August 7, 2007 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

Black coral resources in the Au'au Channel, Hawaii, have declined, possibly due to fishing pressure and alien invasive species. Current fishing regulations impose size requirements for the harvest of living black coral colonies of 48 inches (122 cm) in height or one inch (2.54 cm) in stem diameter. Current regulations also exempt certain fishermen from the minimum stem diameter requirement, allowing the harvest of black coral with a 3/4 inch (1.91 cm) stem diameter by anyone who reported black coral harvests to the State of Hawaii within the five years prior to April 17, 2002. This proposed rule would remove that exemption, and is intended to reduce the impacts of fishing on Au'au Channel black coral resources.

The Board is publishing a final rule amending the staff commentary that interprets the requirements of Regulation Z (Truth in Lending). The Board is required to adjust annually the dollar amount that triggers requirements for certain home mortgage loans bearing fees above a certain amount. The Home Ownership and Equity Protection Act of 1994 (HOEPA) sets forth rules for home-secured loans in which the total points and fees payable by the consumer at or before loan consummation exceed the greater of $400 or 8 percent of the total loan amount. In keeping with the statute, the Board has annually adjusted the $400 amount based on the annual percentage change reflected in the Consumer Price Index that is in effect on June 1. The adjusted dollar amount for 2008 is $561.

The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) has submitted the following information collection request to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). The information collection was previously published in the Federal Register Volume 72, Number 17, page 3880 on January 26, 2007, allowing for a 60 day comment period on the Standard Form 15 (SF-15) Application for 10-Point Veteran Preference. The purpose of this Notice is to allow for an additional 30 days for public comments. This process is in accordance with 5 CFR 1320.10. The SF-15 is used by agencies, OPM examining offices, and agency appointing officials to adjudicate individuals' claims for veterans' preference in accordance with the Veterans' Preference Act of 1944. Approximately 11,252 forms were completed last year. Each form requires approximately 10 minutes to complete. The annual estimated burden is 1,875 hours. In the 60-Day Notice published January 26, 2007, OPM announced our request for clearance for the SF-15 and invited public comments. OPM received 14 comments by the closing date on March 27, 2007. A discussion of the comments is provided below. One commenter asked why we were reviewing the SF-15. The purpose of reviewing the SF-15 is to seek public comment concerning whether the content and questions still serve their intended purposes. Primarily, we are reviewing the form to see whether the form should be simplified. One commenter asked OPM to maintain the SF-15 in its current form without changes because the instructions are simple. We will consider this comment, but we will also review all other collected comments and accept proposed changes that we conclude will improve the form. We received comments from three individuals and two veteran service organizations (VSOs) recommending that OPM continue to use the form. Another commenter asked whether this review process was intended to remove 10-point veterans' preference for disabled veterans seeking Federal employment. OPM is not removing the SF-15 form from use. The SF-15 is a useful information collection instrument that enables disabled veterans and those seeking entitlement for derived preference (e.g., spouses, widows, and mothers) to select the particular type of preference depending on their individual circumstances. Agencies use the information on the form to adjudicate claims for veterans' preference, in part by identifying the basis on which each individual is claiming entitlement to preference (e.g., ten-point (non-compensable disability); ten-point (compensable disability); ten-point (spouse); ten-point (widow or widower); ten-point (mother, deceased veteran); and ten-point (mother, disabled veteran). One commenter noted that the SF-15 is dated December 2004 and has no expiration date and questioned why we were seeking re-clearance. Under the PRA, OMB requires continuing approval for the use of any information collection (e.g., forms, surveys). OPM submits a periodic request (every three years) for approval by OMB to continue the use of the SF-15 form. The Notice informs the public, as required by law, that we are reviewing the form and will consider any questions and comments regarding its content and use. One commenter asked why VSO liaison members who regularly meet with OPM were not notified in advance of this Notice. Another individual suggested that the Department of Veterans Affairs (DVA) should be queried for their input in reviewing the form. The purpose of publishing revisions in advance and establishing a comment period is to provide interested parties with an opportunity to comment on proposed revisions. We welcome comments from VSOs, the DVA, and any other individual or organization that wishes to comment. Pursuant to this notice, we are now providing an additional 30 days for interested parties to comment. One VSO submitted a consolidated listing of questions and recommendations from its constituents, addressing the content and design of the SF-15 form. Their first question was whether the full social security number (SSN) was needed on the form and if so, could it be masked to protect an individual from identity theft. We agree protection of applicants' SSNs is important and have removed those blocks on the SF-15 that specifically ask for the SSN. Another individual asked who processes the SF-15 after an individual completes it. Once the SF-15 is completed by the applicant, the applicant sends the SF-15 to the agency to which the individual is applying. One commenter wanted to know who signs the SF-15 at the bottom of the form in the block: Signature of Appointing Officer. This block is signed by the Federal agency's designated Appointing Officer if the applicant is selected for employment. One commenter questioned the use of the term ``burden'' as used in the Notice. Americans spend incalculable hours each year providing information to Federal agencies by filling out forms, surveys, and or questionnaires. A major aim of the PRA is to minimize the ``burden''a term used in the lawwhich the information collection imposes on the public. Under the PRA, OMB must approve all such information collections and has broad authority over annual Governmentwide paperwork reduction goals established by law. Generally, when a Federal agency seeks to collect information from ten or more people, OMB must approve the collection. Information collections that fall under OMB's purview include application forms, questionnaires, surveys, and reporting or recordkeeping requirements. The total ``annual burden hours'' and ``annual burden dollars'' for each such form are tracked by OMB and monitored by Congress. Another commenter wanted to know whether the SF-15 is used to collect data for statistical or census purposes. The information on the SF-15 form is used for identifying the individual's claim to the type of veterans' preference entitlement on the form. OPM uses data from the SF-15 to identify the number of persons employed and entitled to the various types of veterans' preference. One commenter asked if there is a general clearinghouse to maintain all the SF-15's so veterans do not have to keep filling out the form each time they apply for a Federal job. OPM does not maintain a clearinghouse on all SF-15's. Agencies may do this as a part of their applicant supply files, but are not required to do so. Agencies are required to keep all hiring records for two years but are not required to match an SF-15 already on file with a new application. One group of veterans collectively submitted their recommendations to revise the content on the SF-15 form. These recommendations are as follows: Page 1 of the Standard Form 15, Block 2: delete three (e.g., civil service exam, postal exam, and position you currently occupy) of the four areas and use the block only for the job announcement number. We have considered this recommendation and do not concur. Block 2 has multiple uses that are still valid today (e.g., identifying an exam that was recently taken or notifying an agency that a current employee is changing his or her entitlement to veterans' preference based on a call-up for military service that resulted in a service-connected disability). Removing the three areas (e.g., civil service exam, postal exam, and position you currently occupy) would limit the form to only those applying for specific job announcements. Block 5: drop the ``Date exam was held'' and use the block only for the ``Date the application was submitted'' to the agency. We do not concur with the recommendation. As long as we are retaining a reference to an exam in Block 2, we should retain a reference to an exam here as well. The applicant can select his or her choice in Block 5 and provide the date as applicable. Blocks 4 (SSN), 7 (Service Number), 8 (SSN), and 9 (VA Claim Number) are asking the applicant to provide potentially the same information and the group recommended consolidating these four blocks. We have considered the recommendation and find Blocks 7 and 9 should remain on the form. We have removed Blocks 4 and 8 that asked for an SSN and have renumbered all applicable blocks on the SF-15. The group recommended that OPM be cognizant of visually impaired disabled veterans and increase the size of text on the form. We concur and will increase the smaller size font used on the SF-15. We wish to remind readers that a fillable version of the updated form will be available on the OPM Web site (https://www.opm.gov/forms/pdffill/ SF15.pdf). Anyone completing this version of the form can adjust the font size as needed. The group recommended using one line for stating the full title of the form (Application for 10-Point Veterans Preference) instead of the title being separated into two lines. We agree. We have changed the title of the form to be on one line. One suggestion was that OPM replace Block 10 with Block 11, because many of the veterans currently filling out this form are rated by VA as 30% or higher disabled and this being the first block would provide a more user-friendly format for efficiency and effectiveness purposes. We have considered this recommendation, but decided not to change the order in which these blocks appear. The flow of information on the form begins in Block 10 (now renumbered as Block 8), with those veterans entitled to veterans' preference based on non-compensable service- connected disabilities of less than 10% followed by Block 11 (now Block 9), used by those veterans who are in receipt of or eligible for compensation based on service-connected disabilities rated as 10% or more. The group recommended adding ``at 30% or greater'' in Block 11 after ``compensation from the VA'' We agree that adding a percentage to this sentence assists veterans to understand that Block 11 is for those receiving compensation. As compensation is provided to those service men and women rated as 10% or more disabled as a result of service- connected injuries, we have added ``of 10% or more'' to what is now Block 9. The group recommended adding ``dashes and arrows'' to Blocks 12, 13, and 14 to connect the narrative with the questions, similar to what was done in Blocks 10 and 11. We disagree, as adding dashes and arrows to Blocks 12, 13, and 14 would clutter this area of the document potentially making it harder for the applicant to read in completing this form. The group recommended moving the statement ``This form must be signed by all persons claiming 10-Point preference,'' which appears at the lower right side of the form, and placing it directly under the statement ``I certify that all of the statements made in this claim * * *'' block on the lower left side of the page. We agree and revised the form accordingly. The group also recommended moving the block containing the statement ``Preference entitlement was verified'' to the space where the block containing the statement ``This form must be signed by all persons claiming 10-Point preference'' was previously located. We agree and the SF-15 shows we have changed the form. The group recommended moving the ``For Use by Appointing Officer only'' and placing this under the ``Preference entitlement was verified'' block. We agree and the SF-15 shows we have changed the form. The group recommended increasing the font size of ``Signature of person claiming preference.'' We agree and have changed both signature blocks on the form. One commenter asked why page 2 contains questions 1 and 2 when that information is already provided in the applicant's resume. The SF-15 is a summarized document that readily assists both the veteran and the agency in reviewing the correct documents for adjudicating veterans' preference. By asking these two questions on the form, the agency saves time and effort in not having to research the resume or application in finding this information. One commenter questioned why we are requiring the information requested in Block 3 and Block 4 at the bottom of page 2. The primary reason for asking these two questions is to enable the agency to identify the employability of the disabled veteran and entitlement of the spouse to receive derived preference. If a disabled veteran is disqualified for a Federal position along the general lines of his or her usual occupation because of a service-connected disability, and if the spouse of the disabled veteran has competed for a Federal position, then the spouse is entitled to have ten points added to a passing examination score or rating. Such a disqualification may be presumed when the veteran is unemployed and is rated by the appropriate military or Department of Veterans Affairs authority to be 100 percent disabled and/or unemployable; has retired, been separated, or resigned from a civil service position on the basis of a disability that is service- connected in origin; or has attempted to obtain a civil service position or other position along the lines of his or her usual occupation and has failed to qualify because of a service-connected disability. These two questions identify these occupations and further assist the agency in adjudicating the claim to the particular veterans' preference sought. One commenter recommended shifting the ``Privacy Act statement'' from the bottom of Page 1 to the bottom of Page 2. We have considered this recommendation and find that the Privacy Act and Public Burden Statement is best located on the front page with the majority of information collected. For copies of this proposal, contact Mary Beth Smith-Toomey on (202) 606-8358, Fax (202) 418-3251 or e-mail to mbtoomey@opm.gov. Please include a mailing address with your request.

This amendment amends Standard Instrument Approach Procedures (SIAPs) for operations at certain airports. These regulatory actions are needed because of changes occurring in the National Airspace System, such as the commissioning of new navigational facilities, addition of new obstacles, or changes in air traffic requirements. These changes are designed to provide safe and efficient use of the navigable airspace and to promote safe flight operations under instrument flight rules at the affected airports.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service, us, or we), will prepare a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) and socio- economic assessment, pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended, in conjunction with a proposed rule to amend the 1998 final rule that authorized the establishment of a nonessential experimental population of the ``Mexican gray wolf'' in Arizona and New Mexico, under section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We will hold 12 public informational sessions and scoping meetings. Through this notice and the public scoping meetings, we are seeking comments or suggestions from the public, concerned governmental agencies, Tribes, the scientific community, industry, or any other interested parties concerning the scope of the EIS, pertinent issues we should address, and alternatives that should be analyzed.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) has tentatively determined that it will be necessary to amend the December 12, 2006, order that places temporary limitations on flight operations at New York's LaGuardia Airport (LaGuardia).

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) announces its determination that the noise exposure maps submitted by the Greater Baton Rouge Airport District for Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport under the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 47501 et seq. (Aviation Safety and Noise Abatement Act) and 14 CFR Part 150 are in compliance with applicable requirements. The FAA also announces that it is reviewing a proposed noise compatibility program that was submitted for Baton Rouge Metropolitan Airport under Part 150 in conjunction with the noise exposure map, and that this program will be approved or disapproved on or before January 25, 2008.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) gives notice concerning the final effect of the HHS decision to designate a class of employees at W.R. Grace, Erwin, Tennessee, as an addition to the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000. On June 22, 2007, as provided for under 42 U.S.C. 7384q(b), the Secretary of HHS designated the following class of employees as an addition to the SEC:

The Rural Housing Service (RHS) announces the availability of funds and the timeframe to submit applications for loans to private non-profit organizations, or such non-profit organizations' affiliate loan funds and State and local housing finance agencies, to carry out a housing demonstration program to provide revolving loans for the preservation and revitalization of low-income multi-family housing. Housing that is assisted by this demonstration program must be financed by RHS through its multi-family housing loan program under Section 515 of the Housing Act of 1949. The goals of this demonstration program will be achieved through loans making to intermediaries. The intermediaries will establish their programs for the purpose of providing loans to ultimate recipients for the preservation and revitalization of Section 515 multi-family housing as affordable housing.

Pursuant to Sec. 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (Pub. L. 91-190, as amended) and the implementing regulations promulgated by the Council on Environmental Quality (40 CFR part 1505.2), the Department of the Interior, National Park Service has prepared, and the Regional Director, Pacific West Region has approved the Record of Decision (and Statement of Findings for Wetlands and Floodplains) for the reconstruction of the Furnace Creek water collection system at Death Valley Natioal Park. Reconstructing the water collection system affords the park with the opportunity to provide a reliable quality and quantity of potable water to the users in the Furnace Creek area, to promote conservation of biological and cultural resources in the Texas-Travertine Springs area, and to enhance water resource protection and management in the Furnace Creek area. The no-action ``30-day wait period'' was officially initiated July 14, 2006, with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Federal Register notification of the filing of the Final Environmental Impact Statement. Decision: As soon as practicable the park will begin to implement the Preferred Alternative (with minor modifications from Alternative C as described in the Draft and Final EIS); as documented in the EIS, this alternative was deemed to be the ``environmentally preferred'' course of action and it was further determined that implementation of the selected actions will not constitute an impairment of park resources and values. In doing so, the park can rebuild the outdated water collection system in the Furnace Creek area to supply safe and reliable potable and nonpotable water to the park's main visitor use area, separate the potable and nonpotable water systems in the project area, and provide nonpotable water from the Inn Tunnel and a relocated Furnace Creek Wash collection gallery. The selected actions will provide potable water from two to three new groundwater wells in the Texas Springs Syncline, and will treat water collected for potable purposes using a reverse osmosis water treatment plant. The concentrate water generated from the water treatment process will be conveyed to the park's sewage treatment plant for evaporation. Non-potable water will be collected from Furnace Creek Wash and the Inn Tunnel. Water for riparian restoration purposes will be released from Texas Springs and Travertine Springs Lines 1, 2, 3, and 4. To meet maximum daily flow requirements, Alternative 3 will collect 600 gallons per minute (GPM) of potable water and 900 gpm of nonpotable water, and release approximately 770 gpm of riparian water.

We, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service), propose to designate critical habitat for Poa atropurpurea and Taraxacum californicum under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (Act). We propose approximately 3,014 acres (ac) (1,221 hectares (ha)) of land in San Bernardino and San Diego Counties, California, as critical habitat for P. atropurpurea, and approximately 1,930 ac (782 ha) of land in San Bernardino County, California, as critical habitat for T. californicum.

This notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) provides interested parties with the opportunity to comment on proposed changes to the joint FTA/FHWA procedures that implement the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The revisions are prompted by enactment of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU), which prescribes additional requirements for environmental review and project decisionmaking that are not appropriately reflected in the existing joint NEPA procedures. Pursuant to provisions of SAFETEA-LU, this NPRM proposes to add new categorical exclusions (CEs) from the NEPA process. This NPRM also proposes other minor changes to the joint procedures in order to improve the description of the procedures or to provide clarification with respect to the interpretation of certain provisions. The FTA and the FHWA seek comments on the proposals contained in this notice.