Notice of Rulemaking Workshop-Request for Expressions of Interest in Participation, 7496-7497 [E6-1928]
Download as PDF
7496
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
public docket. Information so marked
will not be disclosed except in
accordance with procedures set forth in
40 CFR part 2.
Worldwide Web (WWW). In addition
to being available in the docket, an
electronic copy of today’s proposal will
also be available through the WWW.
Following the Administrator’s signature,
a copy of this action will be posted on
EPA’s Technology Transfer Network
(TTN) policy and guidance page for
newly proposed or promulgated rules at
https://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The
TTN at EPA’s Web site provides
information and technology exchange in
various areas of air pollution control.
Direct Final Rule. A direct final rule
identical to the proposal is published in
the Rules and Regulations section of
today’s Federal Register. If we receive
any advers comment pertaining to the
amendments in the proposal, we will
publish a timely notice in the Federal
Register informing the public that the
amendments are being withdrawn due
to adverse comment. We will address all
public comments concerning the
withdrawn amendments in a subsequent
final rule. If no relevant adverse
comments are received, no further
action will be taken on the proposal,
and the direct final rule will become
effective as provided in the action.
The regulatory text for the proposal is
identical to that for the direct final rule
published in the Rules and Regulations
section of today’s Federal Register. For
further supplementary information, the
detailed rationale for the proposal and
the regulatory revisions, see the direct
final rule published in a separate part of
this Federal Register.
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
For a complete discussion of all of the
administrative requirements applicable
to this action, see the direct final rule in
the Rules and Regulations section of
today’s Federal Register.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
generally requires an agency to prepare
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any
rule subject to notice and comment
rulemaking requirements under the
Administrative Procedure Act or any
other statute unless the agency certifies
that the rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Small entities
include small businesses, small
organizations, and small governmental
jurisdictions.
For purposes of assessing the impact
of today’s proposed rule on small
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A
small business whose parent company
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:33 Feb 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
has fewer than 500 employees,
according to Small Business
Administration size standards
established under the NAICS for the
industries affected by today’s rule; (2) a
small governmental jurisdiction that is a
government of a city, county, town,
school district or special district with a
population of less than 50,000; and (3)
a small organization that is any not-forprofit enterprise that is independently
owned and operated and is not
dominant in its field.
After considering the economic
impacts of today’s proposed rule
amendments on small entities, I certify
that the proposed rule amendments will
not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small
entities. The proposed rule amendments
provide clarification and corrections to
the NESHAP for refractory products
manufacturing. This action includes
minor corrections and clarifications to
the Refractory Products Manufacturing
NESHAP that do not add any additional
requirements.
Although the direct final rule
amendments will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities, EPA
nonetheless has tried to reduce the
impact of the direct final rule
amendments on small entities. The EPA
has limited the amendments to changes
that clarify ambiguities of the Refractory
Products Manufacturing NESHAP,
correct citations to the General
Provisions, and clarify the complex
batch testing requirements of the
Refractory Products Manufacturing
NESHAP. The EPA believes that the
amendments will simplify the NESHAP
and will not add additional burden to
regulated entities. We continue to be
interested in the potential impacts of the
proposed rule on small entities and
welcome comments on issues related to
such impacts.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection,
Administrative practice and procedure,
Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Intergovernmental relations,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: December 7, 2005.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 06–1217 Filed 2–10–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00052
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
45 CFR Part 1621
Notice of Rulemaking Workshop—
Request for Expressions of Interest in
Participation
Legal Services Corporation.
Notice of Rulemaking Workshop
and Request for Expressions of Interest
in Participation in Workshop.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: LSC is conducting a
Rulemaking Workshop in connection
with its rulemaking to consider
revisions to its regulations on client
grievance procedures at 45 CFR part
1621. LSC hereby solicits expressions of
interest in participation in the
Workshop from the regulated
community, its clients, advocates, the
organized bar and other interested
parties.
DATES: Expressions of interest must be
received by February 24, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Victor M. Fortuno, Vice President &
General Counsel, Legal Services
Corporation, 3333 K St. NW.,
Washington, DC 20007; (202) 295–1620
(phone); 202–337–6831 (fax) or
vfortuno@lsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Legal
Services Corporation (‘‘LSC’’) has
initiated a rulemaking to consider
revisions to 45 CFR part 1621 (Client
Grievance Procedure). As part of this
rulemaking proceeding, LSC conducted
a Rulemaking Workshop on January 18,
2006. LSC is convening a second
Rulemaking Workshop prior to the
development of a Draft Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking. The Rulemaking
Workshop will be held on March 23,
2006, from 9 a.m.–5 p.m, e.s.t. The
Rulemaking Workshop will be held in
LSC’s Conference Center, on the 3rd
floor of 3333 K St. NW., Washington,
DC, 20007.
