Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 71353 

effective date of this AD, unless the actions 

have already been done. 

One-Time Visual Inspection of the No. 3 

Bearing Oil Pressure Tube 

(f) Perform a one-time visual inspection of 

the exterior of the No. 3 bearing oil pressure 

tube for cracks and evidence of being 

repaired. 

(1) Remove the tube from service if any 

cracks are found. 

(2) Remove the tube from service if found 

repaired, or if suspected that the tube was 

repaired. 

(g) After the effective date of this AD, do 

not install any repaired No. 3 bearing oil 

pressure tube into any engine. 

(h) Guidance on the No. 3 bearing oil 

pressure tube visual inspection can be found 

in: 

(1) Pratt & Whitney Clean, Inspect, Repair 

Manual PN 51A357, 72–41–20 for PW4000– 

94’’ and PW4000–100’’ series engines; or 

(2) Pratt & Whitney Clean, Inspect, Repair 

Manual PN 51A750, 72–41–20 for PW4000– 

112’’ series engines. 

Definitions 

(i) For the purpose of this AD, piece part 

condition means that the part is completely 

disassembled from the engine as specified in 

the disassembly instructions in the 

manufacturer’s engine manual. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(j) The Manager, Engine Certification 

Office, FAA, may approve alternative 

methods of compliance for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. 

Related Information 

(k) For more information about this AD, 

contact James Gray, Aerospace Engineer, 

Engine Certification Office, FAA, Engine and 

Propeller Directorate, 12 New England 

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803; 

telephone (781) 238–7742; fax (781) 238– 

7199; e-mail: james.e.gray@faa.gov. 

Material Incorporated by Reference 

(l) None. 

Issued in Burlington, Massachusetts, on 

November 16, 2010. 

Robert G. Mann, 

Acting Manager, Engine & Propeller 

Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29451 Filed 11–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 39 

[Docket No. FAA–2009–1076; Directorate 

Identifier 2009–CE–019–AD; Amendment 

39–16296; AD 2010–10–17] 

RIN 2120–AA64 

Airworthiness Directives; Mitsubishi 

Heavy Industries, Ltd. Various Models 

MU–2B Airplanes 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Final rule; correction. 

SUMMARY: The FAA is correcting an 

airworthiness directive (AD) that has 

published in the Federal Register. That 

AD applies to the products listed above. 

The reissue date of September 24, 1986, 

of the MU–2B–60 airplane flight manual 

(AFM) in table 3 of the Compliance 

section (e)(1)(i) is incorrect, in that it is 

‘‘September 24, 1985,’’ instead of 

‘‘September 24, 1986.’’ This document 

corrects this error. In all other respects, 

the original document remains the 

same. 

DATES: This final rule; correction is 

effective November 23, 2010. The 

effective date for AD 2010–10–17 

remains July 22, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: You may examine the AD 

docket on the Internet at http:// 

www.regulations.gov; or in person at the 

Docket Management Facility between 

9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD 

docket contains this AD, the regulatory 

evaluation, any comments received, and 

other information. The address for the 

Docket Office (phone: 800–647–5527) is 

Document Management Facility, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Docket 

Operations, M–30, West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, 

DC 20590. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Matt 

Bryant, Propulsion Engineer, FAA, Fort 

Worth ACO, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort 

Worth, Texas 76137; telephone: (817) 

222–5146; fax: (817) 222–5960; e-mail: 

matthew.a.bryant@faa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Airworthiness Directive 2010–10–17, 

amendment 39–16296 (75 FR 34349), 

which supersedes Airworthiness 

Directive (AD) 2006–17–01, AD 2006– 

15–07, AD 2000–02–25, and AD 97–25– 

02, currently retains from AD 2006–17– 

01 the inspection of the engine torque 

indication system and possible 

recalibration of the torque pressure 

transducers and requires incorporating 

all revisions up to and including the 

latest revisions of the AFM for certain 

MHI various Models MU–2B airplanes. 

As published, table 3 specific to the 

MHI MU–2B–60 airplane stating that the 

MU–2B–60 AFM has a reissued date of 

September 24, 1986, in the Compliance 

section (e) is incorrect, in that it is 

‘‘September 24, 1985,’’ instead of 

‘‘September 24, 1986.’’ 

