30656 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules

specified below. Although the

Commission previously accepted and

analyzed public comment on this

subject when it issued the policy

statement, the policy statement did not

offer a specific amendment to the

interpretative reporting rule. The

Commission has, therefore, elected to

solicit public comment on the proposed

amendment, even though, as an

amendment to an interpretative rule,

notice and comment is not required

under the Administrative Procedure

Act. To assist members of the public

who wish to comment, the Commission

has included the text of the final policy

statement in this notice.

Guidance Document on Reporting

Information Under 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)

About Potentially Hazardous Products

Manufactured or Distributed Outside

the United States

Section 15(b) of the Consumer

Product Safety Act (CPSA), 15 U.S.C.

2064(b), imposes specific reporting

obligations on manufacturers, importers,

distributors and retailers of consumer

products distributed in commerce. A

firm that obtains information that

reasonably supports the conclusion that

such a product:

• Fails to comply with an applicable

consumer product safety rule or with a

voluntary consumer product safety

standard upon which the Commission

has relied under section 9 of the CPSA,

• Contains a defect that could create

a substantial product hazard as defined

in section 15(a)(2) of the CPSA, 15

U.S.C. 2064(a)(2), or

• Creates an unreasonable risk of

serious injury or death must

immediately inform the Commission

unless the firm has actual knowledge

that the Commission has been

adequately informed of the failure to

comply, defect, or risk.

The purpose of reporting is to provide

the Commission with the information it

needs to determine whether remedial

action is necessary to protect the public.

To accomplish this purpose, section

15(b) contemplates that the Commission

receive, at the earliest time possible, all

available information that can assist it

in evaluating potential product hazards.

For example, in deciding whether to

report a potential product defect, the

law does not limit the obligation to

report to those cases in which a firm has

finally determined that a product in fact

contains a defect that creates a

substantial product hazard or has

pinpointed the exact cause of such a

defect. Rather, a firm must report if it

obtains information which reasonably

supports the conclusion that a product

it manufactures and/or distributes

contains a defect which could create

such a hazard or that the product creates

an unreasonable risk of serious injury or

death. 15 U.S.C. 2064(b)(2) and (3); 16

CFR 1115.4 and 6. Nothing in the

reporting requirements of the CPSA or

the Commission’s interpretive

regulation at 16 CFR part 1115 limits

reporting to information derived solely

from experience with products sold in

the United States. The Commission’s

interpretative rule enumerates, at 16

CFR 1115.12(f), examples of the

different types of information that a firm

should consider in determining whether

to report. The regulation does not

exclude information from evaluation

because of its geographic source. The

Commission interprets the statutory

reporting requirements to mean that, if

a firm obtains information that meets

the criteria for reporting listed above

and that is relevant to a product it sells

or distributes in the U.S., it must report

that information to the CPSC, no matter

where the information came from. Such

information could include incidents or

experience with the same or a

substantially similar product, or a

component thereof, sold in a foreign

country.

Over the past several years, the

Commission has received reports under

section 15(b) that have included

information on experience with

products abroad, and, when

appropriate, has initiated recalls based

in whole or in part on that experience.

Thus, a number of companies already

view the statutory language as the

Commission does. However, with the

expanding global market, more firms are

obtaining this type of information, but

many may be unfamiliar with this

aspect of reporting. Therefore, the

Commission issues this policy statement

to assist those firms in complying with

the requirements of section 15(b) of the

Consumer Product Safety Act.

Proposed Effective Date: The

Commission proposes that this revision

become effective 30 days after the date

of publication of the revised final

intepretative rule in the Federal

Register.

List of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 1115

Administrative practice and

procedure, Business and industry,

Consumer protection, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

In accordance with the procedures of

5 U.S.C. 553 and under the authority of

the Consumer Product Safety Act, 15

U.S.C. 2051 et seq., the Commission

proposes to amend part 1115 of title 16,

Chapter II, of the Code of Federal

Regulations as follows:

PART 1115—SUBSTANTIAL PRODUCT

HAZARD REPORTS

1. The authority citation for part 1115

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2061, 2064, 2065,

2066(a), 2068, 2070, 2071, 2073, 2076, 2079

and 2084.

2. Section 1115.12(f) introductory text

is revised to read as follows:

§ 1115.12 Information which should be

reported; evaluating substantial product

hazards.

* * * * *

(f) Information which should be

studied and evaluated. Paragraphs (f)(1)

through (7) of this section are examples

of information which a subject firm

should study and evaluate in order to

determine whether it is obligated to

report under section 15(b) of the CPSA.

Such information may include

information about product experience,

performance, design, or manufacture

outside the United States that is relevant

to products sold or distributed in the

United States. All information should be

evaluated to determine whether it

suggests the existence of a

noncompliance, a defect, or an

unreasonable risk of serious injury or

death:

* * * * *

Dated: June 1, 2001.

Sadye E. Dunn,

Secretary, Consumer Product Safety

Commission.

[FR Doc. 01–14298 Filed 6–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6355–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[IN135–1; FRL–6993–6]

Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans; Indiana

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On November 15, 2000, the

State of Indiana submitted a State

Implementation Plan (SIP) revision

request to the EPA which tightens

Volatile Organic Compound (VOC)

regulations for cold cleaning degreasing

operations in Clark, Floyd, Lake and

Porter Counties, which are

nonattainment for ozone. VOC combines

with oxides of nitrogen in the

atmosphere to form ground-level ozone,

commonly known as smog. Exposure to

ozone is associated with a wide variety

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30657

of human health effects, agricultural

crop loss, and damage to forests and

ecosystems. The State has included the

tightened cold cleaning degreasing

regulations in its 2002, 2005 and 2007

Rate-Of-Progress (ROP) Plans and its

2007 attainment demonstration for Lake

and Porter Counties. Indiana expects

that the control measures specified in

this SIP revision will reduce VOC

emissions in Clark, Floyd, Lake and

Porter Counties. EPA is proposing to

approve this SIP revision request.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before July 9, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be sent to: J. Elmer Bortzer, Chief,

Regulation Development Section, Air

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 77

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,

Illinois 60604.

Copies of this SIP revision request are

available for public inspection during

normal business hours at the following

address: U.S. Environmental Protection

Agency, Region 5, Air and Radiation

Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,

Chicago, Illinois 60604. (It is

recommended that you telephone

Steven Rosenthal at (312) 886–6052

before visiting the Region 5 Office.)

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven Rosenthal, Air Programs Branch

(AR–18J), U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, Region 5, 77 West

Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois

60604,Telephone: (312) 886–6052, EMail: rosenthal.steven@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Throughout this document, the terms

‘‘you’’ and ‘‘me’’ refer to the reader of

this proposed rulemaking and to sources

subject to the State rule addressed by

this proposed rulemaking, and the terms

‘‘we,’’ ‘‘us,’’ or ‘‘our’’ refer to the EPA.

Table of Contents

I. Background

A. What is a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)?

B. What is the Federal approval process for

a SIP?

C. What does Federal approval of a state

regulation mean to me?

D. What is the purpose of this cold

cleaning degreasing rule?

E. What are the key milestone dates for this

rule?

II. Evaluation of the Rule

A. What are the basic components of the

State’s rule?

B. Is this rule approvable?

III. Proposed Action

A. What action is EPA proposing today?

IV. Administrative Requirements

I. Background

A. What Is a State Implementation Plan

(SIP)

Section 110 of the Clean Air Act (Act

or CAA) requires states to develop air

pollution control regulations and

strategies to ensure that state air quality

meets the national ambient air quality

standards established by the EPA. Each

state must submit the regulations and

emission control strategies to the EPA

for approval and promulgation into the

federally enforceable SIP.

Each federally approved SIP protects

air quality primarily by addressing air

pollution at its points of origin. The

SIPs can be and generally are extensive,

containing many state regulations or

other enforceable documents and

supporting information, such as

emission inventories, monitoring

documentation, and modeling

(attainment) demonstrations.

B. What Is the Federal Approval Process

for a SIP?

In order for state regulations to be

incorporated into the federally

enforceable SIP, states must formally

adopt the regulations and emission

control strategies consistent with state

and federal requirements. This process

generally includes public notice, public

hearings, public comment periods, and

formal adoption by state-authorized

rulemaking bodies.

Once a state has adopted a rule,

regulation, or emissions control strategy

it submits it to us for inclusion into the

SIP. We must provide public notice and

seek additional public comment

regarding the proposed federal action on

the state submission. If we receive

adverse comments we address them

prior to any final federal action (we

generally address them in a final

rulemaking action).

The EPA incorporates into the

federally approved SIP all state

regulations and supporting information

it has approved under section 110 of the

Act. Records of such SIP actions are

maintained in the Code of Federal

Regulations (CFR) at Title 40, Part 52,

titled ‘‘Approval and Promulgation of

Implementation Plans.’’ The actual state

regulations the EPA has approved are

not reproduced in their entirety in the

CFR, but are ‘‘incorporated by

reference,’’ which means that EPA has

approved a given state regulation (or

rule) with a specific effective date.

C. What Does Federal Approval of a

State Regulation Mean to Me?

Enforcement of a state regulation

before and after it is incorporated into

a federally approved SIP is primarily a

state responsibility. After the regulation

is federally approved, however, the

CAA authorizes the EPA to take

enforcement actions against violators.

The CAA also offers citizens legal

recourse to address violations, as

provided in section 304 of the Act.

D. What Is the Purpose of This Cold

Cleaning Degreasing Rule?

Section 182(c)(2)(B) of the Act

requires any serious and above ozone

nonattainment area to achieve post-1996

ROP reductions of 3 percent of VOC

1990 baseline emissions per year,

averaged over each consecutive 3-year

period, until the area has achieved

attainment of the 1-hour ozone National

Ambient Air Quality Standard. In

Indiana, Lake and Porter Counties are

classified as ‘‘severe’’ nonattainment for

the 1-hour ozone standard. As such, the

Northwest Indiana nonattainment area

is subject to the post-1996 ROP

requirement.

The Act specifies under section

182(b)(1)(C) that emission reductions

claimed under ROP plans must be

achieved through the implementation of

control measures through revisions to

the SIP, the promulgation of federal

rules, or the issuance of permits under

Title V of the Act. The state may not

include as part of its ROP reduction

control measures implemented before

November 15, 1990.

Indiana has submitted tightened cold

cleaning degreasing rules for the control

of VOC as a revision to the SIP for the

purpose of meeting post-1996 ROP

requirements for the Northwest Indiana

ozone nonattainment area and to reduce

VOC emissions in Clark and Floyd

counties. Cold cleaning degreasing is

used to remove grease and oil from

metal parts.

E. What Are the Key Milestone Dates for

This Rule?

Indiana held a public hearing on the

tightened rules on February 4, 1998, in

Indianapolis, Indiana. The Indiana Air

Pollution Control Board finally adopted

the rules on November 4, 1998. The rule

revisions became effective May 27,

1999, and were formally submitted to

EPA on November 15, 2000, as a

revision to the Indiana SIP for ozone.

The November 15, 2000, submittal

includes amendments to 326 IAC 8–3–

1 Applicability and 326 IAC 8–3–8

Material Requirements for Cold

Cleaning Degreasers

II. Evaluation of the Rule

A. What Are the Basic Components of

the State’s Rule?

