Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 33205 

increased amounts to States, upon 

receipt of an actual appropriation that 

exceeded the requested appropriation? 

10. Have there been instances when 

VETS appears to have overlooked 

compelling reasons to exercise its 

authority to immediately allocate 

decreased amounts to States, upon 

receipt of an actual appropriation that 

fell short of the requested 

appropriation? 

11. For those commenters who believe 

that compelling reasons have been 

overlooked, what criteria could be 

applied to determine that a compelling 

reason exists in any given instance? 

B. Other Funding Criteria 

Funding for TAP workshops is 

allocated on a per-workshop basis. 

Funding to the States is provided under 

the respective approved State Plans. 

12. Should there be a different basis 

for the funding of TAP activities? 

13. Should there be a different vehicle 

for providing funding for TAP 

activities? 

14. For those commenters who believe 

that a different basis or vehicle should 

be implemented for funding TAP 

activities, what alternate basis or vehicle 

is suggested? 

Funds for exigent circumstances, such 

as unusually high levels of 

unemployment or surges in the demand 

for transitioning services, including the 

need for TAP workshops, are allocated 

based on need. 

15. Have there been instances when 

VETS appears to have overlooked 

exigent circumstances that warranted 

adjustments to the actual awards? 

16. Are there specific examples of 

exigent circumstances that should be 

identified in Veterans’ Program Letters 

or in other policy documents? 

C. Hold-Harmless Criteria and 

Minimum Funding Level 

A hold-harmless rate of 90 percent of 

the prior year’s funding is the level 

currently established to limit the 

funding reduction that a State can 

experience in a single year. A minimum 

funding level of .28 percent (.0028) of 

the previous year’s total funding for all 

States is the level currently established 

to provide small States with sufficient 

funds to support a basic level of services 

to veterans. Both of these rates reflect 

direct adoption of statutory provisions 

governing corresponding functions for 

Wagner-Peyser funding. 

17. Is there a compelling reason to set 

the hold-harmless rate at a different 

level? 

18. Is there a compelling reason to set 

the minimum funding level at a 

different level? 

19. For those commenters who believe 

that there is a compelling reason to 

revise the hold-harmless rate or the 

minimum funding level, what 

alternatives are suggested and what 

justifications are offered to support 

implementation of those alternatives? 

20. Is there a compelling reason to 

change the hold-harmless rate to be a 

fixed percentage of the prior year’s 

expenditures rather than a fixed 

percentage of the prior year’s funding? 

D. Other Aspects of the Existing 

Regulations 

If any commmenters have concerns or 

suggestions that apply to aspects of the 

existing regulations that have not been 

identified in the preceding sections and 

questions, VETS will appreciate 

receiving comments that address any 

aspect of these regulations. 

Signed in Washington, DC, this 4th day of 

June 2010. 

John M. McWilliam, 

Deputy Assistant Secretary for Operations 

and Management, Veterans’ Employment and 

Training Service. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13870 Filed 6–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–79–P 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

28 CFR Parts 0 and 51 

[CRT Docket No. 109; AG Order No. 3161– 

2010] 

Revision of the Procedures for the 

Administration of Section 5 of the 

Voting Rights Act 

AGENCY: Civil Rights Division, 

Department of Justice. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Attorney General is 

considering amendments to the 

Department of Justice’s ‘‘Procedures for 

the Administration of Section 5 of the 

Voting Rights Act of 1965.’’ The 

proposed amendments are designed to 

clarify the scope of section 5 review 

based on recent amendments to section 

5, make technical clarifications and 

updates, and provide better guidance to 

covered jurisdictions and minority 

citizens concerning current Department 

practices. Interested persons are invited 

to participate in the consideration of 

these amendments. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

postmarked and electronic comments 

must be submitted on or before August 

10, 2010. Commenters should be aware 

that the electronic Federal Docket 

Management System will not accept 

comments after Midnight Eastern Time 

on the last day of the comment period. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit written 

comments, identified by the agency 

name and docket number or Regulatory 

Information Number (RIN) for this 

rulemaking, by any of the following 

methods: 

Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

Fax: 202–307–3961. 

Mail: Chief, Voting Section, Civil 

Rights Division, United States 

Department of Justice, Room 7254– 

NWB, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., 

Washington, DC 20530. 

Hand Delivery/Courier: Chief, Voting 

Section, Civil Rights Division, United 

States Department of Justice, Room 

7254–NWB, 1800 G Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20006. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: T. 

Christian Herren, Jr., Acting Chief, 

Voting Section, Civil Rights Division, 

United States Department of Justice, 

Room 7254–NWB, 950 Pennsylvania 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20530, 

or by telephone at (800) 253–3931. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Posting of Public Comments: Please 

note that all comments received are 

considered part of the public record and 

made available for public inspection 

online at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Such information includes personal 

identifying information (such as your 

name, address, etc.) voluntarily 

submitted by the commenter. 

If you want to submit personal 

identifying information (such as your 

name, address, etc.) as part of your 

comment, but do not want it to be 

posted online, you must include the 

phrase ‘‘PERSONAL IDENTIFYING 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You also must locate 

all the personal identifying information 

you do not want posted online in the 

first paragraph of your comment and 

identify what information you want 

redacted. 

If you want to submit confidential 

business information as part of your 

comment but do not want it to be posted 

online, you must include the phrase 

‘‘CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS 

INFORMATION’’ in the first paragraph 

of your comment. You also must 

prominently identify confidential 

business information to be redacted 

within the comment. If a comment has 

so much confidential business 

information that it cannot be effectively 

redacted, all or part of that comment 

may not be posted on http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Personal identifying information and 

confidential business information 

identified and located as set forth above 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

33206 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

will be placed in the agency’s public 

docket file, but not posted online. If you 

wish to inspect the agency’s public 

docket file in person by appointment, 

please see the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT paragraph. 

The reason that the Department of 

Justice is requesting electronic 

comments before Midnight Eastern 

Time on the day the comment period 

closes is because the inter-agency 

Regulations.gov/Federal Docket 

Management System (FDMS) which 

receives electronic comments terminates 

the public’s ability to submit comments 

at Midnight on the day the comment 

period closes. Commenters in time 

zones other than Eastern may want to 

take this fact into account so that their 

electronic comments can be received. 

The constraints imposed by the 

Regulations.gov/FDMS system do not 

apply to U.S. postal comments which 

will be considered as timely filed if they 

are postmarked before Midnight on the 

day the comment period closes. 

Discussion 

The proposed amendments seek to 

clarify the scope of section 5 review 

based on recent amendments to section 

5, make certain technical clarifications 

and updates, and provide better 

guidance to covered jurisdictions and 

citizens. In many instances, the 

proposed amendments describe 

longstanding practices of the Attorney 

General in the review of section 5 

submissions. These proposed 

amendments should aid in ensuring that 

all covered changes affecting voting are 

promptly submitted for review and 

minimize the potential for litigation. 

The proposed amendments clarify 

that the Attorney General’s delegation of 

authority to the Assistant Attorney 

General for Civil rights over 

submissions under section 5 of the 

Voting Rights Act also includes 

authority over submissions under 

section 3(c) of the Voting Rights Act 

(§ 0.50(h)). The proposed amendments 

also clarify the stated authority for the 

Part 51 procedures to reflect the 2006 

statutory amendments to the Voting 

Rights Act; revise language to conform 

to the substantive section 5 standard in 

the 2006 amendments (§ 51.1); clarify 

the definition of the Voting rights Act to 

reflect the enactment of the 2006 

amendments; clarify the definition of 

the benchmark standard, practice, or 

procedure (§ 51.2); make technical 

corrections to the delegation of 

authority from the Attorney General to 

the Assistant Attorney General, and 

from the Chief of the Voting Section to 

supervisory attorneys within the Voting 

Section (§ 51.3); make technical 

corrections to reflect the new expiration 

date for section 5 coverage contained in 

the 2006 amendments; clarify that 

jurisdictions may seek earlier 

termination of coverage through a 

bailout action (§ 51.5); and incorporate 

the Supreme Court’s holding in 

Northwest Austin Mun. Utility Dist. No. 

One v. Holder, 557 U.S. ___ , 129 S.Ct. 

2504 (2009), that any jurisdiction 

required to comply with section 5 may 

seek to terminate that obligation 

pursuant to the procedures that 

implement section 4(a) of the Act 

(§§ 51.5 and 51.6). 

The proposed amendments clarify 

that the review period commences only 

when a submission is received by the 

Department officials responsible for 

conducting section 5 reviews and 

clarifies the date of the response 

(§ 51.9); revise language to conform to 

the substantive section 5 standard in the 

2006 amendments (§ 51.10, § 51.11); 

clarify that, in determining whether a 

change is covered, any inquiry into 

whether the change has the potential for 

discrimination is focused on the generic 

category of changes to which the 

specific change belongs (§ 51.12); clarify 

that a voting change is covered 

regardless of the manner or mode by 

which a covered jurisdiction acts to 

adopt it (§ 51.12); and clarify that 

dissolution or merger of voting districts, 

de facto elimination of an elected office, 

and relocations of authority to adopt or 

administer voting practices or 

procedures are all subject to section 5 

review (§ 51.13). 

