Private Attorney Involvement, 48848-48851 [2013-19383]
Download as PDF
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
48848
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 155 / Monday, August 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
benefits, and, as with arsenic, the
petition provides no information that
would cause EPA to question the
current approach. EPA believes,
therefore, that the SDWA provides the
most appropriate authority (and in fact
has been used) to eliminate or reduce to
a sufficient extent the health risks
identified by petitioners as being
associated with HFSA when used as a
fluoridation agent.
4. Radionuclides. Although the
petitioners mention ‘‘concern’’ about
radionuclides, the petitioners present
limited information to support a claim
that HFSA presents or will present and
unreasonable risk with respect to
radionuclides. NSF compiled data from
initial and annual monitoring tests for
fluoridation products that NSF certified
to NSF/ANSI 60 between 2007 and 2011
(216 samples) and between 2000 and
2006 (245 samples). Alpha emitters
(type of radioactive decay in which an
atomic nucleus emits an alpha particle)
were detected in less than 1% of the 216
samples analyzed between 2007 and
2011. The mean (non-detects were
estimated at 1⁄2 the detection limit) and
maximum values were less than the
MCL of 15 picoCuries per liter (pCi/L)
and were less than the NSF/ANSI 60
SPAC of 1.5 pCi/L (Ref. 15). Beta photon
emitters (another type of radioactive
decay in which an atomic nucleus emits
a beta particle) also were detected in
less than 1% of the 216 samples
analyzed between 2007 and 2011. The
mean (non-detects were estimated at 1⁄2
the detection limit) and maximum
values were less than the MCL of 4
millirems per year (mrem/y) and were
less than the NSF/ANSI 60 SPAC of 0.4
mrem/y (Ref. 15). Radionuclides (alpha
or beta) were not detected in any (0%)
of the 245 samples analyzed between
2000 and 2006 (Ref. 11). The
concentrations reported represent
contaminant levels expected when the
fluoridation products are dosed into
water at the allowable maximum use
levels for NSF/ANSI 60–2012 (see Refs.
14 and 15). NSF notes that lower
product use levels would produce
proportionately lower contaminant
concentrations.
Thus, the petition has failed to
present facts that establish that HFSA
presents or will present an unreasonable
risk of injury to health or the
environment with respect to
radionuclides, or that it is necessary to
issue a TSCA section 6 rulemaking to
protect health and the environment
from such risk.
For the reasons set forth in this
document, EPA denied the TSCA
section 21 petition.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:50 Aug 09, 2013
Jkt 229001
V. References
As indicated under ADDRESSES, a
docket has been established for this
document under docket ID number
EPA–HQ–OPPT–2013–0443. The
following is a listing of the documents
that are specifically referenced in this
action. The docket includes these
documents and other information
considered by EPA, including
documents that are referenced within
the documents that are included in the
docket, even if the referenced document
is not physically located in the docket.
For assistance in locating these other
documents, please consult the technical
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
1. American University students, alumni, and
faculty. Letter from J. William Hirzy to EPA
Acting Administrator Robert Perciasepe,
‘‘Re: Citizen Petition Under Toxic
Substances Control Act Regarding the
Hydrofluorosilicic Acid (HFSA) in
Drinking Water.’’ May 9, 2013.
2. Hirzy, J.W.; Carton, R.J.; Bonanni, C.D.;
Montanero, C.M.; and Nagle, M.F.
Comparison of hydrofluorosilicic acid and
pharmaceutical sodium fluoride as
fluoridating agents—a cost-benefit analysis.
Environmental Science & Policy. Vol. 29,
pp. 81–86. 2013.
3. Maas, R.P.; Patch, S.C.; Christian, A–M.;
and Coplan, M.J. Effects of fluoridation and
disinfection agent combinations on lead
leaching from leaded-brass part.
Neurotoxicology. Vol. 28, pp. 1023–1031.
2007.
4. Coplan, M.J.; Patch, S.C., Masters, R.D; and
Bachman, M.S. Confirmation of and
explanations for elevated blood lead and
other disorders in children exposed to
water disinfection and fluoridation
chemicals. Neurotoxicology. Vol. 28, pp.
1032–1042. 2007.
5. Edwards, M.; Triantafyllidou, S.; and Best,
D. Elevated blood lead in young children
due to contaminated drinking water:
Washington, DC 2001–2004.
Environmental Science & Technology. Vol.
43, pp. 1618–1623. 2007.
6. Masters, R.D. and Coplan, M.J. Water
treatment with silicofluorides and lead
toxicity. International Journal of
Environmental Studies. Vol. 56, pp. 435–
449. 1999.
7. Masters, R.D.; Coplan, M.J.; Hone, B.T.;
and Dykes, J.E. Association of
silicofluoride treated water with elevated
blood lead. Neurotoxicology. Vol. 21, pp.
1091–1099. 2000.
8. Stein, M.; Starinsky, A.; and Kolodny, Y.
Behaviour of uranium during phosphate
ore calcination. Journal of Chemical
Technology and Biotechnology. Vol. 32,
pp. 834–847. 1982.