Indiana originally implemented cold

cleaning degreasing rules, which are

30658 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules

contained in 326 IAC 8–3, as part of its

Reasonably Available Control

Technology (RACT) requirements for

VOC control. The November 15, 2000

SIP revision submittal amends section

326 IAC 8–3–1 and adds section 326

IAC 8–3–8, material requirements for

cold cleaning degreasers, which tightens

requirements for operators of cold

cleaning degreasers and adds new

requirements for sellers of solvent for

use in cold cleaning degreasing

operations. The rules are more stringent

because a requirement has been added

limiting the vapor pressure of the

cleaning solvents to 1.0 millimeters of

mercury (mm Hg), which is lower than

the vapor pressure of cleaning solvents

that are typically used. Lowering the

vapor pressure reduces the amount of

VOC emissions generated from this

degreasing operation.

As previously discussed, this SIP

revision submittal is required by the Act

to the extent that Indiana submitted the

rule to meet its post-1996 ROP

requirements. The EPA will review the

rule and address what emission

reductions this SIP revision is expected

to achieve for purposes of ROP when it

undertakes rulemaking action on

Indiana’s post-1996 ROP plan for

Northwest Indiana.

To determine whether the Indiana

submittal meets the requirements for an

approvable SIP revision, the EPA

reviewed the rules for their consistency

with section 110 and part D of the Act.

A discussion of the rules and EPA’s

evaluation follows.

Material Requirements

Section 326 IAC 8–3–8 has been

added to limit the vapor pressure of

solvent used or sold for use in cold

cleaning degreasing operations in Clark,

Floyd, Lake and Porter Counties.

Beginning November 1, 1999, the vapor

pressure limit is 2.0 mm Hg, or 0.038

pounds per square inch (psi) measured

at 20 degrees Celsius (C) (68 degrees

Fahrenheit (F)). On May 1, 2001, the

vapor pressures limit is tightened to 1.0

mm Hg (0.019 psi) measured at 20

degrees C (68 degrees F).

Exemptions

The supplier sale requirements in

Section 326 IAC 8–3–8(c) do not apply

to the sale of 5 gallons or less of solvents

during any 7 consecutive days to an

individual or business. This cutoff level

is only expected to exempt a very small

amount of the total solvent sold.

Section 326 IAC 8–3–8(a) exempts the

cleaning of electronic components from

the vapor pressure limits under section

326 IAC 8–3–8(c). Indiana has defined

‘‘electronic components’’ under section

326 IAC 8–3–8(b) as all components of

an electronic assembly, including, but

not limited to, circuit board assemblies,

printed wire assemblies, printed circuit

boards, soldered joints, ground wires,

bus bars, and any other associated

electronic component manufacturing

equipment. Indiana added this

exemption because solvents limited to

1.0 mmHg vapor pressure do not

adequately clean certain types of

electronic equipment.

Recordkeeping

Section 326 IAC 8–3–8(d) requires

subject solvent suppliers and users to

maintain documents which indicate the

solvent’s vapor pressure at the

prescribed temperature. The marketers

of cold cleaning solvents to users must

keep records indicating the name and

address of the solvent purchaser, the

date of purchase, the type of solvent

purchased, the unit volume of the

solvent, the total volume purchased,

and the vapor pressure of the solvent

purchased measured in mmHg at 20

degrees C (68 degrees F). Solvent users

must maintain records for each solvent

purchase indicating the name and

address of the solvent supplier, the date

of the solvent purchase, the type of

solvent purchased, and the vapor

pressure of solvent measured in mmHg

at 20 degrees C (68 degrees F). These

records must be kept on-site for 3 years

and be reasonably accessible for an

additional 2 years.

As discussed above, these

recordkeeping provisions require that

both the sellers and users of the

cleaning solvents keep records of the

vapor pressure. Material Safety Data

Sheets, which are required by

Occupational Health and Safety

regulations (20 CFR 1918), must specify

the vapor pressure of the solvent (this

Occupational Health and Safety

requirement affects but is not directly

referenced by Indiana’s rule). In its

response to a comment on

recordkeeping Indiana stated (in the

September 1, 1997, Indiana register):

‘‘To fulfill the recordkeeping

requirements of this rule the user of a

cold cleaning degreaser would need to

maintain a Material Safety Data Sheet

and a sales receipt.’’ These record

requirements provide a sufficient basis

to enforce the applicable rules.