The proposed amendments also 

clarify that section 5 review ordinarily 

should precede court review, that a 

court-ordered change that initially is not 

covered by section 5 may become 

covered through actions taken by the 

affected jurisdiction, and that the 

interim use of an unprecleared change 

should be ordered by a court only in 

emergency circumstances (§ 51.18); 

make a conforming change updating the 

address for the Voting Section (§ 51.19); 

make technical changes in the format in 

which information may be submitted to 

the Attorney General to reflect changes 

in information technology (§ 51.20); and 

clarify those circumstances in which the 

Attorney General will not review a 

submission (§§ 51.21, 51.22). 

In addition, the proposed 

amendments clarify the authority 

authorized to make section 5 

submissions (§ 51.23); make technical 

amendments to the addresses to which 

submissions can be delivered to reflect 

changes in the location of the Voting 

Section and its mail-handling 

procedures, to note the availability of 

electronic submissions and telefacsimile 

submissions, and to note to the 

availability of e-mail as a means of 

submitting additional information on 

pending submissions (§ 51.24); clarify 

the addresses and methods by which 

jurisdictions may deliver notices of 

withdrawal of submissions (§ 51.25); 

clarify the language used in describing 

the required contents of submissions 

(§ 51.27); and make technical changes to 

the format in which information may be 

submitted to the Attorney General 

(§ 51.28). 

The proposed amendments also 

clarify the addresses and methods by 

which persons may provide written 

comments on submissions and clarify 

the circumstances in which the 

Department may withhold the identity 

of those providing comments on 

submissions (§ 51.29); clarify the 

circumstances under which the 

Attorney General may conclude that a 

decision on the merits is not appropriate 

and the circumstances under which 

consideration of the change may be 

reopened (§ 51.35); clarify the 

procedures for the Attorney General to 

make written and oral requests for 

additional information regarding a 

submission (§ 51.37); make technical 

revisions to the section that provides for 

recommencing the 60-day period where 

a jurisdiction voluntarily provides 

material supplemental information, or 

where a related submission is received 

(§ 51.39); and clarify the language 

regarding the failure of the Attorney 

General to respond to a submission 

(§ 51.42). 

The proposed amendments also 

clarify the procedures when the 

Attorney General decides to reexamine 

a decision not to object (§ 51.43); revise 

language to conform to the substantive 

section 5 standard in the 2006 

amendments (§ 51.44); clarify that the 

Attorney General can reconsider an 

objection in cases of misinterpretation 

of fact or mistake of law, consistent with 

existing § 51.64(b) (§ 51.46); clarify the 

manner in which the 60-day 

requirement applies to reconsideration 

requests and revise language to conform 

to the substantive section 5 standard in 

the 2006 amendments (§ 51.48); and 

clarify the procedures regarding access 

to section 5 records (§ 51.50). 

The proposed amendments clarify the 

substantive standard to reflect the 2006 

amendments to the Act and the manner 

in which the Attorney General will 

evaluate issues of discriminatory 

purpose under section 5 (§ 51.52, 

§ 51.54, § 51.55, § 51.57, § 51.59); clarify 

the application of section 5 to deannexations (§ 51.61); and clarify the 

Appendix to include reference to a list 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 33207 

of bailouts by political subdivisions 

subject to section 5. 

Administrative Procedure Act 

This proposal amends interpretative 

rules, general statements of policy, or 

rules of agency organization, procedure, 

or practice and therefore the notice 

requirement of 5 U.S.C. 553(b) is not 

mandatory. Although notice and 

comment is not required, we are 

nonetheless choosing to offer this 

proposed rule for notice and comment. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Attorney General, in accordance 

with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 

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

and by approving it certifies that this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities because it 

applies only to governmental entities 

and jurisdictions that are already 

required by section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act of 1965 to submit voting 

changes to the Department of Justice, 

and this rule does not change this 

requirement. It provides guidance to 

such entities to assist them in making 

the required submissions under section 

5. Further, a Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis was not required to be 

prepared for this rule because the 

Department of Justice was not required 

to publish a general notice of proposed 

rulemaking for this matter. 

Executive Order 12866 

This rule 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—Federalism 

This rule does not have federalism 

implications warranting the preparation 

of a Federalism Assessment under 

section 6 of Executive Order 13132 

because the rule does not alter or 

modify the existing statutory 

requirements of section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act imposed on the States, 

including units of local government or 

political subdivisions of the States. 

Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice 

Reform 

This document meets the applicable 

standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 

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

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 are 

necessary under the provisions of the 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Parts 0 

and 51 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Archives and records, 

Authority delegations (government 

agencies), Civil rights, Elections, 

Political committees and parties, Voting 

rights. 

Accordingly, by virtue of the 

authority vested in me as Attorney 

General, including 5 U.S.C. 301, 28 

U.S.C. 509, 510, and 42 U.S.C. 973b, 

1973c, the following amendments are 

proposed to Chapter I of Title 28 of the 

Code of Federal Regulations: 

PART 0—ORGANIZATION OF THE 

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 

Subpart J—Civil Rights Division 

1. The authority citation for Part 0 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 

510. 

2. In § 0.50, revise paragraph (h) to 

read as follows: 

§ 0.50 General functions. 

* * * * * 

(h) Administration of sections 3(c) 

and 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 

as amended (42 U.S.C. 1973a(c), 1973c). 

* * * * * 

3. The authority citation for Part 51 is 

revised to read as follows: 

PART 51—PROCEDURES FOR THE 

ADMINISTRATION OF SECTION 5 OF 

THE VOTING RIGHTS ACT OF 1965 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 28 U.S.C. 509, 

510, and 42 U.S.C. 1973b, 1973c. 

4. In § 51.1, revise paragraph (a)(1) to 

read as follows: 

§ 51.1 Purpose. 

(a) * * *: 

(1) A declaratory judgment is obtained 

from the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia that such 

qualification, prerequisite, standard, 

practice, or procedure neither has the 

purpose nor will have the effect of 

denying or abridging the right to vote on 

account of race, color, or membership in 

a language minority group, or 

* * * * * 

5. In § 51.2, revise the definitions for 

‘‘Act’’ and ‘‘Change affecting voting or 

change’’ to read as follows: 

§ 51.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Act means the Voting Rights Act of 

1965, 79 Stat. 437, as amended by the 

Civil Rights Act of 1968, 82 Stat. 73, the 

Voting Rights Act Amendments of 1970, 

84 Stat. 314, the District of Columbia 

Delegate Act, 84 Stat. 853, the Voting 

Rights Act Amendments of 1975, 89 

Stat. 400, the Voting Rights Act 

Amendments of 1982, 96 Stat. 131, the 

Voting Rights Language Assistance Act 

of 1992, 106 Stat. 921, the Fannie Lou 

Hamer, Rosa Parks, and Coretta Scott 

King Voting Rights Act Reauthorization 

and Amendments Act of 2006, 120 Stat. 

577, and the Act to Revise the Short 

Title of the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa 

Parks, and Coretta Scott King Voting 

Rights Act Reauthorization and 

Amendments Act, 122 Stat. 2428, 42 

U.S.C. 1973 et seq. Section numbers, 

such as ‘‘section 14(c)(3),’’ refer to 

sections of the Act. 

* * * * * 

Change affecting voting or change 

means any voting qualification, 

prerequisite to voting, or standard, 

practice, or procedure with respect to 

voting different from that in force or 

effect on the date used to determine 

coverage under section 4(b) or from the 

existing standard, practice, or procedure 

if it was subsequently altered and 

precleared under section 5. In assessing 

whether a change has a discriminatory 

purpose or effect, the comparison shall 

be with the standard, practice, or 

procedure in effect on the date used to 

determine coverage under section 4(b) 

or the most recent precleared standard, 

practice, or procedure. Some examples 

of changes affecting voting are given in 

§ 51.13. 

* * * * * 

6. Revise § 51.3 to read as follows: 

§ 51.3 Delegation of authority. 

The responsibility and authority for 

determinations under section 5 and 

section 3(c) have been delegated by the 

Attorney General to the Assistant 

Attorney General, Civil Rights Division. 

With the exception of objections and 

decisions following the reconsideration 

of objections, the Chief of the Voting 

Section is authorized to perform the 

functions of the Assistant Attorney 

General. With the concurrence of the 

Assistant Attorney General, the Chief of 

the Voting Section may designate 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

33208 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

supervisory attorneys in the Voting 

Section to perform the functions of the 

Chief. 

7. Revise § 51.5 to read as follows: 

§ 51.5 Termination of coverage. 

(a) Expiration. The requirements of 

section 5 will expire at the end of the 

twenty-five-year period following the 

effective date of the amendments made 

by the Fannie Lou Hamer, Rosa Parks, 

Coretta Scott King, Cesar E. Chavez, 

Barbara C. Jordan, William C. 