9. EPA. EPA Correction of the ‘‘Comparison
of hydrofluorosilicic acid and
pharmaceutical sodium fluoride as
fluoridating agents—a cost-benefit
analysis’’ by Hirzy et al. 2013.
10. Macek, M.D.; Matte, T.D.; Sinks, T.; and
Malvitz, D.M. Blood lead concentrations in
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
children and method of water fluoridation
in the United States, 1988–1994.
Environmental Health Perspectives. Vol.
114, pp. 130–134. 2006.
11. EPA. Drinking Water Regulations,
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and
National Primary Drinking Water
Regulations for Lead and Copper; Final
Rule. Federal Register (56 FR 26460, June
7, 1991).
12. American Water Works Association
(AWWA). Water Fluoridation Principles
and Practices. AWWA Manual M4. Fifth
Ed. Denver: AWWA. 2004.
13. Urbansky, E.T. and Schock, M. R. Can
fluoridation affect lead (II) in potable
water? Hexafluorosilicate and fluoride
equilibria in aqueous solution.
International Journal Environmental
Studies. Vol. 57, pp. 597–637.
14. NSF International. June 7, 2013.
Available at https://www.nsf.org/business/
standards_and_publications.
15. NSF International. NSF Fact Sheet on
Fluoridation Products. June 7, 2013.
Available at https://www.nsf.org/business/
water_distribution/pdf/
NSF_Fact_Sheet_flouride.pdf.
16. EPA. National Primary Drinking Water
Regulation; Arsenic and Clarifications to
Compliance and New Source Contaminants
Monitoring; Final Rule. Federal Register
(66 FR 6976, January 22, 2001).
17. Health and Human Services Department
(HHS). Proposed HHS Recommendation for
Fluoride Concentration in Drinking Water
for Prevention of Dental Caries; Notice.
Federal Register (76 FR 2383, January 13,
2011).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Chapter I
Environmental protection,
Hydrofluorosilicic acid (HFSA),
Drinking water, Toxic Substances
Control Act (TSCA).
Dated: August 6, 2013.
James Jones,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention.
[FR Doc. 2013–19486 Filed 8–9–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
45 CFR Part 1614
Private Attorney Involvement
Legal Services Corporation.
Revised notice of rulemaking
workshop and request for comments
and expressions of interest in
participating in the rulemaking
workshop.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Legal Services
Corporation (LSC) is conducting two
Rulemaking Workshops (Workshops), as
noticed at 78 FR 27339 (May 10, 2013),
and is requesting public comments on
revising LSC’s Private Attorney
Involvement (PAI) rule to respond to
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM
12AUP1
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 155 / Monday, August 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
Recommendation 2 of LSC’s Pro Bono
Task Force (PBTF) Report. The
discussions in the Workshops and the
other comments received will be
considered in connection with
rulemaking by LSC.
On July 23, 2013, LSC hosted the first
of the two Workshops. LSC solicits
expression of interest in participating as
a panelist in the second Workshop on
September 17, 2013, from the recipient
community, the organized bar, pro bono
organizations, and other interested
parties. In preparation for that
workshop, LSC is publishing the
additional questions below.
Additionally, LSC is extending the
deadline for comments and expressions
of interest for that Workshop. The new
deadline is August 28 at 5:30 p.m.
Eastern Daylight Time. The final
deadline for all comments in this stage
of rulemaking remains October 17, 2013,
at 5:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
DATES: Three deadlines are set out in
this notice. Submissions that do not
follow the directions in this notice, or
that are received after a deadline has
passed, may not be considered by LSC,
in its discretion.
(1) The deadline of August 20, 2013,
in the May 10, 2013, Notice is hereby
extended to August 28, 2013.
Expressions of interest in participating
as a panelist in the second Workshop
must be received by 5:30 p.m. EDT on
August 28, 2013. Written comments for
consideration at the second Workshop
regarding (a) the revision of LSC’s PAI
rule, 45 CFR part 1614, to respond to
Recommendation 2 of the PBTF Report,
or (b) additions, deletions, or
modifications to the Topics for
Discussion in the Workshop, including
relevant alternatives, must be received
by the same deadline of 5:30 p.m. EDT
on August 28, 2013.
(2) Non-panelist public participants
for the second Workshop must register
with LSC by 5:30 p.m. EDT on
September 6.
(3) All written comments on revising
the PAI rule, 45 CFR part 1614, in
response to Recommendation 2 of the
PBTF Report must be received by 5:30
p.m. EDT on October 17, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Written materials,
expressions of interest, and registration
for the workshops must be submitted to
Mark Freedman, Senior Assistant
General Counsel, Legal Services
Corporation, 3333 K Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20007; 202–337–6519
(fax); or pairulemaking@lsc.gov.
