34500 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with the requirements 

of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3506), the agencies have 

reviewed the interim final rule to assess 

any information collections. There are 

no collections of information as defined 

by the Paperwork Reduction Act in the 

final rule. 

Executive Order 12866 

Executive Order 12866 requires 

federal agencies to prepare a regulatory 

impact analysis for agency actions that 

are found to be ‘‘significant regulatory 

actions.’’ Significant regulatory actions 

include, among other things, 

rulemakings that ‘‘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 governments or 

communities.’’ The OCC determined 

that the final rule is not a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

Determination 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995, Public Law 104–4, (2 U.S.C. 

1532) (UMRA) requires that an agency 

prepare a budgetary impact statement 

before promulgating a rule that includes 

a federal mandate that may result in the 

expenditure by state, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

one year. If a budgetary impact 

statement is required, section 205 of the 

UMRA also requires an agency to 

identify and consider a reasonable 

number of regulatory alternatives before 

promulgating a rule. The OCC has 

determined that the final rule will not 

result in expenditures by State, local, 

and tribal governments, in the aggregate, 

or by the private sector, of $100 million 

or more in any one year. Accordingly, 

the OCC has not prepared a budgetary 

impact statement or specifically 

addressed the regulatory alternatives 

considered. 

List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 3 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Banks, Banking, Capital, 

National banks, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, Risk. 

Authority and Issuance 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

the Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency amends Part 3 of chapter I of 

Title 12, Code of Federal Regulations as 

follows: 

PART 3—MINIMUM CAPITAL RATIOS; 

ISSUANCE OF DIRECTIVES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 3 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 12 U.S.C. 93a, 161, 1818, 

1828(n), 1828 note, 1831n note, 1835, 3907, 

and 3909. 

■ 2. In appendix A to Part 3, in section 

3, add two sentences to the end of 

paragraph (a)(3)(iii) to read as follows: 

Appendix A to Part 3—Risk Based 

Capital Guidelines 

* * * * * 

Section 3. Risk Categories/Weights for OnBalance Sheet Assets and Off-Balance Sheet 

Items 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(3) * * * 

(iii) * * * If a bank holds a first lien and 

junior lien on a one-to-four family residential 

property and no other party holds an 

intervening lien, the transaction is treated as 

a single loan secured by a first lien for the 

purposes of both determining the loan-tovalue ratio and assigning a risk weight to the 

transaction. Furthermore, residential 

property loans made for the purpose of 

construction financing are assigned to the 

100% risk category of section 3(a)(4) of this 

appendix A; however, these loans may be 

included in the 50% risk category of this 

section 3(a)(3) of this appendix A if they are 

the subject to a legally binding sales contract 

and satisfy the requirements of section 

3(a)(3)(iv) of this appendix A. 

* * * * * 

Dated: July 9, 2009. 

By the Office of the Comptroller of the 

Currency. 

Julie L. Williams, 

First Senior Deputy Comptroller and Chief 

Counsel. 

[FR Doc. E9–16882 Filed 7–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–33–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 17 

RIN 2900–AN20 

Elimination of Requirement for Prior 

Signature Consent and Pre- and PostTest Counseling for HIV Testing 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This document adopts, 

without change, the proposed rule 

published in the Federal Register on 

December 29, 2008, updating informed 

consent requirements related to testing 

for the Human Immunodeficiency Virus 

(HIV) for Veterans receiving health care 

from the Department of Veterans Affairs 

(VA). This final rule is in accordance 

with related provisions of the Veteran’s 

Mental Health and Other Care 

Improvements Act of 2008. The final 

rule eliminates the regulatory 

requirement for written informed 

consent for HIV testing and specific preand post-test counseling of Veteran 

patients. VA will implement this rule 

through internal policy guidance 

specifying these requirements and how 

they apply to HIV testing. 

