part 51, Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

There are no previous versions of Rules 203 or 214 in the SIP, but SIP approved Rule 202 (New Source Review), which these rules will replace in the SIP, was approved on June 19, 1985 (50 FR 25417).

The SMAQMD originally adopted new Rule 203 on February 26, 1991, and CARB submitted the rule to EPA on October 30, 2001, however EPA has not taken action on this submittal. While we can act on only the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with the previous submittal.

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that include a pre-construction permit program for certain new or modified stationary sources of pollutants, including a permit program as required by Parts C and D of Title I of the CAA.

The purpose of District Rule 214 (Federal New Source Review) and Rule 203 (Prevention of Significant Deterioration) is to implement a federal preconstruction permit program for new and modified sources. These two new rules will replace in its entirety, the existing SIP approved NSR/PSD programs contained in Rule 202. The basic NSR program requirements from Rule 202 have been included in Rule 214, with revisions made to clarify that the rule only applies to major sources and all modifications at such sources, major agricultural sources and only applies to pollutants for which the District is designated as nonattainment. In accordance with the District's May 5, 2010 (75 FR 24409) reclassification as a severe ozone nonattainment area, the rule lowers the BACT  1 and offset applicability thresholds to 25 tpy or less, and increases the required offset ratio to 1.3 to 1. Pursuant to the 2002 NSR Reforms adopted by EPA (67 FR 80186), the rule adds provisions for calculating emission increases from proposed modifications by adding a definition for “Federal Major Modifications” which incorporates the necessary provisions to perform this calculation. The rule does not contain a provision for the implementation of Plantwide Applicability Limits (PALs) as required by 40 CFR 51.165(f).

The basic PSD program requirements from Rule 202 have been included in Rule 203. This rule mainly incorporates by reference the federal PSD program as codified in 40 CFR 52.21 which only applies to new major sources and major modifications at existing major sources. The rule also revises several terms used within 40 CFR 52.21 to replace NSR Reform provisions with pre-reform language and requirements. (67 FR 80186)

The relevant statutory provisions for our review of the submitted rules include Parts C and D of Title I of the CAA, section 110(a)(2)(C), section 110(l) and section 182(d). Section 110(a) requires a pre-construction permit programs for certain new or modified stationary sources of pollutants, including a permit program as required by Parts C and D of Title I, while section 110(l) precludes EPA approval of SIP revisions that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act. Section 182(d) (together with section 182(f) for NO X ), requires NSR SIPs in “severe” nonattainment areas to define “major sources” and “major modifications” to be sources that emit 25 tpy or more of VOC or NO X , and have an offset ratio of at least 1.3 to 1. In addition, we have reviewed the submitted rules for compliance with EPA implementing regulations for NSR, including 40 CFR 51.160 through 40 CFR 51.166.

EPA has reviewed the submitted rules in accordance with the Rule Evaluation criteria described above. The TSD for this action contains a complete discussion of our evaluation. EPA is proposing to find that these rules meet the statutory requirements for SIPs as specified in sections 110(a), 110(l), 182(d) and 193 of the CAA. In addition, except for the deficiencies noted in the TSD and summarized in the Proposed Action section of this notice, we are proposing to find that the rules meet the regulatory requirements of 40 CFR 51.160 through 40 CFR 51.166. EPA is proposing to find that it is acceptable for SMAQMD to not incorporate the NSR Reform provisions of 40 CFR 51.165 and 51.166 into their SIP approved NSR programs because the same level of control will be required for modified sources, with or without inclusion of these provisions in the SIP, and SMAQMD's program will not be any less stringent than the federal program.

The TSD has more information on our evaluation.

For the reasons given above, under CAA section 110(k)(3) and 301(a), we are proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 214 because, although it would strengthen the SIP and meets the applicable requirements for SIPs in general, it contains certain deficiencies related to NSR SIPs in particular that prevent our full approval. The primary deficiencies pertain to missing definitions, the removal of public notice requirements for the minor source program from the SIP, and missing provisions pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(ii) and 40 CFR 51.307(b)(2). Please refer to the TSD for this action for additional information. The deficiencies in Rule 214 can be remedied by the District by revising Rule 214 to provide the missing definitions, and necessary provisions pursuant to the 40 CFR part 51 sections cited above. The minor source public notice program deficiency can be remedied by either adding such provisions to Rule 201 or 214, submitting an analysis showing why a minor NSR program for minor sources is not needed, submitting an approvable justification for why a chosen level of public notice is appropriate, or submitting local District Rule 202 (State New Source Review) to EPA for SIP approval. If EPA finalizes the limited approval and limited disapproval action, as proposed, then a sanctions clock, and EPA's obligation to promulgate a Federal implementation plan, would be triggered because the revisions to the District rule for which a limited approval and limited disapproval is proposed is required under the 8-hour ozone standard.