Electronic submissions are preferred via
email with attachments in Acrobat PDF
format.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:50 Aug 09, 2013
Jkt 229001
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mark Freedman, Senior Assistant
General Counsel, Legal Services
Corporation, 3333 K Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20007; (202) 295–1623
(phone); 202–337–6519 (fax); or
pairulemaking@lsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background Information
On January 26, 2013, the LSC Board
of Directors (LSC Board) voted to
authorize LSC to initiate rulemaking to
consider revisions to 45 CFR part
1614—Private Attorney Involvement
(PAI) to respond to Recommendation 2
of the LSC Pro Bono Task Force (PBTF)
Report, available at: https://bit.ly/
LSCPBTF-Report. Part 1614 is designed
to ensure that recipients of Legal
Services Corporation funds involve
private attorneys in the delivery of legal
assistance to eligible clients. 45 CFR
1614.1. With certain exceptions, a
recipient of LSC funding is required to
devote an amount equal to at least
121⁄2% of the recipient’s LSC
annualized basic field award to the
involvement of private attorneys in the
delivery of legal services to eligible
clients. Id.
Recommendation 2 of the PBTF
Report suggests LSC should reexamine
the regulation in three areas, which are
the three Topics for Discussion for this
rulemaking:
Topic 1: Resources spent supervising
and training law students, law
graduates, deferred associates, and
others should be counted toward
grantees’ PAI obligations, especially in
‘‘incubator’’ initiatives;
Topic 2: Grantees should be allowed
to spend PAI resources to enhance their
screening, advice, and referral programs
that often attract pro bono volunteers
while serving the needs of low-income
clients; and
Topic 3: LSC should reexamine the
rule that mandates adherence to LSC
grantee case handling requirements
including that matters be accepted as
grantee cases in order for programs to
count toward PAI requirements.
On April 16, 2013, the LSC Board
voted to convene two Workshops in
connection with the rulemaking. On
May 10, 2013, LSC published a notice
in the Federal Register at 78 FR 27339
(May 10, 2013) regarding the Workshops
and seeking comments on the potential
rulemaking. https://federalregister.gov/
a/2013-11071. The first Workshop was
held in connection with LSC’s Board
meeting in Denver, Colorado on July 23,
2013. The second Workshop will be
held on September 17, 2013, at the F.
William McCalpin Conference Center,
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48849
Legal Services Corporation
Headquarters, 3333 K Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20007, from 1:30 p.m.–
4:30 p.m. EDT. Participants are invited
to attend in person, via webinar, or
telephonically. Information about how
to participate, materials regarding this
rulemaking, and materials from the first
Workshop are available on LSC’s Web
site at https://bit.ly/
PAIrulemakingdetails.
II. Nature of the Workshops
Rulemaking workshops enable LSC to
meet with interested parties to discuss,
but not negotiate, LSC rules and
regulations. The Workshops for the PAI
rule are meetings at which the panelists
and participants hold open discussions
to share ideas regarding how to revise
the PAI rule in a manner responsive to
the Recommendation 2 of LSC’s Pro
Bono Task Force Report.
III. Public Participation: Panelists and
Open Comment
LSC is inviting expressions of interest
from the public to participate in the
second Workshop as a panelist.
Expressions of interest in participating
as a panelist should be submitted, in
writing, to LSC at the address above
before the stated deadline. LSC will
select panelists shortly thereafter and
will inform all those who expressed
interest whether or not they have been
selected.
Expressions of interest must include:
(1) A brief outline of the key points
that you would like to make as they
relate to the three topics and items of
interest identified in the May 10, 2013,
Notice and the additional questions
identified in this Notice;
(2) a summary of your qualifications;
and
(3) a completed checklist of the topics
and items that you will address,
including the additional questions
identified below. The checklist will be
available at the Workshop Web site at:
https://bit.ly/PAIrulemakingdetails.
The Workshop will be open to public
observation, and portions of the
Workshop will be open for public
comment from in-person, webinar, and
telephone participants (who must
register for the webinar to comment via
the telephone). Participants other than
selected panelists must register with
LSC before 5:30 p.m. EST on September
6, 2013, to ensure that sufficient
arrangements can be made for their
participation. Panelists and in-person
participants are expected to cover their
own expenses (travel, lodging, etc.). LSC
may consider providing financial
assistance to a panelist for whom travel
costs would represent a significant
E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM
12AUP1
48850
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 155 / Monday, August 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
hardship and barrier to participation.
Any such person should so note in his/
her expression of interest for LSC’s
consideration.
Beginning with the May 10, 2013,
Notice, LSC has an open comment
period through October 17, 2013,
regarding revisions to 45 CFR part 1614
to respond to Recommendation 2 of the
PBTF Report. LSC welcomes written
comments during the comment period
and will consider the comments
received in the rulemaking process.
Written comments received prior to the
Workshop may be addressed in the
Workshop. Written comments must be
submitted as per the directions above
and the deadlines indicated.
IV. Topics for Discussion
The May 10, 2013, Notice identified
the three topics and items for discussion
for the Workshops and written
comments. Each topic is taken directly
from the three suggestions in
Recommendation 2 of the PBTF Report
stated above. Members of the public are
welcome to recommend additions,
deletions, or modifications to these
Topics for Discussion, including
relevant alternatives, for LSC’s
consideration through written
comments submitted prior to the second
Workshop.
