Office of Inspector General; Delegation of Authorities, 81276-81277 [2010-32348]
Download as PDF
81276
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Notices
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
applicants be required to document
their successes in ‘‘substantially’’ or at
least ‘‘partially’’ overcoming
disadvantages? Should any successes
documented be limited to the
applicant’s professional achievements,
or should success in other contexts be
considered by the Commission?
9. At what level of success, if any,
should an applicant who has overcome
substantial disadvantages become
ineligible for the preference (e.g., by
what measure of wealth or access to
capital)? Should the Commission adopt
different levels of preference based on a
measure of wealth or access to capital?
What criteria should be used to
disqualify the applicant from eligibility
for a bidding credit? If the Commission
adopts an additional preference such as
that recommended by the Advisory
Committee, how should the
Commission implement the statutory
requirement to avoid unjust enrichment
in the context of its bidding preference
program?
III. Administration
10. The Advisory Committee’s
Recommendation notes that any
determination of an individual’s or
entity’s eligibility for an overcoming
disadvantage preference would require
an examination of all relevant evidence
and would be based on an
individualized evaluation. The
individualized reviews that would
occur under the proposed program are
subjective in a manner that
distinguishes them from existing
designated entity programs, which are
based on objective criteria such as
financial data. By what means could
applicants demonstrate that they qualify
for the preference? For example, should
a narrative explanation suffice? If not,
what information or documentation
would be necessary to substantiate a
claim? Should an applicant be
permitted to certify its eligibility for this
preference under penalty of perjury in
its short-form application when it seeks
to participate in an auction, similar to
the way in which applicants may certify
eligibility for new entrant and small
business bidding credits? If so, what
guidance can the Commission provide
to potential applicants so that they can
make a good faith certification of
eligibility? The Recommendation
suggests that an overcoming
disadvantage preference might be
applied differently for different services
(e.g., a preference might apply only for
more valuable licenses in a broadcast
auction). Would the Commission have
to tailor the preference for specific
services in a rulemaking, similar to its
existing practice of establishing the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:15 Dec 23, 2010
Jkt 223001
small business definitions on a serviceby-service basis? The Advisory
Committee recognized the importance of
reducing subjectivity and achieving
consistency among individualized
determinations. What standards could
the Commission implement to achieve
those goals?
11. The Advisory Committee’s
Recommendation suggests that a
determination as to whether applicants
have overcome disadvantages could be
made within the existing short-form
auction application review process.
What would be the administrative
burden for the Commission to conduct
individualized review for such a
preference within the relatively short
time frames allotted under the existing
auctions short-form application process?
If the Commission were to allocate
additional time in the pre-auction
process for such reviews, would the
possible burdens on auction applicants
be outweighed by the public interest
benefits of the proposed preference?
12. As an alternative, the
Recommendation suggests that
applicants could pre-qualify for
preferences and thus avoid subsequent
petitions to deny their licenses targeted
at their qualification for the preference.
Are there Administrative Procedure Act
or other concerns for not allowing
parties to file petitions challenging a
proposed qualification? Is there a reason
to treat this qualification differently
than other qualifications that are subject
to the petition to deny process? Does
this raise issues with regard to the
requirements of the Communications
Act? If an applicant is found to be
qualified prior to an auction but
experiences a change of status during
bidding, or after submitting a winning
bid, should the individual remain
eligible for the preference? Should a
pre-qualification review strictly be
limited to the overcoming of substantial
disadvantage, or should it be a broader
review of an applicant’s license
qualifications, provided that the preauction process is extended?
13. The Advisory Committee’s
Recommendation suggests three options
for the management of qualification
review: (1) Establishing a ‘‘special cadre’’
of Commission officials to evaluate
applicant qualifications; (2) designing a
modified Administrative Law Judge
procedure for this purpose; (3) assigning
the function to the Commission’s
Bureau responsible for oversight of the
service in question. What are the
relative advantages and disadvantages of
each option? What aspects of the current
process for review of auction applicant
eligibility suggest that these additional
PO 00000
Frm 00073
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
options are necessary for the proposed
preference program?
14. The Advisory Committee’s
Recommendation asks whether a
corporation should be able to receive
the proposed preference based on the
qualifications of its principal. What role
should the principal play in a
corporation or other business entity to
confer eligibility for the preference on
the entity? For instance, should the
principal be required to have majority
equity ownership and a management
role?