DATES: Effective Date: This final rule is 

effective August 17, 2009. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Ronald O. Valdiserri, MD, MPH, Chief 

Consultant (13B), Public Health 

Strategic Healthcare Group, Department 

of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, 

(202) 461–1040. (This is not a toll-free 

number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

December 29, 2008, VA published a 

proposed rule in the Federal Register 

(73 FR 79428). We proposed to amend 

38 CFR 17.32(d), VA’s regulation 

concerning documentation of informed 

consent, and 38 CFR 17.32(g), VA’s 

regulation concerning special consent 

situations, by removing the requirement 

for written rather than oral informed 

consent for HIV testing and specific preand post-test counseling of Veteran 

patients related to HIV testing. However, 

nothing in this regulation changes 

existing statutory requirements for 

informed consent. These changes are in 

response to provisions included in 

section 124 of Public Law 100–322, the 

Veteran’s Mental Health and Other Care 

Improvement Act of 2008. VA provided 

a 30-day comment period, which ended 

on January 28, 2009. 

We received a number of comments 

that did not address the proposed 

amendments to § 17.32 and thus were 

outside the scope of this rulemaking 

proceeding. Although we appreciate 

those comments, we will not address 

them in this final rule. 

We received comments concerning 

the proposed amendments from 10 

organizations and 10 individuals. 

Sixteen commenters expressed support 

for the proposed rule. We received two 

comments opposing the rule, one of 

which was submitted jointly by four 

commenters, and will address each of 

those comments below. 

VA proposed to amend the Informed 

Consent regulation for HIV testing in the 

medical regulations in 38 CFR part 17 

to remove § 17.32(d)(1)(vi) and 

17.32(g)(4). Section 124 of Public Law 

100–322 (1988) (‘‘section 124’’) 

prohibited any VA program from 

widespread testing to identify HIV 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34501 

infections unless Congress specifically 

appropriated funds for such a program. 

The statute further required VA to 

‘‘provide for a program’’ under which 

VA offered HIV testing to: (1) Any 

patient receiving care or services for 

intravenous drug abuse, diseases 

associated with HIV, and any patient 

otherwise at high risk for HIV infection; 

and (2) any patient requesting the test, 

unless medically contraindicated. No 

testing of any patient was permissible 

under section 124 without the prior 

written informed consent of the patient 

and the provision of pre- and post-test 

counseling. The Administration sought 

the repeal of section 124 to enable VA 

to bring its informed consent policy and 

procedures for HIV testing into line with 

current standards of practice, to 

improve potential health outcomes of 

infected patients, and to advance the 

country’s broader public health goals. 

Section 407 of Public Law 110–387 

repealed section 124 and eliminated the 

statutory requirements that VA’s HIVtesting policy include prior written 

consent and pre- and post-test 

counseling. To enable VA to bring its 

policy into conformance with the 

purpose of the legislation as well as 

with current medical practice, VA 

proposed to remove the provisions of 38 

CFR 17.32(d)(1)(vi) and (g)(4). 

One commenter opposed eliminating 

the requirements for pre-test counseling 

and signature consent because these 

requirements help guarantee veterans’ 

rights to choose their medical care, to 

have their privacy respected, and to be 

treated with dignity. VA agrees that in 

all of its actions, the Department should 

promote respect for these rights. 

However, other provisions in current 

regulations, which are not amended by 

this final rule, address the commenter’s 

concerns. Specifically, we will use oral 

informed consent, consistent with 38 

CFR 17.32(b), which requires that all 

patient care furnished by VA, including 

HIV testing, ‘‘shall be carried out only 

with the full and informed consent of 

the patient or, in appropriate cases, a 

representative thereof.’’ Informed 

consent is ‘‘the freely given consent that 

follows a careful explanation by the 

practitioner to the patient or the 

patient’s surrogate of the proposed 

diagnostic or therapeutic procedure or 

course of treatment.’’ 38 CFR 17.32(c). 