Because EPA has determined that Rule 203 fulfills all relevant requirements, we are proposing to fully approve it as described in section 110(k)(3) of the Act. We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final action that will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• 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);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

Throughout this document, “we,” “us” and “our” refer to EPA.

Table 1 lists the rules addressed by this proposal, including the date it was adopted by the local air agency and submitted by the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

On August 25, 2010, EPA determined that the submittal for PCAPCD Rule 502 and FRAQMD Rule 10.1, met the completeness criteria in 40 CFR part 51, Appendix V, which must be met before formal EPA review.

There are no previous versions of Rule 502 in the SIP, but SIP approved Rule 508 (New Source Review), which this rule will replace in the SIP, was approved into the Mountain Counties and Lake Tahoe air basin portions of the Placer County SIP, on June 23, 1982 (47 FR 27065) and May 18, 1981 (46 FR 27115), respectively. The PCAPCD originally adopted new Rule 502 on May 24, 1977 and has revised the rule several times since that date, but there are no other pending SIP submittals of Rule 502.

There are no previous versions of Rule 10.1 in the SIP. The FRAQMD originally adopted new Rule 10.1 on February 8, 1993, and submitted the rule to EPA on March 23, 1993, however EPA has not taken action on this submittal. While we can act on only the most recently submitted version, we have reviewed materials provided with the previous submittal.

Section 110(a) of the CAA requires states to submit regulations that include a pre-construction permit program for certain new or modified stationary sources of pollutants, including a permit program as required by Part D of Title I of the CAA.

The purpose of Rule 502 (New Source Review) and Rule 10.1 (New Source Review) is to implement a federal preconstruction permit program for new and modified sources located in nonattainment areas. Rule 502 will replace the existing SIP approved NSR programs contained in Rule 508, as approved for the Mountain Counties and Lake Tahoe air basin potions of Placer County. These versions of Rule 508 were approved into the SIP in 1981 and 1982 respectively. Rather than try to update these rules, the District has instead adopted an entirely new rule to carry out the NSR program—Rule 502. Rule 10.1 will be a new SIP rule. In accordance with both District's May 5, 2010 (75 FR 24409) reclassification as a severe ozone nonattainment area, the rules establish BACT  1 and offset applicability thresholds at 25 tpy or more, and sets the required offset ratio at 1.3 to 1, or greater. The rules do not contain any of the 2002 NSR Reform provisions adopted by EPA. (67 FR 80186)

The relevant statutory provisions for our review of the submitted rules include Part D of Title I of the CAA, section 110(a)(2)(C), section 110(l) and section 182(d). Section 110(a) requires a pre-construction permit programs for certain new or modified stationary sources of pollutants, including a permit program as required by Part D of Title I, while section 110(l) precludes EPA approval of SIP revisions that would interfere with any applicable requirement concerning attainment and reasonable further progress or any other applicable requirement of the Act. Section 182(d) (together with section 182(f) for NO X ), requires NSR SIPs in “severe” nonattainment areas to define “major sources” and “major modifications” to be sources that emit 25 tpy or more of VOC or NO X , and have an offset ratio of at least 1.3 to 1. In addition, we have reviewed the submitted rules for compliance with EPA implementing regulations for NSR, including 40 CFR 51.160 through 40 CFR 51.165.

EPA has reviewed the submitted rules in accordance with the Rule Evaluation criteria described above. The TSDs (one for each District) for this action contain a complete discussion of our evaluation. EPA is proposing to find that these rules meet the statutory requirements for SIPs as specified in sections 110(a), 110(l), 182(d) and 193 of the CAA. In addition, except for the deficiencies noted in the TSDs and summarized in the Proposed Action section of this notice, we are proposing to find that the rules meet the regulatory requirements of 40 CFR 51.160 through 40 CFR 51.165. EPA is proposing to find that it is acceptable for PCAPCD and FRAQMD to not incorporate the NSR Reform provisions of 40 CFR 51.165 into their SIP approved NSR programs, because the same level of control will be required for modified sources, with or without inclusion of these provisions in the SIP, and neither of the PCAPCD and FRAQMD programs will be any less stringent than the federal program.

For the reasons given above, under CAA section 110(k)(3) and 301(a), we are proposing a limited approval and limited disapproval of Rule 502 and Rule 10.1 because, although each rule would strengthen the SIP and they meet the applicable requirements for SIPs in general, they contain certain deficiencies related to NSR SIPs in particular that prevent our full approval. The primary deficiencies pertain to missing definitions and missing provisions pursuant to 40 CFR 51.165(a)(5)(ii) and 40 CFR 51.307(b)(2). Please refer to the TSD for this action for additional information. The deficiencies can be remedied by each District by revising their rule to provide the missing definitions, and necessary provisions pursuant to the 40 CFR part 51 sections cited above. If EPA finalizes the limited approval and limited disapproval action, as proposed, then a sanctions clock, and EPA's obligation to promulgate a Federal implementation plan, would be triggered because the revisions to the District rule for which a limited approval and limited disapproval is proposed is required under the 8-hour ozone standard.

We will accept comments from the public on this proposal for the next 30 days. Unless we receive convincing new information during the comment period, we intend to publish a final action that will incorporate these rules into the federally enforceable SIP.

Under the Clean Air Act, the Administrator is required to approve a SIP submission that complies with the provisions of the Act and applicable Federal regulations. 42 U.S.C. 7410(k); 40 CFR 52.02(a). Thus, in reviewing SIP submissions, EPA's role is to approve State choices, provided that they meet the criteria of the Clean Air Act. Accordingly, this action merely approves State law as meeting Federal requirements and does not impose additional requirements beyond those imposed by State law. For that reason, this action:

• Is not a “significant regulatory action” subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993);

• Does not impose an information collection burden under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. );

• Is certified as not having a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. );

• 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);

• Does not have Federalism implications as specified in Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999);

• Is not an economically significant regulatory action based on health or safety risks subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997);

• Is not a significant regulatory action subject to Executive Order 13211 (66 FR 28355, May 22, 2001);

• Is not subject to requirements of Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because application of those requirements would be inconsistent with the Clean Air Act; and

• Does not provide EPA with the discretionary authority to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects with practical, appropriate, and legally permissible methods under Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).

In addition, this rule does not have tribal implications as specified by Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9, 2000), because the SIP is not approved to apply in Indian country located in the State, and EPA notes that it will not impose substantial direct costs on tribal governments or preempt tribal law.

This is a synopsis of the Commission's Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MB Docket No. 11-74, adopted April 26, 2011, and released April 27, 2011. The full text of this document is available for public inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC's Reference Information Center at Portals II, CY-A257, 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554. This document will also be available via ECFS ( http://www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/ ). (Documents will be available electronically in ASCII, Word 97, and/or Adobe Acrobat.) This document may be purchased from the Commission's duplicating contractor, Best Copy and Printing, Inc., 445 12th Street, SW., Room CY-B402, Washington, DC 20554, telephone 1-800-478-3160 or via e-mail http://www.BCPIWEB.com. To request this document in accessible formats (computer diskettes, large print, audio recording, and braille), send an e-mail to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Commission's Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice), (202) 418-0432 (TTY). This document does not contain proposed information collection requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, Public Law 104-13. In addition, therefore, it does not contain any proposed information collection burden “for small business concerns with fewer than 25 employees,” pursuant to the Small Business Paperwork Relief Act of 2002, Public Law 107-198, see 44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(4).

Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 do not apply to this proceeding. Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts (other than ex parte presentations exempt under 47 CFR 1.1204(a)) are prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1208 for rules governing restricted proceedings.

For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments, see 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.

For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Federal Communications Commission proposes to amend 47 CFR part 73 as follows:

On March 14, 2011, FTA published an NPRM in the Federal Register (76 FR 13850) proposing to amend its bus testing procedures to more accurately reflect average passenger weights and actual transit vehicle loads. Specifically, FTA proposed to change the average passenger weight from 150 lbs to 175 lbs. In addition, FTA proposed to change the floor space occupied per standing passenger from 1.5 to 1.75 square feet, and update the Structural Strength and Distortion test procedures.

FTA is aware that the proposal has been the subject of some mischaracterizations, causing interested parties to have misperceptions regarding the NPRM's actual impact and intent. During the conference call, FTA staff will summarize its proposals in the NPRM and will be available to answer questions regarding those proposals. This is an opportunity for affected parties to receive clarification regarding the content of the NPRM. The conference call is not, however, an opportunity to submit comments to FTA regarding the proposals contained in the NPRM. Rather, interested parties should submit their comments to the docket for this rulemaking as described in the ADDRESSES section of this notice.

In addition, because of the scheduling of the conference call and the apparent confusion regarding the issues proposed in the NPRM, FTA is extending the comment period until June 15, 2011. This additional time should be sufficient to allow interested parties to review and submit final comments following information conveyed during the conference call.