37686 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: 

‘‘General requirements.’’ Under that 

section, Congress charges the FAA with 

promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in 

air commerce by prescribing regulations 

for practices, methods, and procedures 

the Administrator finds necessary for 

safety in air commerce. This regulation 

is within the scope of that authority 

because it addresses an unsafe condition 

that is likely to exist or develop on 

products identified in this rulemaking 

action. 

Regulatory Findings 

We determined that this proposed AD 

would not have federalism implications 

under Executive Order 13132. This 

proposed AD would not have a 

substantial direct effect on the States, on 

the relationship between the national 

Government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. 

For the reasons discussed above, I 

certify this proposed regulation: 

(1) Is not a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ under Executive Order 12866, 

(2) Is not a ‘‘significant rule’’ under 

the DOT Regulatory Policies and 

Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 

1979), 

(3) Will not affect intrastate aviation 

in Alaska, and 

(4) Will not have a significant 

economic impact, positive or negative, 

on a substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. 

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 

Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation 

safety, Incorporation by reference, 

Safety. 

The Proposed Amendment 

Accordingly, under the authority 

delegated to me by the Administrator, 

the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 

39 as follows: 

PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS 

DIRECTIVES 

1. The authority citation for part 39 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. 

§ 39.13 [Amended] 

2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding 

the following new airworthiness 

directive (AD): 

Diamond Aircraft Industries GmbH Model 

(Diamond) DA 40 Airplanes Equipped 

With Certain Cabin Air Conditioning 

Systems: Docket No. FAA–2011–0687; 

Directorate Identifier 2011–CE–017–AD. 

Comments Due Date 

(a) We must receive comments by August 

12, 2011. 

Affected ADs 

(b) None. 

Applicability 

(c) This AD applies to Diamond Aircraft 

Industries GmbH Model DA 40 airplanes, all 

serial numbers that: 

(1) Are equipped with vapor cycle system 

(VCS) cabin air conditioning systems 

installed per Premier Aircraft Services 

Supplemental Type Certificate (STC) 

SA03674AT following DER Services Master 

Document List MDL–2006–020–1, Revision 

C, dated February 3, 2009; Revision D, dated 

April 22, 2009; Revision E, dated May 12, 

2010; or Revision F, dated July 6, 2010; and 

(2) Are certificated in any category. 

Subject 

(d) Joint Aircraft System Component 

(JASC) Code 2150, Cabin Cooling System. 

Unsafe Condition 

(e) This AD was prompted by reports of 

damage around the VCS compressor 

mounting area found during maintenance 

inspections. We are proposing this AD to 

remove the VCS compressor and mount, as 

a result of excessive wear, which could result 

in the air conditioner compressor 

disconnecting in the engine compartment. 

This condition could result in engine 

stoppage or additional damage to the engine. 

Compliance 

(f) Comply with this AD within the 

compliance times specified, unless already 

done. 

Required Actions 

(g) Within the next 100 hours time-inservice after installation of the VCS installed 

per STC SA03674AT held by Premier 

Aircraft Services (originally held by DER 

Services) following DER Services Master 

Document List MDL–2006–020–1, Revision 

C, dated February 3, 2009; Revision D, dated 

April 22, 2009; Revision E, dated May 12, 

2010; or Revision F, dated July 6, 2010, or 

within 30 days after the effective date of this 

AD, whichever occurs later, do the following 

actions following Premier Aircraft Service 

Work Instruction PAS–WI–MSB–40–2011– 

001, dated March 4, 2011; and Premier 

Aircraft Service Mandatory Service Bulletin 

No. PAS–MSB–40–2011–001, dated March 4, 

2011: 

(1) Deactivate the VCS system. 

(2) Pull and collar the compressor breaker 

and place a placard above the breaker stating 

‘‘INOP.’’ 

(3) Remove the VCS compressor and 

associated mounting hardware. 

(4) Revise the airplane weight and balance. 

Special Flight Permit 

(h) The compressor drive belt must be cut 

and removed before the airplane may be 

moved for one ferry flight to an approved 

repair facility to comply with the remainder 

of this proposed AD. 

Alternative Methods of Compliance 

(AMOCs) 

(i)(1) The Manager, Atlanta Aircraft 

Certification Office (ACO), FAA, has the 

authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if 

requested using the procedures found in 14 

CFR 39.19. In accordance with 14 CFR 39.19, 

send your request to your principal inspector 

or local Flight Standards District Office, as 

appropriate. If sending information directly 

to the manager of the ACO, send it to the 

attention of the person identified in the 

Related Information section of this AD. 

(2) Before using any approved AMOC, 

notify your appropriate principal inspector, 

or lacking a principal inspector, the manager 

of the local flight standards district office/ 

certificate holding district office. 

Related Information 

(j) For more information about this AD, 

contact Hal Horsburgh, Aerospace Engineer, 

FAA, Atlanta ACO, 1701 Columbia Avenue, 

College Park, Georgia 30337; telephone: (404) 

474–5553; fax: (404) 474–5606; e-mail: 

hal.horsburgh@faa.gov. 

(k) For service information identified in 

this AD, contact Premier Aircraft Service, 

5540 NW. 23 Avenue Hangar 14, Ft. 

Lauderdale, FL 33309, telephone: (954) 771– 

0411; fax: (954) 334–1489; Internet: http:// 

www.flypas.com. You may review copies of 

the referenced service information at the 

FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, 

Kansas City, MO 64106. For information on 

the availability of this material at the FAA, 

call (816) 329–4148. 

Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on June 

22, 2011. 

John Colomy, 

Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, 

Aircraft Certification Service. 

[FR Doc. 2011–16137 Filed 6–27–11; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4910–13–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employment and Training 

Administration 

20 CFR Part 655 

RIN 1205–AB61 

Wage Methodology for the Temporary 

Non-Agricultural Employment H–2B 

Program; Amendment of Effective Date 

AGENCY: Employment and Training 

Administration, Labor. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor (the 

Department or DOL) proposes to amend 

the effective date of Wage Methodology 

for the Temporary Non-agricultural 

Employment H–2B Program; Final Rule, 

76 FR 3452, January 19, 2011, (the Wage 

Rule). The Wage Rule revised the 

methodology by which the Department 

calculates the prevailing wages to be 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 37687 

1On August 30, 2010, the U.S. District Court for 

the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in CATA v. 

Solis, Civil No. 2:09–cv–240–LP, 2010 WL 3431761 

(E.D. Pa.) ruled that the Department had violated 

the Administrative Procedure Act in failing to 

adequately explain its reasoning for using skill 

levels as part of the H–2B prevailing wage 

determinations, and failing to consider comments 

relating to the choice of appropriate data sets in 

deciding to rely on OES data rather than SCA and 

DBA in setting the prevailing wage rates. The court 

ordered the Department to ‘‘promulgate new rules 

concerning the calculation of the prevailing wage 

rate in the H–2B program that are in compliance 

with the Administrative Procedure Act no later than 

120 days from the date of this order.’’ The order was 

later amended to provide the Department with 

additional time, until January 18, 2011, to 

promulgate a final rule. 

paid to H–2B workers and United States 

(U.S.) workers recruited in connection 

with a temporary labor certification for 

use in petitioning the Department of 

Homeland Security to employ a 

nonimmigrant worker in H–2B status. 

The effective date of the Wage Rule was 

set at January 1, 2012. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit written comments on the 

proposed rule on or before July 8, 2011. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Regulatory Information 

Number (RIN) 1205–AB61, by any one 

of the following methods: 

• Federal e-Rulemaking Portal http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the Web 

site instructions for submitting 

comments. 

• Mail or Hand Delivery/Courier: 

Please submit all written comments 

(including disk and CD–ROM 

submissions) to Michael S. Jones, Acting 

Administrator, Office of Policy 

Development and Research, 

Employment and Training 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Room N–5641, Washington, DC 20210. 

Please submit your comments by only 

one method. Because of the short 

timeframe for this rulemaking, as 

discussed in further detail below, the 

Department will not review comments 

received by means other than those 

listed above or that are received after the 

comment period has closed. While the 

Department is soliciting comments on 

the proposed effective date of the Wage 

Rule, we are not seeking comments 

relating to the merits of the provisions 

contained in the Wage Rule which 

already has been subjected fully to the 

notice and comment process. We will 

deem any such comments out of scope 

and will not consider them. 

Additionally, as the U.S. District Court 

for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

ruled in Comite ́ de Apoyo a los 

Trabajadores Agricolas (CATA) v. Solis, 

Civil No. 2:09–cv–240–LP (E.D. Pa.), the 

Immigration and Nationality Act, as 

amended (INA) does not permit the 

Department to consider issues relating 

to employer hardship as a reason to 

delay the effective date of a new wage 

rule. See CATA v. Solis, Dkt. No. 119, 

Memorandum Opinion at 9 (June 15, 

2011). 

The Department will post all 

comments received on http:// 

www.regulations.gov without making 

any change to the comments, including 

any personal information provided. The 

http://www.regulations.gov Web site is 

the Federal e-rulemaking portal and all 

comments posted there are available 

and accessible to the public. The 

Department cautions commenters not to 

include their personal information such 

as Social Security Numbers, personal 

addresses, telephone numbers, and email addresses in their comments as 

such submitted information will become 

viewable by the public on the http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site. It is the 

commenter’s responsibility to safeguard 

his or her information. Comments 

submitted through http:// 

www.regulations.gov will not include 

the commenter’s e-mail address unless 

the commenter chooses to include that 

information as part of his or her 

comment. 

Postal delivery in Washington, DC 

may be delayed due to security 

concerns. Therefore, the Department 

encourages the public to submit 

comments through the http:// 

www.regulations.gov Web site. 

Docket: For access to the docket to 

read background documents or 

comments received, go the Federal 

eRulemaking portal at http:// 

www.regulations.gov and enter RIN 

1205–AB61 in the search field. The 

Department will also make all the 

comments it receives available for 

public inspection during normal 

business hours at the Employment and 

Training Administration (ETA) Office of 

Policy Development and Research at the 

above address. If you need assistance to 

review the comments, the Department 

will provide you with appropriate aids 

such as readers or print magnifiers. The 

Department will make copies of the rule 

available, upon request, in large print 

and as an electronic file on computer 

disk. The Department will consider 

providing the proposed rule in other 

formats upon request. To schedule an 

appointment to review the comments 

and/or obtain the rule in an alternate 

format, contact the Office of Policy 

Development and Research at (202) 

693–3700 (VOICE) (this is not a toll-free 

number) or 1–877–889–5627 (TTY/ 

TDD). 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

William L. Carlson, Ph.D., 

Administrator, Office of Foreign Labor 

Certification, ETA, U.S. Department of 

Labor, 200 Constitution Avenue, NW., 

Room C–4312, Washington, DC 20210; 

Telephone (202) 693–3010 (this is not a 

toll-free number). Individuals with 

hearing or speech impairments may 

access the telephone number above via 

TTY by calling the toll-free Federal 

Information Relay Service at 1–877– 

889–5627 (TTY/TDD). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Amendment of Effective Date of the 

Wage Rule 

A. The Prevailing Wage Final Rule 

On January 19, 2011, the Department 

published the Wage Rule. Under the 

Wage Rule, the prevailing wage for the 

H–2B program is based on the highest 

of the following: wages established 

under an agreed-upon collective 

bargaining agreement; a wage rate 

established under the Davis-Bacon Act 

(DBA) or the McNamara O’Hara Service 

Contract Act (SCA) for that occupation 

in the area of intended employment; or 

the arithmetic mean wage rate 

established by the Occupational 

Employment Statistics (OES) wage 

survey for that occupation in the area of 

intended employment. The Wage Rule 

also permits the use of private wage 

surveys in very limited circumstances. 

Lastly, the Wage Rule requires the new 

wage methodology to apply to all work 

performed on or after January 1, 2012. 

The Department selected the January 1, 

2012 effective date because ‘‘many 

employers already may have planned 

for their labor needs and operations for 

this year in reliance on the existing 

prevailing wage methodology. In order 

to provide employers with sufficient 

time to plan for their labor needs for the 

next year and to minimize the 

disruption to their operations, the 

Department is delaying implementation 

of this Final Rule so that the prevailing 

wage methodology set forth in this Rule 

applies only to wages paid for work 

performed on or after January 1, 2012.’’ 

76 FR 3462, Jan. 19, 2011. 

B. The Need for New Rulemaking 

On January 24, 2011, the plaintiffs in 

CATA v. Solis, Civil No. 2:09-cv-240–LP 

(E.D. Pa.) filed a motion for an order to 

require the Department to comply with 

the Court’s August 30, 2010 order,1

arguing that the Wage Rule violated the 

Administrative Procedure Act (APA) 

because ‘‘it did not provide notice to 

Plaintiffs and the public that DOL was 

considering delaying implementation of 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
37688 Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 

2Under the CRA, a major rule is defined as ‘‘any 

rule that the Administrator of the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of the Office of 

Management and Budget finds has resulted in or is 

likely to result in —(A) an annual effect on the 

economy of $100,000,000 or more; (B) a major 

increase in costs or prices for consumers, individual 

industries, Federal, State, or local government 

agencies, or geographic regions; or (C) significant 

adverse effects on competition, employment, 

investment, productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of United States-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises in domestic 

and export markets. The term does not include any 

rule promulgated under the Telecommunications 

Act of 1996 and the amendments made by that 

Act.’’ 5 U.S.C. 804(2). As part of the Department’s 

Executive Order 12866 analysis, OMB determined 

that the Wage Rule would likely result in transfers 

in excess of $100 million annually. See 76 FR 3468, 

Jan. 19, 2011. 

the new regulation and because DOL’s 

reason for delaying implementation of 

the new regulation is arbitrary.’’ CATA 

v. Solis, Dkt. No. 103–1, Plaintiff’s 

Motion for an Order Enforcing the 

Judgment at 2 (Jan. 24, 2011). On June 

15, 2011, the court issued a ruling that 

invalidated the January 1, 2012 effective 

date of the Wage Rule and ordered the 

Department to announce a new effective 

date for the rule within 45 days from 

June 15. The basis for the court’s ruling 

was twofold: (1) That the almost oneyear delay in the effective date was not 

a ‘‘logical outgrowth’’ of the proposed 

rule, and therefore violated the APA; 

and (2) that the Department violated the 

INA in considering hardship to 

employers when deciding to delay the 

effective date. The court held that ‘‘it is 

apparent that in this case the notice of 

proposed rulemaking was deficient.’’ 

CATA v. Solis, Dkt. No. 119, 

Memorandum Opinion at 8 (June 15, 

2011). The court noted that the NPRM 

said nothing about a delayed effective 

date, and accordingly ‘‘the public would 

. . . be justified in assuming that any 

delay in the effective date would mirror 

the minimal delays associated with the 

issuance of similar wage regulations 

over the past several decades.’’ Id. In 

finding a violation of the INA, the court 

relied extensively on the 1983 district 

court decision in NAACP v. Donovan, 

566 F. Supp. 1202 (D.D.C. 1983), which 

held that the Department could not 

phase in a wage regime based upon a 

desire to alleviate hardship on small 

businesses, because ‘‘‘[in] administering 

the labor certification program, DOL is 

charged with protection of workers.’’’ 

CATA v. Solis, Dkt. No. 119, 

Memorandum Opinion at 10 (June 15, 

2011) (citing NAACP v. Donovan, 566 F. 

Supp. at 1206). 

C. The Effective Date 

The Department proposes that the 

Wage Rule take effect 60 days from the 

date of publication of a final rule 

resulting from this rulemaking. The 

Department anticipates the date of 

publication of the final rule to be on or 

about August 1, 2011; thus, the effective 

date of the Wage Rule would be on or 

about October 1, 2011. Because the 

Wage Rule, which was published on 

January 19, 2011, would have required 

at least a 60-day delayed effective date 

from the date of publication since it is 

considered to be a major rule under the 

Congressional Review Act (CRA), 5 

U.S.C. 801, et seq.,2 the Department 

believes that it would be appropriate to 

apply a 60-day delayed effective date to 

the final rule that sets the effective date 

of the Wage Rule. The Wage Rule will 

be effective for wages paid to H–2B 

workers and U.S. workers recruited in 

connection with an H–2B labor 

certification for all work performed on 

or after the new effective date. A 60-day 

delayed effective date also would 

provide the Office of Foreign Labor 

Certification (OFLC) within the 

Department with the time it needs to 

implement the wage rule, as OFLC must 

issue new prevailing wages for 

approved work performed on or after 

the new effective date. In order to 

accomplish this, OFLC must identify all 

certified H–2B applications which 

contain dates of work to be performed 

on and after the new effective date of 

the wage rule. This universe of 

certifications must then be issued new 

prevailing wage determinations in 

accordance with the wage rule’s 

methodology. This is a labor intensive 

activity, as OFLC will have to determine 

and issue the new determinations before 

the new effective date proposed in this 

rulemaking for each of these employers. 

OFLC has determined the universe of 

applications to be large, and therefore 

will require the 60-day delayed effective 

date in order to complete this task. 

As mentioned above, the purpose of 

this rulemaking is to solicit comments 

on the proposed effective date of the 

Wage Rule; therefore, any comments 

relating to the merits of the provisions 

contained in the Wage Rule will be 

deemed out of scope and will not be 

considered. Furthermore, pursuant to 

the district court’s order, the 

Department cannot consider specific 

examples of employer hardship to delay 

the effective date of a new wage rule. 

See CATA v. Solis, Dkt. No. 119, 

Memorandum Opinion at 9 (June 15, 

2011). 

II. Administrative Information 

A. Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Under Executive Order (E.O.) 12866 

and E.O. 13563, the Department must 

determine whether a regulatory action is 

significant and therefore, subject to the 

requirements of the E.O. and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of E.O. 

12866 defines a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as an action that is likely to 

result in a rule that: (1) Has an annual 

effect on the economy of $100 million 

or more or adversely and materially 

affects a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local or Tribal governments or 

communities (also referred to as 

‘‘economically significant’’); (2) creates 

serious inconsistency or otherwise 

interferes with an action taken or 

planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alters the budgetary impacts 

of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) raises novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the E.O. The 

Department has determined that this 

NPRM is not an economically 

significant regulatory action under sec. 

3(f)(1) of E.O. 12866. The Department, 

however, has determined that this 

NPRM is a significant regulatory action 

under sec. 3(f)(4) of the E.O. and, 

accordingly, OMB has reviewed this 

NPRM. 

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) 

at 5 U.S.C. 603 requires agencies to 

prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis 

to determine whether a regulation will 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities. 

Section 605 of the RFA allows an 

agency to certify a rule in lieu of 

preparing an analysis if the regulation is 

not expected to have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. Further, under 

the Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, 5 

U.S.C. 801 (SBREFA), an agency is 

required to produce a compliance 

guidance for small entities if the rule 

has a significant economic impact. In 

the Wage Rule, the Department stated 

that it believed that the Wage Rule was 

not likely to impact a substantial 

number of small entities; however, in 

the interest of transparency, the 

Department prepared a Final Regulatory 

Flexibility Analysis (FRFA) to assess the 

impact of this regulation on small 

entities, as defined by the applicable 

Small Business Administration (SBA) 

size standards. See 76 FR 3473, Jan. 19, 

2011. While the change in the effective 

date of the Wage Rule that is being 

proposed in this NPRM may change the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 76, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 28, 2011 / Proposed Rules 37689 

period in which the total cost burdens 

for small entities would occur, the 

Department believes that the amount of 

the total cost burdens themselves would 

not change. Accordingly, the Assistant 

Secretary of ETA has notified the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy, Small Business 

Administration (SBA), under the RFA at 

5 U.S.C. 605(b), and certified that this 

rule will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities. 

C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

Title II of the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 (2 U.S.C. 1531) 

directs agencies to assess the effects of 

Federal regulatory actions on State, 

local, and Tribal governments, and the 

private sector. The proposed rule has no 

Federal mandate, which is defined in 2 

U.S.C. 658(6) to include either a 

‘‘Federal intergovernmental mandate’’ 

or a ‘‘Federal private sector mandate.’’ A 

Federal mandate is any provision in a 

regulation that imposes an enforceable 

duty upon State, local, or Tribal 

governments, or imposes a duty upon 

the private sector which is not 

voluntary. 

D. Small Business Regulatory 

Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 

The Department has determined that 

this rulemaking does not impose a 

significant impact on a substantial 

number of small entities under the RFA; 

therefore, the Department is not 

required to produce any compliance 

guides for small entities as mandated by 

the SBREFA. The Department has 

similarly concluded that this proposed 

rule is not a major rule requiring review 

by the Congress under the SBREFA 

because it will not likely result in: (1) 

An annual effect on the economy of 

$100 million or more; (2) a major 

increase in costs or prices for 

consumers, individual industries, 

Federal, State or local government 

agencies, or geographic regions; or (3) 

significant adverse effects on 

competition, employment, investment, 

productivity, innovation, or on the 

ability of U.S.-based enterprises to 

compete with foreign-based enterprises 

in domestic or export markets. 

E. Executive Order 13132—Federalism 

The Department has reviewed this 

proposed rule in accordance with E.O. 

13132 regarding federalism and has 

determined that it does not have 

federalism implications. The proposed 

rule does not have substantial direct 

effects on States, on the relationship 

between the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government as described by 

E.O. 13132. Therefore, the Department 

has determined that this proposed rule 

will not have a sufficient federalism 

implication to warrant the preparation 

of a summary impact statement. 

F. Executive Order 13175—Indian 

Tribal Governments 

This proposed rule was reviewed 

under the terms of E.O. 13175 and 

determined not to have Tribal 

implications. The proposed rule does 

not have substantial direct effects on 

one or more Indian Tribes, on the 

relationship between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes, or on 

the distribution of power and 

responsibilities between the Federal 

Government and Indian Tribes. As a 

result, no Tribal summary impact 

statement has been prepared. 

G. Assessment of Federal Regulations 

and Policies on Families 

Section 654 of the Treasury and 

General Government Appropriations 

Act, enacted as part of the Omnibus 

Consolidated and Emergency 

Supplemental Appropriations Act of 

1999 (Pub. L. 105–277, 112 Stat. 2681) 

requires the Department to assess the 

impact of this proposed rule on family 

well-being. A rule that is determined to 

have a negative effect on families must 

be supported with an adequate 

rationale. 

The Department has assessed this 

proposed rule and determines that it 

will not have a negative effect on 

families. 

H. Executive Order 12630—Government 

Actions and Interference with 

Constitutionally Protected Property 

Rights 

The proposed rule is not subject to 

E.O. 12630, Governmental Actions and 

Interference with Constitutionally 

Protected Property Rights, because it 

does not involve implementation of a 

policy with takings implications. 

I. Executive Order 12988—Civil Justice 

The proposed rule has been drafted 

and reviewed in accordance with E.O. 

12988, Civil Justice Reform, and will not 

unduly burden the Federal court 

system. The Department has developed 

the proposed rule to minimize litigation 

and provide a clear legal standard for 

affected conduct, and has reviewed the 

proposed rule carefully to eliminate 

drafting errors and ambiguities. 

J. Plain Language 

The Department drafted this NPRM in 

plain language. 

K. Paperwork Reduction Act 

As part of its continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, the Department conducts a 

preclearance consultation program to 

provide the general public and Federal 

agencies with an opportunity to 

comment on proposed and continuing 

collections of information in accordance 

with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). 

This process helps to ensure that the 

public understands the Department’s 

collection instructions; respondents 

provide requested data in the desired 

format; reporting burden (time and 

financial resources) is minimized; 

collection instruments are clearly 

understood; and the Department 

properly assesses the impact of 

collection requirements on respondents. 

The PRA requires all Federal agencies 

to analyze proposed regulations for 

potential time burdens on the regulated 

community created by provisions 

within the proposed regulations that 

require the submission of information. 

These information collection (IC) 

requirements must be submitted to the 

OMB for approval. Persons are not 

required to respond to a collection of 

information unless it displays a 

currently valid OMB control number as 

required in 5 CFR 1320.11(l) or it is 

exempt from the PRA. 

The majority of the IC requirements 

for the current H–2B program are 

approved under OMB control number 

1205–0466 (which includes ETA Form 

9141 and ETA Form 9142). There are no 

burden adjustments that need to be 

made to the analysis. For an additional 

explanation of how the Department 

calculated the burden hours and related 

costs, the PRA package for information 

collection OMB control number 1205– 

0466 may be obtained at http:// 

www.RegInfo.gov. 

III. Change of Effective Date of Wage 

Rule 

The Department therefore proposes to 

amend the ‘‘DATES’’ section of the Wage 

Rule to read ‘‘This Final Rule is 

effective [60 DAYS FROM THE DATE 

OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL 

RULE RESULTING FROM THIS 

RULEMAKING].’’ 

Signed in Washington this 24th day of 

June, 2011. 

Jane Oates, 

Assistant Secretary, Employment and 

Training Administration. 

[FR Doc. 2011–16310 Filed 6–24–11; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4510–FP–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with PROPOSALS