The May 10, 2013, Notice, topics,
items for discussion, additional
background information on each of
these topics, and materials from the first
Workshop are located at the PAI
Workshops Web page at https://bit.ly/
PAIrulemakingdetails.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
V. Additional Questions
The May 10, 2013, Notice contained
the three Topics for Discussion and a
number of specific items for each topic.
The following questions seek specific
proposals to address in greater detail the
issues raised by those topics and items.
LSC asks for comments that address
these specific questions with concrete
examples or proposals. LSC asks that
panelists identify in the expressions of
interest which of these questions they
will address, and to submit as
comments concrete examples or
proposals for discussion. The original
topics and items are also on the agenda,
but these questions are meant to focus
the discussion.
A. Scope of Part 1614.
Topics 1 and 2 both raise questions
regarding the definition of a private
attorney for purposes of Part 1614.
These topics also raise questions about
the purpose of the Part 1614 rule and
what work meets the Part 1614
requirements. The definition of a private
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:50 Aug 09, 2013
Jkt 229001
attorney combines elements of the
private attorney definition in 45 CFR
1614.1(d), the staff attorney definition in
45 CFR 1600.1, and the attorney
definition in 45 CFR 1600.1. Based on
the regulations and LSC’s interpretation
and application of them, the current
definition for private attorney can be
paraphrased as follows:
A private attorney is an attorney who:
1. Provides legal assistance to eligible
clients; and
2. Is authorized to practice law in the
jurisdiction where assistance is
rendered; and
3. Earns one half or less of her annual
professional income from either:
a. a grant from LSC; or
b. from a recipient, subrecipient,
grantee, or contractor, including:
i. an LSC basic field program; or
ii. a subrecipient of an LSC recipient
that is a staff-model legal services
program primarily providing civil
legal assistance to low-income
persons; and
• receives an LSC subgrant under 45
CFR part 1627; or
• receives a Part 1614 subgrant using
non-LSC funds.
This definition is based on the
attorney’s income and does not consider
the hours worked or the nature of the
attorney’s legal practice (for-profit, nonprofit, public interest, government, etc.).
The following questions involve the
scope of this definition for the primary
Part 1614 activities that constitute
‘‘involvement of private attorneys’’ in
the delivery of legal services to eligible
clients. These questions do not address
the scope of related work, such as
screening and administrative support,
that may involve non-attorneys in
secondary Part 1614 functions.
Topic 1:
1. Please provide specific suggestions
for definitions, limits, or guidelines
relating to the potential addition of law
students, pre-admission law graduates,
or paralegals to the scope of Part 1614
activities.
2. Are there any other categories of
non-lawyers whose work should be
considered for inclusion in Part 1614?
3. If you recommend changing the
definition of a private attorney, then
please provide specific
recommendations addressing the scope
of the definition and how the proposed
definition relates to the purpose of the
rule.
4. Please provide specific suggestions
relating to the potential inclusion in
Part 1614 of underemployed attorneys
receiving reduced fees (e.g., in
‘‘incubator projects’’) that may be their
primary professional income.
5. Please provide specific suggestions
relating to the potential inclusion in
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Part 1614 of attorneys who are not
authorized to practice law in the
jurisdiction of the LSC recipient but
who may provide legal information or
other Part 1614 services if permitted
under local bar rules.
Topic 2:
6. Should Part 1614 include the use
of non-LSC funds as a subgrant to
provide support to attorneys working at
a staff-attorney model legal aid program
that receives no LSC funds? This
question specifically addresses the
situation in Advisory Opinion 2009–
1004. Please identify how involving
attorneys at non-LSC, staff-attorney
model legal aid programs relates to the
purposes of Part 1614.
B. Tracking and Accounting for Part
1614 Work
Topics 2 and 3 both raise questions
about how Part 1614 work should be
tracked and accounted for. The Pro
Bono Task Force and many panelists at
the first workshop suggested that the
LSC definition of cases and the related
case management system requirements
are not well suited for Part 1614.
1. What criteria and methods should
LSC recipients use to identify and track
Part 1614 services to provide sufficient
information for reporting and
accountability purposes about attempts
to place eligible clients with private
attorneys, or others, and the outcome of
those efforts?
2. Please identify what criteria should
apply to referral placement
organizations, such as bar association
programs, for them to qualify for Part
1614.
3. Please identify how LSC recipients
can account for and track PAI services
while not creating conflicts for the
recipient regarding future representation
of clients, consistent with local bar
rules.
C. Support for Unscreened Work of
Private Attorney Clinics
Topic 3 raises the question of LSC
recipients providing support to clinics
hosted by other organizations (or cosponsored) that involve private
attorneys in providing legal assistance
without screening for LSC eligibility.
Part 1614 eligibility for these situations
involves both tracking issues (section B
above) and subsidization issues. These
questions specifically address Advisory
Opinion 2008–1001.
