Office of the Attorney General; Certification Process for State Capital Counsel Systems; Removal of Final Rule, 71353-71355 [2010-29329]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
effective date of this AD, unless the actions
have already been done.
Federal Aviation Administration
One-Time Visual Inspection of the No. 3
Bearing Oil Pressure Tube
(f) Perform a one-time visual inspection of
the exterior of the No. 3 bearing oil pressure
tube for cracks and evidence of being
repaired.
(1) Remove the tube from service if any
cracks are found.
(2) Remove the tube from service if found
repaired, or if suspected that the tube was
repaired.
(g) After the effective date of this AD, do
not install any repaired No. 3 bearing oil
pressure tube into any engine.
(h) Guidance on the No. 3 bearing oil
pressure tube visual inspection can be found
in:
(1) Pratt & Whitney Clean, Inspect, Repair
Manual PN 51A357, 72–41–20 for PW4000–
94’’ and PW4000–100’’ series engines; or
(2) Pratt & Whitney Clean, Inspect, Repair
Manual PN 51A750, 72–41–20 for PW4000–
112’’ series engines.
Definitions
(i) For the purpose of this AD, piece part
condition means that the part is completely
disassembled from the engine as specified in
the disassembly instructions in the
manufacturer’s engine manual.
Alternative Methods of Compliance
(j) The Manager, Engine Certification
Office, FAA, may approve alternative
methods of compliance for this AD, if
requested using the procedures found in 14
CFR 39.19.
Related Information
(k) For more information about this AD,
contact James Gray, Aerospace Engineer,
Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and
Propeller Directorate, 12 New England
Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803;
telephone (781) 238–7742; fax (781) 238–
7199; e-mail: james.e.gray@faa.gov.
Material Incorporated by Reference
(l) None.
Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on
November 16, 2010.
Robert G. Mann,
Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller
Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–29451 Filed 11–22–10; 8:45 am]
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2009–1076; Directorate
Identifier 2009–CE–019–AD; Amendment
39–16296; AD 2010–10–17]
RIN 2120–AA64
Airworthiness Directives; Mitsubishi
Heavy Industries, Ltd. Various Models
MU–2B Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
AGENCY:
The FAA is correcting an
airworthiness directive (AD) that has
published in the Federal Register. That
AD applies to the products listed above.
The reissue date of September 24, 1986,
of the MU–2B–60 airplane flight manual
(AFM) in table 3 of the Compliance
section (e)(1)(i) is incorrect, in that it is
‘‘September 24, 1985,’’ instead of
‘‘September 24, 1986.’’ This document
corrects this error. In all other respects,
the original document remains the
same.
SUMMARY:
This final rule; correction is
effective November 23, 2010. The
effective date for AD 2010–10–17
remains July 22, 2010.
ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD
docket on the Internet at https://
www.regulations.gov; or in person at the
Docket Management Facility between
9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD
docket contains this AD, the regulatory
evaluation, any comments received, and
other information. The address for the
Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is
Document Management Facility, U.S.
Department of Transportation, Docket
Operations, M–30, West Building
Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200
New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington,
DC 20590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt
Bryant, Propulsion Engineer, FAA, Fort
Worth ACO, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort
Worth, Texas 76137; telephone: (817)
222–5146; fax: (817) 222–5960; e-mail:
matthew.a.bryant@faa.gov.
DATES:
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Airworthiness Directive 2010–10–17,
amendment 39–16296 (75 FR 34349),
which supersedes Airworthiness
Directive (AD) 2006–17–01, AD 2006–
15–07, AD 2000–02–25, and AD 97–25–
02, currently retains from AD 2006–17–
01 the inspection of the engine torque
indication system and possible
recalibration of the torque pressure
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:35 Nov 22, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
71353
transducers and requires incorporating
all revisions up to and including the
latest revisions of the AFM for certain
MHI various Models MU–2B airplanes.
As published, table 3 specific to the
MHI MU–2B–60 airplane stating that the
MU–2B–60 AFM has a reissued date of
September 24, 1986, in the Compliance
section (e) is incorrect, in that it is
‘‘September 24, 1985,’’ instead of
‘‘September 24, 1986.’’