This matter shall be treated as a
‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in
accordance with the Commission’s ex
parte rules 47 CFR 1.1200, 1.1206.
Persons making oral ex parte
presentations are reminded that
memoranda summarizing the
presentations must contain summaries
of the substance of the presentations
and not merely a listing of the subjects
discussed. More than a one- or twosentence description of the views and
arguments presented generally is
required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other
rules pertaining to oral and written ex
parte presentations in permit-butdisclose proceedings are set forth in 47
CFR 1.1206(b).
Gary D. Michaels,
Deputy Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access
Division, WTB, Federal Communications
Commission.
[FR Doc. 2010–32493 Filed 12–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712–01–P
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE
AGENCY
[No. 2010–N–17]
Office of Inspector General; Delegation
of Authorities
Office of Inspector General,
Federal Housing Finance Agency.
ACTION: Notice of delegation of
authorities.
AGENCY:
This notice delegates two
authorities of the Inspector General,
Office of Inspector General for the
Federal Housing Finance Agency
(FHFA–OIG), to the FHFA–OIG
Principal Deputy Inspector General, the
FHFA–OIG Deputy Inspector General
for Audit, the FHFA–OIG Deputy
Inspector General for Investigations &
Evaluations, and the FHFA–OIG Chief
Counsel. These authorities are: (1) The
authority to issue subpoenas; and (2) the
authority to request information under 5
U.S.C. 552a(b)(7).
DATES: Effective Date: December 27,
2010.
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Notices
erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Bryan Saddler, Chief Counsel, FHFA–
OIG, at (202) 408–2577, or
Bryan.Saddler@fhfa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The
Federal Housing Finance Regulatory
Reform Act of 2008 (Reform Act), which
was passed as Division A of the Housing
and Economic Recovery Act of 2008
(HERA), Public Law 110–289, 122 Stat.
2654, 2913, abolished both the Federal
Housing Finance Board (FHFB), an
independent agency that oversaw the
Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks), and
the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise
Oversight (OFHEO), an office within the
Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) that oversaw the
‘‘safety and soundness’’ of Fannie Mae
and Freddie Mac. See 12 U.S.C. 1422a,
4502(6), 4511, 4512, 4513, 4541, 4563
(2006); H.R. Rep. No. 110–142, at 95.
The Reform Act established in place of
the FHFB and OFHEO a new entity, the
Federal Housing Finance Agency
(FHFA), which now regulates and
supervises Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac,
and the 12 Banks. See Reform Act
sections 1002, 1101, 1102, 1301, 1311;
12 U.S.C.A. 4511, 4512, 4513 (2009).
Section 1105 of HERA also amended
the Federal Housing Enterprises
Financial Safety and Soundness Act of
1992 and the Inspector General Act of
1978 (the IG Act), by specifying that
there shall be established an Inspector
General within FHFA. See 12 U.S.C.
4517(d). FHFA–OIG is responsible for,
among other things, conducting audits,
investigations, and inspections of
FHFA’s programs and operations, and
recommending polices that promote
economy and efficiency in the
administration of, and prevent and
detect fraud and abuse in, those
programs and operations. Section 6(a)(4)
of the IG Act authorizes the Inspector
General to require by subpoena the
production of all information,
documents, reports, answers, records,
accounts, papers, and other data and
documentary evidence deemed
necessary in the performance of the
Inspector General’s function. This
notice delegates the Inspector General’s
subpoena issuance authority to the
FHFA–OIG Principal Deputy Inspector
General, the FHFA–OIG Deputy
Inspector General for Audit, the FHFA–
OIG Deputy Inspector General for
Investigations & Evaluations, and the
FHFA–OIG Chief Counsel.
Section 552a(b)(7) of Title 5, United
States Code, authorizes the Inspector
General to request information protected
by the Privacy Act for a civil or criminal
law enforcement activity. This notice
delegates this authority to request
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:15 Dec 23, 2010
Jkt 223001
records protected by the Privacy Act for
a civil or criminal law enforcement
activity from the Inspector General to
the FHFA–OIG Principal Deputy
Inspector General, the FHFA–OIG
Deputy Inspector General for Audit, the
FHFA–OIG Deputy Inspector General
for Investigations & Evaluations, and the
FHFA–OIG Chief Counsel.
The Inspector General has not limited
his authority to issue subpoenas or to
request information under 5 U.S.C. 552a
by this delegation. Also, this delegation
expressly prohibits further delegation or
redelegation.
