Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 200 / Monday, October 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules 61133

64.101, 64.104, 64.105, 64.106, 64.109, and

64.110.

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3

Administrative practice and

procedure, Claims, Disability benefits,

Health care, Pensions, Veterans,

Vietnam.

Approved: July 17, 2000.

Togo D. West, Jr.,

Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 38 CFR part 3 is proposed to

be amended as follows:

PART 3—ADJUDICATION

Subpart A—Pension, Compensation,

and Dependency and Indemnity

Compensation

1. The authority citation for part 3,

subpart A continues to read as follows:

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless

otherwise noted.

2. In § 3.304, paragraph (f) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 3.304 Direct service connection; wartime

and peacetime.

* * * * *

(f) Post-traumatic stress disorder.

Service connection for post-traumatic

stress disorder requires medical

evidence diagnosing the condition in

accordance with § 4.125(a) of this

chapter; a link, established by medical

evidence, between current symptoms

and an in-service stressor; and credible

supporting evidence that the claimed inservice stressor occurred.

(1) If the evidence establishes that the

veteran engaged in combat with the

enemy and the claimed stressor is

related to that combat, in the absence of

clear and convincing evidence to the

contrary, and provided that the claimed

stressor is consistent with the

circumstances, conditions, or hardships

of the veteran’s service, the veteran’s lay

testimony alone may establish the

occurrence of the claimed in-service

stressor.

(2) If the evidence establishes that the

veteran was a prisoner-of-war under the

provisions of § 3.1(y) of this part and the

claimed stressor is related to that

prisoner-of-war experience, in the

absence of clear and convincing

evidence to the contrary, and provided

that the claimed stressor is consistent

with the circumstances, conditions, or

hardships of the veteran’s service, the

veteran’s lay testimony alone may

establish the occurrence of the claimed

in-service stressor.

(3) If a post-traumatic stress disorder

claim is based on in-service personal

assault, evidence from sources other

than the veteran’s service records may

constitute credible supporting evidence

of the stressor. Examples of such

evidence include, but are not limited to:

Records from law enforcement

authorities, rape crisis centers, mental

health counseling centers, hospitals or

physicians; and statements from family

members, roommates, fellow service

members or clergy. Evidence of behavior

changes following the claimed assault is

one type of relevant evidence which

may be found in these sources.

Examples of behavior changes that may

constitute credible supporting evidence

of the stressor include, but are not

limited to: A request for a transfer to

another military duty assignment;

deterioration in work performance;

substance abuse; episodes of depression,

panic attacks, or anxiety without an

identifiable cause; or unexplained

economic or social behavior changes.

VA will not deny a post-traumatic stress

disorder claim which is based on inservice personal assault without first

advising the claimant that evidence

from sources other than the veteran’s

service records or evidence of behavior

changes may constitute credible

supporting evidence of the stressor and

allowing him or her the opportunity to

furnish this type of evidence or advise

VA of potential sources of such

evidence. VA may submit any evidence

that it receives to an appropriate

medical professional for an opinion as

to whether it indicates that a personal

assault occurred.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 1154(b))

[FR Doc. 00–26450 Filed 10–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–U

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[CA 030–EOC; FRL–6885–8]

Revisions to the California State

Implementation Plan, Bay Area Air

Quality Management District;

Extension of Comment Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of

comment period.

SUMMARY: EPA is extending the

comment period for action proposed on

September 18, 2000 (65 FR 56284).

DATE: Any comments on this proposal

must arrive by November 17, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Mail comments to David

Wampler, Permits Office (Air-3), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San

Francisco, CA 94105–3901.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David Wampler, Permits Office (Air-3),

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,

Region IX, (415) 744–1256.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

September 18, 2000, EPA proposed the

following revisions to the California

State Implementation Plan (SIP).

Local agency Rule No. Proposed action

Bay Area AQMD .................. Regulation 1 .................................................................... Approval.

Bay Area AQMD .................. Regulation 2, Rules 1, 2, and 4 ...................................... Limited Approval/Disapproval.

61134 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 200 / Monday, October 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules

The proposed action provided a 30-

day public comment period. In response

to a request from California Council for

Environmental and Economic Balance

submitted by telephone and in writing

on September 28, 2000, EPA is

extending the comment period for an

additional 30 days.

Dated: October 3, 2000.

Felicia Marcus,

Regional Administrator, Region IX.

[FR Doc. 00–26506 Filed 10–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[FRL–6886–7]

Supplemental Information to Support

Proposed Approvals of One-Hour

Ozone Attainment Demonstrations for

Serious Ozone Nonattainment Areas

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice of availability and

reopening of comment period.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

EPA has performed an analysis to

evaluate emission levels of oxides of

nitrogen ( NOX) and volatile organic

compounds (VOC) and their

relationships to the application of

current and anticipated control

measures expected to be implemented

in four serious one-hour ozone

nonattainment areas. This analysis was

done to determine if additional

reasonably available control measures

(RACM) are available after adoption of

Clean Air Act (Act) required measures

for the following serious ozone

nonattainment areas: Greater

Connecticut, New York-New JerseyConnecticut; Springfield,

Massachusetts; Washington, D.C.-

Virginia-Maryland; and Atlanta,

Georgia. The EPA performed this

analysis in response to comments that

were submitted on the proposals on

these areas’ one-hour ozone attainment

demonstrations. The EPA took action to

propose approval (and disapproval in

the alternative) of these areas’ State

implementation plans (SIPs) on

December 16, 1999 (Greater Connecticut

(64 FR 70332); Springfield (64 FR

70319); Metropolitan Washington (64

FR 70460); and Atlanta (64 FR 70478)).

This information supplements the

December 16, 1999 proposals.

DATES: The EPA is establishing a

comment period, ending on October 31,

2000. All comments should be sent to

the appropriate regional office as listed

in the ADDRESSES section by that date.

ADDRESSES: Written comments on the

Greater Connecticut and Springfield

SIPs should be sent (in duplicate if

possible) to: David B. Conroy, EPA

Region I (New England) Office, One

Congress Street, Suite 1100–CAQ,

Boston, Massachusetts 02114–2023.

Copies of the Connecticut and

Massachusetts State submittals and

EPA’s technical support document are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours at the following

address: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 1 (New England), One

Congress St., 11th Floor, Boston,

Massachusetts, telephone (617) 918–

1664. Please telephone in advance

before visiting.

Written comments on the

Washington, D.C.-Virginia-Maryland

submittals should be submitted (in

duplicate if possible) to: David L.

Arnold, Chief, Ozone and Mobile

Sources Branch, Mailcode 3AP21, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency,

Region 3, 1650 Arch Street,

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103.

Copies of the documents relevant to this

action are available for public

inspection during normal business

hours at the following address: Air

Protection Division, U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region III, 1650

Arch Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

19103, and the docket numbers are

DC039–2019, VA090–5036 and MD073–

3045.

Written comments on the Atlanta SIP

should be submitted (in duplicate if

possible) to: Scott M. Martin, EPA

Region 4, Air Planning Branch, 61

Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia

30303. Copies of the State submittal are

available at the following address for

inspection during normal business

hours: Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 4, Air Planning Branch,

61 Forsyth Street, S.W., Atlanta, Georgia

30303–8960, and the docket number is

GA–47–200002.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general questions on the RACM analysis

for mobile sources, contact Mr. Mark

Simons at either 734–214–4420 or by email simons.mark@epa.gov. For general

questions on the RACM analysis for

stationary sources, contact Mr. John

Silvasi at either (919) 541-5666 or by email silvasi.john@epa.gov. For specific

questions on the Greater Connecticut

and Springfield SIPs, contact Mr.

Richard Burkhart at (617) 918–1664 or

by e-mail burkhart.richard@epa.gov. For

specific questions on the Washington,

D.C., SIP, contact Mr. David Arnold at

(215) 814–2172 or by e-mail

arnold.dave@epa.gov. For specific

questions on the Atlanta SIP, contact

Mr. Scott Martin at (404) 562–9036 or by

e-mail martin.scott@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

172(c)(1) of the Act requires SIPs to

contain reasonably available control

measures (RACM) as necessary to

provide for attainment as expeditiously

as practicable. Several commenters have

stated that there is no evidence in the

four serious ozone attainment

demonstrations that were proposed on

December 16, 1999 that they have

adopted all RACM, and a commenter

further stated that the mobile source

emission budgets in the SIPs are

inadequate by definition because the

SIPs do not demonstrate timely

attainment or contain the emission

reductions required for all RACM. In

addition, some commenters stated that

for all potential RACM measures not

adopted into the SIP, the State must

provide a justification for why they

were determined not to be RACM.

The analysis EPA conducted

demonstrates that a number of possible

emission control measures have been

evaluated for their emission reductions.

It further demonstrates that the

measures evaluated either (a) are likely

to require an intensive and costly effort

for numerous small area sources, or (b)

do not advance the attainment dates for

the four areas, and therefore would not

be considered RACM under the Act.

EPA has previously provided

guidance interpreting the RACM

requirements of 172(c)(1). See 57 FR

13498, 13560. In that guidance, EPA

indicated its interpretation that

potentially available measures that

would not advance the attainment date

for an area would not be considered

RACM. EPA concluded that a measure

would not be reasonably available if it

would not advance attainment. EPA also

indicated in that guidance that States

should consider all potentially available

measures to determine whether they

were reasonably available for

implementation in the area, and

whether they would advance the

attainment date. Further, States should

indicate in their SIP submittals whether

measures considered were reasonably

available or not, and if measures are

reasonably available they must be

adopted as RACM. Finally, EPA

indicated that States could reject

potential RACM measures either

because they would not advance the

attainment date, would cause

substantial widespread and long-term

adverse impacts, or for various reasons

related to local conditions, such as

economics or implementation concerns.