81276 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Notices 

applicants be required to document 

their successes in ‘‘substantially’’ or at 

least ‘‘partially’’ overcoming 

disadvantages? Should any successes 

documented be limited to the 

applicant’s professional achievements, 

or should success in other contexts be 

considered by the Commission? 

9. At what level of success, if any, 

should an applicant who has overcome 

substantial disadvantages become 

ineligible for the preference (e.g., by 

what measure of wealth or access to 

capital)? Should the Commission adopt 

different levels of preference based on a 

measure of wealth or access to capital? 

What criteria should be used to 

disqualify the applicant from eligibility 

for a bidding credit? If the Commission 

adopts an additional preference such as 

that recommended by the Advisory 

Committee, how should the 

Commission implement the statutory 

requirement to avoid unjust enrichment 

in the context of its bidding preference 

program? 

III. Administration 

10. The Advisory Committee’s 

Recommendation notes that any 

determination of an individual’s or 

entity’s eligibility for an overcoming 

disadvantage preference would require 

an examination of all relevant evidence 

and would be based on an 

individualized evaluation. The 

individualized reviews that would 

occur under the proposed program are 

subjective in a manner that 

distinguishes them from existing 

designated entity programs, which are 

based on objective criteria such as 

financial data. By what means could 

applicants demonstrate that they qualify 

for the preference? For example, should 

a narrative explanation suffice? If not, 

what information or documentation 

would be necessary to substantiate a 

claim? Should an applicant be 

permitted to certify its eligibility for this 

preference under penalty of perjury in 

its short-form application when it seeks 

to participate in an auction, similar to 

the way in which applicants may certify 

eligibility for new entrant and small 

business bidding credits? If so, what 

guidance can the Commission provide 

to potential applicants so that they can 

make a good faith certification of 

eligibility? The Recommendation 

suggests that an overcoming 

disadvantage preference might be 

applied differently for different services 

(e.g., a preference might apply only for 

more valuable licenses in a broadcast 

auction). Would the Commission have 

to tailor the preference for specific 

services in a rulemaking, similar to its 

existing practice of establishing the 

small business definitions on a serviceby-service basis? The Advisory 

Committee recognized the importance of 

reducing subjectivity and achieving 

consistency among individualized 

determinations. What standards could 

the Commission implement to achieve 

those goals? 

11. The Advisory Committee’s 

Recommendation suggests that a 

determination as to whether applicants 

have overcome disadvantages could be 

made within the existing short-form 

auction application review process. 

What would be the administrative 

burden for the Commission to conduct 

individualized review for such a 

preference within the relatively short 

time frames allotted under the existing 

auctions short-form application process? 

If the Commission were to allocate 

additional time in the pre-auction 

process for such reviews, would the 

possible burdens on auction applicants 

be outweighed by the public interest 

benefits of the proposed preference? 

12. As an alternative, the 

Recommendation suggests that 

applicants could pre-qualify for 

preferences and thus avoid subsequent 

petitions to deny their licenses targeted 

at their qualification for the preference. 

Are there Administrative Procedure Act 

or other concerns for not allowing 

parties to file petitions challenging a 

proposed qualification? Is there a reason 

to treat this qualification differently 

than other qualifications that are subject 

to the petition to deny process? Does 

this raise issues with regard to the 

requirements of the Communications 

Act? If an applicant is found to be 

qualified prior to an auction but 

experiences a change of status during 

bidding, or after submitting a winning 

bid, should the individual remain 

eligible for the preference? Should a 

pre-qualification review strictly be 

limited to the overcoming of substantial 

disadvantage, or should it be a broader 

review of an applicant’s license 

qualifications, provided that the preauction process is extended? 

13. The Advisory Committee’s 

Recommendation suggests three options 

for the management of qualification 

review: (1) Establishing a ‘‘special cadre’’ 

of Commission officials to evaluate 

applicant qualifications; (2) designing a 

modified Administrative Law Judge 

procedure for this purpose; (3) assigning 

the function to the Commission’s 

Bureau responsible for oversight of the 

service in question. What are the 

relative advantages and disadvantages of 

each option? What aspects of the current 

process for review of auction applicant 

eligibility suggest that these additional 

options are necessary for the proposed 

preference program? 

14. The Advisory Committee’s 

Recommendation asks whether a 

corporation should be able to receive 

the proposed preference based on the 

qualifications of its principal. What role 

should the principal play in a 

corporation or other business entity to 

confer eligibility for the preference on 

the entity? For instance, should the 

principal be required to have majority 

equity ownership and a management 

role? 

This matter shall be treated as a 

‘‘permit-but-disclose’’ proceeding in 

accordance with the Commission’s ex 

parte rules 47 CFR 1.1200, 1.1206. 

Persons making oral ex parte 

presentations are reminded that 

memoranda summarizing the 

presentations must contain summaries 

of the substance of the presentations 

and not merely a listing of the subjects 

discussed. More than a one- or twosentence description of the views and 

arguments presented generally is 

required. See 47 CFR 1.1206(b). Other 

rules pertaining to oral and written ex 

parte presentations in permit-butdisclose proceedings are set forth in 47 

CFR 1.1206(b). 

Gary D. Michaels, 

Deputy Chief, Auctions and Spectrum Access 

Division, WTB, Federal Communications 

Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32493 Filed 12–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6712–01–P 

FEDERAL HOUSING FINANCE 

AGENCY 

[No. 2010–N–17] 

Office of Inspector General; Delegation 

of Authorities 

AGENCY: Office of Inspector General, 

Federal Housing Finance Agency. 

ACTION: Notice of delegation of 

authorities. 

SUMMARY: This notice delegates two 

authorities of the Inspector General, 

Office of Inspector General for the 

Federal Housing Finance Agency 

(FHFA–OIG), to the FHFA–OIG 

Principal Deputy Inspector General, the 

FHFA–OIG Deputy Inspector General 

for Audit, the FHFA–OIG Deputy 

Inspector General for Investigations & 

Evaluations, and the FHFA–OIG Chief 

Counsel. These authorities are: (1) The 

authority to issue subpoenas; and (2) the 

authority to request information under 5 

U.S.C. 552a(b)(7). 

DATES: Effective Date: December 27, 

2010. 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 247 / Monday, December 27, 2010 / Notices 81277 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Bryan Saddler, Chief Counsel, FHFA– 

OIG, at (202) 408–2577, or 

Bryan.Saddler@fhfa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Federal Housing Finance Regulatory 

Reform Act of 2008 (Reform Act), which 

was passed as Division A of the Housing 

and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 

(HERA), Public Law 110–289, 122 Stat. 

2654, 2913, abolished both the Federal 

Housing Finance Board (FHFB), an 

independent agency that oversaw the 

Federal Home Loan Banks (Banks), and 

the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise 

Oversight (OFHEO), an office within the 

Department of Housing and Urban 

Development (HUD) that oversaw the 

‘‘safety and soundness’’ of Fannie Mae 

and Freddie Mac. See 12 U.S.C. 1422a, 

4502(6), 4511, 4512, 4513, 4541, 4563 

(2006); H.R. Rep. No. 110–142, at 95. 

The Reform Act established in place of 

the FHFB and OFHEO a new entity, the 

Federal Housing Finance Agency 

(FHFA), which now regulates and 

supervises Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, 

and the 12 Banks. See Reform Act 

sections 1002, 1101, 1102, 1301, 1311; 

12 U.S.C.A. 4511, 4512, 4513 (2009). 

Section 1105 of HERA also amended 

the Federal Housing Enterprises 

Financial Safety and Soundness Act of 

1992 and the Inspector General Act of 

1978 (the IG Act), by specifying that 

there shall be established an Inspector 

General within FHFA. See 12 U.S.C. 

4517(d). FHFA–OIG is responsible for, 

among other things, conducting audits, 

investigations, and inspections of 

FHFA’s programs and operations, and 

recommending polices that promote 

economy and efficiency in the 

administration of, and prevent and 

detect fraud and abuse in, those 

programs and operations. Section 6(a)(4) 

of the IG Act authorizes the Inspector 

General to require by subpoena the 

production of all information, 

documents, reports, answers, records, 

accounts, papers, and other data and 

documentary evidence deemed 

necessary in the performance of the 

Inspector General’s function. This 

notice delegates the Inspector General’s 

subpoena issuance authority to the 

FHFA–OIG Principal Deputy Inspector 

General, the FHFA–OIG Deputy 

Inspector General for Audit, the FHFA– 

OIG Deputy Inspector General for 

Investigations & Evaluations, and the 

FHFA–OIG Chief Counsel. 

Section 552a(b)(7) of Title 5, United 

States Code, authorizes the Inspector 

General to request information protected 

by the Privacy Act for a civil or criminal 

law enforcement activity. This notice 

delegates this authority to request 

records protected by the Privacy Act for 

a civil or criminal law enforcement 

activity from the Inspector General to 

the FHFA–OIG Principal Deputy 

Inspector General, the FHFA–OIG 

Deputy Inspector General for Audit, the 

FHFA–OIG Deputy Inspector General 

for Investigations & Evaluations, and the 

FHFA–OIG Chief Counsel. 

