Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 42903

mouth stomach worms (Habronema

muscae (adults)), and horse stomach

bots (Gasterophilus intestinalis (2nd and

3rd instars)). One dose also supresses

small strongyle egg production for 84

days.

(3) Limitations. For horses and ponies

including breeding mares and stallions.

Not for use in horses and ponies

intended for food. Consult your

veterinarian for assistance in the

diagnosis, treatment, and control of

parasitism.

Dated: August 1, 1997.

Stephen F. Sundlof,

Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine.

[FR Doc. 97–21086 Filed 8–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4160–01–F

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Highway Administration

23 CFR Part 772

[FHWA Docket No. 96–26: FHWA–97–2348]

RIN 2125–AD97

Procedures for Abatement of Highway

Traffic Noise and Construction Noise

AGENCY: Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA), DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The FHWA is adopting, as

final, a current interim final rule that

revises the FHWA regulation that allows

Federal participation for Type II noise

abatement projects—that is, proposed

Federal or Federal-aid highway projects

for noise abatement on an existing

highway. This final rule restricts

Federal participation for Type II projects

to those that were approved before the

date of enactment of the National

Highway System Designation Act of

1995 (NHS) (Pub. L. 104–59, 109 Stat.

605) or are proposed along lands that

were developed or were under

substantial construction before approval

of the acquisition of the rights-of-way

for, or construction of, an existing

highway.

EFFECTIVE DATE: September 30, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Robert Armstrong, Office of

Environment and Planning, (202) 366–

2073, or Mr. Robert Black, Office of the

Chief Counsel, (202) 366–1359, Federal

Highway Administration, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

29, 1996, the FHWA published an

interim final rule along with a request

for comments in the Federal Register

(61 FR 45319) as a means of

implementing changes in 23 CFR part

772 for Type II project eligibility. The

interim rule prohibits Federal

participation in Type II projects unless

development predated the existence of

any highway.

Discussion of Comments

The public comment period for the

interim final rule closed on November

27, 1996. The FHWA received two

comments from the Illinois Department

of Transportation. The response

concerning this interim final rule is

available for review at the U.S. DOT

Dockets, Room PL–401, 400 Seventh

Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.

The first comment noted that the

FHWA went beyond the changes called

for by the NHS Act by indicating that

‘‘[n]oise abatement measures will not be

approved at locations where such

measures were previously determined

not to be reasonable and feasible for a

Type I project.’’ The comment stated

that there is no basis in the NHS

legislation for this change and

questioned the appropriateness of ruling

out the possibility of FHWA

participation in a Type II project on this

basis.

It was the intent of the NHS

legislation to prohibit Federal

participation in the construction of

Type II noise barriers in instances where

proper consideration has not been given

to highway traffic noise concerns and

issues during the local growth and

development process, i.e., growth and

development has occurred after a

highway was constructed and has

created unmitigated traffic noise

impacts. This intent was meant to limit

Federal expenditures for Type II noise

barriers.

The questioned statement is meant to

place increased emphasis on the

importance of noise-compatible land

use planning at the State and local level.

Highway traffic noise should be reduced

through a program of shared

responsibility. Thus, the FHWA

encourages State and local governments

to practice compatible land use

planning and control in the vicinity of

highways. Local governments should

use their power to regulate land

development in such a way that either

noise-sensitive land uses are prohibited

from being located adjacent to a

highway, or developments are planned,

designed, and constructed to minimize

noise impacts. The challenged statement

has been left unchanged.

The second comment noted that,

while the NHS legislation specifically

refers to limiting Federal participation

in the construction of Type II noise

barriers, revised § 772.13 limits Federal

participation in ‘‘noise abatement

measures,’’ a broader term that exceeds

the clear language of the NHS

legislation. As was the case above, the

wording ‘‘noise abatement measures’’ in

revised § 772.13 was used to meet the

intent of the NHS legislation to

generally prohibit Federal Type II

expenditures in instances where proper

consideration has not been given to

highway traffic noise concerns and

issues during the local growth and

development process. Therefore, no

change has been made in the final rule.

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory

Planning and Review) and DOT

Regulatory Policies and Procedures

The FHWA has determined that this

action is not a significant regulatory

action within the meaning of Executive

Order 12866 or significant within the

Department of Transportation

Regulatory Policies and Procedures. The

amendment clarifies some of the

requirements for Federal participation

in noise abatement projects for the 17

States that have constructed at least one

Type II noise barrier. It is anticipated

that the economic impact of the

rulemaking will be minimal; therefore, a

full regulatory evaluation is not

required.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

In compliance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–612), the

FHWA has evaluated the effects of this

rule on small entities. Based on the

evaluation, the FHWA hereby certifies

that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

The amendment deals only with the

eligibility of certain State highway noise

abatement projects for Federal

participation. As such, it affects only

State highway agencies and not small

entities.

Executive Order 12612 (Federalism

Assessment)

This action has been analyzed in

accordance with the principles and

criteria contained in Executive Order

12612, and it has been determined that

this action does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a federalism assessment.

It does not impose any new obligation

or requirement on a State. It does not

affect the amount of Federal

transportation funds that go to a State.

A State is not required to have a Type

II Noise Program. A State may still

expend its own funds on a noise

abatement project.
42904 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Executive Order 12372

(Intergovernmental Review)

Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance Program Number 20.205,

Highway Planning and Construction.

The regulations implementing Executive

Order 12372 regarding

intergovernmental consultation on

Federal programs and activities apply to

this program.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This action does not contain a

collection of information requirement

for purposes of the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.

National Environmental Policy Act

The agency has analyzed this action

for the purposes of the National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42

U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and has determined

that this action would not have any

effect on the environment.

Regulation Identification Number

A regulation identification number

(RIN) is assigned to each regulatory

action listed in the Unified Agenda of

Federal Regulations. The Regulatory

Information Service Center publishes

the Unified Agenda in April and

October of each year. The RIN number

contained in the heading of this

document can be used to cross reference

this action with the Unified Agenda.

List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 772

Highways and roads, Noise control.

PART 772—PROCEDURES FOR

ABATEMENT OF HIGHWAY TRAFFIC

NOISE AND CONSTRUCTION NOISE

In consideration of the foregoing and

under the authority of 23 U.S.C. 109(h),

42 U.S.C. 4331, sec. 339(b) of Pub. L.

104–59, 109 Stat. 568, 605, and 49 CFR

1.48(b), the interim final rule amending

23 CFR Part 772 which was published

at 61 FR 45319 on August 29, 1996, is

adopted as a final rule without change.

Issued on: August 1, 1997.

Jane F. Garvey,

Acting Administrator.

[FR Doc. 97–21122 Filed 8–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–22–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Office of the Secretary

32 CFR Part 199

[DoD 6010.8–R]

Civilian Health and Medical Program of

the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS);

Program for Persons With Disabilities;

Basic Program

AGENCY: Department of Defense.

ACTION: Final rule; administrative

corrections.

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense

published a final rule concerning the

Civilian Health and Medical Program of

the Uniformed Services (CHAMPUS) on

June 30, 1997 (62 FR 35086). There were

incorrect amendments published to the

Program for Persons with Disabilities

section of the CHAMPUS rule. This

document corrects the administrative

error.

EFFECTIVE DATES: October 28, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

M. Kottyan, telephone 303–361–1120.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 199

Administrative practice and

procedures, Claims, Fraud, Health care,

Health insurance, Individuals with

disabilities, Military personnel.

Accordingly, 32 CFR part 199 is

amended to read as follows:

PART 199—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for 32 CFR

part 199 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 10 U.S.C. chapter

55.

2. Section 199.5 is amended by

revising paragraph (b)(1)(iii) and

paragraphs (e)(2) through (e)(4) to read

as follows:

§ 199.5 Program for Persons with

Disabilities (PFPWD).

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(1) * * *

(iii) Deceased sponsor. A CHAMPUS

beneficiary remains eligible for benefits

under the PFPWD:

(A) For a period of one calendar year

from the date an active duty sponsor

dies; or

(B) Through midnight of the

beneficiary’s twenty-first birthday when

the beneficiary is receiving PFPWD

benefits at the time the active duty

sponsor dies and the sponsor was

eligible, at the time of death, for receipt

of hostile-fire pay or died as a result of

a disease or injury incurred while

eligible for such pay.

* * * * *

(e) * * *

(2)(i) Sponsor cost-share liability.

Regardless of the number of PFPWD

eligible family members, the sponsor’s

cost share for allowed PFPWD benefits

in a given month is according to the

following table:

Member’s pay grade Monthly

share

E–1 through E–5 ............................. $25

E–6 .................................................. 30

E–7 and O–1 .................................. 35

E–8 and O–2 .................................. 40

E–9, W–1, W–2, and O–3 .............. 45

W–3, W–4, and O–4 ....................... 50

W–5 and O–5 ................................. 65

O–6 ................................................. 75

O–7 ................................................. 100

O–8 ................................................. 150

O–9 ................................................. 200

O–10 ............................................... 250

(ii) The sponsor’s cost-share will be

applied, up to the amount given in the

table in paragraph (e)(2)(i), to the first

allowed charges in any given month.

The government’s share will be paid, up

to the maximum amount(s) specified in

paragraphs (e)(3) and (e)(4) of this

section for allowed charges after the

sponsor’s cost-share has been applied.

(3) Government cost-share liability:

member who sponsors one PFPWD

beneficiary. The total government share

of the cost of all PFPWD benefits

provided in a given month to a

beneficiary who is the sponsor’s only

PFPWD eligible family member may not

exceed $1,000 after application of the

allowable payment methodology. Any

amount remaining after the

Government’s maximum share has been

reached is the responsibility of the

active duty sponsor.

(4) Government cost-share liability:

member who sponsors more than one

PFPWD beneficiary. The total

government share of the cost of all

PFPWD allowable benefits provided in

a given month to a beneficiary who is

one of two or more PFPWD eligible

family members of the same sponsor

shall be determined as follows:

(i) Maximum benefit limit

determination for the first PFPWD

eligible beneficiary. The $1,000

maximum monthly government PFPWD

benefit amount shall apply only to the

beneficiary incurring the least amount

of allowable PFPWD expense in a given

month, after application of the

allowable payment methodology. If two

or more PFPWD eligible beneficiaries

have the same amount of allowable

PFPWD expenses in a given month, the