Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 238 / Monday, December 13, 2004 / Notices 72207

20852, PH: 301/443–3396 [between 8 

a.m. and 5 p.m. (EST) Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays]. 

VIII. Other Information 

The IHS Area Offices and Service 

Units are authorized to provide 

additional funding to make awards to 

applicants in the LRP, but must be in 

compliance with any limits in the 

appropriation and Section 108 of the 

Indian Health Care Improvement Act 

not to exceed the amount authorized in 

the IHS appropriation (up to 

$27,000,000 for FY 2005.) 

Should an IHS Area Office contribute 

to the LRP, those funds will be used for 

only those sites located in that Area. 

Those sites will retain their relative 

ranking from the national site-ranking 

list. For example, the Albuquerque Area 

Office identifies supplemental monies 

for dentists. Only the dental positions 

within the Albuquerque Area will be 

funded with the supplemental monies 

consistent with the national ranking and 

site index within that Area. 

Should an IHS Service Unit 

contribute to the LRP, those funds will 

be used for only those sites located in 

that Service Unit. Those sites will retain 

their relative ranking from the national 

site-ranking list. For example, Chinle 

Service Unit identifies supplemental 

monies for pharmacists. The Chinle 

Service Unit consists of two facilities, 

namely the Chinle Comprehensive 

Health Care Facility and the Tsaile PHS 

Indian Health Center. The national 

ranking will be used for the Chinle 

Comprehensive Health Care Facility 

(Score = 44) and the Tsaile PHS Indian 

Health center (Score = 46). With a score 

of 46, the Tsaile PHS Indian Health 

Center would receive priority over the 

Chinle Comprehensive Health care 

Facility.

Dated: December 6, 2004. 

Charles W. Grim, 

Assistant Surgeon General Director, Indian 

Health Service.

[FR Doc. 04–27200 Filed 12–10–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4160–16–M

DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 

SECURITY 

Science and Technology Directorate; 

Submission for Review; Revision of 

Currently Approved Information 

Collection Requests for Support Antiterrorism by Fostering Effective 

Technologies Act of 2002 (SAFETY 

ACT)—Application Kit and Forms 002 

Through 005

AGENCY: Department of Homeland 

Security, Science and Technology 

Directorate.

ACTION: Notice; 60-day notice request for 

review and comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Homeland 

Security (DHS) invites the general 

public and other Federal agencies to 

comment on revised information 

collection requests (ICRs) 1640–0001, 

1640–0002, 1640–0003, 1640–0004, 

1640–0005, and 1640–0006, SAFETY 

ACT Application Kit and Forms 003 

through 007. As required by the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, (Pub. 

L. 104–13, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35) DHS is 

soliciting comments on the revisions for 

the approved information collection 

requests. The ICRs previously were 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 16, 2003, at 68 FR 59696, 

allowing for OMB review and a 60-day 

public comment period, and on 

February 20, 2004 at 69 FR 7978 to 

allow for an additional 30-day public 

comment period. The revised ICR 

submissions set forth in this Notice 

incorporate comments received by DHS 

as applicable. 

Discussion of Comments and Changes 

Application Preparation Burden 

Six commenters expressed concern 

that the amount and type of information 

required in the Application Kit is 

burdensome, if not prohibitive, and that 

only large companies will be able to 

bring to bear the preparation resources 

required to answer all of the questions. 

One commenter estimated costs in 

excess of $1M to prepare applications 

for its various Anti-Terrorism 

Technologies (ATTs). Other commenters 

estimated the preparation effort at 1000 

staff hours or more per application. 

Commenters also expressed the opinion 

that some of the information being 

requested—particularly financial 

information—is not relevant to the 

evaluation of applications against the 

criteria of the Act. 

The Department has been, and 

continues to remain, sensitive to 

concerns about the application process, 

and the perceived difficulty of preparing 

and submitting an application. 

Consequently, the Department 

specifically solicited comments on the 

Application Kit and process in the 

Interim Rule. Based on both the 

comments received concerning the 

initial Application Kit as well as the 

experience of the Office of SAFETY Act 

Implementation (OSAI) with the 

applications filed to date, OSAI has 

published numerous Frequently Asked 

Questions on its Web site as well as 

undertaken a substantial revision of the 

Application Kit. 

The Department is very sensitive to 

the perceived difficulty, and required 

monetary and personnel resources 

required to complete an Application for 

SAFETY Act Benefits. In order to obtain 

specific data on this issue, in July 2004 

the Director of the Office of SAFETY 

Act Implementation personally spoke 

with each company that submitted a full 

application to obtain feedback regarding 

the time and effort that companies 

invested in completing the application. 

