Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 184 / Friday, September 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 58499 

Dated: September 10, 2012. 

Lois Rossi, 

Director, Registration Division, Office of 

Pesticide Programs. 

Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I is 

amended as follows: 

PART 180—[AMENDED] 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 180 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 321(q), 346a and 371. 

■ 2. Section 180.568 is amended by: 

■ a. Alphabetically adding the following 

commodities to the table in paragraph 

(a); 

■ b. Removing the commodity, ‘‘bean, 

dry seed’’ from the table in paragraph 

(a). 

The amendments read as follows: 

§ 180.568 Flumioxazin; tolerances for 

residues. 

(a) * * * 

Commodity Parts per 

million 

* * * * * 

Grain, aspirated fractions ....... 100 

* * * * * 

Pea and bean, dried shelled, 

except soybean, subgroup 

6C ........................................ 0 .07 

* * * * * 

Rapeseed subgroup 20A ........ 0 .40 

* * * * * 

Sunflower subgroup 20B ........ 0 .50 

* * * * * 

Wheat, forage ......................... 0 .02 

Wheat, grain ........................... 0 .40 

Wheat, hay ............................. 0 .02 

Wheat, straw ........................... 6 .0 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2012–23352 Filed 9–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

COMMITTEE FOR PURCHASE FROM 

PEOPLE WHO ARE BLIND OR 

SEVERELY DISABLED 

41 CFR Parts 51–1 

Substitution of Term in a Definition; 

Addition and Adoption of the Use of 

Specific Interchangeable or 

Synonymous Terms 

AGENCY: Committee for Purchase From 

People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The Committee for Purchase 

From People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled (the Committee) administers 

the AbilityOne® Program pursuant to 

the authority of the Javits-Wagner-O’Day 

(JWOD) Act. The Committee is 

substituting the term ‘‘disabled’’ for 

‘‘handicapped’’ in a term defined in its 

regulation. Additionally, the Committee 

has deliberated and unanimously voted 

to approve the use of ‘‘severely’’ 

disabled and ‘‘significantly’’ disabled as 

interchangeable or synonymous terms 

when referring to people who are 

severely disabled within the AbilityOne 

Program. The Committee’s approval to 

use ‘‘severely’’ and significantly’’ as 

interchangeable or synonymous terms 

within the AbilityOne Program 

specifically does not make any change 

to the definition of ‘‘severely disabled 

individual’’ in the JWOD Act or expand 

the population of individuals served 

within the AbilityOne Program. 

DATES: Effective Date: September 21, 

2012. 

ADDRESSES: The Committee office is 

located at 1421 Jefferson Davis 

Highway, Suite 10800, Arlington, VA 

22202–3259. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Dennis Lockard, General Counsel, by 

telephone (703) 603–7740, or by 

facsimile at (703) 603–0030, or by mail 

at the Committee for Purchase From 

People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled, 1421 Jefferson Davis Hwy., 

Suite 10800, Arlington, VA 22202–3259. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

The Committee for Purchase From 

People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled (Committee) administers the 

AbilityOne® Program pursuant to the 

authority of the Javits-Wagner-O’Day 

(JWOD) Act (41 U.S.C. 8501et seq.). The 

AbilityOne Program provides 

employment opportunities for people 

who are blind or have other severe 

disabilities through the manufacture 

and delivery of products and services to 

the Federal Government. 41 U.S.C. 

8503(d) authorizes the Committee to 

make rules and regulations necessary to 

carry out the purpose of the Act and the 

Committee has done so at 41 CFR 

Chapter 51. Within the AbilityOne 

Program, the term ‘‘severely disabled’’ is 

used to describe people with severe 

disabilities who qualify to participate in 

the program; however, within the 

Committee’s regulation, the terms other 

severely handicapped and severely 

handicapped individuals are used to 

define persons with severe disabilities. 

The Committee is amending its 

regulation to correct the terminology 

and remove references to ‘‘handicap’’ or 

‘‘handicapped’’ in the list of definitions. 

Additionally, the Committee is aware 

that the term ‘‘severely disabled’’ is no 

longer the description of choice of all 

disability advocates and terms such as 

‘‘significantly disabled’’ have gained 

acceptance within the disability 

communities. The Committee is also 

cognizant that the term ‘‘individual with 

a significant disability’’ (instead of 

severe disability) was included and 

defined in the 1998 reauthorization of 

the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the 

term is being included in other 

congressional actions and agency 

regulations. In conjunction with the 

broader use of the terms ‘‘significant’’ 

disability and ‘‘significantly’’ disabled, 

the AbilityOne Program’s participants, 

stakeholders and supporters have 

increasingly accepted and used these 

terms within the program. 

Consequently, in order to ensure 

alignment and consistency throughout 

the AbilityOne Program, the Committee 

has voted to permit use of the terms 

‘‘significant’’ or ‘‘significantly’’ as 

interchangeable or synonymous with 

‘‘severe’’ or ‘‘severely’’ when describing 

individuals with severe disabilities who 

qualify to participate in the AbilityOne 

Program. The action by the Committee 

to use the terms interchangeably or 

synonymously does not, however, result 

in any change to the definition or 

eligibility (either expand or narrow) of 

the population served in the AbilityOne 

Program under the authority of the 

JWOD Act. In addition, this action does 

not make any change to the statutory 

name of the Committee or permit the 

use of the synonymous term when 

describing the Committee. 

The Committee has issued a final rule 

because this rule does not have a 

significant effect beyond the internal 

operating procedures of the AbilityOne 

Program and does not have a significant 

cost or administrative impact on others 

not associated with the AbilityOne 

Program. Therefore, public comment is 

not required. This interpretive rule is 

action by the Committee to ensure that 

appropriate terminology is used within 

the AbilityOne Program to describe a 

significant portion of the people who 

are served under this program. 

II. Statutory and Executive Order 

Reviews 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

direct agencies to assess costs, benefits 

and burdens of available regulatory 

alternatives and, if regulation is 

necessary, to select regulatory 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety 

effective, distributive impacts, and 

equity). This is not a significant 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES
58500 Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 184 / Friday, September 21, 2012 / Rules and Regulations 

regulatory action and, therefore, was not 

subject to review under Section 6(b) of 

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory 

Planning and Review, dated September 

30, 1993. This rule is not a major rule 

under 5 U.S.C. 804; therefore, 

Congressional notification is not 

required. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Because notice and opportunity for 

comment are not required pursuant to 5 

U.S.C. 553 or any other law, the 

analytical requirements of the 

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 

et seq.) are inapplicable. Therefore, a 

regulatory flexibility analysis is not 

required and has not been prepared. 

Administrative Procedure Act 

The Committee finds under 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(3)(A) that the statute does not 

apply to interpretive rules, general 

statements of policy, or rules of agency 

organization, procedure, or practice. 

This final rule simply substitutes a word 

in a term defined in the regulation and 

authorizes the use of specific 

interchangeable or synonymous terms 

when describing individuals who are 

eligible to participate in the AbilityOne 

Program. Further, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 

553(b)(3)(A), this rule of agency 

organization, procedure and practice is 

not subject to the requirement to 

provide prior notice and an opportunity 

for public comment. The Committee 

also finds that the 30-day delay in 

effectiveness, required under 5 U.S.C. 

553(d), is inapplicable because this rule 

is not a substantive rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

The Committee has determined that 

the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 

3501 et seq., does not apply because this 

rule does not contain any information 

collection requirements that require 

approval of OMB. 

List of Subjects in 41 CFR Part 51–1 

Government procurement, Individuals 

with disabilities. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Committee for Purchase 

From People Who Are Blind or Severely 

Disabled amends 41 CFR Part 51–1 as 

set forth below: 

41 CFR PART 51–1—GENERAL 

■ 1. The authority for 41 CFR part 51– 

1 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 56 FR 48976, Sept. 26, 1991, 

unless otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 51–1.3 by amending the 

heading of the definition ‘‘Other 

severely handicapped and severely 

handicapped individuals’’ by removing 

the word ‘‘handicapped’’ and adding the 

word ‘‘disabled’’ in its place, and 

adding the definition ‘‘Severely disabled 

individual; Severe disability; 

Significantly disabled individual; 

Significant disability’’ to read as 

follows: 

§ 51–1.3 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

Severely disabled individual; Severe 

disability; Significantly disabled 

individual; Significant disability; are 

interchangeable or synonymous terms 

used within the AbilityOne Program to 

describe persons with severe disabilities 

who qualify to participate in the 

AbilityOne Program. 

* * * * * 

III. Approval Authority 

The Executive Director of the 

Committee has approved the 

publication of this notice and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register. 

Dated: September 18, 2012. 

Barry S. Lineback, 

Director, Business Operations. 

[FR Doc. 2012–23330 Filed 9–20–12; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6353–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration 

49 CFR Part 541 

[Docket No. NHTSA–2012–0072] 

Final Theft Data; Motor Vehicle Theft 

Prevention Standard 

AGENCY: National Highway Traffic 

Safety Administration (NHTSA), 

Department of Transportation. 

ACTION: Publication of 2010 final theft 

data. 

SUMMARY: This document publishes the 

final data on thefts of model year (MY) 

2010 passenger motor vehicles that 

occurred in calendar year (CY) 2010. 

The final 2010 theft data indicated a 

decrease in the vehicle theft rate 

experienced in CY/MY 2010. The final 

theft rate for MY 2010 passenger 

vehicles stolen in calendar year 2010 is 

1.17 thefts per thousand vehicles, a 

decrease of 12.03 percent from the rate 

of 1.33 thefts per thousand in 2009. 

Publication of these data fulfills 

NHTSA’s statutory obligation to 

periodically obtain accurate and timely 

theft data and publish the information 

for review and comment. 

DATES: Effective date: September 21, 

2012. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Deborah Mazyck, Office of International 

Policy, Fuel Economy and Consumer 

Programs, NHTSA, 1200 New Jersey 

Avenue SE., Washington, DC 20590. Ms. 

Mazyck’s telephone number is (202) 

366–4139. Her fax number is (202) 493– 

2990. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: NHTSA 

administers a program for reducing 

motor vehicle theft. The central feature 

of this program is the Federal Motor 

Vehicle Theft Prevention Standard, 49 

CFR part 541. The standard specifies 

performance requirements for inscribing 

and affixing vehicle identification 

numbers (VINs) onto certain major 

original equipment and replacement 

parts of high-theft lines of passenger 

motor vehicles. 

The agency is required by 49 U.S.C. 

33104(b)(4) to periodically obtain, from 

the most reliable source, accurate and 

timely theft data and publish the data 

for review and comment. To fulfill this 

statutory mandate, NHTSA has 

published theft data annually beginning 

with MYs 1983/84. Continuing to fulfill 

the § 33104(b)(4) mandate, this 

document reports the final theft data for 

CY 2010, the most recent calendar year 

for which data are available. 

In calculating the 2010 theft rates, 

NHTSA followed the same procedures it 

used in calculating the MY 2009 theft 

rates. (For 2009 theft data calculations, 

see 76 FR 65610, October 24, 2011). As 

in all previous reports, NHTSA’s data 

were based on information provided to 

NHTSA by the National Crime 

Information Center (NCIC) of the 

Federal Bureau of Investigation. The 

NCIC is a government system that 

receives vehicle theft information from 

nearly 23,000 criminal justice agencies 

and other law enforcement authorities 

throughout the United States. The NCIC 

data also include reported thefts of selfinsured and uninsured vehicles, not all 

of which are reported to other data 

sources. 

The 2010 theft rate for each vehicle 

line was calculated by dividing the 

number of reported thefts of MY 2010 

vehicles of that line stolen during 

calendar year 2010 by the total number 

of vehicles in that line manufactured for 

MY 2010, as reported to the 

Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA). 

The final 2010 theft data show a 

decrease in the vehicle theft rate when 

compared to the theft rate experienced 

in CY/MY 2009. The final theft rate for 

MY 2010 passenger vehicles stolen in 

calendar year 2010 decreased to 1.17 


pmangrum on DSK3VPTVN1PROD with RULES