No other part of the preamble or
regulatory information has been
changed; therefore, only the changed
portion of the final rule is being
published in the Federal Register.
The effective date of this AD remains
July 22, 2010.
Correction of Regulatory Text
§ 39.13
[Corrected]
In the Federal Register of June 17,
2010, AD 2010–10–17; Amendment
39–16296 is corrected as follows:
On page 34352, in the Compliance
section paragraph (e)(1)(i) in table 3,
under the third column ‘‘Date and
version of AFM,’’ change the AFM,
Section 6, Reissued date ‘‘September 24,
1986,’’ to ‘‘September 24, 1985.’’
■
Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on
November 17, 2010.
Patrick R. Mullen,
Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate,
Aircraft Certification Service.
[FR Doc. 2010–29463 Filed 11–22–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910–13–P
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR Part 26
[Docket No. OJP 1464; AG Order No.]
RIN 1121–AA76
Office of the Attorney General;
Certification Process for State Capital
Counsel Systems; Removal of Final
Rule
Department of Justice.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
Pursuant to the USA
PATRIOT Improvement and
Reauthorization Act of 2005, the
Department of Justice promulgated a
final rule to implement certification
procedures for States seeking to qualify
for the special federal habeas corpus
review procedures in capital cases. A
Federal district court issued an
injunction requiring the Department to
provide an additional public comment
period and publish a response to any
comments received during that period.
The Department then solicited further
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23NOR1.SGM
23NOR1
71354
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Capital Counsel Systems’’ to 28 CFR part
26. 72 FR 31217 (June 6, 2007). The
comment period ended on August 6,
2007. The Department published a
notice on August 9, 2007, reopening the
comment period, 72 FR 44816, and the
reopened comment period ended on
September 24, 2007. The final rule
establishing the chapter 154
certification procedure was published
on December 11, 2008, 73 FR 75327,
with an effective date of January 12,
2009.
Overview
The U.S. District Court for the
Chapter 154 of title 28, United States
Northern District of California
Code, makes special procedures
preliminarily enjoined the Department
available to a State respondent in
‘‘during the pendency of these
Federal habeas corpus proceedings
proceedings from putting into effect the
involving review of State capital
rule * * * without first providing an
convictions, but only if the Attorney
additional comment period of at least
General has certified ‘‘that [the] State
thirty days and publishing a response to
has established a mechanism for
any comments received during such
providing counsel in postconviction
period.’’ Habeas Corpus Resource Center
proceedings as provided in section
v. United States Dep’t of Justice, No. 08–
2265,’’ and if ‘‘counsel was appointed
2649, 2009 WL 185423, at *10 (N.D.
pursuant to that mechanism, petitioner
Calif. Jan. 20, 2009). Further public
validly waived counsel, petitioner
comment was solicited, with the
retained counsel, or petitioner was
comment period closing on April 6,
found not to be indigent.’’ 28 U.S.C.
2009. 74 FR 6131.
2261(b). 28 U.S.C. 2265(a)(1) provides
As the Department reviewed the
that, in order for a State to qualify for
submitted comments, it considered
the special habeas procedures, the
further the statutory requirements
Attorney General must determine that
governing the regulatory
‘‘the State has established a mechanism
implementation of the chapter 154
for the appointment, compensation, and certification procedures. The Attorney
payment of reasonable litigation
General has determined that chapter 154
expenses of competent counsel in State
reasonably could be construed to allow
postconviction proceedings brought by
the Attorney General greater discretion
indigent [capital] prisoners’’ and that the in making certification determinations
State ‘‘provides standards of competency than the December 11, 2008 regulations
for the appointment of counsel in [such
allowed. For instance, chapter 154
proceedings].’’
reasonably could be construed to permit
Chapter 154 has been in place since
the Attorney General to determine,
the enactment of the Antiterrorism and
within certain bounds, whether a state’s
Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996
competency standards and counsel
(Pub. L. 104–132), but was amended by
appointment mechanism (including
section 507 of Public Law 109–177, the
compensation standards) are adequate
USA PATRIOT Improvement and
to achieve chapter 154’s objectives.
Reauthorization Act of 2005 (‘‘the Act’’).
