issue-1996-07-17•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-07-17
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-07-17
issue-1996-07-17Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-07-17Proposed Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 96-18183 Cyfluthrin; Pesticide Tolerance
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37233-37236]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18183]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVRIONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 180, 185, and 186
[PP 4F4313 and FAP 4H5687/P670, FRL-5374-1]
RIN 2070-AC18
Cyfluthrin; Pesticide Tolerance
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA proposes to establish permanent tolerances for residues of
the pyrethroid cyfluthrin in or on the raw agricultural commodities
(RACs) group citrus, fruits; to withdraw the proposed food/feed
additive petition for citrus oil, dried pulp, and molasses and to
establish a maximum residue limit for cyfluthrin on citrus oil and
dried pulp. Bayer Corporation (formerly Miles, Inc.) submitted
petitions pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA)
requesting these regulations to establish certain maximum permissible
levels for residues of the insecticide.
DATES: Comments, identified by the docket control number [PP 4F4313 and
FAP 4H5687/P670], must be received on or before August 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written comments to: Public Response and
Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW,
Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring comments to: Rm. 1132 CM #2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202.
Information submitted as a comment concerning this document may be
claimed confidential by marking any part or all of that information as
``Confidential Business Information'' (CBI). Information so marked will
not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40
CFR part 2. A copy of the comment that does not contain CBI must be
submitted for inclusion in the public record. Information not marked
confidential may be disclosed publicly by EPA without prior notice. All
written comments will be available for public inspection in Rm. 1132 at
the address given above, from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, excluding legal holidays.
Comments and data may also be submitted to OPP by sending
electronic mail (e-mail) to: [email protected]. Electronic
comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special
characters and any form of encryption. Comments and data will also be
accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format or ASCII file format.
All comments and data in electronic form must be identified by the
docket number [PP 4F4313 and FAP 4H5687/P670]. Electronic comments on
this proposed rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository
Libraries. Additional information on electronic submissions can be
found below in this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: George T. LaRocca, Product
Manager (PM) 13, Registration Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington,
DC 20460. Office location, telephone number, and e-mail address: Rm.
200, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. (703)
305-6100.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA issued a notice, published in the
Federal Register of July 13, 1994 (59 FR 35717), which announced that
Miles Corp. had submitted pesticide petition PP 4F4313 and food/feed
additive petition (FAP) 4H5687 to EPA. Pesticide petition 4F4313
requests that the Administrator, pursuant to section 408(d) of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), amend
40 CFR 180.436 by establishing tolerances for residues of the
insecticide cyfluthrin, [cyano[4-fluoro-3-phenoxyphenyl]-methyl-3-[2,2-
dicloroethenyl]-2,2-dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate] in or on the raw
agricultural commodities group citrus, fruits at 0.2 parts per millions
(PPM).
Food/feed additive petition 4H5687 requests that the Administrator,
pursuant to section 409(b) of the FFDCA (21 U.S.C. 348), amend 40 CFR
parts 185 and 186 by establishing food/feed additive regulations for
cyfluthrin in or on the processed food commodity citrus oil at 1.0 ppm,
and the feed commodities citrus dried pulp at 1.0 ppm and citrus
molasses at 0.5 ppm.
There were no comments or requests for referral to an advisory
committee received in response to the notice of filing.
On May 2, 1996, Miles Corp. requested that the proposed food/feed
additive regulation (4H5687) for citrus oil, citrus dried pulp, and
citrus molasses under section 409 of FFDCA be withdrawn and proposed
establishment of a maximum residue level (MRL) for citrus oil and
citrus dried pulp at 0.3 ppm under section 701 of FFDCA. The request to
withdraw the feed additive petition for citrus molasses was submitted
in response to EPA's determination that citrus molasses is no longer
considered a significant feed item. See EPA's final 860 Series Residue
Chemistry Guidelines (860.1000) published as public drafts on August
25, 1995 (60 FR 44343) (formerly Table II of Subdivision O, Residue
Chemistry, of the Pesticide Assessment Guidelines).
The request to withdraw the food/feed additive petition under
section 409 for citrus oil and citrus dried pulp and instead propose to
establish a MRL for citrus oil and citrus dried pulp under section 701
was submitted in response to EPA's policy changes regarding when
pesticide residues concentrate in processed food and whether a
particular processed food is considered ``ready to eat.'' In June 1995
(60 FR 31300, June 14, 1995), EPA issued a revised policy concerning
when section 409 food and feed additive tolerances were needed to
[[Page 37234]]
prevent the adulteration of foods and animal feeds. Under EPA's revised
policy, a section 409 tolerance is necessary for pesticide residues in
processed food when it is likely that the level of some residues of the
pesticide will exceed the section 408 tolerance level in ``ready to
eat'' processed food/feed. Of particular relevance to the proposed
food/feed additive regulation for citrus oil and dried pulp is EPA's
decision to interpret the term ``ready to eat'' processed food/feed as
food ready for consumption ``as is'' without further preparation. For
foods/feeds that are found to be not ``ready to eat,'' EPA takes into
account the dilution of residues that occurs in preparing a ``ready to
eat'' food/feed.
Under the revised policy, EPA has determined that citrus fruit oil
and dried citrus pulp are not ``ready to eat'' food or animal feed
commodities. Citrus oil is not consumed ``as is'' but used as a
flavoring in other foods. Likewise EPA has found no evidence that dried
citrus pulp is fed to livestock as a stand-along feed stock. Rather
dried citrus pulp is used as an ingredient in animal feeds. As such,
dried citrus pulp can constitute up to 25% of animal feed.
The proposed section 408 tolerance for cyfluthrin on citrus is 0.2
ppm. The highest average residue found in crop field trials for
cyfluthrin on citrus fruits was 0.06 ppm. A processing study showed
that in producing citrus oil and dried pulp residues concentrated 530%
(a concentration factor of 5.3x). Thus with this information it is
likely that cyfluthrin residues of 0.32 ppm (0.06 x 5.3) could occur in
citrus oil and dried pulp. However to project what residues are likely
in ``ready to eat'' food or animal feed containing citrus oil and dried
citrus pulp the 0.32 ppm must be divided by 238 for citrus oil and 3
for dried citrus pulp to allow for dilution occurring when citrus oil
and dried citrus pulp is added to other ingredients in the preparation
of food and animal feed respectively. Once these dilutions are taken
into account (0.32 divided by 238) and (0.32 divided by 3) the likely
residues of cyfluthrin in food and animal feed would not be expected to
exceed 0.001 ppm for citrus oil (or < 0.01 ppm which is the limit of
detection of the analytical method) and 0.11 for dried citrus pulp.
Since these levels are below the 408 tolerance level (0.2 ppm) food and
animal feed would not be adulterated and no section 409 tolerances are
needed. However since residues could be present in the not ``ready to
eat'' commodities at levels (0.32 ppm) appreciably higher than the 0.2
ppm RAC tolerance, section 701 MRL's are being proposed. A section 701
MRL represents the highest level of pesticide residue in a not ``ready
to eat'' processed commodity that is consistent with the requirements
in 21 U.S.C. 342(a)(2)(C) that the pesticide be applied in accordance
with the section 408 tolerance and that good manufacturing processes be
used.
EPA will compute the MRL by multiplying the highest average residue
found in the raw commodity in field trials by the concentration factor
determined in processing studies using good manufacturing practices. As
noted above, the highest average residue from the cyfluthrin fields
trials is 0.06 ppm and the concentration factor for processing is 5.3x.
Multiplying 0.06 by 5.3 yields a product of 0.318 ppm. EPA believes it
is appropriate to round 0.318 ppm and proposes 0.3 ppm as MRL for
cyfluthrin residues in citrus oil and dried citrus pulp. For purposes
of enforcement of the MRL, the same analytical method used for
enforcement of the section 408 tolerances should be used.
EPA is proposing to place this MRL in existing parts 185 and 186 of
title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) rather than creating
a new part of title 40. Currently, 40 CFR parts 185 and 186 contain
section 409 food and feed additive tolerances organized by pesticide.
EPA believes it will be clearer to the regulated community and to
enforcement personnel if all regulations pertaining to residue levels
of a pesticide in food and animal feeds are located in the same part of
the CFR. Because EPA is respectively proposing to expand the type of
regulation that would be included in part 185 and 186, EPA proposes
modifying the titles of parts 185 and 186 to ``Pesticides in Food and
Pesticides in Animal Feeds'' to reflect these changes.
The science data submitted in support of the petitions and other
relevant material have been reviewed. The toxicological and metabolism
data considered in support of this tolerance are discussed in detail in
a related document published in the Federal Register of March 15, 1996
(61 FR 10678).
A chronic dietary exposure/risk assessment was performed for
cyfluthrin using a Reference Dose (RfD) of 0.025 mg/kg bwt/day, based
on a No Observed Effect Level (NOEL) of 50 ppm (2.5 mg/kg bwt/day) and
an uncertainty factor of 100. The NOEL was determined in a 2-year rat
feeding study. The endpoint effects of concern were decreased body
weights in males and inflammation of the kidneys in females at the LEL
of 150 ppm (6.2 mg/kg/day). The current estimated dietary exposure for
the U.S. population resulting from established tolerances is 0.002907
mg/kg/bwt day, which represents 11.6% of the RfD and 0.00662 mg/kg/day,
which represents 26.4% of the RfD for children (1-6 years old), the
subgroup population exposed to the highest risk. The current action
will increase exposure to 0.003268 mg/kg/day or 13% of the RfD and
0.007605 mg/kg/day or 30.4% of the RfD respectively. Generally
speaking, EPA has no cause for concern if total residue contribution
for published and proposed tolerances is less than the RfD. EPA
concludes that the chronic dietary risk of cyfluthrin, as estimated by
the dietary risk assessment, does not appear to be of concern.