1. Should LSC permit LSC recipients
to obtain some credit under Part 1614
for support for these clinics if they do
not screen for LSC eligibility and the
clinics may provide services to both
eligible and ineligible clients? Please
E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM
12AUP1
Federal Register / Vol. 78, No. 155 / Monday, August 12, 2013 / Proposed Rules
provide specifics about screening
concerns and methods to address them.
2. Should eligibility screening in
these clinics for Part 1614 be the same
as regular intake screening for LSC
recipients or different? If different, then
please identify methods or criteria for
screening.
3. Please identify methods or criteria
for LSC to ensure that LSC recipients
providing support to these clinics, if
permitted, are not improperly
subsidizing either services to ineligible
individuals or impermissible activities.
4. Please identify methods or criteria
to distinguish between permissible
activities supporting other entities and
attorneys, such as general trainings, and
impermissible subsidization.
VI. Format of the September Workshop
The Workshop will include a panel
discussion of the Topics for Discussion
and related questions and items
identified in the May 10, 2013, Notice
and this Notice. Panelists will be
selected to represent a diversity of
opinions and perspectives.
In addition to the panel, LSC
encourages observation and
participation by all interested
individuals and organizations. The
meeting agenda will include
opportunities for individuals who are
not members of the panel to provide
public comments in person, by webinar,
or via telephone (webinar registration is
required to comment by telephone). LSC
plans to transcribe the meetings and
make the webinar recording available on
its Web site.
By September 12, 2013, LSC will post
the final agenda for the September
Workshop on the PAI Workshops Web
page at https://bit.ly/
PAIrulemakingdetails.
ehiers on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
VII. Important Notes
Information received in response to
this Notice of Rulemaking Workshops
and Request for Expressions of Interest
in Participation in the Rulemaking
Workshops may be published or
summarized by LSC without
acknowledgement of, or permission
from, you or your organization.
Furthermore, your responses may be
releasable to the public under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 42
U.S.C. 2996d, and the LSC FOIA
regulation, 45 CFR part 1619. LSC, at its
discretion, may request individual
commenters to elaborate on information
in their written comments.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
14:50 Aug 09, 2013
Jkt 229001
Dated: August 6, 2013.
Atitaya C. Rok,
Staff Attorney.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
[FR Doc. 2013–19383 Filed 8–9–13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7050–01–P
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 54
[WC Docket No. 10–90; DA 13–1635]
Wireline Competition Bureau
Announces Closing of the Bureau’s
Cost Model Virtual Workshop
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed Rule; closing of virtual
workshop.
AGENCY:
In this document, the
Wireline Competition Bureau
announces the closing of the Bureau’s
Connect America Cost Model (CAM)
virtual workshop. Parties should submit
any additional input regarding the
model development, including any
follow-up commentary to topics that
have been previously posted in the
virtual workshop, in WC Docket No. 10–
90. The Bureau has not yet finalized and
adopted a cost model, and will raise any
additional questions through Public
Notice.
DATES: Virtual workshop closure
effective August 12, 2013.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments,
identified by WC Docket No. 10–90, by
any of the following methods:
D Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
D Federal Communications
Commission’s Web site: https://
fjallfoss.fcc.gov/ecfs2/. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
D Virtual Workshop: In addition to
the usual methods for filing electronic
comments, the Commission is allowing
comments, reply comments, and ex
parte comments in this proceeding to be
filed by posting comments at https://
www.fcc.gov/blog/wcb-cost-modelvirtual-workshop-2012.
D People with Disabilities: Contact the
FCC to request reasonable
accommodations (accessible format
documents, sign language interpreters,
CART, etc.) by email: FCC504@fcc.gov
or phone: (202) 418–0530 or TTY: (202)
418–0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document.
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
48851
Katie King, Wireline Competition
Bureau at (202) 418–7491 or TTY (202)
418–0484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a
synopsis of the Wireline Competition
Bureau’s Public Notice in WC Docket
No. 10–90; DA 13–1635, released July
24, 2013, as well as information posted
online in the Wireline Competition
Bureau’s Virtual Workshop. The
complete text of the Public Notice is
available for inspection and copying
during normal business hours in the
FCC Reference Information Center,
Portals II, 445 12th Street SW., Room
CY–A257, Washington, DC 20554.
These documents may also be
purchased from the Commission’s
duplicating contractor, Best Copy and
Printing, Inc. (BCPI), 445 12th Street
SW., Room CY–B402, Washington, DC
20554, telephone (800) 378–3160 or
(202) 863–2893, facsimile (202) 863–
2898, or via the Internet at https://
www.bcpiweb.com. In addition, the
Virtual Workshop may be accessed via
the Internet at https://transition.fcc.gov/
Daily_Releases/Daily_Business/2013/
db0724/DA-13-1635A1.pdf
1. The Wireline Competition Bureau
(Bureau) announces the closing of the
Bureau’s Connect America Cost Model
(CAM) virtual workshop.
2. In October 2012, the Bureau
announced the commencement of the
virtual workshop to solicit input and
facilitate discussion on topics related to
the development and adoption of the
forward-looking cost model for Connect
America Phase II. We sought comment
on 28 different topics in the virtual
workshop over the course of ten
months. Filings in the virtual workshop
through July 17, 2013 have been
submitted into the above-captioned
docket.