Accordingly, the Inspector General
delegates the following authorities:
Section A. Authority Delegated: The
Inspector General delegates to the
FHFA–OIG Principal Deputy Inspector
General, the FHFA–OIG Deputy
Inspector General for Audit, the FHFA–
OIG Deputy Inspector General for
Investigations & Evaluations, and the
FHFA–OIG Chief Counsel, the authority
to require by subpoena the production
of all information, documents, reports,
answers, records, accounts, papers, and
other data and documentary evidence
necessary in the performance of the
functions assigned by HERA and the
Inspector General Act.
Additionally, the Inspector General
delegates to the FHFA–OIG Principal
Deputy Inspector General, the FHFA–
OIG Deputy Inspector General for Audit,
the FHFA–OIG Deputy Inspector
General for Investigations & Evaluations,
and the FHFA–OIG Chief Counsel, the
authority to request information under 5
U.S.C. 552a(b)(7).
Section B. No Further Delegation or
Redelegation: The authority delegated in
Section A above may not be further
delegated or redelegated.
Authority: Pub. L. 110–289, section 1105;
5 U.S.C. App. 3 § 6(a)(4); 5 U.S.C. 301.
Dated: December 14, 2010.
Steve A. Linick,
Inspector General.
[FR Doc. 2010–32348 Filed 12–23–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8070–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND
HUMAN SERVICES
Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention
Advisory Board on Radiation and
Worker Health (ABRWH or Advisory
Board), National Institute for
Occupational Safety and Health
(NIOSH)
In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of
the Federal Advisory Committee Act
PO 00000
Frm 00074
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
81277
(Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC),
announces the following meeting of the
aforementioned committee:
Time and Date:
11 a.m.–2 p.m., January 12, 2011
Place: Audio Conference Call via FTS
Conferencing. The USA toll-free, dial-in
number is 1–866–659–0537 and the pass
code is 9933701.
Status: Open to the public, but without a
public comment period.
Background: The Advisory Board was
established under the Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program
Act of 2000 to advise the President on a
variety of policy and technical functions
required to implement and effectively
manage the new compensation program. Key
functions of the Advisory Board include
providing advice on the development of
probability of causation guidelines, which
have been promulgated by the Department of
Health and Human Services (HHS) as a final
rule; advice on methods of dose
reconstruction, which have also been
promulgated by HHS as a final rule; advice
on the scientific validity and quality of dose
estimation and reconstruction efforts being
performed for purposes of the compensation
program; and advice on petitions to add
classes of workers to the Special Exposure
Cohort (SEC).
In December 2000, the President delegated
responsibility for funding, staffing, and
operating the Advisory Board to HHS, which
subsequently delegated this authority to the
CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility
for CDC. The charter was issued on August
3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals,
most recently, August 3, 2009, and will
expire on August 3, 2011.
Purpose: This Advisory Board is charged
with (a) Providing advice to the Secretary,
HHS, on the development of guidelines
under Executive Order 13179; (b) providing
advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the
scientific validity and quality of dose
reconstruction efforts performed for this
program; and (c) upon request by the
Secretary, HHS, advising the Secretary on
whether there is a class of employees at any
Department of Energy facility who were
exposed to radiation but for whom it is not
feasible to estimate their radiation dose, and
on whether there is reasonable likelihood
that such radiation doses may have
endangered the health of members of this
class.
Matters to be Discussed: The agenda for the
conference call includes: NIOSH 10-Year
Review of its Division of Compensation
Analysis and Support (DCAS) Program;
Linde Ceramics Plant SEC Petition #107
(1954–2006); DCAS Science Issues Update;
Subcommittee and Work Group Updates;
DCAS SEC Petition Evaluations Update for
the February 2011 Advisory Board Meeting;
and Board Correspondence.
The agenda is subject to change as
priorities dictate.
Because there is not a public comment
period, written comments may be submitted.
Any written comments received will be
included in the official record of the meeting
E:\FR\FM\27DEN1.SGM
27DEN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 247 (Monday, December 27, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 81276-81277]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-32348]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE AGENCY
[No. 2010-N-17]
Office of Inspector General; Delegation of Authorities
AGENCY: Office of Inspector General, Federal Housing Finance Agency.