B. Is This Rule Approvable?

This rule change requires the use of

cleaning solvents with a lower vapor

pressure than what is typically used.

This makes the rule more stringent,

because the lower the vapor pressure

the less VOC emissions are generated.

These rule revisions are, therefore,

approvable.

III. Proposed Action

A. What Action Is EPA Proposing

Today?

The EPA is proposing to approve

Indiana’s tightened cold cleaning

degreasing rules for Clark, Floyd, Lake

and Porter Counties.

IV. Administrative Requirements

Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR

51735, October 4, 1993), this proposed

action is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ and therefore is not subject to

review by the Office of Management and

Budget. This proposed action merely

proposes to approve state law as

meeting federal requirements and

imposes no additional requirements

beyond those imposed by state law.

Accordingly, the Administrator certifies

that this proposed rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Because this rule

proposes to approve pre-existing

requirements under state law and does

not impose any additional enforceable

duty beyond that required by state law,

it 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). This proposed

rule also does not have a substantial

direct effect on one or more Indian

tribes, on the relationship between the

Federal Government and Indian tribes,

or on the distribution of power and

responsibilities between the Federal

Government and Indian tribes, as

specified by Executive Order 13175 (65

FR 67249, November 9, 2000), nor will

it have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

national government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government, as specified in

Executive Order 13132 (64 FR 43255,

August 10, 1999), because it merely

proposes to approve a state rule

implementing a federal standard, and

does not alter the relationship or the

distribution of power and

responsibilities established in the Clean

Air Act. This proposed rule also is not

subject to Executive Order 13045 (62 FR

19885, April 23, 1997), because it is not

economically significant.

In reviewing SIP submissions, EPA’s

role is to approve state choices,

provided that they meet the criteria of

the Clean Air Act. In this context, in the

absence of a prior existing requirement

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 110 / Thursday, June 7, 2001 / Proposed Rules 30659

for the State to use voluntary consensus

standards (VCS), EPA has no authority

to disapprove a SIP submission for

failure to use VCS. It would thus be

inconsistent with applicable law for

EPA, when it reviews a SIP submission,

to use VCS in place of a SIP submission

that otherwise satisfies the provisions of

the Clean Air Act. Thus, the

requirements of section 12(d) of the

National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C.

272 note) do not apply. As required by

section 3 of Executive Order 12988 (61

FR 4729, February 7, 1996), in issuing

this proposed rule, EPA has taken the

necessary steps to eliminate drafting

errors and ambiguity, minimize

potential litigation, and provide a clear

legal standard for affected conduct. EPA

has complied with Executive Order

12630 (53 FR 8859, March 15, 1988) by

examining the takings implications of

the rule in accordance with the

‘‘Attorney General’s Supplemental

Guidelines for the Evaluation of Risk

and Avoidance of Unanticipated

Takings’’ issued under the executive

order. This proposed rule does not

impose an information collection

burden under the provisions of the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Volatile organic

compounds, Ozone.

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

Dated: May 30, 2001.

Norman Neidergang,

Acting Regional Administrator, Region 5.

[FR Doc. 01–14377 Filed 6–6–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–U

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

48 CFR Parts 801, 806, 812, 837, 852,

and 873

RIN 2900–AI71

VA Acquisition Regulation: Simplified

Acquisition Procedures for HealthCare Resources

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule

and promulgation of a new proposed

rule.

SUMMARY: This document withdraws the

proposed rule concerning simplified

acquisition procedures for health-care

resources published in the Federal

Register on November 9, 1998, and

promulgates a new proposed rule

concerning simplified acquisition

procedures for health-care resources.