The responses indicated that the 

amount of time was proportional to the 

size of the company, with small to 

medium sized organizations spending 

considerably less time compiling the 

information required to complete the 

application then did large corporations 

with more cumbersome internal 

bureaucratic processes. Overall, it 

appears it takes most organizations 

approximately 150 hours to complete 

the full application utilizing the prior 

version of the application kit. The 

shortest time reported was 25 hours and 

the most was 1000. Discussions with the 

single applicant that spent the 1000 

hours revealed that the time resulted 

from its team approach and consequent 

internal staffing decisions coupled with 

the numerous internal approval 

processes necessary prior to submission 

of the application, not from the 

complexity of the application itself. 

Confirmation of this assessment came 

from discussions with two applicants of 

similar size; one reported its application 

took no more than 100 hours across the 

entire company and the other reported 

200 hours. Based on this information, 

the Department is confident that it is the 

business practices of the particular 

applicant that resulted in the 

extraordinary investment of time in 

completing the application, and not the 

application itself or the Department’s 

implementation of the SAFETY Act. 

The Department agrees that some of 

the financial information requested in 

the existing Application kit is not 

essential to the evaluation of every 

application. The Department has 

decided to limit the amount of financial 

information requested as part of the 

initial submission and to supplement 

72208 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 238 / Monday, December 13, 2004 / Notices 

the information as needed throughout 

the evaluation process. The revised 

Application Kit reflects these changes. 

Certifying ‘‘Accuracy and 

Completeness’’

Two commenters expressed the 

opinion that it is unreasonable to 

require applicants to certify the 

application as ‘‘accurate and complete’’

under penalty of perjury when some of 

the questions require the applicant 

provide answers on a ‘‘best guess’’ basis. 

In particular, the answers to the 

questions related to threat estimates, 

potential casualties, and potential 

casualty reductions were cited as 

questions whose answers may be 

essentially unknowable. 

The Department agrees that it would 

be unreasonable to expect applicants to 

certify the accuracy of their speculative 

or predictive estimates of future events 

and risks, and does not believe that the 

application requires such a certification. 

The language of the certification is 

qualified by the phrase ‘‘to the best of 

my knowledge and belief.’’ Since the 

Applicant either knows, or is able to 

obtain, accurate factual information 

about the Applicant’s ATT and business 

enterprise, the Department believes the 

certification is appropriate to factual 

information. Conversely, since estimates 

are by definition not factual 

information, the Department believes 

the certification only requires that 

estimates be provided in good faith with 

a reasonable belief they are as accurate 

as possible at the time of submission. 

The Department believes this burden is 

easily met if the Applicant provides 

sufficient additional information to 

allow the Department to understand the 

basis for the estimate, including both a 

description of the assumptions utilized 

and the analytical process applied. 

Nevertheless, the language of the 

Certification has been changed in the 

new application to clarify the 

distinction and make clear that only 

factual information is being certified as 

true and correct. 

Bias Toward Product-based ATTs 

Despite the assurances of the Interim 

Rule, particularly in the responses to 

comments on the Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking, four commenters thought 

that the language of the Rule and of the 

Application Kit implicitly assumed 

product-like ATTs. The commenters 

seemed particularly concerned about 

the wording of the Application Kit. 

While the Department is aware that 

some of the language in the prior 

version appears biased towards 

products, the Department believes this 

version adequately addresses this 

objection. In particular, the revised 

Application Kit makes clear that design 

services, integration services, consulting 

services, engineering services, software 

development, software integration, 

studies and analyses, threat 

assessments, and so forth are all 

Technologies under the SAFETY Act.

DATES: Written comments should be 

received on or before February 11, 2005 

to be assured consideration.

ADDRESSES: Science and Technology 

Directorate, Attn: SAFETY Act, 245 

Murray Drive, Bldg. 410 (RDS), 

Washington, DC 20528 and Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB), Office 

of Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for Homeland 

Security, Room 10235, Washington, DC 

20503.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Erin 

O’Connell, (703) 575–4510 (this is not a 

toll free number).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Direct all 

written comments to both the 

Department of Homeland Security and 

the Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs at the addresses listed in this 

notice. A copy of the information 

collection requests with applicable 

supporting documentation may be 

obtained by calling the contact listed 

above. 