As part of the informed consent process 

in § 17.32(c), VA practitioners are 

required to ‘‘explain in language 

understandable to the patient or 

surrogate the nature of a proposed 

procedure or treatment; the expected 

benefits; reasonably foreseeable 

associated risks, complications or side 

effects; reasonable and available 

alternatives; and anticipated results if 

nothing is done.’’ Section 17.32(c) 

further requires that ‘‘[t]he patient or 

surrogate must be given the opportunity 

to ask questions, to indicate 

comprehension of the information 

provided, and to grant permission freely 

without coercion,’’ and that the patient 

or surrogate ‘‘may withhold or revoke 

his or her consent at any time.’’ These 

regulatory requirements are grounded in 

Veterans’ right to choose their medical 

care, to have their privacy respected, 

and to be treated with dignity. 

Moreover, as noted in the Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM), the 

protections that we will continue to 

provide are still more rigorous than 

those generally found in the private 

sector. 

Accordingly, we will not make any 

changes to the final rule based upon the 

comment. 

Four commenters jointly opposed the 

proposed rule because they believed 

that requirements for pre- and post-test 

counseling and written informed 

consent are not meaningful barriers to 

promptly identifying people infected 

with HIV. These commenters cited 

several examples of organizations that 

have successfully increased their rates 

of HIV testing by streamlining their 

procedures for pre-test counseling and 

written informed consent. 

Our primary purposes in eliminating 

these requirements are (1) to eliminate 

any unnecessary impediments to HIV 

testing, (2) to enable VA to make its 

informed consent and procedures for 

HIV testing consistent with our 

procedures for other routine clinical 

tests run by VA, and (3) to enable us to 

bring our procedures in line with 

current standards of practice as 

recommended by the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention while protecting 

the rights of patients in other health care 

systems. We carefully considered the 

alternatives available to VA, including 

the ‘‘streamlining’’ suggested by the 

commenters, but nonetheless concluded 

that there was insufficient reason to 

maintain the pre-test counseling and 

written informed consent requirements 

that have been shown to be associated 

with lower rates of HIV testing. By 

eliminating these requirements and 

replacing them with other less 

cumbersome procedures to ensure that 

patients are fully informed and have the 

opportunity to consent or refuse HIV 

testing, we believe we can increase 

testing rates while still protecting the 

rights and interests of our Veteran 

patients. 

We note, briefly, that several studies 

support the proposition that eliminating 

pre-test counseling and prior written 

informed consent may lead to increased 

testing rates, especially when combined 

with improved testing procedures. See, 

NM Zetola et al., Association between 

rates of HIV testing and elimination of 

written consents in San Francisco, 297 

JAMA 1061–2 (2007); PD Ehrenkranz et 

al., Written Informed Consent Statutes 

and HIV Testing, Am J Prev Med (May 

2009) (Epub ahead of print); C. Wing, 

Effects of written informed consent 

requirements on HIV testing rates: 

evidence from a natural experiment, 99 

Am J Pub Health 1087–92 (2009); RC 

Burke et al., Why don’t physicians test 

for HIV? A review of the US literature, 

21 AIDS 1617–24 (2007). This literature 

supports our decision that a program of 

prior informed oral consent, combined 

with better procedures, is the most 

efficient and effective method available 

at this time to achieve higher HIV 

testing rates, irrespective of whether 

other less or equally effective 

alternatives are available. 

The commenters also argued that the 

current requirement for pre-test 

counseling should be retained because 

patients benefit from receiving the 

information VA currently provides 

through pre-test counseling, such as 

information about how HIV is spread 

and measures to be taken for prevention 

of HIV transmission. They further 

argued that post-test counseling should 

be retained because it is important for 

patients who test negative for HIV, 

especially those who engage in high-risk 

behaviors. Finally, they argued against 

eliminating the written consent 

requirement because written consent is 

needed to ensure that information has 

been provided to patients and that 

consent has been given. We will not 

make any changes to the final rule based 

upon these comments. 

VA is committed to ensuring that 

Veterans continue to receive thorough 

and accurate information about HIV and 

HIV testing, and that HIV testing is 

performed only after the patient or the 

patient’s surrogate has received this 

information (see below) and specifically 

consented to undergo such testing. By 

eliminating the requirements for pre-test 

counseling, post-test counseling, and 

written informed consent for HIV 

testing, VA is not weakening patient 

protections, but merely streamlining its 

protocols to make them less 

cumbersome for practitioners and 

patients alike. 