Because there was a sign of developmental effects seen in animal
studies, the Agency used the rabbit developmental toxicity study (with
a NOEL of 20 mg/kg/day to assess acute dietary exposure and determine a
margin of exposure (MOE) for the overall U.S. population and certain
subgroups. Since the toxicological end-point pertains to developmental
toxicity, the population group of concern for this analysis is women
aged 13 and above, the subgroup which most closely approximates women
of child-bearing age. The MOE is calculated as the ratio of the NOEL to
the exposure. For this analysis, the Agency calculated the MOE for
women ages 13 and above to be 666. Generally speaking, MOE's greater
than 100 for data derived from animal studies are generally not of
concern.
The metabolism of cyfluthrin in plants and livestocks for this use
is adequately understood. The residues of concern is cyfluthrin.
Adequate analytical methodology (Gas liquid chromatography with an
electron capture detector) is available for enforcement purposes. The
enforcement methodology has been submitted to the Food and Drug
Administration for publication in the Pesticide Analytical Manual Vol.
II (PAM II). Because of the long lead time for publication of the
method in PAM II, the analytical methodology is being made available in
the interim to anyone interested in pesticide enforcement when
requested from Calvin Furlow, Public Response and Program Resource
Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide
Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. Office location and telephone number: Rm. 1132,
CM #2, 1921 Jefferson-Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202, (703) 305-5232.
The established tolerances for residues of cyfluthrin in/on eggs,
milk, fat, meat and meat by-products of cattle,
[[Page 37235]]
goats, hogs, horses, sheep and poultry are adequate to cover secondary
residues resulting from the proposed use as delinated in 40 CFR
180.6(a)(2).
There are presently no actions pending against the continued
registration of this chemical.
The pesticide is considered useful for the purpose for which the
tolerances are sought. Based on the information and data considered,
the Agency concludes that the establishment of the proposed tolerances
will protect the public health and proposed MRLs are consistent with 21
U.S.C. 342 (a)(c). Therefore, it is proposed that the tolerances be
established as set forth below.
Any person who has registered or submitted an application for
registration of a pesticide, under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) as amended, which contains any of the
ingredients listed herein, may request within 30 days after publication
of this notice in the Federal Register that this rulemaking proposal be
referred to an Advisory Committee in accordance with section 408(e) of
the FFDCA. Interested persons are invited to submit written comments on
the proposed regulation. Comments must bear a notation indicating the
document control number, [PP 4F4313/FAP 4H5687/P670]. All written
comments filed in response to this petition will be available in the
Public Responses and Program Resources Branch, at the address given
above from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal
holidays.
A record has been established for this rulemaking under the docket
number [PP 4F4313/FAP 4H5687/P670] (including any comments and data
submitted electronically). A public version of this record, including
printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which does not include
any information claimed as CBI, is available for inspection from 8 a.m.
to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The public
record is located in room 1132 of the Public Response and Program
Resources Branch, Field Operations Division (7506C), Office of
Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency, Crystal Mall 1B2,
1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
Electronic comments can be sent directly to EPA at:
opp-docket epamail.epa.gov.
Electronic comments must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the
use of special characters and any form of encryption.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer any copies of objections and hearing requests
received electronically into printed, paper form as they are received
and will place the paper copies in the official rulemaking record which
will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The
official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained at the
address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document.
The Office of Management and Budget has exempted this document from
the requirement of review pursuant to Executive Order 12866.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order
(i.e., Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines
``significant'' as those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) Having an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and
materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local or tribal governments or communities (also known as
``economically significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another
agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement,
grants, user fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review. In addition, this action does not impose any enforceable
duty or contain any ``unfunded mandates'' as described in Title II of
the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), or require
prior consultation as specified by Executive Order 12875 (58 FR 58093,
October 1993), entitled ``Enhancing the Intergovernmental
Partnership,'' or special considerations as required by Executive Order
12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950). EPA has treated
regulations similar to the establishment of tolerances as also not
having a significant economic impact on substantial number of small
entities. Therefore, the proposed MRL is not expected to have such
impact.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Parts 180, 185, and 186
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: June 19, 1996.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Director, Registration Division, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, it is proposed that 40 CFR chapter I be amended as
follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. In part 180:
a. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
b. In Sec. 180.436(a), by adding and alphabetically inserting the
following entry in the table therein to read as follows:
Sec. 180.436 Cyfluthrin; tolerances for residues.
(a) * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodities Parts per million Expiration date
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * * *
Citrus, fruits............... 0.2 None
[[Page 37236]]
* * * * * * *
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
PART 185--PESTICIDES IN FOOD
2. In part 185:
a. The authority citation for part 185 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 342, 348, and 701.
b. By revising the part heading for part 185 to read as set forth
above.
c. In Sec. 185.1250, by adding paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 185.1250 Cyfluthrin.
* * * * *
(b)(1) A maximum residue level regulation is established for
residues of the insecticide cyfluthrin, [cyano[4-fluoro-3-
phenoxyphenyl]-methyl-3-[2,2-dicloroethenyl]-2,2-
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate] in or on the following food
commodities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodities Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citrus oil..................................... 0.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) This regulation reflects the maximum level of residues in
citrus oil consistent with use of cyfluthrin on citrus, fruits in
conformity with Sec. 180.436 of this chapter and with the use of good
manufacturing practices.
* * * * *
PART 186 -- [AMENDED]
3. In part 186:
a. The authority citation for part 186 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 342, 348, and 701.
b. In Sec. 186.1250, by adding paragraph (b), to read as follows:
Sec. 186.1250 Cyfluthrin.
* * * * *
(b)(1) A maximum residue level regulation is established for
residues of the insecticide cyfluthrin, [cyano[4-fluoro-3-
phenoxyphenyl]-methyl-3-[2,2-dicloroethenyl]-2,2-
dimethylcyclopropanecarboxylate] in or on the following feed
commodities:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commodities Parts per million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citrus, dried pulp............................. 0.3
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) This regulation reflects the maximum level of residues in
citrus, dried pulp consistent with use of cyfluthrin on citrus, fruits
in conformity with Sec. 180.436 of this chapter and with the use of
good manufacturing practices.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-18183 Filed 7-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-18132 Loan Policies and Operations; Other Financing Institutions
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37229-37230]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18132]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37230]]
FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION
12 CFR Part 614
RIN 3052-AB67
Loan Policies and Operations; Other Financing Institutions
AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking; comment period
extension.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 17, 1996, the Farm Credit Administration (FCA)
published for public comment an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(ANPRM) concerning potential revisions to the regulations in subpart P
of part 614 that govern the funding and discount relationship between
Farm Credit System (Farm Credit, FCS, or System) banks that operate
under title I of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Act), and
non-System other financing institutions (OFIs). See 61 FR 24907, May
17, 1996. The comment period expired on July 16, 1996. In order to
allow interested parties additional time to respond, the FCA extends
the comment period until August 30, 1996, and invites public comment on
the questions in the ANPRM.
DATES: Written comments should be received on or before August 30,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed or delivered to Patricia W. DiMuzio,
Associate Director, Regulation Development, Office of Examination, Farm
Credit Administration, 1501 Farm Credit Drive, McLean, Virginia 22102-
5090 or sent by facsimile transmission to the FAX number at (703) 734-
5784. Copies of all communications received will be available for
review by interested parties in the Office of Examination, Farm Credit
Administration.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Eric Howard, Policy Analyst, Regulation Development, Office of
Examination, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090, (703)
883-4498,
or
Richard A. Katz, Senior Attorney, Regulatory Enforcement Division,
Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA
22102-5090, (703) 883-4020, TDD (703) 883-4444.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 17, 1996, the FCA published an ANPRM
in the Federal Register that sought information and guidance from the
public about how to revise regulations in subpart P of part 614 that
govern the funding and discount relationship between System banks that
operate under title I of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as amended (Act),
and non-System OFIs. Farm Credit Banks (FCBs) and agricultural credit
banks (ACBs) are authorized to fund and discount certain short- and
intermediate-term loans for non-System lenders, such as commercial
banks, savings associations, credit unions, trust companies,
agricultural credit corporations, and other agricultural and aquatic
lenders as part of their mission to finance agriculture, aquaculture,
and other specified rural credit needs. External developments, such as
the consolidation of the commercial banking industry, the advent of
interstate banking and branching, the gradual reduction of Federal
assistance to agriculture and rural communities, and the increased
interest of non-System financial institutions in additional sources of
funding and liquidity may necessitate revisions to the regulations in
subpart P of part 614 so that System banks can fulfill their obligation
to meet demands in rural communities for short- and intermediate-term
credit. The purpose of any future rulemaking would be to ensure that
eligible and creditworthy farmers, ranchers, aquatic producers and
harvesters, processing and marketing operators, farm-related
businesses, and rural homeowners will continue to have access to
affordable, dependable, and stable short- and intermediate-term credit
through both System and non-System lenders. Specifically, the ANPRM
sought comments regarding the FCA's OFI regulations and how they may be
revised to better implement the statutory provisions. Several
interested parties have advised the FCA that they need additional time
to prepare thoughtful responses to the questions in the ANPRM. For this
reason, the FCA hereby extends the comment period until August 30,
1996.
Dated: July 11, 1996.
Floyd Fithian,
Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 96-18132 Filed 7-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-18116 Aid To Families With Dependent Children; AFDC/Child Support Program Cooperation and Referral
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37236-37240]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18116]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Administration for Children and Families
45 CFR Parts 232 and 235
Aid To Families With Dependent Children; AFDC/Child Support
Program Cooperation and Referral
AGENCY: Administration for Children and Families (ACF), HHS.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This proposed rule is part of President Clinton's recently
announced initiative to strengthen the child support enforcement system
and promote parental responsibility. ACF is proposing to amend the
regulations for the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC)
program under title IV-A of the Social Security Act to improve
cooperation requirements as follows:
Prior to receipt of AFDC, applicants will be required to provide
sufficient information to located the non-custodial parent, establish
the paternity of a child born out of wedlock and secure child support.