No other part of the preamble or 

regulatory information has been 

changed; therefore, only the changed 

portion of the final rule is being 

published in the Federal Register. 

The effective date of this AD remains 

July 22, 2010. 

Correction of Regulatory Text 

§ 39.13 [Corrected] 

■ In the Federal Register of June 17, 

2010, AD 2010–10–17; Amendment 

39–16296 is corrected as follows: 

On page 34352, in the Compliance 

section paragraph (e)(1)(i) in table 3, 

under the third column ‘‘Date and 

version of AFM,’’ change the AFM, 

Section 6, Reissued date ‘‘September 24, 

1986,’’ to ‘‘September 24, 1985.’’ 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on 

November 17, 2010. 

Patrick R. Mullen, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29463 Filed 11–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Part 26 

[Docket No. OJP 1464; AG Order No.] 

RIN 1121–AA76 

Office of the Attorney General; 

Certification Process for State Capital 

Counsel Systems; Removal of Final 

Rule 

AGENCY: Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: Pursuant to the USA 

PATRIOT Improvement and 

Reauthorization Act of 2005, the 

Department of Justice promulgated a 

final rule to implement certification 

procedures for States seeking to qualify 

for the special federal habeas corpus 

review procedures in capital cases. A 

Federal district court issued an 

injunction requiring the Department to 

provide an additional public comment 

period and publish a response to any 

comments received during that period. 

The Department then solicited further 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

71354 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

public comments. By this rule, the 

Department is removing the December 

11, 2008 regulations. The Department 

will issue new regulations on this 

subject by separate rulemaking. 

DATES: Effective Date: This rule is 

effective December 23, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lisa 

Ellman, Office of Legal Policy, at (202) 

514–4601 (not a toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Overview 

Chapter 154 of title 28, United States 

Code, makes special procedures 

available to a State respondent in 

Federal habeas corpus proceedings 

involving review of State capital 

convictions, but only if the Attorney 

General has certified ‘‘that [the] State 

has established a mechanism for 

providing counsel in postconviction 

proceedings as provided in section 

2265,’’ and if ‘‘counsel was appointed 

pursuant to that mechanism, petitioner 

validly waived counsel, petitioner 

retained counsel, or petitioner was 

found not to be indigent.’’ 28 U.S.C. 

2261(b). 28 U.S.C. 2265(a)(1) provides 

that, in order for a State to qualify for 

the special habeas procedures, the 

Attorney General must determine that 

‘‘the State has established a mechanism 

for the appointment, compensation, and 

payment of reasonable litigation 

expenses of competent counsel in State 

postconviction proceedings brought by 

indigent [capital] prisoners’’ and that the 

State ‘‘provides standards of competency 

for the appointment of counsel in [such 

proceedings].’’ 

Chapter 154 has been in place since 

the enactment of the Antiterrorism and 

Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 

(Pub. L. 104–132), but was amended by 

section 507 of Public Law 109–177, the 

USA PATRIOT Improvement and 

Reauthorization Act of 2005 (‘‘the Act’’). 

Prior to the Act, the determination of a 

State’s eligibility for the special 

procedures had been left to the Federal 

habeas courts. The 2005 Act amended, 

inter alia, sections 2261(b) and 2265 to 

assign responsibility for chapter 154 

certifications to the Attorney General of 

the United States, subject to de novo 

review by the Court of Appeals for the 

District of Columbia Circuit. 

Rulemaking History 

Section 2265(b) directs the Attorney 

General to promulgate regulations to 

implement the certification procedure. 

To fulfill this mandate, the Department 

of Justice published a proposed rule in 

the Federal Register on June 6, 2007, 

that proposed adding a new subpart 

entitled ‘‘Certification Process for State 

Capital Counsel Systems’’ to 28 CFR part 

26. 72 FR 31217 (June 6, 2007). The 

comment period ended on August 6, 

2007. The Department published a 

notice on August 9, 2007, reopening the 

comment period, 72 FR 44816, and the 

reopened comment period ended on 

September 24, 2007. The final rule 

establishing the chapter 154 

certification procedure was published 

on December 11, 2008, 73 FR 75327, 

with an effective date of January 12, 

2009. 