Therefore, the Department published
Prior to the Act, the determination of a
a notice in the Federal Register on May
State’s eligibility for the special
25, 2010, proposing to remove the
procedures had been left to the Federal
December 11, 2008 regulations pending
habeas courts. The 2005 Act amended,
the completion of a new rulemaking
inter alia, sections 2261(b) and 2265 to
process, during which the Department
assign responsibility for chapter 154
will further consider what standards
certifications to the Attorney General of and procedures are appropriate. 75 FR
the United States, subject to de novo
29217. The comment period closed on
review by the Court of Appeals for the
June 24, 2010.
District of Columbia Circuit.
Summary of Comments
Rulemaking History
Eight comments were received in
Section 2265(b) directs the Attorney
response to the notice proposing to
General to promulgate regulations to
remove the December 11, 2008
implement the certification procedure.
regulations.
Two U.S. Senators, Federal Public
To fulfill this mandate, the Department
Defenders, a California capital defense
of Justice published a proposed rule in
agency, and a number of other
the Federal Register on June 6, 2007,
organizations submitted comments
that proposed adding a new subpart
supporting removal of the existing rule.
entitled ‘‘Certification Process for State
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES
public comments. By this rule, the
Department is removing the December
11, 2008 regulations. The Department
will issue new regulations on this
subject by separate rulemaking.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is
effective December 23, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa
Ellman, Office of Legal Policy, at (202)
514–4601 (not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:35 Nov 22, 2010
Jkt 223001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
These comments were critical of the
existing regulations and included
recommendations concerning the
development or formulation of a
replacement rule.
The Criminal Justice Legal
Foundation submitted comments that
recommended not removing the
portions of the existing rule concerned
with certification procedures, on the
ground that present dissatisfaction by
the Department with the section of the
existing rule concerning the substantive
criteria a state must meet to be certified
under chapter 154—i.e., 28 CFR 26.22—
could at most justify rescinding that
section alone. The commenter
accordingly urged that 28 CFR 26.20,
26.21, and 26.23 should be
implemented without delay, and that
any further delay would violate the
Department’s duty to victims of crime.
The creation of a process for States to
apply for chapter 154 certification is
only part of the Attorney General’s
responsibilities under chapter 154, and
it makes little sense to retain that
process in the absence of substantive
certification criteria. If applications are
submitted, the Attorney General must
then decide whether the submitting
States satisfy the requirements for
chapter 154 certification. Section 26.22
in the existing rule reflected the
Department’s understanding of those
requirements at the time the rule was
published. However, the Department
has since reconsidered that
understanding, including the rule’s
assumption that the formulation of
counsel competency and compensation
standards for purposes of chapter 154
certification is a matter of state
discretion and subject to very little, if
any, further review by the Attorney
General.
The Department believes that the
process for considering and deciding
States’ applications for chapter 154
certification is best promulgated
concurrently with a rule setting forth
the standards for a State to meet chapter
154’s requirements. The Attorney
General will need to decide what
standards he will apply in assessing
whether State capital counsel systems
are adequate to satisfy the chapter 154
requirements. States correspondingly
will need to know what standards the
Attorney General will apply in order to
frame those applications intelligently,
and in order to make any necessary
changes in their capital counsel systems
prior to applying for Attorney General
certification. Likewise, members of the
public will need to know what
standards the Attorney General will
apply in order to provide relevant input
concerning the adequacy of State
E:\FR\FM\23NOR1.SGM
23NOR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
applications. Cf. 28 CFR 26.23(c)–(d)
(providing for receipt and consideration
of public comment on State applications
for chapter 154 certification).
Accordingly, removal of the entire
December 11, 2008 final rule at this time
is warranted in order to allow the
Attorney General to articulate the
standards he will apply in making
chapter 154 certification decisions and
to obtain public input concerning the
formulation of such standards. Pending
the completion of a new rulemaking
process, receipt and consideration of
applications for chapter 154
certification cannot sensibly go forward
in the absence of articulated standards
for deciding such applications.
Regulatory Certifications
Executive Order 12866
This regulation has been drafted and
reviewed in accordance with Executive
Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and
Review,’’ section 1(b), Principles of
Regulation. The Department of Justice
has determined that this rule is not a
‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under
Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and
accordingly this rule has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget.
Executive Order 13132
This regulation will not have
substantial direct effects on the States,
on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on
distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various
levels of government. This rule merely
removes the December 11, 2008
regulations. Therefore, in accordance
with Executive Order 13132, it is
determined that this rule does not have
sufficient federalism implications to
warrant the preparation of a federalism
assessment.
mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES
Executive Order 12988–Civil Justice
Reform
This regulation meets the applicable
standards set forth in sections 3(a) and
3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Attorney General, in accordance
with the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this
regulation and by approving it certifies
that this regulation will not have a
significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
This rule merely removes the December
11, 2008 regulations.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule will not result in the
expenditure by State, local and tribal
VerDate Mar<15>2010
19:35 Nov 22, 2010
Jkt 223001
governments, in the aggregate, or by the
private sector, of $100,000,000 or more
in any one year, and it will not
significantly or uniquely affect small
governments. Therefore, no actions were
deemed necessary under the provisions
of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
of 1995.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as
defined by section 251 of the Small
Business Regulatory Enforcement
Fairness Act of 1996. 5 U.S.C. 804. This
rule will not result in an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or
more; a major increase in costs or prices;
or significant adverse effects on
competition, employment, investment,
productivity, or innovation, or on the
ability of United States-based
companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and
export markets.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 26
Law enforcement officers, Prisoners.
■ Accordingly, for the reasons set forth
in the preamble, part 26 of chapter I of
title 28 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 26—DEATH SENTENCES
PROCEDURES
1. The authority citation for part 26
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 4001(b),
4002; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 2261, 2265.
Subpart B—[Removed and Reserved]
■
2. Subpart B is removed and reserved.
Dated: November 15, 2010.
Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 2010–29329 Filed 11–22–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410–18–P
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration
29 CFR Part 1983
[Docket No. OSHA–2010–0006]
RIN 1218–AC47
Collection of Information Requirement
Related to Procedures for the Handling
of Retaliation Complaints Under
Section 219 of the Consumer Product
Safety Improvement Act of 2008
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA); Department of
Labor.
AGENCY:
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ACTION:
71355
Clarification.
OSHA is informing the public
of a collection of information
requirement contained in the
Procedures for the Handling of
Retaliation Complaints Under Section
219 of the Consumer Product Safety
Improvement Act of 2008 interim final
rule, published August 31, 2010. This
clarification notice informs the public
about the means by which to comment
on this collection of information
requirement prior to OSHA’s
submission of an information collection
request (ICR) extension to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for
approval under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Comments on the collection of
information requirement in this interim
final rule must be submitted
(postmarked, sent, or received) to the
ICR docket, Docket No. OSHA–2010–
0049, by December 27, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Nilgun Tolek, Director, Office of the
Whistleblower Protection Program,
Occupational Safety and Health
Administration, U.S. Department of
Labor, Room N–3610, 200 Constitution
Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210;
telephone: (202) 693–2199. This is not a
toll-free number. The alternative formats
available are large print, electronic file
on computer disk (Word Perfect, ASCII,
Mates with Duxbury Braille System) and
audiotape.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August
31, 2010, OSHA published notice of an
interim final rule containing procedures
for the handling of retaliation
complaints under the employee
protection provision of the Consumer
Product Safety Improvement Act of
2008 (CPSIA) (75 FR 53533).
In the August 31, 2010 notice, OSHA
indicated that the interim final rule did
not contain collection of information
requirements subject to review by OMB
under the provisions of the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13)
(PRA). (75 FR at 53538.) However, upon
reconsideration, OSHA has determined
that there is a collection of information
requirement associated with the
initiation of CPSIA whistleblower
complaints.
OSHA currently has OMB approval
for collection of information
requirements related to the handling of
retaliation complaints filed under
various whistleblower protection
statutes in the ‘‘Regulations Containing
Procedures for Handling of Retaliation
Complaints’’ ICR, OMB Control Number
1218–0236. OSHA is currently
requesting that OMB extend approval of
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\23NOR1.SGM
23NOR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 225 (Tuesday, November 23, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 71353-71355]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-29329]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
28 CFR Part 26
[Docket No. OJP 1464; AG Order No.]