Under the LSC Rulemaking Protocol:
Rulemaking Workshops [* * *] enable
LSC Board members and staff to meet with
stakeholders prior to the development of a
draft NPRM to discuss, but not negotiate, LSC
rules and regulations. LSC believes the
Notice and Comment process, including
Rulemaking Workshops, [ * * *] allow for an
effective dialog between LSC and its
recipients and other interested parties, in
those instances in which Negotiated
Rulemaking is not used.
When the Board has decided to initiate a
rulemaking and to conduct a Rulemaking
Workshop, [LSC’s Office of Legal Affairs] will
work with the Board and staff to select a date
for the Rulemaking Workshop and will invite
participants from the interested stakeholder
community. The Workshop will be a meeting
at which the participants hold open
E:\FR\FM\13FEP1.SGM
13FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 29 / Monday, February 13, 2006 / Proposed Rules
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with PROPOSAL
discussions designed to elicit information
about problems or concerns with the
regulation (or certain aspects thereof) and
provide an opportunity for sharing ideas
regarding how to address those issues. The
Workshop is not intended [to] develop
detailed alternatives or to obtain consensus
on regulatory proposals. Upon the conclusion
of the Workshop, the Board shall provide
LSC staff with policy guidance on the issues
discussed to aid staff in the development of
the Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(‘‘NPRM’’).
67 FR 69762, 69763 (November 19,
2002).
During the first workshop, the
participants had a wide-ranging
discussion and identified a number of
issues. These can be summarized as
follows:
• The importance of and reason for
having a client grievance process,
including how the client grievance
process also can be an important part of
a positive client/applicant relations
program and serve as a source of
information for programs and boards in
assessing service and setting priorities;
• Whether programs can be more
‘‘proactive’’ in making clients and
applicants aware of their rights under
the client grievance procedure, but do
so in a positive manner that does not
create a negative atmosphere at the
formation of the attorney-client
relationship. It was noted that while
informing clients of their rights can be
empowering, suggesting at the outset
that they may not like the service they
receive is not conducive to a positive
experience. Query whether an
‘‘ombudsman’’ position would be
appropriate in this context;
• It is unclear how some complaints
should be categorized. Is a complaint
that a recipient refused to take an appeal
for a client represented at the trial or
initial hearing level a complaint about
the manner or quality of service or a
complaint about the denial of service?;
• The appropriate role of the
governing body in the client grievance/
client relations process;
• Challenges presented in providing
proper notice of the client grievance
procedure to applicants and clients who
are served only over the telephone and/
or email/internet interface;
• Application of the process to
Limited English Proficiency clients and
applicants;
• Whether and to what extent it is
appropriate for the composition of a
grievance committee to deviate from the
approximate proportions of lawyers and
clients on the governing body, e.g. by a
higher proportion of clients than the
governing body has generally;
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:33 Feb 10, 2006
Jkt 208001
• Challenges presented by a
requirement for in-person hearing and
what other options may be appropriate;
• Whether the limitation of the
grievance process related to denials of
service to the three enumerated reasons
for denial in the current rule is too
limited given the wide range of reasons
a program may deny someone service;
• Whether the regulation
appropriately addresses issues of client
confidentiality in LSC access to
complaint files;
• Whether the grievance process
should include cases handled by nonstaff such as PAI attorneys, volunteers,
attorneys on assignment to the grantee
(often as part of a law firm pro bono
program);
• Whether and to what extent it is
appropriate for a recipient to abrogate
the client grievance process, e.g., where
the recipient is facing potential
litigation requiring notification to the
malpractice insurance carrier or where
the complainant poses a reasonable
threat to the health and safety of
recipient employees or governing body
members;
• When does an inquiry become an
application for service for which there
could be a denial and a grievance
process? Sometimes a person who calls
a program is not clear about whether
they just want some information or are
actually seeking legal assistance, and
other times if a caller asks about
something the program does not handle,
they may hang up or be referred to
another provider before ever going
through an intake process;
• Whether and to what extent it is
appropriate for a grantee to provide
assistance to a client/applicant in the
filing of a complaint; and
• Whether and to what extent is it
appropriate for a grantee to provide
assistance to a client at a grievance
hearing.
