21018 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Notices

Comments submitted in response to

this notice will be summarized and/or

included in the request for Office of

Management and Budget approval of the

information collection request; they will

also become a matter of public record.

Dated: April 19, 2001.

Brenda C. Teaster,

Acting Director, Records Management

Division.

[FR Doc. 01–10418 Filed 4–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–43–M

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR

Mine Safety and Health Administration

Proposed Information Collection

Request Submitted for Public

Comment and Recommendations;

Record of Individual Exposure to

Radon Daughters

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: The Department of Labor, as

part of its continuing effort to reduce

paperwork and respondent burden

conducts a preclearance consultation

program to provide the general public

and Federal agencies with an

opportunity to comment on proposed

and/or continuing collections of

information in accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(PRA95) (44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This

program helps to ensure that requested

data can be provided in the desired

format, reporting burden (time and

financial resources) is minimized,

collection instruments are clearly

understood, and the impact of collection

requirements on respondents can be

properly assessed.

DATES: Submit comments on or before

June 25, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Brenda

C. Teaster, Acting Chief, Records

Management Division, 4015 Wilson

Boulevard, Room 709A, Arlington, VA

22203–1984. Commenters are

encouraged to send their comments on

a computer disk, or via Internet E-mail

to bteaster@msha.gov, along with an

original printed copy. Ms. Teaster can

be reached at (703) 235–1470 (voice), or

(703) 235–1563 (facsimile).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brenda C. Teaster, Acting Chief, Records

Management Division, U.S. Department

of Labor, Mine Safety and Health

Administration, Room 709A, 4015

Wilson Boulevard, Arlington, VA

22203–1984. Ms. Teaster can be reached

at bteaster@msha.gov, (Internet E-mail),

(703) 235–1470 (voice), or (703) 235–

1563 (facsimile).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

MSHA’s primary goal is the

protection of America’s most precious

resource, the miner. To achieve this

goal, this agency has to keep

information regarding the hazards faced

and the progress made within the

industry to develop and maintain a safe

and healthy work environment. Records

concerning the health and welfare of

miners are especially important, given

that the nature of the exposure could

result in medical complications later in

the miner’s life. To this end, the record

keeping of Radon Daughters is essential

information. Each year the industry

records and reports the exposure levels

that its workforce has faced during the

past 12 months. This information is

archived and stored for retrieval by the

exposed party, or legal representative,

should a medical release be deemed

necessary. This reporting of the

exposure numbers also serves to inform

MSHA of the industry expansion or

decrease as well as health threats

incurred.

During the past calendar year MSHA

has received a decreased number of

industry responses. These responses

indicated that a decreasing number of

miners are being employed and exposed

within this industry grouping.

Concurrently, the United States

economy is calling for production rates

that are lower than those in recent years.

The decrease in production has resulted

in a smaller number of employees being

exposed to Radon Daughters. Regardless

of the number of miners exposed,

MSHA needs to keep the recording

requirements for Radon Daughters to

ensure that the records regarding the

miners’ level of exposure today is

available to them tomorrow and

throughout their lifetimes.

II. Desired Focus

Currently, the Mine Safety and Health

Administration (MSHA) is soliciting

comments concerning the proposed

extension of the information collection

related to the Record of Individual

Exposure to Radon Daughters. MSHA is

particularly interested in comments

which:

• Evaluate whether the proposed

collection of information is necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the agency, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

• Evaluate the accuracy of the

agency’s estimate of the burden of the

proposed collection of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhance the quality, utility, and

clarity of the information to be

collected; and

• Minimize the burden of the

collection of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submissions

of responses. A copy of the proposed

information collection request may be

viewed on the Internet by accessing the

MSHA Home Page (http://

www.msha.gov) and selecting ‘‘Statutory

and Regulatory Information’’ then

‘‘Paperwork Reduction Act submission

(http://www.msha.gov/regspwork.htm)’’,

or by contacting the employee listed

above in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section of this notice for a hard

copy.

III. Current Actions

This information collection needs to

be extended to provide miners

protection from radon daughter

exposure.

Type of Review: Extension.

Agency: Mine Safety and Health

Administration.

Title: Record of Individual Exposure

to Radon Daughters.

OMB Number: 1219–0003.

Agency Number: MSHA 4000–9.

Recordkeeping: 2 years.

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit.

Cite/reference Total

respondents

Frequency

(weeks)

Total

responses

Average

time per

response

(hours)

Burden

Sampling .................................................................................................. 2 50 100 5.00 500

Recording Results .................................................................................... 2 50 100 1.50 150

Calculating Reporting ............................................................................... 2 50 100 1.25 125

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 81 / Thursday, April 26, 2001 / Notices 21019

Cite/reference Total

respondents

Frequency

(weeks)

Total

responses

Average

time per

response

(hours)

Burden

Clerical ..................................................................................................... 2 50 100 0.25 25

Totals ............................................................................................ .................... .................... 100 .................... 800

Total Burden Cost (capital/startup):

None.

Total Burden Cost (operating/

maintaining): None.

Comments submitted in response to

this notice will be summarized and/or

included in the request for Office of

Management and Budget approval of the

information collection request; they will

also become a matter of public record.

Dated: April 20, 2001.

Brenda C. Teaster,

Acting Chief, Records Management Division.

[FR Doc. 01–10419 Filed 4–25–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–43–M

NATIONAL CREDIT UNION

ADMINISTRATION

Central Liquidity Facility

AGENCY: National Credit Union

Administration (NCUA).

ACTION: Final Interpretive Ruling and

Policy Statement (IRPS) 01–2, ‘‘Central

Liquidity Facility Advance Policy.’’

SUMMARY: This policy statement clarifies

the role of the Central Liquidity Facility

(CLF) and the circumstances when the

CLF will approve a Regular or Agent

Member’s request for a CLF advance.

DATES: The IRPS is effective May 29,

2001.

ADDRESSES: National Credit Union

Administration, 1775 Duke Street,

Alexandria, VA 22314–3428.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: J.

Owen Cole, Jr., Vice President, CLF, at

the above address, or telephone: (703)

518–6360 or Frank S. Kressman, Staff

Attorney, at the above address, or

telephone: (703) 518–6540.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

The CLF operates in accordance with

Title III of the Federal Credit Union Act

(Act) and Part 725 of NCUA’s

regulations, which implements Title III.

12 U.S.C. 1795–1795k; 12 CFR part 725.

It was created in 1979 to improve the

general financial stability of the credit

union industry by helping to meet the

liquidity needs of individual credit

unions. This improved stability

encourages savings, supports consumer

and mortgage lending, and helps

provide basic financial resources to all

segments of the economy. In continuing

to fulfill this mission, the CLF

previously published proposed IRPS

00–2 to clarify its function and

limitations in an ever-changing financial

services environment. 65 FR 63892,

October 25, 2000; 65 FR 65884,

November 2, 2000. NCUA has received

public comments on the proposal and

has incorporated some of those

comments into the IRPS. NCUA has

renumbered IRPS 00–2 as 01–2 and

adopts the below revised IRPS as final.

IRPS 01–2 supersedes IRPS 80–4.

B. Summary of Comments

NCUA received thirteen comment

letters regarding the proposed IRPS. Six

from credit union trade associations,

four from corporate credit unions, one

from a natural person federal credit

union, one from a banking trade

association, and one from an association

of state credit union supervisors. All of

the commenters generally supported the

proposed IRPS, except for the banking

trade association. Some commenters

offered suggested revisions.

Seven commenters noted that the

proposed IRPS states that a CLF loan

officer may require a borrowing credit

union to prepare a liquidity restoration

plan to detail the action and time

required to restore the credit union’s net

funds position to the point where it is

no longer dependent on CLF advances.

These commenters suggested that the

IRPS would be more useful if NCUA

provided examples of circumstances

under which a loan officer might require

a plan. The loan officer’s decision to

require a plan is greatly dependent on

the unique circumstances of the

borrowing credit union. Factors that

may contribute to this decision include:

(1) The credit union consistently

provides incomplete, vague, or untimely

information needed to approve or

monitor an advance; (2) the loan officer

develops concerns about the borrowing

credit union’s financial condition and

ability to repay; (3) the credit union

appears to have used an advance for

inappropriate purposes; and (4) the

credit union appears to be unreasonably

dependent on advances without making

progress towards implementing

programs to manage its liquidity risk.

These factors are only a few of many

that a loan officer may consider before

requiring a liquidity restoration plan.

This clarification has been incorporated

into the final IRPS.

Four commenters noted that the

proposed IRPS lists examples of

appropriate circumstances for seeking

CLF advances. These commenters

suggested that NCUA should more

clearly indicate that there may also be

other appropriate circumstances for

seeking CLF advances in addition to

those listed. NCUA acknowledges that

the list is meant to be illustrative, not

exhaustive. NCUA has incorporated this

clarification into the final IRPS.

The association of state credit union

supervisors suggested that NCUA

should adopt a policy not to advance

funds to a state chartered, federally

insured credit union without first

consulting with the credit union’s state

supervisory authority (SSA). NCUA

does not believe this is an appropriate

action for it to take, but recognizes that

an SSA may wish to require its

regulated credit unions to notify it

before making application to CLF.

The banking trade association

suggested that NCUA withdraw the

IRPS and re-issue it as a regulation so

that it would have the force of law. We

note that the IRPS was issued in

compliance with the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA) and has the same

force of law as a regulation. 5 U.S.C.

551. The banking trade association also

stated that CLF should not provide

financial assistance to financially

troubled credit unions. We agree. CLF is

intended only as a liquidity provider

and that is how it functions. Finally, the

banking trade association stated that

CLF is prohibited from making advances

the intent of which is to expand credit

union portfolios and therefore can not

make advances to address an

unexpected surge of credit demands. We

agree that CLF is prohibited from

making advances the intent of which is

to expand credit union portfolios, but

believe that an unexpected surge of

credit demands is a legitimate liquidity

need for the CLF to meet.