Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 200 / Monday, October 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules 61129

Karpen NDB

(Lat. 46°08′22′′ N, long. 123°35′14′′ W)

Astoria ILS Localizer

(Lat. 46°09′35′′ N, long. 123°53′28′′ W)

Camp Rilea Heliport

(Lat. 46°06′59′′ N, long. 123°55′54′′ W)

Within a 4-mile radius of the Port of

Astoria Airport, and within 1.8 miles each

side of the Astoria VOR/DME 268° radial

extending from the 4-mile radius to 7 miles

west of the VOR/DME, and within 1.8 miles

each side of the Astoria ILS localizer east

course extending from the 4-mile radius to

the Karpen NDB, excluding the airspace

within a wedge south of Camp Rilea Heliport,

from the 120 bearing clockwise to the 225

bearing of the Camp Rilea Heliport.

* * * * *

Issued in Seattle, Washington, on

September 27, 2000.

Daniel A. Boyle,

Assistant Manager, Air Traffic Division,

Northwest Mountain Region.

[FR Doc. 00–26524 Filed 10–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms

27 CFR Part 9

[Notice No. 904]

RIN 1512–AA07

West Elks Viticultural Area

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms (ATF), Treasury.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) is

requesting comments concerning the

proposed establishment of a viticultural

area to be known as ‘‘West Elks,’’

located in Delta County, Colorado. This

notice responds to a petition filed on

behalf of several grape growers and

winery owners in the area.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by December 15, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send written comments to:

Chief, Regulations Division, Bureau of

Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, P.O.

Box 50221, Washington, DC 20091–0221

(Attention: Notice No. 904). See ‘‘Public

Participation’’ section of this notice if

you want to comment by facsimile or email.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa

M. Gesser, Regulations Division, Bureau

of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, 650

Massachusetts Avenue, N.W.,

Washington, DC 20226 (202–927–9347).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

1. Background on Viticultural Areas

What Is ATF’s Authority To Establish a

Viticultural Area?

On August 23, 1978, ATF published

Treasury Decision ATF–53 (43 FR

37672, 54624). This decision revised the

regulations in 27 CFR part 4, Labeling

and Advertising of Wine, to allow the

establishment of definitive viticultural

areas. The regulations allow the name of

an approved viticultural area to be used

as an appellation of origin in the

labeling and advertising of wine.

On October 2, 1979, ATF published

Treasury Decision ATF–60 (44 FR

56692) which added a new part 9 to 27

CFR, American Viticultural Areas, for

providing the listing of approved

American viticultural areas, the names

of which may be used as appellations of

origin.

What Is the Definition of an American

Viticultural Area?

Section 4.25a(e)(1), title 27, CFR,

defines an American viticultural area as

a delimited grape-growing region

distinguishable by geographical

features. Viticultural features such as

soil, climate, elevation, topography, etc.,

distinguish it from surrounding areas.

What Is Required To Establish a

Viticultural Area?

Any interested person may petition

ATF to establish a grape-growing region

as a viticultural area. The petition

should include:

• Evidence that the name of the

proposed viticultural area is locally

and/or nationally known as referring to

the area specified in the petition;

• Historical or current evidence that

the boundaries of the viticultural area

are as specified in the petition;

• Evidence relating to the

geographical features (climate, soil,

elevation, physical features, etc.) which

distinguish the viticultural features of

the proposed area from surrounding

areas;

• A description of the specific

boundaries of the viticultural area,

based on features which can be found

on United States Geological Survey

(U.S.G.S.) maps of the largest applicable

scale; and

• A copy of the appropriate U.S.G.S.

map(s) with the boundaries prominently

marked.

2. West Elks Petition

ATF has received a petition from

Barbara E. Heck proposing to establish

a viticultural area in Delta County,

Colorado, known as ‘‘West Elks.’’ The

proposed area encompasses

approximately 75 square miles. Over 84

acres of vineyards are currently planted

in ‘‘West Elks’’ and the area presently

boasts eighteen vineyard and/or winery

businesses.

What Name Evidence Has Been

Provided?

The name of the proposed ‘‘West

Elks’’ viticultural area was well

documented by the petitioner. ‘‘West

Elks’’ takes its name from the West Elk

Mountains located just east of the area.

The petitioner states that each vineyard

in the area has a magnificent view of the

West Elk Mountains. The following was

submitted as evidence of name

recognition:

• Brochure from the U.S. Department

of Agriculture Forest Service indicating

that the proposed ‘‘West Elks’’

viticulture area is known as West Elk

Wilderness;

• Brochure from the Colorado State

Historical Society and Delta County

Tourism mapping the West Elk Loop

which runs through the proposed ‘‘West

Elks’’ viticultural area;

• Delta County Area Map on which

the West Elk Mountains are prominently

labeled; and

• United States Department of the

Interior topographic map on which the

West Elk Wilderness and the West Elk

Mountains are prominently labeled.

• News article from the Delta County

Independent which depicts a 1855 map

on which the Elk Mountains are

prominently labeled;

• Delta County Historical Society

map which also shows the Elk

Mountains;

What Boundary Evidence Has Been

Provided?

According to the petitioner, the

proposed ‘‘West Elks’’ viticultural area

is located on mesa lands. Its borders are

the West Elk Mountains to the east and

the higher Grand Mesa to the north. To

the south, Crawford and Fruitland Mesa

have a higher elevation and the plateau

climbs until it reaches the north rim of

the Black Canyon of the Gunnison. To

the west lie the Adobe Badlands in

which very little grows.

What Evidence Relating to Geographical

Features Has Been Provided?

• Soil

The petitioner asserts that the soils of

the proposed ‘‘West Elks’’ viticultural

area distinguish it from the surrounding

areas. The petitioner provided a General

Soil Map which indicates that the

proposed ‘‘West Elks’’ viticultural area

is comprised mostly of Aqua FriaSaration soils which are deep and

moderately deep well-drained stony

61130 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 200 / Monday, October 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules

soils that formed in outwash alluvium

derived from igneous rock. To the north

of the proposed viticultural area the

soils change to Delson-Cerro soils and to

the east the soils are Fughes-Bulkley,

Absarokee-Beenom and Delson-Cerro.

Billings-Gullied land soils are found to

the south of the proposed area.

• Elevation

The petitioner states that the

boundaries of the proposed ‘‘West Elks’’

viticultural area are defined by

elevation. The far eastern boundary,

Juanita Junction, sits at 5942 feet. The

eastern line sits mainly at 6200 feet. The

southern borders of the proposed area

follows section lines of the U.S.G.S.

maps that have elevations that range

from 5300 to over 5800 feet. The

northern border has an elevation range

from 6900 to 5900 feet.

According to the petitioner, the

elevations of the areas surrounding

‘‘West Elks’’ are much higher.

Mountains surround ‘‘West Elks’’ to the

east with elevations reaching 11,000

feet. The Grand Mesa is located to the

north of ‘‘West Elks’’ with elevations

reaching 10,000 feet at the top. To the

south, Crawford and Fruitland Mesa

have higher elevations and the plateau

climbs until it reaches the north rim of

the Black Canyon of the Gunnison. To

the west, the Adobe Badlands, on which

very little grows, and the Redlands

Mesa, which sits above 6200 feet,

separate ‘‘West Elks’’ from Delta,

Cedaredge and the Surface Creek areas.

The farming area to the east of Delta sits

under 5000 feet elevation, which

indicates a longer growing season than

that of the proposed ‘‘West Elks’’

viticultural area.

The petitioner asserts that the high

elevation of the proposed area creates a

fruit that has tremendous flavor. The

area is completely protected and

sheltered by lofty mesas and mountain

ranges. The elevations of the

surrounding areas help protect ‘‘West

Elks’’ from severe storms and climatic

disturbances, which often injure or

destroy fruit.

Climate

According to the petitioner, the

climate of the proposed ‘‘West Elks’’

viticultural area is rather mild. With

over 300 full sun days a year, sugar

contents are high. The West Elk Loop

Scenic and Historical Byway brochure

states ‘‘* * * warm days, cool nights,

and the so-called Million Dollar Breeze

which flows down valley enhance the

growing season.’’ The areas surrounding

the ‘‘West Elks’’ are much cooler due to

their higher elevation.

3. Regulatory Analyses and Notices

Is This a Significant Regulatory Action

as Defined by Executive Order 12866?

It has been determined that this

proposed regulation is not a significant

regulatory action as defined in

Executive Order 12866. Accordingly,

this proposal is not subject to the

analysis required by this Executive

Order.

How Does the Regulatory Flexibility Act

Apply to This Proposed Rule?

ATF certifies that the proposed

regulations will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The

establishment of a viticultural area is

neither an endorsement or approval by

ATF of the quality of wine produced in

the area, but rather an identification of

an area that is distinct from surrounding

areas. ATF believes that the

establishment of viticultural areas

merely allows wineries to more

accurately describe the origin of their

wines to consumers, and helps

consumers identify the wines they

purchase. Thus, any benefit derived

from the use of a viticultural area name

is the result of the proprietor’s own

efforts and consumer acceptance of

wines from that area.

No new requirements are proposed.

Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility

analysis is not required.

Does the Paperwork Reduction Act

Apply to This Proposed Rule?

The Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995, 44 U.S.C. Chapter 35, and its

implementing regulations, 5 CFR part

1320, do not apply to this notice of

proposed rulemaking because the

proposed regulation is not proposing

new or revised record keeping or

reporting requirements.

4. Public Participation and Request for

Comments

Who May Comment on This Notice?

ATF requests comments from all

interested parties. In addition, ATF

specifically requests comments on the

clarity of this proposed rule and how it

may be made easier to understand.

Comments received on or before the

closing date will be carefully

considered. Comments received after

that date will be given the same

consideration if it is practical to do so.

However, assurance of consideration

can only be given to comments received

on or before the closing date.

Can I Review Comments Received?

Copies of the petition, the proposed

regulations, the appropriate maps, and

any written comments received will be

available for public inspection during

normal business hours at the ATF

Reading Room, Office of Liaison and

Public Information, Room 6480, 650

Massachusetts Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20226. For information

on filing a Freedom of Information Act

request for a copy of the comments,

please refer to the internet address:

http://www.atf.treas.gov/about/foia/

foia.htm.

Will ATF Keep My Comments

Confidential?

ATF will not recognize any comment

as confidential. All comments and

materials will be disclosed to the public.

If you consider your material to be

confidential or inappropriate for

disclosure to the public, you should not

include it in the comments. We will also

disclose the name of any person who

submits a comment.

During the comment period, any

person may request an opportunity to

present oral testimony at a public

hearing. However, the Director reserves

the right to determine, in light of all

circumstances, whether a public hearing

will be held.

How Do I Send Facsimile Comments?

You may submit comments by

facsimile transmission to (202) 927–

8525. Facsimile comments must:

• Be legible.

• Reference this notice number.

• Be on paper 81⁄2′′ × 11′′ in size.

• Contain a legible written signature.

• Be not more than three pages.

We will not acknowledge receipt of

facsimile transmissions. We will treat

facsimile transmissions as originals.

How Do I Send Electronic Mail (E-Mail)

Comments?

You may submit comments by e-mail

by sending the comments to

nprm@atfhq.atf.treas.gov. You must

follow these instructions. E-mail

comments must:

• Contain your name, mailing

address, and e-mail address.

• Reference this notice number.

• Be legible when printed on not

more than three pages, 81⁄2′′ × 11′′ in

size.

We will not acknowledge receipt of

e-mail. We will treat comments

submitted by e-mail as originals.

How Do I Send Comments to the ATF

Internet Web Site?

You may also submit comments using

the comment form provided with the

online copy of the proposed rule on the

ATF internet web site at http://

www.atf.treas.gov.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 200 / Monday, October 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules 61131

5. Drafting Information

The principal author of this document

is Lisa M. Gesser, Regulations Division,

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms.

List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9

Administrative practice and

procedure, Alcohol and alcoholic

beverages, Consumer protection, and

Wine.

Authority and Issuance

Title 27, Code of Federal Regulations,

Part 9, American Viticultural Areas, is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL

AREAS

Paragraph 1. The authority citation

for part 9 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205.

Subpart C—Approved American

Viticultural Areas

Par. 2. Subpart C is amended by

adding § 9.172 to read as follows:

* * * * *

§ 9.172 West Elks

(a) Name. The name of the viticultural

area described in this section is ‘‘West

Elks.’’

(b) Approved Maps. The appropriate

maps for determining the boundary of

the West Elks viticultural area are four

United States Geological Survey

(U.S.G.S.) topographic maps (Scale:

1:250,000). They are titled:

(1) Lazear Quadrangle (Colorado-Delta

Co. 1955 (photorevised 1978));

(2) Hotchkiss Quadrangle (ColoradoDelta Co. 1965 (photorevised 1979));

(3) Paonia Quadrangle (ColoradoDelta Co. 1965 (photorevised 1979); and

(4) Bowie Quadrangle (Colorado-Delta

Co. 1965 (photorevised 1978).

(c) Boundaries. The West Elks

viticultural area is located in eastern

Delta County, Colorado. The beginning

point is found on the ‘‘Bowie

Quadrangle’’ U.S.G.S. map at the 1⁄4

corner common to Sections 19 and 20,

Township 13 South, Range 91 West (T.

13 S., R. 91 W.);

(1) The boundary proceeds east

following the center subdivision lines of

Sections 20 and 21 to its intersection

with Colorado Highway 133;

(2) Then northeasterly following

Colorado Highway 133 to its

intersection with the N–S center

subdivision line of Section 14, T. 13 S.,

R. 91 W., near Juanita Junction;

(3) Then south following the center

subdivision line to its intersection with

the North Fork of the Gunnison River;

(4) Then southwesterly following the

North Fork of the Gunnison River to its

intersection with the Stewart Ditch in

the extreme southern part of Section 15,

T. 13 S., R. 91 W.;

(5) Then southwesterly following the

Stewart Ditch to its intersection with the

section line common to Sections 21 and

28, T. 13 S., R. 91 W.;

(6) Then east following the section

line common to Sections 21 and 28 to

its intersection with the 6000 foot

contour;

(7) Then southerly following the 6000

foot contour to its second intersection

with the section line common to

Sections 3 and 4, T. 14 S., R. 91 W.,

located on the Paonia, Colo. U.S.G.S.

map;

(8) Then south following the section

line common to Sections 3 and 4 to its

intersection with the 6200 foot contour;

(9) Then southerly following the 6200

foot contour to its intersection with the

section line common to Sections 16 and

17, T. 14 S., R. 91 W.;

(10) Then south following the section

line common to Sections 16 and 17 to

the point of intersection of Sections 16,

17, 20 and 21;

(11) Then west following the section

line common to Sections 17 and 20 to

the point of intersection of Sections 17,

18, 19 and 20;

(12) Then south following the section

line common to Sections 19 and 20 to

the N1/16 corner common to Sections

19 and 20;

(13) Then west following the

subdivision line across Section 19 to the

N1/16 corner common to Section 19, T.

14 S., R. 91 W. and Section 24, T, 14 S.,

R. 92 W.;

(14) Then south following the range

line between R. 91 W. and R. 92 W. to

the point of intersection between

Sections 19 and 30, T. 14 S., R. 91 W.

and Sections 24 and 25, T. 14 S., R. 92

W.;

(15) Then west following the section

line common to Sections 24 and 25 to

the point of intersection between

Sections 23, 24, 25 and 26, located on

the Hotchkiss, Colo. U.S.G.S. map;

(16) Then south following the section

line common to Sections 25 and 26 to

the point of intersection between

Sections 25, 26, 35 and 36;

(17) Then west following the section

lines common to Sections 26 and 35 and

Sections 27 and 34 to the point of

intersection between Sections 27, 28, 33

and 34;

(18) Then south following the section

line common to Sections 33 and 34 to

the point of intersection between

Sections 33 and 34, T. 14 S., R. 92 W.

and Sections 3 and 4, T. 15 S., R. 92 W.;

(19) Then west following the

township line between T. 14 S. and T.

15 S. approximately three miles to the

point of intersection between Section

31, T. 14 S., R. 92 W., Section 6, T. 15

S., R. 92 W., Section 1, T. 15 S., R. 93

W., and Section 36, T. 14 S., R. 93 W.;

(20) Then south following the range

line between R. 92 W. and R. 93 W. to

the point of intersection between

Sections 6 and 7, T. 15 S., R. 92 W. and

Sections 1 and 12, T. 15 S., R. 93 W.;

(21) Then west following the section

lines common to Sections 1 and 12 and

Sections 2 and 11 to its intersection

with the North Fork of the Gunnison

River, located on the Lazear, Colo.

U.S.G.S. map;

(22) Then westerly following the

North Fork of the Gunnison River to its

intersection with Big Gulch in the

extreme northeastern corner of Section

6, T. 15 S., R. 93 W.;

(23) Then northerly following Big

Gulch to its intersection with the

section line common to Sections 17 and

18, T. 14 S., R. 93 W.;

(24) Then north following the section

lines common to Sections 17 and 18,

Sections 7 and 8, and Sections 5 and 6

to the point of intersection between

Sections 5 and 6, T. 14 S., R. 93 W. and

Sections 31 and 32, T. 13 S., R. 93 W.;

(25) Then east following the township

line between T. 13 S. and T. 14 S.

approximately two miles to the point of

intersection between Sections 3 and 4,

T. 14 S., R. 93 W. and Sections 33 and

34, T. 13 S., R. 93 W.;

(26) Then south following the section

line common to Sections 3 and 4 to the

point of intersection between Sections

3, 4, 9 and 10;

(27) Then east following the section

lines for approximately 6 miles to the

point of intersection between Sections

3, 4, 9 and 10, T. 14 S., R. 92 W., located

on the Hotchkiss, Colo. U.S.G.S. map;

(28) Then north following the section

line common to Sections 3 and 4 to the

point of intersection between Sections 3

and 4, T. 14 S., R. 92 W. and Sections

33 and 34, T. 13 S., R. 92 W.;

(29) Then east following the township

line between T. 13 S. and T. 14 S. to its

intersection with the Fire Mountain

Canal in the southwestern corner of

Section 35, T. 13 S., R. 92 W.;

(30) Then northeasterly following the

Fire Mountain Canal through the

extreme northwest corner of the Paonia,

Colo. U.S.G.S. map to its intersection

with the section line common to

Sections 29 and 30, T. 13 S., R. 91 W.,

located on the Bowie, Colo. U.S.G.S.

map;

(31) Then north following the section

lines common to Sections 29 and 30 and

Sections 19 and 20 to the 1⁄4 corner

61132 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 200 / Monday, October 16, 2000 / Proposed Rules

common to Sections 19 and 20, the

point of beginning.

Bradley A. Buckles,

Director.

[FR Doc. 00–26454 Filed 10–13–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–31–P

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 3

RIN 2900–AK00

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder Claims

Based on Personal Assault

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

amend Department of Veterans Affairs

(VA) adjudication regulations

concerning the proof necessary to

establish occurrence of a stressor in

claims for service connection of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD)

resulting from personal assault. This

amendment would provide that

evidence other than the veteran’s

service records may be sufficient to

establish the occurrence of the stressor.

The proposed regulation also would

require that VA not deny such claims

without first advising claimants that

evidence from sources other than a

veteran’s service records may prove the

stressor occurred. This would make

claimants aware of the types of evidence

which might support their claims, and

would give them an opportunity to

obtain and submit such evidence. It

would also ensure that VA will not deny

claims simply because the claimants did

not realize that certain types of evidence

may be relevant and therefore failed to

submit such evidence to VA.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before December 15, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand-deliver

written comments to: Director, Office of

Regulations Management (02D),

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810

Vermont Ave., NW, Room 1154,

Washington, DC 20420; or fax comments

to (202) 273–9289; or e-mail comments

to ‘‘OGCRegulations@mail.va.gov’’.

Comments should indicate that they are

submitted in response to ‘‘RIN 2900–

AK00.’’ All comments received will be

available for public inspection in the

Office of Regulations Management,

Room 1158, between the hours of 8:00

a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday (except holidays).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bill

Russo, Regulations Staff, Compensation

and Pension Service, Veterans Benefits

Administration, Department of Veterans

Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW,

Washington, DC 20420; telephone (202)

273–7210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

3.304(f) of 38 CFR states that service

connection for PTSD requires medical

evidence diagnosing the condition; a

link, established by medical evidence,

between current symptoms and an inservice stressor; and credible supporting

evidence that the claimed in-service

stressor occurred.

A claim for PTSD may be based upon

a personal assault, including sexual

assault. Many incidents of in-service

personal assault are not officially

reported, and veterans may find it

difficult to produce evidence to prove

the occurrence of this type of stressor.

This proposed amendment addresses

this difficulty by specifying that

evidence from sources other than the

veteran’s service records may constitute

credible supporting evidence of the inservice stressor, where the alleged

stressor is a personal assault.

VA’s Adjudication Procedure Manual,

M21–1, discusses the types of evidence

which may be credible supporting

evidence that the stressor occurred for

PTSD claims involving an in-service

personal assault. M21–1, Part III, par.

5.14c. and Part VI, par. 11.38. In Patton

v. West, 12 Vet. App. 272, 283 (1999),

the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans

Claims discussed paragraph 5.14c. of

M21–1, Part III, referring to it as a

‘‘regulatory provision [ ].’’ We are

proposing to amend VA’s adjudication

regulations at § 3.304(f) to specify the

types of evidence, other than a veteran’s

service records, which may establish the

occurrence of a personal assault during

service.

This proposed amendment would

recognize that in PTSD claims based on

in-service assault, evidence from

sources other than a 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 from these sources might

include, for example, evidence of

behavior changes following the personal

assault. Examples of behavior changes

that might result from a personal assault

include, but are not limited to: A

request by the veteran for a transfer to

another military duty assignment; a

change in work performance; substance

abuse; episodes of depression, panic

attacks or anxiety where there is no

identifiable reason for the episodes; or

unexplained economic or social

behavior changes.

The proposed regulation would also

provide that VA will not deny a PTSD

claim which is based on personal

assault without first advising the

claimant that evidence from alternative

sources or evidence of behavior changes

may constitute credible supporting

evidence of the stressor. This would

ensure that claimants are aware of the

types of evidence which might support

their claims and would give them an

opportunity to obtain and submit such

evidence. It would also ensure that VA

will not deny claims simply because the

claimants did not realize that certain

types of evidence may be relevant and

therefore failed to submit such evidence

to VA.

The proposed amendment also would

state that 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. Such an opinion may

be necessary when evidence requires

medical interpretation and analysis

based on the portion of the American

Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and

Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,

Fourth Edition, which concerns PTSD.

This proposed amendment would also

divide current § 3.304(f), regarding

PTSD claims, into two new subparagraphs, one involving PTSD claims

by combat veterans and the other

concerning PTSD claims by former

prisoners-of-war. No substantive change

would be made by this aspect of the

proposal.

OMB Review

This proposed rule has been reviewed

by OMB under Executive Order 12866.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Secretary hereby certifies that

this regulatory amendment will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities as

they are defined in the Regulatory

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

The reason for this certification is that

these amendments would not directly

affect any small entities. Only VA

beneficiaries could be directly affected.

Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b),

these amendments are exempt from the

initial and final regulatory flexibility

analysis requirements of sections 603

and 604.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance program numbers are 64.100,