3. The Bureau has not yet finalized
and adopted a cost model. Parties
should submit any additional input
regarding the model development,
including any follow-up commentary to
topics that have been previously posted
in the virtual workshop, in WC Docket
No. 10–90. Any additional questions
will be raised through Public Notice.
I. Procedural Matters
A. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Act
Analysis
4. As required by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act of 1980, as amended
(RFA), the Bureau prepared an Initial
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (IRFA),
included as part of the Model Design
PN, 77 FR 38804, June 29, 2012, of the
possible significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities by
E:\FR\FM\12AUP1.SGM
12AUP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 155 (Monday, August 12, 2013)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 48848-48851]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-19383]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
LEGAL SERVICES CORPORATION
45 CFR Part 1614
Private Attorney Involvement
AGENCY: Legal Services Corporation.
ACTION: Revised notice of rulemaking workshop and request for comments
and expressions of interest in participating in the rulemaking
workshop.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Legal Services Corporation (LSC) is conducting two
Rulemaking Workshops (Workshops), as noticed at 78 FR 27339 (May 10,
2013), and is requesting public comments on revising LSC's Private
Attorney Involvement (PAI) rule to respond to
[[Page 48849]]
Recommendation 2 of LSC's Pro Bono Task Force (PBTF) Report. The
discussions in the Workshops and the other comments received will be
considered in connection with rulemaking by LSC.
On July 23, 2013, LSC hosted the first of the two Workshops. LSC
solicits expression of interest in participating as a panelist in the
second Workshop on September 17, 2013, from the recipient community,
the organized bar, pro bono organizations, and other interested
parties. In preparation for that workshop, LSC is publishing the
additional questions below. Additionally, LSC is extending the deadline
for comments and expressions of interest for that Workshop. The new
deadline is August 28 at 5:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time. The final
deadline for all comments in this stage of rulemaking remains October
17, 2013, at 5:30 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time.
DATES: Three deadlines are set out in this notice. Submissions that do
not follow the directions in this notice, or that are received after a
deadline has passed, may not be considered by LSC, in its discretion.
(1) The deadline of August 20, 2013, in the May 10, 2013, Notice is
hereby extended to August 28, 2013. Expressions of interest in
participating as a panelist in the second Workshop must be received by
5:30 p.m. EDT on August 28, 2013. Written comments for consideration at
the second Workshop regarding (a) the revision of LSC's PAI rule, 45
CFR part 1614, to respond to Recommendation 2 of the PBTF Report, or
(b) additions, deletions, or modifications to the Topics for Discussion
in the Workshop, including relevant alternatives, must be received by
the same deadline of 5:30 p.m. EDT on August 28, 2013.
(2) Non-panelist public participants for the second Workshop must
register with LSC by 5:30 p.m. EDT on September 6.
(3) All written comments on revising the PAI rule, 45 CFR part
1614, in response to Recommendation 2 of the PBTF Report must be
received by 5:30 p.m. EDT on October 17, 2013.
ADDRESSES: Written materials, expressions of interest, and registration
for the workshops must be submitted to Mark Freedman, Senior Assistant
General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20007; 202-337-6519 (fax); or pairulemaking@lsc.gov.
Electronic submissions are preferred via email with attachments in
Acrobat PDF format.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark Freedman, Senior Assistant
General Counsel, Legal Services Corporation, 3333 K Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20007; (202) 295-1623 (phone); 202-337-6519 (fax); or
pairulemaking@lsc.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background Information
On January 26, 2013, the LSC Board of Directors (LSC Board) voted
to authorize LSC to initiate rulemaking to consider revisions to 45 CFR
part 1614--Private Attorney Involvement (PAI) to respond to
Recommendation 2 of the LSC Pro Bono Task Force (PBTF) Report,
available at: https://bit.ly/LSCPBTF-Report. Part 1614 is designed to
ensure that recipients of Legal Services Corporation funds involve
private attorneys in the delivery of legal assistance to eligible
clients. 45 CFR 1614.1. With certain exceptions, a recipient of LSC
funding is required to devote an amount equal to at least 12\1/2\% of
the recipient's LSC annualized basic field award to the involvement of
private attorneys in the delivery of legal services to eligible
clients. Id.
Recommendation 2 of the PBTF Report suggests LSC should reexamine
the regulation in three areas, which are the three Topics for
Discussion for this rulemaking:
Topic 1: Resources spent supervising and training law students, law
graduates, deferred associates, and others should be counted toward
grantees' PAI obligations, especially in ``incubator'' initiatives;
Topic 2: Grantees should be allowed to spend PAI resources to
enhance their screening, advice, and referral programs that often
attract pro bono volunteers while serving the needs of low-income
clients; and
Topic 3: LSC should reexamine the rule that mandates adherence to
LSC grantee case handling requirements including that matters be
accepted as grantee cases in order for programs to count toward PAI
requirements.