RIN 1121-AA76
Office of the Attorney General; Certification Process for State
Capital Counsel Systems; Removal of Final Rule
AGENCY: Department of Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Pursuant to the USA PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization
Act of 2005, the Department of Justice promulgated a final rule to
implement certification procedures for States seeking to qualify for
the special federal habeas corpus review procedures in capital cases. A
Federal district court issued an injunction requiring the Department to
provide an additional public comment period and publish a response to
any comments received during that period. The Department then solicited
further
[[Page 71354]]
public comments. By this rule, the Department is removing the December
11, 2008 regulations. The Department will issue new regulations on this
subject by separate rulemaking.
DATES: Effective Date: This rule is effective December 23, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa Ellman, Office of Legal Policy,
at (202) 514-4601 (not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Overview
Chapter 154 of title 28, United States Code, makes special
procedures available to a State respondent in Federal habeas corpus
proceedings involving review of State capital convictions, but only if
the Attorney General has certified ``that [the] State has established a
mechanism for providing counsel in postconviction proceedings as
provided in section 2265,'' and if ``counsel was appointed pursuant to
that mechanism, petitioner validly waived counsel, petitioner retained
counsel, or petitioner was found not to be indigent.'' 28 U.S.C.
2261(b). 28 U.S.C. 2265(a)(1) provides that, in order for a State to
qualify for the special habeas procedures, the Attorney General must
determine that ``the State has established a mechanism for the
appointment, compensation, and payment of reasonable litigation
expenses of competent counsel in State postconviction proceedings
brought by indigent [capital] prisoners'' and that the State ``provides
standards of competency for the appointment of counsel in [such
proceedings].''
Chapter 154 has been in place since the enactment of the
Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 104-
132), but was amended by section 507 of Public Law 109-177, the USA
PATRIOT Improvement and Reauthorization Act of 2005 (``the Act'').
Prior to the Act, the determination of a State's eligibility for the
special procedures had been left to the Federal habeas courts. The 2005
Act amended, inter alia, sections 2261(b) and 2265 to assign
responsibility for chapter 154 certifications to the Attorney General
of the United States, subject to de novo review by the Court of Appeals
for the District of Columbia Circuit.
Rulemaking History
Section 2265(b) directs the Attorney General to promulgate
regulations to implement the certification procedure. To fulfill this
mandate, the Department of Justice published a proposed rule in the
Federal Register on June 6, 2007, that proposed adding a new subpart
entitled ``Certification Process for State Capital Counsel Systems'' to
28 CFR part 26. 72 FR 31217 (June 6, 2007). The comment period ended on
August 6, 2007. The Department published a notice on August 9, 2007,
reopening the comment period, 72 FR 44816, and the reopened comment
period ended on September 24, 2007. The final rule establishing the
chapter 154 certification procedure was published on December 11, 2008,
73 FR 75327, with an effective date of January 12, 2009.
The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
preliminarily enjoined the Department ``during the pendency of these
proceedings from putting into effect the rule * * * without first
providing an additional comment period of at least thirty days and
publishing a response to any comments received during such period.''
Habeas Corpus Resource Center v. United States Dep't of Justice, No.
08-2649, 2009 WL 185423, at *10 (N.D. Calif. Jan. 20, 2009). Further
public comment was solicited, with the comment period closing on April
6, 2009. 74 FR 6131.
As the Department reviewed the submitted comments, it considered
further the statutory requirements governing the regulatory
implementation of the chapter 154 certification procedures. The
Attorney General has determined that chapter 154 reasonably could be
construed to allow the Attorney General greater discretion in making
certification determinations than the December 11, 2008 regulations
allowed. For instance, chapter 154 reasonably could be construed to
permit the Attorney General to determine, within certain bounds,
whether a state's competency standards and counsel appointment
mechanism (including compensation standards) are adequate to achieve
chapter 154's objectives.
Therefore, the Department published a notice in the Federal
Register on May 25, 2010, proposing to remove the December 11, 2008
regulations pending the completion of a new rulemaking process, during
which the Department will further consider what standards and
procedures are appropriate. 75 FR 29217. The comment period closed on
June 24, 2010.