Velasquez, and Dr. Hector P. Garcia 

Voting Rights Act Reauthorization and 

Amendments Act of 2006, which 

amendments became effective on July 

27, 2006. See section 4(a)(8) of the 

VRACA. 

(b) Bailout. Any political subunit in a 

covered jurisdiction or a political 

subdivision of a covered State, a 

covered jurisdiction or a political 

subdivision of a covered State, or a 

covered State may terminate the 

application of section 5 (‘‘bailout’’) by 

obtaining the declaratory judgment 

described in section 4(a) of the Act. 

8. Revise § 51.6 to read as follows: 

§ 51.6 Political subunits. 

All political subunits within a 

covered jurisdiction (e.g., counties, 

cities, school districts) that have not 

terminated coverage by obtaining the 

declaratory judgment described in 

section 4(a) of the Act are subject to the 

requirements of section 5. 

9. Revise § 51.9 to read as follows: 

§ 51.9 Computation of time. 

(a) The Attorney General shall have 

60 days in which to interpose an 

objection to a submitted change 

affecting voting for which a response on 

the merits is appropriate (see § 51.35, 

§ 51.37). 

(b) The 60-day period shall commence 

upon receipt of a submission by the 

Voting Section of the Department of 

Justice’s Civil Rights Division or upon 

receipt of a submission by the Office of 

the Assistant Attorney General, Civil 

Rights Division, if the submission is 

properly marked as specified in 

§ 51.24(f). The 60-day period shall 

recommence upon the receipt in like 

manner by the Voting Section of a 

resubmission (see § 51.35), additional 

information (see § 51.37), or material, 

supplemental information or a related 

submission (see § 51.39). 

(c) The 60-day period shall mean 60 

calendar days, with the day of receipt of 

the submission not counted, and with 

the 60th day ending at 11:59 p.m. 

Eastern Time of that day. If the final day 

of the period should fall on a Saturday, 

Sunday, or any day designated as a 

holiday by the President or Congress of 

the United States, or any other day that 

is not a day of regular business for the 

Department of Justice, the next full 

business day shall be counted as the 

final day of the 60-day period. The date 

of the Attorney General’s response shall 

be the date on which it is transmitted to 

the submitting authority by any 

reasonable means, including placing it 

in a postbox of the U.S. Postal Service 

or a private mail carrier, sending it by 

telefacsimile, e-mail, or other electronic 

means, or delivering it in person to a 

representative of the submitting 

authority. 

10. In § 51.10, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 51.10 Requirement of action for 

declaratory judgment or submission to the 

Attorney General. 

* * * * * 

(a) Obtain a judicial determination 

from the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia that the voting 

change neither has the purpose nor will 

have the effect of denying or abridging 

the right to vote on account of race, 

color, or membership in a language 

minority group. 

* * * * * 

11. Revise § 51.11 to read as follows: 

§ 51.11 Right to bring suit. 

Submission to the Attorney General 

does not affect the right of the 

submitting authority to bring an action 

in the U.S. District Court for the District 

of Columbia for a declaratory judgment 

that the change affecting voting neither 

has the purpose nor will have the effect 

of denying or abridging the right to vote 

on account of race, color, or 

membership in a language minority 

group. 

12. Revise § 51.12 to read as follows: 

§ 51.12 Scope of requirement. 

Except as provided in § 51.18 (courtordered changes), the section 5 

requirement applies to any change 

affecting voting, even though it appears 

to be minor or indirect, returns to a 

prior practice or procedure, seemingly 

expands voting rights, or is designed to 

remove the elements that caused the 

Attorney General to object to a prior 

submitted change. The scope of section 

5 coverage is based on whether the 

generic category of changes affecting 

voting to which the change belongs (for 

example, the generic categories of 

changes listed in § 51.13) has the 

potential for discrimination. NAACP v. 

Hampton County Election Commission, 

470 U.S. 166 (1985). The method by 

which a jurisdiction enacts or 

administers a change does not affect the 

requirement to comply with section 5, 

which applies to changes enacted or 

administered through the executive, 

legislative, or judicial branches. 

13. In § 51.13, revise paragraphs (e), 

(i), and (k) and add paragraph (l) to read 

as follows: 

§ 51.13 Examples of changes. 

* * * * * 

(e) Any change in the constituency of 

an official or the boundaries of a voting 

unit (e.g., through redistricting, 

annexation, deannexation, 

incorporation, dissolution, merger, 

reapportionment, changing to at-large 

elections from district elections, or 

changing to district elections from atlarge elections). 

* * * * * 

(i) Any change in the term of an 

elective office or an elected official, or 

any change in the offices that are 

elective (e.g., by shortening the term of 

an office; changing from election to 

appointment; transferring authority 

from an elected to an appointed official 

that, in law or in fact, eliminates the 

elected official’s office; or staggering the 

terms of offices). 

* * * * * 

(k) Any change affecting the right or 

ability of persons to participate in 

political campaigns. 

(l) Any change that transfers or alters 

the authority of any official or 

governmental entity regarding who may 

enact or seek to implement a voting 

qualification, prerequisite to voting, or 

standard, practice, or procedure with 

respect to voting. 

14. Revised § 51.18 to read as follows: 

§ 51.18 Federal court-ordered changes. 

(a) In general. Changes affecting 

voting for which approval by a Federal 

court is required, or that are ordered by 

a Federal court, are exempt from section 

5 review only where the Federal court 

prepared the change and the change has 

not been subsequently adopted or 

modified by the relevant governmental 

body. McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U.S. 

130 (1981). Court-ordered changes 

covered by section 5 should be 

submitted for review prior to review by 

the Federal court, except as provided in 

paragraph (d) of this section. (See also 

§ 51.22.) Connor v. Waller, 421 U.S. 656 

(1975). 

(b) Subsequent changes. Where a 

Federal court-ordered change is not 

itself subject to the preclearance 

requirement, subsequent changes 

necessitated by the court order but 

decided upon by the jurisdiction remain 

subject to preclearance. For example, 

voting precinct and polling changes 

made necessary by a court-ordered 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 33209 

redistricting plan are subject to section 

5 review. 

(c) Alteration in section 5 status. 

Where a Federal court-ordered change at 

its inception is not subject to review 

under section 5, a subsequent action by 

the submitting authority demonstrating 

that the change reflects its policy 

choices (e.g., adoption or ratification of 

the change, or implementation in a 

manner not explicitly authorized by the 

court) will render the change subject to 

review under section 5 with regard to 

any future implementation. 

(d) In emergencies. Changes affecting 

voting that are ordered by a Federal 

court, and that reflect the policy choices 

of a submitting authority, may be 

implemented on an emergency interim 

basis without compliance with section 5 

only where a Federal court orders such 

implementation and only to the extent 

ordered by the Federal court. (See also 

§ 51.34.) A Federal court’s authorization 

of the emergency interim use without 

preclearance of a voting change does not 

exempt any use of the practice not 

explicitly authorized by the court from 

section 5 review. 

15. Revise § 51.19 to read as follows: 

§ 51.19 Request for notification 

concerning voting litigation. 

A jurisdiction subject to the 

preclearance requirements of section 5 

that becomes involved in any litigation 

concerning voting is requested to notify 

the Chief, Voting Section, Civil Rights 

Division, at the addresses, telefacsimile 

number, or e-mail address specified in 

§ 51.24. Such notification will not be 

considered a submission under section 

5. 

16. In § 51.20, revise paragraphs (b) 

through (e) and add a new paragraph (f) 

to read as follows: 

§ 51.20 Form of submissions. 

* * * * * 

(b) The Attorney General will accept 

certain machine readable data in the 

following electronic media: 3.5 inch 1.4 

megabyte disk, compact disc read-only 

memory (CD–ROM) formatted to the 

ISO–9660/Joliet standard, or digital 

versatile disc read-only memory (DVD– 

ROM). Unless requested by the Attorney 

General, data provided on electronic 

media need not be provided in hard 

copy. 

(c) All electronic media shall be 

clearly labeled with the following 

information: 

(1) Submitting authority. 

(2) Name, address, title, and 

telephone number of contact person. 

(3) Date of submission cover letter. 

(4) Statement identifying the voting 

change(s) involved in the submission. 

(d) Each magnetic medium (floppy 

disk or tape) provided must be 

accompanied by a printed description of 

its contents, including an identification 

by name or location of each data file 

contained on the medium, a detailed 

record layout for each such file, a record 

count for each such file, and a full 

description of the magnetic medium 

format. 

(e) Text documents should be 

provided in a standard American 

Standard Code for Information 

Interchange (ASCII) character code; 

documents with graphics and complex 

formatting should be provided in 

standard Portable Document Format 

(PDF). The label shall be affixed to each 

electronic medium, and the information 

included on the label shall also be 

contained in a documentation file on 

the electronic medium. 

(f) All data files shall be provided in 

a delimited text file and must include a 

header row as the first row with a name 

for each field in the data set. A separate 

data dictionary file documenting the 

fields in the data set, the field separators 

or delimiters, and a description of each 

field, including whether the field is text, 

date, or numeric, enumerating all 

possible values is required; separators 

and delimiters should not also be used 

as data in the data set. Proprietary or 

commercial software system data files 

(e.g. SAS, SPSS, dBase, Lotus 1–2–3) 

and data files containing compressed 

data or binary data fields will not be 

accepted. 

17. Revise § 51.21 to read as follows: 

§ 51.21 Time of submissions. 

Changes affecting voting should be 

submitted as soon as possible after they 

become final, except as provided in 

§ 51.22. 

18. Revise § 51.22 to read as follows: 

§ 51.22 Submitted changes that will not be 

reviewed. 

(a) The Attorney General will not 

consider on the merits: 

(1) Any proposal for a change 

submitted prior to final enactment or 

administrative decision except as 

provided in paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(2) Any submitted change directly 

related to another change that has not 

received section 5 preclearance if the 

Attorney General determines that the 

two changes cannot be substantively 

considered independently of one 

another. 

(3) Any submitted change whose 

enforcement has ceased and been 

superseded by a standard, practice, or 

procedure that has received section 5 

preclearance or that is otherwise legally 

enforceable under section 5. 

(b) For any change requiring approval 

by referendum, by a State or Federal 

court, or by a Federal agency, the 

Attorney General may make a 

determination concerning the change 

prior to such approval if the change is 

not subject to alteration in the final 

approving action and if all other action 

necessary for approval has been taken. 

(See also § 51.18.) 

19. Revise § 51.23 to read as follows: 

§ 51.23 Party and jurisdiction responsible 

for making submissions. 

(a) Changes affecting voting shall be 

submitted by the chief legal officer or 

other appropriate official of the 

submitting authority or by any other 

authorized person on behalf of the 

submitting authority. A State, whether 

partially or fully covered, has authority 

to submit any voting change on behalf 

of its covered jurisdictions and political 

subunits. Where a State is covered as a 

whole, State legislation or other changes 

undertaken or required by the State 

shall be submitted by the State (except 

that legislation of local applicability 

may be submitted by political subunits). 

Where a State is partially covered, 

changes of statewide application may be 

submitted by the State. Submissions 

from the State, rather than from the 

individual covered jurisdictions, would 

serve the State’s interest in at least two 

important respects: First, the State is 

better able to explain to the Attorney 

General the purpose and effect of voting 

changes it enacts than are the individual 

covered jurisdictions; second, a single 

submission of the voting change on 

behalf of all of the covered jurisdictions 

would reduce the possibility that some 

State acts will be legally enforceable in 

some parts of the State but not in others. 

(b) A change effected by a political 

party (see § 51.7) may be submitted by 

an appropriate official of the political 

party. 

(c) A change affecting voting that 

results from a State court order should 

be submitted by the jurisdiction or 

entity that is to implement or administer 

the change (in the manner specified by 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section). 

20. Revise § 51.24 to read as follows: 

§ 51.24 Delivery of submissions. 

(a) Delivery by U.S. Postal Service. 

Submissions sent to the Attorney 

General by the U.S. Postal Service, 

including certified mail or express mail, 

shall be addressed to the Chief, Voting 

Section, Civil Rights Division, United 

States Department of Justice, Room 

7254–NWB, 950 Pennsylvania Avenue, 

NW., Washington, DC 20530. 

(b) Delivery by other carriers. 

Submissions sent to the Attorney 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

33210 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

General by carriers other than the U.S. 

Postal Service, including by hand 

delivery, should be addressed or may be 

delivered to the Chief, Voting Section, 

Civil Rights Division, United States 

Department of Justice, Room 7254– 

NWB, 1800 G Street, NW., Washington, 

DC 20006. 

(c) Electronic submissions. 

Submissions may be delivered to the 

Attorney General through an electronic 

form available on the Web site of the 

Voting Section of the Civil Rights 

Division at http://www.justice.gov/crt/ 

voting/. Detailed instructions appear on 

the Web site. Jurisdictions should 

answer the questions appearing on the 

electronic form, and should attach 

documents as specified in the 

instructions accompanying the 

application. 

(d) Telefacsimile submissions. In 

urgent circumstances, submissions may 

be delivered to the Attorney General by 

telefacsimile to (202) 616–9514. 

Submissions should not be sent to any 

other telefacsimile number at the 

Department of Justice. Submissions that 

are voluminous should not be sent by 

telefacsimile. 

(e) E-mail. Submissions may not be 

delivered to the Attorney General by email in the first instance. However, after 

a submission is received by the Attorney 

General, a jurisdiction may supply 

additional information on that 

submission by e-mail to 

vot1973c@usdoj.gov. The subject line of 

the e-mail shall be identified with the 

Attorney General’s file number for the 

submission (YYYY–NNNN), marked as 

‘‘Additional Information,’’ and include 

the name of the jurisdiction. 

(f) Special marking. The first page of 

the submission, and the envelope (if 

any), shall be clearly marked: 

‘‘Submission under Section 5 of the 

Voting Rights Act.’’ 

(g) The most current information on 

addresses for, and methods of making, 

section 5 submissions is available on the 

Voting Section Web site at http:// 

www.justice.gov/crt/voting/. 

21. In § 51.25, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 51.25 Withdrawal of submissions. 

(a) A jurisdiction may withdraw a 

submission at any time prior to a final 

decision by the Attorney General. 

Notice of the withdrawal of a 

submission must be made in writing 

addressed to the Chief, Voting Section, 

Civil Rights Division, to be delivered at 

the addresses, telefacsimile number, or 

e-mail address specified in § 51.24. The 

submission shall be deemed withdrawn 

upon the Attorney General’s receipt of 

the notice. 

* * * * * 

22. In § 51.27, revise paragraphs (a) 

through (d) to read as follows: 

§ 51.27 Required contents. 

* * * * * 

(a) A copy of any ordinance, 

enactment, order, or regulation 

embodying the change affecting voting 

for which section 5 preclearance is 

being requested. 

(b) A copy of any ordinance, 

enactment, order, or regulation 

embodying the voting standard, 

practice, or procedure that is proposed 

to be repealed, amended, or otherwise 

changed. 

(c) A statement that identifies with 

specificity each change affecting voting 

for which section 5 preclearance is 

being requested and that explains the 

difference between the submitted 

change and the prior law or practice. If 

the submitted change is a special 

referendum election and the subject of 

the referendum is a proposed change 

affecting voting, the submission should 

specify whether preclearance is being 

requested solely for the special election 

or for both the special election and the 

proposed change to be voted on in the 

referendum (see §§ 51.16, 51.22). 

(d) The name, title, mailing address, 

and telephone number of the person 

making the submission. Where 

available, a telefacsimile number and an 

e-mail address for the person making 

the submission also should be provided. 

* * * * * 

23. In § 51.28, revise paragraph (a)(5), 

and revise paragraph (c) to read as 

follows: 

§ 51.28 Supplemental Contents. 

* * * * * 

(a) * * * 

(a)(5) Demographic data on electronic 

media that are provided in conjunction 

with a redistricting plan shall be 

contained in an ASCII, comma 

delimited block equivalency import file 

with two fields as detailed in the 

following table. A separate import file 

shall accompany each redistricting plan: 

Field No. Description Total length Comments 

1 ........................ PL94–171 Reference ................... Length .............. ........................... STATE215. 

Each padded with leading zeroes resulting in a 15- 

digit character. 

COUNTY3T. 

RACT6BLOC. 

K4. 

2 ........................ District number ............................. 3 ....................... 3 ....................... No leading zeros. 

(i) Field 1: The PL 94–171 reference 

number is the state, county, tract, and 

block reference numbers concatenated 

together and padded with leading zeroes 

so as to create a 15-digit character field; 

and 

(ii) Field 2: The district number is a 

3 digit character field with no padded 

leading zeroes. 

Example: 

482979501002099,1; 482979501002100,3; 

482979501004301,10; 482975010004305,23; 

482975010004302,101 

* * * * * 

(c) Annexations. For annexations, in 

addition to that information specified 

elsewhere, the following information: 

(1) The present and expected future 

use of the annexed land (e.g., garden 

apartments, industrial park). 

(2) An estimate of the expected 

population, by race and language group, 

when anticipated development, if any, 

is completed. 

(3) A statement that all prior 

annexations (and deannexations) subject 

to the preclearance requirement have 

been submitted for review, or a 

statement that identifies all annexations 

(and deannexations) subject to the 

preclearance requirement that have not 

been submitted for review. See 

§ 51.61(b). 

(4) To the extent that the jurisdiction 

elects some or all members of its 

governing body from single-member 

districts, it should inform the Attorney 

General how the newly annexed 

territory will be incorporated into the 

existing election districts. 

* * * * * 

24. In § 51.29, revise paragraphs (b) 

and (d) to read as follows: 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 33211 

§ 51.29 Communications concerning 

voting changes. 

* * * * * 

(b) Comments should be sent to the 

Chief, Voting Section, Civil Rights 

Division, at the addresses, telefacsimile 

number, or email address specified in 

§ 51.24. The first page, and the envelope 

(if any) should be marked: ‘‘Comment 

under section 5 of the Voting Rights 

Act.’’ Comments should include, where 

available, the name of the jurisdiction 

and the Attorney General’s file number 

(YYYY–NNNN) in the subject line. 

* * * * * 

(d) To the extent permitted by the 

Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 

552, the Attorney General shall not 

disclose to any person outside the 

Department of Justice the identity of any 

individual or entity providing 

information on a submission or the 

administration of section 5 where the 

individual or entity has requested 

confidentiality; an assurance of 

confidentiality may reasonably be 

implied from the circumstances of the 

communication; disclosure could 

reasonably be expected to constitute an 

unwarranted invasion of personal 

privacy under 5 U.S.C. 552; or 

disclosure is prohibited by any 

applicable provisions of federal law. 

* * * * * 

25. Revise § 51.35 to read as follows: 

§ 51.35 Disposition of inappropriate 

submissions and resubmissions. 

(a) When the Attorney General 

determines that a response on the merits 

of a submitted change is inappropriate, 

the Attorney General shall notify the 

submitting official in writing within the 

60-day period that would have 

commenced for a determination on the 

merits and shall include an explanation 

of the reason why a response is not 

appropriate. 

(b) Matters that are not appropriate for 

a merits response include: 

(1) Changes that do not affect voting 

(see § 51.13); 

(2) Standards, practices, or procedures 

that have not been changed (see §§ 51.4, 

51.14); 

(3) Changes that previously have 

received preclearance; 

(4) Changes that affect voting but are 

not subject to the requirement of section 

5 (see § 51.18); 

(5) Changes that have been 

superseded or for which a 

determination is premature (see 

§§ 51.22, 51.61(b)); 

(6) Submissions by jurisdictions not 

subject to the preclearance requirement 

(see §§ 51.4, 51.5); 

(7) Submissions by an inappropriate 

or unauthorized party or jurisdiction 

(see § 51.23); and 

(8) Deficient submissions (see 

§ 51.26(d)). 

(c) Following such a notification by 

the Attorney General, a change shall be 

deemed resubmitted for section 5 

review upon the Attorney General’s 

receipt of a submission or other written 

information that renders the change 

appropriate for review on the merits 

(such as a notification from the 

submitting authority that a change 

previously determined to be premature 

has been formally adopted). Notice of 

the resubmission of a change affecting 

voting will be given to interested parties 

registered under § 51.32. 

26. Revise § 51.37 to read as follows: 

§ 51.37 Obtaining information from the 

submitting authority. 

(a) Written requests for information. 

(1) If the Attorney General determines 

that a submission does not satisfy the 

requirements of § 51.27, the Attorney 

General may request in writing from the 

submitting authority any omitted 

information necessary for evaluation of 

the submission. Branch v. Smith, 538 

U.S. 254 (2003); Georgia v. United 

States, 411 U.S. 526 (1973). This written 

request shall be made as promptly as 

possible within the original 60-day 

period or the new 60-day period 

described in § 51.39(a). The written 

request shall advise the jurisdiction that 

the submitted change remains 

unenforceable unless and until 

preclearance is obtained. 

(2) A copy of the request shall be sent 

to any party who has commented on the 

submission or has requested notice of 

the Attorney General’s action thereon. 

(3) The Attorney General shall notify 

the submitting authority that a new 60- 

day period in which the Attorney 

General may interpose an objection 

shall commence upon the Attorney 

General’s receipt of a response from the 

submitting authority that provides the 

information requested or states that the 

information is unavailable. The 

Attorney General can request further 

information in writing within the new 

60-day period, but such a further 

request shall not suspend the running of 

the 60-day period, nor shall the 

Attorney General’s receipt of such 

further information begin a new 60-day 

period. 

(4) Where the response from the 

submitting authority neither provides 

the information requested nor states that 

such information is unavailable, the 

response shall not commence a new 60- 

day period. It is the practice of the 

Attorney General to notify the 

submitting authority that its response is 

incomplete and to provide such 

notification as soon as possible within 

the 60-day period that would have 

commenced had the response been 

complete. Where the response includes 

a portion of the available information 

that was requested, the Attorney 

General will reevaluate the submission 

to ascertain whether a determination on 

the merits may be made based upon the 

information provided. If a merits 

determination is appropriate, it is the 

practice of the Attorney General to make 

that determination within the new 60- 

day period that would have commenced 

had the response been complete. See 

§ 51.40. 

(5) If, after a request for further 

information is made pursuant to this 

section, the information requested by 

the Attorney General becomes available 

to the Attorney General from a source 

other than the submitting authority, the 

Attorney General shall promptly notify 

the submitting authority in writing, and 

the new 60-day period will commence 

the day after the information is received 

by the Attorney General. 

(6) Notice of the written request for 

further information and the receipt of a 

response by the Attorney General will 

be given to interested parties registered 

under § 51.32. 

(b) Oral requests for information. (1) 

If a submission does not satisfy the 

requirements of § 51.27, the Attorney 

General may request orally any omitted 

information necessary for the evaluation 

of the submission. An oral request may 

be made at any time within the 60-day 

period, and the submitting authority 

should provide the requested 

information as promptly as possible. 

The oral request for information shall 

not suspend the running of the 60-day 

period, and the Attorney General will 

proceed to make a determination within 

the initial 60-day period. The Attorney 

General reserves the right as set forth in 

§ 51.39, however, to commence a new 

60-day period in which to make the 

requisite determination if the written 

information provided in response to 

such request materially supplements the 

submission. 

(2) An oral request for information 

shall not limit the authority of the 

Attorney General to make a written 

request for information. 

(3) The Attorney General will notify 

the submitting authority in writing 

when the 60-day period for a 

submission is recalculated from the 

Attorney General’s receipt of written 

information provided in response to an 

oral request as described in 

§ 51.37(b)(1), above. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

33212 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(4) Notice of the Attorney General’s 

receipt of written information pursuant 

to an oral request will be given to 

interested parties registered under 

§ 51.32. 

27. Revise § 51.39 to read as follows: 

§ 51.39 Supplemental information and 

related submissions. 

(a)(1) Supplemental information. 

When a submitting authority, at its own 

instance, provides information during 

the 60-day period that the Attorney 

General determines materially 

supplements a pending submission, the 

60-day period for the pending 

submission will be recalculated from 

the Attorney General’s receipt of the 

supplemental information. 

(2) Related submissions. When the 

Attorney General receives related 

submissions during the 60-day period 

for a submission that cannot be 

independently considered, the 60-day 

period for the first submission shall be 

recalculated from the Attorney General’s 

receipt of the last related submission. 

(b) The Attorney General will notify 

the submitting authority in writing 

when the 60-day period for a 

submission is recalculated due to the 

Attorney General’s receipt of 

supplemental information or a related 

submission. 

(c) Notice of the Attorney General’s 

receipt of supplemental information or 

a related submission will be given to 

interested parties registered under 

§ 51.32. 

28. Revise § 51.42 to read as follows: 

§ 51.42 Failure of the Attorney General to 

respond. 

It is the practice and intention of the 

Attorney General to respond in writing 

to each submission within the 60-day 

period. However, the failure of the 

Attorney General to make a written 

response within the 60-day period 

constitutes preclearance of the 

submitted change, provided that a 60- 

day review period had commenced after 

receipt by the Attorney General of a 

complete submission that is appropriate 

for a response on the merits. (See 

§ 51.22, § 51.27, § 51.35.) 

29. Revise § 51.43 to read as follows: 

§ 51.43 Reexamination of decision not to 

object. 

(a) After notification to the submitting 

authority of a decision not to interpose 

an objection to a submitted change 

affecting voting has been given, the 

Attorney General may reexamine the 

submission if, prior to the expiration of 

the 60-day period, information comes to 

the attention of the Attorney General 

that would otherwise require objection 

in accordance with section 5. 

(b) In such circumstances, the 

Attorney General may by letter 

withdraw his decision not to interpose 

an objection and may by letter interpose 

an objection provisionally, in 

accordance with § 51.44, and advise the 

submitting authority that examination of 

the change in light of the newly raised 

issues will continue and that a final 

decision will be rendered as soon as 

possible. 

30. In § 51.44, revise paragraph (c) to 

read as follows: 

§ 51.44 Notification of decision to object. 

* * * * * 

(c) The submitting authority shall be 

advised further that notwithstanding the 

objection it may institute an action in 

the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia for a declaratory judgment 

that the change objected to by the 

Attorney General neither has the 

purpose nor will have the effect of 

denying or abridging the right to vote on 

account of race, color, or membership in 

a language minority group. 