Specifically, VA intends to use a 

variety of methods, including but not 

limited to those recommended by the 

Centers for Disease Control, to ensure 

that the current level of protections for 

patients is maintained. These methods 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
34502 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 

include providing patients with written 

education materials that cover much of 

the information that was previously 

covered in pre-test and post-test 

counseling, and ensuring that patients 

who engage in high risk behaviors are 

referred to necessary prevention 

services. Instead of using a written 

consent form to ensure that the 

information has been provided to 

patients and that consent has been 

given, VA practitioners will be required 

to document the oral informed consent 

process in a progress note. VA will 

implement this rule through internal 

policy guidance specifying these 

requirements and how they apply to 

HIV testing. Thus the final rule enables 

VA to streamline its procedures by 

removing unnecessary barriers to HIV 

testing, while still ensuring that patients 

are provided with accurate and 

thorough information about HIV and 

HIV testing, and that HIV testing is only 

performed with the full and informed 

consent of the patient or the patient’s 

surrogate. 

Of note, VA already has on its HIV 

Web site (http://www.hiv.va.gov) 

extensive educational materials on HIV 

and HIV testing, directed at both clinical 

providers and patients. We will direct 

patients to this Web site (in addition to 

other available resources) which 

addresses topics including the benefits 

and risks of HIV testing; how HIV 

testing is performed and interpreted; 

available treatments for HIV; and VA 

confidentiality protections for HIVinfected patients. This web site receives 

hundreds of thousands of page views 

per month, and represents a resource 

that is widely available to providers, 

Veterans, and the general public. Joint 

commenters also assert that the title of 

the NPRM was confusing and 

misleading because it referred to 

elimination of pre-test counseling, 

implying that VA providers will not 

have to provide information on HIV 

testing to Veteran patients. The title of 

the notice has no substantive effect, and 

to the extent that anyone might find it 

misleading, VA’s intent is clear from 

everything that follows the proposed 

rule title and as described in this final 

notice. 

The Joint commenters also favor 

mandated pre-test counseling on HIV 

testing because of other benefits to 

patients, including increasing testing 

rates and education of patients about 

HIV, including methods of preventing 

transmission. VA agrees that these are 

important goals; however, it respectfully 

disagrees that mandated pre-test 

counseling is required to achieve them. 

VA has already encouraged providers to 

routinely discuss HIV risk factors and to 

offer testing to all veterans who are at 

risk for HIV. See, e.g., Information Letter 

IL 10–2005–017, Need For Routine 

Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) 

Risk Assessment And Testing. VA 

intends to promulgate and implement a 

written policy directive extending this 

guidance to require providers to offer 

HIV testing to all patients, not just those 

at high risk. In addition, because of its 

electronic medical record and 

computerized provider ordering entry 

system, VA has the capacity to utilize 

technologies such as electronic 

reminders and other mechanisms to 

increase testing rates. Use of such 

mechanisms has been shown to aid in 

increasing HIV testing rates in the VA 

system. MB Goetz et al., A system-wide 

intervention to improve HIV testing in 

the Veterans Health Administration. 23 

J Gen Intern Med 1200–1207 (2008). 

However, we believe that these 

mechanisms alone are insufficient to 

adequately expand HIV testing within 

VA. The overall rates within VA remain 

low, even in facilities that have 

implemented these practices. RO 

Valdiserri et al. Frequency of HIV 

screening in the Veterans Health 

Administration: Implications for early 

diagnosis of HIV infection, 20 AIDS 

Educ Prev 258–264 (2008). 

The commenters also assert that 

mandated pre-test and post-counseling 

are necessary to ensure linkage to care. 