The Office of Management and Budget 

is particularly interested in comments 

which: 

(1) Evaluate whether the proposed 

collection of information is necessary 

for the proper performance of the 

functions of the agency, including 

whether the information will have 

practical utility; 

(2) Evaluate the accuracy of the 

agency’s estimate of the burden of the 

proposed collection of information, 

including the validity of the 

methodology and assumptions used; 

(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and 

clarity of the information to be 

collected; and 

(4) Minimize the burden of the 

collection of information on those who 

are to respond, including through the 

use of appropriate automated, 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submissions 

of responses.

Analysis:

OMB Number: 1640–0001. 

Title: Support Anti-terrorism by 

Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 

2002 ‘‘Application for SAFETY Act 

Benefits. 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Affected Public: Business or other for 

profit and not-for-profit institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents:

750 respondents. 

Estimated Time per Response: 40–160 

hours per response (average = 100 hours 

per response). 

Total Burden Hours: 75,000. 

Total Burden Cost: (capital/startup): 

None. 

Total Burden Cost: (operating/

maintaining): None.

OMB Number: 1640–0002. 

Title: Support Anti-terrorism by 

Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 

2002—Registration of a Seller of AntiTerrorism Technology (DHS–S&T–I–

SAFETY–003). 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Affected Public: Business or other for 

profit, not-for-profit institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents:

1,800. 

Estimated Time per Response: 10–30 

minutes (average = 20 minutes). 

Total Burden Hours: 600. 

Total Burden Cost: (capital/startup): 

None. 

Total Burden Cost: (operating/

maintaining): None.

OMB Number: 1640–0003. 

Title: Support Anti-terrorism by 

Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 

2002—Request for Pre-Application 

Consultation (DHS–S&T–I SAFETY 

004). 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Affected Public: Business or other for 

profit, not-for-profit institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents:

1,500. 

Estimated Time per Response: 4–24 

hours (average = 18 hours). 

Total Burden Hours: 27,000. 

Total Burden Cost: (capital/startup): 

None. 

Total Burden Cost: (operating/

maintaining): None.

OMB Number: 1640–0004. 

Title: Support Anti-terrorism by 

Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 

2002—Application for Modification to 

SAFETY Act Benefits (DHS–S&T–I 

SAFETY 005). 

Frequency: On occasion. 

Affected Public: Business or other for 

profit, not-for-profit institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents:

150. 

Estimated Time per Response: 2–12 

hours (average = 8). 

Total Burden Hours: 1,200. 

Total Burden Cost: (capital/startup): 

None. 

Total Burden Cost: (operating/

maintaining): None.

OMB Number: 1640–0005. 

Title: Support Anti-terrorism by 

Fostering Effective Technologies Act of 

2002—Request for Transfer of SAFETY 

Act Benefits (DHS–S&T–I SAFETY 006). 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 238 / Monday, December 13, 2004 / Notices 72209

Frequency: On occasion. 

Affected Public: Business or other for 

profit, not-for-profit institutions. 

Estimated Number of Respondents:

50. 

Estimated Time per Response: 1–8 

hours (average = 6). 

Total Burden Hours: 300. 

Total Burden Cost: (capital/startup): 

None. 

Total Burden Cost: (operating/

maintaining): None.

Description: The SAFETY ACT 

provides incentives for the development 

and deployment of Anti-Terrorism 

Technologies (ATTs) by creating a 

system of ‘‘risk management’’ and a 

system of ‘‘litigation management.’’ The 

purpose of the SAFETY ACT is to 

ensure that the threat of liability does 

not deter potential manufacturers or 

sellers of ATTs from developing and 

commercializing technologies that could 

significantly reduce the risks or mitigate 

the effects of terrorist events. Without 

these protections, important 

technologies are not being deployed to 

prevent harm resulting from a terrorist 

attack.

Dated: December 7, 2004. 

Mark Emery, 

Deputy, Chief Information Officer.

[FR Doc. 04–27272 Filed 12–10–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–10–P

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND 

URBAN DEVELOPMENT 

[Docket No. FR–4513–N–18] 

Credit Watch Termination Initiative

AGENCY: Office of the Assistant 

Secretary for Housing—Federal Housing 

Commissioner, HUD.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: This notice advises of the 

cause and effect of termination of 

Origination Approval Agreements taken 

by HUD’s Federal Housing 

Administration (FHA) against HUDapproved mortgagees through the FHA 

Credit Watch Termination Initiative. 

This notice includes a list of mortgagees 

which have had their Origination 

Approval Agreements terminated.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: The 

Quality Assurance Division, Office of 

Housing, Department of Housing and 

Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, 

SW., Room B133–P3214, Washington, 

DC 20410–8000; telephone (202) 708–

2830 (this is not a toll free number). 

