January 13, 2011 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition ``Rembrandt and His School: Masterworks from The Frick and Lugt Collections,'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to a loan agreement with a foreign owner or custodian. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Frick Collection, New York, NY, from on or about February 15, 2011, until on or about May 22, 2011, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

Notice is hereby given of the following determinations: Pursuant to the authority vested in me by the Act of October 19, 1965 (79 Stat. 985; 22 U.S.C. 2459), Executive Order 12047 of March 27, 1978, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (112 Stat. 2681, et seq.; 22 U.S.C. 6501 note, et seq.), Delegation of Authority No. 234 of October 1, 1999, and Delegation of Authority No. 236-3 of August 28, 2000, I hereby determine that the objects to be included in the exhibition ``Kings, Queens, and Courtiers: Art in Early Renaissance France'' imported from abroad for temporary exhibition within the United States, are of cultural significance. The objects are imported pursuant to loan agreements with the foreign owners or custodians. I also determine that the exhibition or display of the exhibit objects at The Art Institute of Chicago, Chicago, IL, from on or about February 27, 2011, until on or about May 30, 2011, and at possible additional exhibitions or venues yet to be determined, is in the national interest. I have ordered that Public Notice of these Determinations be published in the Federal Register.

On November 24, 2010, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) published a Notice of Intent announcing its intention to temporarily place five synthetic cannabinoids into Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act. This notice corrects two administrative errors made in that document.

This notice advises the public of the quarterly Internal Revenue Service interest rates used to calculate interest on overdue accounts (underpayments) and refunds (overpayments) of customs duties. For the calendar quarter beginning January 1, 2011, the interest rates for overpayments will be 2 percent for corporations and 3 percent for non-corporations, and the interest rate for underpayments will be 3 percent. This notice is published for the convenience of the importing public and Customs and Border Protection personnel.

As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, CBP invites the general public and other Federal agencies to comment on an information collection requirement concerning the Ship's Stores Declaration (CBP Form 1303). This request for comment is being made pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).

U.S. Federal agency responses to ICCVAM test method recommendations on two nonradioactive versions of the LLNA for assessing the ACD hazard potential of chemicals and products and for expanded uses of the LLNA for pesticide formulations and other products are now available on the NICEATM-ICCVAM Web site at https:// iccvam.niehs.nih.gov/methods/immunotox/llna.htm. ICCVAM recommended the nonradioactive LLNA: 5-bromo-2-deoxyuridine-enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (BrdU-ELISA) and LLNA: Daicel Adenosine Triphosphate (DA), and expanded uses for the LLNA. In accordance with the ICCVAM Authorization Act (42 U.S.C. 285l-3(e)(4)), ICCVAM forwarded recommendations to Federal agencies and made these recommendations available to the public (75 FR 37443). Agencies have now notified ICCVAM in writing of their findings and ICCVAM is making these responses available to the public.

The Bridger-Teton Resource Advisory Committee will meet in Kemmerer, Wyoming. The committee is meeting as authorized under the Secure Rural Schools and Community Self-Determination Act (Pub. L. 110- 343) and in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committee Act. The purpose is to review project applications.

In accordance with Sec. 103(c)(6) of the Presidio Trust Act, 16 U.S.C. 460bb appendix, and in accordance with the Presidio Trust's bylaws, notice is hereby given that a public meeting of the Presidio Trust Board of Directors will be held commencing 6:30 p.m. on Monday, February 7, 2011, at the Golden Gate Club, 135 Fisher Loop, Presidio of San Francisco, California. The Presidio Trust was created by Congress in 1996 to manage approximately eighty percent of the former U.S. Army base known as the Presidio, in San Francisco, California. The purposes of this meeting are to approve minutes of a previous Board meeting, to provide the Chairperson's report, to provide the Executive Director's report, to provide project updates, and to receive public comment on other matters in accordance with the Trust's Public Outreach Policy. Individuals requiring special accommodation at this meeting, such as needing a sign language interpreter, should contact Mollie Matull at 415.561.5300 prior to January 31, 2011. Time: The meeting will begin at 6:30 p.m. on Monday, February 7, 2011.

On October 18, 2010, HUD posted on https://www.Grants.gov its Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) for the Fiscal Year (FY) 2010 Capital Fund Education and Community Facilities (CFCF) Program. The NOFA made available approximately $35 million in assistance for development of facilities to provide early childhood education, adult education, and/or job training programs for public housing residents. Today's Federal Register publication announces that HUD has posted on https://www.Grants.gov a technical correction that makes several corrections and clarification to NOFA. Specifically, the corrected NOFA clarifies that Public Housing Agencies (PHAs) may submit multiple applications, but each application must include only one site. HUD has also revised the NOFA to specify tie breaking criteria. Further, in order to provide applicants with sufficient time to submit new or revised applications that incorporate the corrections and clarifications to the NOFA, HUD has extended the application deadline to February 3, 2011. Potential applicants should review carefully the corrected NOFA to best determine whether to submit an updated application which incorporates the corrections and clarifications related to this notice. Applicants who submitted their applications prior to the technical correction notice can choose to submit an updated application that reflects the corrections and clarifications, but are not required to if they determine no changes are needed for their application. Applicants are reminded that if they submitted any portion of their application by fax with their initial application submission and choose to submit a revised application, then they will have to refax the materials after they submit the revised application to HUD. Please refer to the General Section for instructions regarding materials that are faxed and how HUD matches faxes to applications. For each site for which a PHA submits an application, the last version of the application received by https:// www.Grants.gov by the deadline date, in accordance with the timely receipt requirements, will be the application that is reviewed and rated. The revised NOFA can be found and downloaded from https:// www.Grants.gov, using the CFDA number for that program, 14.890.