* * * * * 

31. In § 51.46, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 51.46 Reconsideration of objection at the 

instance of the Attorney General. 

(a) Where there appears to have been 

a substantial change in operative fact or 

relevant law, or where it appears there 

may have been a misinterpretation of 

fact or mistake in the law, an objection 

may be reconsidered, if it is deemed 

appropriate, at the instance of the 

Attorney General. 

* * * * * 

32. In § 51.48, revise paragraphs (a) 

through (d) to read as follows: 

§ 51.48 Decision after reconsideration. 

(a) It is the practice of the Attorney 

General to notify the submitting 

authority of the decision to continue or 

withdraw an objection within a 60-day 

period following receipt of a 

reconsideration request or following 

notice given under § 51.46(b), except 

that this 60-day period shall be 

recommenced upon receipt of any 

documents or written information from 

the submitting authority that materially 

supplements the reconsideration 

review, irrespective of whether the 

submitting authority provides the 

documents or information at its own 

instance or pursuant to a request 

(written or oral) by the Attorney 

General. The 60-day reconsideration 

period may be extended to allow a 15- 

day decision period following a 

conference held pursuant to § 51.47. 

The 60-day reconsideration period shall 

be computed in the manner specified in 

§ 51.9. Where the reconsideration is at 

the instance of the Attorney General, the 

first day of the period shall be the day 

after the notice required by § 51.46(b) is 

transmitted to the submitting authority. 

The reasons for the reconsideration 

decision shall be stated. 

(b) The objection shall be withdrawn 

if the Attorney General is satisfied that 

the change neither has the purpose nor 

will have the effect of denying or 

abridging the right to vote on account of 

race, color, or membership in a language 

minority group. 

(c) If the objection is not withdrawn, 

the submitting authority shall be 

advised that notwithstanding the 

objection it may institute an action in 

the U.S. District Court for the District of 

Columbia for a declaratory judgment 

that the change objected to by the 

Attorney General neither has the 

purpose nor will have the effect of 

denying or abridging the right to vote on 

account of race, color, or membership in 

a language minority group. 

(d) An objection remains in effect 

until either it is specifically withdrawn 

by the Attorney General or a declaratory 

judgment with respect to the change in 

question is entered by the U.S. District 

Court for the District of Columbia. 

* * * * * 

33. Revise § 51.50 to read as follows: 

§ 51.50 Records concerning submissions. 

(a) Section 5 files. The Attorney 

General shall maintain a section 5 file 

for each submission, containing the 

submission, related written materials, 

correspondence, memoranda, 

investigative reports, data provided on 

electronic media, notations concerning 

conferences with the submitting 

authority or any interested individual or 

group, and copies of letters from the 

Attorney General concerning the 

submission. 

(b) Objection letters. The Attorney 

General shall maintain section 5 

notification letters regarding decisions 

to interpose, continue, or withdraw an 

objection. 

(c) Computer file. Records of all 

submissions and their dispositions by 

the Attorney General shall be 

electronically stored. 

(d) Copies. The contents of the section 

5 submission files in paper, microfiche, 

electronic, or other form shall be 

available for obtaining copies by the 

public, pursuant to written request 

directed to the Chief, Voting Section, 

Civil Rights Division, United States 

Department of Justice, Washington, DC. 

Such written request may be delivered 

to the addresses or telefacsimile number 

specified in § 51.24 or by electronic mail 

to Voting.Section@usdoj.gov. It is the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 33213 

Attorney General’s intent and practice 

to expedite, to the extent possible, 

requests pertaining to pending 

submissions. Those who desire copies 

of information that has been provided 

on electronic media will be provided a 

copy of that information in the same 

form as it was received. Materials that 

are exempt from inspection under the 

Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. 

552(b), may be withheld at the 

discretion of the Attorney General. The 

identity of any individual or entity that 

provided information to the Attorney 

General regarding the administration of 

section 5 shall be available only as 

provided by § 51.29(d). Applicable fees, 

if any, for the copying of the contents 

of these files are contained in the 

Department of Justice regulations 

implementing the Freedom of 

Information Act, 28 CFR 16.10. 

34. Revise § 51.52 to read as follows: 

§ 51.52 Basic standard. 

(a) Surrogate for the court. Section 5 

provides for submission of a voting 

change to the Attorney General as an 

alternative to the seeking of a 

declaratory judgment from the U.S. 

District Court for the District of 

Columbia. Therefore, the Attorney 

General shall make the same 

determination that would be made by 

the court in an action for a declaratory 

judgment under section 5: Whether the 

submitted change neither has the 

purpose nor will have the effect of 

denying or abridging the right to vote on 

account of race, color, or membership in 

a language minority group. The burden 

of proof is on a submitting authority 

when it submits a change to the 

Attorney General for preclearance, as it 

would be if the proposed change were 

the subject of a declaratory judgment 

action in the U.S. District Court for the 

District of Columbia. South Carolina v. 

Katzenbach, 383 U.S. 301, 328, 335 

(1966). 

(b) No objection. If the Attorney 

General determines that the submitted 

change neither has the purpose nor will 

have the effect of denying or abridging 

the right to vote on account of race, 

color, or membership in a language 

minority group, no objection shall be 

interposed to the change. 

(c) Objection. An objection shall be 

interposed to a submitted change if the 

Attorney General is unable to determine 

that the change neither has the purpose 

nor will have the effect of denying or 

abridging the right to vote on account of 

race, color, or membership in a language 

minority group. This includes those 

situations where the evidence as to the 

purpose or effect of the change is 

conflicting and the Attorney General is 

unable to determine that the change is 

free of the prohibited discriminatory 

purpose and effect. 

35. Revise § 51.54 to read as follows: 

§ 51.54 Discriminatory purpose and effect. 

(a) Discriminatory purpose. A change 

affecting voting is considered to have a 

discriminatory purpose under section 5 

if it is enacted or sought to be 

administered with any purpose of 

denying or abridging the right to vote on 

account of race, color, or membership in 

a language minority group. The term 

‘‘purpose’’ in section 5 includes any 

discriminatory purpose. 42 U.S.C. 

1973c. The Attorney General’s 

evaluation of discriminatory purpose 

under section 5 is guided by the 

analysis in Village of Arlington Heights 

v. Metropolitan Housing Development 

Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977). 

(b) Discriminatory effect. A change 

affecting voting is considered to have a 

discriminatory effect under section 5 if 

it will lead to a retrogression in the 

position of members of a racial or 

language minority group (i.e., will make 

members of such a group worse off than 

they had been before the change) with 

respect to their effective exercise of the 

electoral franchise. Beer v. United 

States, 425 U.S. 130, 140–42 (1976). 

(c) Benchmark. (1) In determining 

whether a submitted change is 

retrogressive the Attorney General will 

normally compare the submitted change 

to the voting practice or procedure in 

force or effect at the time of the 

submission. If the existing practice or 

procedure upon submission was not in 

effect on the jurisdiction’s applicable 

date for coverage (specified in the 

Appendix) and is not otherwise legally 

enforceable under section 5, it cannot 

serve as a benchmark, and, except as 

provided in subparagraph (c)(4) below, 

the comparison shall be with the last 

legally enforceable practice or 

procedure used by the jurisdiction. 

(2) The Attorney General will make 

the comparison based on the conditions 

existing at the time of the submission. 

(3) The implementation and use of an 

unprecleared voting change subject to 

section 5 review does not operate to 

make that unprecleared change a 

benchmark for any subsequent change 

submitted by the jurisdiction. 

(4) Where at the time of submission of 

a change for section 5 review there 

exists no other lawful practice or 

procedure for use as a benchmark (e.g., 

where a newly incorporated college 

district selects a method of election) the 

Attorney General’s determination will 

necessarily center on whether the 

submitted change was designed or 

adopted for the purpose of 

discriminating against members of racial 

or language minority groups. 

(d) Protection of the ability to elect. 

Any change affecting voting that has the 

purpose of or will have the effect of 

diminishing the ability of any citizens of 

the United States on account of race, 

color, or membership in a language 

minority group to elect their preferred 

candidates of choice denies or abridges 

the right to vote within the meaning of 

section 5. 42 U.S.C. 1973c. 

36. In § 51.55, revise paragraph (a) to 

read as follows: 

§ 51.55 Consistency with constitutional 

and statutory requirements. 

(a) Consideration in general. In 

making a determination under section 5, 

the Attorney General will consider 

whether the change neither has the 

purpose nor will have the effect of 

denying or abridging the right to vote on 

account of race, color, or membership in 

a language minority group in light of, 

and with particular attention being 

given to, the requirements of the 14th, 

15th, and 24th Amendments to the 

Constitution, 42 U.S.C. 1971(a) and (b), 

sections 2, 4(a), 4(f)(2), 4(f)(4), 201, 

203(c), and 208 of the Act, and other 

constitutional and statutory provisions 

designed to safeguard the right to vote 

from denial or abridgment on account of 

race, color, or membership in a language 

minority group. 

* * * * * 

37. Revise § 51.57 to read as follows: 

§ 51.57 Relevant factors. 

Among the factors the Attorney 

General will consider in making 

determinations with respect to the 

submitted changes affecting voting are 

the following: 

(a) The extent to which a reasonable 

and legitimate justification for the 

change exists; 

(b) The extent to which the 

jurisdiction followed objective 

guidelines and fair and conventional 

procedures in adopting the change; 

(c) The extent to which the 

jurisdiction afforded members of racial 

and language minority groups an 

opportunity to participate in the 

decision to make the change; 

(d) The extent to which the 

jurisdiction took the concerns of 

members of racial and language 

minority groups into account in making 

the change; and 

(e) The factors set forth in Arlington 

Heights v. Metropolitan Housing 

Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252 (1977), 

including whether the impact of the 

official action bears more heavily on one 

race than another, the historical 

background of the decision, the 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

33214 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

legislative or administrative history, the 

specific sequence of events leading up 

to the submitted change, whether there 

are departures from the normal 

procedural sequence and whether there 

are substantive departures from the 

normal factors considered. 

38. In § 51.58, revise paragraph (b) to 

read as follows: 

§ 51.58 Representation. 

* * * * * 

(b) Background factors. In making 

determinations with respect to these 

changes involving voting practices and 

procedures, the Attorney General will 

consider as important background 

information the following factors: 

(1) The extent to which minorities 

have been denied an equal opportunity 

to participate meaningfully in the 

political process in the jurisdiction. 

(2) The extent to which voting in the 

jurisdiction is racially polarized and 

political activities are racially 

segregated. 

(3) The extent to which the voter 

registration and election participation of 

minority voters have been adversely 

affected by present or past 

discrimination. 

39. Revise § 51.59 to read as follows: 

§ 51.59 Redistricting plans. 

(a) Relevant factors. In determining 

whether a submitted redistricting plan 

has a prohibited purpose or effect the 

Attorney General, in addition to the 

factors described above, will consider 

the following factors (among others): 

(1) The extent to which 

malapportioned districts deny or 

abridge the right to vote of minority 

citizens; 

(2) The extent to which minority 

voting strength is reduced by the 

proposed redistricting; 

(3) The extent to which minority 

concentrations are fragmented among 

different districts; 

(4) The extent to which minorities are 

over concentrated in one or more 

districts; 

(5) The extent to which available 

alternative plans satisfying the 

jurisdiction’s legitimate governmental 

interests were considered; 

(6) The extent to which the plan 

departs from objective redistricting 

criteria set by the submitting 

jurisdiction, ignores other relevant 

factors such as compactness and 

contiguity, or displays a configuration 

that inexplicably disregards available 

natural or artificial boundaries; and 

(7) The extent to which the plan is 

inconsistent with the jurisdiction’s 

stated redistricting standards. 

(b) Discriminatory purpose. A 

determination that a jurisdiction has 

failed to establish that the adoption was 

not motivated by a discriminatory 

purpose may not be based solely on a 

jurisdiction’s failure to adopt the 

maximum possible number of majorityminority districts. 

40. In § 51.61, revise paragraphs (a) 

and (b) to read as follows: 

§ 51.61 Annexations and deannexations. 

(a) Coverage. Annexations and 

deannexations, even of uninhabited 

land, are subject to section 5 

preclearance to the extent that they alter 

or are calculated to alter the 

composition of a jurisdiction’s 

electorate. See, e.g., City of Pleasant 

Grove v. United States, 479 U.S. 462 

(1987). In analyzing annexations and 

deannexations under section 5, the 

Attorney General considers the purpose 

and effect of the annexations and 

deannexations only as they pertain to 

voting. 

(b) Section 5 review. It is the practice 

of the Attorney General to review all of 

a jurisdiction’s unprecleared 

annexations and deannexations 

together. See City of Pleasant Grove v. 

United States, C.A. No. 80–2589 (D.D.C. 

Oct. 7, 1981). 

* * * * * 

41. Revise the Appendix to Part 51 to 

read as follows: 

Appendix to Part 51—Jurisdictions 

Covered Under Section 4(b) of the 

Voting Rights Act, as Amended 

The requirements of section 5 of the Voting 

Rights Act, as amended, apply in the 

following jurisdictions. The applicable date 

is the date that was used to determine 

coverage and the date after which changes 

affecting voting are subject to the 

preclearance requirement. Some 

jurisdictions, for example, Yuba County, 

California, are included more than once 

because they have been determined on more 

than one occasion to be covered under 

section 4(b). 

Jurisdiction Applicable date 

Federal Register citation 

Volume and page Date 

Alabama ................................................. Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Alaska ..................................................... Nov. 1, 1972 .......................................... 40 FR 49422 .......................................... Oct. 22, 1975. 

Arizona ................................................... Nov. 1, 1972 .......................................... 40 FR 43746 .......................................... Sept. 23, 1975. 

California: 

Kings County ................................... Nov. 1, 1972 .......................................... 40 FR 43746 .......................................... Sept. 23, 1975. 

Merced County ................................ Nov. 1, 1972 .......................................... 40 FR 43746 .......................................... Sept. 23, 1975. 

Monterey County ............................. Nov. 1, 1968 .......................................... 36 FR 5809 ............................................ Mar. 27, 1971. 

Yuba County ................................... Nov. 1, 1968 .......................................... 36 FR 5809 ............................................ Mar. 27, 1971. 

Yuba County ................................... Nov. 1, 1972 .......................................... 41 FR 784 .............................................. Jan. 5, 1976. 

Florida: 

Collier County .................................. Nov. 1, 1972 .......................................... 41 FR 34329 .......................................... Aug. 13, 1976. 

Hardee County ................................ Nov. 1, 1972 .......................................... 40 FR 43746 .......................................... Sept. 23, 1975. 

Hendry County ................................ Nov. 1, 1972 .......................................... 41 FR 34329 .......................................... Aug. 13, 1976. 

Hillsborough County ........................ Nov. 1, 1972 .......................................... 40 FR 43746 .......................................... Sept. 23, 1975. 

Monroe County ................................ Nov. 1, 1972 .......................................... 40 FR 43746 .......................................... Sept. 23, 1975. 

Georgia ................................................... Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Louisiana ................................................ Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Michigan: 

Allegan County: Clyde Township .... Nov. 1, 1972 .......................................... 41 FR 34329 .......................................... Aug. 13, 1976. 

Saginaw County: Buena Vista 

Township.

Nov. 1, 1972 .......................................... 41 FR 34329 .......................................... Aug. 13, 1976. 

Mississippi .............................................. Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

New Hampshire: 

Cheshire County: Rindge Town ...... Nov. 1, 1968 .......................................... 39 FR 16912 .......................................... May 10, 1974. 

Coos County: 

Millsfield Township .......................... Nov. 1, 1968 .......................................... 39 FR 16912 .......................................... May 10, 1974. 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 33215 

Jurisdiction Applicable date 

Federal Register citation 

Volume and page Date 

Pinkhams Grant .............................. Nov. 1, 1968 .......................................... 39 FR 16912 .......................................... May 10, 1974. 

Stewartstown Town ......................... Nov. 1, 1968 .......................................... 39 FR 16912 .......................................... May 10, 1974. 

Stratford Town ................................. Nov. 1, 1968 .......................................... 39 FR 16912 .......................................... May 10, 1974. 

Grafton County: 

Benton Town ................................... Nov. 1, 1968 .......................................... 39 FR 16912 .......................................... May 10, 1974. 

Hillsborough County: 

Antrim Town .................................... Nov. 1, 1968 .......................................... 39 FR 16912 .......................................... May 10, 1974. 

Merrimack County: 

Boscawen Town .............................. Nov. 1, 1968 .......................................... 39 FR 16912 .......................................... May 10, 1974. 

Rockingham County: 

Newington Town ............................. Nov. 1, 1968 .......................................... 39 FR 16912 .......................................... May 10, 1974. 

Sullivan County: 

Unity Town ...................................... Nov. 1, 1968 .......................................... 39 FR 16912 .......................................... May 10, 1974. 

New York: 

Bronx County .................................. Nov. 1, 1968 .......................................... 36 FR 5809 ............................................ Mar. 27, 1971. 

Bronx County .................................. Nov. 1, 1972 .......................................... 40 FR 43746 .......................................... Sept. 23, 1975. 

Kings County ................................... Nov. 1, 1968 .......................................... 36 FR 5809 ............................................ Mar. 27, 1971. 

Kings County ................................... Nov. 1, 1972 .......................................... 40 FR 43746 .......................................... Sept. 23, 1975. 

New York County ............................ Nov. 1, 1968 .......................................... 36 FR 5809 ............................................ Mar. 27, 1971. 

North Carolina: 

Anson County .................................. Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Beaufort County .............................. Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 31 FR 5081 ............................................ Mar. 29, 1966. 

Bertie County .................................. Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Bladen County ................................. Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 31 FR 5081 ............................................ Mar. 29, 1966. 

