Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 5191 

accordance with section 1.4.3 of NFPA 

101 (incorporated by reference, see 

§ 17.1), and must be approved in writing 

by the appropriate Veterans Health 

Administration, Veterans Integrated 

Service Network (VISN) Director. A 

veteran living in a medical foster home 

when the equivalency is granted or who 

is placed there after it is granted must 

be notified in writing of the 

equivalencies and that he or she must be 

willing to accept such equivalencies. 

The notice must describe the exact 

nature of the equivalency, the 

requirements of this section with which 

the medical foster home is unable to 

comply, and explain why the VISN 

Director deemed the equivalency 

necessary. Only equivalencies that the 

VISN Director determines do not pose a 

risk to the health or safety of the veteran 

may be granted. Also, equivalencies 

may only be granted when technical 

requirements of this section cannot be 

complied with absent undue expense, 

there is no other nearby home which 

can serve as an adequate alternative, 

and the equivalency is in the best 

interest of the veteran. 

(t) Cost of medical foster homes. 

(1) Payment for the charges to veterans 

for the cost of medical foster home care 

is not the responsibility of the United 

States Government. 

(2) The resident or an authorized 

personal representative and a 

representative of the medical foster 

home facility must agree upon the 

charge and payment procedures for 

medical foster home care. 

(3) The charges for medical foster 

home care must be comparable to prices 

charged by other assisted living and 

nursing home facilities in the area based 

on the veteran’s changing care needs 

and local availability of medical foster 

homes. (The Office of Management and 

Budget has approved the information 

collection requirements in this section 

under control number 2900–0777.) 

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1730) 

[FR Doc. 2012–2063 Filed 2–1–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0913; FRL–9625–5] 

Approval and Promulgation of Air 

Quality Implementation Plans; District 

of Columbia; Regional Haze State 

Implementation Plan 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is approving the District 

of Columbia Regional Haze Plan, a 

revision to the District of Columbia 

State Implementation Plan (SIP) 

addressing Clean Air Act (CAA) 

requirements and EPA’s rules for states 

to prevent and remedy future and 

existing anthropogenic impairment of 

visibility in mandatory Class I areas 

through a regional haze program. EPA is 

also approving this revision since it 

meets the infrastructure requirements 

relating to visibility protection for the 

1997 8-hour ozone National Ambient 

Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) and the 

1997 and 2006 fine particulate matter 

(PM2.5) NAAQS. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective on March 5, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: EPA has established a 

docket for this action under Docket ID 

Number EPA–R03–OAR–2011–0913. All 

documents in the docket are listed in 

the www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Although listed in the electronic docket, 

some information is not publicly 

available, i.e., confidential business 

information (CBI) or other information 

whose disclosure is restricted by statute. 

Certain other material, such as 

copyrighted material, is not placed on 

the Internet and will be publicly 

available only in hard copy form. 

Publicly available docket materials are 

available either electronically through 

www.regulations.gov or in hard copy for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Air Protection 

Division, U.S. Environmental Protection 

Agency, Region III, 1650 Arch Street, 

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103. 

Copies of the State submittal are 

available at the District Department of 

the Environment, 1200 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20002. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Jacqueline Lewis, (215) 814–2037, or by 

email at lewis.jacqueline@epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

Throughout this document, whenever 

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ is used, we mean 

EPA. On November 16, 2011 (76 FR 

70929), EPA published a notice of 

proposed rulemaking (NPR) for the 

District of Columbia. The NPR proposed 

approval of the District of Columbia’s 

regional haze plan for the first 

implementation period, through 2018. 

EPA proposed to approve this revision 

since it assures reasonable progress 

toward the national goal of achieving 

natural visibility conditions in Class I 

areas for the first implementation 

period. This revision also meets the 

infrastructure requirements of 

110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 110 (a)(2)(J), 

relating to visibility protection for the 

1997 8-hour ozone NAAQS and the 

1997 and 2006 PM2.5 NAAQS. 

II. Summary of SIP Revision 

The revision includes a long term 

strategy with enforceable measures 

ensuring reasonable progress towards 

meeting the reasonable progress goals 

for the first planning period, through 

2018. The District of Columbia’s 

Regional Haze Plan contains the 

emission reductions needed to achieve 

the District of Columbia’s share of 

emission reductions agreed upon 

through the regional planning process. 

Other specific requirements of the CAA 

and EPA’s Regional Haze Rule and the 

rationale for EPA’s proposed action are 

explained in the NPR and will not be 

restated here. No public comments were 

received on the NPR. 