By making the receipt of benefits conditional upon fulfillment of the
cooperation requirement at the time of application, this policy will
increase the likelihood of success in locating non-custodial parents,
establishing paternity, and securing support.
Applicants and recipients will be held to a strict
cooperation standard. They will be required to provide the name of the
father and identifying information available to the caretaker such as
the address, Social Security Number, telephone number, place of
employment or school, and names of relatives, etc.
To ensure effective due process protection, States will be
required to establish criteria to determine when the individual cannot
reasonably be expected to know the required identifying information.
The AFDC agency will be required to refer applicants to
the child support agency within two working days of application so that
the non-custodial parent can be located and paternity action can be
initiated right away.
To ensure that clients are protected from delays in
processing applications, the prohibition on State or local agencies
from denying, delaying or discontinuing assistance pending a good cause
determination will also apply to the cooperation determination.
To provide additional flexibility, States may request
waivers under the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act to have the child
support agency, rather than the AFDC agency, make the good cause and
cooperation determination. Since the child support agency has the
responsibility to bring legal action to establish paternity, it is
often in the best position to make this determination.
The current good cause provisions are unchanged. Applicants and
recipients who have good cause will continue to be exempt from
cooperating.
DATES: Interested persons and agencies are invited to submit written
comments concerning these regulations no later than September 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be submitted in writing to the Assistant
Secretary for Children and Families, ATTENTION: Mr. Mack A. Storrs,
Director, Division of AFDC/JOBS, 5th Floor, Office of Family
Assistance, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20447 or
delivered to the Office of Family Assistance, 5th Floor, Aerospace
Building, 901 ``D'' St., S.W., Washington, D.C. 20447, between 8:00
a.m. and 4:30 p.m. on regular business days. Comments received may be
inspected during these hours by making arrangements with the contact
person.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Mack A. Storrs, Administration for
Children and Families, Office of Family Assistance, 5th Floor, 370
L'Enfant Promenade, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20447, telephone (202) 401-
9289.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Recently, President Clinton announced a new initiative to
strengthen the child support
[[Page 37237]]
enforcement system and promote parental responsibility. The President
directed the Secretary to exercise her legal authority to propose new
rules which would require all applicants for welfare to cooperate by
providing sufficient information, prior to receipt of AFDC, to locate
the non-custodial parent, establish the paternity of a child born out
of wedlock and secure child support. The new regulations will also
require AFDC recipients to similarly cooperate at their next
redetermination.
Currently, more than 1.2 million children are born each year to
unwed parents. These children deserve to have their relationship with
their father legally acknowledged and to receive financial and
emotional support from him. No father should be able to bring a child
into this world and then just walk away. A clear message must be
conveyed to parents, especially young parents, that bringing a child
into this world brings with it significant, long-term responsibilities.
Paternity establishment is the crucial, first step toward securing
financial support for a child, and, perhaps even more importantly,
promoting the development of a nurturing relationship with the father.
If paternity is not established, the child may be denied a lifetime of
emotional, psychological and economic benefits. While a parental link
opens the door to child support and other potential financial benefits,
it also provides qualitative benefits to the child, such as the value
of a father's legal acknowledgement of their relationship, an
opportunity for extended family ties, and access to medical history and
genetic information.
The Administration has made paternity establishment a top priority.
In the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1993, the Administration proposed,
and Congress enacted, a requirement for States to establish voluntary
paternity acknowledgment programs in hospitals as an effective way to
establish child/father bonds right from the start of a child's life.
Voluntary data from thirty-one States show that more than 200,000
paternities were established through the in-hospital program in 1995.
In addition, the total number of paternities established by child
support agencies has increased by 40 percent since 1992. Still, more
needs to be done. That is why the President has ordered the Secretary
of the Department of Health and Human Services to exercise her legal
authority to propose new regulations on paternity establishment and
child support cooperation in the AFDC program.
Unless paternity is established for a child in a family seeking
welfare, the government pays the costs of raising the child--costs that
the father should be sharing. As a condition of receipt of welfare
benefits, mothers are currently required to cooperate with paternity-
establishment efforts. However, the process of cooperating is seldom
completed during the application process, and efforts to determine
cooperation and establish paternity are often not made until after the
mother has begun receiving benefits. Research shows that a greater
percentage of mothers know the identity and whereabouts of the father
of their child than is currently reported to welfare agencies. Because
agencies do not receive all relevant information, paternity is often
not established. In fact, the national rate for paternity establishment
in welfare cases is only about 40 percent. Under these proposed rules,
quick action would be taken to improve life prospects for families.
Since passage of the Family Support Act in 1988, States have been
dramatically changing the culture of welfare to emphasize that
assistance ought to be temporary while families take the necessary
steps to become self-sufficient. Establishing paternity and getting
child support from the non-custodial parent, combined with finding and
holding a job, are critical components of a financial base leading to
independence. In addition to assuring that eligible applicants receive
prompt and accurate benefits, eligibility staff should know, understand
and communicate the benefits and need for paternity establishment and
self-sufficiency.
Discussion of Proposed Changes
In cases of a child born out of wedlock, the establishment of
paternity is a critical first step in the child support enforcement
process. The earlier paternity is established, the sooner the child may
benefit from child support, the father's medical benefits, and
information about his medical history. The child may also gain access
to other financial benefits such as dependent's benefits under Social
Security, pensions, veterans' benefits, and rights of inheritance.
Section 402(a)(26)(B) of the Social Security Act provides that, as
a condition of eligibility for aid, each applicant or recipient will be
required to cooperate with the State in establishing the paternity of a
child born out of wedlock, in locating the non-custodial parent and in
obtaining support or any other payments or property due such applicant
or such child, unless there is good cause for refusing to cooperate.
Good cause determinations are rendered by the AFDC agency, based on
standards prescribed by the Secretary.
Current rules at Sec. 232.12(b) provide that the applicant or
recipient shall provide information, but allow an individual to
``attest to the lack of information, under penalty of perjury.'' Many
unmarried applicants are routinely attesting that they do not have the
basic information needed to locate the father and establish paternity.
As a result, paternity is established in only about 40 percent of these
cases.
To increase the rate of paternity determinations, a number of
States have requested that we tighten the definition of cooperation by
requiring that applicants and recipients furnish specific information
about the identity of the non-custodial parent. Under waivers in their
welfare reform demonstrations, a number of States have modified or
proposed modifications to the cooperation criteria to define
cooperation as providing specific information. Some of these
modifications have subsequently been challenged in court for providing
no exceptions. Advocacy groups have also expressed concern about
changes in the cooperation rules because some caretaker relatives do
not have or cannot be reasonably expected to obtain the necessary
information to identify and locate the non-custodial parents. We are
proposing a regulation which we believe balances these concerns.
Recognizing how important it is to establish paternity or secure
child support at the earliest possible time, we propose to amend the
regulations at Sec. 232.12 and Sec. 235.70 to require that States take
action to secure the applicant's cooperation on paternity and child
support within the application-processing period. Except in
circumstances where the client cannot be reasonably expected to know or
obtain the information, or claims good cause, the applicant will be
required to provide the name and sufficient information necessary to
identify the non-custodial parent.
We propose to amend Sec. 232.12(b) to require States to establish
effective procedures to obtain necessary information to identify the
non-custodial parent. We have specified at the revised
Sec. 232.12(b)(3) that the required cooperation includes providing both
the name of the putative father and other information sufficient to
verify the identity of the person named. The other information which
must be given could include: the social security number, date of birth,
past or present address,
[[Page 37238]]
telephone number, past or present place of employment, past or present
school attended, names and addresses of parents, friends or relatives
able to provide location information, or other information which could
enable service of process on such person. This requirement is intended
to ensure that the mother provide at least the name of the father and
sufficient additional information so that the State or local agency can
verify that the person named is an actual person and not a fictitious
name and to elicit information that can aid the agency in locating the
person. This new specific requirement does not change the general
requirement at Sec. 232.12(b)(1) that the mother must provide any other
verbal or written information, or documentary evidence known to,
possessed by, or reasonably obtainable by the applicant or recipient.
Further, the revised regulation would replace the attestation rule
at Sec. 232.12(b)(3) with a provision that would allow States to
establish criteria for determining cooperation in cases where the
applicant or recipient cannot reasonably be expected to know the
identifying information about the non-custodial parent. We recognize
that the kind and amount of information that a client may have depends
on the nature of the relationship and believe that States are in the
best position to make this determination. We have included an example
of one common situation that the criteria must address--cases where
recipients do not know or have the required information due to a long
lapse of time since contact with the non-custodial parent. This will
allow States to require more than a mere attestation but to accept less
than the required information, as specified by the State, in limited
circumstances. Providing States this flexibility is reasonable since
they are in the best position to develop criteria that respond to their
administrative needs and caseload characteristics. States are
encouraged to elicit and seriously consider the views of client
representatives and advocates when formulating the new criteria.
Section 232.46 prohibits State or local agencies from denying,
delaying or discontinuing assistance pending a good cause
determination. To ensure that clients are protected from delays in
processing applications, we are proposing that this requirement also
apply to the cooperation determination. For example, if the name and
identifying information provided by the applicant cannot be verified
within the application processing timeframe (no later than 45 days from
the filing date or a shorter period as elected by the State) and the
delay is not due to inaction on the part of the applicant, then
benefits must be authorized once other eligibility and payment factors
have been met. This also applies to all application filed under any
State-defined criteria for emergency processing.
So that the non-custodial parent can be located and paternity or
child support action can be initiated right away, we are proposing that
the AFDC agency be required to send a prompt notice to the child
support agency that an application has been filed on behalf of a child
who is deprived of parental support or care due to the continued
absence of a parent. Section 235.70 will be amended to define a
``prompt notice'' as one that is sent to the child support agency
within two working days of the date that the application for AFDC is
filed, rather than the current requirement of within two working days
of when assistance is granted.
We propose that these new cooperation requirements be effective 90
days after publication of the final rule or, for States requiring new
legislation, no later than the first day of the first calendar quarter
beginning after the close of the first legislative session that begins
after the date of the final rule. For purposes of the previous
sentence, in the case of a State that has a 2-year legislative session,
each year of such session shall be deemed to be a separate regular
session of the State legislature. The new requirements will apply to
all applicants after that date, and to current recipients no later than
the next redetermination after that date. Before imposing the new
requirements on recipients, States shall notify recipients in writing
about their responsibilities to provide additional information, the
consequences of failure to cooperate and their rights to claim good
cause and to appeal adverse actions.
For current recipients, we expect States to review the records of
cases where paternity or support has not been established, or the
whereabouts of the non-custodial parent is not known. The purpose of
the review is to determine, based on case situation, whether the
recipient may have additional information or has cooperated under these
new requirements. States should pay particular attention to their
criteria for assessing the recipient's lack of information, based on
the lapse of time or age of a child for whom paternity has not been
established. States may apply the new requirements at any time after
the notice to recipients, but shall apply them no later than the next
redetermination.
Several States have also persuasively argued that the child support
agency, rather than the AFDC agency, should be permitted to make the
good cause and cooperation decisions. Allowing child support staff to
make the decisions may be more efficient because it eliminates delays
caused by the ``back-and-forth'' referrals between child support and
AFDC staff. It also encourages client responsibility and rapport in
dealing with workers who help establish paternity and obtain child
support. We believe these arguments have merit. Although we are not
proposing a regulatory change in this area, States that are interested
in having the child support agency render the good cause and
cooperation decisions are encouraged to request a waiver under section
204 of the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act of 1968.
Under the Intergovernmental Cooperation Act, the Governor or the
appropriate executive of the single State agency may request a waiver
and explain: (1) Why the proposed organizational arrangement is more
effective and efficient within the State government; and (2) how the
objectives of title IV-A will be met by the alternative arrangement
that is being requested (e.g., having the child support agency render
the good cause and cooperation decisions). The formal request for a
waiver, together with the State plan preprint pages (i.e., Section 1.1-
2, page 1 and Attachment 1.1-B) should be submitted to the appropriate
ACF Regional Office for review and approval.
We also want to clarify that no changes are proposed in several
areas related to cooperation. Pursuant to section 402(a)(26) of the
Social Security Act, a failure to cooperate, without good cause, either
at application or subsequently will result in the removal of the
caretaker's needs from the grant. This consequence is not changed.
Likewise, States are still required to inform all applicants or
recipients who fail to cooperate of their right to a fair hearing to
appeal the determination. If an individual fails to cooperate and is
determined ineligible for benefits, but subsequently chooses to
cooperate and takes appropriate action, benefits will be reinstated.
Finally, the current requirements regarding good cause for not
cooperating because it would be ``against the best interests of the
child'' are not changed.
Regulatory Procedures
Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning and Review
Executive Order 12866 requires that regulations be reviewed to
ensure that they are consistent with the priorities
[[Page 37239]]
and principles set forth in the Executive Order. The Department has
determined that these rules are consistent with these priorities and
principles. An assessment of the costs and benefits of available
regulatory alternatives (including not regulating) demonstrated that
the approach taken in the regulation is the most cost-effective and
least burdensome while still achieving the regulatory objectives.
The proposed rule is designed to provide that applicants and
recipients provide sufficient information to establish paternity and
obtain support, and that information be provided on a timely basis--
i.e., before establishing welfare eligibility, if possible. At the same
time, it seeks to both protect cooperative individuals against
unreasonable requirements and prevent unnecessary legal challenges in
the States. Thus, we believe it properly balances our interests in
improving the effectiveness of paternity establishment and child
support efforts against our concern about the burdens imposed both on
governmental agencies and needy families seeking assistance.
The requirement on welfare agencies to make referrals within two
days of application may initially be burdensome in some States or
localities, but we believe that the broad automation of welfare and
child support enforcement programs substantially mitigates any such
burden, and that the two-day requirement is necessary to ensure timely
and effective paternity establishment efforts. Nevertheless, we welcome
specific comments on the administrative burden associated with this
two-day requirement.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This NPRM contains information collection requirements in sections
232.12, 232.46, and 235.70. As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Administration for Children and
Families has submitted a copy of these sections to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for review.
More specifically, sections 232.12 and 232.46 both include State
plan amendments; section 232.12(b) includes information to be provided
to the State welfare agency by the parent seeking assistance; and
section 235.70 revises prompt notice requirements.
One group of respondents to the proposed information collection
requirements is State welfare agencies. These agencies will be required
to revise their State plans to specify: (1) The actions, documents and
information required for cooperation of applicants and recipients--
including what additional information (beyond a name) individuals must
provide in order to establish paternity [at section 232.12(b)(3)]; (2)
the criteria for determining cooperation when individuals cannot
reasonably be expected to know the required identifying information
[also at section 232.12(b)(3)]; and (3) provision of benefits pending a
determination of cooperation or good cause in cases of compliance with
other requirements [at section 232.46]. The State plan changes are
necessary to ensure that States are making necessary changes to improve
the effectiveness of their paternity establishment and child support
efforts, while protecting needy individuals from undue harm and
unreasonable requirements. By requiring specification of these policies
and procedures in the State plans, we help to ensure broad public
access to information on the policies and procedures being implemented
by States and expand the opportunities for public comment on them. To
minimize the burden on respondents, we will be providing preprint pages
for their use. Adding this additional plan language will create a one-
time burden for the 54 State agencies, which we estimate will average 5
hours per State, for a total burden of 270 hours.
We expect State and local welfare agencies implementing these new
plan provisions will also spend additional time collecting, documenting
and inputting information when individuals apply for welfare and, if
needed, when recipients have their benefits redetermined. However, we
believe that the burden of collecting this information up front in the
welfare office should be substantially, if not fully, offset by a
reduced burden on child support and Medicaid agencies. These latter
agencies will face a reduction in their own administrative burdens
because they will be receiving more complete and more useful
information on the cases that are referred from the welfare office.
We estimate that 240,000 applicants per year would be affected by
these additional requirements (160,000 of which would become
recipients). We also estimate that each year about 55,000 recipients
who were previously affected by these requirements and previously
provided sufficient information would be again affected because of the
birth of a new child. Thus, a total of 295,000 applicants and
recipients would be affected on an annual basis.
In addition, over the first couple of years, as these requirements
are implemented, we estimate that 360,000 recipients would be affected
at the time of their first subsequent redetermination. The vast
majority of recipients will only be affected one time--at their first
redetermination following the implementation of the new requirements.
The burden on parents seeking assistance will be more significant,
but the precise impact is difficult to determine. We do not know the
specific policies and procedures the States will put into effect. We
also do not know what percentages of paternity cases are already
providing ``sufficient information'' under existing program rules.
Nevertheless, with these caveats in mind, we estimate that the number
of affected applicants and recipients per year would be 295,000 and the
average additional time required of each of these applicants and
recipients would be 30 minutes (i.e., 0.5 hours). Thus, the total
ongoing impact would be 147,500 hours per annum.
Likewise, we estimate that 360,000 recipients would be affected on
a one-time basis over the first couple of years as the new requirements
are implemented. Assuming a slightly higher hourly burden on these
recipient parents (of 45 minutes, or 0.75 hours, per individual) would
produce a total burden estimate of 270,000 hours.
We do not expect that the overall burden on State and local
agencies associated with the prompt notice requirements will be
affected by this proposed rule.
In summary, therefore, we estimate a net one-time burden on State
and local agencies of 270 burden hours; annual burdens for parents who
are either applicants or recipients with new infants of 147,500 burden
hours; and a one-time burden on recipient parents who are newly subject
to these requirements of 270,000 burden hours.
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) will consider
comments by the public on these proposed collections of information in:
Evaluating whether the proposed collections are necessary
for the proper performance of the functions of ACF, including whether
the information will have practical utility;
Evaluating the accuracy of ACF's estimate of the burden of
the proposed collections of information, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and the clarity of the
information to be collected;
Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on
those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or other
[[Page 37240]]
technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses.
To ensure that public comments are fully understood and have the
maximum effect on the development of final regulations, ACF urges that
each comment clearly identify the specific section or sections of the
regulations at issue and the type of respondent being addressed.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collections of
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB
receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect the
deadline for the public to comment on the proposed regulations. Written
comments to OMB on the proposed information collections should be sent
directly to the following: Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork
Reduction Project, 725 17th Street, NW., Washington, DC 20503, ATTN:
Ms. Wendy Taylor.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354) requires the
Federal government to anticipate and reduce the impact of regulations
and paperwork requirements on small businesses. The Secretary certifies
that these proposed regulations will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities because the primary
impact of these regulations is on State governments and individuals. We
do not believe that any provision will have direct impact on small
businesses or other small entities within the scope of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act and therefore, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not
required.
List of Subjects
45 CFR Part 232
Aid to families with dependent children, Child support, Grant
programs-social programs.
45 CFR Part 235
Aid to families with dependent children, Fraud, Grant programs-
social programs, Public assistance programs.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs 93.020, Assistance
Payments Maintenance Assistance.)
Dated: June 21, 1996.
Mary Jo Bane,
Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.
Approved: July 1, 1996.
Donna E. Shalala,
Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, we propose to amend
Chapter II of Title 45 of Code of Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 232--SPECIAL PROVISIONS APPLICABLE TO TITLE IV-A OF THE SOCIAL
SECURITY ACT
1. The authority citation for Part 232 is amended to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 602, and 1302.
2. Section 232.12 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (b) and paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(3).
Sec. 232.12 Cooperation in obtaining support.
* * * * *
(b) The plan shall specify that ``cooperate'' includes any of the
actions reflected in paragraphs (b) (1), (2), (3), or (4) of this
section that are relevant to, or necessary for, the achievement of the
objectives specified in paragraph (a) of this section:
(1) Appearing at an office of the State or local agency or the
child support agency as necessary prior to receipt of benefits (or, if
necessary for recipients, at redetermination) to provide verbal or
written information, or documentary evidence known to, possessed by, or
reasonably obtainable by the applicant or recipient.
(i) An applicant or recipient who knowingly provides false
information shall be subject to prosecution for perjury.
(ii) States shall specify the actions, documents and information
required of applicants and recipients to cooperate in achieving the
objectives specified in paragraph (a).
(2) * * *
(3)(i) As part of the requirement to cooperate in paternity
establishment, providing:
(A) The name of the putative father; and
(B) Sufficient additional information to enable the State agency,
if reasonable efforts were made, to verify the identity of the person
named; including such information as the putative father's social
security number; date of birth; past or present address; telephone
number; past or present place of employment; past or present school
attended; names and addresses of parents, friends or relatives able to
provide location information; or other information which could enable
service of process on such person.
(ii) The State shall establish criteria for determining cooperation
in cases where the individual cannot reasonably be expected to know the
required identifying information about the father (including, but not
limited to, cases where long term recipients do not know the required
information due to a lapse of a long period of time since contact with
the father).
* * * * *
3. Section 232.46 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 232.46 Granting or continuation of assistance.
The plan shall provide that the State or local agency will not
deny, delay, or discontinue assistance pending a determination of
cooperation or good cause for refusal to cooperate if the applicant or
recipient has complied with the requirements of Secs. 232.12, 232.40(c)
and 232.43 to furnish corroborative evidence and information. This
requirement applies to the 45-day application processing time frame, a
shorter application period as elected by the State and to all
applications filed under any State-defined criteria for emergency
processing.
PART 235--ADMINISTRATION OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS
1. The authority citation for Part 235 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 603, 616, and 1302.
2. Section 235.70 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(2), removing
paragraph (b)(3), and redesignating paragraph (b)(4) as (b)(3) to read
as follows:
Sec. 235.70 Prompt notice to child support or Medicaid agency.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(2) Prompt notice means written notice including a copy of the AFDC
case record, or all relevant information as prescribed by the child
support agency. Prompt notice must also include all relevant
information as prescribed by the State medicaid agency for the pursuit
of liable third parties. The prompt notice shall be provided within two
working days of the filing of the application.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-18116 Filed 7-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4150-04-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-18081 New England Fishery Management Council; Meeting
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37241-37242]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18081]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 648
[I.D. 070596D]
New England Fishery Management Council; Meeting
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Public meeting.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The New England Fishery Management Council (Council) will hold
a 2-day meeting to consider actions affecting New England fisheries in
the exclusive economic zone.
DATES: The meeting will begin on Wednesday, July 17, 1996, at 10 a.m.
and on Thursday, July 18, 1996, at 8:30 a.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at the Holiday Inn, Route One,
Peabody, MA; telephone (508) 535-4600. Requests for special
accommodations should be addressed to the New England Fishery
Management Council, 5 Broadway, Saugus, MA 01906-1097; telephone: (617)
231-0422.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas G. Marshall, Executive
Director, (617) 231-0422.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
July 17, 1996
After introductions, the July 17 session will begin with a report
on and discussion of the Canadian Program for Responsible Fishing
Operations. The Marine Mammal Committee report will follow and include
a recommendation to take final action on Framework Adjustment 16 to the
Northeast Multispecies Fishery Management Plan (Multispecies FMP) that
would extend the timing of the Mid-coast Closure Area. An additional
measure under consideration for the same framework adjustment would
prohibit the use of pelagic and any other gillnets in the harbor
porpoise time/area closures under certain conditions.
In the afternoon, the Multispecies Groundfish Committee will review
and possibly recommend changes to the gillnet effort reduction measures
currently in the FMP. Additionally, they will discuss membership on the
Council's Multispecies Monitoring Committee, progress on the
development of a fishery management plan for whiting, and possible
alternatives to the Gulf of Maine
[[Page 37242]]
groundfish area closures. The Council also will consider final action
on Framework Adjustments 17 and 18, as explained below. There will also
be an update on the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission's
(ASMFC's) Winter Flounder Plan.
July 18, 1996
The July 18 session will begin with reports from the Council
Chairman; Executive Director; Director, Northeast Region, NMFS
(Regional Director); and representatives from the Northeast Fisheries
Science Center; ASMFC; U.S. Coast Guard; and the Mid Atlantic Council.
The Herring Committee Chairman will brief the Council on the outcome of
the most recent United States/Canada meeting. The Enforcement Committee
will discuss its review of the management alternatives proposed for
inclusion in the proposed monkfish fishery management plan (Monkfish
FMP). There will be a discussion of the experimental fishery for
mahogany quahogs in the Gulf of Maine. The Regional Director is
considering an experimental fishery for vessels involved in a Fishing
Industry Grant (FIG) entitled ``Local Production and Market Development
for High Quality Cape Cod Shark Frozen Fillets.'' The objective of the
project is to enhance dogfish processing and marketing. Operations
under the FIG grant have become restricted by the implementation of
Amendment 7 to the Multispecies FMP and therefore possibly threaten the
success of the grant. Experimental fishing permits would be necessary
for vessels to continue to operate as they had done under Amendment 5
to the FMP. The Regional Director is considering issuing experimental
fishing permits for federally permitted vessels that may be involved in
a continuation of a gear development project conducted by the
Massachusetts Division of Marine Fisheries (MADMF) in the Cape Cod Bay/
Massachusetts Bay area. The purpose of the experimental fishery is to
continue to test and refine a MADMF constructed trawl and the
associated fishing technique as a selective type of gear that can be
used in the whiting fishery, as well as the dogfish and red hake
fisheries. The MADMF expects its experimental net to retain primarily
whiting, red hake, and dogfish while minimizing the catch of bottom
dwelling groundfish. The information compiled by MADMF from last year's
experiment has been reviewed by NMFS and supports continuation of the
project.
The afternoon session will include reports from the Gear Conflict
and Monkfish Committees. There will be a briefing on the most recent
industry meeting concerning a proposed framework adjustment to address
the Southern New England gear conflict situation, as well as a status
report on the development of monkfish management alternatives. The
Monkfish Committee will present a Monkfish FMP draft public hearing
document for Council comment. The Council will address any other
outstanding business at the conclusion of the agenda items described
above.
Background for Framework Adjustments
Abbreviated Rulemaking--Northeast Multispecies
At the recommendation of its Marine Mammal Committee, the Council
will consider final action on Framework Adjustment 16 to the
Multispecies FMP under the framework for abbreviated rulemaking
procedure contained in 50 CFR 648.90. The Council proposes to further
reduce the bycatch of harbor porpoise in the Gulf of Maine sink gillnet
fishery by extending the timing of the Mid-coast Closure Area.
Currently, the use of sink gillnets is prohibited from November 1
through December 31. This adjustment would add September 15 through
October 31 to the existing period. No change in area is proposed
although the Council may recommend an experimental fishery to continue
the assessment of the use of acoustic deterrents to mitigate the
porpoise bycatch.
Final action also may be taken on a provision to prohibit the use
of pelagic and other gillnets during the harbor porpoise time/area
closures. The measure, which also would be included in Framework
Adjustment 16, would allow such gillnets if they were constructed of
mesh less than the regulated size of 6 inches (15 cm), were not
anchored to the bottom but attached to the boat, had surface floats,
and were set in the top third of the water column. The Council is
considering two options for the length of the net, 300 feet (91 m) and
900 feet (274 m).
At the recommendation of its Groundfish Committee, the Council will
consider final action on Framework Adjustments 17 and 18 to the
Multispecies FMP. Framework Adjustment 17 would restore DAS to vessels
that took time out of the groundfish fishery between May 31 and July 1
and were then subject to a DAS allocation under Amendment 7, which
again subtracted days for those same months. This adjustment would
rectify the inequity. Framework Adjustment 18 would allow herring/
mackerel fishing with pelagic mid-water trawls in areas of Georges Bank
now closed to all gear capable of catching groundfish.
The Council will consider public comments at a minimum of two
Council meetings prior to making any final recommendations to the
Regional Director under the provisions for abbreviated rulemaking cited
above. If the Regional Director concurs with the measures proposed by
the Council, he will publish them as a final rule in the Federal
Register.
Special Accommodations
This meeting is physically accessible to people with disabilities.
Requests for sign language interpretation or other auxiliary aids
should be directed to Douglas G. Marshall, New England Fishery
Management Council (see ADDRESSES), at least 5 days prior to the
meeting date.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: July 11, 1996.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-18081 Filed 7-11-96; 4:51 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-18077 Revision of Broadcast EEO Policies
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37240-37241]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18077]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37241]]
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1 and 73
[MM Docket No. 96-16, DA 96-1033]
Revision of Broadcast EEO Policies
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment and reply comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In Streamlining Broadcast EEO Rules and Policies, DA 96-1033,
released June 26, 1996, (Streamlining), the Commission grants a motion
for extension of time concerning the Commission's Order and Notice of
Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-16, (NPRM). A group of
organizations request the extension of time due to, among other things,
staff shortages. The Commission finds that the public interest favors
grant of the motion for extension of time for filing comments, as well
as a corresponding extension of time for filing reply comments.
DATES: Initial comments due July 11, 1996; reply comments due August
12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission,
Washington, D.C. 20554.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Hope G. Cooper, Mass Media Bureau,
Enforcement Division. (202) 418-1450.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Adopted: June 26, 1996.
Released: June 26, 1996.
Comment Date: July 11, 1996.
Reply Comment Date: August 12, 1996.
1. On February 8, 1996, the Commission adopted an Order and Notice
of Proposed Rule Making, 11 FCC Rcd 5154 (1996), 61 FR 9964 (March 12,
1996) (NPRM), which vacated the Commission's EEO Forfeiture Policy
Statement and requested comment on proposals for amending the
Commission's EEO Rule and policies. Comment and Reply Comment dates
were established for April 30, 1996, and May 30, 1996, respectively.
2. On April 12, 1996, twenty organizations, including the Minority
Media and Telecommunications Council (hereinafter ``Petitioners''),
filed a Motion for Extension of Time to file comments in response to
the above-captioned proceeding.1 On April 26, 1996, the Commission
granted the Petitioners' request for extension of time.2 The date
for filing comments was extended to July 1, 1996, and the date for
filing reply comments was extended to July 31, 1996.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ See National Council of Churches et al., Petition For
Reconsideration and Clarification, MM Docket No. 96-16, filed April
11, 1996, at 1.
\2\ FCC 96-198 (released: April 26, 1996), 61 FR 25183 (May 20,
1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. On June 20, 1996, Petitioners filed a Motion for Further
Extension of Time. Therein, Petitioners request that we extend further
the date for submission of comments in response to the NPRM by ten
days, until July 11, 1996. Petitioners do not seek an extension of the
reply comment deadline. In support of their request, petitioners state
that they are conducting ``very extensive research on broadcast
stations' EEO practices, in order to provide the Commission and the
other parties with a useful database for evaluation of the Commission's
proposals.'' 3 They assert that due to, among other things, staff
shortages, ``it is physically impossible to complete this task by July
1.'' 4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Minority Media and Telecommunications Council et al., Motion
For Further Extension of Time, MM Docket No. 96-16, filed June 20,
1996, at 1.
\4\ Id. at 2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. It is Commission policy that extensions of time not be routinely
granted. See Section 1.46(a) of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR Section
1.46(a). We believe, however, that the public interest favors grant of
the request for extension of time for filing comments in this
proceeding. In addition, we believe that the public interest favors a
corresponding extension of time for filing reply comments. Accordingly,
we will extend the date for filing comments to July 11, 1996, and
extend the date for filing reply comments to August 12, 1996.
5. Accordingly, it is ordered that the Motion for Extension of Time
filed by Petitioners is granted and that the Commission, on its own
motion, also extends the time for filing reply comments.
6. It is therefore ordered that the dates for filing comments and
reply comments in this proceeding ARE EXTENDED to July 11, 1996, and
August 12, 1996, respectively.
7. This action is taken pursuant to authority found in Sections
4(i) and 303(r) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, 47
U.S.C. Sections 4(i) and 303(r), and Sections 0.204(b), 0.283 and 1.46
of the Commission's Rules, 47 CFR Sections 0.204(b), 0.283 and 1.46.
Federal Communications Commission.
Roy J. Stewart,
Chief, Mass Media Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-18077 Filed 7-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-18061 Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Cold Bay, Nome, and Tanana, AK
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37231-37232]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18061]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-AAL-9]
Proposed Revision of Class E Airspace; Cold Bay, Nome, and
Tanana, AK
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action revises the Class E airspace at Cold Bay, Nome,
and Tanana, AK. The development of the Global Positioning System (GPS)
instrument procedures to Nome Airport, AK, and Ralph M. Calhoun
Memorial (Tanana), AK, have made this action necessary. Revisions to
the Cold Bay Class E airspace will correct discrepancies found during
an airspace review. The areas would be depicted on aeronautical charts
for pilot reference. The intended effect of this proposal is to provide
adequate controlled airspace for Instrument Flight Rules (IFR)
operations at Cold Bay, Nome, and Tanana, AK.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Manager,
System Management Branch, AAL-530, Docket No. 96-AAL-9, Federal
Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK
99513-7587.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel for the Alaskan Region at the same address.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours in the Office of the Manager, System Management Branch, Air
Traffic Division, at the address shown above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert van Haastert, System Management
Branch, AAL-538, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue,
Box 14, Anchorage, AK 99513-7587; telephone number (907) 271-5863.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket number and be
submitted in triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing
the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must
submit with those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which
the following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-
AAL-9.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications
[[Page 37232]]
received on or before the specified closing date for comments will be
considered before taking action on the proposed rule. The proposal
contained in this notice may be changed in light of comments received.
All comments submitted will be available for examination in the System
Management Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal Aviation
Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14, Anchorage, AK, both before
and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each
substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerned with this
rulemaking will be filed in the docket.
Availability of NPRM's
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the System Management Branch, AAL-
530, Federal Aviation Administration, 222 West 7th Avenue, Box 14,
Anchorage, AK 99513-7587. Communications must identify the notice
number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing
list for future NPRM's should also request a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A which describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to modify Class E airspace at
Cold Bay, Nome, and Tanana, AK. This action is necessary to correct the
airspace legal description for Cold Bay, AK, and accommodate new GPS
instrument approach procedures at Nome Airport, AK, and Ralph M.
Calhoun Airport (Tanana), AK. The coordinates for this airspace docket
are based on North American Datum 83. The Class E airspace areas
designated as 700/1200 foot transition areas are published in paragraph
6005 of FAA Order 7400.9C, dated August 17, 1995, and effective
September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1
(58 FR 36298; July 6, 1993). The Class E airspace designation listed in
this document would be published subsequently in the Order. The FAA has
determined that these proposed regulations only involve an established
body of technical regulations for which frequent and routine amendments
are necessary to keep them operationally current. It, therefore--(1) is
not a ``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866;
(2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant
preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the anticipated impact is so
minimal. Since this is a routine matter that will only affect air
traffic procedures and air navigation, it is certified that this rule,
when promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR
9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 14 CFR
11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
* * * * *
Paragraph 6002 The Class E airspace areas listed below are
designated as a surface area for an airport.
* * * * *
AAL AK E2 Cold Bay, AK [Revised]
Cold Bay Airport, AK
(lat. 55 deg.12'20'' N, long. 162 deg.43'27'' W)
Cold Bay VORTAC
(lat. 55 deg.16'03'' N, long. 162 deg.46'27'' W)
Elfee NDB
(lat. 55 deg.17'46'' N, long. 162 deg.47'21'' W)
Within a 4.7-mile radius of the Cold Bay Airport and within 2.6
miles each side of the 338 deg. bearing and the 158 deg. bearing
from the Elfee NDB, extending from the 4.7-mile radius to 13 miles
north of the airport and within 3 miles each side of the Cold Bay
VORTAC 150 deg. radial, extending from the 4.7-mile radius to 17.4
miles south of the airport.
* * * * *
AAL AK E2 Nome, AK [Revised]
Nome Airport, AK
(lat. 64 deg.30'44'' N, long. 165 deg.26'43'' W)
Nome VORTAC
(lat. 64 deg.29'06'' N, long. 165 deg.15'11'' W)
Gold NDB/DME
(lat. 64 deg.30'46'' N, long. 165 deg.25'01'' W)
Within a 3.9-mile radius of the Nome Airport and within 3.4
miles each side of the Nome VORTAC 106 deg. radial, extending from
the 3.9-mile radius to 12.1 miles east of the airport, and within
3.4 miles each side of the Nome VORTAC 286 deg. radial extending
from the 3.9-mile radius to 6 miles west of the airport, and within
3.5 miles each side of the 195 deg. bearing from the Gold NDB/DME
extending from the 3.9-mile radius to 6 miles south of the airport.
AAL AK E2 Tanana, AK [Revised]
Ralph M. Calhoun Memorial Airport, AK
(lat. 65 deg.10'28'' N, long. 152 deg.06'34'' W)
Bear Creek NDB
(lat. 65 deg.10'26'' N, long. 152 deg.12'21'' W)
Tanana VOR/DME
(lat. 65 deg.10'38'' N, long. 152 deg.10'39'' W)
Within a 3.9-mile radius of the Ralph M. Calhoun Memorial
Airport and within 2.5 miles south and 3.5 miles north of the
250 deg. bearing from the Bear Creek NDB extending from the NDB to
9.5 miles west of the NDB, and 2.5 miles north of the Tanana VOR/DME
277 deg. radial extending from 3.9-mile radius to 7 miles west of
the VOR/DME. This Class E airspace area is effective during the
specific dates and times established in advance by a Notice to
Airmen. The effective date and time will thereafter be continuously
published in the Supplement Alaska (Airport/Facility Directory).
* * * * *
Issued in Anchorage, AK, on July 8, 1996.
Trent S. Cummings,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Alaskan Region.
[FR Doc. 96-18061 Filed 7-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-18060 Proposed Amendment to Class D Airspace; Smyrna, TN
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37230-37231]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18060]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ASO-15]
Proposed Amendment to Class D Airspace; Smyrna, TN
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This notice proposes to amend Class D surface area airspace at
Smyrna, TN. Due to the relocation of the Nashville VORTAC, an airspace
review of the Smyrna, TN, Class D airspace area was conducted. As a
result of the airspace review, it was determined that the Smyrna Class
D airspace area for the Smyrna Airport requires redefinition by
removing a small exclusion and reducing the height from 3,000 feet to
2,000 feet MSL in the northwest quadrant of the Smyrna Class D airspace
area.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before August 26, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal in triplicate to: Federal
Aviation Administration, Docket No. 96-ASO-15, Manager, Operations
Branch, ASO-530, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320.
The official docket may be examined in the Office of the Assistant
Chief Counsel for Southern Region, Room 550, 1701 Columbia Avenue,
College Park, Georgia 30337, telephone (404) 305-5586.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Benny L. McGlamery, Operations Branch, Air Traffic Division, Federal
Aviation Administration, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320;
telephone (404) 305-5570.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested parties are invited to participate in this proposed
rulemaking by submitting such written data, views or arguments as they
may desire. Comments that provide the factual basis supporting the
views and suggestions presented are particularly helpful in developing
reasoned regulatory decisions on the proposal. Comments are
specifically invited on the overall regulatory, aeronautical, economic,
environmental, and energy-related aspects of the proposal.
Communications should identify the airspace docket and be submitted in
triplicate to the address listed above. Commenters wishing the FAA to
acknowledge receipt of their comments on this notice must submit with
those comments a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the
following statement is made: ``Comments to Airspace Docket No. 96-ASO-
15.'' The postcard will be date/time stamped and returned to the
commenter. All communications received before the specified closing
date for comments will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposal contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received. All
[[Page 37231]]
comments submitted will be available for examination in the Office of
the Assistant Chief Counsel for Southern Region, Room 550, 1701
Columbia Avenue, College Park, Georgia 30337, both before and after the
closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public
contact with FAA personnel concerned with this rulemaking will be filed
in the docket.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
(NPRM) by submitting a request to the Federal Aviation Administration,
Manager, Operations Branch, ASO-530, Air Traffic Division, P.O. Box
20636, Atlanta, Georgia 30320. Communications must identify the notice
number of this NPRM. Persons interested in being placed on a mailing
list for future NPRMs should also request a copy of Advisory Circular
No. 11-2A which describes the application procedure.
The Proposal
The FAA is considering an amendment to Part 71 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) to amend Class D surface area
airspace Smyrna, TN. As a result of the relocation of the Nashville
VORTAC, an airspace of the Smyrna, TN, Class D airspace area was
conducted. As a result of the airspace review, it was determined that
the Smyrna Class D airspace area required redefinition by removing a
small exclusion and reducing the height from 3,000 feet to 2,000 feet
MSL in the northwest quadrant of the Smyrna Class D airspace area.
Class D airspace designations are published in Paragraph 5000 of FAA
Order 7400.9C, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995,
which are incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class D
airspace designation listed in this document would be published
subsequently in the Order.
The FAA has determined that this proposed regulation only involves
an established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
It, therefore, (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a regulatory evaluation as the
anticipated impact is so minimal. Since this is a routine matter that
will only affect air traffic procedures and air navigation, it is
certified that this rule, when promulgated, will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities under the
criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (Air).
The Proposed Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration proposes to amend 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 14 CFR Part 71 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389; 14 CFR 11.69.
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 5000 Class D airspace.
* * * * *
ASO TN D Smyrna, TN [Revised]
Smyrna Airport, TN
(lat. 36 deg.00'32''N, long. 86 deg.31'12''W)
That airspace extending upward from the surface to and including
3,000 feet MSL within a 3.9-mile radius of the Smyrna Airport,
excluding that airspace within the Nashville Class C airspace area.
This Class D airspace area is effective during the specific dates
and times established in advance by a Notice to Airmen. The
effective dates and times will thereafter be continuously published
in the Airport/Facility Directory.
* * * * *
Issued in College Park, Georgia, on July 3, 1996.
Benny L. McGlamery,
Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division, Southern Region.
[FR Doc. 96-18060 Filed 7-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-18021 Lending Limits
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37227-37229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18021]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 138 / Wednesday, July 17, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 37227]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
12 CFR Part 32
[Docket No. 96-14]
RIN 1557-AB55
Lending Limits
AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is
proposing revisions to its lending limits regulation in order to
provide additional flexibility for a national bank to preserve personal
property securing a loan, consistent with safe and sound banking
practices. The proposal also makes several technical changes designed
to clarify certain provisions in the current rule.
DATES: Comments must be received by September 16, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should be directed to Office of the Comptroller of
the Currency, Communications Division, 250 E Street, SW., Washington,
DC 20219, Attention: Docket No. 96-14. Comments will be available for
public inspection and photocopying at the same location. In addition,
comments may be sent by facsimile transmission to FAX number (202) 874-
5274 or by internet mail to [email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William C. Kerr, National Bank
Examiner, or Frank R. Carbone, National Bank Examiner, Credit and
Management Policy, (202) 874-5170; Laura Goldman, Attorney, or Aline J.
Henderson, Senior Attorney, Bank Activities and Structure Division,
(202) 874-5300; or Mark J. Tenhundfeld, Senior Attorney, Legislative
and Regulatory Activities Division, (202) 874-5090.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In 1995, as part of its Regulation Review Program (Program), the
OCC comprehensively revised its lending limits regulation. See 60 FR
8537 (February 15, 1995). These amendments to part 32 changed, among
other things, the definition of ``loans and extensions of credit'' to
exempt under certain circumstances additional funds advanced for the
payment of maintenance and operating expenses necessary to preserve the
value of real property securing a loan. See 12 CFR 32.2(j)(2)(i). Also,
the amendments changed the definition of ``capital and surplus'' to
allow a national bank, in most instances, to calculate its lending
limit based on information contained in the bank's most recent
quarterly Consolidated Report of Condition and Income (Call Report).
See id. Sec. 32.4.
As is explained in greater detail in the discussion that follows,
these changes prompted requests for the OCC: (a) to extend the
exemption for funds advanced to preserve and maintain collateral to
loans secured by personal property as well as to loans secured by real
property; and (b) to clarify the date on which a national bank must
recalculate its capital and surplus. This proposal addresses both
issues, and makes several technical changes designed to improve part 32
without changing its substance. Moreover, the proposal reflects the
OCC's continuing commitment to assess the effectiveness of the rules it
has revised under the Program and to make further changes where
necessary to improve a regulation.
The OCC invites comments of a general nature on all aspects of the
proposal in addition to comments on specific issues identified in the
text that follows.
The Proposal
Definition of ``Loans and Extensions of Credit'' (Sec. 32.2(j))
Current Sec. 32.2(j)(2)(i) states that additional funds advanced
for the benefit of a borrower by a bank for payment of maintenance and
operating expenses necessary to preserve the value of real property
securing a loan are not ``loans or extensions of credit'' for purposes
of 12 U.S.C. 84 and part 32 under certain circumstances. This exemption
for funds advanced to protect collateral does not address advances for
the purpose of protecting personal property collateral.
The proposal amends the current exemption by treating an advance to
protect personal property collateral the same as an advance to protect
real property collateral. The reasoning underlying both types of
advances is identical, namely, to protect the position of the lending
bank by preserving collateral prior to foreclosure in order to avoid
greater expenses later. For example, advancing funds for the purpose of
preserving the condition of equipment or getting perishable crops to
market may protect the bank's condition more effectively than waiting
until after foreclosure to take the steps necessary to protect the
bank's interest.
Under the proposal, an advance to protect personal property
collateral is subject to the same safeguards that currently apply to an
advance to protect real property. Thus, the advance must be for
maintenance and operating expenses only to the extent necessary to
preserve the collateral, and must be consistent with safe and sound
banking practices. These advances are permitted only for the purpose of
protecting a bank's interest in the collateral. Moreover, a bank must
treat any amount so advanced as an extension of credit if the bank
makes a new loan to the borrower.
In proposing this expansion of the exemption, the OCC expects that
a bank will reasonably anticipate a borrower's need to fund various
expenses in determining the appropriate size of the loan that the bank
will make. Moreover, the OCC intends for the exemption not to create
incentives for borrowers to divert or reclassify spending in order to
qualify larger portions of their credit needs for the exemption. A bank
that wishes to advance funds pursuant to the proposed exemption should
be able to document what collateral is being protected, how the
additional advance will preserve the collateral, why the amount of the
advance is the necessary amount, the basis for the bank's belief that
the additional advance is likely to be repaid, and how the bank's
position would be protected by preserving the collateral as compared to
attempting a sale of the property.
The proposal also clarifies that the exemption, whether it applies
to
[[Page 37228]]
advances to protect real or personal property, is to protect and
maintain identified collateral for a particular loan. The exemption is
not intended to allow a bank to speculate on the value of collateral by
advancing additional funds in the hope that increasing collateral
values will enable the borrower to repay all funds advanced. Nor is the
exemption intended to permit a bank to continue funding the operations
of a borrower until the borrower's business fortunes improve. To
further clarify the scope of the exemption with respect to advances to
protect either real or personal property collateral, and to emphasize
that the exception is not available for speculative purposes, the
proposal deletes the words ``value of'' used in conjunction with the
reference to the relevant real or personal property.
The OCC requests comment on whether the restrictions it proposes to
place on the advance of funds pursuant to the expanded exemption are
workable and adequate to insure safety and soundness. Commenters are
invited to suggest additional or alternative conditions.
Calculation of Lending Limits (Sec. 32.4)
Current Sec. 32.4(a) requires a bank to calculate its lending limit
as of the later of the date when the bank's Call Report ``is required
to be filed'' or when the bank's capital category changes for purposes
of the prompt corrective action provisions of 12 U.S.C. 1831o and 12
CFR part 6. Pursuant to current Sec. 32.4(b), the OCC may require a
national bank to calculate its lending limit more frequently if the OCC
determines that the bank should do so for safety and soundness reasons.
Because the General Instructions to the Call Report refer to two
separate ``filing'' dates, questions have arisen under the current rule
concerning the date on which a recalculated lending limit is to become
effective. The first potential filing date identified in the General
Instructions, termed the ``report date,'' is defined as the last
calendar day of each calendar quarter. The second potential filing
date, termed the ``submission date,'' is the date by which the
appropriate Federal banking agency must receive the Call Report. For
most banks, the submission date is 30 days after the report date. Thus,
the reference in the current rule to the date when the Call Report ``is
required to be filed'' could produce some confusion as to when a
recalculated limit becomes effective, depending on which ``filing''
date is used.
The proposal resolves this ambiguity by distinguishing the
``calculation date'' of a lending limit from its ``effective date.''
Assuming that a national bank's capital category has not changed, the
bank is to calculate its lending limit using numbers reported in the
bank's most recent Call Report, and, therefore, base its lending limit
on the bank's capital and surplus as of the end of the most recent
calendar quarter (the calculation date). However, this new limit will
not be effective until the earlier of the date on which the bank
submits its Call Report or is required to submit the Call Report (the
effective date). The proposal amends Sec. 32.4(a)(1), redesignates
current Sec. 32.4(b) as Sec. 32.4(c), and adds a new Sec. 32.4(b) that
sets forth the effective date for using the updated numbers to
accomplish this result.
