Agencies and Commissions October 2007 – Federal Register Recent Federal Regulation Documents

The Commission determines, pursuant to section 751(b) of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1675(b)) and Commission rule 207.45, that the subject request does not show changed circumstances sufficient to warrant institution of an investigation to review in less than 24 months the Commission's final affirmative determination in investigation No. 731-TA-1089 (Final). Certain orange juice is provided for in subheadings 2009.12.25, 2009.12.45, and 2009.19.00 of the Harmonized Tariff Schedule of the United States.

The NCUA intends to submit the following information collection to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review and clearance under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35). This information collection is published to obtain comments from the public.

Pursuant to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended (Pub. L. 91-190, 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) and in response to public comment, the Presidio Trust (Trust) is notifying interested parties that it will: (1) Terminate the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process for the Presidio Museum in the Main Post district of the Presidio of San Francisco, California (Presidio), (2) supplement the final EIS for the May 2002 Presidio Trust Management Plan (PTMP) to consider proposed changes in the actions analyzed for the Main Post district in the original NEPA document; and (3) engage in a scoping process to seek public input on the supplemental EIS. The supplemental EIS will address the environmental impacts of various proposals that would modify previous Trust decisions regarding the Main Post district. The public scoping process will determine the range of actions, alternatives and impacts to be considered in the supplemental EIS.

In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 which provides opportunity for public comment on new or revised data collections, the Railroad Retirement Board will publish periodic summaries of proposed data collections. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the RRB's estimate of the burden of the collection of the information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden related to the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Title and Purpose of information collection: Representative Payee Parental Custody Monitoring: OMB 3220-0176. Under Section 12(a) of the Railroad Retirement Act (RRA), the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) is authorized to select, make payments to, and to conduct transactions with, a beneficiary's relative or some other person willing to act on behalf of the beneficiary as a representative payee. The RRB is responsible for determining if direct payment to the beneficiary or payment to a representative payee would best serve the beneficiary's interest. Inherent in the RRB's authorization to select a representative payee is the responsibility to monitor the payee to assure that the beneficiary's interests are protected. The RRB utilizes Form G-99d, Parental Custody Report, to obtain information needed to verify that a parent-for-child representative payee still has custody of the child. One response is required from each respondent. The RRB proposes no changes to Form G-99d. The estimated annual respondent burden is as follows:

In accordance with the requirement of Section 3506(c)(2)(A) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 which provides opportunity for public comment on new or revised data collections, the Railroad Retirement Board (RRB) will publish periodic summaries of proposed data collections. Comments are invited on: (a) Whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the information has practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the RRB's estimate of the burden of the collection of the information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden related to the collection of information on respondents, including the use of automated collection techniques or other forms of information technology. Title and Purpose of information collection: Financial Disclosure Statement: OMB 3220-0127 Under Section 10 of the Railroad Retirement Act and Section 2(d) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act, the RRB may recover overpayments of annuities, pensions, death benefits, unemployment benefits, and sickness benefits that were made erroneously. An overpayment may be waived if the beneficiary was not at fault in causing the overpayment and recovery would cause financial hardship. The regulations for the recovery and waiver of erroneous payments are contained in 20 CFR parts 255 and 340. The RRB utilizes Form DR-423, Financial Disclosure Statement, to obtain information about the overpaid beneficiary's income, debts, and expenses if that person indicates that (s)he cannot make restitution for the overpayment. The information is used to determine if the overpayment should be waived as wholly or partially uncollectible. If waiver is denied, the information is used to determine the size and frequency of installment payments. The beneficiary is made aware of the overpayment by letter and is offered a variety of methods for recovery. One response is requested of each respondent. Completion is voluntary. However, failure to provide the requested information may result in a denial of the waiver request. The RRB proposes to revise Form DR-423 to delete items requesting the railroad employee's Social Security Number and their spouses Social Security Number. Non-burden impacting formatting and editorial changes are also proposed. The estimated annual respondent burden is as follows:

The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (``FDIC'') proposes to add three new systems of records to its collection of systems of records notices published pursuant to the Privacy Act of 1974. These new systems of records are entitled: Office of the Chairman Correspondence Records; Congressional Correspondence Records; and, Legislative Information Tracking System Records. The FDIC also proposes to revise twenty-three existing systems of records to update various system elements and to add routine use language recommended by the President's Task Force on Identity Theft. We hereby publish this notice for comment on the proposed actions.

In accordance with the Privacy Act of1974 (5 U.S.C. 552a), as amended by the Computer Matching and Privacy Protection Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100-503), Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Guidelines on the Conduct of Matching Programs (54 FR 25818 published June 19, 1989), and OMB Circular No. A-130, revised November 28, 2000, ``Management of Federal Information Resources,'' the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is publishing notice of its new computer matching program with the Social Security Administration (SSA).

We propose to include in parts 404 and 416 of our rules many of the hearing level procedures now in place for disability cases in the Boston region. This change will expand those rules nationwide and apply them to hearings on both disability and non-disability matters. We expect these rules will make the hearings process more efficient and help us reduce the hearings backlog, which has reached historic proportions, thereby benefiting all individuals requesting a hearing. We also propose to amend our rules governing the final level of the administrative review process to make proceedings at that level more like those used by a Federal appellate court when it reviews the decision of a district court, to establish procedures for appeals to that level, and to change the name of the body that will hear such appeals from the ``Appeals Council,'' or the ``Decision Review Board'' in the Boston region, to the ``Review Board.'' Consistent with the change to a more truly appellate process, we suggest limiting the circumstances in which new evidence may be added to the record during the appeals process. We also propose circumscribing the time period covered in any subsequent administrative hearing on remand from the Review Board or a Federal court to the time period covered by the first administrative law judge's (ALJ) hearing decision in the case.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 5 CFR part 1320, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, the Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (``ASC'') is soliciting comments on the need for the collection of information contained in 12 CFR part 1102, Subpart C, Rules Pertaining to the Privacy of Individuals and Systems of Records Maintained by the Appraisal Subcommittee. The ASC also requests comments on the practical utility of the collection of information; the accuracy of the burden hour estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden to respondents, including use of automated information collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 and 5 CFR Part 1320, Reporting and Recordkeeping Requirements, the Appraisal Subcommittee of the Federal Financial Institutions Examination Council (``ASC'') is soliciting comments on the need for the collection of information contained in 12 CFR Part 1102, Subpart D, Description of Office, Procedures, Public Information. The ASC also requests comments on the practical utility of the collection of information; the accuracy of the burden hour estimate; ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and ways to minimize the burden to respondents, including use of automated information collection techniques or other forms of information technology.

Notice is hereby given that the U.S. International Trade Commission has determined not to review an initial determination (``ID'') (Order No. 9) issued by the presiding administrative law judge (``ALJ'') granting complainants'' motion to substitute parties in the above-captioned investigation.

This action adds to the Procurement List a service to be furnished by nonprofit agencies employing persons who are blind or have other severe disabilities.