The U.S. District Court for the 

Northern District of California 

preliminarily enjoined the Department 

‘‘during the pendency of these 

proceedings from putting into effect the 

rule * * * without first providing an 

additional comment period of at least 

thirty days and publishing a response to 

any comments received during such 

period.’’ Habeas Corpus Resource Center 

v. United States Dep’t of Justice, No. 08– 

2649, 2009 WL 185423, at *10 (N.D. 

Calif. Jan. 20, 2009). Further public 

comment was solicited, with the 

comment period closing on April 6, 

2009. 74 FR 6131. 

As the Department reviewed the 

submitted comments, it considered 

further the statutory requirements 

governing the regulatory 

implementation of the chapter 154 

certification procedures. The Attorney 

General has determined that chapter 154 

reasonably could be construed to allow 

the Attorney General greater discretion 

in making certification determinations 

than the December 11, 2008 regulations 

allowed. For instance, chapter 154 

reasonably could be construed to permit 

the Attorney General to determine, 

within certain bounds, whether a state’s 

competency standards and counsel 

appointment mechanism (including 

compensation standards) are adequate 

to achieve chapter 154’s objectives. 

Therefore, the Department published 

a notice in the Federal Register on May 

25, 2010, proposing to remove the 

December 11, 2008 regulations pending 

the completion of a new rulemaking 

process, during which the Department 

will further consider what standards 

and procedures are appropriate. 75 FR 

29217. The comment period closed on 

June 24, 2010. 

Summary of Comments 

Eight comments were received in 

response to the notice proposing to 

remove the December 11, 2008 

regulations. 

Two U.S. Senators, Federal Public 

Defenders, a California capital defense 

agency, and a number of other 

organizations submitted comments 

supporting removal of the existing rule. 

These comments were critical of the 

existing regulations and included 

recommendations concerning the 

development or formulation of a 

replacement rule. 

The Criminal Justice Legal 

Foundation submitted comments that 

recommended not removing the 

portions of the existing rule concerned 

with certification procedures, on the 

ground that present dissatisfaction by 

the Department with the section of the 

existing rule concerning the substantive 

criteria a state must meet to be certified 

under chapter 154—i.e., 28 CFR 26.22— 

could at most justify rescinding that 

section alone. The commenter 

accordingly urged that 28 CFR 26.20, 

26.21, and 26.23 should be 

implemented without delay, and that 

any further delay would violate the 

Department’s duty to victims of crime. 

The creation of a process for States to 

apply for chapter 154 certification is 

only part of the Attorney General’s 

responsibilities under chapter 154, and 

it makes little sense to retain that 

process in the absence of substantive 

certification criteria. If applications are 

submitted, the Attorney General must 

then decide whether the submitting 

States satisfy the requirements for 

chapter 154 certification. Section 26.22 

in the existing rule reflected the 

Department’s understanding of those 

requirements at the time the rule was 

published. However, the Department 

has since reconsidered that 

understanding, including the rule’s 

assumption that the formulation of 

counsel competency and compensation 

standards for purposes of chapter 154 

certification is a matter of state 

discretion and subject to very little, if 

any, further review by the Attorney 

General. 

The Department believes that the 

process for considering and deciding 

States’ applications for chapter 154 

certification is best promulgated 

concurrently with a rule setting forth 

the standards for a State to meet chapter 

154’s requirements. The Attorney 

General will need to decide what 

standards he will apply in assessing 

whether State capital counsel systems 

are adequate to satisfy the chapter 154 

requirements. States correspondingly 

will need to know what standards the 

Attorney General will apply in order to 

frame those applications intelligently, 

and in order to make any necessary 

changes in their capital counsel systems 

prior to applying for Attorney General 

certification. Likewise, members of the 

public will need to know what 

standards the Attorney General will 

apply in order to provide relevant input 

concerning the adequacy of State 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 225 / Tuesday, November 23, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 71355 

applications. Cf. 28 CFR 26.23(c)–(d) 

(providing for receipt and consideration 

of public comment on State applications 

for chapter 154 certification). 

Accordingly, removal of the entire 

December 11, 2008 final rule at this time 

is warranted in order to allow the 

Attorney General to articulate the 

standards he will apply in making 

chapter 154 certification decisions and 

to obtain public input concerning the 

formulation of such standards. Pending 

the completion of a new rulemaking 

process, receipt and consideration of 

applications for chapter 154 

certification cannot sensibly go forward 

in the absence of articulated standards 

for deciding such applications. 