If a bank's capital category for prompt corrective action purposes
changes, then the bank must determine its lending limit as of the date
on which the capital category changes. The new limit in this instance
will be effective on the date that the limit is to be recalculated. The
OCC also will continue its practice of permitting a recalculation of
lending limits at a point during a quarter when there is a material
change in a bank's capital arising from corporate activities such as a
merger or stock issuance.
Technical Amendments (Secs. 32.2(b) and 32.3(c))
The proposal makes several clarifying technical amendments to part
32. None of these amendments affects the substance of the current rule.
The technical amendments are summarized below.
Current Sec. 32.2(b) states that capital and surplus includes,
among other things, a bank's Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital ``included in
the bank's risk-based capital under'' the OCC's minimum capital ratios
as set forth in Appendix A to 12 CFR Part 3. The proposal clarifies
this definition by changing that language to refer to a bank's Tier 1
and Tier 2 capital ``calculated under the OCC's risk-based capital
standards set out in Appendix A to part 3 of this chapter as reported
in the bank's Consolidated Report of Condition and Income as filed
under 12 U.S.C. 161.''
Current Sec. 32.3(c)(4)(ii) exempts a loan from the lending limits
to the extent that the loan is secured by an unconditional takeout
commitment or guarantee of a Federal agency. In explaining when a
commitment or guarantee is unconditional, Sec. 32.3(c)(4)(ii)(B) notes
that protection against loss is not materially diminished or impaired
by a procedural requirement, such as ``an agreement to take over only
in the event of default * * *.'' The proposal clarifies that the phrase
``an agreement to take over'' means an agreement to pay on an
obligation.
Finally, current Sec. 32.3(c)(6)(ii)(B) states that a bank must
establish procedures to revalue foreign currency deposits to ensure
that the loan or extension of credit remains fully secured at all
times. The proposal clarifies that the revaluation must be periodic.
The OCC invites comments on these proposed technical amendments and
suggestions for other technical changes that would clarify or improve
the rule.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
It is hereby certified that this proposal will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
As is explained in greater detail in the preamble to this proposal, the
only substantive change that is proposed would enhance a national
bank's ability to protect its interest in real property that serves as
collateral for a loan already made by the bank. By relaxing a
restriction that currently impedes this ability, the proposal will
reduce the regulatory burden on national banks, regardless of size.
Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required.
Executive Order 12866
The OCC has determined that this proposal is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates
Act) requires that an agency prepare a budgetary impact statement
before promulgating a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) likely to
result in a rule that includes a Federal mandate that may result in the
annual expenditure of $100 million or more in any one year by State,
local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private
sector. If a budgetary impact statement is required, section 205 of the
Unfunded Mandates Act requires an agency to identify and consider a
reasonable number of alternatives before promulgating an NPRM. The OCC
has determined that the proposal will not result in expenditures by
State, local, and tribal governments, or by the private sector, of more
than $100 million in any one year. Accordingly, the OCC has not
prepared a budgetary impact statement or specifically addressed the
regulatory alternatives considered. As discussed in the preamble, the
proposal would clarify certain provisions of the current rule and
provide additional flexibility to a
[[Page 37229]]
national bank to extend credit for the purpose of protecting personal
property that secures a loan from the bank.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 32
National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Authority and Issuance
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 32 of chapter I of
title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended
as set forth below:
PART 32--LENDING LIMITS
1. The authority citation for part 32 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1 et seq., 84, and 93a.
2. In Sec. 32.2, paragraphs (b) and (j)(2)(i) are revised to read
as follows:
Sec. 32.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
(b) Capital and surplus means--
(1) A bank's Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital calculated under the OCC's
risk-based capital standards set out in Appendix A to part 3 of this
chapter as reported in the bank's Consolidated Report of Condition and
Income as filed under 12 U.S.C. 161; plus
(2) The balance of a bank's allowance for loan and lease losses not
included in the bank's Tier 2 capital, for purposes of the calculation
of risk-based capital under Appendix A to part 3 of this chapter, as
reported in the bank's Consolidated Report of Condition and Income as
filed under 12 U.S.C. 161.
* * * * *
(j) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) Additional funds advanced for the benefit of a borrower by a
bank for payment of taxes, insurance, utilities, security, and
maintenance and operating expenses to the extent necessary to preserve
real or personal property securing the loan, consistent with safe and
sound banking practices, but only if the advance is for the protection
of the bank's interest in the collateral, and provided that such
amounts must be treated as an extension of credit if a new loan or
extension of credit is made to the borrower;
* * * * *
Sec. 32.3 [Amended]
3. Paragraph (c)(4)(ii)(B) of Sec. 32.3 is amended in the last
sentence by removing the term ``take over'' and adding in lieu thereof
``pay on the obligation''.
4. Paragraph (c)(6)(ii)(B) of Sec. 32.3 is amended by adding the
word ``periodically'' before the word ``revalue''.
5. Section 32.4 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 32.4 Calculation of lending limits.
(a) Calculation date. For purposes of determining compliance with
12 U.S.C. 84 and this part, a bank shall determine its lending limit as
of the most recent of the following dates--
(1) The last day of the preceding calendar quarter; or
(2) The date on which there is a change in the bank's capital
category for purposes of 12 U.S.C. 1831o and Sec. 6.3 of this chapter.
(b) Effective date. (1) A bank's lending limit calculated in
accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of this section will be effective as
of the earlier of the following dates--
(i) The date on which the bank's Consolidated Report of Condition
and Income (Call Report) is submitted; or
(ii) The date on which the bank's Call Report is required to be
submitted.
(2) A bank's lending limit calculated in accordance with paragraph
(a)(2) of this section will be effective on the date that the limit is
to be calculated.
(c) More frequent calculations. If the OCC determines for safety
and soundness reasons that a bank should calculate its lending limit
more frequently than required by paragraph (a) of this section, the OCC
may provide written notice to the bank directing the bank to calculate
its lending limit at a more frequent interval, and the bank shall
thereafter calculate its lending limit at that interval until further
notice.
Dated: June 24, 1996.
Eugene A. Ludwig,
Comptroller of the Currency.
[FR Doc. 96-18021 Filed 7-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-33-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-18011 Electronic Fund Transfers
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 37229]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18011]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM
12 CFR Part 205
[Regulation E; Docket No. R-0919]
Electronic Fund Transfers
AGENCY: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.
ACTION: Proposed rule; Extension of comment period.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 2, 1996, the Board requested comment on a proposal to
amend Regulation E, which implements the Electronic Fund Transfer Act,
to address the use of electronic communication in home-banking services
for providing disclosures and other documentation; error resolution
procedures for new accounts; and the treatment of stored-value cards
(imposing modified Regulation E requirements on stored-value products
in systems that track individual transactions, cards, or consumers;
providing an exemption for cards on which a maximum value of $100 can
be stored; and providing that other stored-value cards are not covered
by Regulation E). In response to requests for an extension of the
comment period, the Secretary of the Board, acting pursuant to
delegated authority, has extended the comment period from August 1,
1996, to September 6, 1996, to give the public additional time to
provide comments.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 6, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments should refer to Docket No. R-0919 and be mailed to
William W. Wiles, Secretary, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve
System, Washington, DC 20551. They may also be delivered to the guard
station in the Eccles Building Courtyard on 20th Street, N.W. (between
Constitution Avenue and C Street) between 8:45 a.m. and 5:15 p.m.
weekdays. Except as provided in the Board's rules regarding the
availability of information (12 CFR 261.8), comments will be available
for inspection and copying by members of the public in the Freedom of
Information Office, Room MP-500 of the Martin Building, between 9:00
a.m. and 5:00 p.m. weekdays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Regarding the proposed amendments on
electronic communications, Michael Hentrel, Staff Attorney, and
regarding the other proposed amendments, Jane Jensen Gell, Natalie
Taylor, or Obrea Poindexter, Staff Attorneys, Division of Consumer and
Community Affairs, at (202) 452-3667 or (202) 452-2412. For the hearing
impaired only, Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (TDD), Dorothea
Thompson, at (202) 452-3544.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board is extending the comment period on
the proposed amendments to Regulation E (Electronic Fund Transfers)
published on May 2, 1996 at 61 FR 19696 to give the public additional
time to comment on the proposal.
By order of the Secretary of the Board, acting pursuant to
delegated authority for the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System, July 10, 1996.
William W. Wiles,
Secretary of the Board.
[FR Doc. 96-18011 Filed 7-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6210-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-17989 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Wisconsin; Site-Specific Revision for General Electric Medical Systems
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 138 (Wednesday, July 17, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37232-37233]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-17989]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[WI72-01-7298b; FRL-5534-6]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Wisconsin;
Site-Specific Revision for General Electric Medical Systems
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency proposes to approve a
site-specific volatile organic compound (VOC) reasonably available
control technology (RACT) state implementation plan (SIP) revision for
the General Electric Medical Systems (GEM) facility located at 4855
West Electric Avenue in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. This SIP revision was
submitted by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) on
March 15, 1996. This approval would make federally enforceable the
State's consent order establishing an alternate control system for
GEM's cold cleaning operation.
In the final rules section of this Federal Register, the EPA is
approving this action as a direct final without prior
[[Page 37233]]
proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial action and
anticipates no adverse comments. If no adverse comments are received in
response to that direct final rule, no further activity is contemplated
in relation to this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments,
the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments
received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this document
should do so at this time.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received by August 16,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), EPA,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the Direct
Final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal
Register. Copies of the request and the EPA's analysis are available
for inspection at the following address: (Please telephone Kathleen
D'Agostino at (312) 886-1767 before visiting the Region 5 office.) EPA,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: June 17, 1996.
David A. Ullrich,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-17989 Filed 7-16-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.