On April 16, 2013, the LSC Board voted to convene two Workshops in
connection with the rulemaking. On May 10, 2013, LSC published a notice
in the Federal Register at 78 FR 27339 (May 10, 2013) regarding the
Workshops and seeking comments on the potential rulemaking. https://federalregister.gov/a/2013-11071. The first Workshop was held in
connection with LSC's Board meeting in Denver, Colorado on July 23,
2013. The second Workshop will be held on September 17, 2013, at the F.
William McCalpin Conference Center, Legal Services Corporation
Headquarters, 3333 K Street NW., Washington, DC 20007, from 1:30 p.m.-
4:30 p.m. EDT. Participants are invited to attend in person, via
webinar, or telephonically. Information about how to participate,
materials regarding this rulemaking, and materials from the first
Workshop are available on LSC's Web site at https://bit.ly/PAIrulemakingdetails.
II. Nature of the Workshops
Rulemaking workshops enable LSC to meet with interested parties to
discuss, but not negotiate, LSC rules and regulations. The Workshops
for the PAI rule are meetings at which the panelists and participants
hold open discussions to share ideas regarding how to revise the PAI
rule in a manner responsive to the Recommendation 2 of LSC's Pro Bono
Task Force Report.
III. Public Participation: Panelists and Open Comment
LSC is inviting expressions of interest from the public to
participate in the second Workshop as a panelist. Expressions of
interest in participating as a panelist should be submitted, in
writing, to LSC at the address above before the stated deadline. LSC
will select panelists shortly thereafter and will inform all those who
expressed interest whether or not they have been selected.
Expressions of interest must include:
(1) A brief outline of the key points that you would like to make
as they relate to the three topics and items of interest identified in
the May 10, 2013, Notice and the additional questions identified in
this Notice;
(2) a summary of your qualifications; and
(3) a completed checklist of the topics and items that you will
address, including the additional questions identified below. The
checklist will be available at the Workshop Web site at: https://bit.ly/PAIrulemakingdetails.
The Workshop will be open to public observation, and portions of
the Workshop will be open for public comment from in-person, webinar,
and telephone participants (who must register for the webinar to
comment via the telephone). Participants other than selected panelists
must register with LSC before 5:30 p.m. EST on September 6, 2013, to
ensure that sufficient arrangements can be made for their
participation. Panelists and in-person participants are expected to
cover their own expenses (travel, lodging, etc.). LSC may consider
providing financial assistance to a panelist for whom travel costs
would represent a significant
[[Page 48850]]
hardship and barrier to participation. Any such person should so note
in his/her expression of interest for LSC's consideration.
Beginning with the May 10, 2013, Notice, LSC has an open comment
period through October 17, 2013, regarding revisions to 45 CFR part
1614 to respond to Recommendation 2 of the PBTF Report. LSC welcomes
written comments during the comment period and will consider the
comments received in the rulemaking process. Written comments received
prior to the Workshop may be addressed in the Workshop. Written
comments must be submitted as per the directions above and the
deadlines indicated.
IV. Topics for Discussion
The May 10, 2013, Notice identified the three topics and items for
discussion for the Workshops and written comments. Each topic is taken
directly from the three suggestions in Recommendation 2 of the PBTF
Report stated above. Members of the public are welcome to recommend
additions, deletions, or modifications to these Topics for Discussion,
including relevant alternatives, for LSC's consideration through
written comments submitted prior to the second Workshop.
The May 10, 2013, Notice, topics, items for discussion, additional
background information on each of these topics, and materials from the
first Workshop are located at the PAI Workshops Web page at https://bit.ly/PAIrulemakingdetails.
V. Additional Questions
The May 10, 2013, Notice contained the three Topics for Discussion
and a number of specific items for each topic. The following questions
seek specific proposals to address in greater detail the issues raised
by those topics and items. LSC asks for comments that address these
specific questions with concrete examples or proposals. LSC asks that
panelists identify in the expressions of interest which of these
questions they will address, and to submit as comments concrete
examples or proposals for discussion. The original topics and items are
also on the agenda, but these questions are meant to focus the
discussion.
A. Scope of Part 1614.
Topics 1 and 2 both raise questions regarding the definition of a
private attorney for purposes of Part 1614. These topics also raise
questions about the purpose of the Part 1614 rule and what work meets
the Part 1614 requirements. The definition of a private attorney
combines elements of the private attorney definition in 45 CFR
1614.1(d), the staff attorney definition in 45 CFR 1600.1, and the
attorney definition in 45 CFR 1600.1. Based on the regulations and
LSC's interpretation and application of them, the current definition
for private attorney can be paraphrased as follows:
A private attorney is an attorney who:
1. Provides legal assistance to eligible clients; and
2. Is authorized to practice law in the jurisdiction where assistance
is rendered; and
3. Earns one half or less of her annual professional income from
either:
a. a grant from LSC; or
b. from a recipient, subrecipient, grantee, or contractor,
including:
i. an LSC basic field program; or
ii. a subrecipient of an LSC recipient that is a staff-model legal
services program primarily providing civil legal assistance to low-
income persons; and
receives an LSC subgrant under 45 CFR part 1627; or
receives a Part 1614 subgrant using non-LSC funds.