ACTION: Notice of delegation of authorities.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice delegates two authorities of the Inspector
General, Office of Inspector General for the Federal Housing Finance
Agency (FHFA-OIG), to the FHFA-OIG Principal Deputy Inspector General,
the FHFA-OIG Deputy Inspector General for Audit, the FHFA-OIG Deputy
Inspector General for Investigations & Evaluations, and the FHFA-OIG
Chief Counsel. These authorities are: (1) The authority to issue
subpoenas; and (2) the authority to request information under 5 U.S.C.
552a(b)(7).
DATES: Effective Date: December 27, 2010.
[[Page 81277]]
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bryan Saddler, Chief Counsel, FHFA-
OIG, at (202) 408-2577, or Bryan.Saddler@fhfa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Housing Finance Regulatory
Reform Act of 2008 (Reform Act), which was passed as Division A of the
Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (HERA), Public Law 110-289,
122 Stat. 2654, 2913, abolished both the Federal Housing Finance Board
(FHFB), an independent agency that oversaw the Federal Home Loan Banks
(Banks), and the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight
(OFHEO), an office within the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) that oversaw the ``safety and soundness'' of Fannie
Mae and Freddie Mac. See 12 U.S.C. 1422a, 4502(6), 4511, 4512, 4513,
4541, 4563 (2006); H.R. Rep. No. 110-142, at 95. The Reform Act
established in place of the FHFB and OFHEO a new entity, the Federal
Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), which now regulates and supervises
Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the 12 Banks. See Reform Act sections
1002, 1101, 1102, 1301, 1311; 12 U.S.C.A. 4511, 4512, 4513 (2009).
Section 1105 of HERA also amended the Federal Housing Enterprises
Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 1992 and the Inspector General
Act of 1978 (the IG Act), by specifying that there shall be established
an Inspector General within FHFA. See 12 U.S.C. 4517(d). FHFA-OIG is
responsible for, among other things, conducting audits, investigations,
and inspections of FHFA's programs and operations, and recommending
polices that promote economy and efficiency in the administration of,
and prevent and detect fraud and abuse in, those programs and
operations. Section 6(a)(4) of the IG Act authorizes the Inspector
General to require by subpoena the production of all information,
documents, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data
and documentary evidence deemed necessary in the performance of the
Inspector General's function. This notice delegates the Inspector
General's subpoena issuance authority to the FHFA-OIG Principal Deputy
Inspector General, the FHFA-OIG Deputy Inspector General for Audit, the
FHFA-OIG Deputy Inspector General for Investigations & Evaluations, and
the FHFA-OIG Chief Counsel.
Section 552a(b)(7) of Title 5, United States Code, authorizes the
Inspector General to request information protected by the Privacy Act
for a civil or criminal law enforcement activity. This notice delegates
this authority to request records protected by the Privacy Act for a
civil or criminal law enforcement activity from the Inspector General
to the FHFA-OIG Principal Deputy Inspector General, the FHFA-OIG Deputy
Inspector General for Audit, the FHFA-OIG Deputy Inspector General for
Investigations & Evaluations, and the FHFA-OIG Chief Counsel.
The Inspector General has not limited his authority to issue
subpoenas or to request information under 5 U.S.C. 552a by this
delegation. Also, this delegation expressly prohibits further
delegation or redelegation.
Accordingly, the Inspector General delegates the following
authorities:
Section A. Authority Delegated: The Inspector General delegates to
the FHFA-OIG Principal Deputy Inspector General, the FHFA-OIG Deputy
Inspector General for Audit, the FHFA-OIG Deputy Inspector General for
Investigations & Evaluations, and the FHFA-OIG Chief Counsel, the
authority to require by subpoena the production of all information,
documents, reports, answers, records, accounts, papers, and other data
and documentary evidence necessary in the performance of the functions
assigned by HERA and the Inspector General Act.
Additionally, the Inspector General delegates to the FHFA-OIG
Principal Deputy Inspector General, the FHFA-OIG Deputy Inspector
General for Audit, the FHFA-OIG Deputy Inspector General for
Investigations & Evaluations, and the FHFA-OIG Chief Counsel, the
authority to request information under 5 U.S.C. 552a(b)(7).
Section B. No Further Delegation or Redelegation: The authority
delegated in Section A above may not be further delegated or
redelegated.
Authority: Pub. L. 110-289, section 1105; 5 U.S.C. App. 3 Sec.
6(a)(4); 5 U.S.C. 301.
Dated: December 14, 2010.
Steve A. Linick,
Inspector General.
[FR Doc. 2010-32348 Filed 12-23-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8070-01-P