Regulatory Certifications 

Executive Order 12866 

This regulation has been drafted and 

reviewed in accordance with Executive 

Order 12866, ‘‘Regulatory Planning and 

Review,’’ section 1(b), Principles of 

Regulation. The Department of Justice 

has determined that this rule is not a 

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under 

Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), and 

accordingly this rule has not been 

reviewed by the Office of Management 

and Budget. 

Executive Order 13132 

This regulation will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. This rule merely 

removes the December 11, 2008 

regulations. Therefore, in accordance 

with Executive Order 13132, it is 

determined that this rule does not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

warrant the preparation of a federalism 

assessment. 

Executive Order 12988–Civil Justice 

Reform 

This regulation meets the applicable 

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 

3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Attorney General, in accordance 

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act 

(5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this 

regulation and by approving it certifies 

that this regulation will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

This rule merely removes the December 

11, 2008 regulations. 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

This rule will not result in the 

expenditure by State, local and tribal 

governments, in the aggregate, or by the 

private sector, of $100,000,000 or more 

in any one year, and it will not 

significantly or uniquely affect small 

governments. Therefore, no actions were 

deemed necessary under the provisions 

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act 

of 1995. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 

This rule is not a major rule as 

defined by section 251 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996. 5 U.S.C. 804. This 

rule will not result in an annual effect 

on the economy of $100 million or 

more; a major increase in costs or prices; 

or significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, or innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based 

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and 

export markets. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 26 

Law enforcement officers, Prisoners. 

■ Accordingly, for the reasons set forth 

in the preamble, part 26 of chapter I of 

title 28 of the Code of Federal 

Regulations is amended as follows: 

PART 26—DEATH SENTENCES 

PROCEDURES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 26 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 4001(b), 

4002; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510, 2261, 2265. 

Subpart B—[Removed and Reserved] 

■ 2. Subpart B is removed and reserved. 

Dated: November 15, 2010. 

Eric H. Holder, Jr., 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2010–29329 Filed 11–22–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–18–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration 

29 CFR Part 1983 

[Docket No. OSHA–2010–0006] 

RIN 1218–AC47 

Collection of Information Requirement 

Related to Procedures for the Handling 

of Retaliation Complaints Under 

Section 219 of the Consumer Product 

Safety Improvement Act of 2008 

AGENCY: Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA); Department of 

Labor. 

ACTION: Clarification. 

SUMMARY: OSHA is informing the public 

of a collection of information 

requirement contained in the 

Procedures for the Handling of 

Retaliation Complaints Under Section 

219 of the Consumer Product Safety 

Improvement Act of 2008 interim final 

rule, published August 31, 2010. This 

clarification notice informs the public 

about the means by which to comment 

on this collection of information 

requirement prior to OSHA’s 

submission of an information collection 

request (ICR) extension to the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) for 

approval under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Comments on the collection of 

information requirement in this interim 

final rule must be submitted 

(postmarked, sent, or received) to the 

ICR docket, Docket No. OSHA–2010– 

0049, by December 27, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Nilgun Tolek, Director, Office of the 

Whistleblower Protection Program, 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Labor, Room N–3610, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210; 

telephone: (202) 693–2199. This is not a 

toll-free number. The alternative formats 

available are large print, electronic file 

on computer disk (Word Perfect, ASCII, 

Mates with Duxbury Braille System) and 

audiotape. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 

31, 2010, OSHA published notice of an 

interim final rule containing procedures 

for the handling of retaliation 

complaints under the employee 

protection provision of the Consumer 

Product Safety Improvement Act of 

2008 (CPSIA) (75 FR 53533). 

In the August 31, 2010 notice, OSHA 

indicated that the interim final rule did 

not contain collection of information 

requirements subject to review by OMB 

under the provisions of the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13) 

(PRA). (75 FR at 53538.) However, upon 

reconsideration, OSHA has determined 

that there is a collection of information 

requirement associated with the 

initiation of CPSIA whistleblower 

complaints. 

OSHA currently has OMB approval 

for collection of information 

requirements related to the handling of 

retaliation complaints filed under 

various whistleblower protection 

statutes in the ‘‘Regulations Containing 

Procedures for Handling of Retaliation 

Complaints’’ ICR, OMB Control Number 

1218–0236. OSHA is currently 

requesting that OMB extend approval of 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with RULES