This definition is based on the attorney's income and does not
consider the hours worked or the nature of the attorney's legal
practice (for-profit, non-profit, public interest, government, etc.).
The following questions involve the scope of this definition for the
primary Part 1614 activities that constitute ``involvement of private
attorneys'' in the delivery of legal services to eligible clients.
These questions do not address the scope of related work, such as
screening and administrative support, that may involve non-attorneys in
secondary Part 1614 functions.
Topic 1:
1. Please provide specific suggestions for definitions, limits, or
guidelines relating to the potential addition of law students, pre-
admission law graduates, or paralegals to the scope of Part 1614
activities.
2. Are there any other categories of non-lawyers whose work should
be considered for inclusion in Part 1614?
3. If you recommend changing the definition of a private attorney,
then please provide specific recommendations addressing the scope of
the definition and how the proposed definition relates to the purpose
of the rule.
4. Please provide specific suggestions relating to the potential
inclusion in Part 1614 of underemployed attorneys receiving reduced
fees (e.g., in ``incubator projects'') that may be their primary
professional income.
5. Please provide specific suggestions relating to the potential
inclusion in Part 1614 of attorneys who are not authorized to practice
law in the jurisdiction of the LSC recipient but who may provide legal
information or other Part 1614 services if permitted under local bar
rules.
Topic 2:
6. Should Part 1614 include the use of non-LSC funds as a subgrant
to provide support to attorneys working at a staff-attorney model legal
aid program that receives no LSC funds? This question specifically
addresses the situation in Advisory Opinion 2009-1004. Please identify
how involving attorneys at non-LSC, staff-attorney model legal aid
programs relates to the purposes of Part 1614.
B. Tracking and Accounting for Part 1614 Work
Topics 2 and 3 both raise questions about how Part 1614 work should
be tracked and accounted for. The Pro Bono Task Force and many
panelists at the first workshop suggested that the LSC definition of
cases and the related case management system requirements are not well
suited for Part 1614.
1. What criteria and methods should LSC recipients use to identify
and track Part 1614 services to provide sufficient information for
reporting and accountability purposes about attempts to place eligible
clients with private attorneys, or others, and the outcome of those
efforts?
2. Please identify what criteria should apply to referral placement
organizations, such as bar association programs, for them to qualify
for Part 1614.
3. Please identify how LSC recipients can account for and track PAI
services while not creating conflicts for the recipient regarding
future representation of clients, consistent with local bar rules.
C. Support for Unscreened Work of Private Attorney Clinics
Topic 3 raises the question of LSC recipients providing support to
clinics hosted by other organizations (or co-sponsored) that involve
private attorneys in providing legal assistance without screening for
LSC eligibility. Part 1614 eligibility for these situations involves
both tracking issues (section B above) and subsidization issues. These
questions specifically address Advisory Opinion 2008-1001.
1. Should LSC permit LSC recipients to obtain some credit under
Part 1614 for support for these clinics if they do not screen for LSC
eligibility and the clinics may provide services to both eligible and
ineligible clients? Please
[[Page 48851]]
provide specifics about screening concerns and methods to address them.
2. Should eligibility screening in these clinics for Part 1614 be
the same as regular intake screening for LSC recipients or different?
If different, then please identify methods or criteria for screening.
3. Please identify methods or criteria for LSC to ensure that LSC
recipients providing support to these clinics, if permitted, are not
improperly subsidizing either services to ineligible individuals or
impermissible activities.
4. Please identify methods or criteria to distinguish between
permissible activities supporting other entities and attorneys, such as
general trainings, and impermissible subsidization.
VI. Format of the September Workshop
The Workshop will include a panel discussion of the Topics for
Discussion and related questions and items identified in the May 10,
2013, Notice and this Notice. Panelists will be selected to represent a
diversity of opinions and perspectives.
In addition to the panel, LSC encourages observation and
participation by all interested individuals and organizations. The
meeting agenda will include opportunities for individuals who are not
members of the panel to provide public comments in person, by webinar,
or via telephone (webinar registration is required to comment by
telephone). LSC plans to transcribe the meetings and make the webinar
recording available on its Web site.
By September 12, 2013, LSC will post the final agenda for the
September Workshop on the PAI Workshops Web page at https://bit.ly/PAIrulemakingdetails.
VII. Important Notes
Information received in response to this Notice of Rulemaking
Workshops and Request for Expressions of Interest in Participation in
the Rulemaking Workshops may be published or summarized by LSC without
acknowledgement of, or permission from, you or your organization.
Furthermore, your responses may be releasable to the public under the
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 42 U.S.C. 2996d, and the LSC FOIA
regulation, 45 CFR part 1619. LSC, at its discretion, may request
individual commenters to elaborate on information in their written
comments.
Dated: August 6, 2013.
Atitaya C. Rok,
Staff Attorney.
[FR Doc. 2013-19383 Filed 8-9-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7050-01-P