Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Notices 49303 

Cause: HUD’s regulations permit HUD 

to terminate the Agreement with any 

mortgagee having a default and claim 

rate for loans endorsed within the 

preceding 24 months that exceeds 200 

percent of the default and claim rate 

within the geographic area served by a 

HUD field office, and also exceeds the 

national default and claim rate. For the 

23rd review period, HUD is terminating 

the Agreement of mortgagees whose 

default and claim rate exceeds both the 

national rate and 200 percent of the 

field office rate. 

Effect: Termination of the Agreement 

precludes that branch(s) of the 

mortgagee from originating FHA-insured 

single family mortgages within the area 

of the HUD field office(s) listed in this 

notice. Mortgagees authorized to 

purchase, hold, or service FHA insured 

mortgages may continue to do so. 

Loans that closed or were approved 

before the termination became effective 

may be submitted for insurance 

endorsement. Approved loans are (1) 

those already underwritten and 

approved by a Direct Endorsement (DE) 

underwriter employed by an 

unconditionally approved DE lender 

and (2) cases covered by a firm 

commitment issued by HUD. Cases at 

earlier stages of processing cannot be 

submitted for insurance by the 

terminated branch; however, they may 

be transferred for completion of 

processing and underwriting to another 

mortgagee or branch authorized to 

originate FHA insured mortgages in that 

area. Mortgagees are obligated to 

continue to pay existing insurance 

premiums and meet all other obligations 

associated with insured mortgages. 

A terminated mortgagee may apply for 

a new Origination Approval Agreement 

if the mortgagee continues to be an 

approved mortgagee meeting the 

requirements of 24 CFR 202.5, 202.6, 

202.7, 202.8 or 202.10 and 202.12, if 

there has been no Origination Approval 

Agreement for at least six months, and 

if the Secretary determines that the 

underlying causes for termination have 

been remedied. To enable the Secretary 

to ascertain whether the underlying 

causes for termination have been 

remedied, a mortgagee applying for a 

new Origination Approval Agreement 

must obtain an independent review of 

the terminated office’s operations as 

well as its mortgage production, 

specifically including the FHA-insured 

mortgages cited in its termination 

notice. This independent analysis shall 

identify the underlying cause for the 

mortgagee’s high default and claim rate. 

The review must be conducted and 

issued by an independent Certified 

Public Accountant (CPA) qualified to 

perform audits under Government 

Auditing Standards as provided by the 

General Accounting Office. The 

mortgagee must also submit a written 

corrective action plan to address each of 

the issues identified in the CPA’s report, 

along with evidence that the plan has 

been implemented. The application for 

a new Agreement should be in the form 

of a letter, accompanied by the CPA’s 

report and corrective action plan. The 

request should be sent to the Director, 

Office of Lender Activities and Program 

Compliance, 451 Seventh Street, SW., 

Room B133–P3214, Washington, DC 

20410–8000 or by courier to 490 

L’Enfant Plaza, East, SW., Suite 3214, 

Washington, DC 20024–8000. 

Action: The following mortgagees 

have had their Agreements terminated 

by HUD: 

Mortgagee name Mortgagee branch address HUD office 

jurisdictions 

Termination 

effective date 

Home ownership 

centers 

First Alternative Mortgage Corp. 145 Huguenot Street, New Rochelle, NY 

10801.

Albany, NY ............... 6/22/2005 Philadelphia. 

Major Mortgage ........................... 5137 S 1500 W, Ogden, UT 84405 ............ Salt Lake City, UT .... 5/21/2005 Denver. 

New York Mortgage Bankers 

LTD.

128 Rivington Street, New York, NY 10002 New York, NY ........... 5/21/2005 Philadelphia. 

Primero LLC ................................ 2465 Sheridan Blvd., Ste. 200, Denver, CO 

80214.

Denver, CO .............. 6/22/2005 Denver. 

Professional Mortgage LLC ......... 2232 SE Washington Blvd., Ste. 205, 

Bartlesville, OK 74006.

Tulsa, OK ................. 6/22/2005 Denver. 

Realty Mortgage Corporation ...... 238 Courthouse Road, Gulfport, MS 39507 Jackson, MS ............. 5/21/2005 Atlanta. 

Residential Finance Corporation 401 N Front Street, Ste. 300, Columbus, 

OH 43215.

Columbus, OH .......... 6/22/2005 Philadelphia. 

Residential Lending Corporation 3039 Premiere Pkwy., Ste. 100C, Duluth, 

GA 30097.

Atlanta, GA ............... 5/21/2005 Atlanta. 

Dated: August 10, 2005. 

Brian D. Montgomery, 

Assistant Secretary for Housing-Federal 

Housing Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. E5–4614 Filed 8–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–27–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Submission for OMB Review: 

Comment Request 

August 17, 2005. 

The Department of Labor (DOL) has 

submitted the following public 

information collection requests (ICRs) to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) for review and approval in 

accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–13, 

44 U.S.C. chapter 35). A copy of each 

ICR, with applicable supporting 

documentation, may be obtained by 

contacting Darrin King on (202) 693–

4129 (this is not a toll-free number) or 

e-mail: king.darrin@dol.gov. 

Comments should be sent to Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

Attn: OMB Desk Officer for the 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration (OSHA), Office of 

Management and Budget, Room 10235, 

Washington, DC 20503, (202) 395–7316 

(this is not a toll-free number), within 

30 days from the date of this publication 

in the Federal Register. 

The OMB 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, 

49304 Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Notices 

electronic, mechanical, or other 

technological collection techniques or 

other forms of information technology, 

e.g., permitting electronic submission of 

responses. 

Agency: Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration. 

Type of Review: Extension of 

currently approved collection. 

Title: Coke Oven Emissions (29 CFR 

1910.1029). 

OMB Number: 1218–0128. 

Frequency: Quarterly. 

Type of Response: Recordkeeping and 

Third party disclosure. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit; Federal Government; and State, 

local, or tribal government. 

Number of Respondents: 14. 

Number of Annual Responses: 49,527. 

Estimated Time per Response: Varies 

from 5 minutes for a secretary to 

maintain record to 4 hours to complete 

a medical examination. 

Total Burden Hours: 51,756. 

Total Annualized Capital/Startup 

Costs: $0. 

Total Annual Costs (Operating/ 

Maintaining Systems or Purchasing 

Services): $933,064. 

Description: The information 

collection requirements in the Coke 

Oven Emissions Standard at 29 CFR 

1910.1029 provides protection for 

employees from the adverse health 

effects associated with exposure to coke 

oven emissions. In this regard, the Coke 

Oven Emissions Standard requires 

employers to monitor employees’

exposure to coke oven emissions, 

monitor employee health, and provide 

employees with information about their 

exposures and the health effects of 

exposures to coke oven emissions. 

Agency: Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration. 

Type of Review: Extension of 

currently approved collection. 

Title: Slings (29 CFR 1910.184). 

OMB Number: 1218–0223. 

Frequency: On occasion and annually. 

Type of Response: Recordkeeping and 

Third party disclosure. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit; Not-for-profit institutions; 

Federal Government; and State, local, or 

tribal government. 

Number of Respondents: 65,000. 

Number of Annual Responses: 

164,938. 

Estimated Time per Response: Varies 

from 1 minute to maintain a certificate 

to 30 minutes for a manufacturing 

worker to acquire information from a 

manufacturer for a new tag, make a new 

tag, and affix it to a sling. 

Total Burden Hours: 19,167. 

Total Annualized Capital/Startup 

Costs: $0. 

Total Annual Costs (Operating/ 

Maintaining Systems or Purchasing 

Services): $0. 

Description: The Slings Standard (29 

CFR 1910.184) specifies several 

collection of information (paperwork) 

requirements, depending on the type of 

sling. The purpose of each of these 

requirements is to prevent employees 

from using defective or deteriorated 

slings, thereby reducing their risk of 

death or serious injury caused by sling 

failure during material handling. 

Paragraph (e) of the Standard covers 

alloy steel chain slings. Paragraph (e)(1) 

requires that alloy steel chain slings 

have permanently affixed and durable 

identification stating the size, grade, 

rated capacity, and reach of the sling. 

The information, supplied by the 

manufacturer, is typically marked on a 

metal tag and affixed to the sling. 

Paragraph (e)(3)(i) requires the 

employer to make a thorough periodic 

inspection of alloy steel chain slings in 

use on a regular basis, but at least once 

a year. Paragraph (e)(3)(ii) requires the 

employer to make and maintain a record 

of the most recent month in which each 

alloy steel chain sling was thoroughly 

inspected, and make this record 

available for examination. 

Paragraph (e)(4) requires the employer 

to retain certificates of proof testing. 

Employers must ensure that before use, 

each new, repaired, or reconditioned 

alloy steel chain sling, including all 

welded components in the sling 

assembly, has been proof tested by the 

sling manufacturer or an equivalent 

entity. The certificates of proof testing 

must be retained by the employer and 

made available for examination. 

Paragraph (f) of the Standard covers 

wire rope slings. Paragraph (f)(4)(ii) 

requires that all welded end 

attachments of wire rope slings be proof 

tested by the manufacturer at twice their 

rated capacity prior to initial use, and 

that the employer retain a certificate of 

the proof test and make it available for 

examination. 

Paragraph (g) of the Standard covers 

metal mesh slings. Paragraph (g)(1) 

requires each metal mesh sling to have 

a durable marking permanently affixed 

that states the rated capacity for vertical 

basket hitch and choker hitch loadings. 

Paragraph (g)(8)(ii) requires that once 

repaired, each metal mesh sling be 

permanently marked or tagged, or a 

written record maintained to indicate 

the date and type of the repairs made, 

and the person or organization that 

performed the repairs. Records of the 

repairs shall be made available for 

examination. 

Paragraph (i) of the Standard covers 

synthetic web slings. Paragraph (i)(1) 

requires that synthetic web slings be 

marked or coded to show the rated 

capacities for each type of hitch, and 

type of synthetic web material used in 

the sling. 

Paragraph (i)(8)(i) prohibits the use of 

repaired synthetic web slings until they 

have been proof tested by the 

manufacturer or equivalent entity. 

Paragraph (i)(8)(ii) requires the 

employer to retain a certificate of the 

proof test and make it available for 

examination. 

The information on the identification 

tags, markings, and codings assist the 

employer in determining whether the 

sling can be used for the lifting task. The 

sling inspections enable early detection 

of faulty slings. The inspection and 

repair records provide employers with 

information about when the last 

inspection was made and about the type 

of the repairs made. This information 

provides some assurance about the 

condition of the slings. These records 

also provide the most efficient means 

for an OSHA compliance officer to 

determine that an employer is 

complying with the Standard. Prooftesting certificates give employers, 

employees, and OSHA compliance 

officers assurance that slings are safe to 

use. The certificates also provide the 

compliance officers with an efficient 

means to assess employer compliance 

with the Standard. 

Agency: Occupational Safety and 

Health Administration. 

Type of Review: Extension of 

currently approved collection. 

Title: Forgings Machines, Inspection 

Certification Records (29 CFR 1910.218). 

OMB Number: 1218–0228. 

Frequency: Bi-weekly. 

Type of Response: Recordkeeping and 

Third party disclosure. 

Affected Public: Business or other forprofit; Not-for-profit institutions; 

Federal Government; and State, local, or 

tribal government. 

Number of Respondents: 27,700. 

Number of Annual Responses: 

1,440,788. 

Estimated Time Per Response: Varies 

from 2 minutes for an employer to 

disclose certification records to 8 

minutes for a manufacturing worker to 

conduct an inspection of each forging 

machine and guard or point-ofoperation protection device bi-weekly. 

Total Burden Hours: 187,264. 

Total Annualized Capital/Startup 

Costs: $0. 

Total Annual Costs (Operating/ 

Maintaining Systems or Purchasing 

Services): $0. 

Description: The Standard on Forging 

Machines (29 CFR 1910.218) (the 

Standard) specifies several paperwork 

Federal Register / Vol. 70, No. 162 / Tuesday, August 23, 2005 / Notices 49305 

1Section 102 of the Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 

1978, 5 U.S.C. App. 1 (1996), generally transferred 

the authority of the Secretary of Treasury to issue 

administrative exemptions under section 4975(c)(2) 

of the Code to the Secretary of Labor. 

For purposes of this exemption, references to 

specific provisions of Title I of the Act, unless 

otherwise specified, refer also to the corresponding 

provisions of the Code. 

requirements. The following sections 

describe who uses the information 

collected under each requirement, as 

well as how they use it. The purpose 

these requirements is to reduce 

employees’ risk of death or serious 

injury by ensuring that forging machines 

used by them are in safe operating 

condition, and that they are able to 

clearly and properly identify manually 

operated valves and switches. 

Inspection of Forging Machines, 

Guards, and Point-of-Operation 

Protection Devices (paragraphs (a)(2)(i) 

and (a)(2)(ii)). Paragraph (a)(2)(i) 

requires employers to establish periodic 

and regular maintenance safety checks, 

and to develop and keep a certification 

record of each inspection. The 

certification record must include the 

date of inspection, the signature of the 

person who performed the inspection, 

and the serial number (or other 

identifier) of the forging machine 

inspected. Under paragraph (a)(2)(ii), 

employers are to schedule regular and 

frequent inspections of guards and 

point-of-operation protection devices, 

and prepare a certification record of 

each inspection that contains the date of 

the inspection, the signature of the 

person who performed the inspection, 

and the serial number (or other 

identifier) of the equipment inspected. 

These inspection certification records 

provide assurance to employers, 

employees, and OSHA compliance 

officers that forging machines, guards, 

and point-of-operation protection 

devices have been inspected, assuring 

that they will operate properly and 

safely, thereby preventing impact injury 

and death to employees during forging 

operations. These records also provide 

the most efficient means for the 

compliance officers to determine that an 

employer is complying with the 

Standard. 

Identification of Manually Controlled 

Valves and Switches (paragraphs (c), 

(h)(3), (i)(1) and (i)(2)). These 

paragraphs require proper and clear 

identification of manually operated 

valves and switches on presses, 

upsetters, boltheading equipment, and 

rivet-making machines, respectively. 

Marking valves and switches provide 

information to employees to ensure that 

they operate the forging machines 

correctly and safely. 

Darrin A. King, 

Acting Departmental Clearance Officer. 

[FR Doc. 05–16679 Filed 8–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Office of the Secretary 

Senior Executive Service; Appointment 

of a Member to the Performance 

Review Board 

Title 5 U.S.C. 4314(c)(4) provides that 

Notice of the Appointment of an 

individual to serve as a member of the 

Performance Review Board of the Senior 

Executive Service shall be published in 

the Federal Register. 

The following individuals are hereby 

appointed to a three-year term on the 

Department’s Performance Review 

Board: John McWilliam; Felix Quintana; 

Corlis Sellers. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. 

Anne Bartels, Director, Office of 

Executive Resources and Personnel 

Security, Room C5508, U.S. Department 

of Labor, Frances Perkins Building, 200 

Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 

DC 20210, telephone: (202) 693–7628. 

Signed at Washington, DC, this 16th day of 

August, 2005. 

Elaine L. Chao, 

Secretary of Labor. 

[FR Doc. 05–16678 Filed 8–22–05; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4510–23–M 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR 

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration 

[Application Number D–11047] 

Amendment to Prohibited Transaction 

Exemption (PTE) 84–14 for Plan Asset 

Transactions Determined by 

Independent Qualified Professional 

Asset Managers 

AGENCY: Employee Benefits Security 

Administration. 

ACTION: Adoption of amendment to PTE 

84–14. 

SUMMARY: This document amends PTE 

84–14, a class exemption that permits 

various parties that are related to 

employee benefit plans to engage in 

transactions involving plan assets if, 

among other conditions, the assets are 

managed by ‘‘qualified professional 

asset managers’’ (QPAMs), which are 

independent of the parties in interest 

and which meet specified financial 

standards. Additional exemptive relief 

is provided for employers to furnish 

limited amounts of goods and services 

to a managed fund in the ordinary 

course of business. Limited relief is also 

provided for leases of office or 

commercial space between managed 

funds and QPAMs or contributing 

employers. Finally, relief is provided for 

transactions involving places of public 

accommodation owned by a managed 

fund. The amendment affects 

participants and beneficiaries of 

employee benefit plans, the sponsoring 

employers of such plans, and other 

persons engaging in the described 

transactions. 

DATES: Except where otherwise 

indicated herein, the amendment is 

effective August 23, 2005. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher J. Motta or Karen E. Lloyd, 

Office of Exemption Determinations, 

Employee Benefits Security 

Administration, U.S. Department of 

Labor, Room N–5649, 200 Constitution 

Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20210, 

(202) 693–8540 (not a toll-free number). 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

September 3, 2003, a notice was 

published in the Federal Register (68 

FR 52419) of the pendency before the 

Department of Labor (the Department) of 

a proposed amendment to PTE 84–14 

(49 FR 9494, March 13, 1984, as 

corrected at 50 FR 41430, October 10, 

1985). PTE 84–14 provides an 

exemption from certain of the 

restrictions of section 406 of ERISA, and 

from certain taxes imposed by section 

4975(a) and (b) of the Code, by reason 

of section 4975(c)(1) of the Code. The 

Department proposed to amend to PTE 

84–14 on its own motion, pursuant to 

section 408(a) of ERISA and section 

4975(c)(2) of the Code, and in 

accordance with the procedures set 

forth in 29 CFR part 2570, subpart B (55 

FR 32836, 32847, August 10, 1990).1

The notice of pendency gave 

interested persons an opportunity to 

comment on the proposed exemption. 

The Department received six comment 

letters. In general, the commenters 

expressed support for the proposed 

amendments. Upon consideration of all 

the comments received, the Department 

has determined to grant the proposed 

amendment, subject to certain 

modifications. These modifications and 

the major comments are discussed 

below. 

Executive Order 12866 Statement 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Department must determine whether the 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and 

therefore subject to the requirements of