VA respectfully disagrees. The literature 

cited by the commenters in support of 

this point is drawn from settings outside 

the VA; in fact, VA has an excellent 

record of linkage to care, with current 

data showing that greater than 75 

percent of all HIV-infected Veterans in 

care within the VA system are on antiretroviral therapy, and that over 90 

percent of all HIV-infected Veterans in 

care within the VA system who require 

prophylaxis against opportunistic 

infections do in fact receive such 

prophylaxis. 

The commenters also object that 

Congress did not intend for VA to 

remove requirements for written 

informed consent and pre-test and postcounseling, asserting that the Congress’ 

primary goal was simply to remove the 

prohibition of wide-spread HIV testing. 

VA respectfully disagrees with this 

interpretation, based on the discussion 

of this issue in the NPRM of the plain 

language and history of the Veterans 

Mental Health Care and Other 

Improvements Act of 2008 (Pub. L. 110– 

387). As further evidence of Congress’ 

intent, the Senate Report on the 

predecessor bill criticized VA for not 

adopting CDC’s recommendations on 

HIV testing (which include removing 

requirements for written informed 

consent and pre-test counseling). S. Rep. 

110–85, at 56 (2008). 

The commenters also argue that 

mandated post-test counseling should 

be retained because it may decrease the 

risk of continued high-risk behavior by 

patients who have a negative HIV test. 

VA agrees with the importance of 

decreasing high-risk behavior, and as 

part of our directives and internal 

guidance, we will require providers to 

counsel patients who are engaged in 

high-risk behavior and to refer them as 

clinically appropriate to resources to 

reduce such high-risk behavior. 

Providers will also be required to offer 

repeat testing to high-risk individuals at 

least annually, as recommended by 

CDC. 

Finally, the same commenters argued 

that VA should retain the written 

informed consent requirement because 

it protects VA practitioners from 

liability. We disagree that this is a valid 

argument in support of keeping the 

written informed consent requirement. 

VA’s informed consent regulations and 

policy are designed to benefit and 

protect the patient; not to benefit VA 

practitioners or the Department. 

To the extent that the commenters 

requested that VA expand the scope of 

its testing or discuss post-test 

counseling, these comments were 

beyond the scope of this rulemaking. 

However, as noted earlier, VA intends to 

promulgate and implement a written 

policy on this issue. The policy 

guidance states that it is VHA policy 

that HIV testing is part of routine 

medical care; that providers recommend 

HIV testing to all veterans; that 

providers obtain full and informed 

consent of the veteran prior to testing; 

and that veterans who test positive for 

HIV infection must be referred for stateof-the-art HIV treatment, prevention of 

complications, and care of related 

conditions as soon as possible after 

diagnosis. 

Unfunded Mandates 

The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995 requires, at 2 U.S.C. 1532, that 

agencies prepare an assessment of 

anticipated costs and benefits before 

issuing any rule that may result in an 

expenditure by State, local, and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100 million or more 

(adjusted annually for inflation) in any 

year. This final rule would have no such 

effect on State, local, and tribal 

governments, or on the private sector. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This document contains no provisions 

constituting a collection of information 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 135 / Thursday, July 16, 2009 / Rules and Regulations 34503 

under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3521). 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs 

hereby certifies that this final rule 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a substantial number of small 

entities as they are defined in the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601– 

612. This final rule will directly affect 

only individuals and will not directly 

affect small entities. Therefore, this final 

rule is exempt, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

605(b), from the final regulatory 

flexibility analysis requirements of 

section 604. 

Executive Order 12866 

Executive Order 12866 directs 

agencies to assess all costs and benefits 

of available regulatory alternatives and, 

when regulation is necessary, to select 

regulatory approaches that maximize 

net benefits (including potential 

economic, environmental, public health 

and safety, and other advantages; 

distributive impacts; and equity). The 

Executive Order classifies a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action,’’ requiring review by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) unless OMB waives such review, 

as any regulatory action that is 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 

governments 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; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. 

VA has examined the economic, 

interagency, budgetary, legal, and policy 

implications of this final rule and has 

determined that it is a significant 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

12866. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

This final rule would affect the 

program that has the following Catalog 

of Federal Domestic Assistance program 

number and title: 64.009—Veterans 

Medical Care Benefits. To the extent 

that VA directly provides medical care 

to patients under the Civilian Health 

and Medical Program of the Department 

of Veterans Affairs or other programs, 

this rule would also affect those 

programs, which have no Catalog of 

Federal Domestic Assistance program 

numbers. 

List of Subjects in Part 17 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism, 

Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug 

abuse, Foreign relations, Government 

contracts, Grant programs—health, 

Grant programs, veterans, Health care, 

Health facilities, Health professions, 

Health records, Homeless, Medical and 

dental schools, Medical devices, 

Medical research, Mental health 

programs, Nursing homes, Philippines, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Scholarships and 

fellowships, Travel and transportation 

expenses, and Veterans. 

Approved May 15, 2009. 

John R. Gingrich, 

Chief of Staff, Department of Veterans Affairs. 

■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 

the Department of Veterans Affairs 

amends 38 CFR part 17 as follows: 

PART 17—MEDICAL 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 17 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 1721, and as 

noted in specific sections. 

■ 2. Section 17.32 is amended by: 

■ a. In paragraph (d)(1)(iv), adding ‘‘or’’ 

after the semicolon at the end of the 

paragraph. 

■ b. In paragraph (d)(1)(v), removing ‘‘; 

or’’ and adding, in its place, a period at 

the end of the paragraph. 

■ c. Removing paragraph (d)(1)(vi). 

■ d. Removing paragraph (g)(4). 

[FR Doc. E9–16898 Filed 7–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 52 

[EPA–R06–OAR–2007–0905; FRL–8931–1] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans; Texas; 

Revisions to General Air Quality Rules 

and the Mass Emissions Cap and 

Trade Program 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Direct final rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is taking a direct final 

action to approve portions of one 

revision to the Texas State 

Implementation Plan (SIP) submitted by 

the State of Texas on August 16, 2007; 

these portions of the SIP revision 

approved: Repeal an unnecessary 

effective date in the Texas SIP under 

Title 30 in the Texas Administrative 

Code (TAC), Chapter 101—General Air 

Quality Rules, Subchapter A—General 

Rules; and make non-substantive 

changes in the Texas SIP to the Mass 

Emissions Cap and Trade Program 

(MECT) under 30 TAC Chapter 101, 

Subchapter H—Emissions Banking and 

Trading, Division 3. EPA has 

determined that these changes to the 

Texas SIP comply with the Federal 

Clean Air Act (the Act or CAA) and EPA 

regulations, are consistent with EPA 

policies, and will improve air quality. 

This action is being taken under section 

110 and parts C and D of the Act. 

DATES: This direct final rule is effective 

on September 14, 2009 without further 

notice, unless EPA receives relevant 

adverse comment by August 17, 2009. If 

EPA receives such comment, EPA will 

publish a timely withdrawal in the 

Federal Register informing the public 

that this rule will not take effect. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R06– 

OAR–2007–0905, by one of the 

following methods: 

(1) www.regulations.gov: Follow the 

online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

(2) E-mail: Mr. Jeff Robinson at 

robinson.jeffrey@epa.gov. Please also cc 

the person listed in the FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT paragraph below. 

(3) U.S. EPA Region 6 ‘‘Contact Us’’ 

Web site: http://epa.gov/region6/ 

r6coment.htm. Please click on ‘‘6PD’’ 

(Multimedia) and select ‘‘Air’’ before 

submitting comments. 

(4) Fax: Mr. Jeff Robinson, Chief, Air 

Permits Section (6PD–R), at fax number 

214–665–6762. 

(5) Mail: Mr. Jeff Robinson, Chief, Air 

Permits Section (6PD–R), Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, 

Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. 

(6) Hand or Courier Delivery: Mr. Jeff 

Robinson, Chief, Air Permits Section 

(6PD–R), Environmental Protection 

Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 1200, 

Dallas, Texas 75202–2733. Such 

deliveries are accepted only between the 

hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. 

weekdays except for legal holidays. 

Special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R06–OAR–2007– 

0905. EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with RULES