Persons with hearing or speech 

impairments may access that number 

through TTY by calling the Federal 

Information Relay Service at (800) 877–

8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: HUD has 

the authority to address deficiencies in 

the performance of lenders’ loans as 

provided in HUD’s mortgagee approval 

regulations at 24 CFR 202.3. On May 17, 

1999 (64 FR 26769), HUD published a 

notice on its procedures for terminating 

Origination Approval Agreements with 

FHA lenders and placement of FHA 

lenders on Credit Watch status (an 

evaluation period). In the May 17, 1999 

notice, HUD advised that it would 

publish in the Federal Register a list of 

mortgagees, which have had their 

Origination Approval Agreements 

terminated. 

Termination of Origination Approval 

Agreement: Approval of a mortgagee by 

HUD/FHA to participate in FHA 

mortgage insurance programs includes 

an Origination Approval Agreement 

(Agreement) between HUD and the 

mortgagee. Under the Agreement, the 

mortgagee is authorized to originate 

single family mortgage loans and submit 

them to FHA for insurance 

endorsement. The Agreement may be 

terminated on the basis of poor 

performance of FHA-insured mortgage 

loans originated by the mortgagee. The 

termination of a mortgagee’s Agreement 

is separate and apart from any action 

taken by HUD’s Mortgagee Review 

Board under HUD’s regulations at 24 

CFR part 25. 

Cause: HUD’s regulations permit HUD 

to terminate the Agreement with any 

mortgagee having a default and claim 

rate for loans endorsed within the 

preceding 24 months that exceeds 200 

percent of the default and claim rate 

within the geographic area served by a 

HUD field office, and also exceeds the 

national default and claim rate. For the 

20th review period, HUD is terminating 

the Agreement of mortgagees whose 

default and claim rate exceeds both the 

national rate and 200 percent of the 

field office rate. 

Effect: Termination of the Agreement 

precludes that branch(s) of the 

mortgagee from originating FHA-insured 

single family mortgages within the area 

of the HUD field office(s) listed in this 

notice. Mortgagees authorized to 

purchase, hold, or service FHA insured 

mortgages may continue to do so. 

Loans that closed or were approved 

before the termination became effective 

may be submitted for insurance 

endorsement. Approved loans are (1) 

those already underwritten and 

approved by a Direct Endorsement (DE) 

underwriter employed by an 

unconditionally approved DE lender 

and (2) cases covered by a firm 

commitment issued by HUD. Cases at 

earlier stages of processing cannot be 

submitted for insurance by the 

terminated branch; however, they may 

be transferred for completion of 

processing and underwriting to another 

mortgagee or branch authorized to 

originate FHA insured mortgages in that 

area. Mortgagees are obligated to 

continue to pay existing insurance 

premiums and meet all other obligations 

associated with insured mortgages. 

A terminated mortgagee may apply for 

a new Origination Approval Agreement 

if the mortgagee continues to be an 

approved mortgagee meeting the 

requirements of 24 CFR 202.5, 202.6, 

202.7, 202.8 or 202.10 and 202.12, if 

there has been no Origination Approval 

Agreement for at least six months, and 

if the Secretary determines that the 

underlying causes for termination have 

been remedied. To enable the Secretary 

to ascertain whether the underlying 

causes for termination have been 

remedied, a mortgagee applying for a 

new Origination Approval Agreement 

must obtain an independent review of 

the terminated office’s operations as 

well as its mortgage production, 

specifically including the FHA-insured 

mortgages cited in its termination 

notice. This independent analysis shall 

identify the underlying cause for the 

mortgagee’s high default and claim rate. 

The review must be conducted and 

issued by an independent Certified 

Public Accountant (CPA) qualified to 

perform audits under Government 

Auditing Standards as provided by the 

General Accounting Office. The 

mortgagee must also submit a written 

corrective action plan to address each of 

the issues identified in the CPA’s report, 

along with evidence that the plan has 

been implemented. The application for 

a new Agreement should be in the form 

of a letter, accompanied by the CPA’s 

report and corrective action plan. The 

request should be sent to the Director, 

Office of Lender Activities and Program 

Compliance, 451 Seventh Street, SW., 

Room B133–P3214, Washington, DC 

20410–8000 or by courier to 490 

L’Enfant Plaza, East, SW., Suite 3214, 

Washington, DC 20024. 

Action: The following mortgagees 

have had their Agreements terminated 

by HUD: