issue-1996-02-27•Federal Register final rules — 1996-02-27
Federal Register final rules — 1996-02-27
issue-1996-02-27Federal Register final rules — 1996-02-27Regulation
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. 96-4428 Drug and Alcohol Testing of Contractor Employees
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7224-7226]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4428]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATION
48 CFR Parts 1823 and 1852
RIN 2700-AB68
Drug and Alcohol Testing of Contractor Employees
AGENCY: Office of Procurement, National Aeronautics and Space
Administration (NASA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule implements the Civil Space Employee Testing Act of
1991, which requires NASA contractors to institute and maintain a
program for achieving a drug and alcohol-free workforce. Contractor
programs shall provide for preemployment, reasonable suspicion, random,
post-accident, and periodic recurring (follow-up) testing of contractor
employees responsible for safety-sensitive, security, or National
security functions for use, in violation of applicable law or Federal
regulation, of alcohol or a controlled substance.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 28, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
David K. Beck, (202) 358-0482.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Civil Space Employees Testing Act of 1991, Public Law 102-195,
sec. 21, 105 Stat. 1616 to 1619, requires NASA to prescribe regulations
that require testing of NASA contractor
[[Page 7225]]
employees conducting safety-sensitive, security, and National security
functions for use, in violation of applicable law or Federal
regulation, of alcohol or a controlled substance. NASA published a
proposed rule on July 13, 1993, 58 FR 37697. Public comments on the
proposed rule have been considered in developing this rule.
Changes to Rule
A definition has been added to 1823.570-2 for the phrase ``use, in
violation of applicable law or Federal regulation, of alcohol.'' The
definition of ``employee in a sensitive position'' has been expanded to
include any applicant who is interviewed for a sensitive position.
In response to public comments, 1823.570-3 has been revised to add
a contract threshold of $5 million, clarify application of the clause,
and revise the exception for ``commercial products'' to cover
``commercial items.'' The exception for contracts performed outside the
U.S. has been removed. However, the clause has been revised to address
testing outside the U.S.
Editorial changes have been made to 1823.570-4 to shorten and, in
response to a public comment, clarify the section.
In response to a public comment, paragraph (b) of the clause at
1852.223-74 has been revised to remove the discussion of NASA
Management Instruction (NMI) 3792.3B, ``NASA Plan for a Drug-Free
Workplace.'' Appendix C of the NMI, sets forth guidelines that NASA
follows in making determinations as to which of its employees are in
sensitive positions. A contractor may follow these NASA guidelines in
making determinations as to which of its employees performing on the
contract are ``employee(s) in a sensitive position.'' However, there is
no need for NASA to include this guidance in the contract.
In response to a public comment, paragraph (b) has been revised to
allow establishment of testing and rehabilitation programs in
cooperation with other contractors or organizations.
To give contractors flexibility in tailoring their programs to test
for the use of controlled substances that pose the greatest threat to
safety, security, or National security, paragraph (b)(3) of the clause
requires testing only for marijuana and cocaine but allows the
contractor to test for other controlled substances.
Paragraph (b)(4) of the clause incorporates testing procedures
established by the Department of Transportation in 49 CFR part 40.
Paragraphs (c) and (d) of the clause are combined and clarified.
In response to public comments, a paragraph addressing labor
agreements has been added. It uses language from the Department of
Energy rule at 10 CFR 707.15 and the NASA rule proposed for NASA
employees (58 FR 36159, July 6, 1993, proposed for 14 CFR 1272.104).
In response to public comments, paragraph (g) has been revised to
state that the clause does not apply to any subcontract for commercial
items.
Starting Date for Drug and Alcohol Testing
NASA requested comments on the amount of time that contractors will
need, following contract award, to begin their drug and alcohol testing
programs in order to meet the requirements of the proposed contract
clause. Estimates included ``12 to 18 months,'' ``24 to 36 months,'' or
longer. Negotiation of labor agreements was cited as requiring
considerable time. Based on these comments, NASA has revised the clause
to address labor agreements. The rule does not otherwise specify the
amount of time that is considered reasonable for implementing the
required testing. As with other elements of contract performance, it is
anticipated that the contractor will make sufficient progress on
implementing this program to ensure contract performance.
Procedural Requirements
Review Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act
The rule was reviewed under the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980.
NASA certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Review Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
Under 5 CFR 1320.5(b)(2)(i), NASA is required to inform potential
persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such
persons who are to respond to the collection of information that such
persons are not required to respond to the collection of information
unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. Under 5 CFR
1320.5(b)(2)(ii)(C), this paragraph meets that display requirement by
providing the following statement: information collection associated
with this rule has been approved under OMB Control Numbers 2700-0085
and 2700-0089.
List of Subjects in 48 CFR Parts 1823 and 1852
Government procurement.
Deidre A. Lee,
Associate Administrator for Procurement.
Accordingly, 48 CFR parts 1823 and 1852 are amended as follows:
PART 1823--ENVIRONMENT, CONSERVATION, OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY, AND
DRUG-FREE WORKPLACE
1. The authority citation for 48 CFR Parts 1823 and 1852 continues
to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1).
2. Subpart 1823.5 is added to read as follows:
Subpart 1823.5--Drug-Free Workplace
Sec.
1823.570 Drug- and alcohol-free workforce.
1823.570-1 Scope.
1823.570-2 Definitions.
1823.570-3 Contract clause.
1823.570-4 Suspension of payments, termination of contract, and
debarment and suspension actions.
1823.570 Drug- and alcohol-free workforce.
1823.570-1 Scope.
Sections 1823.570 to 1823.570-4 set forth NASA requirements for
mandatory drug and alcohol testing of certain contractor personnel
under section 203, National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958, as
amended, 42 U.S.C. 2473, 72 Stat. 429; and Civil Space Employee Testing
Act of 1991, Public Law 102-195, sec. 21, 105 Stat. 1616 to 1619.
1823.570-2 Definitions.
As used in this subpart employee and controlled substance are as
defined in FAR 23.503. The use of a controlled substance in accordance
with the terms of a valid prescription, or other uses authorized by law
shall not be subject to the requirements of 1823.570 to 1823.570-4 and
the clause at 1852.223-74.
Employee in a sensitive position means a contractor or
subcontractor employee who has been granted access to classified
information; a contractor or subcontractor employee in other positions
that the contractor or subcontractor determines could reasonably be
expected to affect safety, security, National security, or functions
other than the foregoing requiring a high degree of trust and
confidence; and includes any employee performing in a position
designated ``mission critical'' pursuant to the clause at 1852.246-70.
The term also includes any applicant
[[Page 7226]]
who is interviewed for a position described in this paragraph.
Use, in violation of applicable law or Federal regulation, of
alcohol includes having, while on duty or during a preemployment
interview, an alcohol concentration of 0.04 percent by weight or more
in the blood, as measured by chemical test of the individual's breath
or blood. An individual's refusal to submit to such test is presumptive
evidence of use, in violation of applicable law or Federal regulation,
of alcohol.
1823.570-3 Contract Clause.
The contracting officer shall insert the clause at 1852.223-74,
``Drug- and Alcohol-Free Workforce,'' in all solicitations and
contracts containing the clause at 1852.246-70, ``Mission Critical
Space Systems Personnel Reliability Program,'' and in other
solicitations and contracts exceeding $5 million in which work is
performed by an employee in a sensitive position. However, the
contracting officer shall not insert the clause at 1852.223-74 in
solicitations and contracts for commercial items (see FAR parts 2 and
12).
1823.570-4 Suspension of payments, termination of contract, and
debarment and suspension actions.
The contracting officer shall comply with the procedures of FAR
23.506 regarding the suspension of contract payments, the termination
of the contract for default, and debarment and suspension of a
contractor relative to failure to comply with the clause at 1852.223-
74. Causes for suspension of contract payments, termination of the
contract for default, and debarment and suspension of the contractor
are the following:
(a) The contractor fails to comply with paragraph (b), (c), or (d)
of the clause at 1852.223-74; or
(b) Such a number of contractor employees in sensitive positions
having been convicted of violations of criminal drug statutes or
substantial evidence of drug or alcohol abuse or misuse occurring in
the workplace, as to indicate that the contractor has failed to make a
good faith effort to provide a drug- and alcohol-free workforce.
PART 1852--SOLICITATION PROVISIONS AND CONTRACT CLAUSES
3. Section 1852.223-74 is added to read as follows:
1852.223-74 Drug- and alcohol-free workforce.
As prescribed in 1823.570-3, insert the following clause:
Drug- and Alcohol-Free Workforce
(March 1996)
(a) Definitions. As used in this clause the terms ``employee,''
``controlled substance,'' ``employee in a sensitive position,'' and
``use, in violation of applicable law or Federal regulation, of
alcohol'' are as defined in 48 CFR 1823.570-2.
(b) (1) The Contractor shall institute and maintain a program
for achieving a drug- and alcohol-free workforce. As a minimum, the
program shall provide for preemployment, reasonable suspicion,
random, post-accident, and periodic recurring (follow-up) testing of
contractor employees in sensitive positions for use, in violation of
applicable law or Federal regulation, of alcohol or a controlled
substance. The Contractor may establish its testing or
rehabilitation program in cooperation with other contractors or
organizations.
(2) This clause neither prohibits nor requires the Contractor to
test employees in a foreign country. If the Contractor chooses to
conduct such testing, this does not authorize the Contractor to
violate foreign law in conducting such testing.
(3) The Contractor's program shall test for the use of marijuana
and cocaine. The Contractor's program may test for the use of other
controlled substances.
(4) The Contractor's program shall conform to the ``Mandatory
Guidelines for Federal Workplace Drug Testing Programs'' published
by the Department of Health and Human Services (59 FR 29908, June 9,
1994) and the procedures in 49 CFR part 40, ``Procedures for
Transportation Workplace Drug Testing Programs,'' in which
references to ``DOT'' shall be read as ``NASA'', and the split
sample method of collection shall be used.
(c) (1) The Contractor's program shall provide, where
appropriate, for the suspension, disqualification, or dismissal of
any employee in a sensitive position in any instance where a test
conducted and confirmed under the Contractor's program indicates
that such individual has used, in violation of applicable law or
Federal regulation, alcohol or a controlled substance.
(2) The Contractor's program shall further prohibit any such
individual from working in a sensitive position on a NASA contract,
unless such individual has completed a program of rehabilitation
described in paragraph (d) of this clause.
(3) The Contractor's program shall further prohibit any such
individual from working in any sensitive position on a NASA contract
if the individual is determined under the Contractor's program to
have used, in violation of applicable law or Federal regulation,
alcohol or a controlled substance and the individual meets any of
the following criteria:
(i) The individual had undertaken or completed a rehabilitation
program described in paragraph (d) of this clause prior to such use;
(ii) Following such determination, the individual refuses to
undertake such a rehabilitation program;
(iii) Following such determination, the individual fails to
complete such a rehabilitation program; or
(iv) The individual used a controlled substance or alcohol while
on duty.
(d) The Contractor shall institute and maintain an appropriate
rehabilitation program which shall, as a minimum, provide for the
identification and opportunity for treatment of employees whose
duties include responsibility for safety-sensitive, security, or
National security functions who are in need of assistance in
resolving problems with the use of alcohol or controlled substances.
(e) The requirements of this clause shall take precedence over
any state or local Government laws, rules, regulations, ordinances,
standards, or orders that are inconsistent with the requirements of
this clause.
(f) For any collective bargaining agreement, the Contractor will
negotiate the terms of its program with employee representatives, as
appropriate, under labor relations laws or negotiated agreements.
Such negotiation, however, cannot change the requirements of this
clause. Employees covered under collective bargaining agreements
will not be subject to the requirements of this clause until those
agreements have been modified, as necessary; provided, however, that
if one year after commencement of negotiation the parties have
failed to reach agreement, an impasse will be determined to have
been reached and the Contractor will unilaterally implement the
requirements of this clause.
(g) The Contractor shall insert a clause containing all the
terms of this clause, including this paragraph (g), in all
subcontracts in which work is performed by an employee in a
sensitive position, except subcontracts for commercial items (see
FAR parts 2 and 12).
(End of clause)
[FR Doc. 96-4428 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4416 Exemption From Garnishment for Temporary Housing Assistance
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4416]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
44 CFR Part 206
RIN 3067-AC39
Exemption From Garnishment for Temporary Housing Assistance
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule establishes that all financial assistance
provided under the Disaster Housing Program is exempt from garnishment,
seizure, encumbrance, levy, execution, pledge, attachment, release, or
waiver.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 28, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laurence W. Zensinger, Response and
Recovery Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, 500 C Street
SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-4262, (facsimile) 202-646-2730.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Financial assistance provided under the
Disaster Housing Program is not currently exempt from garnishment.
Financial assistance under the Individual and Family Grant (IFG)
Program is exempt from garnishment as specified in 44 CFR 206.131(l).
The purpose of financial assistance provided under the Disaster Housing
Program is to aid the applicant in obtaining safe housing following a
Presidentially declared disaster. When financial assistance provided to
an applicant is garnished, the housing needs of the applicant remain
unmet. Regulatory exemption from garnishment serves the intent of the
Disaster Housing Program. This final rule provides needed protection
for applicants who are awarded assistance.
FEMA previously published this as a proposed rule (69 FR 43740,
August 23, 1995), inviting comments. We received one brief postcard
comment in support of the proposed rule. We are publishing the final
rule with no changes from what we published in the proposed rule.
National Environmental Policy Act
This final rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of
44 CFR Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact
assessment has been prepared.
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action within the
meaning of Sec. 2(f) of E.O. 12866 of September 30, 1993, 58 FR 51735.
To the extent possible this final rule adheres to the regulatory
principles set forth in E.O. 12866, but it has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget under the provisions of E.O. 12866.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule does not contain a collection of information
requirement as described in section 3504(h) of the Paperwork Reduction
Act.
Executive Order 12612, Federalism
This final rule involves no policies that have federalism
implications under E.O. 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.
Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform
This final rule meets the applicable standards of Sec. 2(b)(2) of
E.O. 12778.
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 206
Administrative practice and procedure, Disaster assistance,
Housing.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 206 is amended as follows:
PART 206--FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE FOR DISASTERS DECLARED ON OR
AFTER NOVEMBER 23, 1988
Subpart D--Temporary Housing Assistance
1. The authority citation for part 206 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 43 FR 41943, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329, 5 U.S.C. App. 1; E.O.
12148, 44 FR 43239, 3 CFR, 1979 Comp., p. 412, as amended; and E.O.
12673, 54 FR 12571, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 214.
2. Section 206.101(g) is amended to add introductory text to read
as follows:
Sec. 206.101 Temporary housing assistance.
* * * * *
(g) Forms of Temporary Housing Assistance. All proceeds received or
receivable by the applicant under Sec. 206.101 shall be exempt from
garnishment, seizure, encumbrance, levy, execution, pledge, attachment,
release, or waiver. No rights under this provision are assignable or
transferable.
* * * * *
Dated: February 20, 1996.
William C. Tidball,
Associate Director, Response and Recovery.
[FR Doc. 96-4416 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4411 Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7193-7206]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4411]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
Prices of new books are listed in the first FEDERAL REGISTER issue of each
week.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 39 / Tuesday, February 27, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 7193]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Federal Crop Insurance Corporation
7 CFR Part 404
RIN 0563-AB13
Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program
AGENCY: Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation (``FCIC'') hereby
revises and makes final its regulations to provide a noninsured crop
disaster assistance program (``NAP'') to protect producers of crops for
which insurance is not available. NAP provides a level of protection
that, in most respects, is comparable to the catastrophic risk
protection program offered to producers of insurable crops.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 22, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For further information and a copy of
the Regulatory Impact Analysis to the noninsured crop disaster
assistance program, contact Diana Moslak, Federal Crop Insurance
Corporation, Regulatory and Procedural Development Staff, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250. Telephone (202) 720-
0713.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Order 12866 and Departmental Regulation 1512-1
This action has been reviewed under United States Department of
Agriculture (``USDA'') procedures established by Executive Order 12866
and Departmental Regulation 1512-1. This action constitutes a review as
to the need, currency, clarity, and effectiveness of these regulations
under those procedures. The sunset review date established for these
regulations is May 1, 2000.
This rule has been determined to be ``significant'' for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'').
Regulatory Impact Analysis
A Regulatory Impact Analysis has been completed and is available to
interested persons at the address listed above. In summary, the
analysis finds that the final NAP rule incorporates three significant
changes when compared with the interim rule. First, the final NAP rule
defines an ``area'' for NAP triggering purposes as at least 320,000
acres, at least $80 million crop value, or the county, as determined by
the Manager, FCIC. The interim rule used only the 320,000-acre and $80
million value mechanisms. Second, the final rule allows different types
or varieties of a crop or commodity to be treated as separate eligible
crops. Previously, all types and varieties were treated as a single
eligible crop. Third, the interim rule only provided NAP coverage for
seeded forage crops. The final rule expands NAP coverage to include
both seeded and native forage, except on state and Federal lands where
NAP coverage is restricted to seeded forage.
Increasing the choices for defining NAP areas by adding a ``county-
level'' option, providing greater flexibility in the definition of a
crop, providing coverage for both seeded and native forage, and
including the retroactivity provisions will increase NAP outlays. Some
offset is provided by language that requires a five-producer minimum in
the definition of a NAP area. The expected annual outlays under these
regulations are about $95 million to $145 million, averaging $120
million. The cost associated with the forage issue depends on the
future of the Livestock Feed Program, as discussed in the analysis.
Although expected to result in higher Federal outlays, these
changes are designed to improve the equity in NAP payments among
growers. Experience in 1995 and interim rule comments indicate that
various areas and crop types would not receive NAP payments under the
interim rule, despite significant losses. In addition, some producers
may not have received payments due to perils that were omitted from the
crop insurance policy.
The improvements in equity are associated with changes in
administrative costs. Program administration will likely be easier for
FSA offices with the county designation added to the list of area
definition options. However, additional administrative costs will be
associated with the determination of losses by crop type, as well as
the determination of losses qualifying for payment due to NAP coverage
of both seeded and native forage.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This final rule amends the information collection requirements
previously approved by OMB under OMB control number 0563-0016 through
May 31, 1998. This rule increases the producer (respondent) audience
participation due to increased availability for NAP assistance for
seeded and native forage. This coverage excludes native forage on any
federal or state owned lands, and any crops for which insurance is
available in the county, that is affected by natural disaster and is
not insurable under the producer's crop insurance policy. All of the
forms cleared under OMB control number 0563-0016 represent the required
forms to determine eligibility and losses qualifying for payment due to
NAP coverage.
Revised reporting estimates and requirements for usage of OMB
control number 0563-0016 will be submitted to OMB for approval under
the provisions of 44 U.S.C. 35. Public comments are due by April 22,
1996.
The title of this information collection is ``Noninsured Crop
Disaster Assistance Program, Claim For Indemnity, Field Inspection And
Appraisal Requirements.'' The information requested is required for
proper administration of the Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance
Program. The burden for the NAP Program is reported on an as needed
basis when disaster situations arise. The reporting burden for this
collection of information is estimated to average 42 minutes per
response for each of the 8.5 responses from approximately 15,172,500
respondents. The total annual burden on the public for this information
collection is 10,620,750 hours.
The comment period for information collections under the Paperwork
Act of 1995 continues through April 22, 1996. Comments are requested on
the
[[Page 7194]]
following aspects of the Information Collection: (a) Whether the
proposed collection of information is necessary for the proper
performance of the functions of the agency, including whether the
information shall have practical utility; (b) the accuracy of the
agency's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of
information; (c) ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of
the information to be collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of
the collection of information on respondents, including through the use
of automated collection techniques or other forms of information
technology.
Comments should be submitted to the Desk Officer for Agriculture,
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), Washington, D.C. 20503 and to Bonnie Hart, Advisory and
Corporate Operations Staff, Regulatory Review Group, Farm Service
Agency, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20250. Copies
of the information collection may be obtained from Bonnie Hart at the
above address. Telephone (202) 690-2857.
Executive Order 12612
It has been determined under section 6(a) of Executive Order 12612,
Federalism, that this rule does not have sufficient federalism
implication to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment. The
provisions contained in this rule will not have a substantial direct
effect on states or their political subdivisions, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This regulation will not have a significant impact on a substantial
number of small entities. Most producers will be able to certify to
their historical production levels at the time of application based on
existing records, or they may elect to base their initial coverage on
transitional or assigned yields. The amount of data collected from
applicants will only be that needed to establish an acceptable yield,
determine the number of acres planted, and determine the eligibility of
the producer, crop, and acreage. The information required and time of
collection is statutory. Therefore, this action is determined to be
exempt from the provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
Sec. 605) and no Regulatory Flexibility Analysis was prepared.
Federal Assistance Program
This program is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.450.
Executive Order 12372
This program is not subject to the provisions of Executive Order
12372 which require intergovernmental consultation with state and local
officials. See the Notice related to 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V,
published at 48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983.
Executive Order 12778
The Office of the General Counsel has determined that these
regulations meet the applicable standards provided in sections 2(a) and
2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778. The provisions of this rule will
preempt state and local laws to the extent such state and local laws
are inconsistent herewith. The administrative appeal provisions
published at 7 CFR part 780 and 7 CFR part 11, must be exhausted before
any judicial action may be brought regarding the provisions of this
regulation. The provisions of this rule that are not more restrictive
than the interim rule will be effective retroactive to May 18, 1995,
the date of publication of the interim rule. The provision in
Sec. 404.13 regarding the requirement that an ``area'' consist of a
minimum of five producers before it can be approved is not effective
retroactively.
Environmental Evaluation
This action is not expected to have any significant impact on the
quality of the human environment, health, and safety. Therefore,
neither an Environmental Assessment nor an Environmental Impact
Statement is needed.
National Performance Review
This regulatory action is being taken as part of the National
Performance Review program to eliminate unnecessary or duplicative
regulations and improve those that remain in force.
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
Title II of the Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub. L.
104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, FCIC
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, or tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. When such a statement is needed for a rule, section 205 of
the UMRA generally requires FCIC to identify and consider a reasonable
number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, more
cost-effective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the
objectives of the rule.
This rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, and tribal
governments or the private sector. Thus, this rule is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA.
Background
On October 13, 1994, the Federal Crop Insurance Act was amended by
the Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994 (``Act''). This
regulation provides the provisions necessary to carry out the
noninsured crop disaster assistance program (``NAP'') requirements of
the Act. NAP replaces the Disaster Payment Program (7 CFR part 1477)
and the Tree Assistance Program (7 CFR part 1478).
On May 18, 1995, FCIC published an interim rule in the Federal
Register at 60 FR 26669 to add provisions to implement NAP. Following
publication of that interim rule, the public was afforded 60 days to
submit written comments, data, and opinions. On August 7, 1995, FCIC
extended the comment period for the NAP regulations to August 18, 1995
(60 FR 40055). The comments received and FCIC responses are as follows:
Comment: Sec. 404.5(b) Thirty-six comments received from state FSA
offices recommended that section 404.5(b) be amended to allow the
Administrator of FSA to review and approve or disapprove the state FSA
committee recommendation of area eligibility.
Response: The Act specifies that FCIC will make determinations of
area eligibility. The provision will not be changed.
Comment: Sec. 404.5(c) Thirty-six comments received from state FSA
offices recommended that section 404.5(c) be amended to allow county
and State FSA committees to establish yields and prices.
Response: The Act specifies that FCIC shall establish yields and
prices. The provision will not be changed.
Comment: Sec. 404.7(e) Five comments, two from trade associations
and three from other interested parties, were received suggesting that
the definition of ``Aquacultural species'' contained in section
404.7(e) be changed to allow aquaculture on lands that are not
[[Page 7195]]
privately owned or in waters that are not a ``controlled environment.''
One comment from an interested party requested clarification of
``private property in water in a controlled environment'' stating that
fish are grown for human consumption in privately owned net pens
(property) in sea water which is controlled by the net pens but owned
by the nation or state. The state leases the bedlands under the cages
to the private operator so that the cages can be set in place and
moored. FCIC was urged to reconsider the proposed definition to
explicitly allow caged fish and shellfish operations on state leased
lands and waters.
Response: The definition provides for coverage of aquaculture that
is produced in a controlled aquacultural environment. A controlled
environment may include net pens on leased lands provided that the
lease vests in the lessee all the rights and benefits of ownership of
the leased land and does not merely provide a license to gather the
aquacultural species found in the pen. Therefore, the provision will
not be changed.
Comment: Sec. 404.7(e) Two comments were received, one from a state
government office and one from a trade association, stating that the
definition of ``Aquacultural species'' excludes ornamental fish and
aquatic plant industries from the NAP. The state government official
recommended that section 404.7(e) be changed to include nonfood farm-
raised fish and aquatic plants.
Response: The Act limits NAP to crops produced for food or fiber.
The provision will not be changed.
Comment: Sec. 404.7(l) Four comments received from trade
associations stated that many floricultural, nursery, turfgrass sod,
and tree crops are produced in ``crop years'' ranging over several
``calendar years.'' The trade associations suggested that the
definition of ``crop year'' contained in section 404.7(l) be amended to
clarify that losses occurring in a given calendar year will be covered
even though the plant may not be harvested (or be ready to harvest)
during that given year.
Response: The definition has been modified to clarify and explain
how crops produced over multiple calendar years will be eligible for
NAP.
Comment: Sec. 404.7(n) Four comments received from trade
associations requested clarification of the definition of ``Eligible
crop'' contained in section 404.7(n) which states in part that ``In the
case of a crop that historically has multiple plantings in the same
crop year that are planted or are prevented from being planted on the
same or different acreage will be considered different crops for
determining NAP payments. This does not apply to a replacement crop.''
The trade associations stated that it is their interpretation that this
provision is to provide that a loss is ineligible for NAP coverage even
if the grower harvests other plantings in the same year.
Response: The definition has been modified to clarify that each
planting of a crop with multiple plantings in the same crop year will
be considered as a separate crop eligible for NAP payments.
Comment: Sec. 404.7(p) One comment received from an USDA agency
suggested that the definition of ``FCIC'' contained in section 404.7(p)
be changed to reflect FCIC as a separate and distinct corporate entity.
Response: By definition, FCIC is a separate and distinct corporate
entity. Therefore, no change is required.
Comment: Sec. 404.7(q) One comment received from a trade
association suggested that the definition of ``good farming practices''
contained in section 404.7(q) be changed to include alternative farming
practices and innovations that are supported by research or practice
appropriate to the type of farming undertaken.
Response: The definition allows alternative farming practices and
innovations that are supported by data from the Cooperative State
Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES). Therefore, no
change is required.
Comment: Sec. 404.7(r) and (ee) One comment was received from a
state FSA office regarding the definitions for ``Harvested'' which
excludes harvest by grazing except for ``Seeded pasture'' which is
limited to ``an annual crop intended for use as grazing only by
domestic animals,'' contained in sections 404.7(r) and 404.7(ee),
respectively. The state FSA official expressed concern that these
definitions exclude nearly all forage crops harvested by grazing. The
state FSA official suggested that eligibility for noninsured crop
disaster assistance be based on crop yields and losses, not the method
of harvest, and that grazing not be excluded from the ``Harvest''
definition.
Response: With respect to the definition of ``Harvested,'' the
intent is to define the term to include only those means of removing
the crop that result in costs being incurred by the producer. Section
404.9(c) authorizes FCIC to reduce the NAP payment as a result of costs
not incurred by the producer, such as harvesting. Because grazing does
not result in a cost to the producer, it is not considered as
``harvested''. With respect to the definition of ``Seeded pasture,''
FCIC has changed the term to ``Forage'' to include both seeded and
native forage crops that are harvested or grazed. Grazed forage will be
eligible for NAP payments at reduced rates. Forage is defined as land
covered with grass or other vegetation, produced under such range
management practices as are necessary to sustain sufficient quality and
quantity of grass or vegetation each year to be suitable for grazing or
mechanical harvest to feed livestock in a commercial operation. NAP
coverage for forage on any Federal or state owned lands is restricted
to seeded forage.
Comment: Sec. 404.7(r) One comment received from a congressional
office stated that the definition of ``Harvested'' contained in section
404.7(r) is silent on disaster assistance to producers of crops that
are harvested over multiple years and recommended a provision be added
to embrace disaster assistance for crops harvested over multiple years.
Response: The paragraph has been modified to clarify when crops
produced and harvested over multiple years are considered harvested.
Comment: Sec. 404.7(v) Two comments received from aquaculture
producers recommended that the NAP provisions cover loss of fish due to
storms causing low pressure and heaving, hot humidity; cloudy weather
causing low oxygen; high temperatures causing loss of appetite; drought
causing water evaporation and stale water; diseases; and failure of
equipment or down power lines due to lightening, storms, or wind
stopping the aeration of oxygen.
Response: To qualify for NAP assistance, the Act provides that
losses of the noninsured commodity be attributable to drought, flood,
or other natural disaster, as determined by the Secretary. The
definition of natural disaster has been modified to include eligible
crop losses that may be attributable to damaging weather or adverse
natural occurrences and related conditions.
Comment: Sec. 404.7(y) Two comments were received regarding the
definition of ``Prevented planting'' contained in section 404.7(y) as
follows:
(1) One comment received from a USDA state office requested
clarification of the definition of ``Prevented planting'' contained in
section 404.7(y) which states in part, ``The natural disaster that
caused the prevented planting may occur prior to the planting period
for the crop in the area, but must not occur earlier than the planting
period for such crop the prior crop year.'' The state government
official suggested that section 404.7(y) be
[[Page 7196]]
amended to specify whether a natural disaster that occurred in one year
and carried over into the next year will receive NAP coverage.
(2) One comment received from a trade association stated that the
requirement that ``most producers in the surrounding area must have
also been unable to plant the eligible crop in order for a producer to
be eligible for a NAP payment'' may impose an additional requirement
not supported by the Act especially when a producer is otherwise
eligible for NAP benefits and can show that planting was not feasible
due to a natural disaster. The trade association suggested that this
requirement be deleted from the definition of ``Prevented planting.''
Response: The definition has been modified to allow for the
coverage of prevented planting when the cause of the prevented planting
occurred after the final planting date of the previous crop year and
before the final planting date of the crop year for which a NAP payment
is requested. For crops with multiple plantings in 1 crop year, the
cause of the prevented planting must occur after the planting of the
previous planting period and before the final planting date of the
current planting period. Further the paragraph has been amended to
eliminate the requirement that most producers in the surrounding area
must have also been unable to plant the eligible crop or other crops
during the same planting period in order for a producer to be eligible
for a prevented planting payment.
Comment: Sec. 404.9(c) Five comments were received regarding
section 404.9(c) which specifies that ``FCIC will adjust the NAP
payment rate for crops that are produced with significant and variable
expenses that are not incurred because the crop acreage was prevented
from being planted or planted but not harvested'' as follows:
(1) Four comments received from trade associations suggested
section 404.9(c) be clarified by providing the criteria to be used in
determining potential reductions in the NAP payment rate for costs not
incurred by the producer as a result of the crop acreage being
prevented from planting or planted but not harvested The trade
associations also suggested that the regulations specify the person or
office ultimately responsible for making the NAP payment rate reduction
determinations as it relates specifically to specialty crops.
(2) One comment received from a USDA agency suggested that the rule
include specifics for calculating the adjustment in the NAP payment
rate and that the method used be similar to those included in the 1994
ad hoc disaster program.
Response: The Act requires the development of a payment rate for a
crop that is produced with a significant and variable harvesting
expense that takes into consideration the stage of the crop at the time
of loss; for example, not planted, planted but not harvested, or
harvested. Because of all the variations that exist between crops, it
is not possible to list all the factors that affect the costs
associated with producing all crops. FCIC will approve all variable
payment factors whether applicable to specialty or other crops. The
method used in determining payments under the 1994 ad hoc disaster
program will be taken into consideration.
Comment: Sec. 404.11(a) Fifty-four comments, one from a
congressional office, fourteen from producers, one from a trade
association, one from a county FSA committee, one from a state FSA
committee, and thirty-six from state FSA offices, were received
requesting section 404.11(a) be changed to allow NAP benefits for seed
crops, specifically grass, clover, alfalfa and legume seed crops and
any other crop grown commercially for seed. The one comment received
from the state FSA committee stated that legislation does not
specifically exclude seed crops which are ultimately used for the
production of crops for human consumption or livestock feed and,
therefore, should be added to the list of crops eligible for NAP
benefits.
Response: The Act specifies that the term ``eligible crop'' will
include each commercial crop or other agricultural commodity (except
livestock) that is produced for food or fiber. Seed crops are not
produced for food or fiber. Further, the Act specifically included the
exceptions to the food or fiber requirement. Crops not specifically
included in the exception are not eligible for NAP. The provision will
not be changed.
Comment: Sec. 404.11(a) One comment received from a producer
suggested that section 404.11(a) be changed to allow NAP payments by
crop type rather than treating as a single eligible crop all types and
varieties of a crop. This producer stated that the farmer who raises
several types of a crop, as opposed to a farmer who raises only one
type, may not qualify for a NAP payment if one type does not meet the
50 percent individual loss requirement. The producer also questioned
whether crops such as tomatoes, basil, or flowers grown in a greenhouse
would be eligible for NAP because pumpkins used for decoration are not
covered by NAP, but flowers are, and whether indian corn, strawberry
corn, or blue corn are eligible crops under the NAP. The producer
recommended all crops and corn grown outside be eligible for NAP
payment.
Response: The paragraph has been revised to allow FCIC to treat
different types and varieties of a crop or commodity as separate
eligible crops provided they have significantly different prices or
yields. The determination of whether a crop is eligible for NAP
payments is not based on whether a crop is grown indoors or outdoors.
The Act specified that crops grown for food or fiber, or included on
the list of exceptions, are eligible regardless of where grown. This
provision will not be changed.
Comment: Sec. 404.11(a)(3) One comment received from a timber
producer requested section 404.11(a)(3) be changed to include walnut
trees planted for timber purposes as a crop eligible for NAP benefits.
Response: FCIC cannot expand the list of crops eligible for NAP
payments beyond those crops designated by the Act. The provision will
not be changed.
Comment: Sec. 404.11(a) One comment was received from a FSA
district director regarding sections which specify that eligible crops
are those crops grown for food and fiber and then lists additional
crops such as floriculture, ornamental nursery crops, Christmas trees,
turfgrass sod, and industrial crops as eligible crops for NAP benefits.
The FSA district director suggested that all of the exceptions to the
crops produced for food or fiber be deleted or the provisions be
broadened to include all crops produced for commercial purposes.
Response: The named crops, in addition to crops produced for food
or fiber, are specified by the Act and, therefore, must be included.
Further, the list of named crops cannot be expanded beyond those
specified in the Act.
Comment: Sec. 404.11(b)(3) One comment was received from a USDA
agency regarding section 404.11(b)(3) which provides for NAP payments
in the case of delayed plantings caused by a natural disaster. The USDA
agency official states that since the Act provides ``that an eligible
crop means each commercial crop or other agricultural commodity (except
livestock) for which the Catastrophic Risk Protection (CAT) Plan of
Insurance is not available, and that is produced for food or fiber,''
there are no statutory exceptions. The USDA agency official recommends
that if a crop is insurable under CAT, there should be no exceptions to
cover losses from delayed plantings for NAP crops.
Response: The commentator may have misinterpreted the provision. A
crop
[[Page 7197]]
that is not insurable under CAT because the natural disaster causing
the damage was not an insurable cause of loss under CAT may be covered
for the natural disaster under NAP, provided that all the other
eligibility requirements are satisfied.
Comment: Sec. 404.11(b)(6) Four comments were received from trade
associations requesting FCIC to clarify the exemption contained in
section 404.11(b)(3). The trade associations stated that the Clean
Water Act and the swampbuster provisions provide exemptions from many
of the features of current wetlands policy that affect agriculture.
Perennial specialty crops were excluded from exemption resulting in
discrimination against a large segment of American agriculture without
any environmental benefit or preservation of wetlands. To avoid a
similar situation, the trade associations requested the FCIC to clarify
the exemption contained in this section to ensure past problems are not
repeated and that specialty crops are not inappropriately excluded from
NAP benefits.
Response: The regulations at section 12.5 of this title,
incorporated into this rule by reference, contain the exceptions
authorized by the Secretary for all USDA programs. It would be
inappropriate for a clarification of section 12.5 to appear in this
rule.
Comment: Sec. 404.13 Sixty-three comments, fifteen from producers,
three from trade associations, three from state government offices, two
from congressional offices, one from a county FSA office, one from a
county FSA committee, one from a state FSA committee, one from a
district director, and thirty-six from state FSA offices, were received
regarding section 404.13 which specifies the minimum area of 320,000
acres or a geographical area with a minimum average value of at least
$80 million for all crops produced annually and other interrelated
provisions contained in section 404.19.
(1) Fifteen comments received from producers, two from trade
associations, three from state government offices, one from a
congressional office, one from a county FSA office, one from a county
FSA committee, one from a state FSA committee, one from a district
director, and thirty-six from state FSA offices stated that the minimum
area requirement (320,000 acres or $80 million value) contained in
section 404.13 coupled with the 35 percent area-wide yield loss
requirement contained in section 404.19(c) is excessively large.
(2) One comment received from a producer recommended elimination of
the area stating that if a small farm is wiped out by hail damage and
the 35 percent area loss does not trigger, the farmer could possibly
lose 100 percent of his crop with no compensation. One FSA district
director stated that a producer would not be covered under the NAP for
crop losses resulting from isolated storms such as hailstorms or
thunderstorms. The FSA district director also stated that NAP
discriminates against producers of noninsured crops because of the
unavailability of insurance coverage in some states.
(3) Thirty-six comments received from state FSA offices recommended
elimination of the area if statutorily permissible. If not statutorily
permissible, the state FSA offices recommended the county FSA committee
with state FSA committee concurrence be given the authority to
delineate an area (with no minimum acreage) based on the agriculture in
the county and the natural disaster affected area. One of the state FSA
offices recommended using certain towns in determining the disaster
area and states and suggested that ``no disaster be smaller than a
single town and none larger than where the disaster actually
occurred.'' Another state FSA office stated that the 35 percent area
loss requirement is not comparable to the catastrophic level of
protection and recommended a smaller minimum area size or elimination
of the area and reconsideration of the 35 percent area loss
requirement.
(4) One comment received from a producer recommended the regional
FSA office define an area.
(5) One comment received from a producer recommended that FSA
committees decide if there is a payable loss.
(6) Three comments received from state government officials, one
from a county FSA office, and one from a state FSA committee
recommended the area be modified to provide assistance to localized
areas that cannot meet the minimum area and area eligibility
requirements.
(7) One comment received from a county FSA committee recommended
the NAP be administered more like the CAT whereby eligibility is on an
individual unit basis.
(8) One comment received from a trade association stated that the
current provisions for defining an ``area'' are too burdensome. The
trade association suggested the ``area'' be defined as a county with
added exceptions to address situations wherein part of one county and
part of another county could constitute an ``area.''
(9) One comment received from a congressional office stated that
producers should not be denied coverage because an insufficient number
of producers in the vicinity suffered similar losses. The comment
suggested that section 404.13(d) be changed to allow eligibility for
NAP benefits to be determined by local circumstances defined by the
county FSA committee so as not to use acreage to deny NAP coverage for
small diversified agricultural operations.
Response: The Act requires the average yield in the ``area'' be
reduced by at least 35 percent before a crop is eligible for NAP
payments. An area cannot be defined as a farm or town and comply with
the intent of NAP, which is to provide protection against widespread
disasters, not individual losses. The requirement that there be an area
affected by a disaster and the amount of loss cannot be changed
administratively. However, in response to comments received, the
provision will be amended for clarity and changed to include ``county''
as an option when defining the area. In order to maintain program
consistency, FCIC will continue to determine the expected area yield,
the approved yields, and approve the ``area'' designation. To ensure
program integrity, this section is also being amended to require that
an approved area within the United States consist of a minimum of five
producers of crops for which the area is designated.
Comment: Sec. 404.15(b) One comment received from a trade
association suggested section 404.15(b) be expanded to include special
yield determination examples for organic and nonorganic and sustainable
and traditional farming practices.
Response: FCIC is authorized to make yield adjustments based on
different farming practices, which would include organic and
nonorganic. Irrigated and nonirrigated are merely used as examples.
However, the provision will be revised to avoid the perception that
only irrigated and nonirrigated practices shall be considered.
Comment: Sec. 404.15(d) One comment was received from a state
government official regarding section 404.15(d) which states in part
that ``Approved yields for the eligible crop will be based on the
producer's actual production history in accordance with the provisions
of 7 CFR part 400, subpart G.'' The state government official states
that to require the submission of 4 consecutive years production for
producers who may have had a disaster in 2 consecutive years is not
fair. The state government official recommended
[[Page 7198]]
that section 404.15(d) be amended to allow a producer who has more than
4 consecutive years of production records on noninsured crops to submit
production records for any 4 of those years.
Response: The Act requires that approved yields be based on the
producers actual production history over a period of at least the
previous 4 consecutive years of production records and not more than 10
consecutive years of production records. Producers can only use
assigned yields when records are not available. If the producer has had
a disaster, production records will be available. Therefore, this
provision will not be changed.
Comment: Sec. 404.15(g) Three comments were received regarding
section 404.15(g) as follows:
(1) One comment received from a producer recommended section
404.15(g) be amended to allow the FSA committee to determine the
production records a producer must submit.
(2) One comment received from a trade association recommended
section 404.15(g) be amended to include some intent to defraud or
deceive when assessing criminal and civil actions against the producer
for failure to provide adequate records.
(3) One comment was received from a state FSA committee
recommending that section 404.15(g)(2) be changed to delete for use as
adequate records ``contemporaneous measurements, truck scale tickets,
contemporaneous diaries, etc.'' Justification for this change was that
such production information is not an adequate record for use in yield
determination, is not verifiable, and makes administering the program
more difficult. The state FSA committee suggested that unless the
producer can provide verifiable production evidence, this production
information not be considered as an adequate record for use in yield
determination.
Response: Producers are not required to submit a specific type of
record. The rule simply provides examples of record that may be
considered acceptable to FCIC for the purposes of substantiating claims
for NAP payments or yield certification. FCIC will consider all
available sources of information including recommendations from county
and state FSA committees; however, FCIC will make the determination as
to whether the documentation provided is adequate. The applicable
criminal and civil sanctions have an intentional or wilful requirement
with respect to the providing of false or inaccurate information,
including a false claim that records exist. In response to the
comments, the paragraph has been revised to require the producers to
submit records that are acceptable to FCIC. If the information is not
reliable or verifiable, the records will not be considered acceptable.
No other change to the provision will be made.
Comment: Sec. 404.17(b)(6) One comment was received from a producer
recommending section 404.17(b)(6) be changed to require the producer to
report planting dates only for those crops planted after the final
acreage reporting date and to allow the county FSA committee to
determine whether a producer planted late.
Response: It has been determined that if the acreage report does
not contain a certification as to the date the crop being reported was
planted, it will be difficult to determine if the crop was planted
after the final acreage reporting date or final planting date
established for insurance purposes. Information as to the date of
planting should be readily available when the acreage report for the
crop is filed. Accordingly, the paragraph is not changed.
Comment: Sec. 404.17(b)(8) One comment was received from a producer
recommending section 404.17(b)(8) be changed to allow a producer to
prove yields at the application for NAP benefits date rather than at
acreage reporting date.
Response: Because NAP payments are based on the actual production
history of the producer, it is necessary to require producers to
annually report the acreage and production of crops. Further, such
information will be used to develop insurance products for those crops
for which insurance is currently not available. Producers unable to
provide adequate documentation of their yield will have a yield
assigned in accordance with section 519 of the Act.
Comment: Two comments from trade associations were received
regarding section 404.19(a). The comments are as follows:
(1) One comment received from a trade association suggested section
404.19(a) address the standards the Secretary will use in determining
the natural disasters eligible for NAP payments. The trade association
raises this issue in light of complaints that sustainable and
alternative practices have been treated unfairly in the past.
(2) One comment received from a trade association suggested section
404.19(a)(3) address the standards that will be used to exclude NAP
assistance for the failure of the producer to follow good farming
practices. According to the trade association sustainable and
alternative agricultural practices are frequently and erroneously
labeled as not ``good farming practices'' simply because they may be
different from the traditional approach in the area. The trade
association suggested section 404.19(a)(3) provide specificity on this
point and provide producers with guidance as to what evidence they
should present in order to show that their alternative methods were
appropriate.
Response: The definition of ``natural disaster'' has been clarified
to include both weather related and other natural occurrences or their
consequences which may cause or accelerate the destruction or
deterioration of a crop. Further, the definition of ``good farming
practices'' allows alternative farming practices and innovations that
are supported by data from the Cooperative State Research, Education,
and Extension Service (CSREES). Therefore, a change is not required.
Comment: Sec. 404.19(c)(1) Six comments, five from trade
associations and one from a state FSA committee, were received
regarding section 404.19(c)(1) which specifies that ``The quantity will
not be reduced for any quality consideration unless a zero value is
established.'' One trade association recommended section 404.19(c)(1)
be changed to include quality adjustment for hay crops in the disaster
calculation for NAP payment. Four trade associations recommended FCIC
develop a more flexible approach that focuses on the value of the
damaged but not ``dead'' crop and whether the crop will be marketable
in the future at a reasonable price. The state FSA committee
recommended the same quality loss guidelines provided under CAT be also
available to producers under the NAP.
Response: Many of the crops eligible for quality adjustments under
the crop insurance program have generally accepted grades and standards
upon which to base such adjustments. There are no such generally
accepted grades and standards for most NAP crops. Therefore, no change
is made.
Comment: Seven comments, one from a state government official, one
from a producer, one from a FSA district director, and four from trade
associations, were received regarding section 404.19(c)(2). The
comments are as follows:
(1) One comment was received from a state government official
regarding section 404.19(c)(2) which states that ``A prevented planting
NAP payment will be made if the producer is prevented from planting
more than thirty-five percent (35%) of the total eligible acreage
intended for planting to the eligible crop.'' The state government
[[Page 7199]]
official recommended the provision be changed to specify the percentage
of guarantee that will be paid to a producer. The state government
official suggested the guarantee be specified at a rate of not less
than 65 percent for producers who are prevented entirely from planting
a crop.
(2) Two comments, one from a producer and one from an FSA district
director, were received regarding section 404.19(c)(2)(A) which states
that ``Eligible crop acreage will not exceed 100% of the simple average
of the number of acres planted to the crop by the producer in the loss
area during the years used to determine the approved yield, unless FCIC
has previously agreed in writing to approve acreage exceeding this
limit.'' The producer requested FCIC reconsideration of this provision
in light of crop rotations and the planting of other crops. The FSA
district director stated the provision discriminates against producers
of noninsured crops because a producer of an insured crop is not
subject to this restriction.
(3) Four comments were received from trade associations regarding
section 404.19(2)(D)(i) which specifies that NAP payments for prevented
planting will not be available for ``tree crops and other perennials.''
The trade associations stated it is arbitrary and capricious to exclude
turfgrass sod, floricultural, and ornamental nursery crops as
perennials ineligible for NAP prevented planting. Because many of these
crops can be produced in a period ranging from a few months to several
years, depending upon the area of the country and a wide variety of
agronomic considerations, the trade associations suggested a more
flexible approach be developed by FCIC.
Response: Section 519(d)(1) of the Act limits the production
eligible for payment to less than 50 percent of the producer's approved
yield. Section 404.23 is added to specify how losses will be paid to
producers eligible for prevented planting or reduced yield NAP
payments. In Sec. 404.19, paragraphs (c)(2) (A), (B), and (C) have been
deleted and acreage which was prevented from planting due to a natural
disaster, and the producer can prove was intended to be planted, may be
eligible for NAP payments. Tree crops and perennials may be eligible
for prevented planting NAP payments provided the producer can prove
adequate resources were available, or on order, to plant, grow, and
harvest the crop, if applicable.
Comment: Sec. 404.21(a). Two comments, one from a state FSA
committee and one from a trade association were received regarding
section 404.21(a) which specifies that ``Any person with a share in the
eligible crop who would be entitled to a NAP payment must make
application and provide a notice of damage or loss within 15 calendar
days after the occurrence of the prevented planting (the end of the
planting period) or damage to the crop.'' The state FSA committee
stated that the 15-day notification is too limiting and suggested the
provision be changed to allow for a 30- or 45-day notification period.
The trade association also stated that the 15-day notice of damage was
too restrictive.
Response: The time period for providing notice of loss is
comparable to the insurance requirement and allows for timely
inspection of the damaged crop, if necessary. Longer time periods may
make it difficult to accurately assess the extent of the damage and
prevent the producer from destroying the crop and putting the acreage
to another use.
Comment: Sec. 404.27(a). One comment received from a state
government official suggested that section 404.27(a) be amended by
replacing the words ``erroneously represented'' with the words
``knowingly misrepresented''. Justification for this change was that
the provision implies that a farmer who unwittingly benefited from
another's action could face cruel and unduly harsh penalties due to
acts of which he or she was totally unaware.
Response: The paragraph has been clarified to replace ``erroneously
represented'' with ``misrepresented.'' Further, the paragraph has been
revised to require that producers ``knowingly'' adopt, participate, or
benefit from a scheme or device to conform to the requirement of the
Act.
Comment: Sec. 404.27(c)(2). One comment received from a trade
association suggested section 404.27(c)(2) be amended to include the
``knowing'' or ``intentional'' submission of false information.
Response: Since section 404.27(a) has already been revised to
require a ``knowing'' adoption, participation, or benefiting from the
scheme or device, a change is not required here.
Comment: Sec. 404.29(a). One comment received by a trade
association suggested section 404.29(a) include a provision to provide
for refund of monies by the producer as a result of an FCIC error and
that such provision not require the producer to pay interest or pay the
money back ``on demand.'' The trade association suggested that after a
set period of time FCIC should not be allowed to recompute and correct
its own mistakes and should within that set period of time establish an
equitable repayment schedule agreed upon by the parties involved.
Response: There is a statute of limitation that governs the period
within which FCIC can bring an action to recover funds that are owed to
it. Further, since NAP is a government funded program, payments cannot
be made or retained that are not authorized by law.
Comment: Sec. 404.33. Two comments, one from a state government
official and one from a trade association, were received regarding
section 404.33 as follows:
(1) One comment from a state government official suggested that
this section be amended by removing the words ``The appeal,
reconsideration, or review of all determinations made under this part .
. .'' and inserting in its place the words ``Any determination made by
the agency, which the producer believes to be adverse to his or her
participation in the program, can be appealed, reconsidered, or
reviewed by the agency.'' The state government official also suggested
that the words ``must be in accordance with part 780 of this title or
the regulations promulgated by the National Appeals Division, whichever
is applicable'' be replaced with a new paragraph to read as follows:
``All appeals will be heard under the new regulations that are
published for the National Appeals Division, including the right of a
producer to participate in mediation with the agency. If the appeal is
in a state with a certified mediation program, then the agency must
notify the producer in writing, of his or her right to mediation.''
(2) One comment received from a trade association suggested this
section include appeal rights through the National Appeals Division on
whether the designation of an area is appealable. The trade association
also suggested that these regulations provide more specific guidance in
keeping with the National Appeals Division regulations particularly
notice provisions, timeframes, and any informal appeal options.
Response: Since the National Appeals Division has specific
jurisdictional requirements, no change is necessary. Further, the Act
requires that informal appeal processes in effect on the date of its
enactment remain in effect and producers are provided their choice of
forums. Mediation is available under 7 CFR part 780. Rules of general
applicability are not appealable and the area designation is a rule of
general applicability. Since the notice, timeframe, and informal appeal
options
[[Page 7200]]
are specifically stated in the referenced part and regulation, it would
be redundant to include them here.
Comment: One comment received from an USDA agency recommended that
participation in the NAP be linked to other price support, production
adjustment, conservation programs, and the CAT program. Justification
for this change was to provide equitable treatment to all producers and
to be consistent with the Act which requires the FCIC to establish a
NAP program to provide coverage equivalent to the CAT program.
Response: The Agency determined that it would not require linkage
between CAT and NAP unless specifically required by the Act.
Comment: One comment received from a USDA agency recommended an
administrative fee similar to the CAT program be charged producers
prior to the time they receive benefits under the NAP. Justification
for this charge was to ensure fair and equitable treatment of all
producers and to help cover administrative costs for delivering the
program.
Response: The comment cannot be implemented because the Act does
not authorize collection of fees from NAP producers.
Comment: One comment received from a USDA agency suggested that a
producer should have a history of growing the crop in order to receive
NAP benefits. Justification for this change was to ensure that a
producer has the knowledge, expertise, and intent to produce the crop.
Response: This suggestion would have the affect of penalizing new
producers. FSA's operating procedure delegates to the county committees
the responsibility of determining that good farming practices were used
in producing the crop. If good farming practices were not used or the
producer cannot prove that a crop was intended for planting, the
producer is ineligible for NAP payments.
Comment: One comment received from a USDA agency recommended limits
be placed on producers from receiving NAP benefits on acreages that
substantially increased over the previous year's planting.
Justification for this change was to help prevent producers from
significantly expanding planted acres on certain crops on the basis of
the NAP benefits available.
Response: The Act does not provide for limiting NAP benefits if a
producer increases acreage of a crop. The Act only limits the use of
assigned yields when the crop acreage in the county has significantly
increased from previous years.
Comment: One comment received from a trade association stated that
since producers must file annual acreage reports it is imperative that
they be notified on the availability of NAP. The trade association
suggested post-disaster sign-up for the first few years of this
program.
Response: The Act requires producers to annually provide records of
previous years acreage, yield, and production. Further, producers are
required to file acreage reports showing the current crop years planted
and prevented planted acreage. These requirements cannot be changed.
Under the Act, producers are not required to submit an application for
payment until the application deadline, which occurs after the loss has
occurred.
With the exception of a few minor editorial or technical
corrections, other changes made by FCIC are as follows:
(1) Removed the reference to the definitions for actual yield,
adjusted yield, and replacement crop at Sec. 404.7(b), (c), and (dd)
because those terms are not relevant to this program;
(2) Removed the reference to the definition for master yield at
Sec. 404.7(u) because there are no master yields under NAP;
(3) Added a definition for CAT, FSA, NASS; and NAP in Sec. 404.7
for clarity;
(4) Added a definition for ornamental nursery crop at Sec. 404.7 to
clarify which nursery crops are covered;
(5) Added a provision to Sec. 404.11 which makes NAP assistance
available for any crop for which insurance is available in the county,
that is affected by natural disaster that is not insurable under the
producer's crop insurance policy for clarity even though such coverage
was available under the interim rule;
(6) Revised Sec. 404.13 for clarity, added ``county'' as an option
for area designations, and require a minimum number of producers for
NAP areas within the United States;
(7) Added Sec. 404.23 to clarify how NAP payments are calculated
and redesignated the remaining sections accordingly.
Good cause is shown to make this rule effective upon public filing
with the Federal Register, and without the 30-day period required by
the Administrative Procedure Act. The interim rule implemented the NAP
requirements mandated by the amendments to the Federal Crop Insurance
Act by the Federal Crop Insurance Reform Act of 1994. This final rule
needs expedited implementation in order to facilitate the processing of
pending applications for NAP benefits. Therefore, good cause is shown
to make this rule effective in less than 30 days after publication.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 404
Agricultural commodities, Disaster assistance, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Final Rule
Accordingly, 7 CFR Part 404 is revised to read as follows:
PART 404--NONINSURED CROP DISASTER ASSISTANCE PROGRAM--REGULATIONS
FOR THE 1995 AND SUCCEEDING CROP YEARS
Sec.
404.1 General statement.
404.3 Applicability.
404.5 Administration.
404.7 Definitions.
404.9 Coverage.
404.11 Eligibility.
404.13 Area.
404.15 Yield determinations.
404.17 Acreage report.
404.19 Loss requirements.
404.21 Application for payment and notice of loss.
404.23 Payments for reduced yield and prevented planting.
404.25 Multiple benefits.
404.27 Payment and income limitations.
404.29 Misrepresentation, scheme and device, and fraud.
404.31 Refunds to the Corporation.
404.33 Cumulative liability.
404.35 Appeals.
404.37 Exemption from levy.
404.39 Estates, trusts, and minors.
404.41 Death, incompetence, or disappearance.
404.43 OMB control numbers.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1506(l), 1506(p).
Sec. 404.1 General statement.
The Federal Crop Insurance Act, as amended by the Federal Crop
Insurance Reform Act of 1994, requires the Federal Crop Insurance
Corporation to implement a noninsured crop disaster assistance program
to provide eligible producers of eligible crops with protection
comparable to the catastrophic risk protection plan of crop insurance.
NAP is designed to help reduce production risks faced by producers of
crops for which Federal crop insurance under the Act is not available.
NAP will reduce financial losses that occur when natural disasters
cause a catastrophic loss of production or prevented planting of an
eligible crop. Payment eligibility is based on an expected yield for
the area and the producer's approved yield based on actual production
history, or a transitional yield if sufficient production records are
not available. Production for both the applicable area expected yield
and the individual
[[Page 7201]]
producer approved yield for the unit must fall below specified
percentages in order to be eligible for payments under this part.
Sec. 404.3 Applicability.
The provisions contained in this part are applicable to each
eligible producer and each eligible crop, acreage, or cause of loss for
which CAT coverage is not otherwise available.
Sec. 404.5 Administration.
(a) The NAP program will be administered under the general
supervision of the FCIC, and will be carried out through state and
county committees and offices of the Farm Service Agency, or other
local USDA offices as designated by FCIC.
(b) The state FSA committee will, in accordance with this part,
recommend the geographical size and shape of the area where a natural
disaster has occurred, and whether the area eligibility requirement has
been satisfied. The recommendation of eligibility must be approved by
FCIC.
(c) FCIC will determine all yields and prices under this part.
(d) No delegation herein to a state or county FSA committee will
preclude the FCIC Manager from determining any question arising under
NAP or from reversing or modifying any determination made by a state or
county FSA committee.
Sec. 404.7 Definitions.
Act--The Federal Crop Insurance Act as amended. (7 U.S.C. 1501 et
seq.)
Actual production history--Refer to 7 CFR part 400, subpart G,
except that the terms of subpart G will read as follows when referring
to NAP:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Insurance Terms NAP Terms
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agent..................................... Local office representative
Claim..................................... Application for payment
claim for indemnity....................... Application for payment
Indemnity payment......................... NAP payment
Insurable acreage......................... Eligible acreage
Insurable cause........................... Natural disaster
Insurable crop............................ Eligible crop
Insurance company......................... Provider
Insurance purposes........................ NAP purposes
Insured................................... Eligible producer
Insured producer.......................... Eligible producer
Uninsurable acreage....................... Ineligible acreage
Uninsurable production.................... Ineligible production
Uninsured cause of loss appraisal......... Assigned production
Uninsured production...................... Ineligible production
------------------------------------------------------------------------
APH--Actual production history.
Approved yield--An APH yield calculated and approved by FCIC, used
to determine any NAP payment in accordance with 7 CFR part 400, subpart
G.
Aquacultural species--Any species of aquatic organism grown as food
for human consumption or fish raised as feed for fish that are consumed
by humans, and which is propagated and reared in an aquatic medium by a
commercial operator on private property in water in a controlled
environment.
Area--The geographic region recommended by the state FSA committee,
and approved by FCIC in accordance with Sec. 404.13, where a natural
disaster has occurred which may qualify producers in the area for NAP
payments.
Assigned yield--A yield assigned for a crop year in the base
period, in accordance with 7 CFR part 400, subpart G, if the producer
does not file an acceptable production report by the production
reporting date.
Average market price--The price, or dollar equivalent on an
appropriate basis; for example, pound, bushel, ton, for an eligible
crop established by FCIC for determining NAP payments. Such price will
be on a harvested basis without the inclusion of transportation,
storage, processing, packing, marketing or other post-harvest expenses
and will be based, in part, on historical data.
CAT--A catastrophic risk protection plan of insurance offered by
FCIC authorized under section 508(b) of the Act and 7 CFR part 402.
CCC--The Commodity Credit Corporation.
County expected yield--The eligible crop yield established by the
State FSA committee and approved by FCIC for the county. Such yield
information may be obtained from NASS, CSREES, credible nongovernmental
studies, yields in similar areas, and similar reference material. For
planted annual crops, such yield will be based on the acreage planted
for harvest.
Crop year--The period of time within which the crop is normally
grown and designated by the calendar year in which the crop is normally
harvested in the area. For crops harvested over two calendar years, the
crop year will be the calendar year in which the majority of the crop
would have been harvested. For crops grown over more than two calendar
years, each year in the growing period will be considered as a separate
crop year designated by the calendar year in which the crop sustained a
loss. For crops for which CAT is available, the crop year will be as
defined by CAT.
CSREES--The Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension
Service.
Eligible crop--An agricultural commodity for which CAT is not
available and which is commercially produced for food or fiber as
specified in this part. Eligible crop shall also include floricultural,
ornamental nursery, and Christmas tree crops, turfgrass sod, and
industrial crops. In the case of a crop that historically has multiple
plantings in the same crop year that are planted or are prevented from
being planted, each planting may be considered a different crop for
determining NAP payments. In the case of a crop that has different
varieties or types, each variety or type may be considered a separate
crop for determining NAP payments, if FCIC determines there is a
significant difference in price or yield between the varieties or
types.
Expected area yield--The eligible crop yield established and
approved by FCIC for the geographic area.
Forage--Land covered with grass or other vegetation, produced under
such range management practices as are necessary to sustain sufficient
quality and quantity of grass or vegetation each year to be suitable
for grazing or mechanical harvest to feed livestock in a commercial
operation. NAP benefits for forage produced on any Federal or state
owned lands are available only for seeded forage.
FCIC--The Federal Crop Insurance Corporation, a wholly owned
Government corporation within the Farm Service Agency (FSA), United
States Department of Agriculture.
FSA--Formerly the Consolidated Farm Service Agency; now the Farm
Service Agency of the United States Department of Agriculture.
Good farming practices--The cultural practices generally used in
the area for the crop to make normal progress toward maturity and
produce at least the individual unit approved yield. The practices are
normally those recognized by CSREES as compatible with agronomic and
weather conditions in the area.
Harvested--A single harvest crop is considered harvested when the
producer has, by hand or mechanically, removed the crop from the field.
Crops with multiple harvests in one year or harvested over multiple
years are considered harvested when the producer has, by hand or
mechanically, removed at least one mature crop from the field. The crop
is considered harvested once it is taken off the field and placed in a
truck or other conveyance. (Exceptions: Hay is considered harvested
when in the bale, whether removed from the field or not. Grazing is not
considered harvesting for
[[Page 7202]]
the purpose of determining a payment rate factor.)
Livestock--Any farm or other animal excluding aquacultural species
and, including but not limited to domestic avian, ruminant, equine, and
swine species grown or maintained for any purpose.
Local office--The FSA office or other USDA office designated by
FCIC.
NASS--The National Agricultural Statistics Service, an agency of
the United States Department of Agriculture.
Native forage--Grass or other vegetation occurring naturally
without seeding.
Natural disaster--Means damaging weather, including but not limited
to drought, hail, excessive moisture, freeze, tornado, hurricane,
excessive wind, or any combination thereof; or adverse natural
occurrence such as earthquake, flood, or volcanic eruption; or related
condition, including but not limited to heat, insect infestation, or
disease, which occurs as a result of an adverse natural occurrence or
damaging weather occurring prior to or during harvest that directly
causes, accelerates, or exacerbates the destruction or deterioration of
an eligible crop, as determined by the Secretary.
NAP--The noninsured crop disaster assistance program.
Operator--The person who is in general control of the farming
operation on the farm during the crop year.
Ornamental nursery crop--A decorative plant grown in a container or
controlled environment for commercial sale.
Person--A person as defined in 7 CFR part 1497, subpart B.
Prevented planting--The inability to plant a crop with proper
equipment during the planting period for the crop or commodity. A
producer must prove that the producer intended to plant the eligible
crop and that such crop could not be planted due to natural disaster
reasonably related to the basis for the area designation under
Sec. 404.13, as determined by the FCIC Manager. The natural disaster
that caused the prevented planting must have occurred after the final
planting date for the previous crop year and before the final planting
date for the crop year in which a request for NAP payment was made. For
crops with multiple plantings in a single crop year and one crop has
been harvested, the natural disaster must occur, after the harvest of
the harvested crop and before the end of the planting period for the
next planting of the crop.
Producer--A person who, as owner, landlord, tenant, or
sharecropper, is entitled to share in the production from the eligible
commodity or in the proceeds thereof.
Production report--A written record showing the commodity's annual
production and used to determine the producer's yield for NAP purposes.
The report contains yield history by unit, if applicable, including
planted acreage for annual crops, eligible acreage for perennial crops,
and harvested and FCIC appraised production for the previous crop
years. This report must be supported by verifiable written records,
measurement of farm-stored production, or by other records of
production approved by FCIC. Information contained in an application
for payment is considered a production report for the unit for the crop
year for which the application was filed.
Qualifying gross revenues means:
(1) With respect to a person who receives more than 50 percent of
such person's gross income from farming, ranching, and forestry
operations, the annual gross income for the calendar year from such
operations; and
(2) With respect to a person who receives 50 percent or less of
such person's gross income from farming, ranching, and forestry
operations, the person's total gross income from all sources.
Reseeded or replanted crop--The same crop planted on the same
acreage after the first planting of the crop has failed.
Seeded forage--Acreage which is mechanically seeded with grasses or
other vegetation at regular intervals, at least every 7 years, in
accordance with good farming practices.
Share--The producer's percentage of interest in the eligible crop
as an owner, operator, or tenant at the beginning of the crop year. For
the purposes of determining eligibility for NAP payments, the
producer's share will not exceed the producer's share at the earlier of
the time of loss or the beginning of harvest. Acreage or interest
attributed to a spouse, child, or member of the same household may be
considered part of the producer's share unless considered a separate
person.
Transitional NAP yield (``T'' Yield)--An estimated yield based on
the county expected yield adjusted for individual producers as
determined by FCIC. The T-yield will be used in the approved yield
calculation process when less than four consecutive crop years of
actual or assigned yields are available. (See APH).
Unit--For the noninsured crop disaster assistance program, all
acreage of the eligible crop in the county for the crop year:
(1) In which the person has 100 percent crop share; or
(2) Which is owned by one person and operated by another person on
a share basis.
(Example: If, in addition to the land the person owns, the person
rents land from five landlords, three on a crop share basis and two on
a cash basis, the person would be entitled to four units, one unit for
each crop share lease and one unit which includes the two cash leases
and the land owned by the person.) Land rented for cash, a fixed
commodity payment, or any consideration other than a share in the crop
on such land will be considered as owned by the lessee. No unit other
than that stated herein will be permitted.
Sec. 404.9 Coverage.
(a) Producers who are eligible to receive NAP payments for crop
years 1995 through 1998 will receive coverage against loss in yield
greater than 50 percent of the producer's approved yield for the
eligible crop payable at 60 percent of the established average market
price for the crop.
(b) Producers who are eligible to receive NAP payments after crop
year 1998 will receive coverage against loss in yield greater than 50
percent of the producer's approved yield for the eligible crop payable
at 55 percent of the established average market price for the crop.
(c) FCIC will adjust the NAP payment rate for crops that are
produced with significant and variable expenses that are not incurred
because the crop acreage was prevented from being planted or planted
but not harvested.
(d) NAP payments will be determined by unit based on the production
of all acreage of that crop (planted and eligible prevented from being
planted) in the unit.
(e) Each producer's NAP payment will be based on the producer's
share of the eligible crop.
Sec. 404.11 Eligibility.
Eligible crops under this part will be any commercial agricultural
crop, commodity, or acreage of a commodity grown for food or fiber for
which CAT is not available under 7 CFR part 402 unless excluded by
paragraph (b) of this section. Different types or varieties of a crop
or commodity may be treated as a separate eligible crop, if FCIC
determines there is a significant difference in price or yield.
(a) NAP payments will be made available for:
(1) Any commercial crop grown for food;
(2) Any commercial crop planted and grown for livestock
consumption,
[[Page 7203]]
including but not limited to grain and forage crops;
(3) Any commercial crop grown for fiber, excluding trees grown for
wood, paper, or pulp products;
(4) Any commercially produced aquacultural species;
(5) Floriculture crops;
(6) Ornamental nursery crops;
(7) Christmas tree crops;
(8) Turfgrass sod;
(9) Industrial crops; and
(10) Any crop, for which crop insurance under the Act is available
in the county, that is affected by a natural disaster that is not
insurable under the producer's crop insurance policy.
(b) NAP payments will not be available:
(1) For losses of livestock or their by-products;
(2) To any p
FR Doc. 96-4411 Noninsured Crop Disaster Assistance Program
erson who has qualifying gross revenues in excess of $2
million;
(3) For any acreage in any area for any crop for which CAT is
available, unless the loss was caused by a natural disaster that is not
covered under CAT and all other eligibility requirements for NAP are
satisfied;
(4) To any person who, in accordance with chapter VII of 7 CFR and
section 1764 of the Food Security Act of 1985, has been convicted under
Federal or state law of planting, cultivating, growing, producing,
harvesting or storing a controlled substance in any applicable crop
year;
(5) Producing an agricultural commodity in any crop year on a field
on which highly erodible land is predominant, unless the person is
exempt under the provisions of Sec. 12.5 of this title; or
(6) Producing an agricultural commodity in any crop year on
converted wetland, unless the person is exempt under the provisions of
Sec. 12.5 of this title.
(c) Any tenant, landlord, or producer on the unit separate from the
person determined to be ineligible under this provision will remain
eligible for NAP payments for their share of the crop unless such
tenant, landlord, or producer on the unit is:
(1) Also convicted of planting, cultivating, growing, producing,
harvesting or storing a controlled substance;
(2) Also in violation of chapter XII of the Food Security Act of
1985 and the regulations issued thereunder; or
(3) Otherwise determined by FCIC to be ineligible for NAP payments.
Sec. 404.13 Area.
(a) For the purposes of this part, acreage affected by a natural
disaster, or any adjustment thereto, will be included in the area
recommended by the state FSA committee and submitted to FCIC for
approval, regardless of whether the commodity produced on the affected
acreage suffered a loss.
(b) Except for eligible areas identified in paragraph (f) of this
section, an approved area shall include at least five producers of
crops on separate and distinct farms for which the area has been
approved for the payment of NAP benefits. Notwithstanding this
provision, FCIC may approve an area having fewer than five producers if
the Manager determines that such area will suffer significant economic
consequences as a result of the disaster.
(c) An area may be designated as follows:
(1) A county;
(2) Aggregated acreage that is at least 320,000 acres; or
(3) Aggregated acreage with not less than $80 million average value
for all crops produced annually.
(d) If the aggregated acreage affected by the natural disaster does
not meet the minimum requirement specified in paragraph (c)(2) or (3)
of this section, the aggregated acreage will be expanded by adding
acres from around the affected acreage, until the minimum requirement
is met.
(e) The area may not be defined in any manner that intentionally
includes or excludes producers or crops.
(f) In lieu of the paragraph (a) and (c) of this section, for
eligible areas outside the United States, the area shall include 10 or
more producers of the crop. Notwithstanding this provision, FCIC may
approve an area outside the 50 United States having fewer than 10
producers of the crop for which the area is requested if the Manager
determines that such area will suffer significant economic consequences
as a result of the disaster.
Sec. 404.15 Yield determinations.
(a) FCIC will establish expected area yields for eligible crops for
each county or area for which the NAP is available, using available
information, which may include, but is not limited to, NASS data,
CSREES records, credible nongovernment studies, yields in similar
areas, and reported approved yield data. For planted annual crops, such
yields will be based on the acreage planted for harvest.
(b) FCIC may make county yield adjustments taking into
consideration different yield variations due to different farming
practices in the county such as: irrigated, nonirrigated, organic,
nonorganic; different types and varieties of a crop; and intended use.
(c) In establishing expected area yields for eligible crops:
(1) If the approved area corresponds to a single county, the
expected area yield will be the yield established by FCIC for that
county, including any adjustments permitted by this section; or
(2) If the approved area encompasses portions of a county or more
than one county, the expected area yield will be the weighted average
of the yields established by FCIC for those counties in the area,
including any adjustments permitted by this section.
(3) FCIC may adjust expected area yields if:
(i) The cultural practices, including the age of the planting or
plantings, are different from those used to establish the yield.
(ii) The expected area yield established on a state or county level
is determined to be incorrect for the area.
(d) FCIC will establish approved yields for purposes of providing
assistance under this part. Approved yields for the eligible crop will
be based on the producer's actual production history in accordance with
the provisions of 7 CFR part 400, subpart G.
(e) The approved yield established for the producer for the year in
which the NAP payments are offered will be equal to the average of the
consecutive crop year yields, as established by FCIC, reported and
certified of that producer for that eligible crop.
(f) If a producer receives an assigned yield for a year of natural
disaster because production records were not submitted by the
production reporting deadline, the producer will be ineligible to
receive an assigned yield for the year of the next natural disaster
unless adequate production records for the eligible crop from the
previous one or more years, as applicable, are provided to the local
office. The producer shall receive a zero yield for those years the
producer is ineligible to receive an assigned yield.
(g) FCIC will select certain producers on a random or targeted
basis and require those selected to provide records acceptable to FCIC
to support the information provided. Producers may also be required to
support the yield certification at the time of loss adjustment or on
post-audit. Each certification must be supported by records acceptable
to FCIC. Failure to produce records acceptable to FCIC will result in
FCIC establishing the yield in accordance with APH and may subject the
producer to criminal and civil false claims actions under various
Federal statutes as well as refund of any amount received. In addition,
sanctions as set
[[Page 7204]]
out at 7 CFR part 400, subpart R may be imposed for false
certification. Records acceptable to FCIC may include:
(1) commercial receipts, settlement sheets, warehouse ledger
sheets, or load summaries if the eligible crop was sold or otherwise
disposed of through commercial channels provided the records are
reliable or verifiable; and
(2) such documentary evidence as is necessary in order to verify
the information provided by the producer if the eligible crop has been
sold, fed to livestock, or otherwise disposed of other than through
commercial channels such as contemporaneous measurements, truck scale
tickets, and contemporaneous diaries, provided the records are reliable
or verifiable.
(h) Any producer who has a contract to receive a guaranteed payment
for production, as opposed to delivery, of an eligible crop will have
the production adjusted upward by the amount of the production
corresponding to the amount of the contract payment received.
(i)(1) Producers will not be eligible to receive an assigned yield
if the acreage of the crop in a county for the crop year has increased
by more than 100 percent over any year in the preceding seven crop
years, unless:
(i) The producer provides adequate records of production costs,
acres planted, and yield for the crop year for which NAP payments are
being sought.
(ii) FCIC determines that the records provided under this paragraph
are inadequate, FCIC may require proof that the eligible crop could
have been marketed at a reasonable price had the crop been harvested.
(2) The provisions of this section will not apply if:
(i) The crop has been inspected prior to the occurrence of a loss
by a third party acceptable to FCIC; or
(ii) The FSA county executive director, with concurrence of the FSA
state director, makes a recommendation for an exemption from the
requirements and such recommendation is approved by FCIC.
Sec. 404.17 Acreage report.
(a) Producers must file one or more acreage reports annually at the
local office no later than the date specified by FCIC for each crop the
producer will want made eligible for the NAP program. The acreage
report may be filed by the farm operator. Any producer will be bound by
the acreage report filed by the farm operator unless the producer files
a separate acreage report prior to the acreage reporting date.
(b) That acreage report must include all of the following
information:
(1) All acreage in the county of the eligible crop (for each
planting in the event of multiple planting) in which the producer has a
share;
(2) The producer's share at the time of planting or the beginning
of the crop year;
(3) The FSA farm serial numbers;
(4) The crop, practice, and intended use;
(5) All persons sharing in the crop (including the identity of any
person having a substantial beneficial interest in the crop (refer to 7
CFR part 400, subpart Q) and the person's employer identification
number or social security number, if the person wishes to receive any
payment under the Act);
(6) The date the crop was planted;
(7) Acreage prevented from being planted; and
(8) Production from the previous crop year. (For example: The
producer reported the crop acreage planted in 1995. The producer must
then report the 1995 production for that acreage by the 1996 acreage
reporting date for the crop.)
(c) A person's failure to submit the required information by the
designated acreage reporting dates may result in the denial of NAP
payments. If there is a change of ownership, operation, or share within
the farming operation after the acreage reporting date, the local
office must be notified not later than 30 calendar days after the
change and proof of the change must be provided in order to maintain
eligibility for payments under this part.
Sec. 404.19 Loss requirements.
(a) To qualify for payment under this part, the loss or prevented
planting of the eligible crop must be due to a natural disaster as
defined at Sec. 404.7.
(b) NAP assistance will not cover losses due to:
(1) The neglect or malfeasance of the producer;
(2) The failure of the producer to reseed or replant to the same
crop in the county where it is customary to reseed or replant;
(3) The failure of the producer to follow good farming practices
for the commodity and practice;
(4) Water contained or released by any governmental, public, or
private dam or reservoir project, if an easement exists on the acreage
affected for the containment or release of the water;
(5) Failure or breakdown of irrigation equipment or facilities; or
(6) Except for tree crops and perennials, inadequate irrigation
resources at the beginning of the crop year.
(c) A producer of an eligible crop will not receive NAP payments
unless the projected average or actual yield for the crop, or an
equivalent measurement if yield information is not available, in the
area falls below 65 percent of the expected area yield. Once this area,
and all other, eligibility requirements have been satisfied:
(1) A reduced yield NAP payment will be made to a producer if the
total quantity of the eligible crop that the producer is able to
harvest on the unit is less than 50 percent of the approved yield for
the crop due to natural disaster reasonably related to the basis for
the area designation under Sec. 404.13, as determined by the FCIC
Manager, factored for the share of the producer for the crop.
Production from the entire unit will be used to determine whether the
producer qualifies for a NAP payment. The quantity will not be reduced
for any quality consideration unless a zero value is established.
(2) A prevented planting NAP payment will be made if the producer
is prevented from planting more than 35 percent of the total eligible
acreage intended for planting to the eligible crop. Producers must have
intended to plant the crop and prove that they were prevented from
planting the crop due to natural disaster reasonably related to the
basis for the area designation under Sec. 404.13 and the producer may
be required to prove that such producer had the resources available to
plant, grow, and harvest the crop, as applicable.
(d) NAP payments for prevented planting will not be available for:
(1) Tree crops and other perennials, unless the producer can prove
resources were available to plant, grow, and harvest the crop, as
applicable;
(2) Land which planting history or conservation plans indicate
would remain fallow for crop rotation purposes; or
(3) Land used for conservation purposes or intended to be or
considered to have been left unplanted under any program administered
by USDA.
Sec. 404.21 Application for payment and notice of loss.
(a) Any person with a share in the eligible crop who would be
entitled to a NAP payment must provide a notice of damage or loss
within 15 calendar days after the occurrence of the prevented planting
(the end of the planting period) or recognizable damage to the crop.
For the 1995 crop year only, the notice must be filed within the later
of July 3, 1995, or 15 days after the occurrence of the prevented
planting or damage to the crop. The notice must be filed at the local
office serving the area
[[Page 7205]]
where the producer's unit is located. The farm operator may provide the
notice for all producers with an interest in the crop. All producers on
a farm will be bound by the operator's filing or failure to file the
application for payment unless the individual producers elect to timely
file their notice.
(b) Applications for NAP payments must be filed, on our form, by
the applicant with the local office no later than the first acreage
reporting date for the crop in the crop year immediately following the
crop year in which the loss occurred.
(1) If the producer chooses not to harvest the crop, all eligible
acres and crop units for which the producer intends to make an
application for payment must be left intact until the units have been
appraised or released by an FCIC loss adjuster.
(2) If the producer harvests the crop, the producer must provide
such documentary evidence of crop production as FCIC may require which
may include leaving representative samples of the crop for inspection.
(c) Failure to make timely application or to supply the required
documentary evidence shall result in the denial of NAP payments.
(d) Payments under this part may be assigned by the eligible
producer only on our form and such assignment is effective only when
approved by FCIC. Failure of FCIC to make payment in accordance with
such assignment will not give rise to any liability on the part of FCIC
to the assignee.
Sec. 404.23 Payments for reduced yields and prevented planting.
In the event that the area loss requirement has been satisfied for
the crop and either:
(a) The producer has sustained a loss in yield in excess of 50
percent of the producer's approved yield established for the crop the
NAP low yield payment will be determined by:
(1) Multiplying the producer's approved yield by the total eligible
acreage planted to the eligible crop;
(2) Multiplying the product of paragraph (a)(1) of this section by
50 percent;
(3) Subtracting the total production from the total eligible
acreage from the result in paragraph (a)(2) of this section;
(4) Multiplying the product of paragraph (a)(3) of this section by
the producer's share of the eligible crop;
(5) Multiplying the result of paragraph (a)(4) of this section by
the applicable payment factor in accordance with Sec. 404.9(c);
(6) Multiplying the result in paragraph (a)(5) of this section by :
(i) For the 1995 through 1998 crop years, 60 percent of the average
market price, as determined by FCIC, or any comparable coverage, as
determined by FCIC: or
(ii) For the 1999 and subsequent years, 55 percent of the average
market price, as determined by FCIC, or any comparable coverage, as
determined by FCIC; or
(b) The producer has been unable to plant at least 35 percent of
the acreage intended for the eligible crop, the NAP payment will be
determined by:
(1) Multiplying the producer's acreage intended to be planted to
the eligible crop by 35 percent;
(2) Subtracting the result in (b)(1) of this section from the
number of eligible prevented planting acres as determined in
Sec. 404.19 (c) (2);
(3) Multiplying the result of (b)(2) of this section by the
producer's share of the eligible crop;
(4) Multiplying the producer's approved yield by the result of
(b)(3) of this section;
(5) Multiplying the result of (b)(4) of this section by the
approved prevented planting payment factor in accordance with
Sec. 404.9(c);
(6) Multiplying the result of (b)(5) of this section by:
(i) For the 1995 through 1998 crop years, 60 percent of the average
market price, as determined by FCIC, or any comparable coverage, as
determined by FCIC: or
(ii) For the 1999 and subsequent years, 55 percent of the average
market price, as determined by FCIC, or any comparable coverage, as
determined by FCIC.
Sec. 404.25 Multiple benefits.
(a) If a producer is eligible to receive NAP payments under this
part and benefits under any other program administered by the Secretary
for the same crop loss, the producer must choose whether to receive the
other program benefits or NAP payments. The producer is not eligible
for both. Such election does not relieve the producer from the
requirements of making a production and acreage report.
(b) Applicable programs include, but are not limited to, the
Emergency Livestock Feed Assistance Program and any other program
determined by FCIC to compensate the producer for the same crop loss.
Sec. 404.27 Payment and income limitations.
NAP payments made to eligible producers are subject to the
following provisions:
(a) For the purpose of making such payments, the term ``producer''
will be considered to mean the term ``person'' as determined in
accordance with 7 CFR part 1497, subpart B.
(b) No person shall receive payments for a crop year under this
part in excess of $100,000.
(c) A person who has qualifying gross revenues in excess of $2
million for the previous calendar year shall not be eligible to receive
NAP payments under this part.
(d) Simple interest on payments to the producer which are delayed
will be computed on the net payments ultimately found to be due, from
and including the 61st day after the latter of the date the producer
signs, dates, and submits a properly completed application for payment
on the designated form, the date disputed applications are adjudicated,
or the date the area is approved for NAP payments. Interest will be
paid unless the reason for failure to timely pay is due to the
producer's failure to provide information or other material necessary
for the computation or payment. The interest rate will be that
established by the Secretary of the Treasury under section 12 of the
Contract Disputes Act of 1978 (41 U.S.C. 611), and published in the
Federal Register semiannually on or about January 1 and July 1 of each
year and may vary with each publication.
Sec. 404.29 Misrepresentation, scheme and device, and fraud.
(a) If FCIC determines that any producer has misrepresented any
fact or has knowingly adopted, participated in, or benefitted from, any
scheme or device that has the effect of defeating, or is designed to
defeat the purpose of this part, such producer will not be eligible to
receive any payments applicable to the crop year for which the scheme
or device was adopted.
(b) If any misrepresentation, scheme or device, or practice has
been employed for the purpose of causing FCIC to make a payment which
FCIC otherwise would not make under this part:
(1) FCIC will withhold all or part of the payment that would
otherwise be due.
(2) All amounts paid by FCIC to any such producer, applicable to
the crop year in which the offense occurred, must be refunded to FCIC
together with interest and other amounts as determined in accordance
with this part.
(3) FCIC may impose such other penalties or administrative
sanctions as authorized by section 506(n) of the Federal Crop Insurance
Act, as amended
[[Page 7206]]
or available under 7 CFR part 400, subpart R.
(c) Scheme and device may include, but is not limited to:
(1) Concealing any information having a bearing on the application
of the rules of this part;
(2) Submitting false information to the FCIC or any county or state
FSA committee; or
(3) Creating fictitious entities for the purpose of concealing the
interest of a person in the farming operation.
Sec. 404.31 Refunds to the Corporation.
(a) In the event that there is a failure to comply with any term,
requirement, or condition for payment made in accordance with this
part, or the payment was established as a result of erroneous
information provided by any person, or was erroneously computed, all
such payments or overpayments will be refunded to FCIC on demand,
together with interest.
(b) Interest will accrue in accordance with the provisions of 7 CFR
Sec. 1403.9.
(c) Interest on any amount due the FCIC found to have been received
by the producer as a result of fraud, misrepresentation, scheme or
device, or presenting a false application for payment will start on the
date the producer received the payment.
(d) Recovery of delinquent debts and set off will be in accordance
with 7 CFR part 1403.
(e) If FCIC determines it is necessary to contract with a
collection agency or to employ an attorney to assist in collection, the
producer will pay all the expenses of collection.
(f) All amounts paid will be applied first to the payment of
expense of collection, second to the reduction of any penalties which
may have been assessed, then to the reduction of accrued interest, then
to the reduction of the principal balance.
Sec. 404.33 Cumulative liability.
(a) The liability of any producer for any payment or refunds, which
is determined in accordance with this part to be due to FCIC, will be
in addition to any other liability of such producer under any civil or
criminal fraud statute or any other statute or provision of law
including, but not limited to, 18 U.S.C. 286, 287, 371, 641, 1001;
1014, and 31 U.S.C. 3729.
(b) All producers on the unit receiving payments under this part
will be jointly and severally liable to repay any unearned NAP
payments.
Sec. 404.35 Appeals.
The appeal, reconsideration, or review of all determinations made
under this part, except the designation of an area for which there is
no appeal rights because it is determined a rule of general
applicability, must be in accordance with part 780 of this title.
Sec. 404.37 Exemption from levy.
Any payment that is due any person under this part will be made
without regard to questions of title under state law and without regard
to any attachment, levy, garnishment, or any other legal process
against the crop, and the proceeds thereof, which may be asserted by
any creditor, except statutory liens of the United States.
Sec. 404.39 Estates, trusts, and minors.
(a) Program documents executed by persons legally authorized to
represent estates or trusts will be accepted only if such person
furnishes evidence of the authority to execute such documents.
(b) A minor who is otherwise eligible will be eligible for NAP
payments under this part only if such person meets one of the following
requirements:
(1) The minor establishes that the right of majority has been
conferred on the minor by court proceedings or by statute;
(2) A guardian has been appointed to manage the minor's property
and the applicable program documents are executed by the guardian; or
(3) A bond is furnished under which the surety guarantees any loss
incurred for which the minor would be liable had the minor been an
adult.
Sec. 404.41 Death, incompetence, or disappearance.
In the case of death, incompetence or disappearance, of any person
who is eligible to receive NAP payments in accordance with this part,
such payments will be disbursed in accordance with part 707 of this
title.
Sec. 404.43 OMB control numbers.
These regulations amend the information collection requirements
previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget (``OMB'')
under OMB control number 0563-0016.
Done in Washington, D.C., on February 22, 1996.
Suzette M. Dittrich,
Acting Manager, Federal Crop Insurance Corporation.
[FR Doc. 96-4411 Filed 2-22-96; 3:00 pm]
BILLING CODE 3410-FA-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4394 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Michigan
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4394]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[MI28-02-7224; FRL-5324-4]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Michigan
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).
ACTION: Final rule; correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On July 26, 1994 the USEPA published a final rule approving
Michigan's 1990 base year ozone emission inventory for the Grand Rapids
and Muskegon nonattainment areas submitted as a revision to the
Michigan state implementation plan (58 FR 37944). The supplementary
information to the final rule included errors on the totals of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) emissions. The intent of this document is to
provide the correct VOC emission totals.
Specifically, on page 37946 of the final rule, the table ``Daily
VOC Emissions From All Sources'' incorrectly lists the total VOC
emissions in tons per summer weekday (tpd) for the Grand Rapids and
Muskegon as 199.29 and 58.53, respectively. The correct total VOC
emissions are 203.29 tpd for Grand Rapids, and 59.38 tpd for Muskegon.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This correction is effective February 27, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Charles C. Hatten, Environmental
Engineer, Regulation Development Section, Air and Radiation Branch (AT-
18J), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 5, Chicago, Illinois
60604, (312) 886-6031.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Ozone, Volatile organic compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: October 10, 1995.
Valdas V. Adamkus,
Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-4394 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4384 High Density Traffic Airports; Slot Allocation and Transfer Method
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4384]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 93
[Docket No. 28473]
High Density Traffic Airports; Slot Allocation and Transfer
Method
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Statement of policy.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This policy statement is necessary to address the impact of
airport closings and slow-downs upon slot utilization requirements due
to the severe winter storm that affected several High Density Rule
Traffic airports during the period January 7 through January 12, 1996.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 27, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Patricia R. Lane, Manager, Air Traffic Rules and Airspace Law Branch,
AGC-230, Regulations Division, Office of the Chief Counsel, 800
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591; telephone (202) 267-
3491.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On August 18, 1992, the FAA published in the Federal Register (57
FR 37308), an amendment to the minimum slot usage requirement of
Sec. 93.227(a) of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 93.227(a)).
This amendment increased the minimum slot usage percentage from 65
percent to 80 percent, effective January 1, 1993. A slot that is not
used or operated a minimum of 80 percent of the time within the
bimonthly reporting period is subject to withdrawal by the FAA.
From January 7 through 12, 1996, several airports, including three
of the High Density Traffic airports, were forced to close or
significantly slow down operations because of severe weather conditions
along the east coast of the United States. Due to the airport closings
and slow downs, many air carriers and commuters were unable to operate
their slots. Many of the carriers have expressed concerns that they
will not be able to reach the 80 percent minimum usage requirement due
to their inability to operate their slots during those 6 days.
Even though the 80 percent minimum usage requirement takes various
adverse factors into account, such as occasional mechanical problems
and bad weather, the blizzard that forced the closure and slow down of
operations of the airports was an extraordinary weather system of great
intensity and duration and should not be considered as a normal bad
weather occurrence. The FAA has decided, based on the extreme adverse
weather, that operators should not be penalized if they are unable to
reach the 80 percent minimum usage requirement due to the 6-day airport
closure/slow-down.
This document announces FAA's policy that will allow slot holders
and operators to report the slots as being used for all 6 days. In this
way, no operator will be in jeopardy of losing a slot merely because
the airport was closed or operations were significantly reduced.
Statement of Policy
When an operator submits its bi-monthly use-or-lose report, it may
designate any slot scheduled for operation at a High Density Traffic
airport from January 7 through January 12, 1996, as operated. The FAA's
Office of Chief Counsel, Slot Administration Office will verify that
the submitted slot was scheduled, and the FAA will treat as used any
slot that the holder-of-record or operator-of-record was schedule to
operate over the specified 6 day period.
Issued in Washington, DC on February 21, 1996.
Nicholas G. Garaufis,
Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 96-4384 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4383 Amendment to Class E Airspace; Hastings, NE
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4383]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ACE-16]
Amendment to Class E Airspace; Hastings, NE
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment modifies the Class E airspace area at Hastings,
NE, to accommodate a planned Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
(SIAP) at the Hastings Municipal Airport. This action will provide for
additional controlled airspace necessary for the planned SIAP utilizing
the Global Positioning System (GPS).
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC June 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Operations Branch, ACE-530C, Federal
Aviation Administration, 601 E. 12th St., Kansas City, MO 64106;
telephone (816) 426-3408.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On December 20, 1995, the FAA proposed to amend Part 71 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) by modifying the Class E
airspace area at Hastings, NE (60 FR 65602). The proposed action would
provide additional controlled airspace to accommodate the new SIAP to
Hastings Municipal Airport.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments objecting to the proposal were received. Class E airspace
areas extending from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth
are published in paragraphs 6005 of FAA Order of 7400.9C, dated August
17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR Part 71) amends the Class E airspace area at Hastings, NE, by
providing additional controlled airspace for aircraft executing the new
SIAP to the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation (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 his rule 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
Aviation, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 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 6005 Class E airspace areas extending from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ACE NE E5 Hastings, NE [Revised]
Hastings Municipal Airport, NE
(Lat. 40 deg.36'16'' N., long. 98 deg.25'39'' W.)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.7-mile radius of Hastings Municipal Airport and within 2
miles each side of the 338 deg. bearing from the Hastings Municipal
Airport extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 10 miles north of the
airport and within 2 miles each side of the 143 deg. bearing from
Hastings Municipal Airport extending from the 6.7-mile radius to 10
miles southeast of the airport, and within 3 miles each side of the
219 deg. bearing from Hastings Municipal Airport extending from the
6.7-mile radius to 10 miles southwest of the airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Kansas City, MO, on January 24, 1996.
Herman J. Lyons, Jr.,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 96-4383 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4382 Amendment to Class E Airspace; Carroll, IA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7209-7210]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4382]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ACE-15]
Amendment to Class E Airspace; Carroll, IA
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
[[Page 7210]]
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment modifies the Class E airspace area at Carroll,
IA, to accommodate a planned Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
(SIAP) at the Arthur N. Neu Airport. This action will provide for
additional controlled airspace necessary for the planned SIAP utilizing
the Global Positioning System (GPS).
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 u.t.c. June 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Operations
Branch, ACE-530C, Federal Aviation Administration, 601 E. 12th St.,
Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone (816) 426-3408.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On December 20, 1995, the FAA proposed to amend Part 71 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) by modifying the Class E
airspace area at Carroll, IA (60 FR 65603). The proposed action would
provide additional controlled airspace to accommodate the new SIAP to
Arthur N. Neu Airport.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments objecting to the proposal were received. Class E airspace
areas extending from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth
are published in paragraphs 6005 to FAA Order 7400.9C, dated August 17,
1995, and effective September 16, 1995, which is incorporated by
reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace designation listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR Part 71) amends the Class E airspace area at Carroll, IA, by
providing additional controlled airspace for aircraft executing the new
SIAP to the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation (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 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
Aviation, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 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 6005 Class E airspace areas extending from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ACE IA E5 Carroll, IA [Revised]
Arthur N. Neu Airport, IA
(Lat 42 deg.02'46'' N., long 94 deg.47'20'' W)
Carroll NDB
(Lat 42 deg.02'42'' N., long. 94 deg.47'07'' W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.5-mile radius of Arthur N. Neu Airport and within 2.6
miles each side of the 142 deg. bearing from the Carroll NDB
extending from the 6.5-mile radius to 7 miles southeast of the
airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Kansas City, MO on January 24, 1996.
Herman J. Lyons, Jr.,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 96-4382 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4381 Amendment to Class E Airspace; Webster City, IA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7210-7211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4381]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ACE-13]
Amendment to Class E Airspace; Webster City, IA
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment modifies the Class E airspace area at Webster
City, IA to accommodate a planned Standard Instrument Approach
Procedure (SIAP) at the Webster City Municipal Airport. This action
will provide for additional controlled airspace necessary for the
planned SIAP utilizing the Global Positioning System (GPS).
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC April 25, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Operations Branch, ACE-530C, Federal
Aviation Administration, 601 E. 12th St., Kansas City, MO 64106;
telephone (816) 426-3408.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On November 3, 1995, the FAA proposed to amend Part 71 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) by modifying the Class E
airspace area at Webster City, IA (60 FR 62053). The proposed action
would provide additional controlled airspace to accommodate the new
SIAP to Webster City Municipal Airport.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments objecting to the proposal were received. Class E airspace
areas extending from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth
are published in paragraphs 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. The Class E airspace designation listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR Part 71) amends the Class E airspace area at Webster City, IA, by
providing additional controlled airspace for aircraft executing the new
SIAP to the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation (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 will not have
[[Page 7211]]
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
Aviation, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 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 6005 Class E airspace areas extending from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ACE IA E5 Webster City, IA [Revised]
Webster City Municipal Airport, IA
(Lat. 42 deg.26'12'' N., long. 93 deg.52'10''W)
Webster City NDB
(Lat 42 deg.26'29''N., long. 93 deg.0'10''W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Webster City Municipal Airport and
within 2.6 miles each side of the 155 deg. bearing from the Webster
City NDB extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 7.4 miles southeast
of the airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Kansas City, MO on January 22, 1996.
Herman J. Lyons, Jr.,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 96-4381 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4380 Amendment to Class E Airspace; Clinton, IA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7211]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4380]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ACE-12]
Amendment to Class E Airspace; Clinton, IA
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration [FAA], DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment modifies the Class E airspace area at Clinton,
IA to accommodate a planned Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
(SIAP) at the Clinton Municipal Airport. This action will provide for
additional controlled airspace necessary for the planned SIAP based on
the Global Positioning System (GPS).
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC April 25, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Operations Branch, ACE-530C, Federal
Aviation Administration, 601 E. 12th St., Kansas City, MO 64106;
telephone (816) 426-3408.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On November 3, 1995, the FAA proposed to amend Part 71 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) by modifying the Class E
airspace area at Clinton, IA (60 FR 61667). The proposed action would
provide additional controlled airspace to accommodate the new SIAP to
Clinton Municipal Airport.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments objecting to the proposal were received. Class E airspace
areas extending from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth
are published in paragraphs 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. The Class E airspace designation listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR part 71) amends the Class E airspace area at Clinton, IA, by
providing additional controlled airspace for aircraft executing the new
SIAP to the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation (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 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
Aviation, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 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 6005 Class E airspace areas extending from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ACE IA E5 Clinton, IA [Revised]
Clinton Municipal Airport, IA
(Lat. 41 deg.49'52''N., long. 90 deg.19'45''W)
Davenport VORTAC
(Lat. 41 deg.42'30''N., long. 90 deg.29'01''W)
Clinton NDB
(Lat. 41 deg.49'43''N., long. 90 deg.19'40''W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6-mile radius of Clinton Municipal Airport and within 1.8
miles each side of the 044 deg. radial of the Davenport VORTAC
extending from the 6-mile radius to the VORTAC and within 4.5 miles
each side of the 316 deg. bearing from the Clinton NDB extending to
10.5 miles northwest of the NDB and within 1 mile each side of the
146 deg. bearing from the Clinton Municipal Airport extending from
the 6-mile radius to 9.5 miles southeast of the airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Kansas City, MO on January 22, 1996.
Herman J. Lyons, Jr.,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 96-4380 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4379 Amendment to Class E Airspace; Charles City, IA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7211-7212]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4379]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ACE-11]
Amendment to Class E Airspace; Charles City, IA
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7212]]
SUMMARY: This amendment modifies the Class E airspace area at Charles
City, IA to accommodate a planned Standard Instrument Approach
Procedure (SIAP) at the Charles City Municipal Airport. This action
will provide for additional controlled airspace necessary for the
planned SIAP utilizing the relocated Non-directional Radio Beacon
(NDB).
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 U.T.C. April 25, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Operations Branch, ACE-530C, Federal
Aviation Administration, 601 E. 12th St., Kansas City, MO 64106;
telephone (816) 426-3408.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On December 1, 1995, the FAA proposed to amend Part 71 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) by modifying the Class E
airspace area at Charles City, IA (60 FR 61666). The proposed action
would provide additional controlled airspace to accommodate the new
SIAP to Charles City Municipal Airport.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments objecting to the proposal were received. Class E airspace
areas extending from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth
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. The Class E airspace designation listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR Part 71) amends the Class E airspace area at Charles City, IA, by
providing additional controlled airspace for aircraft executing the new
SIAP to the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation (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 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
Aviation, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 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 6005 Class E airspace areas extending from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ACE IA E5 Charles City, IA [Revised]
Charles City Municipal Airport, IA
(Lat. 43 deg.04'21''N, long. 92 deg.36'39''W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 7-mile radius of the Charles City Municipal Airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Kansas City, MO on January 22, 1996.
Herman J. Lyons, Jr.,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 96-4379 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4378 Amendment to Class E Airspace; Atlantic, IA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7212-7213]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4378]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 95-ACE-14]
Amendment to Class E Airspace; Atlantic, IA
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This amendment modifies the Class E airspace area at Atlantic,
IA, to accommodate a planned Standard Instrument Approach Procedure
(SIAP) at the Atlantic Municipal Airport. This action will provide for
additional controlled airspace necessary for the planned SIAP utilizing
the Global Positioning System (GPS).
EFFECTIVE DATE: 0901 UTC June 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Kathy Randolph, Air Traffic Operations Branch, ACE-530C, Federal
Aviation Administration, 601 E. 12th St., Kansas City, MO, 64106;
telephone (816) 426-3408.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
History
On December 20, 1995, the FAA proposed to amend Part 71 of the
Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR Part 71) by modifying the Class E
airspace area at Atlantic, IA (60 FR 65604). The proposed action would
provide additional controlled airspace to accommodate the new SIAP to
Atlantic Municipal Airport.
Interested parties were invited to participate in this rulemaking
proceeding by submitting written comments on the proposal to the FAA.
No comments objecting to the proposal were received. Class E airspace
areas extending from 700 feet or more above the surface of the earth
are published in paragraphs 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. The Class E airspace designation listed in
this document will be published subsequently in the Order.
The Rule
This amendment to Part 71 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR Part 71) amends the Class E airspace area at Atlantic, IA, by
providing additional controlled airspace for aircraft executing the new
SIAP to the airport.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Therefore, this regulation (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 will not have a significant economic impact on
a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act.
[[Page 7213]]
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Aviation, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
In consideration of the foregoing, the Federal Aviation
Administration amends 14 CFR Part 71 as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for 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 6005 Class E airspace areas extending from 700 feet or
more above the surface of the earth.
* * * * *
ACE IA E5 Atlantic, IA [Revised]
Atlantic Municipal Airport, IA
(Lat. 41 deg.24'26''N., long. 95 deg.02'49''W)
Atlantic NDB
(Lat. 41 deg.24'14''N., long. 95 deg.02'47''W)
That airspace extending upward from 700 feet above the surface
within a 6.4-mile radius of Atlantic Municipal Airport and within 4
miles each side of the 315 deg. bearing from the Atlantic NDB
extending from the 6.4-mile radius to 8.3 miles northwest of the
airport.
* * * * *
Issued in Kansas City, MO on January 24, 1996.
Herman J. Lyons, Jr.,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, Central Region.
[FR Doc. 96-4378 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4347 Albermarle Sound, Pamlico Sound, and Adjacent Waters, North Carolina; Danger Zones/Restricted Areas for Naval Aircraft Operations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7214-7215]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4347]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
Corps of Engineers
33 CFR Part 334
Albermarle Sound, Pamlico Sound, and Adjacent Waters, North
Carolina; Danger Zones/Restricted Areas for Naval Aircraft Operations
AGENCY: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DoD.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Corps of Engineers is re-establishing a danger zone as a
restricted area in the waters off of Harvey Point, Perquimans County,
North Carolina. The area designated as the Harvey Point danger zone was
disestablished by the Corps in 1988. Due to subsequent surveys of the
area by the Navy, it has been determined that unexploded ordnance could
exist and in the interest of safety to the public, the area should be
closed to certain activities. The re-establishment of the danger zone
as a restricted area will allow the public to enter the area but will
prohibit any bottom disturbing activities such as dredging, clamming,
crabbing, seining or anchoring. Due to the risk of damage to property
or injury to the public, good cause exists to make this restricted area
regulation effective upon publication in the Federal Register.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 27, 1996.
ADDRESSES: HQUSACE, CECW-OR, Washington, DC 20314-1000.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ms. Angie Yelverton of the Corps Wilmington District at (910) 251-4480,
or Mr. Ralph Eppard, Regulatory Branch, CECW-OR at (202) 761-1783.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant to its authorities in Section 7 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1917 (40 Stat. 266; 33 U.S.C. 1) and
Chapter XIX of the Army Appropriations Act of 1919 (40 Stat. 892; 33
U.S.C. 3), the Corps is promulgating a regulation under 33 CFR 334.412
re-establishing an area that was previously a danger zone, as a
restricted area in the waters off of Harvey Point, Albemarle Sound,
North Carolina.
Background
In accordance with a request by the Navy, the Corps deleted the
regulations in 33 CFR 334.410(b)(1) which established a target and
bombing danger zone on the north shore of Albemarle Sound, on November
29, 1988 (53 FR 47952-47953). The area was no longer being used by the
Navy. This amendment was made prior to promulgation of procedural
regulations now found in 33 CFR 334.5 Disestablishment of a danger
zone, by the Corps. Pursuant to these regulations, the Agency
requesting revocation of a danger zone area shall certify that the area
is suitable for use by the public. Harvey Point was previously used as
a target and bombing site by the Navy, so the possibility of live
ordnance in the mud below the water exists. In the interest of public
safety, the Navy requested that the area be established as a restricted
area until such time as a thorough survey of the area can be completed
and any dangerous ordnance, if any, is removed. The restricted area as
established today will allow the public to use the area for
recreational and commercial uses, including fishing, swimming, water
skiing, boating and other activities provided the activity does not
disturb the bottom. Those activities which are specifically prohibited
include dredging, clamming, crabbing, seining and anchoring. Upon
completion of additional surveys by the Navy and, if appropriate, any
subsequent cleanup, the area will be returned to unrestricted public
use. An editorial change is also being made to the regulations in 33
CFR 334.410 which reflects a change in the Naval Command responsible
for enforcing these danger zones and the added restricted area.
Agency Decision To Adopt the Amendments Without Opportunity for
Public Comment and Participation in Rulemaking
The Corps has determined that implementation of final rulemaking
for the Harvey Point restricted area will protect the public from
possible hazards resulting from previous uses of the area. Nothing will
be served by delaying the effective date of the rule. We have found it
to be in the National interest to restrict the public use of the prior
[[Page 7215]]
Harvey Point danger zone and will remove the restricted area upon
notification by the Navy that its surveys and any required cleanup have
been completed.
Economic Assessment and Certification
This final rule is issued with respect to a military function of
the Defense Department and the provisions of Executive Order 12866 do
not apply. These final rules have been reviewed under the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), which requires the preparation of a
regulatory flexibility analysis for any regulation that will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
(i.e., small businesses and small governments). The Corps has
determined that the economic impact of the changes to the restricted
area will have practically no impact on the public, no anticipated
navigational hazard or interference with existing waterway traffic and
accordingly, no significant economic impact on small entities.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 334
Danger zones, Marine safety, Navigation (water), Transportation,
Waterways.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 33 CFR Part 334 is amended
as set forth below.
PART 334--DANGER ZONE AND RESTRICTED AREA REGULATIONS
1. The authority citation for Part 334 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 40 Stat. 266; (33 U.S.C. 1) and 40 Stat. 892; (33
U.S.C. 3)
2. Section 334.410 is amended by revising paragraph (d)(4) as
follows:
Sec. 334.410 Albemarle Sound, Pamlico Sound, and adjacent waters, NC;
danger zones for naval aircraft operations.
* * * * *
(d) The regulations. * * *
(4) Enforcing agency. The regulations in this section shall be
enforced by the Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, and
such agencies as he/she shall designate.
3. Section 334.412 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 334.412 Albemarle Sound, Pamlico Sound, Harvey Point and adjacent
waters, NC; restricted area.
(a) The area. Beginning on the north shore of Albemarle Sound and
the easternmost tip of Harvey Point; thence southeasterly to Day Beacon
number 3; thence southeasterly to latitude 36 deg.03'06'', longitude
76 deg.16'43''; thence southwesterly to latitude 36 deg.02'18'',
longitude 76 deg.19'30''; thence southwesterly to latitude
36 deg.04'18'', longitude 76 deg.20'20''; thence 23 deg.15' True to the
shore; and thence northeasterly along the shore to the point of
beginning.
(b) The regulations. The restricted area described in this section
is the inactive Harvey Point target range which was disestablished as a
danger zone. The area will be open to public access for recreational
and commercial uses, except that dredging, clamming, crabbing, seining,
and anchoring of all vessels and any other activity which could result
in disturbing or penetrating the bottom is prohibited.
(c) Enforcing agency. The regulations in this section shall be
enforced by the Commander, Naval Air Force, U.S. Atlantic Fleet, and
such agencies as he/she shall designate.
Dated: February 14, 1996.
Stanley G. Genega,
Major General, USA, Director of Civil Works.
[FR Doc. 96-4347 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-92-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4338 Immigrant Petitions; Children of Widows or Widowers
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7206-7207]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4338]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Immigration and Naturalization Service
8 CFR Part 204
[INS No. 1690-95]
RIN 1115-AD91
Immigrant Petitions; Children of Widows or Widowers
AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization Service, Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule adopts without change an interim rule published in
the Federal Register on July 31, 1995, by the Immigration and
Naturalization Service (``the Service''), which amended the Service's
regulations by providing clarifying language and procedures for
according immigrant status to children of widows or widowers who were
not previously eligible for immigration benefits as derivative
immediate relatives. This rule was necessary to enhance family well-
being by promoting the family unity relationship between the child and
his or her widowed mother or father.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule is effective February 27, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ramonia Law-Hill, Senior Adjudications Officer, Adjudications Division,
Immigration and Naturalization Service, 425 ``I'' Street, NW., Room
3214, Washington, DC 20536, telephone (202) 514-5014.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On July 31, 1995, the Commissioner of the
Immigration and Naturalization Service published in the Federal
Register at 60 FR 38947-38948 an interim rule with request for
comments. The rule implemented section 219(b) of the Immigration and
Nationality Technical Corrections Act of 1994, Public Law 103-416,
dated October 25, 1994. The rule enabled the child of a widow or
widower to be included in the widow or widower's petition and to
accompany or follow to join the widow or widower to the United States
as a derivative immediate relative. The rule enhanced family well-being
by promoting the family relationship between the child and his or her
widowed mother or father.
The public was provided with a 60-day comment period which ended on
September 29, 1995. No comments were received. Accordingly, the Service
is adopting the interim rule as a final rule without change.
[[Page 7207]]
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
605(b)), the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service, certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule merely
adopts without change an interim rule which has been in effect since
July 31, 1995.
Executive Order 12866
This rule is not considered by the Department of Justice,
Immigration and Naturalization Service, to be a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f),
Regulatory Planning and Review, and the Office of Management and Budget
has waived its review process under section (6)(a)(3)(A).
Executive Order 12612
The regulation will not have a substantial direct effect on the
States, on the relationships between the National Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive
Order 12612, it is determined that this rule does not have sufficient
Federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
This regulation will enhance family well-being by promoting the
family unity relationship between the child and his or her mother or
father.
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 204
Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Immigration,
Petitions.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 8 CFR part 204 which was
published in the Federal Register on July 31, 1995, at 60 FR 38947-
38948 is adopted as a final rule without change.
Dated: February 16, 1996.
Doris Meissner,
Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
[FR Doc. 96-4338 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4331 Public Land Order No. 7157, Correction; Partial Revocation of Public Land Order Nos. 1992 and 2588, and Bureau of Land Management Order Dated January 28, 1952; Idaho
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4331]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Land Management
43 CFR Public Land Order 7185
[ID-933-1430-01; IDI-08955-01, IDI-08932-02, IDI-14647-02]
Public Land Order No. 7157, Correction; Partial Revocation of
Public Land Order Nos. 1992 and 2588, and Bureau of Land Management
Order Dated January 28, 1952; Idaho
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Public Land Order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This order will correct an error in the land description in
Public Land Order No. 7157.
EFFECTIVE DATE: February 27, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry R. Lievsay, BLM Idaho State
Office, 3380 Americana Terrace, Boise, Idaho 83706-2500, 208-384-3166.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior
by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976,
43 U.S.C. 1714 (1988), it is ordered as follows:
The land description in Public Land Order No. 7157, 60 FR 45372-
45373, August 31, 1995, is hereby corrected as follows:
On page 45372, third column, second line from the top of the page
which reads ``S\1/2\NW\1/4\ and E\1/2\SE\1/4\'' is hereby corrected to
read ``S\1/2\NW\1/4\ and E\1/2\SW\1/4\.''
Dated: February 13, 1996.
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 96-4331 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4330 Partial Revocation of Public Land Order No. 1374; Idaho
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7223-7224]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4330]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
43 CFR Public Land Order 7186
[ID-933-1430-01; IDI-05280 01]
Partial Revocation of Public Land Order No. 1374; Idaho
AGENCY: Bureau of Land Management, Interior.
ACTION: Public Land Order.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This order revokes a public land order insofar as it affects
152.60 acres of National Forest System land withdrawn by the Department
of Agriculture, Forest Service, for the Johnson Park Administrative
Site in the Payette National Forest. The land is no longer needed for
the purpose for which it was withdrawn. This action will open the land
to surface entry and mining, and will permit the Forest Service to
dispose of the land by exchange. The land has been and will remain open
to mineral leasing.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 28, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Larry R. Lievsay, BLM Idaho State
Office, 3380 Americana Terrace, Boise, Idaho 83706-2500, 208-384-3166.
By virtue of the authority vested in the Secretary of the Interior
by Section 204 of the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976,
43 U.S.C. 1714 (1988), it is ordered as follows:
1. Public Land Order No. 1374, which withdrew National Forest
System land for the Forest Service's Johnson Park Administrative Site,
is hereby revoked insofar as it affects the following described land:
Boise Meridian
T. 17 N., R. 2 W.,
Sec. 30, lots 3 and 4, and E\1/2\SW\1/4\.
The area described contains 152.60 acres in Washington County.
2. At 9 a.m. on March 28, 1996, the land shall be opened to such
forms of disposition as may by law be made of National Forest System
land, including
[[Page 7224]]
location and entry under the United States mining laws, subject to
valid existing rights, the provisions of existing withdrawals, other
segregations of record, and the requirements of applicable law.
Appropriation of land described in this order under the general mining
laws prior to the date and time of restoration is unauthorized. Any
such attempted appropriation, including attempted adverse possession
under 30 U.S.C. 38 (1988), shall vest no rights against the United
States. Acts required to establish a location and to initiate a right
of possession are governed by State law where not in conflict with
Federal law. The Bureau of Land Management will not intervene in
disputes between rival locators over possessory rights since Congress
has provided for such determinations in local courts.
Dated: February 13, 1996.
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 96-4330 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-GG-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4304 Delegation of Authority to Regional Counsels
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7215-7217]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4304]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Parts 0, 1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 17, and 36
RIN 2900-AH81
Delegation of Authority to Regional Counsels
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of General Counsel has changed its field structure
from 52 District Counsel offices to 23 Regional Counsel offices.
Previously, each District Counsel office was headed by a District
Counsel who was authorized to take various actions on behalf of the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). The new Regional Counsel offices
are each headed by a Regional Counsel. In accordance with the
provisions of 38 U.S.C. 512, this document delegates to the Regional
Counsels the same authority and responsibility to act for VA as was
previously granted to District Counsels. This document also sets forth
the jurisdiction and address of each Regional Counsel.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Howard Lem, Assistant General Counsel
(026), Department of Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW.,
Washington, DC 20420, (202) 565-4885.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under 5 U.S.C. 553, there is a basis for
dispensing with prior notice and comment and for dispensing with a 30-
day delay of the effective date since this final rule constitutes a
rule of agency organization, a non-substantive rule.
The Secretary certifies that this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-
612. This amendment, which constitutes a rule of agency organization,
is a non-substantive rule. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this
final rule is exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility
analyses requirements of sections 603 and 604.
List of Subjects
38 CFR Part 0
Conflict of interests.
38 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Archives and records,
Cemeteries, Claims, Courts, Flags, Freedom of information, Government
employees, Government property, Infants and children, Inventions and
patents, Investigations, Parking, Penalties, Postal Service, Privacy,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Seals and insignia, Security
measures, Wages.
38 CFR Part 2
Authority delegations (Government agencies).
38 CFR Part 3
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits,
Health care, Pensions, Radioactive materials, Veterans, Vietnam.
38 CFR Parts 13 and 14
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Courts, Foreign
relations, Government employees, Lawyers, Legal services, Organization
and functions (Government agencies), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Surety bonds, Trusts and trustees, Veterans.
38 CFR Part 17
Administrative practice and procedure, Alcohol abuse, Alcoholism,
Claims, Day care, Dental health, Drug abuse, Foreign relations,
Government contracts, Grants programs-health, Health care, Homeless,
Medical and dental schools, Medical devices, Nursing homes,
Philippines, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Scholarships and
fellowships, Travel and transportation expenses, Veterans.
[[Page 7216]]
38 CFR Part 36
Condominiums, Housing, Indians, Individuals with disabilities, Loan
program-housing and community development, Manufactured homes, Mortgage
insurance, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Veterans.
Approved: February 14, 1996.
Jesse Brown,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 38 CFR parts 0, 1, 2, 3,
13, 14, 17, and 36 are amended as set forth below:
1. The authority citation for parts 0, 1, 2, 3, 13, 14, 17, and 36
continue to read as follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 512.
PART 0--STANDARDS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT AND RELATED RESPONSIBILITIES
2. Remove the words ``District Counsel'' and add in their place
``Regional Counsel'' wherever they appear.
PART 1--GENERAL PROVISIONS
3. Remove the words ``District Counsel'' and add in their place
``Regional Counsel'' wherever they appear.
4. Remove the words ``District Counsels'' and add in their place
``Regional Counsels'' wherever they appear.
PART 2--DELEGATIONS OF AUTHORITY
5. Remove the words ``District Counsel'' and add in their place
``Regional Counsel'' wherever they appear.
6. Remove the words ``District Counsels'' and add in their place
``Regional Counsels'' wherever they appear.
PART 3--PENSIONS, BONUSES, AND VETERANS' RELIEF
7. Remove the words ``District Counsel'' and add in their place
``Regional Counsel'' wherever they appear.
PART 13--VETERANS BENEFITS ADMINISTRATION, FIDUCIARY ACTIVITIES
8. Remove the words ``District Counsel'' and add in their place
``Regional Counsel'' wherever they appear.
PART 14--LEGAL SERVICES, GENERAL COUNSEL
9. Remove the words ``District Counsel'' or ``District Council''
and add in their place ``Regional Counsel'' wherever they appear.
10. Remove the words ``District Counsels'' and add in their place
``Regional Counsels'' wherever they appear.
11. In Sec. 14.501, add a new paragraph (f) to read as follows:
Sec. 14.501 Functions and responsibilities of Regional Counsels.
* * * * *
(f) The jurisdictions and addresses of Regional Counsels are as
follows:
(1) Region 1: (JURISDICTION) Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New
Hampshire, Rhode Island; (ADDRESS) JFK Federal Bldg., Room E213,
Boston, MA 02203.
(2) Region 2: (JURISDICTION) New Jersey, Metropolitan New York
City; (ADDRESS) 800 Poly Place, Building 14, Brooklyn, NY 11209.
(3) Region 3: (JURISDICTION) District of Columbia; Fairfax,
Virginia; Arlington, Virginia; Alexandria, Virginia; Martinsburg, West
Virginia; and Maryland; (ADDRESS) 849 International Drive, Suite 200,
Linthicum, MD 21090.
(4) Region 4: (JURISDICTION) Pennsylvania, Delaware; (ADDRESS) 1000
Liberty Ave., Pittsburgh, PA 15222.
(5) Region 5: (JURISDICTION) Georgia, South Carolina; (ADDRESS) 730
Peachtree Street, N.E., Atlanta, GA 30365.
(6) Region 6: (JURISDICTION) Florida, Puerto Rico; (ADDRESS) P.O.
Box 5002, Building 22, Room 333, Bay Pines, FL 33504.
(7) Region 7: (JURISDICTION) Ohio, West Virginia (excluding
Martinsburg, West Virginia); (ADDRESS) 1240 East Ninth Street, Room
1225, Cleveland, OH 44199.
(8) Region 8: (JURISDICTION) Arkansas, Tennessee; (ADDRESS) Federal
Courthouse Annex, 110 9th Ave., S., Nashville, TN 37203.
(9) Region 9: (JURISDICTION) Alabama, Mississippi; (ADDRESS) 1500
E. Woodrow Wilson Dr., Jackson, MS 39216.
(10) Region 10: (JURISDICTION) Illinois, Iowa; (ADDRESS) VA Medical
Center, Bldg. 50, P. O. Box 127, Hines, IL 60141.
(11) Region 11: (JURISDICTION) Michigan, Wisconsin; (ADDRESS)
Patrick V. McNamara Federal Bldg., Suite 1460, 477 Michigan Ave.,
Detroit, MI 48226.
(12) Region 12: (JURISDICTION) Kansas, Missouri, Nebraska;
(ADDRESS) 1 Jefferson Barracks Drive, St. Louis, MO 63125-4185.
(13) Region 13: (JURISDICTION) Oklahoma, Northern Texas; (ADDRESS)
1400 N. Valley Mills Dr., Waco, TX 76799.
(14) Region 14: (JURISDICTION) Louisiana, Southern Texas; (ADDRESS)
6900 Almeda Road, Houston, TX 77030.
(15) Region 15: (JURISDICTION) Minnesota, North Dakota, South
Dakota; (ADDRESS) VA Medical Center, One Veterans Drive, Bldg. 73,
Minneapolis, MN 55417.
(16) Region 16: (JURISDICTION) Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, Montana;
(ADDRESS) Box 25126, 155 Van Gordon Street, Denver, CO 80225.
(17) Region 17: (JURISDICTION) Lower California; (ADDRESS) 11000
Wilshire Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90024.
(18) Region 18: (JURISDICTION) Upper California, Hawaii, Central
and Northern Nevada, and Philippine Islands; (ADDRESS) VA Medical
Center, 4150 Clement Street, Bldg. 210, San Francisco, CA 94121.
(19) Region 19: (JURISDICTION) Arizona, Southern Nevada, and New
Mexico; (ADDRESS) 3225 N. Central Ave., Rm. 305, Phoenix, AZ 85012.
(20) Region 20: (JURISDICTION) Idaho, Oregon, Washington, Alaska;
(ADDRESS) 1220 SW Third Ave., Portland, OR 97204.
(21) Region 21: (JURISDICTION) New York (except Metropolitan New
York City), Vermont; (ADDRESS) 120 LeBrun, Buffalo, NY 14215.
(22) Region 22: (JURISDICTION) Indiana, Kentucky; (ADDRESS) 575 N.
Pennsylvania Street, Room 309, Indianapolis, IN 46204.
(23) Region 23: (JURISDICTION) North Carolina, Virginia (excluding
Fairfax, Arlington, and Alexandria); (ADDRESS) 251 N. Main Street,
Winston-Salem, NC 27155.
12. In Sec. 14.518, paragraph (a), remove the word ``district'' and
add in its place ``region''.
PART 17--MEDICAL CHARGES, WAIVERS, AND COLLECTIONS
13. Remove the words ``District Counsel'' and add in their place
[[Page 7217]]
``Regional Counsel'' wherever they appear.
PART 36--LOAN GUARANTY
14. Remove the words ``District Counsel'' and add in their place
``Regional Counsel'' wherever they appear.
[FR Doc. 96-4304 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4303 Use of Sorbitol in Cooked Roast Beef Products
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7207-7209]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4303]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety and Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 318
[Docket No. 95-052DF]
RIN 0583-AC02
Use of Sorbitol in Cooked Roast Beef Products
AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is amending the
Federal meat inspection regulations to add cooked roast beef products
to the list of products in which sorbitol is permitted. This action is
being taken in response to a petition requesting that FSIS allow the
use of up to 2 percent sorbitol both as a sweetener and to reduce
charring in cooked roast beef products. The sorbitol will be added to a
solution of ingredients that are pumped into the beef prior to cooking.
DATES: This rule will be effective on April 29, 1996 unless FSIS
receives written adverse comments or written notice of intent to submit
adverse comments on or before March 28, 1996. If critical comments are
received, the final rulemaking document will be withdrawn and a
proposed rulemaking document will be published.
ADDRESSES: Submit adverse comments or notice of intent to submit
adverse comments to: FSIS Docket Clerk, Docket #95-052DF, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Room
4352, South Agriculture Building, 14th and Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20250-3700. Please submit one original and two copies of
written adverse comments.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Charles R. Edwards, Director, Product Assessment Division, Regulatory
Programs, Food Safety and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, DC 20250; (202) 254-2565.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21
U.S.C. 601 et seq.), FSIS provides mandatory inspection of meat and
meat food products prepared for distribution in commerce. The Act
prohibits the addition of any substance to any meat or meat food
product that may render the product adulterated (21 U.S.C. 610).
Section 318.7(a)(1) of the Federal meat inspection regulations (9 CFR
318.7) prohibits the use of any substance in the preparation of any
product unless its use is approved in section 318.7(c)(4) of the
Federal meat inspection regulations, which is the chart of substances
acceptable for use in the preparation of products, or unless it is
approved elsewhere in the regulations or by the Administrator, FSIS.
FSIS was petitioned to approve the use of sorbitol in cooked roast
beef products in the same amount currently approved for other meat and
meat food products. The petitioner requested that FSIS amend
Sec. 318.7(c)(4) of the Federal meat inspection regulations to allow
the use of up to 2 percent sorbitol both as a sweetener and to reduce
charring in cooked roast beef products, excluding the formula weight of
water or ice. The sorbitol will be added to a solution of ingredients
that are pumped into beef prior to cooking.
Charring is an adverse effect that occurs when sugar-related
substances are subjected to prolonged heat treatment. Sorbitol is a
common sugar alcohol; it can be found in foods like apples and pears.
It is about half as sweet as sucrose and is often used as a substitute
sweetener in reduced-sugar food products, such as sugar-free candy and
other food products for diabetics. Sorbitol is listed in 21 CFR
184.1835 as a substance generally recognized as safe for use as an
anticaking agent, humectant, flavoring agent, and for various other
uses, when used in accordance with good manufacturing practices.
Sorbitol does not posses the same chemical makeup as do sugars that
carmelize, i.e., brown and char in the presence of high heat. It is
this characteristic of sorbitol that reduces charring in cooked roast
beef products and other meat products.
The petitioner conducted informal sensory testing using various
levels of sorbitol in roast beef product formulations.\1\ Tests were
conducted by using informal visual and taste panels. The visual panel
measured the amount of charring that took place on roast beef products
treated with sorbitol by evaluating the browning of products after they
were treated and cooked. The sweetness was measured by a separate
panel; that panel tasted the test products after they were treated and
cooked. The test data show that 2 percent sorbitol accomplishes both
charring reduction and suitable sweetness.
\1\ Information regarding the informal sensory testing is
available in the FSIS Docket Room, USDA, 14th & Independence Avenue,
SW., Room 4352, South Agriculture Building, Washington, DC 20250-
3700.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
After reviewing the petitioner's technical data and information,
the Administrator, FSIS determined that the chart of approved
substances in 9 CFR 318.7(c)(4) should be amended to allow
[[Page 7208]]
the use of sorbitol for the purposes and in the amounts requested by
the petitioner. The technical data demonstrates the efficacy of
sorbitol for these uses. Sorbitol is a substance generally recognized
as safe by the Food and Drug Administration. The Administrator, FSIS,
has determined that the use of sorbitol (1) will not render the product
adulterated or misbranded or otherwise not in compliance with the
requirements of the Act; and (2) is functional and suitable for the
product, and is permitted at the lowest level necessary to accomplish
the stated effect. Accordingly, FSIS is amending the chart of approved
substances in 9 CFR 318.7(c)(4) to allow the use of sorbitol as a
sweetener and to reduce charring in cooked roast beef products at a
level not more than 2 percent of the weight of the formula, excluding
the formula weight of water or ice.
FSIS expects no adverse public reaction resulting from this change
in regulatory language. Therefore, unless adverse or critical comments,
or a notice of intent to submit adverse comments are received within 30
days, the action will become final 60 days after publication in the
Federal Register. The proposed rulemaking notice will establish a
comment period.
Executive Order 12866
This direct final rule has been determined to be not significant
and therefore and was not reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget under Executive Order 12866.
Executive Order 12778
This direct final rule has been have reviewed under Executive Order
12778, Civil Justice Reform. States and local jurisdictions are
preempted by the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA) from imposing any
marking or packaging requirements on federally inspected meat products
that are in addition to, or different than, those imposed under the
FMIA. States and local jurisdictions may, however, exercise concurrent
jurisdiction over meat products that are outside official
establishments for the purpose of preventing the distribution of meat
products that are misbranded or adulterated under the FMIA, or, in the
case of imported articles, which are not at such an establishment,
after their entry into the United States.
This direct final rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
There are no applicable administrative procedures that must be
exhausted prior to any judicial challenge to the provisions of this
direct final rule. However, the administrative procedures specified in
9 CFR Secs. 306.5 must be exhausted prior to any judicial challenge of
the application of the provisions of this direct final rule, if the
challenge involves any decision of an FSIS employee relating to
inspection services provided under the FMIA.
Effect on Small Entities
The Administrator has made an initial determination that this
direct final rule will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities, as defined by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601). The direct final rule will permit the
use of sorbitol as a sweetener and to reduce charring in cooked roast
beef products. The sorbitol will be added to a solution of ingredients
that are pumped into the beef prior to cooking. This amendment will
provide cooked roast beef processors with an additional, alternative
substance that can be used to sweeten their product while at the same
time reducing charring that may occur during the cooking process. The
use of sorbitol as a sweetener and to reduce charring in cooked roast
beef products will be voluntary. Small manufacturers opting to use
sorbitol for these purposes will be required to revise their product
labels. Decisions by individual manufacturers on whether to do so will
be based on their conclusions that the benefits outweigh the costs.
Paperwork Requirements
Abstract: FSIS has reviewed the paperwork and recordkeeping
requirements in this direct final rule in accordance with the Paperwork
Reduction Act. This rule requires manufacturers opting to use sorbitol
as a sweetener and to reduce charring in cooked roast beef products to
revise their product labels and submit such labeling to FSIS for
approval.
Estimate of Burden: Establishments must develop product labels in
accordance with the regulations. To receive approval of the labels,
establishments must complete FSIS Form 7234-1. FSIS program employees
review FSIS Form 7234-1 to ensure that information on the labels
complies with the regulations. FSIS estimates that it will take 60
minutes to design and develop modified product labels in accordance
with the proposed regulations and 15 minutes to prepare FSIS Form 7234-
1 and submit it, along with the label, to FSIS or to a label expediter
who will deliver the form and label to FSIS.
Respondents: Meat establishments.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 315 meat establishments.
Estimated Number of Responses per Respondent: FSIS estimates that
each establishment would modify about 2 product labels.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 788 hours.
Comments are invited on: (a) whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Agency, including whether the information will have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Agency's estimate of the burden of the
proposed collection of information including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used; (c) ways to enhance the quality,
utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; (d) ways to
minimize the burden of the collection of information on those who are
to respond, including through use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology. Comments may be sent to Lee Puricelli,
Paperwork Specialist, see address above, and Desk Officer for
Agriculture, Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of
Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20253.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 318
Food additives, Meat inspection.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 9 CFR part 318 is amended
as follows:
PART 318--ENTRY INTO OFFICIAL ESTABLISHMENTS; REINSPECTION AND
PREPARATION OF PRODUCTS
1. The authority citation for part 318 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 1901-1906; 21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 CFR
2.18, 2.53.
2. Section 318.7(c)(4) is amended by adding to the chart of
substances, under the Class of Substance ``Flavoring agents; protectors
and developers,'' the substance sorbitol to read as follows:
Sec. 318.7 Approval of substances for use in the preparation of
products.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(4) * * *
[[Page 7209]]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Class of substance Substance Purpose Products Amount
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * * *
*
Flavoring Agents; protectors Sorbitol . . ...... To flavor, to As provided in Not to exceed 2
and developers. facilitate the part 319 of this percent of the
removal of subchapter, weight of the
casings from cooked roast formula, excluding
product, and to beef, cured pork the formula weight
reduce products, and of water or ice,
carmelization and cooked sausage when used in
charring. labeled accordance with 21
frankfurter, CFR 184.1835.
frank, furter,
wiener, and
knockwurst.
* * * * * *
*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Done at Washington, DC, on: February 20, 1996.
Michael R. Taylor,
Acting Under Secretary for Food Safety.
[FR Doc. 96-4303 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4289 Approval of and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7218-7221]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4289]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[LA-32-7238; FRL-5430-1]
Approval of and Promulgation of Implementation Plans; Louisiana
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is approving
Louisiana's request to grant an exemption for the Baton Rouge ozone
nonattainment area from the applicable nitrogen oxides (NOX)
transportation conformity requirements. On July 25, 1995, Louisiana
submitted to the EPA a State Implementation Plan (SIP) revision request
for an exemption (under section 182(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (Act))
from the transportation conformity requirements for NOX for the
Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area, which is classified as serious.
The State of Louisiana bases its request for Baton Rouge upon a
modeling demonstration that additional NOX reductions would not
contribute to attainment in the nonattainment area.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule will be effective on February 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Copies of the SIP revision, public comments and the EPA's
responses are available for inspection at the following address:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Multimedia Planning and
Permitting Division, 1445 Ross Avenue, Suite 700, Dallas, Texas 75202-
2733.
Louisiana Department of Environmental Quality, H. B. Garlock Building,
7290 Bluebonnet, Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70810.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Jeanne McDaniels or Mr. Quang
Nguyen, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6, Air Planning
Section (6PD-L), Multimedia Planning and Permitting Division, 1445 Ross
Avenue, Dallas, Texas 75202-2733, telephone (214) 665-7214.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Clean Air Act section 176(c)(3)(A)(iii) requires, in order to
demonstrate conformity with the applicable SIP, that transportation
plans and transportation improvement programs (TIPs) contribute to
emissions reductions in ozone nonattainment areas during the period
before control strategy SIPs are approved by the EPA. This requirement
is implemented in 40 CFR 51.436 through 51.440 (and 93.122 through
93.124), which establishes the so-called ``build/no-build test.'' This
test requires a demonstration that the ``Action'' scenario
(representing the implementation of the proposed transportation plan/
TIP) will result in lower motor vehicle emissions than the ``Baseline''
scenario (representing the implementation of the current transportation
plan/TIP). In addition, the ``Action'' scenario must result in
emissions lower than 1990 levels.
The November 24, 1993, final transportation conformity rule 1
does not require the ``build/no-build test'' and ``less-than-1990
test'' for NOX as an ozone precursor in ozone nonattainment areas
where the Administrator determines that additional reductions of
NOX would not contribute to attainment of the National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS) for ozone. Clean Air Act section
176(c)(3)(A)(iii), which is the conformity provision requiring
contributions to emission reductions before SIPs with emissions budgets
can be approved, specifically references Clean Air Act section
182(b)(1). That section requires submission of State plans that, among
other things, provide for specific annual reductions of volatile
organic compounds (VOC) and NOX emissions ``as necessary'' to
attain the ozone standard by the applicable
[[Page 7219]]
attainment date. Section 182(b)(1) further states that its requirements
do not apply in the case of NOX for those ozone nonattainment
areas for which the EPA determines that additional reductions of
NOX would not contribute to ozone attainment.
\1\ ``Criteria and Procedures for Determining Conformity to
State or Federal Implementation Plans of Transportation Plans,
Programs, and Projects Funded or Approved under Title 23 U.S.C. of
the Federal Transit Act,'' November 24, 1993 (58 FR 62188).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As explained below, the EPA, through an amendment to its
transportation conformity rule, has changed the procedural mechanism
through which a NOX exemption from transportation conformity would
be granted. Instead of a petition under section 182(f), transportation
conformity NOX exemptions for ozone nonattainment areas that are
subject to section 182(b)(1) need to be submitted as SIP revision
requests. The Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area is classified as
serious and, thus, is subject to section 182(b)(1).
The EPA published, on August 29, 1995, an interim final rule (60 FR
44762) which amended the transportation conformity rule and changed the
statutory authority from section 182(f) to section 182(b)(1) of the Act
for areas that are subject to section 182(b)(1). The interim final rule
was effective immediately upon publication and provides the means for
exempting areas subject to section 182(b)(1) from the NOX
provisions of the transportation conformity rule. In conjunction with
the interim rule, the EPA published a proposal providing for further
amendments to the transportation conformity rule and describing how the
EPA intended to process section 182(b)(1) NOX waivers (60 FR
44790). On November 14, 1995, the EPA published a final rule (60 FR
57179), after completing notice-and-comment rulemaking, that includes
the provisions of the August 29, 1995, interim rule. The November 14,
1995, rule also addresses the NOX budget requirement.
The July 25, 1995, SIP revision request from Louisiana has been
submitted to meet the requirements of section 182(b)(1). A public
hearing on this SIP revision request was held on June 29, 1995. The EPA
proposed to approve the SIP revision request on October 6, 1995 (60 FR
52348).
The Baton Rouge serious ozone nonattainment area includes the
following parishes: East Baton Rouge, West Baton Rouge, Pointe Coupee,
Livingston, Iberville, and Ascension. In evaluating the SIP revision
request, the EPA considered whether additional NOX reductions
would contribute to attainment of the ozone standard in the Baton Rouge
modeling domain, which includes all or part of 20 parishes in Louisiana
and covers both attainment as well as nonattainment parishes.
As outlined in the relevant EPA guidance, the use of photochemical
grid modeling is the recommended approach for testing the contribution
of NOX emission reductions to attainment of the ozone standard.
A summary of the urban airshed modeling (UAM) demonstration and the
EPA's review of the modeling and submittal are contained in the October
6, 1995, proposed rule (60 FR 52348) and the accompanying Technical
Support Document. The modeling results show, on a directional basis,
that application of NOX controls in the Baton Rouge ozone
nonattainment area would exacerbate peak ozone concentrations in the
modeling domain.
II. Public Comments
In August 1994, three environmental groups (Natural Resources
Defense Council (NRDC), Sierra Club, and Environmental Defense Fund
(NRDC et al.)) submitted joint adverse comments on the proposed
approvals of NOX exemptions for the Ohio and Michigan ozone
nonattainment areas. The comments addressed the EPA's general policy
regarding NOX exemptions. The commenters requested that these
comments be addressed in all EPA rulemakings dealing with NOX
exemptions. The EPA responded to these comments in a final rulemaking
approving a section 182(f) NOX exemption for the Baton Rouge area.
See 61 FR 2438, dated January 26, 1996. The technical basis (i.e., UAM
demonstration) for the Baton Rouge section 182(b)(1) transportation
conformity NOX exemption is the same as for the section 182(f)
exemption. (Please refer to the January 26, 1996, section 182(f) final
approval (61 FR 2438) for Baton Rouge for a summary of the NRDC's
comments and the EPA's responses.)
In addition, shortly after the close of the 30-day public comment
period, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
(NYSDEC) submitted a letter to the EPA expressing opposition to the
proposed Baton Rouge transportation conformity NOX exemption. For
the public record, the EPA has elected to respond to those comments in
this rulemaking. The following discussion summarizes the NYSDEC
comments and provides the EPA's responses to the comments.
Comment: The NYSDEC expressed concern regarding the claim that VOC
only controls reduce ozone levels and geographic extent of ozone
exposure since modeling in the northeast shows a need for NOX
reductions as well as VOC to reduce regional ozone. The NYSDEC also
questioned certain model assumptions; namely, whether the Federal motor
vehicle control program (FMVCP) is assumed in future year (1996 and
1999) emission inventories, and the adequacy of modeling across-the-
board reductions for a specific source category exemption.
Response: In the modeling demonstration, the State included in the
attainment year (1999) projected emissions inventory the emission
reductions expected to result from the Federal Motor Vehicle Emission
Control Program. Although the state did not model the mobile emission
reductions that would result from transportation conformity, per se,
the across-the-board reductions modeled (i.e., a 100 percent reduction
in both point source VOC and NOX emissions combined) far exceed
the reductions that would be expected to result from transportation
conformity alone. (In the Baton Rouge modeling domain, point source VOC
emissions alone comprise 46 percent of the total projected
anthropogenic VOC inventory, and point source NOX emissions alone
comprise 57 percent of the total projected NOX inventory.)
The EPA believes that the State has satisfied the requirements of
Chapter 4 of the December 13, 1993, guidance document, ``Guideline for
Determining the Applicability of Nitrogen Oxides Requirements Under
Section 182(f),'' by simulating conditions resulting from three
emission reduction scenarios (i.e., substantial VOC reductions,
substantial NOX reductions, and substantial VOC/NOX
reductions combined). Consistent with the guidance, the State has
demonstrated that, on a directional basis, the areawide predicted
maximum 1-hour ozone concentration for each day modeled under the
substantial VOC reductions alone strategy is less than or equal to that
from substantial NOX reductions alone or VOC and NOX
reductions combined.
Comment: The NYSDEC stated that there have been voluntary early
NOX reductions from point sources between 1990 and 1994, which
seems to imply that improvements in air quality would be affected by
these voluntary NOX reductions as well.
Response: As part of the modeling demonstration, the State included
the early NOX reductions from point sources that had occurred
between 1990 and 1994. Since doing so did not alter the conclusion, the
EPA believes the State has adequately demonstrated that any additional
NOX reductions would not contribute to attainment of the ozone
standard and, therefore, has met the Act's requirements for receiving a
NOX waiver.
[[Page 7220]]
Comment: The NYSDEC stated that area source NOX inventories
modeled appeared low by two orders of magnitude, i.e., 0.2 percent
versus 20 percent.
Response: The projected area source NOX inventory modeled (1.0
tons/day) is correct. Area source NOX emissions comprise only 0.2
percent of the total projected NOX inventory (479.0 tons/day).
Point, on-road mobile, and non-road mobile source NOX emissions
comprise 67.7 percent, 15.4 percent, and 16.7 percent of the total
projected NOX emissions inventory, respectively.
Comment: The NYSDEC urged the EPA to undertake a review of the
regional consistency between Baton Rouge and other southeast areas, and
that action on the exemption petition be delayed until this review is
complete.
Response: The EPA has taken steps to assure that downwind areas
will not be negatively impacted by NOX exemptions. The EPA intends
to use its authority under section 110(a)(2)(D) to require a State to
reduce NOX emissions from stationary and/or mobile sources where
there is evidence, such as photochemical grid modeling, showing that
the NOX emissions would contribute significantly to nonattainment
in, or interfere with maintenance by, any other State or in another
nonattainment area within the same State. This action would be
independent of any action taken by the EPA on a NOX exemption
request under section 182(f) or section 182(b)(1). That is, EPA action
to grant or deny a NOX exemption request under section 182(f) or
182(b)(1) for any area would not shield that area from EPA action to
require NOX emission reductions, if necessary, under section
110(a)(2)(D).
The State of Louisiana is included in the superregional
photochemical modeling of the eastern United States (U.S.) currently
being conducted by the EPA, States, and other agencies as part of the
Ozone Transport Assessment Group (OTAG). The OTAG assessment process,
which is scheduled to end at the close of 1996, will evaluate regional
and national emission control strategies using improved regional
modeling analyses. The goal of the OTAG is to reach consensus on
additional regional and national emission reductions that are needed to
support efforts to attain the ozone standard in the eastern U.S. Upon
completion of the modeling, the EPA will evaluate the modeling results
and their implications concerning NOX versus VOC emission
controls. The results of this modeling may supersede the UAM
demonstration that the EPA is using as the basis for granting this
waiver. To continue the waiver for all NOX source categories, the
modeling must continue to show attainment of the ozone standard without
the use of additional NOX controls. The final modeling may
demonstrate attainment of the ozone standard using a subset of the
possible NOX emission controls. In this situation, the EPA may
continue the waiver for the remaining ``non-controlled'' NOX
sources under section 182(f)(2) of the CAA.
Comment: The NYSDEC disagrees that the NOX waiver rule should
be a Table 3 action for signature by the Regional Administrator and,
because of the national implications of the NOX exemption,
believes it should be a Table 1 action.
Response: The NOX waiver for transportation conformity is a
SIP revision request submitted by the State of Louisiana. SIP revisions
have been delegated to the Regional Administrator for signature under
the procedures published in the Federal Register on January 19, 1989
(54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary
Nichols, Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation. This NOX
waiver is applicable only for the purpose of relieving the need to meet
the interim transportation conformity test for the Baton Rouge area. In
addition, the policy related to processing the NOX waivers for
transportation conformity has been coordinated at the national level.
III. Effective Date
This rulemaking is effective as of February 12, 1996. The
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1), permits the effective
date of a substantive rule to be less than thirty days after
publication if the rule ``relieves a restriction.'' Since the approval
of the section 182(b)(1) transportation conformity NOX exemption
for the Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area is a substantive rule that
relieves the restrictions associated with the CAA Title I requirements
to control NOX emissions, the transportation conformity NOX
exemption approval may be made effective upon signature by the Regional
Administrator.
IV. Final Action
The comments received were found to warrant no significant changes
from the proposed to final action on this NOX exemption request.
The primary difference between the proposed and final rulemaking is the
addition of the statement that the EPA may require NOX emission
controls in general or on a source-specific basis under section
110(a)(2)(D) of the CAA if future ozone modeling demonstrates that such
controls are needed to achieve the ozone standard in downwind areas.
Based on subsequent modeling results, the EPA may rescind all or
part(s) of the transportation conformity NOX waiver. Approval of
the exemption waives the Federal requirements for transportation
conformity applicable to the Baton Rouge ozone nonattainment area. To
maintain the waiver, future modeling must demonstrate attainment of the
ozone standard without the use of additional NOX emission
controls. (The modeling may demonstrate the need for some NOX
emission controls, necessitating the need for reducing the coverage of
the waiver.) Should the EPA rescind the exemption, the State would be
required to begin implementing the transportation conformity NOX
requirements.
V. Miscellaneous
This action has been classified as a Table 3 action for signature
by the Regional Administrator under the procedures published in the
Federal Register on January 19, 1989 (54 FR 2214-2225), as revised by a
July 10, 1995, memorandum from Mary Nichols, Assistant Administrator
for Air and Radiation. The Office of Management and Budget has exempted
this regulatory action from Executive Order 12866 review.
Nothing in this action should be construed as permitting, allowing
or establishing a precedent for any future request for revision to any
SIP. The EPA shall consider each request for revision to the SIP in
light of specific technical, economic, and environmental factors and in
relation to relevant statutory and regulatory requirements.
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 600 et seq., the EPA
must prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis assessing the impact of
any proposed or final rule on small entities. 5 U.S.C. 603 and 604.
Alternatively, the EPA may certify that the rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-profit
enterprises, and government entities with jurisdiction over populations
of less than 50,000.
This approval does not create any new requirements. Therefore, I
certify that this action does not have a significant impact on any
small entities affected. Moreover, due to the nature of the Federal-
State relationship under the Act, preparation of the regulatory
flexibility analysis would constitute Federal inquiry into the economic
reasonableness of the State action. The
[[Page 7221]]
Act forbids the EPA to base its actions concerning SIPs on such
grounds. (Union Electric Co. v. USEPA, 427 U.S. 246, 256-66 (1976; 42
U.S.C. 7410(a)(2)).
Under sections 202, 203, and 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform
Act of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates Act), signed into law on March 22, 1995,
the EPA must assess whether various actions undertaken in association
with proposed or final regulations include a Federal mandate that may
result in estimated costs of $100 million or more to the private
sector, or to State, local, or tribal governments in the aggregate.
The EPA's final action will relieve requirements otherwise imposed
under the CAA and, hence, does not impose any Federal intergovernmental
mandate, as defined in section 101 of the Unfunded Mandates Act. This
action also will not impose a mandate that may result in estimated
costs of $100 million or more to either State, local, or tribal
governments in the aggregate, or to the private sector.
Under section 307(b)(1) of the CAA, petitions for judicial review
of this action must be filed in the United States Court of Appeals for
the appropriate circuit by April 29, 1996. Filing a petition for
reconsideration by the Administrator of this final rule does not affect
the finality of this rule for the purpose of judicial rule, nor does it
extend the time within which a petition for judicial review may be
filed and shall not postpone the effectiveness of such rule or action.
This action may not be challenged later in proceedings to enforce its
requirements (see section 307(b)(2) of the CAA).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Conformity, Oxides
of nitrogen, Ozone, Transportation conformity.
Dated: February 12, 1996.
Jane N. Saginaw,
Regional Administrator.
40 CFR part 52 is amended as follows:
PART 52--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 52 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Subpart T--Louisiana
3. Section 52.992 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as
follows:
Sec. 52.992 Areawide nitrogen oxides (NOX) exemptions.
* * * * *
(c) The LDEQ submitted to the EPA on July 25, 1995, a revision to
the SIP, pursuant to section 182(b)(1), requesting that the Baton Rouge
serious ozone nonattainment area be exempted from the transportation
conformity NOX requirements of the CAA. The Baton Rouge
nonattainment area consists of East Baton Rouge, West Baton Rouge,
Pointe Coupee, Livingston, Iberville, and Ascension Parishes. The
exemption request was based on photochemical grid modeling which shows
that additional reductions in NOX would not contribute to
attainment in the nonattainment area. On February 12, 1996, the EPA
approved the State's request for an areawide exemption from the
transportation conformity NOX requirements.
[FR Doc. 96-4289 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4254 Withdrawal of Certain Testing Requirements for Office of Water Chemicals
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7221-7223]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4254]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 799
[OPPTS-42111I; FRL-4988-9]
RIN 2070-AB94
Withdrawal of Certain Testing Requirements for Office of Water
Chemicals
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is amending the final test rule for the Office of Water
Chemicals in 40 CFR 799.5075 by rescinding the 90-day and 14-day
testing requirements for chloroethane. The testing requirements are
being rescinded because the Agency has received data adequate to meet
the data needs for which the test rule was promulgated.
DATES: This amendment shall become effective on February 27, 1996. In
accordance with 40 CFR 23.5, this rule shall be promulgated for
purposes of judicial review at 1 p.m. eastern (daylight or standard as
appropriate) time on February 27, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Susan B. Hazen, Director,
Environmental Assistance Division (7408), Office of Pollution
Prevention and Toxics, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460, (202) 554-
1404, TDD (202) 554-0551; e-mail: TSCA-H[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is amending the final test rule for the
Office of Water Chemicals in 40 CFR 799.5075 by rescinding: (1) The 90-
day subchronic testing requirement for chloroethane, and (2) the 14-day
testing requirement for chloroethane.
I. Background
In the Federal Register of September 21, 1995 (60 FR 48948) (FRL-
4972-3), EPA proposed rescinding the 90-day subchronic testing
requirement for chloroethane and the 14-day testing requirement for
chloroethane. EPA promulgated the rule (FRL-4047-2) establishing these
testing requirements pursuant to TSCA section 4(a), and published the
final rule in the Federal
[[Page 7222]]
Register on November 10, 1993 (58 FR 59667).
EPA proposed rescinding the testing requirements for chloroethane
because it received a 14-day single oral dose study from the Dow
Chemical Company on May 1, 1995. This study, entitled ``Ethyl Chloride
Palatability and 14-day Drinking Water Toxicity Study in Fischer 344
Rats'', concluded that there were no toxicological effects from the
drinking water administration of chloroethane to the treated rats at
the level of practical saturation. After submission of additional
information requested by the Agency (Refs. 2, 2a, 3, and 4), EPA
reviewed the study and concluded that the study was adequate to meet
the data needs for which the test rule was prepared, to establish a
Health Advisory for chloroethane for EPA's Office of Water (Ref. 5).
Therefore, EPA is rescinding the 90-day and 14-day testing requirements
for chloroethane. The final test rule for Drinking Water Contaminants
Subject to Testing (``the Office of Water Chemicals test rule''), which
EPA is now amending, is codified in 40 CFR 799.5075.
II. Public Comments
EPA received one public comment from the Dow Chemical Company, the
test sponsor for chloroethane, which agreed with the Agency proposal.
III. Amended Testing Requirements
The Office of Water Chemicals test rule at 40 CFR 799.5075 is
amended to delete the 14-day and the 90-day subchronic testing
requirement for chloroethane. Specifically, parties subject to the test
rule will no longer have to comply with 40 CFR 799.5075 (a)(1),
(c)(1)(i)(A), and (c)(2)(i)(A).
IV. Economic Analysis
Eliminating these testing requirements will reduce testing costs.
Therefore, this amendment should not cause adverse economic impact.
V. Rulemaking Record
EPA has established a docket for this rulemaking (docket number
OPPTS-42111I). This docket contains the basic information considered by
EPA in developing this rule, appropriate Federal Register notices, and
the comment received on the proposal. The rulemaking record includes
the following:
(1) Letter from Annette L. Hayes of Latham Watkins to Amber L.
Aranda, U.S.E.P.A. transmitting April 28, 1995 Dow Chemical Study
(May 1, 1995) (with attachment:).
(a) Dow Chemical Company. Study titled ``Ethyl Chloride:
Palatability and 14-Day Drinking Water Toxicity Study in Fischer 344
Rats'' (April 28, 1995).
(2) Facsimile note from Roger A. Nelson, USEPA to Dr. Lynn
Pottenger, The Dow Chemical Company requesting information (June 7,
1995) (with attachment:).
(a) Memorandum from Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, U.S.E.P.A. to Frank
Kover, U.S.E.P.A. requesting additional data (June 5, 1995).
(3) Letter from Lynn Pottenger, The Dow Chemical Company to
Roger Nelson, U.S.E.P.A., RE: Questions on Chloroethane Study Report
(June 9, 1995).
(4) The Dow Chemical Company. Report Addendum to Ethyl Chloride:
Palatability and 14-Day Drinking Water Toxicity Study in Fischer 344
Rats (June 9, 1995).
(5) Memorandum from Jennifer Orme-Zavaleta, U.S.E.P.A. to Frank
Kover, U.S.E.P.A. Office of Water Review (July 14, 1995).
(6) The Dow Chemical Company. Comment on docket number OPPTS-
42111H (FRL-4972-3) (October 16, 1995).
VI. Public Docket
The docket for this rulemaking is available for inspection from 12
noon to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday, except legal holidays. The TSCA
Public Docket Office is located in Room B-607 Northeast Mall, 401 M
Street SW., Washington, DC 20460.
VII. Other Regulatory Requirements
A. 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 review by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. Under section 3(f),
the order defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action that
is likely to result in 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 referred to 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 the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; 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, it has been
determined that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not
subject to OMB review.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), I
certify that this test rule would not have a significant impact on a
substantial number of small businesses because the amendment would
relieve a regulatory obligation to conduct certain chemical tests.
C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Pub.
L. 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures to State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
one year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
Today's rule contains no Federal mandates (under the regulatory
provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal
governments or the private sector. This rule reduces enforceable duties
on any of these governmental entities or the private
[[Page 7223]]
sector by revoking rules requiring testing.
D. Paperwork Reduction Act
OMB has approved the information collection requirements contained
in this test rule under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1980, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., and has assigned OMB Control number
2070-0033. This rule would reduce the public reporting burden
associated with the testing requirement under the final test rule. A
complete discussion of the reporting burden is contained at 58 FR
59680, November 10, 1993.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 799
Environmental protection, Chemicals, Chemical export, Hazardous
substances, Health effects, Laboratories, Provisional testing,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Testing, Incorporation by
reference.
Dated: February 11, 1996.
Lynn R. Goldman,
Assistant Administrator for Prevention, Pesticides, and Toxic
Substances.
Therefore, 40 CFR, chapter I, subchapter R, is amended as follows:
PART 799--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 799 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 2603, 2611, 2625.
2. Section 799.5075 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(1),
(c)(1)(i)(A), (c)(2)(i)(A), and (d)(1) to read as follows:
Sec. 799.5075 Drinking water contaminants subject to testing.
(a) Identification of test substance. (1) 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane
(CAS No. 79-34-5), and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (CAS No. 108-67-8) shall
be tested as appropriate in accordance with this section.
* * * * *
(c) Health effects testing--(1) Subacute toxicity--(i) Required
testing. (A) An oral 14-day repeated dose toxicity test shall be
conducted with 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane, and 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene in
accordance with Sec. 798.2650 of this chapter except for the provisions
in Sec. 798.2650 (a), (b)(1), (c), (e)(3), (e)(4)(i), (e)(5), (e)(6),
(e)(7)(i), (e)(7)(iv), (e)(7)(v), (e)(8)(vii), (e)(9)(i)(A),
(e)(9)(i)(B), (e)(11)(v), and (f)(2)(i). Each substance shall be tested
in one mammalian species, preferably a rodent, but a non-rodent may be
used. The species and strain of animals used in this test should be the
same as those used in the 90-day subchronic test required in paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of this section. The tests shall be performed using drinking
water. However, if, due to poor stability or palatability, a drinking
water test is not feasible for a given substance, that substance shall
be administered either by oral gavage, in the diet, or in capsules.
* * * * *
(2) Subchronic toxicity--(i) Required testing. (A) An oral 90-day
subchronic toxicity test shall be conducted with 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene
in accordance with Sec. 798.2650 of this chapter except for the
provisions in Sec. 798.2650 (e)(3), (e)(7)(i), and (e)(11)(v). The
tests shall be performed using drinking water. However, if, due to poor
stability or palatability, a drinking water test is not feasible for a
given substance, that substance shall be administered either by oral
gavage, in the diet, or in capsules.
* * * * *
(d) Effective date. (1) This section is effective on December 27,
1993, except for paragraphs (a)(1), (c)(1)(i)(A), (c)(1)(ii)(A),
(c)(1)(ii)(B), (c)(2)(i)(A), and (c)(2)(ii)(A). The effective date for
paragraphs (a)(2), (c)(1)(ii)(A), (c)(1)(ii)(B), and (c)(2)(ii)(A) is
September 29, 1995. Paragraphs (a)(1), (c)(1)(i)(A), and (c)(2)(i)(A)
are effective February 27, 1996.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-4254 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4196 Veterans Education: Implementation of the Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992 and the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 in the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans' Educational Assistance Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7217-7218]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4196]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 21
RIN 2900-AG23
Veterans Education: Implementation of the Veterans' Benefits Act
of 1992 and the Department of Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year
1993 in the Post-Vietnam Era Veterans' Educational Assistance Program
AGENCIES: Department of Defense and Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the educational assistance and
educational benefits regulations of the Department of Veterans Affairs
(VA). It makes changes concerning measurement of training time,
duplication of benefits, advance payment for work study, and permission
for some service members who participated in the Post-Vietnam Era
Veterans' Educational Assistance Program (VEAP) to instead elect to
receive benefits under the Montgomery GI Bill--Active Duty. These
changes restate statutory requirements.
EFFECTIVE DATES: The effective dates of the changes made by this final
rule are as follows:
October 23, 1992: Sec. 21.5058.
October 29, 1992: Secs. 21.5023, 21.5145, 21.5231, and 21.5250.
July 1, 1993: Sec. 21.5270.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June C. Schaeffer, Assistant Director
for Policy and Program Administration, Education Service, Veterans
Benefits Administration, 202-273-7187.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulations concerning VA-administered
educational assistance and educational benefits are contained in 38 CFR
Part 21. The Veterans' Benefits Act of 1992 (Pub. L. 102-568) amends
educational assistance provisions under VEAP and amends other
provisions that affect work-study under that program. The National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1993 (Pub. L. 102-484) allows
some VEAP participants to receive benefits under the Montgomery GI
Bill--Active Duty. This document contains a number of changes to the
regulations which merely reflect certain changes made by these public
laws. These changes to the regulations are as follows.
Under Public Law 102-568, the limit on the amount of money that VA
can pay in advance on a work-study contract has been changed. Formerly,
that limit was 40 percent of the total amount payable under the
contract. Now the limit is the lesser of 40 percent of the total amount
payable under the contract or 50 times the applicable minimum hourly
wage in effect on the date the contract is signed. Changes are made to
38 CFR 21.5145 to reflect these statutory provisions.
Public Law 102-484, among other things, provides that a veteran who
has been discharged under the Voluntary Separation Incentive or Special
Separation Benefit programs before October 23, 1992, was eligible on or
before October 23, 1993 to elect to receive educational assistance
under the Montgomery GI Bill--Active Duty in lieu of any other
educational assistance, including VEAP. Changes are made to
Sec. 21.5058 to reflect these statutory changes.
Previously, Sec. 21.5023 allowed for veterans receiving assistance
under the Government Employees' Training Act (GETA) also to receive
assistance under VEAP if the VEAP training occurred other than during
duty hours. However, under Pub. L. 102-568 payment under VEAP is now
prohibited for veterans receiving assistance under GETA regardless of
whether the veteran is a full-time or part-time employee. Changes are
made to Sec. 21.5023 to reflect this statutory change.
Several provisions of Public Law 102-568 apply to VEAP. These are
prohibition of receipt of educational assistance while the veterans is
training under the Service Members Occupational Conversion and Training
Act; a change in the ending date of the award of educational assistance
when the veterans die during the period covered by an advanced payment
of educational assistance; prohibition of approval of a nonaccredited
course offered by independent study and prohibition of approval of an
enrollment in such a course; and measurement of nonaccredited courses
not leading to a standard college degree. Changes are made to 38 CFR
21.5231, 21.5250, and 21.5270 to reflect these changes.
The effective dates of the various changes made by this final rule
reflect the effective dates of the corresponding statutory changes.
Nonsubstantive changes are made for purposes of clarity.
This final rule reflects statutory changes and, therefore, is not
subject to the provisions of 5 U.S.C. 552, or 553, including the notice
and comment provisions.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs and the Secretary of Defense
hereby certify that this final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities as they are
defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The
changes made by the final rule restate statutory changes. Pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 605(b), this final rule, therefore, is exempt from the initial
and final regulatory flexibility analyses requirements of Secs. 603 and
604.
The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for the
program affected by this final rule is 64.120.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 21
Civil rights, Claims, Education, Grant programs-education, Loan
programs-education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Schools,
Veterans, Vocational education, Vocational rehabilitation.
Approved: October 11, 1995.
Jesse Brown,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Samuel E. Ebbesen,
Lieutenant General, USA, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Military Personnel
Policy), Department of Defense.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 38 CFR part 21, subpart G
is amended as set forth below.
PART 21--VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION
Subpart G--Post-Vietnam Era Veterans' Educational Assistance Under
38 U.S.C. Chapter 32
1. The authority citation for part 21, subpart G is revised to read
as follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), Chapter 32, unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 21.5023 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 21.5023, paragraph (b) is amended by removing ``and
whose full salary is being paid to him or her while so training''.
Sec. 21.5058 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 21.5058, paragraph (a) is amended by adding the heading
``General.''
4. In Sec. 21.5058 paragraphs (b) and (c) are revised to read as
follows:
[[Page 7218]]
Sec. 21.5058 Resumption of participation.
* * * * *
(b) Disenrollment in order to participate in other educational
programs. A person who elects to disenroll in order to receive
educational assistance allowance under 38 U.S.C. chapter 34 or to
receive an officer adjustment benefit payable under Sec. 21.4703 may
not reenroll if he or she has negotiated a check under the provisions
of law governing the program elected in lieu of the Post-Vietnam Era
Veterans' Educational Assistance Program. A person who elects to
disenroll in order to receive educational assistance under the
Montgomery GI Bill--Active Duty, as provided in Sec. 21.7045, may not
reenroll.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3018A, 3018B, 3202(1), 3222)
(c) Reenrollment permitted following some disenrollments. (1)
Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, a person who has
disenrolled may reenroll, but will have to qualify again for minimum
participation as described in Sec. 21.5052(a).
(2) If a person does reenroll, he or she may ``repurchase''
entitlement by tendering previously refunded contributions which he or
she received upon disenrollment, subject to the conditions of
Sec. 21.5052(f).
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3221, 3222)
5. In Sec. 21.5145, paragraph (e) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 21.5145 Work-study program.
* * * * *
(e) Payment in advance. VA will pay in advance an amount equal to
the lesser of the following:
(1) 40 percent of the total amount payable under the contract; or
(2) An amount equal to 50 times the applicable minimum hourly wage
in effect on the date contract is signed.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3241, 3485)
* * * * *
Sec. 21.5231 [Amended]
6. Section 21.5231, is amended by removing ``in the same manner as
it is applied in the administration of chapters 34 and 36''.
7. In Sec. 21.5250, the introductory text of paragraph (a) and
paragraph (a)(3) are revised, and paragraph (a)(16) is added, to read
as follows:
Sec. 21.5250 Courses.
(a) In administering benefits payable under 38 U.S.C. chapter 32,
VA and, where appropriate, the State approving agencies shall apply the
following sections.
* * * * *
(3) Section 21.4252--Courses precluded.
* * * * *
(16) Section 21.4267--Approval of independent study.
* * * * *
8. In Sec. 21.5270, paragraphs (b) and (j) are removed and
reserved; and the introductory text and paragraph (c) are revised, to
read as follows:
Sec. 21.5270 Assessment and pursuit of courses.
In the administration of benefits payable under 38 U.S.C. chapter
32, VA shall apply the following sections.
* * * * *
(c) Section 21.4272--Collegiate course measurement.
(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3241, 3688)
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-4196 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4177 Recognition of Gain or Loss by Contributing Partner on Distribution of Contributed Property or Other Property; Correction
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7213-7214]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4177]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[TD 8642]
RIN 1545-AR48; 1545-AR93
Recognition of Gain or Loss by Contributing Partner on
Distribution of Contributed Property or Other Property; Correction
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
ACTION: Correction to final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final regulations (TD
8642), which were published in the Federal Register on Tuesday,
December 26, 1995 (60 FR 66727) relating to the recognition of gain or
loss on certain distributions of contributed property by a partnership,
and to the recognition of gain on certain distributions to a
contributing partner.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 9, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen J. Coleman at (202) 622-3060,
(not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The final regulations that are the subject of these corrections are
under sections 704 and 737 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Need for Correction
As published, the final regulations contain errors which may prove
to be misleading and are in need of clarification.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, the publication of the final regulations (TD 8642),
which are the subject of FR Doc. 95-30870, is corrected as follows:
[[Page 7214]]
Sec. 1.737-3 [Corrected]
1. On page 66737, column 2, Sec. 1.737-3 (e), second paragraph from
the bottom of the column, the paragraph designated ``(e) Example 1.''
is correctly designated ``Example 1.''
2. On page 66737, column 3, Sec. 1.737-3 (e), paragraph (i) of
Example 2, line 4, the language ``nondepreciable real property to the''
is corrected to read ``nondepreciable real property located in the
United States to the''.
3. On page 66737, column 3, Sec. 1.737-3 (e), paragraph (ii) of
Example 2, line 2, the language ``Property B, nondepreciable real
property,'' is corrected to read ``Property B, nondepreciable real
property located outside the United States,''.
Cynthia E. Grigsby,
Chief, Regulations Unit,
Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 96-4177 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-4176 Time for Furnishing Wage Statements on Termination of Employer's Operations; Correction
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 39 (Tuesday, February 27, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 7214]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-4176]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
26 CFR Parts 31 and 301
[TD 8636]
RIN 1545-AN57
Time for Furnishing Wage Statements on Termination of Employer's
Operations; Correction
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury.
ACTION: Correction to final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to final regulations [TD
8636] which were published in the Federal Register for Thursday,
December 21, 1995 (60 FR 66139). The final regulations relate to the
time for furnishing wage statements to employees and for filing wage
statements with the Social Security Administration upon the termination
of an employer's operations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: January 1, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean M. Casey, (202) 622-6040 (not a
toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The final regulations that are the subject of this correction are
under section 6051, 6071, and 6081 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Need for Correction
As published, TD 8636 contains a typographical error that is in
need of clarification.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, the publication of the final regulations which is the
subject of FR Doc. 95-30685, is corrected as follows:
On page 66140, column 2, in the preamble under the paragraph
heading ``Additional month to provide Forms W-2 and W-3 to SSA'', last
line, the language ``the final Form 941 is due.'' is corrected to read
``the end of the quarter.''
Cynthia E. Grigsby
Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 96-4176 Filed 2-26-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.