With this notice, LSC is inviting
expressions of interest from the
interested stakeholder community to
participate in a second Rulemaking
Workshop. This second Workshop is
intended to further explore issues
identified during the first Workshop,
along with identifying any issues which
may not have been discussed in the first
Workshop. LSC is particularly
interested in soliciting further input
from both client representatives and
LSC programs, especially hotline-only
programs and others programs where inperson contact between staff and
clients/applicants is difficult or nonexistent (such as in service areas with
widely disbursed and rural client
populations), on the issues and
PO 00000
Frm 00053
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7497
challenges presented by the client
grievance procedure and regulation.
Expressions of interest should be
forwarded in writing to Victor M.
Fortuno, Vice President & General
Counsel, Legal Services Corporation,
3333 K Street, NW., Washington, DC
20007. Such expressions of interest may
be alternatively sent via e-mail to
vfortuno@lsc.gov or via fax to 202–337–
6831, but must be received by close of
business on December 2, 2005. LSC will
select participants shortly thereafter and
will inform all those who expressed
interest of whether or not they have
been selected.
The Workshops will be open to public
observation but only persons selected
will be allowed to participate.
Participants are expected to cover their
own expenses (travel, lodging, etc.). LSC
may consider providing financial
assistance to participants for whom
travel costs would represent a
significant hardship and barrier to
participation. Any such person should
so note in his/her expression of interest
for LSC’s consideration.
Victor M. Fortuno,
Vice President & General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E6–1928 Filed 2–10–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7050–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife
and Plants; 90-Day Finding for a
Petition To List the Island Marble
Butterfly as Threatened or Endangered
Fish and Wildlife Service,
Interior.
ACTION: Notice of 90-day petition
finding and initiation of status review.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service), announce a
90-day finding on a petition to list the
island marble butterfly (Euchloe
ausonides insulanus) as an endangered
species under the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We find
that the petition presents substantial
scientific information indicating that
listing the island marble butterfly may
be warranted. Therefore, with the
publication of this notice, we are
initiating a status review of the species,
and we will issue a 12-month finding to
determine if the petitioned action is
warranted. To assist and ensure that the
review is comprehensive, we are
soliciting information and data
regarding this species.
E:\FR\FM\13FEP1.SGM
13FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 29 (Monday, February 13, 2006)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 7496-7497]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-1928]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
45 CFR Part 1621
Notice of Rulemaking Workshop--Request for Expressions of
Interest in Participation
AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation.
ACTION: Notice of Rulemaking Workshop and Request for Expressions of
Interest in Participation in Workshop.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: LSC is conducting a Rulemaking Workshop in connection with its
rulemaking to consider revisions to its regulations on client grievance
procedures at 45 CFR part 1621. LSC hereby solicits expressions of
interest in participation in the Workshop from the regulated community,
its clients, advocates, the organized bar and other interested parties.
DATES: Expressions of interest must be received by February 24, 2006.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Victor M. Fortuno, Vice President &
General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K St. NW.,
Washington, DC 20007; (202) 295-1620 (phone); 202-337-6831 (fax) or
vfortuno@lsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Legal Services Corporation (``LSC'') has
initiated a rulemaking to consider revisions to 45 CFR part 1621
(Client Grievance Procedure). As part of this rulemaking proceeding,
LSC conducted a Rulemaking Workshop on January 18, 2006. LSC is
convening a second Rulemaking Workshop prior to the development of a
Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking. The Rulemaking Workshop will be
held on March 23, 2006, from 9 a.m.-5 p.m, e.s.t. The Rulemaking
Workshop will be held in LSC's Conference Center, on the 3rd floor of
3333 K St. NW., Washington, DC, 20007.
Under the LSC Rulemaking Protocol:
Rulemaking Workshops [* * *] enable LSC Board members and staff
to meet with stakeholders prior to the development of a draft NPRM
to discuss, but not negotiate, LSC rules and regulations. LSC
believes the Notice and Comment process, including Rulemaking
Workshops, [ * * *] allow for an effective dialog between LSC and
its recipients and other interested parties, in those instances in
which Negotiated Rulemaking is not used.
When the Board has decided to initiate a rulemaking and to
conduct a Rulemaking Workshop, [LSC's Office of Legal Affairs] will
work with the Board and staff to select a date for the Rulemaking
Workshop and will invite participants from the interested
stakeholder community. The Workshop will be a meeting at which the
participants hold open
[[Page 7497]]
discussions designed to elicit information about problems or
concerns with the regulation (or certain aspects thereof) and
provide an opportunity for sharing ideas regarding how to address
those issues. The Workshop is not intended [to] develop detailed
alternatives or to obtain consensus on regulatory proposals. Upon
the conclusion of the Workshop, the Board shall provide LSC staff
with policy guidance on the issues discussed to aid staff in the
development of the Draft Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (``NPRM'').
67 FR 69762, 69763 (November 19, 2002).
During the first workshop, the participants had a wide-ranging
discussion and identified a number of issues. These can be summarized
as follows:
The importance of and reason for having a client grievance
process, including how the client grievance process also can be an
important part of a positive client/applicant relations program and
serve as a source of information for programs and boards in assessing
service and setting priorities;
Whether programs can be more ``proactive'' in making
clients and applicants aware of their rights under the client grievance
procedure, but do so in a positive manner that does not create a
negative atmosphere at the formation of the attorney-client
relationship. It was noted that while informing clients of their rights
can be empowering, suggesting at the outset that they may not like the
service they receive is not conducive to a positive experience. Query
whether an ``ombudsman'' position would be appropriate in this context;
It is unclear how some complaints should be categorized.
Is a complaint that a recipient refused to take an appeal for a client
represented at the trial or initial hearing level a complaint about the
manner or quality of service or a complaint about the denial of
service?;
The appropriate role of the governing body in the client
grievance/client relations process;
Challenges presented in providing proper notice of the
client grievance procedure to applicants and clients who are served
only over the telephone and/or email/internet interface;
Application of the process to Limited English Proficiency
clients and applicants;
Whether and to what extent it is appropriate for the
composition of a grievance committee to deviate from the approximate
proportions of lawyers and clients on the governing body, e.g. by a
higher proportion of clients than the governing body has generally;
Challenges presented by a requirement for in-person
hearing and what other options may be appropriate;
Whether the limitation of the grievance process related to
denials of service to the three enumerated reasons for denial in the
current rule is too limited given the wide range of reasons a program
may deny someone service;
Whether the regulation appropriately addresses issues of
client confidentiality in LSC access to complaint files;
Whether the grievance process should include cases handled
by non-staff such as PAI attorneys, volunteers, attorneys on assignment
to the grantee (often as part of a law firm pro bono program);
Whether and to what extent it is appropriate for a
recipient to abrogate the client grievance process, e.g., where the
recipient is facing potential litigation requiring notification to the
malpractice insurance carrier or where the complainant poses a
reasonable threat to the health and safety of recipient employees or
governing body members;
When does an inquiry become an application for service for
which there could be a denial and a grievance process? Sometimes a
person who calls a program is not clear about whether they just want
some information or are actually seeking legal assistance, and other
times if a caller asks about something the program does not handle,
they may hang up or be referred to another provider before ever going
through an intake process;
Whether and to what extent it is appropriate for a grantee
to provide assistance to a client/applicant in the filing of a
complaint; and
Whether and to what extent is it appropriate for a grantee
to provide assistance to a client at a grievance hearing.
With this notice, LSC is inviting expressions of interest from the
interested stakeholder community to participate in a second Rulemaking
Workshop. This second Workshop is intended to further explore issues
identified during the first Workshop, along with identifying any issues
which may not have been discussed in the first Workshop. LSC is
particularly interested in soliciting further input from both client
representatives and LSC programs, especially hotline-only programs and
others programs where in-person contact between staff and clients/
applicants is difficult or non-existent (such as in service areas with
widely disbursed and rural client populations), on the issues and
challenges presented by the client grievance procedure and regulation.
Expressions of interest should be forwarded in writing to Victor M.
Fortuno, Vice President & General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation,
3333 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20007. Such expressions of interest
may be alternatively sent via e-mail to vfortuno@lsc.gov or via fax to
202-337-6831, but must be received by close of business on December 2,
2005. LSC will select participants shortly thereafter and will inform
all those who expressed interest of whether or not they have been
selected.
The Workshops will be open to public observation but only persons
selected will be allowed to participate. Participants are expected to
cover their own expenses (travel, lodging, etc.). LSC may consider
providing financial assistance to participants for whom travel costs
would represent a significant hardship and barrier to participation.
Any such person should so note in his/her expression of interest for
LSC's consideration.
Victor M. Fortuno,
Vice President & General Counsel.
[FR Doc. E6-1928 Filed 2-10-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7050-01-P