Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 62345 

offenses. The Commission recently 

voted to promulgate a proposed rule for 

public comment that would remove the 

different ratings for crack and powder 

cocaine crimes. The proposed rule also 

makes minor revisions to the breakdown 

of drug weights in the interest of greater 

clarity and consistency. 

Executive Order 12866 

The U.S. Parole Commission has 

determined that this proposed rule does 

not constitute a significant rule within 

the meaning of Executive Order 12866. 

Executive Order 13132 

This regulation will not have 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the national 

government and the States, or on the 

distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. Under Executive 

Order 13132, this rule does not have 

sufficient federalism implications to 

require a Federalism Assessment. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

The proposed rule will not have a 

significant economic impact upon a 

substantial number of small entities 

within the meaning of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 605(b). 

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 

1995 

The rule will not cause State, local, or 

tribal governments, or the private sector, 

to spend $100,000,000 or more in any 

one year, and it will not significantly or 

uniquely affect small governments. No 

action under the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act of 1995 is necessary. 

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Subtitle E— 

Congressional Review Act) 

This rule is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as 

defined by Section 804 of the Small 

Business Regulatory Enforcement 

Fairness Act of 1996 (Subtitle E— 

Congressional Review Act), now 

codified at 5 U.S.C. 804(2). The rule will 

not result in an annual effect on the 

economy of $100,000,000 or more; a 

major increase in costs or prices; or 

significant adverse effects on the ability 

of United States-based companies to 

compete with foreign-based companies. 

Moreover, this is a rule of agency 

practice or procedure that does not 

substantially affect the rights or 

obligations of non-agency parties, and 

does not come within the meaning of 

the term ‘‘rule’’ as used in Section 

804(3)(c), now codified at 5 U.S.C. 

804(3)(c). Therefore, the reporting 

requirement of 5 U.S.C. 801 does not 

apply. 

List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 2 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Prisoners, Probation and 

parole. 

The Proposed Rule 

Accordingly, the U.S. Parole 

Commission is proposing the following 

amendment to 28 CFR part 2. 

PART 2—[AMENDED] 

1. The authority citation for 28 CFR 

part 2 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 18 U.S.C. 4203(a)(1) and 

4204(a)(6). 

2. Amend § 2.20, in the U.S. Parole 

Commission Offense Behavior Severity 

Index, Chapter Nine—Offenses 

Involving Illicit Drugs, by revising the 

entry entitled ‘‘921 Distribution or 

Possession With Intent To Distribute’’ in 

Subchapter C—Cocaine Offenses to read 

as follows: 

§ 2.20 Paroling policy guidelines: 

Statement of general policy. 

* * * * * 

U.S. Parole Commission Offense 

Behavior Severity Index 

* * * * * 

Chapter Nine—Offenses Involving Illicit 

Drugs 

* * * * * 

Subchapter C—Cocaine Offenses 

921 Distribution or Possession With 

Intent To Distribute 

(a) If extremely large scale (e.g., 

involving 15 kilograms or more cocaine 

powder of 100% purity, or equivalent 

amount; or 15 kilograms of a substance 

containing a detectable amount of 

cocaine base), grade as Category Eight 

[except as noted in (c) below]; 

(b) If very large scale (e.g., involving 

at least 5 kilograms but less than 15 

kilograms cocaine powder of 100% 

purity, or equivalent amount; or at least 

5 kilograms but less than 15 kilograms 

of a substance containing a detectable 

amount of cocaine base), grade as 

Category Seven [except as noted in (c) 

below]; 

(c) Where the Commission finds that 

the offender had only a peripheral role*, 

grade conduct under (a) or (b) as 

Category Six; 

(d) If large scale (e.g., involving at 

least 1 kilogram but less than 5 

kilograms cocaine powder of 100% 

purity, or equivalent amount; or at least 

1 kilogram but less than 5 kilograms of 

a substance containing a detectable 

amount of cocaine base), grade as 

Category Six [except as noted in (e) 

below]; 

(e) Where the Commission finds that 

the offender had only a peripheral role, 

grade conduct under (d) as Category 

Five; 

(f) If medium scale (e.g., involving at 

least 100 grams but less than 1 kilogram 

cocaine powder of 100% purity, or 

equivalent amount; or at least 100 grams 

but less than 1 kilogram of a substance 

containing a detectable amount of 

cocaine base), grade as Category Five; 

(g) If small scale (e.g., involving at 

least 5 grams but less than 100 grams 

cocaine powder of 100% purity, or 

equivalent amount; or at least 5 grams 

but less than 100 grams of a substance 

containing a detectable amount of 

cocaine base), grade as Category Four; 

(h) If very small scale (e.g., involving 

at least 1 gram but less than 5 grams 

cocaine powder of 100% purity, or 

equivalent amount; or at least 1 gram 

but less than 5 grams of a substance 

containing a detectable amount of 

cocaine base), grade as Category Three; 

(i) If extremely small scale (e.g., 

involving less than 1 gram cocaine 

powder of 100% purity, or equivalent 

amount; or less than 1 gram of a 

substance containing a detectable 

amount of cocaine base), grade as 

Category Two. 

* * * * * 

Dated: September 17, 2010. 

Isaac Fulwood, 

Chairman, U.S. Parole Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–24648 Filed 10–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–31–P 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 

Copyright Office 

37 CFR Part 201 

[Docket No. RM 2009–4] 

Minimum Balance Requirement and 

Automatic Replenishment Option for 

Deposit Account Holders 

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of 

Congress. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office is 

proposing to amend its regulations to set 

the minimum level of activity required 

to hold a deposit account at 12 

transactions per year; require deposit 

account holders to maintain a minimum 

balance in that account; mandate the 

closure of a deposit account the second 

time it is overdrawn; and offer deposit 

account holders the option of automatic 

replenishment of their account via their 

bank account or credit card. 

DATES: Written comments must be 

received in the Office of the General 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
62346 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

Counsel of the Copyright Office no later 

than November 22, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: If hand delivered by a 

private party, an original and five copies 

of a comment or reply comment should 

be brought to the Library of Congress, 

U.S. Copyright Office, Room LM–401, 

James Madison Building, 101 

Independence Ave., SE., Washington, 

DC 20559, between 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. 

The envelope should be addressed as 

follows: Office of the General Counsel, 

U.S. Copyright Office. 

If delivered by a commercial courier, 

an original and five copies of a comment 

or reply comment must be delivered to 

the Congressional Courier Acceptance 

Site (‘‘CCAS’’) located at 2nd and D 

Streets, SE., Washington, DC between 

8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. The envelope 

should be addressed as follows: Office 

of the General Counsel, U.S. Copyright 

Office, LM–403, James Madison 

Building, 101 Independence Avenue, 

SE., Washington, DC 20559. Please note 

that CCAS will not accept delivery by 

means of overnight delivery services 

such as Federal Express, United Parcel 

Service or DHL. 

If sent by mail (including overnight 

delivery using U.S. Postal Service 

Express Mail), an original and five 

copies of a comment or reply comment 

should be addressed to U.S. Copyright 

Office, Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 

70400, Washington, DC 20024. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Tanya Sandros, Deputy General Counsel 

or, Chris Weston, Attorney Advisor. 

Copyright GC/I&R, P.O. Box 70400, 

Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: 

(202) 707–8380. Telefax: (202) 707– 

8366. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Deposit Account Background 

The Copyright Office maintains a 

system of deposit accounts for those 

who frequently use its services. An 

individual or entity may establish a 

deposit account, make advance deposits 

into that account, and charge copyright 

fees against the balance instead of 

sending separate payments with 

applications and other requests for 

services. This process has proven to be 

more efficient and less expensive for 

both the Office and the applicant than 

sending separate payments to the 

Copyright Office for each application for 

registration or for other services. 

Prior Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

On July 14, 2009, the Copyright Office 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register, 74 FR 33930, seeking public 

comment on a proposed amendment to 

its copyright registration regulations (37 

CFR 201 and 202). The amendment 

would have required that applications 

for copyright registration paid for by 

deposit account debits be submitted 

using the electronic Copyright Office 

(eCO) registration system (eService). 

The July 2009 Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking also sought comment on 

whether registration applicants continue 

to find deposit accounts to be a valuable 

service. 

The goal of the July 2009 Notice of 

Proposed Rulemaking (and the goal of 

the present Notice) was to solve the 

problem of paper registration 

applications being suspended for lack of 

deposit account funds. As the Notice 

explained, when the deposit account 

being used for payment has insufficient 

funds to process a paper application, the 

Copyright Office suspends processing of 

the application to notify the account 

holder that replenishment of the 

account is needed, and places the 

pending application and associated 

deposit copies in temporary storage. The 

suspended applications, which may 

number 3,000 or more at any one time, 

must be reviewed regularly by Office 

staff to locate those that are newly 

funded and reprocess them. Thus, 

insufficient deposit account funding 

effectively doubles—at a minimum—the 

time Office staff must spend processing 

an application, time that would 

otherwise be more profitably spent on 

processing properly filed claims in a 

more timely manner. 

On average, three to four percent of 

paper applications for registration are 

suspended each year due to lack of 

sufficient deposit account funds. In 

fiscal 2007, between 16,000 and 22,000 

applications were put on hold for 

insufficient deposit account funds, and 

the amount appears to have remained 

consistent throughout 2008 and 2009. 

The Office has expended substantial 

resources managing these suspended 

applications and deposits. While the 

Office assesses service charges for 

deposit account overdrafts ($165) and 

dishonored deposit account 

replenishment checks ($85), see 37 CFR 

201.3(d), these penalties do not recover 

all costs or solve the fundamental 

problems associated with the additional 

handling and the delay in processing. 

In July 2009, the Copyright Office 

proposed that the problem of 

insufficient deposit account funds for 

paper applications should be solved by 

requiring all deposit account holders to 

file their applications via eService, the 

Office’s electronic registration system. 

An application for registration made via 

eService cannot be completed until the 

method of payment is verified by, for 

example, ensuring that sufficient funds 

are present in the deposit account and 

payment has been made. This method is 

much more efficient than filing paper 

applications, which must go through a 

number of processing steps before the 

validity of the proffered method of 

payment can be ascertained. The 

proposal also noted that electronic 

registration benefits applicants in that it 

offers a lower fee than paper 

registrations ($35 instead of $65) and 

helps to establish an earlier effective 

date of registration. 

Comments Received in Response to 

Proposal for Mandatory Electronic 

Registration for Deposit Account 

Holders 

Even though approximately 3,000 

entities currently use deposit accounts, 

the July 2009 Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking garnered only six public 

comments. Of these, the American 

Society of Media Photographers, Inc. 

(ASMP), the Historical Publications 

Section of the North Carolina 

Department of Cultural Resources 

(NCDCR), and Perseus Book Group 

supported the proposed eService 

application requirement. The Motion 

Picture Association of America (MPAA), 

the National Intellectual Property 

Researchers Association (NIPRA), and 

Government Liaison Services, Inc. (GLS) 

opposed the proposal. Four of the 

commenters also discussed the 

continued value of deposit accounts. 

The MPAA, NCDCR, and Perseus 

vigorously maintained that deposit 

accounts still offer significant benefits. 

ASMP, on the other hand, offered 

conditional support for their 

elimination. 

For those commenters who voiced 

approval of the mandatory electronic 

registration proposal—praising the 

current functionality of eService, 

NCDCR comment at 2, and stating that 

the requirement ‘‘would substantially 

improve the speed, efficiency and 

economy of processing applications,’’ 

ASMP comment at 1–2—the benefits of 

electronic registration will of course 

remain available. 

The MPAA comments, however, 

challenged the initial proposed rule as 

premature and suggested an alternative 

whereby each deposit account holder 

would be charged an up-front $100 fee 

that would be held as a kind of security 

deposit. MPAA comment at 2. 

According to the MPAA proposal, if an 

applicant has insufficient funds in its 

deposit account to pay for a paper 

application, the Copyright Office should 

close the deposit account and use the 

security deposit to pay for returning the 

application to the applicant. The MPAA 

argued that rights-holders should not be 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 62347 

denied the option of continuing to use 

paper applications because of the 

actions of ‘‘irresponsible’’ deposit 

account holders. See MPAA comment 

at 4. 

MPAA also expressed its skepticism 

of eService’s reliability. ‘‘eService is 

relatively new and there continues to be 

some ‘bugs’ in the system,’’ it stated. 

Specifically, ‘‘MPAA member 

companies have experienced difficulties 

in allowing multiple users to access the 

system at the same time, and there is a 

need for the new system to have a 

meaningful review capability, which 

would include true search 

functionality.’’ MPAA comment at 3. 

MPAA’s comment dates from August 

2009, and since then the Office has 

significantly improved eService’s 

capabilities. 

Two other commenters also took issue 

with the Copyright Office’s claims for 

eService efficiency. NIPRA and GLS 

challenged the Copyright Office’s 

estimation of how long eService 

registration applications take to be 

processed, arguing that since the advent 

of electronic registration, processing 

time has actually increased to two years. 

NIPRA comment at 2; GLS comment at 

2. In fact the processing time increase— 

which is real—represents for the most 

part the increased time needed to 

process paper applications, which now 

have to be transcribed into the Office’s 

digital system. eService applications 

with sufficient funds are not subject to 

this additional step, and thus generally 

enjoy quicker processing. Currently, 

90% of eService registration 

applications are processed in slightly 

more than five months (meaning many 

are completed much sooner), compared 

to 25 months for paper applications. 

NIPRA and GLS further charged that 

‘‘given the Copyright Office requirement 

for deposits consisting of the ‘best 

edition’ of works, the physical 

limitations of the electronic system will 

render compliance with the requirement 

impossible for works such as 

voluminous texts, motion pictures and 

many software filings.’’ NIPRA comment 

at 2. This concern is misplaced. 

Electronic registration does not require 

the submission of an electronic deposit. 

Applicants have an option of either 

uploading the deposit as an electronic 

file or sending the deposit to the Office 

using the packing slip provided during 

the electronic registration process. 37 

CFR 202.3(b)(2)(ii)(A)–(B). Whether a 

deposit copy is sent electronically or 

physically depends upon its native 

format and the Library’s needs. Most 

works subject to the best edition 

requirement must be submitted in hard 

copy form, since in most cases the 

Library’s best edition requirements 

specify a physical format. See 37 CFR 

202.20(b)(1). This requirement does not 

preclude the use of eService to file an 

application or to pay the application fee. 

It is only when a work is published 

‘‘solely in an electronic format’’ (e.g., not 

in a physically tangible format) that 

‘‘submission of the digital file[s] in exact 

first-publication form and content’’ is 

required. 37 CFR 202.20(b)(2)(iii)(B). 

NIPRA and GLS also questioned the 

security of electronic deposit copies. 

NIPRA comment at 2; GLS comment at 

1–2. The Copyright Office is unaware 

that the uploading of files to the 

Copyright Office via eService presents 

any security concerns. Of course, the 

security and integrity of all eService 

transactions are of paramount 

importance to the Copyright Office, and 

it has implemented robust security 

measures, which continue to be 

improved. However, the prior eService 

amendment only concerned the 

registration application, not the deposit 

copies which, in the majority of cases 

may continue to be sent separately in 

physical, tangible formats. 

The Copyright Office carefully 

considered each of the comments 

discussed above and it has been 

persuaded that mandatory electronic 

application was not the most 

appropriate solution to its problems of 

underfunded paper applications. While 

the Office still feels strongly that 

electronic registration is vastly more 

efficient than paper registration, and 

redounds to the benefit of applicants as 

much as to the benefit of the Office, it 

has concluded that mandatory 

electronic registration was an overgeneral solution to the specific problems 

described. Its current proposal of a 

minimum deposit account balance 

requirement and optional automatic 

replenishment discussed herein is a 

more targeted response to the problems 

facing the Office. 

Comments Received in Response to 

Question Regarding the Continued 

Availability of Deposit Accounts 

In its July 15th, 2009, notice, the 

Copyright Office also sought public 

comment on whether it should cease 

offering deposit accounts altogether. It 

noted that, in an era when paper 

applications and payment via check 

were the norm, a separate, simplified 

deposit account system presented 

attractive efficiencies to frequent 

applicants and to the Office. It also 

pointed out that in an era of electronic 

registration and payment via corporate 

or other credit cards, the administrative 

costs of maintaining a separate deposit 

account system are no longer clearly 

offset by its advantages; hence, the 

reason for the Office’s inquiry 

concerning abolition of the deposit 

account system. 

While one commenter stated that 

there was ‘‘no apparent need’’ for the 

Copyright Office to continue offering 

deposit accounts, ASMP comment at 2, 

three other commenters argued that the 

elimination of deposit accounts would 

certainly be harmful. Perseus stated that 

deposit accounts are a ‘‘valuable and 

relevant service’’ that make it easier to 

track its copyright budget. Perseus 

comment at 1. NCDCR, referencing its 

particular administrative issues as a 

state agency, said that deposit accounts 

offer significant efficiencies over 

individual payments. NCDCR comment 

at 2. Finally, MPAA argued that 

corporate credit cards are not an 

effective alternative because they 

require spending controls that, if 

improperly monitored, could result in 

registration applications being delayed 

for insufficient funds. MPAA comment 

at 4. 

The Copyright Office acknowledges 

that deposit accounts are a useful and 

efficient option for copyright owners 

who frequently use its services, 

including, but not limited to 

registration. Consequently, it will 

continue to offer deposit accounts for 

the foreseeable future, but reserves its 

prerogative to revisit the question of 

their utility and cost to the Office. 

New Proposal 

After considering the comments filed 

to the initial NPRM, the Copyright 

Office explored other options for 

addressing its problems with 

underfunded deposit accounts and is 

now proposing a number of 

administrative requirements to solve the 

problem. Specifically, the Office is 

proposing to amend its regulations to 

(1) Set the minimum level of activity 

required to hold a deposit account at 12 

transactions per year; (2) require deposit 

account holders to maintain a minimum 

balance in that account; (3) mandate the 

closure of a deposit account the second 

time it is overdrawn; and (4) offer 

deposit account holders the option of 

automatic replenishment of their 

account via their bank account or credit 

card. 

1. Mandatory Minimum Deposit 

Account Activity and Balance 

The Copyright Office proposes to 

replace the words ‘‘a considerable 

amount of business’’ with ‘‘12 or more 

transactions a year’’ in section 37 CFR 

201.6(b) in order to more clearly 

delineate the intended users of the 

deposit account program. The program’s 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1
62348 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 195 / Friday, October 8, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

goal is to better serve rights-holders who 

engage in regular, multiple registrations 

and other transactions with the 

Copyright Office every year, and the 

proposed language reflects this intent 

with specificity. 

The Office also proposes to institute 

a requirement that every deposit 

account holder must establish, in 

consultation with the Copyright Office, 

a minimum balance for its deposit 

account. Ideally, this balance will be the 

lowest amount a deposit account holder 

can have in his or her account and still 

be able to pay for their regular number 

of copyright registration applications. 

This amount will be set collaboratively 

so that both the account holder and the 

office are comfortable that it will be 

sufficient for the account holder’s 

expected activity. 

In the event a deposit account reaches 

its minimum balance, the Copyright 

Office will automatically notify the 

account holder, but take no further 

action. The minimum balance 

requirement is intended to act primarily 

as an indicator to the account holder 

that the account may need 

replenishment; going below a minimum 

balance does not in itself expose the 

account holder to any adverse 

consequences. 

2. Consequences of Overdrawing a 

Deposit Account 

The Copyright Office proposes that 

upon the second occasion that a deposit 

account is overdrawn—meaning the 

second time there is not enough money 

in an account to pay the fee for a 

submitted registration—the account will 

be closed. In practice this rule will only 

affect deposit account holders who use 

paper applications, because eService 

will not allow an application to be 

submitted without sufficient funds. 

However, a deposit account holder 

whose account is closed because it has 

been overdrawn twice is not foreclosed 

from using a deposit account in the 

future. The deposit account holder may 

re-open a new account on the condition 

that it is funded through the automatic 

replenishment option. This condition is 

to protect the account holder from the 

risk of overdrawing again and to protect 

the Copyright Office from the risk of 

further suspended applications. 

3. Voluntary Automatic Replenishment 

The Copyright Office proposes to offer 

a voluntary automatic replenishment 

program to all deposit account holders. 

Under this program, the deposit account 

holder would provide pre-authorization 

to the Copyright Office to replenish the 

account from the account holder’s credit 

card or bank account. Replenishment 

would take place when the deposit 

account reaches its minimum balance, 

at which time the Office will also 

immediately notify the account holder 

of the replenishment. The account 

holder would determine the amount of 

replenishment above the predetermined minimum balance at the 

time the account holder enters the 

program. 

The Office seeks comment from the 

public on the following proposed 

regulations for governing deposit 

accounts maintained by the Copyright 

Office. 

List of Subjects in 37 CFR Part 201 

Copyright, General provisions. 

Proposed Regulations 

In consideration of the foregoing, the 

Copyright Office proposes to amend 37 

CFR Ch. II as follows: 

PART 201—GENERAL PROVISIONS 

1. The authority citation for part 201 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 17 U.S.C. 702. 

2. Section 201.6(b) is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 201.6 Payment and refund of Copyright 

Office fees. 

* * * * * 

(b) Deposit accounts. (1) Persons or 

firms having 12 or more transactions a 

year with the Copyright Office may 

prepay copyright expenses by 

establishing a Deposit Account. The 

Office and the Deposit Account holder 

will cooperatively determine an 

appropriate minimum balance for the 

Deposit Account, and the Office will 

automatically notify the Deposit 

Account holder when the account 

reaches that balance. 

(2) The Copyright Office will close a 

Deposit Account the second time the 

Deposit Account holder overdraws his 

or her account. An account closed for 

this reason can be re-opened only if the 

holder elects to fund it through 

automatic replenishment. 

(3) In order to ensure that a Deposit 

Account’s funds are sufficiently 

maintained, a Deposit Account holder 

may authorize the Copyright Office to 

automatically replenish the account 

from the holder’s bank account or credit 

card. The amount by which a Deposit 

Account will be replenished will be 

determined by the deposit account 

holder. Automatic replenishment will 

be triggered when the Deposit Account 

reaches the minimum level of funding 

established pursuant to section (b)(1), 

and Deposit Account holders will be 

automatically notified of the 

replenishment. 

* * * * * 

Dated: October 1, 2010. 

Tanya Sandros, 

Deputy General Counsel. 

[FR Doc. 2010–25129 Filed 10–7–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 1410–30–P 

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS 

AFFAIRS 

38 CFR Part 17 

RIN 2900–AN55 

Reimbursement Offsets for Medical 

Care or Services 

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans 

Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its 

regulations concerning the 

reimbursement of medical care and 

services delivered to veterans for 

nonservice-connected conditions. The 

proposed rule would apply in situations 

where third-party payers are required to 

reimburse VA for costs related to care 

provided by VA to a veteran covered 

under the third-party payer’s plan. This 

proposed rule would add a new section 

barring offsets by third-party payers and 

establishing a process by which thirdparty payers would submit a request for 

a refund on claims for which there is an 

alleged overpayment. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before December 7, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be 

submitted through http:// 

www.Regulations.gov; by mail or hand 

delivery to the Director, Regulations 

Management (02REG), Department of 

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, 

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– 

AN55, Reimbursement Offsets for 

Medical Care or Services.’’ 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 at http://www.Regulations.gov. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Anthony Norris, Program Analyst, 


erowe on DSK5CLS3C1PROD with PROPOSALS-1