The Inspector General has not limited 

his authority to issue subpoenas or to 

request information under 5 U.S.C. 552a 

by this delegation. Also, this delegation 

expressly prohibits further delegation or 

redelegation. 

Accordingly, the Inspector General 

delegates the following authorities: 

Section A. Authority Delegated: The 

Inspector General delegates to the 

FHFA–OIG Principal Deputy Inspector 

General, the FHFA–OIG Deputy 

Inspector General for Audit, the FHFA– 

OIG Deputy Inspector General for 

Investigations & Evaluations, and the 

FHFA–OIG Chief Counsel, the authority 

to require by subpoena the production 

of all information, documents, reports, 

answers, records, accounts, papers, and 

other data and documentary evidence 

necessary in the performance of the 

functions assigned by HERA and the 

Inspector General Act. 

Additionally, the Inspector General 

delegates to the FHFA–OIG Principal 

Deputy Inspector General, the FHFA– 

OIG Deputy Inspector General for Audit, 

the FHFA–OIG Deputy Inspector 

General for Investigations & Evaluations, 

and the FHFA–OIG Chief Counsel, the 

authority to request information under 5 

U.S.C. 552a(b)(7). 

Section B. No Further Delegation or 

Redelegation: The authority delegated in 

Section A above may not be further 

delegated or redelegated. 

Authority: Pub. L. 110–289, section 1105; 

5 U.S.C. App. 3 § 6(a)(4); 5 U.S.C. 301. 

Dated: December 14, 2010. 

Steve A. Linick, 

Inspector General. 

[FR Doc. 2010–32348 Filed 12–23–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8070–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention 

Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health (ABRWH or Advisory 

Board), National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) 

In accordance with section 10(a)(2) of 

the Federal Advisory Committee Act 

(Pub. L. 92–463), the Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention (CDC), 

announces the following meeting of the 

aforementioned committee: 

Time and Date: 

11 a.m.–2 p.m., January 12, 2011 

Place: Audio Conference Call via FTS 

Conferencing. The USA toll-free, dial-in 

number is 1–866–659–0537 and the pass 

code is 9933701. 

Status: Open to the public, but without a 

public comment period. 

Background: The Advisory Board was 

established under the Energy Employees 

Occupational Illness Compensation Program 

Act of 2000 to advise the President on a 

variety of policy and technical functions 

required to implement and effectively 

manage the new compensation program. Key 

functions of the Advisory Board include 

providing advice on the development of 

probability of causation guidelines, which 

have been promulgated by the Department of 

Health and Human Services (HHS) as a final 

rule; advice on methods of dose 

reconstruction, which have also been 

promulgated by HHS as a final rule; advice 

on the scientific validity and quality of dose 

estimation and reconstruction efforts being 

performed for purposes of the compensation 

program; and advice on petitions to add 

classes of workers to the Special Exposure 

Cohort (SEC). 

In December 2000, the President delegated 

responsibility for funding, staffing, and 

operating the Advisory Board to HHS, which 

subsequently delegated this authority to the 

CDC. NIOSH implements this responsibility 

for CDC. The charter was issued on August 

3, 2001, renewed at appropriate intervals, 

most recently, August 3, 2009, and will 

expire on August 3, 2011. 

Purpose: This Advisory Board is charged 

with (a) Providing advice to the Secretary, 

HHS, on the development of guidelines 

under Executive Order 13179; (b) providing 

advice to the Secretary, HHS, on the 

scientific validity and quality of dose 

reconstruction efforts performed for this 

program; and (c) upon request by the 

Secretary, HHS, advising the Secretary on 

whether there is a class of employees at any 

Department of Energy facility who were 

exposed to radiation but for whom it is not 

feasible to estimate their radiation dose, and 

on whether there is reasonable likelihood 

that such radiation doses may have 

endangered the health of members of this 

class. 

Matters to be Discussed: The agenda for the 

conference call includes: NIOSH 10-Year 

Review of its Division of Compensation 

Analysis and Support (DCAS) Program; 

Linde Ceramics Plant SEC Petition #107 

(1954–2006); DCAS Science Issues Update; 

Subcommittee and Work Group Updates; 

DCAS SEC Petition Evaluations Update for 

the February 2011 Advisory Board Meeting; 

and Board Correspondence. 

The agenda is subject to change as 

priorities dictate. 

Because there is not a public comment 

period, written comments may be submitted. 

Any written comments received will be 

included in the official record of the meeting 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with NOTICES