This new proposed rule document

would amend the Department of

Veterans Affairs Acquisition Regulation

(VAAR) to establish simplified

procedures for the competitive

acquisition of health-care resources,

consisting of commercial services or the

use of medical equipment or space,

pursuant to 38 U.S.C. 8151–8153. Public

Law 104–262, the Veterans’ Health Care

Eligibility Reform Act of 1996,

authorized VA to prescribe simplified

procedures for the procurement of

health-care resources. This proposed

rule prescribes those procedures.

DATES: Comments on this proposed rule

should be submitted on or before

August 6, 2001 to be considered in the

formulation of the final rule.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand-deliver

written comments to: Director, Office of

Regulations Management (02D),

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810

Vermont Avenue, 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–

AI71.’’ All comments received will be

available for public inspection in the

Office of Regulations Management,

Room 1158, between the hours of 8 a.m.

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

(except holidays).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Dennis Foley, (202) 273–9225, Office of

the General Counsel, Professional Staff

Group V; or Don Kaliher, (202) 273–

8819, Acquisition Resources Service,

Office of Acquisition and Materiel

Management, Department of Veterans

Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20420.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

November 9, 1998, we published in the

Federal Register (63 FR 60256) a

proposed rule to amend the Department

of Veterans Affairs Acquisition

Regulation (VAAR), pursuant to 38

U.S.C. 8151–8153, to establish

simplified procedures for the

competitive acquisition of health-care

resources consisting of commercial

services or the use of medical

equipment or space. This document

withdraws the proposed rule of

November 9, 1998. In its place, we are

promulgating a new proposed rule

concerning the same subject matter. The

new proposed rule is changed from the

withdrawn proposed rule as explained

below. Also, this document addresses

the public comments that we received

in response to the withdrawn proposed

rule. Comments were solicited

concerning the November 9, 1998,

proposal for 60 days, ending January 9,

1999.

Based on the public comments

received, we have determined that a

revised proposed rule is necessary to

more fully address the potential impact

of the proposed rule on small business.

In this regard, we have added an initial

regulatory flexibility analysis.

Currently, the acquisition of healthcare resources that consist of

commercial services or the use of

medical equipment or space is governed

by the VAAR and the Federal

Acquisition Regulation (FAR). Statutory

provisions at 38 U.S.C. 8153 (Pub. L.

104–262) specifically authorize the

Secretary of Veterans Affairs, after

consultation with the Administrator for

Federal Procurement Policy, to establish

simplified procedures for the

competitive procurement of such

health-care resources. VA has consulted

with the Administrator for Federal

Procurement Policy and VA proposes to

establish simplified procedures as set

forth in this document. These proposed

simplified procedures are applicable

only to acquisitions conducted by the

Veterans Health Administration (VHA),

one of three administrations that

comprise the Department of Veterans

Affairs.

Under the provisions of Pub. L. 104–

262, procurements under the simplified

procedures may be conducted ‘‘without

regard to any law or regulation that

would otherwise require the use of

competitive procedures.’’ Accordingly,

the competitive procedures of any laws

and regulations (including the

competitive procedures of FAR and

VAAR and their underlying laws) would

be superseded by the simplified

procedures. However, under the

provisions of Pub. L. 104–262, with

certain exceptions, the simplified

procedures are required to ‘‘permit all

responsible sources, as appropriate, to

submit a bid, proposal, or quotation (as

appropriate) for the resources to be

procured and provide for the

consideration by the Department of

bids, proposals, or quotations so

submitted.’’ This allows VA to limit

competition to the extent it determines

reasonable for the circumstances of each

particular acquisition. Consistent with

the principles set forth above, this

document proposes to establish a new

VAAR Part 873 setting forth such

simplified procedures.

Under the provisions of 38 U.S.C.

8153, health-care resources consisting of

commercial services, the use of medical

equipment or space, or research,

acquired from an institution affiliated

with VA in accordance with 38 U.S.C.