Summary of Comments
Eight comments were received in response to the notice proposing to
remove the December 11, 2008 regulations.
Two U.S. Senators, Federal Public Defenders, a California capital
defense agency, and a number of other organizations submitted comments
supporting removal of the existing rule. These comments were critical
of the existing regulations and included recommendations concerning the
development or formulation of a replacement rule.
The Criminal Justice Legal Foundation submitted comments that
recommended not removing the portions of the existing rule concerned
with certification procedures, on the ground that present
dissatisfaction by the Department with the section of the existing rule
concerning the substantive criteria a state must meet to be certified
under chapter 154--i.e., 28 CFR 26.22--could at most justify rescinding
that section alone. The commenter accordingly urged that 28 CFR 26.20,
26.21, and 26.23 should be implemented without delay, and that any
further delay would violate the Department's duty to victims of crime.
The creation of a process for States to apply for chapter 154
certification is only part of the Attorney General's responsibilities
under chapter 154, and it makes little sense to retain that process in
the absence of substantive certification criteria. If applications are
submitted, the Attorney General must then decide whether the submitting
States satisfy the requirements for chapter 154 certification. Section
26.22 in the existing rule reflected the Department's understanding of
those requirements at the time the rule was published. However, the
Department has since reconsidered that understanding, including the
rule's assumption that the formulation of counsel competency and
compensation standards for purposes of chapter 154 certification is a
matter of state discretion and subject to very little, if any, further
review by the Attorney General.
The Department believes that the process for considering and
deciding States' applications for chapter 154 certification is best
promulgated concurrently with a rule setting forth the standards for a
State to meet chapter 154's requirements. The Attorney General will
need to decide what standards he will apply in assessing whether State
capital counsel systems are adequate to satisfy the chapter 154
requirements. States correspondingly will need to know what standards
the Attorney General will apply in order to frame those applications
intelligently, and in order to make any necessary changes in their
capital counsel systems prior to applying for Attorney General
certification. Likewise, members of the public will need to know what
standards the Attorney General will apply in order to provide relevant
input concerning the adequacy of State
[[Page 71355]]
applications. Cf. 28 CFR 26.23(c)-(d) (providing for receipt and
consideration of public comment on State applications for chapter 154
certification).
Accordingly, removal of the entire December 11, 2008 final rule at
this time is warranted in order to allow the Attorney General to
articulate the standards he will apply in making chapter 154
certification decisions and to obtain public input concerning the
formulation of such standards. Pending the completion of a new
rulemaking process, receipt and consideration of applications for
chapter 154 certification cannot sensibly go forward in the absence of
articulated standards for deciding such applications.
Regulatory Certifications
Executive Order 12866
This regulation has been drafted and reviewed in accordance with
Executive Order 12866, ``Regulatory Planning and Review,'' section
1(b), Principles of Regulation. The Department of Justice has
determined that this rule is not a ``significant regulatory action''
under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and accordingly this rule
has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget.
Executive Order 13132
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the national government and the
States, or on distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. This rule merely removes the December 11,
2008 regulations. Therefore, in accordance with Executive Order 13132,
it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism assessment.
Executive Order 12988-Civil Justice Reform
This regulation meets the applicable standards set forth in
sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and by approving it
certifies that this regulation will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule merely
removes the December 11, 2008 regulations.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
This rule will not result in the expenditure by State, local and
tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of
$100,000,000 or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or
uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed
necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of
1995.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996
This rule is not a major rule as defined by section 251 of the
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. 5 U.S.C.
804. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of
$100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or
significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment,
productivity, or innovation, or on the ability of United States-based
companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and
export markets.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 26
Law enforcement officers, Prisoners.
0
Accordingly, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 26 of
chapter I of title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as
follows:
PART 26--DEATH SENTENCES PROCEDURES
0
1. The authority citation for part 26 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 4001(b), 4002; 28 U.S.C. 509,
510, 2261, 2265.
Subpart B--[Removed and Reserved]
0
2. Subpart B is removed and reserved.
Dated: November 15, 2010.
Eric H. Holder, Jr.,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 2010-29329 Filed 11-22-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-18-P