The proposed information collection requirement described below will be submitted to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act. The Department is soliciting public comments on the subject proposal.

We are proposing to amend the Virus-Serum-Toxin Act regulations regarding the packaging and labeling of veterinary biological products to provide for the use of an abbreviated true name on small final container labeling for veterinary biologics; require labeling to bear a consumer contact telephone number; change the format used to show the establishment or permit number on labeling and require such labeling to show the product code number; change the storage temperature recommended in labeling for veterinary biologics; require vaccination and revaccination recommendations in labeling to be consistent with licensing data; require labeling information placed on carton tray covers to appear on the outside-face of the tray cover; remove the restriction requiring multiple-dose final containers of veterinary biologics to be packaged in individual cartons; require labeling for bovine virus diarrhea vaccine containing modified live virus to bear a statement warning against use in pregnant animals; reduce the number of copies of each finished final container label, carton label, or enclosure required to be submitted for review and approval; require labeling for autogenous biologics to specify the microorganism(s) and/or antigen(s) they contain; and require labeling for conditionally licensed veterinary biologics to bear a statement concerning efficacy and potency requirements. In addition, we also propose to amend the regulations concerning the number of labels or label sketches for experimental products required to be submitted for review and approval, and the recommended storage temperature for veterinary biologics at licensed establishments. These proposed amendments are necessary in order to update and clarify labeling requirements and ensure that information provided in labeling is accurate with regard to the expected performance of the product.

Before a Federal agency can collect certain information from the public, it must receive approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Under procedures established by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, before seeking OMB approval, Federal agencies must solicit public comment on proposed collections of information, including extensions and reinstatements of previously approved collections. This document describes the collection of information for which NHTSA intends to seek OMB approval.

This NPRM proposes to amend NHTSA's consumer information regulations on uniform tire quality grading standards by updating the fees currently charged for use of the traction skid pads at NHTSA's San Angelo Test Facility, formerly called the Uniform Tire Quality Grading Test Facility, in San Angelo, Texas and by eliminating fees for course monitoring tires, which are no longer supplied by NHTSA. This NPRM updates the fees in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-25, which governs fees assessed for Government services and use of Government goods or resources.

The EPA Science Advisory Board (SAB) Staff Office is requesting public nominations for scientists and engineers to augment the SAB Scientific and Technological Achievement Awards (STAA) Committee.

On December 15, 2010, the City of Temple, Tex. (Temple), a noncarrier, filed a petition under 49 U.S.C. 10502 for exemption from the provisions of 49 U.S.C. 10901 to acquire from the Georgetown Railroad Company (Georgetown) an approximately 6.277-mile line of railroad, between milepost 0.0, near Belton, and milepost 6.277, at Smith, in Bell County, Tex. (the line), and the trackage rights granted to Georgetown to operate over the line.\1\ In a related transaction, Temple & Central Texas Railway, Inc. (TCTR), a Class III carrier, filed a verified notice of exemption under 49 CFR 1150.41 to operate over the line. That notice was served and published in the Federal Register on December 10, 2010 (75 FR 77,044). Temple & Central Tex. Ry.Operation ExemptionCity of Temple, Tex., FD 35447 (STB served Dec. 10, 2010). The Board seeks comments from interested persons on Temple's request to acquire the line.

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) seeks public comment on proposed new guidance which will update and replace the 1962 U.S. Public Health Service Drinking Water Standards related to recommendations for fluoride concentrations in drinking water. The U.S. Public Health Service recommendations for optimal fluoride concentrations were based on ambient air temperature of geographic areas and ranged from 0.7-1.2 mg/L. HHS proposes that community water systems adjust the amount of fluoride to 0.7 mg/L to achieve an optimal fluoride level. For the purpose of this guidance, the optimal concentration of fluoride in drinking water is that concentration that provides the best balance of protection from dental caries while limiting the risk of dental fluorosis. Community water fluoridation is the adjusting and monitoring of fluoride in drinking water to reach the optimal concentration (Truman BI, et al, 2002). This updated guidance is intended to apply to community water systems that are currently fluoridating or will initiate fluoridation.\1\ This guidance is based on several considerations that include:

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 1204(e)(1)(A), the MSPB has requested an advisory opinion from the Director of the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) concerning an appeal currently pending before the Board, Jeffrey Denton v. Department of Agriculture, MSPB Docket Number DC-3330-09-0696-I-1. The MSPB is also providing an opportunity to other interested parties to file amicus briefs concerning the appeal. The legal questions set forth in the Denton appeal, which were posed in the request for an advisory opinion to the Director of OPM, are set forth below. The agency employs the appellant in the position of Animal Health Program Assistant, GS-5. The agency announced the position of Veterinary Program Assistant (``VPA''), GS-0303-5/6/7, under both case exam (announcement 24VS-2009-0130) and merit promotion (announcement 6VS-2009-0132) procedures. The appellant applied under both vacancy announcements and submitted his DD-214, showing his eligibility for veterans' preference. The appellant made the certificate at the GS-7 level on the case exam announcement. The maximum score an applicant could receive was 100, except when veterans' preference points were added. The appellant had 10 points added to his score of 99.68 to reflect his veterans' preference, and he was thus listed on the top of the certificate of 6 candidates with a score of 109.68 as ``CPS,'' which is a 30% or more disabled veteran. The appellant also made the GS-6 level on the merit promotion certificate, and he was referred to the selecting official. The agency made no selection from either the case exam or merit promotion certificate. Rather, the agency cancelled both vacancy announcements and filled the VPA position through an alternative hiring authority, the Student Career Experience Program (SCEP). The appellant filed a complaint with the Department of Labor (DOL) alleging that his rights to veterans' preference as a 30% disabled veteran were violated because the agency filled the position through SCEP instead of filling the position from either the merit promotion or case exam certificate. The DOL informed the appellant that it had completed its investigation into the appellant's claim and had determined that the evidence did not support a finding that the appellant's veterans' preference rights were violated. The DOL provided the appellant with notice of appeal rights to the MSPB. After exhausting his remedy with DOL, the appellant timely filed an appeal with the MSPB pursuant to the Veterans Employment Opportunities Act (VEOA) alleging that his veterans' preference rights were violated when the agency used SCEP to fill the VPA position and did not select him for that position. The appellant essentially argued that the agency had engaged in a sham. The assigned administrative judge determined that the MSPB has VEOA jurisdiction over the appeal, but issued an initial decision on the merits finding that the appellant did not establish a VEOA violation. The appellant filed a petition for review with the MSPB challenging the initial decision of the administrative judge. This appeal raises significant issues regarding whether the agency's use of SCEP improperly circumvented the competitive examination process, allowing the agency to avoid its obligations regarding veterans' preference and a veteran's right to compete for positions. The material issues are similar in many respects to the issues raised regarding the Federal Career Intern Program (FCIP) in the MSPB's recent decisions in the appeals of Dean v. Office of Personnel Management, AT-3330-10-0534-I-1 and Evans v. Department of Veterans Affairs, AT-3330-09-0953-I-1, 2010 MSPB 213 (November 2, 2010). The Board determined that appellants Dean and Evans had established the FCIP program as conducted violated their veterans' preference rights because FCIP was inconsistent with 5 U.S.C. 3302(1) by: (1) Allowing agencies to invoke an appointing authority reserved for positions for which it is not practicable to hold a competitive examination after holding a competitive examination yielding highly-qualified preference-eligible candidates; and (2) not requiring agencies to justify placement of positions in the excepted service. The SCEP program is covered by OPM's regulations at 5 CFR 213.3202(b) and is authorized by Executive Order 12015 (as amended by Executive Order 13024). The FCIP positions are also Schedule B, excepted-service positions but are addressed at 5 CFR 213.3202(o) and Executive Order 13162. The SCEP allows agencies to hire students currently enrolled in specified educational programs in Schedule B, excepted-service positions, and noncompetitively convert them to term, career or career-conditional appointments upon satisfactory completion of the educational program and accumulation of 640 hours of agency work experience. Questions to be resolved: 1. Does the SCEP program violate veterans' preference rights because it allows agencies to invoke an appointing authority reserved for positions for which it is not practicable to hold a competitive examination after holding a competitive examination yielding highly- qualified preference-eligible candidates? 2. Does the SCEP program violate veterans' preference rights because it does not require agencies to justify placement of positions in Schedule B of the excepted service? 3. What impact, if any, does the Executive Order dated December 27, 2010, entitled ``Recruiting and Hiring Students and Recent Graduates,'' have on the appellant's appeal or any other appeals based on the SCEP hiring occurring before Executive Order 12015 is revoked?

The Department of Labor, as part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent burden, conducts a preclearance consultation program to provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to comment on proposed and/or continuing collections of information in accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA95) [44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)]. This program helps to ensure that requested data can be provided in the desired format, reporting burden (time and financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly understood, and the impact of collection requirements on respondents can be properly assessed. Currently, the Office of Workers' Compensation Programs is soliciting comments concerning the proposed collection: Rehabilitation Plan and Award (OWCP-16). A copy of the proposed information collection request can be obtained by contacting the office listed below in the addresses section of this Notice.