III. Final Action 

EPA is approving a revision to the 

District of Columbia State 

Implementation Plan submitted by the 

District of Columbia, through the 

District Department of the Environment 

(DDOE), on October 27, 2011, that 

addresses regional haze for the first 

implementation period. EPA is making 

a determination that the District of 

Columbia Regional Haze SIP contains 

the emission reductions needed to 

achieve the District of Columbia’s share 

of emission reductions agreed upon 

through the regional planning process. 

Furthermore, the District of Columbia’s 

Regional Haze Plan ensures that 

emissions from the District will not 

interfere with the reasonable progress 

goals for neighboring states’ Class I 

areas. In addition, EPA is approving this 

revision because it meets the applicable 

visibility related requirements of the 

CAA section 110(a)(2) including, but not 

limited to 110(a)(2)(D)(i)(II) and 

110(a)(2)(J), relating to visibility 

protection for the 1997 8-hour ozone 

NAAQS and the 1997 and 2006 PM2.5

NAAQS. 

IV. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

A. General Requirements 

Under the CAA, the Administrator is 

required to approve a SIP submission 

that complies with the provisions of the 

CAA 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 CAA. Accordingly, this action 

merely approves state law as meeting 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
5192 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

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 (Pub. L. 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 CAA; and 

• Does not provide EPA with the 

discretionary authority to address, as 

appropriate, disproportionate human 

health or environmental effects, using 

practicable 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 District, and EPA notes 

that it will not impose substantial direct 

costs on tribal governments or preempt 

tribal law. 

B. Submission to Congress and the 

Comptroller General 

The Congressional Review Act, 5 

U.S.C. 801 et seq., as added by the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides 

that before a rule may take effect, the 

agency promulgating the rule must 

submit a rule report, which includes a 

copy of the rule, to each House of the 

Congress and to the Comptroller General 

of the United States. EPA will submit a 

report containing this action and other 

required information to the U.S. Senate, 

the U.S. House of Representatives, and 

the Comptroller General of the United 

States prior to publication of the rule in 

the Federal Register. A major rule 

cannot take effect until 60 days after it 

is published in the Federal Register. 

This action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). 

C. Petitions for Judicial Review 

Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, 

petitions for judicial review of this 

action must be filed in the United States 

Court of Appeals for the appropriate 

circuit by April 2, 2012. Filing a petition 

for reconsideration by the Administrator 

of this final rule does not affect the 

finality of this action for the purposes of 

judicial review nor does it extend the 

time within which a petition for judicial 

review may be filed, and shall not 

postpone the effectiveness of such rule 

or action. This action pertaining to the 

District of Columbia’s Regional Haze 

Plan for the first implementation period, 

through 2018 may not be challenged 

later in proceedings to enforce its 

requirements. (See section 307(b)(2).) 

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52 

Environmental protection, Air 

pollution control, Incorporation by 

reference, Nitrogen dioxide, Particulate 

matter, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Sulfur oxides, Volatile 

organic compounds. 

Dated: January 24, 2012. 

W. C. Early, 

Acting, Regional Administrator, Region III. 

40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows: 

PART 52—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 52 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. 

Subpart J—District of Columbia 

■ 2. In § 52.470, the table in paragraph 

(e) is amended by adding the entry for 

Regional Haze Plan at the end of the 

table to read as follows: 

§ 52.470 Identification of plan. 

* * * * * 

(e) * * * 

Name of nonregulatory SIP revision Applicable 

geographic area 

State submittal 

date 

EPA approval 

date 

Additional 

explanation 

*******

Regional Haze Plan ........................ Statewide ....................................... 10/27/11 2/2/12 [Insert 

page number 

where the 

document 

begins] 

[FR Doc. 2012–2197 Filed 2–1–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 22 / Thursday, February 2, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 5193 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Maritime Administration 

46 CFR Parts 251, 252, 276, 280, 281, 

282, and 283 

[Docket No. MARAD 2012–0004] 

RIN 2133–AB80 

Retrospective Review Under E.O. 

13563: Shipping—Removal of Obsolete 

Regulations 

AGENCY: Maritime Administration, 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: In accordance with Executive 

Order 13563, ‘‘Improving Regulation 

and Regulatory Review,’’ the Maritime 

Administration (MarAd) is evaluating 

the continued validity of its rules and 

determining whether they effectively 

address current issues. As part of this 

review, MarAd has decided to remove 

parts of its regulations. The Maritime 

Security Act of 1996, established the 

Maritime Security Program, which 

replaced the Operating-Differential 

Subsidy (ODS) Program. Therefore, the 

regulations pertaining to the ODS 

Program and the ConstructionDifferential (CDS) Program are no longer 

in use. In addition, the disuse of 

regulations pertaining to the CDS 

program, have rendered these 

regulations obsolete. This rulemaking, 

deleting these obsolete regulations, will 

have no substantive effect on the 

regulated public. 

DATES: This final rule is effective on 

February 2, 2012. 

ADDRESSES: This final rule is available 

for inspection and copying between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., ET, Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays, at the 

Docket Clerk, U.S. DOT Dockets, W12– 

140, Department of Transportation, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue SE., Washington, 

DC 20590–0001. An electronic version 

of this document is available on the 

World Wide Web at http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

T. Mitchell Hudson, Jr., Division of 

Legislation and Regulations, Office of 

Chief Counsel, Maritime 

Administration, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Room W24–220, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001; telephone: 

(202) 366–9373. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

On January 18, 2011, President 

Obama issued Executive Order 13563, 

which outlined a plan to improve 

regulation and regulatory review (76 FR 

3821, 1/21/11). Executive Order 13563 

reaffirms and builds upon governing 

principles of contemporary regulatory 

review, including Executive Order 

12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ (58 FR 51735, 10/4/1993), by 

requiring Federal agencies to design 

cost-effective, evidence-based 

regulations that are compatible with 

economic growth, job creation, and 

competitiveness. The President’s plan 

recognizes that these principles should 

not only guide the Federal government’s 

approach to new regulations, but to 

existing ones as well. To that end, 

Executive Order 13563 requires agencies 

to review existing significant rules to 

determine if they are outmoded, 

ineffective, insufficient, or excessively 

burdensome. 

Accordingly, the Maritime 

Administration (MarAd) is deleting 

regulations 46 CFR parts 251, 252, 276, 

280, 281,282, and 283. The regulations 

related to the ODS Program are no 

longer needed because they have been 

superseded by the Maritime Security 

Program established in the Maritime 

Security Act of 1996, Public Law 104– 

239. Section 3 of the Maritime Security 

Act of 1996 prohibits the Secretary of 

Transportation from entering into any 

new ODS contracts. Additionally, all 

previously awarded ODS contracts have 

expired and no further payments will be 

made. Therefore, the existing 

regulations do not serve any useful 

purpose. 

The regulations governing the CDS 

Program are being deleted because the 

program has not been funded for 

approximately thirty years and, as a 

practical matter of disuse, the existing 

regulations are outdated. If funds were 

to be appropriated for CDS in the future, 

contracts will be awarded under new 

regulations or under existing or 

modified policies and procedures for 

awarding grants. 

Rulemaking Analyses and Notices 

Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory 

Planning and Review), Executive Order 

13563 (Improving Regulation and 

Regulatory Review) and Department of 

Transportation (DOT) Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures; Public Law 

104–121 

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 

51735, October 4, 1993), supplemented 

by E.O. 13563 (76 FR 3821, January 18, 

2011) and DOT policies and procedures, 

MarAd must determine whether a 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant,’’ and 

therefore subject to OMB review and the 

requirements of the E.O. The Order 

defines ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ 

as one 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 government 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. 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

set forth in the E.O. 

MarAd has determined that this final 

rule is not considered a significant 

regulatory action under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, 

was not reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. This final rule 

will not result in an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more. It also 

is not considered a major rule for 

purposes of Congressional review under 

Public Law 104–121. This final rule is 

also not significant under the Regulatory 

Policies and Procedures of the 

Department of Transportation (44 FR 

11034, February 26, 1979). The costs 

and overall economic impact of this 

rulemaking are so minimal that no 

further analysis is necessary. 

Administrative Procedure Act 

The Administrative Procedure Act (5 

U.S.C. 553) provides an exception to 

notice and comment procedures when 

they are unnecessary or contrary to the 

public interest. MarAd finds that under 

5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) good cause exists 

for not providing notice and comment 

since this final rule deletes regulations 

that no longer serve the public interest 

as a result of having been superseded or 

as a matter of disuse. Under 5 U.S.C. 

553(d)(3), MarAd finds that, for the 

same reasons, good cause exists for 

making this rule effective less than 30 

days after publication in the Federal 

Register. 

Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) 

We analyzed this rulemaking in 

accordance with the principles and 

criteria contained in E.O. 13132 

(‘‘Federalism’’) and have determined 

that it does not have sufficient 

Federalism implications to warrant the 

preparation of a Federalism summary 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES