July 9, 2010 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

The U.S. Travel and Tourism Advisory Board (Board) will hold a meeting to discuss topics related to the travel and tourism industry.

On December 29, 2000, the National Park Service (NPS) executed a Record of Decision selecting Alternative 2 from the Final Yosemite Valley Plan/Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement for implementation (as noticed in the Federal Register on January 12, 2001). As explained below, the NPS has subsequently approved a revised Record of Decision for the Final Yosemite Valley Plan and will implement Modified Alternative 2 instead. Decision: The NPS has approved adoption of a Modified Alternative 2 which consists of completed actions and projects that conform to four broad purposes and goals. These are to restore natural processes in Yosemite Valley, to ameliorate environmental impacts, to preserve cultural resource values, and to continue providing opportunities for high-quality visitor experiences. Excluded from the approved Modified Alternative 2 were certain projects yet to be initiated, including but not limited to consolidation of some parking and facilities in the eastern end of Yosemite Valley, relocation of equestrian facilities, removal of Sugar Pine Bridge, and several traffic recirculation plans. Also revised were Findings of No Significant Impact (FONSI decisions) for Yosemite Lodge area redevelopment and improvements at Curry Village and East Yosemite Valley campgrounds. Background: In 2006, a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California challenging the 2000 Final Yosemite Valley Plan. Concurrently, the NPS was involved in a separate lawsuit filed by the same plaintiffs challenging the 2005 Merced Wild and Scenic River Comprehensive Management Plan (Merced River Plan). Because the Yosemite Valley Plan and the Merced River Plan were integrally related, the NPS and the plaintiffs agreed to suspend proceedings on the Yosemite Valley Plan lawsuit until the courts reached a final decision on the Merced River Plan lawsuit. In March 2008, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a ruling affirming that the 2005 Merced River Plan did not adequately fulfill requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act nor the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act. Following that decision, the NPS and the plaintiffs began settlement discussions to resolve the two lawsuits and to establish a framework for moving forward on a new version of the Merced River Plan. A settlement was reached in September 2009 (the Settlement Agreement is available on the park's Web site: https://www.nps.gov/yose/ parkmgmt/upload/mrpsettlementagreement.pdf). Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, the NPS agreed to revise the Record of Decision for the Yosemite Valley Plan, as well as two related FONSI decisions. The three revised documents were filed with the District Court on January 29, 2010. Copies: Interested parties may review the revised Record of Decision and FONSI decisions on the park's Web site, and copies can also be obtained by contacting the Superintendent, Yosemite National Park, P. O. Box 577, Yosemite, California 95389; via telephone request at (209) 372-0261; or via e-mail request at yose_ planning@nps.gov.

FMCSA previously announced its decision to renew the exemptions from the vision requirement in the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations for 18 individuals. FMCSA has statutory authority to exempt individuals from the vision requirement if the exemptions granted will not compromise safety. The Agency has concluded that granting these exemptions will provide a level of safety that will be equivalent to, or greater than, the level of safety maintained without the exemptions for these commercial motor vehicle (CMV) drivers.

This document provides Administrative Guidelines which qualified Housing Credit Agencies (HCAs) as defined under Section 42 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (IRC), must follow in implementing subsidy layering reviews in accordance with the requirements of Section 2835(a)(1)(M)(i) of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA). In certain instances, described below, HUD will follow these Guidelines in implementing subsidy layering reviews to satisfy the requirements of Section 102(d) of the Department of Housing and Urban Development Reform Act of 1989 (HUD Reform Act or HRA). The requirements in this Notice, which implement the requirements of Section 2835(a)(1)(M)(i) of HERA, do not supersede the subsidy layering requirements of other Federal programs. Section 102(d) of the HUD Reform Act was enacted to ensure that Housing projects receiving HUD assistance do not receive excessive compensation by combining various forms of HUD program assistance with assistance from other Federal, State, or local agencies (other Government Assistance). Section 2835 (a)(1)(F) of HERA provides that for project-based voucher housing assistance payments (HAP) contracts for existing housing, a subsidy layering review in accordance with section 102(d) of the HRA shall not be required. Under HERA, when project-based voucher assistance is proposed for newly constructed and rehabilitated structures, subsidy layering reviews may be satisfied if the applicable State or local agency has conducted such a review. HUD has defined these agencies to be qualified housing credit agencies (HCA), which may include State housing finance agencies, participating jurisdictions under the HOME program, or other State housing agencies that meet the definition of a HCA as defined under Section 42 of the IRC of 1986. This Notice sets forth the guidelines HCAs must use in conducting subsidy layering reviews for newly constructed and rehabilitated structures combining other forms of government assistance, and Section 8 project-based voucher assistance.

Notice is hereby given that the Office of Research Integrity (ORI) and the Assistant Secretary for Health have taken final action in the following case: Gerardo L. Paez, PhD, University of Pennsylvania: Based on the reports of an inquiry and an investigation conducted by the University of Pennsylvania (UP) and analysis conducted by the ORI Division of Investigative Oversight (DIO), ORI found that Gerardo L. Paez, PhD, former postdoctoral fellow, Section of Medical Genetics, UP School of Veterinary Medicine, engaged in research misconduct in research supported by National Eye Institute (NEI), National Institutes of Health (NIH), awards R01 EY06855 and R01 EY13132. ORI found that the Respondent engaged in research misconduct by falsifying and fabricating retinal gene profile data that he purportedly obtained from three-week old normal dogs and dogs with X- linked progressive retinal atrophy. Specifically, ORI found that: 1. Respondent committed research misconduct by falsifying/ fabricating data for gene expression profiles in retinal tissue from three-week old normal dogs and dogs with X-linked progressive retinal atrophy in abstracts and poster presentations for the 2006 \1\ and 2007 \2\ Association for Research in Vision and Ophthalmology (ARVO) meetings and in an unsubmitted manuscript draft.\3\

In July 2010, the Postal Service filed a notice of mailing services price adjustments with the Postal Regulatory Commission (PRC), effective in January 2011. This proposed rule provides the mailing standards that would accompany the new prices in 2011.

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (the PRA), Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information and to allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on FDA's ``The Dairy Practitioner's Role in Residue Avoidance Survey.''

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is announcing that a proposed collection of information has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

The inventions listed below are owned by an agency of the U.S. Government and are available for licensing in the U.S. in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 207 to achieve expeditious commercialization of results of Federally-funded research and development. Foreign patent applications are filed on selected inventions to extend market coverage for companies and may also be available for licensing.

The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council will convene a meeting of the Standing and Special Reef Fish Scientific and Statistical Committees.

The Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council) will convene its Law Enforcement Advisory Panel (LEAP).

The Department of the Air Force is proposing to alter a system of records notice in its existing inventory of records systems subject to the Privacy Act of 1974, (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended.

This action adds services to the Procurement that will be provided by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.

The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA), Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of a currently approved collection and allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the information needed to accurately reimburse State Approving Agencies (SAAs) for expenses incurred in the approval and supervision of education and training programs.

The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of a currently approved collection, and allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the information needed to request a change of education program or place of training.

The Veterans Benefits Administration (VBA) is announcing an opportunity for public comment on the proposed collection of certain information by the agency. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) of 1995, Federal agencies are required to publish notice in the Federal Register concerning each proposed collection of information, including each proposed extension of a currently approved collection, and allow 60 days for public comment in response to the notice. This notice solicits comments on the information needed to determine eligibility for aid and attendance for claimants who are patients in nursing home.