Camden County .............................. Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 31 FR 3317 ............................................ Mar. 2, 1966. 

Caswell County ............................... Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Chowan County ............................... Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Cleveland County ............................ Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 31 FR 5081 ............................................ Mar. 29, 1966. 

Craven County ................................ Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Cumberland County ........................ Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Edgecombe County ......................... Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Franklin County ............................... Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Gaston County ................................ Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 31 FR 5081 ............................................ Mar. 29, 1966. 

Gates County .................................. Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Granville County .............................. Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Greene County ................................ Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Guilford County ............................... Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 31 FR 5081 ............................................ Mar. 29, 1966. 

Halifax County ................................. Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Harnett County ................................ Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 31 FR 5081 ............................................ Mar. 29, 1966. 

Hertford County ............................... Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Hoke County ................................... Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Jackson County ............................... Nov. 1, 1972 .......................................... 40 FR 49422 .......................................... Oct. 22, 1975. 

Lee County ...................................... Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 31 FR 5081 ............................................ Mar. 29, 1966. 

Lenoir County .................................. Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Martin County .................................. Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 31 FR 19 ................................................ Jan. 4, 1966. 

Nash County ................................... Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Northampton County ....................... Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Onslow County ................................ Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Pasquotank County ......................... Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Perquimans County ......................... Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 31 FR 3317 ............................................ Mar. 2, 1966. 

Person County ................................ Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Pitt County ....................................... Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Robeson County ............................. Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Rockingham County ........................ Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 31 FR 5081 ............................................ Mar. 29, 1966. 

Scotland County .............................. Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Union County .................................. Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 31 FR 5081 ............................................ Mar. 29, 1966. 

Vance County .................................. Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Washington County ......................... Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 31 FR 19 ................................................ Jan. 4, 1966. 

Wayne County ................................. Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

Wilson County ................................. Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

South Carolina ........................................ Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

South Dakota: 

Shannon County ............................. Nov. 1, 1972 .......................................... 41 FR 784 .............................................. Jan. 5, 1976. 

Todd County .................................... Nov. 1, 1972 .......................................... 41 FR 784 .............................................. Jan. 5, 1976. 

Texas ...................................................... Nov. 1, 1972 .......................................... 40 FR 43746 .......................................... Sept. 23, 1975. 

Virginia .................................................... Nov. 1, 1964 .......................................... 30 FR 9897 ............................................ Aug. 7, 1965. 

The following political subdivisions in 

States subject to statewide coverage are also 

covered individually: 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS

33216 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 112 / Friday, June 11, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Jurisdiction Applicable date 

FEDERAL REGISTER citation 

Volume and page Date 

Arizona: 

Apache County ................................ Nov. 1, 1968 .......................................... 36 FR 5809 ............................................ Mar. 27, 1971. 

Apache County ................................ Nov. 1, 1972 .......................................... 40 FR 49422 .......................................... Oct. 22, 1975. 

Cochise County ............................... Nov. 1, 1968 .......................................... 36 FR 5809 ............................................ Mar. 27, 1971. 

Coconino County ............................. Nov. 1, 1968 .......................................... 36 FR 5809 ............................................ Mar. 27, 1971. 

Coconino County ............................. Nov. 1, 1972 .......................................... 40 FR 49422 .......................................... Oct. 22, 1975. 

Mohave County ............................... Nov. 1, 1968 .......................................... 36 FR 5809 ............................................ Mar. 27, 1971. 

Navajo County ................................. Nov. 1, 1968 .......................................... 36 FR 5809 ............................................ Mar. 27, 1971. 

Navajo County ................................. Nov. 1, 1972 .......................................... 40 FR 49422 .......................................... Oct. 22, 1975. 

Pima County .................................... Nov. 1, 1968 .......................................... 36 FR 5809 ............................................ Mar. 27, 1971. 

Pinal County .................................... Nov. 1, 1968 .......................................... 36 FR 5809 ............................................ Mar. 27, 1971. 

Pinal County .................................... Nov. 1, 1972 .......................................... 40 FR 49422 .......................................... Oct. 22, 1975 

Santa Cruz County .......................... Nov. 1, 1968 .......................................... 36 FR 5809 ............................................ Mar. 27, 1971. 

Yuma County .................................. Nov. 1, 1964. ......................................... 31 FR 982 .............................................. Jan. 25, 1966. 

The Voting Section maintains a current list 

of those jurisdictions that have maintained 

successful declaratory judgments from the 

United States District Court for the District of 

Columbia pursuant to section 4 of the Act on 

its Web site at http://www.justice.gov/crt/ 

voting. 

Dated: May 27, 2010. 

Eric H. Holder, Jr., 

Attorney General. 

[FR Doc. 2010–13393 Filed 6–10–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 17 

RIN 2900–AN49 

Payment or Reimbursement for 

Emergency Treatment Furnished by 

Non-VA Providers in Non-VA Facilities 

to Certain Veterans With ServiceConnected or Nonservice-Connected 

Disabilities 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) is proposing to amend its 

regulations concerning emergency 

hospital care and medical services 

provided to eligible veterans for serviceconnected and nonservice-connected 

conditions at non-VA facilities as a 

result of the amendments made by 

section 402 of the Veterans’ Mental 

Health and Other Care Improvements 

Act of 2008. These amendments would 

require VA payment for emergency 

treatment of eligible veterans at non-VA 

facilities and expand the circumstances 

under which payment for such 

treatment is authorized. In addition, 

these amendments would make 

nonsubstantive technical changes such 

as correcting grammatical errors and 

updating obsolete citations. 

DATES: Comments must be received by 

VA on or before August 10, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted through http:// 

www.regulations.gov; by mail or handdelivery to the Director, Regulations 

Management (02REG), Department of 

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Ave., 

NW., Room 1068, Washington, DC 

20420; or by fax to (202) 273–9026. 

Comments should indicate that they are 

submitted in response to ‘‘RIN 2900– 

AN49–Payment or Reimbursement for 

Emergency Treatment Furnished by 

Non-VA Providers in Non-VA facilities 

to Certain Veterans with Serviceconnected or Nonservice-connected 

Disabilities.’’ Copies of comments 

received will be available for public 

inspection in the Office of Regulation 

Policy and Management, Room 1063B, 

between the hours of 8 a.m. and 4:30 

p.m. Monday through Friday (except 

holidays). Please call (202) 461–4902 for 

an appointment. (This is not a toll-free 

number.) In addition, during the 

comment period, comments may be 

viewed online through the Federal 

Docket Management System (FDMS) at 

http://www.regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Joseph Duran, Policy Specialist, VHA 

CBO Fee Program Office, VHA Chief 

Business Office, Department of Veterans 

Affairs, P.O. Box 469066, Denver, CO 

80246. Telephone (303) 398–5191. (This 

is not a toll-free number.) 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Sections 

1725 and 1728 of title 38, United States 

Code, authorize the Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs to reimburse eligible 

veterans for costs related to non-VA 

emergency treatment furnished at nonVA facilities, or to pay providers 

directly for such costs. Specifically, 

section 1725 authorizes reimbursement 

for emergency treatment for eligible 

veterans with nonservice-connected 

conditions. In contrast, section 1728 

authorizes reimbursement for 

emergency treatment for eligible 

veterans with service-connected 

conditions. These statutory provisions 

are implemented at 38 CFR 17.1000 

through 17.1008 for nonserviceconnected conditions, and at 38 CFR 

17.120 and 17.121 for service-connected 

conditions. Sometimes a veteran will 

require continued, non-emergent 

treatment after the veteran’s medical 

condition is stabilized. However, until 

recently VA was not authorized to 

reimburse or pay for treatment provided 

after ‘‘the veteran can be transferred 

safely to a [VA] facility or other Federal 

facility.’’ 38 U.S.C. 1725(f)(1)(C) (2007). 

Thus, if no such facility could 

immediately accept the transfer, VA was 

unable to provide payment to the 

veteran or medical provider for services 

rendered beyond the point the veteran 

was determined to be stable. 

On October 10, 2008, the Veterans’ 

Mental Health and Other Care 

Improvements Act of 2008, Public Law 

110–387, was enacted. Section 402 of 

Public Law 110–387 amended the 

definition of ‘‘emergency treatment’’ in 

section1725(f)(1), extending VA’s 

payment authority until ‘‘such time as 

the veteran can be transferred safely to 

a [VA] facility or other Federal facility 

and such facility is capable of accepting 

such transfer,’’ or until such transfer was 

accepted, so long as the non-VA facility 

‘‘made and documented reasonable 

attempts to transfer the veteran to a [VA] 

facility or other Federal facility.’’ 

Section 402(a)(1) amended section 

1725(a)(1) by striking the term ‘‘may 

reimburse’’ and inserting ‘‘shall 

reimburse’’ in its place. This change 

would require VA to reimburse the 

covered costs for emergency care 

received at non-VA facilities for eligible 

veterans, rather than at the discretion of 

the Secretary. 

Section 402(b) of Public Law 110–387 

amended 38 U.S.C. 1728(a). First, 

WReier-Aviles on DSKGBLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS