issue-1996-03-20•Federal Register final rules — 1996-03-20
Federal Register final rules — 1996-03-20
issue-1996-03-20Federal Register final rules — 1996-03-20Regulation
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. 96-6732 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Black-Footed Ferrets in Aubrey Valley, Arizona
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11320-11336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6732]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 17
RIN 1018-AD29
Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Establishment of a
Nonessential Experimental Population of Black-Footed Ferrets in Aubrey
Valley, Arizona
AGENCY: Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, in cooperation with the
Arizona Game and Fish Department will
[[Page 11321]]
introduce black-footed ferrets (Mustela nigripes) into Aubrey Valley,
Arizona. This reintroduction is a primary recovery action for this
federally listed endangered species and will allow evaluation of
release techniques. If conditions are acceptable, surplus captive-
raised black-footed ferrets will be released in 1996, or later.
Additional surplus animals will be released annually thereafter for
several years or until a self-sustaining population is established.
Releases will use and refine reintroduction techniques used in other
areas. If the Aubrey Valley program is successful, a wild population
could be established within about 5 years. The Aubrey Valley ferret
population is designated as a nonessential experimental population in
accordance with section 10(j) of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. This population will be managed under the provisions of an
accompanying special rule.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: You may inspect the complete file for this rule during
normal business hours at the following office: Arizona Ecological
Services Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 2321 West Royal
Palm Road, Suite 103, Phoenix, Arizona 85021. You must make an
appointment in advance if you wish to inspect the file.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Austin, at the above address,
or telephone (602) 640-2720.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Legislative
The Endangered Species Act (Act) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.), was changed significantly by the Endangered Species Act
Amendments of 1982 (Pub. L. No. 97-304). A new subsection 10(j) was
added to the Act to allow designation of specific populations of listed
species as ``experimental populations.'' Before this amendment, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) was authorized to reintroduce
populations into unoccupied portions of a listed species' historical
range when it would foster the conservation and recovery of the
species. However, local citizens often opposed reintroduction because
they were concerned about restrictions and prohibitions on Federal and
private activities. This opposition severely handicapped the
effectiveness of reintroduction as a management tool. Under section
10(j), the Service can designate reintroduced populations established
outside the species' current range but within its historical range as
``experimental.'' This designation increases the Service's flexibility
to manage reintroduced populations of endangered species. Experimental
populations are treated as threatened species under the Act, and the
Service has greater discretion in devising management programs and
special regulations. Section 4(d) of the Act allows the Service to
adopt whatever regulations are necessary and advisable to provide for
the conservation of a threatened species. These regulations may be less
restrictive than those for endangered species and more compatible with
current or planned human activities in the reintroduction area. For
example, a person may take a black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes) in
the wild within the Aubrey Valley Experimental Population Area,
provided the take is incidental (as defined under the Act), and any
resulting injury or mortality is unintentional and not due to negligent
conduct. The Act defines ``incidental take'' as take that is incidental
to, and not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity.
The Service will not take legal action for incidental take. However,
the Service will refer instances of knowing, non-incidental take of
black-footed ferrets to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
The Service can designate experimental populations as ``essential''
or ``nonessential.'' Nonessential populations are not essential to the
continued existence of the species. The Aubrey Valley population of
black-footed ferrets is designated as a nonessential experimental
population in accordance with section 10(j) of the Act.
Section 7 of the Act applies selectively to a nonessential
experimental population located outside of the National Wildlife Refuge
System or National Park System lands. Generally, it is treated if it
were were proposed for listing. Section 7(a)(4) applies in that case,
requiring Federal agencies to confer with the Service on actions that
are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a proposed species.
Section 7(a)(1), which requires all Federal agencies to use their
authority to conserve listed species continues to apply, but section
7(a)(2), which requires Federal agencies to ensure that their
activities are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of a
listed species, does not. Section 7 only affects activities on private
lands if they are authorized, funded or carried out by a Federal
agency.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Act requires that animals used to establish
an experimental population may be removed from a source or donor
population only after the Service determines that the removal is not
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Removal
also requires a permit as described in 50 CFR 17.22.
Biological
The black-footed ferret is an endangered carnivore with a black
face mask, black legs, and a black-tipped tail. A black-footed ferret
is nearly 60 centimeters (2 feet) in length and weighs up to 1.1
kilogram (2.5 pounds). It is the only ferret species native to North
America.
Historically, the black-footed ferret occurred over a wide area,
but it is difficult to determine its historical abundance because it is
nocturnal and secretive. The historical range of the species, based on
specimen collections, includes 12 States (Arizona, Colorado, Kansas,
Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota,
Texas, Utah, and Wyoming) and the Canadian Provinces of Alberta and
Saskatchewan. Prehistoric evidence shows that this ferret once occurred
from the Yukon Territory in Canada to New Mexico and Texas (Anderson et
al. 1986).
Black-footed ferrets depend almost exclusively on prairie dog
colonies for food, shelter, and denning (Henderson et al. 1969, Forrest
et al. 1985). The range of the ferret coincides with that of prairie
dogs (Anderson et al. 1986), and breeding black-footed ferrets have
never been documented outside of prairie dog colonies. Specimens of
black-footed ferrets have come from the ranges of three species of
prairie dogs--the black-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys ludovicianus),
white-tailed prairie dog (Cynomys leucurus), and Gunnison's prairie dog
(Cynomys gunnisoni) (Anderson et al. 1986).
Widespread poisoning of prairie dogs and conversion of native
prairie to farmland drastically reduced prairie dog abundance and
distribution in the last century. Sylvatic plague, which may have been
introduced to North America around the turn of the century, also
decimated prairie dog numbers, particularly in the southern portions of
their ranges. The severe decline of prairie dogs nearly caused the
extinction of the black-footed ferret. The ferret's decline may be
partly due to other factors such as secondary poisoning from prairie
dog toxicants and canine distemper. The black-footed ferret was listed
as an endangered species on March 11, 1967.
In 1964, a wild population of ferrets was discovered in South
Dakota and was studied intensively. This
[[Page 11322]]
population disappeared from the wild in 1974, and its last member died
in captivity in 1979. The species was then thought to be extinct until
a small population was discovered in 1981 near Meeteetse, Wyoming. The
Meeteetse population declined severely in 1985-1986 due to canine
distemper. Eighteen survivors were taken into captivity in 1986-1987 to
prevent the species' extinction and to serve as founder animals for a
captive propagation program. Today, the captive population includes
approximately 400 animals held in 7 separately maintained locations.
Recovery Efforts
The recovery plan for the black-footed ferret (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1988) establishes a national recovery objective. This
objective is to ensure immediate survival of the species by--
(a) increasing the captive population of ferrets to 200 breeding
adults by 1991, which has been achieved;
(b) establishing a prebreeding census population of 1,500 free-
ranging breeding adults in 10 or more different populations with no
fewer than 30 breeding adults in each population by the year 2010; and
(c) encouraging the widest possible distribution of reintroduced
animals throughout their historic range.
When this national objective is achieved, the black-footed ferret
will be downlisted to threatened status, assuming that the extinction
rate of established populations remains at or below the rate at which
new populations are established for at least 5 years. Cooperative
efforts to rear black-footed ferrets in captivity have been successful.
In 8 years, the captive population has increased from 18 to over 400
animals. In 1988, the single captive population was divided into three
separate captive subpopulations to avoid the possibility that a single
catastrophic event would eliminate the entire captive population. Two
additional captive subpopulations were established in 1990 and one each
in 1991 and 1992, for a total of seven subpopulations. Recovery efforts
have advanced to the reintroduction phase of putting animals back into
the wild, since a secure captive population of 240 breeding adults has
been achieved.
Reintroduction Sites
Site Selection Process
The Service, in cooperation with 11 western State wildlife
agencies, has identified potential ferret reintroduction sites within
the historical range of the black-footed ferret. So far, reintroduction
attempts have occurred in Wyoming, Montana, and South Dakota. Utah and
Colorado are now identifying potential reintroduction sites, while
other western States are evaluating potential reintroduction sites. The
Service selects reintroduction sites in coordination with the Black-
footed Ferret Interstate Coordinating Committee.
Northwest Arizona/Aubrey Valley Site
On November 15, 1995, the Service proposed in the Federal Register
(60 FR 57387) to reintroduce a nonessential experimental population of
black-footed ferrets into the Aubrey Valley in northwestern Arizona.
The area selected is designated the Aubrey Valley Experimental
Population Area (AVEPA). The AVEPA includes parts of Coconino, Mohave,
and Yavapai counties in northwestern Arizona. The AVEPA is described as
the Aubrey Valley west of the Aubrey Cliffs. Its boundaries are as
follows: from Chino Point, north along the crest of the Aubrey Cliffs
to the Supai Road (Indian Route 18), southwest along the Supai Road to
Township 26 North, then west to Range 11 West, then south to the
Hualapai Indian Reservation boundary, then east and northeast along the
Hualapai Indian Reservation boundary to U.S. Highway Route 66; then
southeast along Route 66 for approximately 6 km (2.3 miles) to a point
intercepting the east boundary of Section 27, Township 25 North, Range
9 West; then south along a line to where the Atchison-Topeka Railroad
enters Yampa Divide Canyon; then southeast along the Atchison-Topeka
Railroad alignment to the intersection of the Range 9 West/Range 8 West
boundary; then south to the SE corner of Section 12, Township 24 North,
Range 9 West; then southeast to the SE corner Section 20, Township 24
West, Range 8 West; then south to the SE corner Section 29, Township 24
North, Range 8 West; then southeast to the half section point on the
east boundary line of Section 33, Township 24 North, Range 8 West; then
northeast to the SE corner of Section 27, Township 24 North, Range 8
West; then southeast to the SE corner Section 35, Township 24 North,
Range 8 West; then southeast to the half section point on the east
boundary line of Section 12, Township 23 North, Range 8 West; then
southeast to the SE corner of Section 8, Township 23 North, Range 7
West; then southeast to the SE corner of Section 16, Township 23 North,
Range 7 West; then east to the half section point of the north boundary
line of Section 14, Township 23 North, Range 7 West; then south to the
half section point on the north boundary line of Section 26, Township
23 North, Range 7 West; then east along section line to Route 66; then
southeast along Route 66 to the point of origin at Chino Point. This
area encompasses 25,598 hectares (ha) (63,253 acres) of deeded land,
18,536 ha (45,802 acres) of State trust land, and 45,686 ha (112,839
acres) of Hualapai Tribal land for a total of 89,820 ha (221,894
acres). A detailed map showing the location and delineating the
boundaries of the AVEPA accompanies this special rule.
Surveys conducted in 1992 indicated that approximately 7,000 ha
(17,297 acres) of prairie dog towns exist within the AVEPA. Using an
index outlined in Biggins et al. (1989), the Service calculates that
this area has a current black-footed ferret family rating of 35, which
means that the AVEPA can potentially support about 53 adult black-
footed ferrets. The ferret family rating is a numerical value derived
from the acreage and density of prairie dogs and is used to estimate
ferret carrying capacity of a prairie dog complex. Since 1990, the
Service, the Department, and a variety of cooperators have conducted 10
surveys in the Aubrey Valley for black-footed ferrets. These surveys
did not discover any evidence of extant black-footed ferrets, and it is
unlikely that wild ferrets exist within the AVEPA. Consequently, the
Service concludes that ferrets reintroduced into the AVEPA will be
separate and distinct from other existing populations.
The Service and the Department plan to release ferrets into a
subportion of the AVEPA (within the area considered best for the
release) that is designated on the accompanying map and is referred to
in this rule as the ``Reintroduction Area.'' If this reintroduction is
successful, black-footed ferrets will probably disperse into other
areas of the AVEPA. Other ferrets may be released into selected
portions of the AVEPA at a later date. Black-footed ferrets will be
released only if biological conditions are suitable and meet the
management framework that has been developed. The Service, in
cooperation with the Department and other project cooperators, will
reevaluate reintroduction efforts in the AVEPA if any of the following
conditions occur:
(a) Black-footed ferret habitat is not maintained sufficient to
support more than 30 breeding adults after 5 years;
(b) At least 90 percent of prairie dog acreage known in 1992 is not
maintained;
(c) A wild black-footed ferret population is found within the AVEPA
prior to the first breeding season following the initial
reintroduction;
(d) Evidence of active canine distemper or other diseases known to
be
[[Page 11323]]
detrimental to ferrets is found in or near the reintroduction area;
(e) Fewer than 20 black-footed ferrets are available for the first
release;
(f) Funding is not available to implement reintroduction plans in
Arizona; or
(g) Land ownership changes or cooperators withdraw from the
project.
Reintroduction Protocol
The reintroduction protocol involves releasing approximately 20 or
more captive-raised black-footed ferrets in the first year of the
program, and up to 50 or more animals annually for the next 2-4 years.
Released animals will be excess to the needs of the captive breeding
program. Hence, any loss of released animals would not affect the
genetic diversity of the captive animals. Since captive breeding of
ferrets will continue, any animal lost in the reintroduction effort can
be replaced. In future releases, it may be necessary to obtain ferrets
from established reintroduced populations to enhance the genetic
diversity of the population in the AVEPA.
Two protocols (``hard'' and ``soft'' release) are available that
have been successfully employed for releasing captive-reared ferrets
into the wild. Release of animals shortly after arrival at the release
site is known as a ``hard'' release. When the animals are supplied with
food, shelter, and protection from predators for a period of time
before being released, the release is characterized as ``soft.'' In
either method, ferrets are released from above-ground cages with access
to underground nest boxes. Preconditioned or nonconditioned young or
adult animals may be released. Captive-bred ferrets may be
preconditioned by placing them in large pens that enclose portions of
natural prairie-dog colonies. In addition, it may be necessary to
surround each above-ground cage with an electric fence to prevent
damage from livestock or access by predators. The Service, in
cooperation with the Department and other project cooperators, will
decide what reintroduction method is best suited for the proposed
ferret release at the AVEPA. Cooperators are jointly developing a
specific release protocol that will become a condition of the
endangered species permit authorizing the Arizona reintroduction. As an
experiment to enhance reintroduction success, excess captive pregnant
female ferrets will be shipped to large preconditioning pens and
allowed to whelp onsite in the AVEPA. After an extended period of
acclimation, family groups will be released together by simply opening
the pens.
To the extent possible, released ferrets will be vaccinated against
diseases, including canine distemper. Measures will be taken during the
initial reintroduction stage to reduce predation from coyotes (Canis
latrans), badgers (Taxidea taxus), raptors, or other predators. Habitat
conditions also will be monitored during the reintroduction phase. All
released ferrets will be marked (e.g., with passive integrated
transponder tags (PIT tags)). Several released ferrets may be radio-
tagged and their behavior and movements monitored. Other monitoring
will include use of spotlight and snow tracking surveys and visual
surveillance.
A high percentage (perhaps as high as 90 percent) of the animals
may die during the first year of release. Despite prerelease
conditioning, which should improve survival, captive-bred animals are
more susceptible to predation, starvation, and environmental conditions
than wild-born individuals. Mortality will probably be highest during
the first month following release. A realistic goal in the first year
of the program is to have some ferrets survive the first month in the
wild and at least 10 percent of the animals surviving their first
winter.
From 1982 to 1986, intensive studies were conducted on the
Meeteetse population to establish baseline data to aid future
reintroduction efforts. These baseline data have supplemented the
biological and behavioral data obtained from the South Dakota
population in the 1960's and 1970's. In addition, the Wyoming, South
Dakota, and Montana reintroduction programs also have provided data
that are useful for this and future releases.
The goal of the Arizona reintroduction effort is the establishment
of a free-ranging population of at least 30 adult animals within the
AVEPA by the year 2001. The Service, Department, and cooperators will
monitor the progress of the project on an annual basis, including all
determinable sources of mortality. The status of the population and the
information gained at this site will be evaluated annually for the
first 5 years to assess future ferret management needs. The Service
does not expect to change the nonessential designation for this
experimental population unless it deems the experiment to be a failure
or until the black-footed ferret is recovered.
Status of Reintroduced Population
The Service designates the Aubrey Valley black-footed ferret
population ``nonessential'' under section 10(j) of the Act for the
following reasons:
(a) The captive breeding population is the primary population of
the species and it has been protected against the threat of extinction
from a single catastrophic event by dividing it into seven widely
separated subpopulations. Hence, any loss of an experimental population
will not threaten the survival of the species as a whole.
(b) The primary repository of genetic diversity for the species is
now the 240 breeding adults in the captive breeding population. Animals
selected for reintroduction purposes will not be needed to maintain the
captive population. Hence, any loss of animals for reintroduction into
an experimental population will not affect the overall genetic
diversity of the species.
(c) All animals lost during this reintroduction attempt will be
replaced through captive breeding. Juvenile ferrets are now being
produced in excess of the numbers needed to maintain 240 breeding
adults in captivity.
This will be the fourth experimental population of black-footed
ferrets released into the wild. The other reintroduction efforts are in
Wyoming, southwestern South Dakota, and north-central Montana. Ferret
reintroduction is important to help recover the species to a point
where it can be downlisted and eventually delisted. Ferrets held in
captivity may lose behavioral traits critical to their survival in the
wild. Consequently, it is important to release captive-held ferrets as
soon as possible to increase the likelihood of successful
reintroduction.
Approximately 33 percent of the land in the AVEPA is deeded land.
State trust lands and Reservation lands make up the remaining 22
percent and 45 percent of the AVEPA, respectively. The nonessential
experimental population designation will facilitate reestablishment of
the species in the wild by alleviating landowner concerns about
possible land use restrictions that could otherwise apply under the
Act. The nonessential experimental designation is intended to relax
regulations that protect reintroduced populations of endangered
species, while promoting the conservation of these populations. The
nonessential designation provides a more flexible management framework
for protecting and recovering black-footed ferrets while ensuring that
the daily activities of landowners can continue unaffected.
[[Page 11324]]
Attempts to reintroduce ferrets into the wild (in Wyoming, South
Dakota, and Montana) have placed emphasis on developing and improving
reintroduction techniques. That research will advance the groundwork
for ferret reintroduction and management protocols at future release
sites. The data obtained from this reintroduction effort also will be
used to improve ferret reintroduction techniques, particularly as they
apply to reintroduction in Gunnison's prairie dog towns. All previous
releases have occurred in black-tailed or white-tailed prairie dog
towns.
Location of Reintroduced Population
Section 10(j) of the Act requires that an experimental population
be geographically separate from other nonexperimental populations of
the same species. Since 1987, when the last members of the Meeteetse
population were captured for inclusion in the captive population, no
ferrets (other than those released in Wyoming, Montana and South
Dakota) have been documented from the wild. Nevertheless, other ferrets
may exist in the wild today. Extensive surveys were conducted for
black-footed ferrets in the AVEPA. In addition to these surveys, many
hours were spent surveying prairie dog colonies at the proposed
relocation site. No ferrets or ferret sign (skulls, feces, or trenches)
were located. Therefore, the Service finds, and administratively
determines with this rule, that wild black-footed ferrets no longer
exist in the AVEPA, and that ferrets reintroduced into the AVEPA will
not overlap with wild populations of ferrets.
The AVEPA is located in northwestern Arizona and includes the
Aubrey Valley west of the Aubrey Cliffs. The area has substantial
geographic features that will hinder, but may not preclude black-footed
ferret movements outside of the AVEPA. Given the geography and the
poorer habitat conditions found outside of the AVEPA, the Service and
Department believe that ferret movements outside the designated area
are highly unlikely.
The AVEPA will be one of the core recovery areas described in the
Black-footed Ferret Recovery Plan. After the first release and before
the first breeding season, the nonessential experimental population
will include all marked ferrets in the AVEPA. During and after the
first breeding season the nonessential experimental population will
include all ferrets located in the AVEPA, including unmarked offspring
of released ferrets. All released ferrets and their offspring are
expected to remain in the AVEPA because of prime prairie dog habitat,
their limited home range, and surrounding geographic barriers. The
Service and its cooperators may capture any stray ferret that leaves
the AVEPA and return it to the management area, translocate it to
another reintroduction site, place it in captivity, or leave it in
place. If a ferret leaves the reintroduction area (but remains within
the AVEPA), the affected landowner may request its removal. The Service
will honor landowner requests to remove straying ferrets. If a
landowner does not object to the ferret remaining on his/her property,
the animal will not be removed.
All ferrets released in the AVEPA will be marked. The Service and
its cooperators will attempt to determine the source of any unmarked
animals found after the first release and before the first breeding
season. Any ferret in Arizona outside the AVEPA will be considered
endangered and may be captured for genetic testing or evidence of
identification tags. If the animal originated from the experimental
population, it may be returned to the AVEPA, held in captivity,
released at another reintroduction site, or left in place. If the
captured animal is genetically unrelated to ferrets from the
experimental population (possibly a wild animal), it may be retained
for use in the captive breeding program. Under an existing contingency
plan, up to nine wild ferrets can be captured for the captive
population. If a landowner outside the experimental population area
wishes black-footed ferrets to remain on his or her property, the
Service will seek a conservation agreement or easement with the land
owner.
Management
The Service will undertake the AVEPA reintroduction in cooperation
with the Department, Navajo Nation, Arizona State Land Department,
other landowners in AVEPA, and the Phoenix Zoo (in accordance with the
Cooperative Reintroduction Plan For Black-footed Ferrets--Aubrey
Valley, Arizona (Belitsky et al. 1994)). Specific aspects of the
reintroduction program are discussed below.
Monitoring
Several monitoring efforts are planned during the first 5 years of
the program. The Service and cooperators will monitor prairie dog
numbers and distribution, as well as sylvatic plague occurrence on an
annual basis. Canine distemper will be monitored before the
reintroduction and annually thereafter. Reintroduced ferrets and their
offspring will be monitored annually using spotlight surveys and/or
snow tracking surveys. Several ferrets may be fitted with radio
transmitters for more intensive monitoring. If ferrets survive the
first winter, surveys will monitor breeding success and juvenile
recruitment for the surviving population. Ferret behavior also will be
investigated during the reintroduction phase.
The Service, Department, and/or authorized cooperators will monitor
ferret populations and their habitat annually to document hazards or
activities that would affect ferrets. When appropriate, the Service and
the Department will develop strategies in cooperation with involved
parties and affected landowners to minimize harm to ferrets.
The Service, the Department, and cooperators will inform other
agencies and the public about the presence of ferrets in the AVEPA
through public outreach programs. Educational programs will address the
handling of sick or injured ferrets. The Service has asked the
Department to serve as the primary contact agency for government
entities, private landowners, and the public within and surrounding the
black-footed ferret reintroduction area. The Department has assigned
its Regional Wildlife Program Manager, Kingman, Arizona, ((602) 692-
7700) as principal contact to answer any public inquiries and follow up
on reports of injured or dead ferrets. The Department will report such
incidents to the Service's Field Supervisor, Ecological Services,
Phoenix, Arizona, ((602) 640-2720). The Field Supervisor will notify
the Service's Division of Law Enforcement of any reports of dead or
injured ferrets. The public should report injured or dead ferrets
directly to either the Department's Regional Wildlife Program Manager
or the Service's Field Supervisor at the phone numbers identified
above. Any ferret carcass found should be preserved. Any individual who
finds a dead ferret should not disturb potential evidence that may be
used to determine cause of death.
Disease Considerations
If canine distemper is documented in any wild mammal found near or
within the reintroduction site, the Service will reevaluate the
reintroduction program. At least 10 coyotes, and possibly badgers, will
be tested for canine distemper before ferrets are released at the
AVEPA.
The Service and cooperators will attempt to limit potential sources
of distemper by--
[[Page 11325]]
1. Discouraging people from bringing dogs into the AVEPA,
2. Encouraging residents and hunters to vaccinate pets, and
3. Encouraging people to report any dead mammals or any unusual
behavior in wild mammals within the area.
Efforts are underway to develop an effective, permanent canine
distemper vaccine for black-footed ferrets. Routine sampling for
sylvatic plague within prairie dog towns will occur before and during
reintroduction efforts.
Genetic Considerations
Ferrets selected for the initial reintroduction will be animals not
needed to preserve the genetic diversity of captive populations.
Experimental populations of ferrets usually contain less genetic
diversity than captive populations. Selecting and reestablishing
breeding ferrets that compensate for any genetic biases in earlier
releases can correct this disparity. The ultimate goal is to establish
wild ferret populations with as much genetic diversity as possible.
Prairie Dog Management
The Service will work cooperatively with landowners and land
management agencies in the AVEPA to maintain sufficient prairie dog
habitat to support more than 30 breeding adult ferrets, as well as to
maintain at least 90 percent of the prairie dog habitat known in 1992.
The Service will work cooperatively with the affected landowners and
land management agencies to resolve any prairie dog management
conflicts.
Mortality
Only animals not needed for the captive breeding program will be
used in this reintroduction attempt. The Service expects significant
mortality since captive-reared animals must adapt to the wild. Predator
and prairie dog management, vaccination, supplemental feeding, and/or
improved release methods should partially offset natural mortality
resulting from predation, a fluctuating food supply, disease, and lack
of experience in killing prey (prairie dogs). Public education will
reduce potential human-related mortality. The Service expects only a
low level of mortality from incidental take since the reintroduction is
deemed compatible with traditional land use in the area.
The Act defines ``incidental take'' as take that is incidental to,
and not the purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful
activity. A person may take a ferret in the AVEPA provided the take is
incidental as defined under the Act, and if any resulting injury or
mortality is unintentional, and not due to negligent conduct. Such take
will not be considered ``knowing take'' and the Service will not take
legal action. However, the knowing, deliberate take of a black-footed
ferret will be referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
Any take of a black-footed ferret must be reported immediately to the
Service's Field Supervisor (see ADDRESSES section).
The biological opinion prepared for the reintroduction anticipates
an annual incidental take of about 12 percent of all reintroduced
ferrets and their offspring in the AVEPA. If this level is exceeded in
a given year, the Service, in cooperation with the Department,
landowners, and land managing agencies, will conduct an evaluation to
develop and implement measures to reduce the level of incidental take.
Special Handling
Under special regulations that apply to the experimental
population, Service employees and their acting agents may handle black-
footed ferrets for various reasons--scientific purposes, relocation to
avoid conflict with human activities, recovery efforts, relocation to
future reintroduction sites, aiding sick, injured, or orphaned animals,
and salvaging dead animals. Any ferret deemed unfit to remain in the
wild will be placed in captivity. The Service also will decide the
placement or disposition of all sick, injured, orphaned, and dead
animals.
Coordination With Landowners and Land Managers
The Service and Department attempted to identify issues and
concerns associated with the ferret reintroduction in the AVEPA before
developing the proposed rule. The reintroduction has been discussed
with potentially affected State agencies and landowners within the
release area. The affected State agencies and landowners/managers have
indicated support for ferret reintroduction if the animals released in
the AVEPA are a nonessential experimental population and if land use
activities in the AVEPA are not constrained without the consent of
affected landowners.
Potential for Conflict with Grazing and Recreational Activities
Under the current management scheme for the AVEPA, the Service does
not expect conflicts between livestock grazing and black-footed ferret
management. The State Regional Wildlife Program Manager will coordinate
any ferret reintroduction measure that might affect grazing patterns in
the AVEPA, such as the placement of ferret release pens, and will
secure the concurrence of affected landowners. Livestock graze on all
lands in the AVEPA and existing grazing practices are not expected to
adversely affect ferret habitat. No restrictions will apply to
landowners regarding prairie dog control on private lands within the
AVEPA. If prairie dog control efforts proposed for private or State
trust lands locally affect ferret prey base within a specific area,
State and Federal biologists will determine whether ferrets would be
potentially impacted. The Service, Department, or authorized
cooperators may translocate ferrets from problem areas to other areas
of lesser conflict. Big game hunting, prairie dog shooting, and
trapping of furbearers or predators in the AVEPA are not expected to
affect ferrets. If private activities impede the establishment of
ferrets, the Service and Department will work closely with landowners
to develop appropriate responses to avoid or minimize problems.
Protection of Black-footed Ferrets
To the extent possible and appropriate, ferrets will be released in
a manner that provides short-term protection from natural mortality
(predators, disease, lack of prey base) and from human-related sources
of mortality. Improved release methods, vaccination, predator
management, and the management of prairie dog populations will reduce
natural mortality.
Human causes of mortality will be minimized by releasing ferrets in
areas with low human population densities and little development
potential, and by working with landowners to help avoid existing or
proposed activities that could impair ferret recovery.
The Service has prepared a final biological opinion for the
reintroduction of ferrets in the AVEPA. It concludes that this action
is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the species.
Public Awareness and Cooperation
An extensive educational effort will be undertaken to inform the
public in the region and nationally about the importance of this
reintroduction project in the overall recovery of the black-footed
ferret. This should enhance public awareness of the significance of the
AVEPA program and of the importance of the prairie habitats upon which
ferrets depend.
[[Page 11326]]
Effective Date
The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) require that at least 30 days
must be allowed before a rule becomes effective, unless an agency has
good reason to make it effective sooner. The success of this
reintroduction requires that reintroduction facilities be fully
installed and the management program in place before pregnant female
ferrets are transported to the AVEPA, beginning in March 1996 or soon
thereafter. The timing of the project therefore requires that this rule
become effective immediately upon publication in the Federal Register.
Conclusion
The designation of the AVEPA population as a nonessential
experimental population should encourage local cooperation since this
designation will minimize recovery project impacts on normal activities
within the release site. The Service considers the nonessential
experimental population designation to be necessary to gain the full
cooperation of landowners, agencies, and recreational interests in the
affected area. Based on the above information, and utilizing the best
scientific and commercial data available, (in accordance with 50 CFR
17.81), the Service finds that the reintroduction of black-footed
ferrets into the AVEPA will further the conservation and recovery of
the species.
Summary of Comments and Recommendations
The November 15, 1995, proposed rule and associated notifications
requested all interested parties to submit factual reports or
information that might contribute to the development of a final rule.
Appropriate Federal and State agencies, county governments, scientific
organizations, and other interested parties were contacted and
requested to comment. Newspaper notices inviting public comment were
published in the Williams-Grand Canyon News on November 22, 1995, the
Kingman Daily Miner on November 26, 1995, and the Arizona Republic/
Phoenix Gazette on November 27, 1995. Sixteen written comments were
received and are discussed below. Seven supported the action, 2 were
opposed, and 7 were neutral on the proposed action.
A public hearing was conducted in Seligman, Arizona, on December
12, 1995. Seventeen people attended the hearing. Four oral comments
were received: Three favored the proposal and one took no position.
The Service arranged for 5 individuals knowledgeable of black-
footed ferret biology to review the proposal. However, they provided no
comments.
The following summary addresses written comments and oral
statements presented at the public hearing and received during the
comment period. Comments of a similar nature or point are grouped into
general issues. These issues and the Service's response to each are
discussed below.
Issue 1: Historic biodiversity of species should be reestablished
as nearly as is possible.
Service Response: The Service agrees with this comment.
Establishing 10 ferret populations, an identified recovery plan
objective, will help restore historic species biodiversity.
Issue 2: Are any reintroduction sites proposed for southern
Arizona?
Service Response: No appropriate sites have been identified for
southern Arizona and none are being considered at this time. This rule
applies only to the population of black-footed ferrets to be
reintroduced in the Aubrey Valley of northern Arizona.
Issue 3: Respondents expressed concern about the well-being of
released ferrets.
Service Response: The reintroduction of captive ferrets into the
wild removes most protection that humans can provide. This and other
reintroductions seek to establish self-sustaining, free-ranging
populations of ferrets. Each reintroduction includes techniques to
ensure long-term survival of released ferrets to the greatest extent
possible, and provides means to evaluate the best ways to reintroduce
and release ferrets.
Issue 4: Are there any alternatives to release or reintroduction of
ferrets such as adoption programs, pet stores, and so on?
Service Response: There appears to be confusion over the
distinction between domestic ferrets and the black-footed ferret. The
former is an exotic species commonly raised and sold as a pet. The
latter is a native species listed as endangered under the Act. Adoption
programs are inappropriate and commercial trade in the species is
illegal.
Issue 5: Media accounts appear to be contradictory concerning the
success of black-footed ferret reintroduction and whether the species
is recovered.
Service Response: The black-footed ferret is far from recovery. The
captive breeding program has been very successful. Reintroduction
efforts are recent, but also have achieved limited success. Black-
footed ferrets have survived and reproduced in the wild following
release. However, according to the goals of the current recovery plan,
the reintroduction effort must continue and substantially expand before
recovery is fully achieved.
Issue 6: There appears to be a contradiction regarding black-footed
ferrets being affected by predators and the Service's anti-predator-
control stance. Electric fencing may be the best means of predator
control. Controlling coyotes could lead to an influx of new coyotes and
increase disease. The Service should disclose any previous disease data
collected on predators from the proposed reintroduction area. Will any
predators killed in control efforts be included in the sample of
animals needed to monitor diseases? When can disease monitoring
activity be discontinued?
Service Response: Several predators prey on black-footed ferrets,
and predators can seriously compromise ferret reintroduction success.
Consequently, a ferret release protocol for the Aubrey Valley requires
an adequate predator management strategy. We can reduce predation in
several ways including some that kill the predators and others that
deter or exclude them. The Service and Department will attempt to
minimize ferret predation at crucial periods of reintroduction. The
Service and Department are keenly interested in continuing development
and application of predator management tools that would alleviate the
need for killing predators. Electric fencing employed in the Montana
ferret reintroduction project has shown significant promise in reducing
coyote and badger predation on ferrets, and similar fencing for the
Aubrey Valley project will be evaluated. However, the Service and
Department must fully weigh whether electric fencing or other predator
management means (including killing) are the most practical considering
logistics, timing, and funding constraints. Although there are few
supporting data, lethal control of coyotes, especially during pup
dispersal, could conceivably lead to increased numbers of coyotes in
local reintroduction areas. Since 1993, 29 coyotes from the Aubrey
Valley/Seligman area have been collected to test for the presence of
canine distemper. The information obtained indicates that no recent
canine distemper outbreaks have occurred in this area. Any predators
collected in the AVEPA for future control measures would be evaluated
for evidence of distemper and sylvatic plague. Because these diseases
could potentially devastate the reintroduced ferret population and
could confound
[[Page 11327]]
subsequent releases, it is essential that a minimum number of predators
be collected each year for the duration of the reintroduction program.
Issue 7: Prairie dogs damage land.
Service Response: Prairie dogs create burrows and reduce the amount
of vegetation immediately surrounding their burrows. However, prairie
dogs evolved on native grasslands and are an extremely important
component of the prairie ecosystem. Prairie dogs provide the only known
habitat for black-footed ferrets. All reintroductions so far (and the
one to be carried out in the Aubrey Valley, Arizona) are in areas where
prairie dogs currently exist. In fact, the presence and abundance of
prairie dogs is the prime factor by which reintroduction sites are
evaluated. Prairie dogs are considered a keystone species of the
prairie environment and create and provide habitat for numerous
wildlife species. The Service believes that landowners in the AVEPA are
aware of both the problems associated with prairie dogs and of their
importance to ferret recovery and the overall prairie ecosystem.
Issue 8: A landowner requested that none of his land be designated
as critical habitat.
Service Response: The Service has not designated critical habitat
for the black-footed ferret and has no plans to do so.
Issue 9: Is the nonessential experimental designation really
appropriate in this instance or in general? Release efforts have been
confounded by predation, disease and other factors. There are many
reasons why designation as essential is vital and more appropriate. An
essential designation would provide beneficial protection, and the
protection would not completely halt projects anyway. The captive
breeding population was never designated as an essential population.
Service Response: Section 10(j) of the Act authorizes the Secretary
of Interior to designate experimental populations in order to
facilitate recovery of threatened or endangered species. Experimental
population provisions permit the Service to exercise flexibility in
avoiding situations that would otherwise confound recovery activities
because of land use restrictions potentially imposed under sections 7
and 9 of the Act. Evaluations performed by the Department, Service, and
their cooperators have indicated that the AVEPA represents the best
known potential black-footed ferret habitat in Arizona. Since lands in
the AVEPA are either privately owned or are State lands leased for
specific land uses (principally grazing), the Service can not (and will
not) engage in recovery activities in the AVEPA without the consent of
landowners. Landowner consent would be impossible without the
experimental designation, which alleviates the possibility of imposing
land use restrictions. Nevertheless, landowners in the AVEPA have
concurred with the project, and the Service finds existing land use
practices and the reintroduction program mutually compatible. Because
the distribution of potential ferret habitat in the United States
overlays a great amount of private land, the recovery of this species
is likely to depend on the good will and cooperation of private land
owners. The Service must work cooperatively with potentially affected
landowners in order to recover the ferret on private lands where the
presence of ferrets is compatible with other activities.
The Service's rationale for designating ferrets reintroduced to the
AVEPA as a ``nonessential'' experimental population rather than an
``essential'' experimental population was explained above under
``Status of Reintroduced Population.'' Black-footed ferrets do not
occur in the wild except in three nonessential experimental populations
in Montana, South Dakota, and Wyoming. Moreover, the primary genetic
repository of the species is found in the captive population, which is
maintained at seven separate facilities. Ferrets to be released in the
AVEPA are surplus to the captive population and are not needed to
maintain captive population levels. Animals lost through the
reintroduction effort can be replaced by captive breeding.
Consequently, the Service finds that the captive breeding population of
black-footed ferrets is essential to the survival of the species. The
Service's finding is supported by the preamble to the final rule that
implemented the Act's experimental population provisions (49 FR 33885,
August 27, 1984). It explains that organisms classified as experimental
are those to be removed from an existing source or donor population.
``Essential experimental population''is defined, in part, in 50 CFR
17.80(b) as ``* * * an experimental population whose loss would be
likely to appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival of the species
in the wild.''
Issue 10: The Service is too lenient or too vague about allowable
prairie dog control (shooting, trapping, poisoning) in the area. The
Service should clearly delineate a prairie dog control policy for lands
in the reintroduction zone that focuses on ferret recovery.
Service Response: The special rules clearly indicate that otherwise
legal activities (such as prairie dog control) within the AVEPA, even
those that may incidentally take black-footed ferrets, will not violate
the Act. At the same time, current land use practices within the AVEPA
are considered compatible with the viability of black-footed ferrets on
the site. The use of the area as a reintroduction site depends on the
cooperation of the landowners. Success of this effort also will depend
on the cooperation of all involved entities to ensure that sufficient
prairie dog populations are allowed to persist. The Service believes
that prairie dog population maintenance can be achieved on a
cooperative basis.
Issue 11: Two comments recommended refinement of the boundaries of
the experimental area. One requested that the southern boundary be more
readily identifiable by legal descriptions instead of contour lines. A
landowner, the Hualapai Tribe, requested that the northwest boundary of
the AVEPA be expanded to include all suitable prairie dog habitat on
the Hualapai Indian Reservation.
Service Response: The Service contacted the Hualapai Tribe to seek
clarification on the location of suitable prairie dog habitat on the
Hualapai Indian Reservation. The Service concurred and the boundaries
were modified in accordance with the recommendations of both
commenters.
Issue 12: When will there be an essential population designated
``in the wild?'' Now is the time.
Service Response: Under section 10(j) of the Act, the Secretary
(Service) determines whether or not an experimental population is
``essential'' to the continued existence of a species. The Service uses
the Act's flexibility to reintroduce surplus, captive raised black-
footed ferrets into nonessential experimental population areas. The
Service does not expect to draw from ferrets needed to maintain the
captive population in order to establish experimental populations. To
release a proportion of the ``essential'' captive population would
reduce the number of effective breeding animals. It would also affect
the supply of captive-reared ferrets for existing and future recovery
efforts, and could possibly jeopardize the continued existence of the
species.
Issue 13: Designating a population as nonessential experimental to
obtain additional knowledge for future reintroduction seems
counterintuitive. The stated purpose of the Act is to conserve species
and ecosystems. The Service should not view reintroduction of the
black-footed ferret as an isolated event that can be adequately
achieved through nonessential experimental designations. The action
involves a
[[Page 11328]]
moral issue of humans playing God in designating species as
``nonessential'' and ``experimental.''
Service Response: The Service believes that the latitude provided
in the Act to designate nonessential experimental populations affords a
realistic means of achieving recovery of the black-footed ferret. A
significant proportion of the potential habitat remaining within the
former range of the black-footed ferret is on private land. To recover
the ferret and preserve the prairie ecosystems on which it depends
requires that the Service, and other Federal and State agencies,
succeed in developing cooperative reintroduction programs with
interested parties, especially private landowners. The designation as
nonessential experimental does not diminish the importance the Service
attaches to individual reintroduction projects or imply a lack of
concern for the well-being of the ferrets involved. The Service agrees
that the recovery of the species cannot be achieved through an isolated
experimental reintroduction. However, such efforts are essential for
the development of effective reintroduction techniques and the
establishment of self-sustaining populations over several western
prairies.
Issue 14: If there is a problem with capacity for black-footed
ferrets in captivity, then one solution may be to place priority on
wild populations and decrease the level of captive breeding. Given the
genetic redundancy in the captive breeding population, its continuation
is unnecessary. We may want to retain the captive breeding population
to bolster wild populations, but not as an essential population.
Service Response: Thus far, the captive breeding program has been a
success, and recovery goals for the black-footed ferret depend on the
continued success of the captive breeding program. The captive
population itself is not genetically redundant. Maintaining and
maximizing the genetic diversity of the captive population is an
integral part of the current recovery effort.
Issue 15: If there are no impacts to current land uses from the
reintroduction, why eliminate the benefit of sections 7 and 9 of the
Act from the action? Black-footed ferrets should be reintroduced with
full protection as endangered due to current risks they face. Such a
reintroduction also would provide the opportunity to establish critical
habitat in the AVEPA. There is a problem when small, local interests
can drive reintroduction/conservation of one of the most endangered
species on the continent. The action is very biased toward protecting
human activities.
Service Response: There appears to be some misunderstanding of the
process involved in the nonessential experimental determination and the
reintroduction process as it applies to the Aubrey Valley project. The
Department, Service, and other cooperators evaluated much of the
remaining prairie dog habitats in Arizona in order to find the best
potential ferret reintroduction site. The evaluation included an
assessment of whether existing and foreseeable land uses in the area
were compatible with the maintenance of a ferret population. Despite
intensive surveys, no wild black-footed ferrets were found in the
Aubrey Valley area. Landowners in the AVEPA were approached by the
Department and Service to solicit their support for the project. Such
support could only be obtained through a nonessential experimental
designation. The landowners and other cooperators who support the
establishment of wild ferret population in the Aubrey Valley deserve
credit for voluntary cooperation in the recovery of the ferret.
Issue 16: Language in the rule prescribing a reevaluation of the
reintroduction efforts in the AVEPA is too restrictive regarding
disease factors and the minimum number of ferrets available for a
release.
Service Response: The final rule has been modified to address
disease concerns relating specifically to the black-footed ferret.
Provisions of the rule allow for flexibility to ``reevaluate''
reintroduction efforts in the event of an identified disease or if
fewer than 20 animals are available. It does not require curtailment of
the effort with discovery of a single case of disease. Other factors,
such as the species carrying the disease, the animal's age, and the
proximity of the animal to the release area or experimental population
boundaries would be considered, and the Service would seek evaluations
by experts before responding to a report of disease. The Service must
maintain flexibility to evaluate disease circumstances as they arise
without adopting a requirement to change management capabilities only
after documentation of a set number of disease cases. Likewise, the
rule does not require that the project be curtailed if only 19 animals
are available for release. However, the Service would evaluate the
potential benefits of an experimental release of a small number of
ferrets against augmenting an established release with those same
animals. The reintroduction of at least 20 ferrets is a minimum target
release level established in previous black-footed ferret
reintroduction projects.
Issue 17: A canine distemper vaccine is available for black-footed
ferrets although in short supply. The Service should not restrict
release of ferrets if they have not been vaccinated. Vaccination should
be done on a ``whenever possible'' basis.
Service Response: The Service agrees, and the rule has been
modified to specify that ferrets will be vaccinated to the extent
possible.
Issue 18: Genetic testing may not be necessary to determine the
origin of a marked ferret found outside the AVEPA (i.e., whether it
came from the AVEPA). Genetic testing may only be necessary for
unmarked or other unidentified animals, such as dispersing young. The
rule should state that any unmarked ferret occurring outside AVEPA will
initially be considered endangered, but should be captured for genetic
testing to determine the origin of the individual. It also should state
that if the captured animal is determined to be genetically unrelated
to ferrets from the experimental population (possibly a wild animal),
it will be retained for use in the captive breeding program.
Service Response: The rule has been modified to reflect that the
origin of a ferret captured outside the AVEPA can be determined by the
presence of identification tags. Ferrets genetically unrelated to the
nonessential experimental population that are found outside the AVEPA
will be considered endangered and can be retained in captivity. This
issue is discussed in greater length below.
Issue 19: The proposal states that at least 10 coyotes, and
possibly badgers, will be tested for canine distemper before ferrets
are released in the AVEPA. Setting a minimum number could delay release
efforts if goals are not obtained before the release date. Instead, the
rule should state that prior to the release of ferrets, an attempt will
be made to test at least 10 coyotes, and possibly badgers, for evidence
of canine distemper.
Service Response: An episode of canine distemper in the AVEPA could
have a profound affect on the management of the reintroduced ferret
population. Consequently, the Service and Department must establish
adequate canine distemper monitoring. The collection and evaluation of
10 predators/each year is considered a minimally acceptable level.
Issue 20: The term ``predator management'' should be substituted
for ``predator control.'' Traditionally, ``control'' implies killing,
and nonlethal
[[Page 11329]]
techniques should be evaluated before implementing any control program.
Service Response: The Service agrees with this comment, and the
appropriate changes have been made.
Issue 21: The status of the Arizona State Land Department is
unclear. Is it a landowner, cooperator, and/or land-managing agency?
What is the difference among these terms in various contexts? The
proposed rule is confusing as to the role of the Arizona Game and Fish
Department, which does not have authority to make decisions for the
Arizona State Land Department, the owner and trustee of school trust
lands.
Service Response: In the various contexts of the rule, the Arizona
State Land Department is a landowner, cooperator, and land-managing
agency. There is no distinction as to how the provisions of the rule
are applied to any of these categories. The rule was revised to clarify
the status of all landowners affected by this rule.
Issue 22: The status of ferrets found outside boundaries of the
Aubrey Valley Management Area is unclear. Ferrets introduced to the
Aubrey Valley may migrate to other areas where prairie dogs exist. The
commenter would oppose the reintroduction plan if such migration could
lead to the designation of critical habitat or other consequences under
the Act that would affect lands in the vicinity of, but outside the
boundaries of, the Aubrey Valley Management Area.
Service Response: Black-footed ferrets outside the boundary of the
AVEPA will be classified as endangered under the Act. Although the
Service cannot make a commitment that lands outside of AVEPA will never
be designated as critical habitat, designation is extremely unlikely. A
designation of critical habitat would require a separate rulemaking
process that also would involve assessments of economic impacts and
would provide for public comment and hearings. No critical habitat has
been designated for the black-footed ferret, and no such designations
are planned. The Service regards full cooperation with any potentially
affected landowner, inside or outside of the AVEPA, as essential to the
success of this and future black-footed ferret reintroduction projects.
The Service will try to settle conflicts between ferret recovery
concerns and land use activities to the benefit of both ferrets and
landowners. The Service and Department do not expect black-footed
ferrets to leave the AVEPA.
Issue 23: What is the legal significance of the distinction between
the ``reintroduction area,'' the ``experimental population site,'' the
``Aubrey Valley Experimental Population Area,'' and the ``Aubrey Valley
Management Area?'' Language in the rule should clarify the origin of
the term ``reintroduction area.''
Service Response: The ``reintroduction area'' is that portion of
the AVEPA where the actual release of ferrets will occur. The
``experimental population site'' is the AVEPA; AVEPA is an acronym for
the Aubrey Valley Experimental Population Area. Use of these terms in
the rule has been clarified.
Issue 24: Will State-owned lands receive the same protection and
treatment as ``private lands?''
Service Response: Yes. This rule makes no distinction between and
applies no separate conditions to State versus private lands.
Issue 25: The proposed rule implies that ferrets will not be
removed from lands outside the designated experimental area if they
migrate to these areas. What justifies this distinction? Ferrets that
leave the AVEPA should be returned upon request by an affected
landowner.
Service Response: The special rules allow removal of black-footed
ferrets within the AVEPA at the request of a landowner. Ferrets outside
of the AVEPA would have endangered status. The Service cannot remove
endangered species solely at the request of a landowner. However, the
Service, the Department, and/or authorized cooperators can capture
ferrets outside of the AVEPA and would probably move ferrets that
originated from the AVEPA back to the experimental area. Moreover, in
the unlikely event that a ferret is found outside of the AVEPA,
regardless of whether or not it originated in the AVEPA, the Service
will work closely with affected landowners to ensure that applicable
conservation measures are developed cooperatively, and to the benefit
of both landowner and ferrets.
Issue 26: The proposal does not clearly state under what
circumstances the Service would reevaluate the plan, and what the
consequences might be for State-owned lands. Is a single ``5-year
evaluation'' contemplated, or will there be annual evaluations for the
first 5 years of the program? If the program continues more than 5
years after the reintroduction, when, how frequently, and under what
circumstances will it be reevaluated? Can the Service, after the first
5 years, reevaluate the ``nonessential experimental'' designation for
the population in the Aubrey Valley?
Service Response: The special rules require overall evaluation of
the reintroduction effort at 5 years. Management efforts carried out as
part of the reintroduction also will be evaluated on an annual basis.
For instance, if disease substantially decreases prairie dog
populations in a given year, the Service and Department may decide not
to release ferrets that year. Although the rules do not specifically
mention other evaluations, if the active reintroduction effort
continues beyond 5 years, it will continue to be evaluated as
appropriate. The special rules make clear that the planned 5-year
evaluation will not include a reevaluation of the experimental
population designation. Although the Service can technically reevaluate
the experimental population designation at any time, a change in
designation would have to be done with the concurrence of landowners
for the program to continue. Any change of designation would have to be
done through the rulemaking process, which provides for public comment
and hearings. No changes in designation are expected or planned.
Issue 27: Can landowners only require the Service to remove ferrets
from their lands if the nonessential experimental status is altered?
Can the State of Arizona require removal of ferrets from its lands if
the status is altered, or is that right limited to ``private
landowners?''
Service Response: The general regulations governing nonessential
experimental populations under the Act and this rule give State lands
the same status as private lands. The rule has been modified to clarify
the distinction between Federal public lands and all other landowners.
This rule imposes no requirements for landowners to maintain ferrets on
their properties in the AVEPA over any specified time period. The
Service would attempt to fully accommodate any request from a
landowner/cooperator who wishes to withdraw from the project and who
sought to remove or exclude project facilities, personnel, and/or
ferrets.
Issue 28: How long will the experimental population be maintained
in the Aubrey Valley?
Service Response: The duration of designation of the population as
experimental is indefinite. The reintroduction effort will continue
until it either succeeds or fails. If recovery is achieved and the
species is delisted, the Service will withdraw the experimental
population designation. The entire species would then not retain any
legal status or protection under the Act.
Issue 29: The Arizona State Land Department is not presently named
as a party to the Cooperative Reintroduction Plan. Is the Plan part of
the rule? What
[[Page 11330]]
is the legal significance of references in the rule to the Plan? How
will the rule affect landowners who are not parties to the Plan?
Service Response: The rule refers to the Cooperative Reintroduction
Plan. It will be used as a guiding document for actual reintroduction
efforts; however, it has no legal basis. The rule establishes and
adopts regulations under section 10(j) of the Act for the establishment
of the AVEPA. It applies equally to all landowners in the AVEPA.
Issue 30: What restrictions on land management activities are
contemplated for any of the areas affected by the rule? What
restrictions does the Cooperative Reintroduction Plan impose? Will
there be any restrictions imposed other than those that a landowner has
accepted in writing?
Service Response: The rule and the Cooperative Reintroduction Plan
do not impose restrictions on land management activities. The
Cooperative Reintroduction Plan is the vehicle to guide development of
management measures that will aid ferret reintroduction and recovery
efforts. Landowners and cooperators involved in the Aubrey Valley
ferret project have cooperatively developed these measures.
Issue 31: What specific area is referred to as ``the prairie dog
habitat known in 1992?'' What activities or conditions would result in
a reduction of that ``prairie dog habitat?'' What happens if landowners
eventually devote their lands to a use incompatible with use as prairie
dog habitat?
Service Response: The specific area encompasses all prairie dog
colonies that were discovered by field surveys in 1992. Several
activities or conditions could affect that habitat, such as disease,
prairie dog poisoning, and actual disruption or destruction of lands
occupied by prairie dogs. If large, widespread acreage of lands in the
AVEPA were eventually devoted to uses incompatible with prairie dog and
ferret habitat, the Service and Department would have to reconsider
continuation of the reintroduction program in the Aubrey Valley.
Issue 32: The application of ``take'' prohibitions and requirements
is unclear. What is meant by ``necessary measures'' that would be taken
if incidental take exceeds 12 percent? What will the role of landowners
be in determining what measures will be taken and in what specific
locations? The measures should be implemented only with the consent of
any affected landowners.
Service Response: The figure of 12 percent is an allowable take
level established in the intra-Service section 7 consultation that was
required for the planning of a nonessential experimental black-footed
ferret population in the Aubrey Valley. The biological opinion that
resulted from that consultation included several reasonable and prudent
measures that must be incorporated by the Service to reduce or
eliminate anticipated incidental take. ``Necessary measures'' can only
include those that would be developed in cooperation with landowners
within the AVEPA as additional means to help reduce or eliminate
incidental take. Any such measures that could affect existing landusers
would have to be carried out in cooperation with, and with the consent
of, AVEPA landowners.
Issue 33: What is the legal relationship between the Black-footed
Ferret Recovery Plan and the rule? In the event of a conflict between
the two with regard to the treatment of landowners, will the rule take
priority over the recovery plan?
Service Response: There is no legal relationship between the
recovery plan and this rule. The recovery plan is a nonbinding document
that includes recommended measures for recovering the black-footed
ferret. This rule is a change in regulation that assigns a specific
status to a particular population, and in turn provides means to manage
that population. In the event of a conflict in intent, meaning, etc.,
the rule would prevail over the recovery plan.
Issue 34: The rule should state that, when appropriate, strategies
and contingencies to minimize harm to ferrets will be included in the
management plan and, with the consent of any affected landowners, will
be implemented by the Service. Objectives to maintain prairie dog
habitat should be negotiated through written agreements with affected
landowners. No restrictions should be placed on landowners without
their written consent.
Service Response: This rule places no restrictions on landowners.
Affected landowners have already reviewed and approved a reintroduction
plan that incorporates strategies and contingencies to manage ferrets.
The Service and Department intend for that plan to be dynamic, and any
measures necessary to maintain prairie dog habitat will be carried out
in cooperation with affected landowners.
Issue 35: What does the Service consider to be ``negligent''
conduct, or intentional conduct, that would constitute a take
violation? The last sentence of special rule (g)(5) should be changed
to read, ``Intentional take that is not `incidental take' as defined in
this rule will be referred to the appropriate authorities for
prosecution. Otherwise lawful land use activities, including the
alteration of prairie dog and ferret habitat, whether or not such
activities are intentional or `negligent,' shall not be considered to
be an unlawful take under the Act unless they are contrary to the
provisions of a cooperative agreement between the Service and an
affected landowner.''
Service Response: The legal limits of ``negligence'' related to the
incidental take of ferrets are difficult to prescribe. The suggestion
to modify the rule to authorize ``intentional'' or ``negligent''
incidental take in the course of an otherwise legal activity is beyond
the scope of this rule and would require a change in the Act and
implementing regulations. Inadvertent take by persons engaged in
otherwise lawful activities (e.g. operating vehicles) without a
knowing, intentional effort to do so, would be considered incidental
and would not be subject to punishment under the Act. A reason for
adopting a nonessential experimental designation is to allow management
of ferrets in the AVEPA without affecting existing land uses or other
human activities. Special rule (g)(5) has been applied to all previous
former black-footed ferret reintroduction sites and has been thoroughly
reviewed by the Service and by Department of the Interior solicitors.
The take prohibition of the Act cannot be modified through this special
rule and cannot be governed by specifications of a separate cooperative
agreement not authorized through regulation.
Issue 36: The rule should state that affected landowners will
support the reintroduction if ferrets located in or dispersing or
migrating from the AVEPA are considered to be a nonessential
experimental population
FR Doc. 96-6732 Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Establishment of a Nonessential Experimental Population of Black-Footed Ferrets in Aubrey Valley, Arizona
and if the reintroduction does not constrain
otherwise lawful land use activities, such as grazing, without the
consent of the affected landowner.
Service Response: This rule only establishes experimental
population status for ferrets in the AVEPA. Any change in status of
ferrets outside the AVEPA would have to be accomplished through
additional rules. It should be noted that the Service and Department
believe that ferrets are extremely unlikely to move out of the
experimental area.
Issue 37: The next to last sentence of special rule (g)(9)(iv)
should be changed to read: ``A black-footed ferret occurring outside
the experimental area in Arizona would be considered as endangered but
could be captured for
[[Page 11331]]
genetic testing or removed and relocated upon the request of the
affected landowner.''
Service Response: Any black-footed ferret occurring outside the
AVEPA would be classified as endangered. The Service cannot delegate
the decision to remove an endangered species to the owners of lands
that would be potentially occupied by the species (see Service Response
to Issues 22 and 25.)
Issue 38: The second and subsequent sentences of special rule
(g)(12) should be changed to read as: ``Should the Service determine
that a substantial modification to black-footed ferret management on
non-Federal lands is required, any landowner who consented * * *.''
Service Response: The part of the special rule referred to relates
to change in the designation or status of the nonessential experimental
population. The Service has modified the language of the rule to
clarify the applicability of this provision to all non-Federal
landowners.
Issue 39: Part of Township 28 North, Range 7 West (south of the
railroad tracks) is being developed as home sites, with road
development, power lines and septic systems. It should be noted that
the reintroduction area is in a developed or developing area.
Service Response: Township 28 North is not south of the railroad
tracks at the southern boundary of the AVEPA. However Township 23 North
is, and this may be the township to which the commenter intended to
refer. The special rule, including (g)(5), which covers take of black-
footed ferrets incidental to otherwise lawful activities, also would
apply to any development within the AVEPA. In addition, that portion of
Township 23 North that is south of the railroad tracks is at the edge
of the AVEPA and in habitat that is marginal for ferrets. The actual
reintroduction of ferrets will occur some distance away.
Issue 40: By Resolution No. RCF-030-94, the Navajo Nation supports
the proposed black-footed ferret reintroduction in the Aubrey Valley. A
representative of the Arizona Zoological Society and the Phoenix Zoo
stated they have been actively involved in the propagation and rescue
of the species for an extended period of time and encourage favorable
consideration for active reintroduction in the State of Arizona. An
employee of the Phoenix Zoo stated that the captive breeding program is
very strong, but the point has been reached where more individuals need
to be reintroduced to the wild. Reintroduction in Aubrey Valley, where
reacclimation and preconditioning can teach these animals to behave
more like wild ferrets than captives, is essential for the success of
the program.
Service Response: The Service appreciates this support and agrees
with these comments.
Issue 41: Imagine the cost to taxpayers to collar, track and survey
these ferrets. In other reintroductions, 24 percent of the ferrets
found were suspected of falling victim to coyote predation.
Reintroduction is just another attempt to make unneeded work and
complete an agenda for extremists.
Service Response: Surveys, monitoring, or any other management work
deemed appropriate for specific releases are necessary to ensure black-
footed ferret reintroduction success, and ultimately the recovery of
the species. Much of the tracking and monitoring efforts will provide
data needed to improve reintroduction efficacy, including how best to
respond to such detriments as coyote predation. The Act directs all
Federal agencies, and primarily the Service, to recover listed species.
Unfortunately, the populations of some species are in such dire
condition that reintroduction and other intensive management efforts
are needed to achieve recovery.
National Environmental Policy Act
The Service has prepared an environmental assessment as defined
under the authority of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.
It is available from the Service office identified in the ADDRESSES
section.
Required Determinations
The Department of the Interior has reviewed this rule under
Executive Order 12866 and has determined that it will not have a
significant economic effect on a substantial number of small entities
under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). Based on
the information discussed in this rule concerning public projects and
private activities within the AVEPA, it will not cause significant
economic impacts. This rule will impose no direct costs, enforcement
costs, information collection, or record keeping requirements on small
entities, and the rule contains no record keeping requirements as
defined under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-13).
References Cited
Anderson, E., S.C. Forrest, T.W. Clark, and L. Richardson. 1986.
Paleobiology, biogeography, and systematics of the black-footed
ferret (Mustela nigripes) (Audubon and Bachman), 1851. Great Basin
Naturalist Memoirs 8:11-62.
Belitsky, D.W., W.E. Van Pelt, and J.D. Hanna. 1994. A cooperative
reintroduction plan for black-footed ferrets, Aubrey Valley,
Arizona. Arizona Game and Fish Department, Phoenix, Arizona. 33 pp.
Biggins, D., B. Miller, L. Hanebury, B. Oakleaf, A. Farmer, R.
Crete, and A. Dood. 1989. A system for evaluating black-footed
ferret habitat. Unpubl. Rept. for the Black-footed Ferret Interstate
Coordinating Committee. USFWS, Fort Collins, Colorado. 25 pp.
Forrest, S.C., T.W. Clark, L. Richardson, and T.M. Campbell III.
1985. Black-footed ferret habitat: some management and
reintroduction considerations. Wyoming Bureau of Land Management,
Wildlife Technical Bulletin, No. 2. 49 pp.
Henderson, F.R., P.F. Springer, and R. Adrian. 1969. The black-
footed ferret in South Dakota. South Dakota Department of Game, Fish
and Parks, Tech. Bull. 4:1-36.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1988. Black-footed ferret recovery
plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Denver, Colorado. 154 pp.
Author
The primary authors of this rule are William Austin and Mike
Lockhart (see ADDRESSES section).
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 17
Endangered and threatened species, Exports, Imports, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, and Transportation.
Regulations Promulgation
Accordingly, 50 CFR chapter I is amended as set forth below:
PART 17--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 17 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1361-1407; 16 U.S.C. 1531-1544; 16 U.S.C.
4201-4245; Pub. L. 99-625, 100 Stat. 3500; unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 17.11(h) is amended by revising the existing entries for
the ``Ferret, black-footed'' under ``MAMMALS'' to read as follows:
Sec. 17.11 Endangered and threatened wildlife.
* * * * *
(h) * * *
[[Page 11332]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Species Vertebrate
---------------------------------------------------- population where Critical Special
Historic range endangered or Status When listed habitat rules
Common name Scientific name threatened
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mammals
Ferret, black-footed........... Mustela nigripes.. Western U.S.A., Entire, except E............. 1, 3, 433, 545, NA NA
Western Canada. where listed as 546, 582.
an experiental
population
below..
Do......................... ......do.......... ......do.......... U.S.A. (specified XN............ 433, 545, 546, 582 NA 17.84(g)
portions of WY,
MT, SD, and AZ)..
* * * * * * *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Section 17.84 is amended by revising the text of paragraph (g)
preceding the maps and by adding a new map following the existing maps
at the end of paragraph (g) to read as follows:
Sec. 17.84 Special rules--vertebrates.
* * * * *
(g) Black-footed ferret (Mustela nigripes).
(1) The black-footed ferret populations identified in paragraphs
(g)(9)(i), (g)(9)(ii), (g)(9)(iii), and (g)(9)(iv) of this section are
nonessential experimental populations. Each of these populations will
be managed in accordance with their respective management plans.
(2) No person may take this species in the wild in the experimental
population areas except as provided in paragraphs (g)(3),(4),(5), and
(10) of this section.
(3) Any person with a valid permit issued by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) under Sec. 17.32 may take black-footed
ferrets in the wild in the experimental population areas.
(4) Any employee or agent of the Service or appropriate State
wildlife agency, who is designated for such purposes, when acting in
the course of official duties, may take a black-footed ferret from the
wild in the experimental population areas if such action is necessary:
(i) For scientific purposes;
(ii) To relocate a ferret to avoid conflict with human activities;
(iii) To relocate a ferret that has moved outside the
Reintroduction Area when removal is necessary to protect the ferret, or
is requested by an affected landowner or land manager, or whose removal
is requested pursuant to paragraph (g)(12) of this section;
(iv) To relocate ferrets within the experimental population areas
to improve ferret survival and recovery prospects;
(v) To relocate ferrets from the experimental population areas into
other ferret reintroduction areas or captivity;
(vi) To aid a sick, injured, or orphaned animal; or
(vii) To salvage a dead specimen for scientific purposes.
(5) A person may take a ferret in the wild within the experimental
population areas, provided such take is incidental to and not the
purpose of, the carrying out of an otherwise lawful activity and if
such ferret injury or mortality was unavoidable, unintentional, and did
not result from negligent conduct. Such conduct will not be considered
``knowing take'' for purposes of this regulation, and the Service will
not take legal action for such conduct. However, knowing take will be
referred to the appropriate authorities for prosecution.
(6) Any taking pursuant to paragraphs (g)(3), (4)(vi) and (vii),
and (5) of this section must be reported immediately to the appropriate
Service Field Supervisor, who will determine the disposition of any
live or dead specimens.
(i) Such taking in the Shirley Basin/Medicine Bow experimental
population area must be reported to the Field Supervisor, Ecological
Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, Cheyenne, Wyoming, telephone (307)
772-2374.
(ii) Such taking in the Conata Basin/Badlands experimental
population area must be reported to the Field Supervisor, Ecological
Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, Pierre, South Dakota, telephone
(605) 224-8693).
(iii) Such taking in the north-central Montana experimental
population area must be reported to the Field Supervisor, Ecological
Services, Fish and Wildlife Service, Helena, Montana, telephone (406)
449-5225.
(iv) Such taking in the Aubrey Valley experimental population area
must be reported to the Field Supervisor, Ecological Services, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Phoenix, Arizona, telephone (602) 640-2720.
(7) No person shall possess, sell, deliver, carry, transport, ship,
import, or export by any means whatsoever any ferret or part thereof
from the experimental populations taken in violation of these
regulations or in violation of applicable State fish and wildlife laws
or regulations or the Endangered Species Act.
(8) It is unlawful for any person to attempt to commit, solicit
another to commit, or cause to be committed any offense defined in
paragraphs (g) (2) and (7) of this section.
(9) The sites for reintroduction of black-footed ferrets are within
the historical range of the species.
(i) The Shirley Basin/Medicine Bow Management Area is shown on the
attached map of Wyoming and will be considered the core recovery area
for this species in southeastern Wyoming. The boundaries of the
nonessential experimental population will be that part of Wyoming south
and east of the North Platte River within Natrona, Carbon, and Albany
Counties (see Wyoming map). All marked ferrets found in the wild within
these boundaries prior to the first breeding season following the first
year of releases will constitute the nonessential experimental
population during this period. All ferrets found in the wild within
these boundaries during and after the first breeding season following
the first year of releases will comprise the nonessential experimental
population thereafter.
(ii) The Conata Basin/Badlands Reintroduction Area is shown on the
attached map for South Dakota and will be considered the core recovery
area for this species in southwestern South Dakota. The boundaries of
the nonessential experimental population area will be north of State
Highway 44 and BIA Highway 2 east of the Cheyenne River and BIA Highway
41, south of I-90, and west of State Highway 73 within Pennington,
Shannon, and Jackson Counties, South Dakota. Any black-footed ferret
found in the wild within these boundaries will be considered part of
the nonessential experimental population after the first breeding
season following the first year of releases of black-footed ferrets in
the
[[Page 11333]]
Reintroduction Area. A black-footed ferret occurring outside the
experimental population area in South Dakota would initially be
considered as endangered but may be captured for genetic testing.
Disposition of the captured animal may take the following action if
necessary:
(A) If an animal is genetically determined to have originated from
the experimental population, it may be returned to the Reintroduction
Area or to a captive facility.
(B) If an animal is determined to be genetically unrelated to the
experimental population, then under an existing contingency plan, up to
9 black-footed ferrets may be taken for use in the captive-breeding
program. If a landowner outside the experimental population area wishes
to retain black-footed ferrets on his property, a conservation
agreement or easement may be arranged with the landowner.
(iii) The North-central Montana Reintroduction Area is shown on the
attached map for Montana and will be considered the core recovery area
for this species in north-central Montana. The boundaries of the
nonessential experimental population will be those parts of Phillips
and Blaine Counties, Montana, described as the area bounded on the
north beginning at the northwest corner of the Fort Belknap Indian
Reservation on the Milk River; east following the Milk River to the
east Phillips County line; then south along said line to the Missouri
River; then west along the Missouri River to the west boundary of
Phillips County; then north along said county line to the west boundary
of Fort Belknap Indian Reservation; then further north along said
boundary to the point of origin at the Milk River. All marked ferrets
found in the wild within these boundaries prior to the first breeding
season following the first year of releases will constitute the
nonessential experimental population during this period. All ferrets
found in the wild within these boundaries during and after the first
breeding season following the first year of releases will thereafter
comprise the nonessential experimental population. A black-footed
ferret occurring outside the experimental area in Montana would
initially be considered as endangered but may be captured for genetic
testing. Disposition of the captured animal may be done in the
following manner if necessary:
(A) If an animal is genetically determined to have originated from
the experimental population, it would be returned to the reintroduction
area or to a captive facility.
