59356 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effects, and other advantages; 

distributive impacts; and equity). 

Executive Order 13563 (Improving 

Regulation and Regulatory Review) 

emphasizes the importance of 

quantifying both costs and benefits, 

reducing costs, harmonizing rules, and 

promoting flexibility. Executive Order 

12866 (Regulatory Planning and 

Review) defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ which requires 

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 otherwise 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 this Executive Order.’’ 

The economic, interagency, 

budgetary, legal, and policy 

implications of this proposed regulatory 

action have been examined and it has 

been determined not to be a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

Unfunded Mandates 

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 

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. This proposed rule would 

have no such effect on State, local, and 

tribal governments, or on the private 

sector. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Numbers 

The Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance numbers and titles are 

64.005, Grants to States for Construction 

of State Home Facilities; 64.009, 

Veterans Medical Care Benefits; 64.010, 

Veterans Nursing Home Care; 64.015, 

Veterans State Nursing Home Care; 

64.018, Sharing Specialized Medical 

Resources; 64.019, Veterans 

Rehabilitation Alcohol and Drug 

Dependence. 

Signing Authority 

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 September 10, 2012, for 

publication. 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 51 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Claims, Grant programshealth, Grant programs-veterans, Health 

care, Health facilities, Health 

professions, Health records, Mental 

health programs, Nursing homes, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Travel and transportation 

expenses, Veterans. 

Dated: September 24, 2012. 

Robert C. McFetridge, 

Director, Office of Regulation Policy and 

Management, Office of the General Counsel, 

Department of Veterans Affairs. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Department of Veterans 

Affairs proposes to amend 38 CFR part 

51 as follows: 

PART 51—PER DIEM FOR NURSING 

HOME CARE OF VETERANS IN STATE 

HOMES 

1. The authority citation for part 51 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 101, 501, 1710, 1741– 

1743, 1745. 

2. Amend § 51.43(c) by removing ‘‘the 

veteran has resided in the facility for 30 

consecutive days (including overnight 

stays) and’’, and by adding a sentence at 

the end of the paragraph to read as 

follows: 

§ 51.43 Per diem and drugs and 

medicines—principles. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * * Occupancy rate is calculated 

by dividing the total number of patients 

in the nursing home or domiciliary by 

the total recognized nursing home or 

domiciliary beds in that facility. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–23777 Filed 9–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R04–OAR–2012–0013(b); FRL–9732– 

6] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; North Carolina: 

Approval of Rocky Mount 

Supplemental Motor Vehicle Emissions 

Budget Update 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

a revision to the North Carolina State 

Implementation Plan (SIP), submitted to 

EPA on February 7, 2011, by the State 

of North Carolina, through the North 

Carolina Department of Environment 

and Natural Resources, Division of Air 

Quality. North Carolina’s February 7, 

2011, submission supplements the 

original redesignation request and 

maintenance plan for Rocky Mount 

1997 8-hour ozone area submitted on 

June 19, 2006, and approved by EPA on 

November 6, 2006. The Rocky Mount 

1997 8-hour ozone area is comprised of 

Edgecombe and Nash Counties in North 

Carolina. The February 7, 2011, revision 

proposes to increase the safety margin 

allocated to motor vehicle emissions 

budgets to account for changes in the 

emissions model and vehicle miles 

traveled projection model. EPA is 

proposing approval of this SIP revision 

pursuant to section 110 of the Clean Air 

Act. North Carolina’s SIP revision meets 

all the statutory and regulatory 

requirements, and is consistent with 

EPA’s guidance. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received on or before October 29, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R04– 

OAR–2012–0013 by one of the following 

methods: 

1. www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

on-line instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. Email: R4-RDS@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (404) 562–9019. 

4. Mail: ‘‘EPA–R04–OAR–2012– 

0013,’’ Regulatory Development Section, 

Air Planning Branch, Air, Pesticides and 

Toxics Management Division, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 

Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street SW., 

Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. 

5. Hand Delivery or Courier: Lynorae 

Benjamin, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with 
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 188 / Thursday, September 27, 2012 / Proposed Rules 59357 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Such 

deliveries are only accepted during the 

Regional Office’s normal hours of 

operation. The Regional Office’s official 

hours of business are Monday through 

Friday, 8:30 to 4:30, excluding federal 

holidays. 

Please see the direct final rule which 

is located in the Rules section of this 

Federal Register for detailed 

instructions on how to submit 

comments. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Zuri 

Farngalo, Regulatory Development 

Section, Air Planning Branch, Air, 

Pesticides and Toxics Management 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region 4, 61 Forsyth Street 

SW., Atlanta, Georgia 30303–8960. Zuri 

Farngalo may be reached by phone at 

(404) 562–9152 or by electronic mail 

address farngalo.zuri@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 

12, 2008, EPA issued a revised ozone 

National Ambient Air Quality Standards 

(NAAQS). See 73 FR 16436. The current 

action, however, is being taken to 

address requirements under the 1997 8- 

hour ozone NAAQS. Requirements for 

the Rocky Mount Area under the 2008 

NAAQS will be addressed in the future. 

For additional information regarding 

today’s action see the direct final rule 

which is published in the Rules Section 

of this Federal Register. Through that 

direct final rule, EPA is approving the 

State’s implementation plan revision 

without prior proposal because the 

Agency views this as a noncontroversial 

submittal and anticipates no adverse 

comments. A detailed rationale for the 

approval is set forth in the direct final 

rule. If no adverse comments are 

received in response to this rule, no 

further activity is contemplated. If EPA 

receives adverse comments, the direct 

final rule will be withdrawn and all 

public comments received will be 

addressed in a subsequent final rule 

based on this proposed rule. EPA will 

not institute a second comment period 

on this document. Any parties 

interested in commenting on this 

document should do so at this time. 

Dated: September 11, 2012. 

A. Stanley Meiburg, 

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4. 

[FR Doc. 2012–23717 Filed 9–26–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR 

Fish and Wildlife Service 

50 CFR Part 17 

[Docket No. FWS–R8–ES–2010–0077; 

4500030113] 

Endangered and Threatened Wildlife 

and Plants; 12-Month Finding on a 

Petition To List Spring Mountains 

Acastus Checkerspot Butterfly as an 

Endangered or Threatened Species 

AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, 

Interior. 

ACTION: Notice of 12-month petition 

finding. 

SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and 

Wildlife Service (Service), announce a 

12-month finding on a petition to list 

the Spring Mountains acastus 

checkerspot butterfly (Chlosyne acastus 

robusta) as an endangered species under 

the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as 

amended (Act). After review of the best 

available scientific and commercial 

information, we find that listing the 

Spring Mountains acastus checkerspot 

butterfly is not warranted at this time. 

However, we ask the public to submit to 

us any new information that becomes 

available concerning the threats to the 

Spring Mountains acastus checkerspot 

butterfly or its habitat at any time. 

DATES: The finding announced in this 

document was made on September 27, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: This finding is available on 

the internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov at Docket Number 

FWS–R8–ES–2010–0077. Supporting 

documentation we used in preparing 

this finding is available for public 

inspection, by appointment, during 

normal business hours at the U.S. Fish 

and Wildlife Service, Nevada Fish and 

Wildlife Office, 4701 North Torrey Pines 

Drive, Las Vegas, NV 89130. Please 

submit any new information, materials, 

comments, or questions concerning this 

finding to the above street address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Edward D. Koch, Field Supervisor, 

Nevada Fish and Wildlife Office (see 

ADDRESSES); by telephone at 775–861– 

6300; or by facsimile at 775–861–6301. 

If you use a telecommunications device 

for the deaf (TDD), please call the 

Federal Information Relay Service 

(FIRS) at 800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Section 4(b)(3)(B) of the Act (16 

U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) requires that, for 

any petition to revise the Federal Lists 

of Threatened and Endangered Wildlife 

and Plants that contains substantial 

scientific or commercial information 

that listing a species may be warranted, 

we make a finding within 12 months of 

the date of receipt of the petition. In this 

finding we will determine that the 

petitioned action is: (1) Not warranted; 

(2) warranted; or (3) warranted, but the 

immediate proposal of a regulation 

implementing the petitioned action is 

precluded by other pending proposals to 

determine whether species are an 

endangered or threatened species, and 

expeditious progress is being made to 

add or remove qualified species from 

the Federal Lists of Endangered and 

Threatened Wildlife and Plants. Section 

4(b)(3)(C) of the Act requires that we 

treat a petition for which the requested 

action is found to be warranted but 

precluded as though resubmitted on the 

date of such finding, that is, requiring a 

subsequent finding to be made within 

12 months. We must publish these 12- 

month findings in the Federal Register. 

Previous Federal Actions 

On September 18, 2009, we received 

a petition dated September 16, 2009, 

from Bruce M. Boyd requesting that the 

Spring Mountains acastus checkerspot 

butterfly (Chlosyne acastus robusta) be 

listed as an endangered species under 

the Act. Included in the petition was 

information regarding the species’ 

taxonomy, historical and current 

distribution, present status, and 

potential causes of decline. We 

acknowledged the receipt of the petition 

in a letter to Bruce M. Boyd, dated 

November 24, 2009. In that letter, we 

responded that we had reviewed the 

information presented in the petition 

and determined that issuing an 

emergency regulation temporarily 

listing the butterfly under section 4(b)(7) 

of the Act was not warranted (Service 

2009, p. 1). We also stated that funding 

was secured and that we anticipated 

making an initial finding in fiscal year 

2010 as to whether the petition 

contained substantial information 

indicating that the action may be 

warranted. On April 13, 2011, we 

published a 90-day petition finding (76 

FR 20613) in which we concluded that 

the petition and information in our files 

provided substantial information 

indicating that listing the Spring 

Mountains acastus checkerspot butterfly 

may be warranted, and we initiated a 

status review. This notice constitutes 

the 12-month finding on the September 

16, 2009, petition to list the Spring 

Mountains acastus checkerspot 

butterfly. 


erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with