(B) If an animal is determined not to be genetically related to the
experimental population, then under an existing contingency plan, up to
nine ferrets may be taken for use in the captive breeding program.
(iv) The Aubrey Valley Experimental Population Area is shown on the
attached map for Arizona and will be considered the core recovery area
for this species in northwestern Arizona. The boundary of the
nonessential experimental population area will be those parts of
Coconino, Mohave, and Yavapai Counties that include the Aubrey Valley
west of the Aubrey Cliffs, starting from Chino Point, north along the
crest of the Aubrey Cliffs to the Supai Road (State Route 18),
southwest along the Supai Road to Township 26 North, then west to Range
11 West, then south to the Hualapai Indian Reservation boundary, then
east and northeast along the Hualapai Indian Reservation boundary to
U.S. Highway Route 66; then southeast along Route 66 for approximately
6 km (2.3 miles) to a point intercepting the east boundary of Section
27, Township 25 North, Range 9 West; then south along a line to where
the Atchison-Topeka Railroad enters Yampa Divide Canyon; then southeast
along the Atchison-Topeka Railroad alignment to the intersection of the
Range 9 West/Range 8 West boundary; then south to the SE corner of
Section 12, Township 24 North, Range 9 West; then southeast to SE
corner Section 20, Township 24 West, Range 8 West; then south to the SE
corner Section 29, Township 24 North, Range 8 West; then southeast to
the half section point on the east boundary line of Section 33,
Township 24 North, Range 8 West; then northeast to the SE corner of
Section 27, Township 24 North, Range 8 West; then southeast to the SE
corner Section 35, Township 24 North, Range 8 West; then southeast to
the half section point on the east boundary line of Section 12,
Township 23 North, Range 8 West; then southeast to the SE corner of
Section 8, Township 23 North, Range 7 West; then southeast to the SE
corner of Section 16, Township 23 North, Range 7 West; then east to the
half section point of the north boundary line of Section 14, Township
23 North, Range 7 West; then south to the half section point on the
north boundary line of Section 26, Township 23 North, Range 7 West;
then east along section line to route 66; then southeast along route 66
to the point of origin at Chino Point. Any black-footed ferrets found
in the wild within these boundaries will be considered part of the
nonessential experimental population after the first breeding season
following the first year of releases of ferrets into the reintroduction
area. A black-footed ferret occurring outside the experimental area in
Arizona would be considered as endangered but may be captured for
genetic testing. Disposition of the captured animal may take the
following action if necessary:
(A) If an animal is determined to have originated from the
experimental population, either genetically or through tagging devices,
it may be returned to the reintroduction area or to a captive facility.
If a landowner outside the experimental population area wishes to
retain black-footed ferrets on his property, a conservation agreement
or easement may be arranged with the landowner.
(B) If an animal is determined to be genetically unrelated to the
experimental population, then under an existing contingency plan, up to
nine ferrets may be taken for use in the captive-breeding program. If a
landowner outside the experimental population area wishes to retain
black-footed ferrets on his property, a conservation agreement or
easement may be arranged with the landowner.
(10) The reintroduced populations will be continually monitored
during the life of the project, including the use of radio-telemetry
and other remote sensing devices, as appropriate. All released animals
will be vaccinated against diseases prevalent in mustelids, as
appropriate, prior to release. Any animal that is sick, injured, or
otherwise in need of special care may be captured by authorized
personnel of the Service or appropriate State wildlife agency or their
agents and given appropriate care. Such an animal may be released back
to its respective reintroduction area or another authorized site as
soon as possible, unless physical or behavioral problems make it
necessary to return the animal to captivity.
(11) The status of each experimental population will be reevaluated
within the first 5 years after the first year of release of black-
footed ferrets to determine future management needs. This review will
take into account the reproductive success and movement patterns of
individuals released into the area, as well as the overall health of
the experimental population and the prairie dog ecosystem in the above
described areas. Once recovery goals are met for delisting the species,
a rule will be proposed to address delisting.
(12) This 5-year evaluation will not include a reevaluation of the
``nonessential experimental'' designation for these populations. The
Service does not foresee any likely
[[Page 11334]]
situation which would call for altering the nonessential experimental
status of any population. Should any such alteration prove necessary
and it results in a substantial modification to black-footed ferret
management on non-Federal lands, any landowner who consented to the
introduction of black-footed ferrets on their lands will be permitted
to terminate their consent, and at their request, the ferrets will be
relocated pursuant to paragraph (g)(4)(iii) of this section.
* * * * *
BILLING CODE 4310-55-P
[[Page 11335]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR20MR96.018
[[Page 11336]]
* * * * *
Dated: March 13, 1996.
George T. Frampton, Jr.,
Assistant Secretary for Fish and Wildlife and Parks.
[FR Doc. 96-6732 Filed 3-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-55-C
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6730 Dried Fermentation Solids and Solubles of Myrothecium Verrucaria; Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance on All Food Crops and Ornamentals
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11313-11315]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6730]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 4F4398/R2209; FRL-5352-2]
RIN 2070-AB78
Dried Fermentation Solids and Solubles of Myrothecium Verrucaria;
Exemption From the Requirement of a Tolerance on All Food Crops and
Ornamentals
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule establishes an exemption from the requirement for a
tolerance for residues of killedMyrothecium verrucaria in or on all
food crop and ornamental commodities when applied pre-planting, pre-
seeding or post-planting in accordance with good agricultural
practices. This exemption was requested by Abbott Laboratories. This
regulation eliminates the need to establish a maximum permissible level
for residues of this nematicide on food crops and ornamentals.
[[Page 11314]]
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective March 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
docket number, [PP 4F4398/R2209], may be submitted to: Hearing Clerk
(1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. M3708, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. A copy of any objections and hearing requests
filed with the Hearing Clerk should be identified by the docket number
and submitted to: Public Response and Program Resources Branch, Field
Operations Division (7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington , DC 20460.
In person, bring copy of objections and hearing requests to Rm. 1132,
CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Hwy., Arlington, VA 22202. Fees
accompanying objections shall be labeled ``Tolerance Petition Fees''
and forwarded to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, OPP
(Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251. An electronic
copy of objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk
may be submitted to OPP by sending electronic mail (e-mail) to:opp-
[email protected].
Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests must be
submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of special characters and
any form of encryption. Copies of electronic objections and hearing
requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file format
or ASCII file format. All copies of electronic objections and hearing
requests must be identified by the docket number [PP 4F4398/R2209] . No
Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be submitted through e-
mail. Copies of electronic objections and hearing requests on this rule
may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries. Additional
information on electronic submissions can be found below in this
document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Cindy Schaffer, Product
Manager (PM) Biopesticides and Pollution Prevention Division (7501W),
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.
(703) 308-8272; e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Federal Register of February 8, 1995
(60 FR 7539), EPA issued a notice (PF-617; FRL-4926-4) that Abbott
Laboratories, Chemical and Agricultural Products Division, 1401
Sheridan Road, North Chicago, IL 60064, had submitted pesticide
petition (PP) 4F4398 to EPA proposing to amend 40 CFR part 180 by
establishing a regulation pursuant to section 408 of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 346a(d), to exempt from the
requirement of a tolerance the residues of the nematicide dried
fermentation solids and solubles ofMyrothecium verrucaria in or on food
crops and ornamental commodities when applied in accordance with good
agricultural practices.
There were no adverse comments, or requests for referral to an
advisory committee received in response to the notice of filing of PP
4F4398.
Myrothecium Verrucaria Natural Occurance
Myrothecium verrucaria is a soil hyphomycete fungus originally
isolated from a nematode cadaver. This organism has been found on plant
material, cellulosic matter, running and still water, and in various
cultivated and non-cultivated soils.
Toxicology Assessment
The data submitted in the petition and all other relevant material
have been evaluated. The toxicological data considered in support of
the exemption from the requirement of a tolerance include: an acute
oral toxicity study, an acute dermal toxicity study, an acute
intratracheal toxicity study, and a primary dermal irritation study.
The results of these studies indicated that the organism was not
toxic to test animals when administered via oral, dermal,
intratracheal, or inhalation routes.
Mild ocular irritation observed in the eye irritation study
dissipated within 3 days; very slight skin irritation noted immediately
following exposure to the compound dissipated within 3 days. There have
been no reports of hypersensitivity related to the active ingredient.
All of the toxicity studies submitted are considered acceptable.
The toxicology data provided are sufficient to demonstrate that
there are no foreseeable human health hazards likely to arise from the
use of killedMyrothecium verrucaria on all food crops and ornamental
commodities in accordance with good agricultural practices.
Residue data requirements shall apply to microbial pesticides when
Tier II or III toxicology data are required, as specified in 40 CFR
158.740 and are therefore not relevant to this petition. The data
submitted demonstrate that this biological control agent is not toxic
to humans at a Tier I level by dietary exposure. No enforcement actions
are expected. Therefore, the requirement for an analytical method for
enforcement purposes is not applicable to this exemption request. This
is the first exemption from the requirement of a tolerance for this
killed biological control agent.
Submitted Data-Acute Toxicology for driedMyrothecium verrucaria
solids and solubles:
Acute Oral LD50 > 5,000 mg/kg
Acute Dermal LD50 > 2,000 mg/kg
Acute Inhalation LD50 > 5.99 mg/L
Acute Intratracheal LD50 > 50 mg/kg
Primary Dermal Irritation - Mild Irritant
Primary Eye Irritation - Slight Irritant
Conclusion
Based on the low toxicity of driedMyrothecium verrucaria solids and
solubles, the Agency concludes that establishment of a tolerance is not
necessary to protect the public health. Therefore, the exemption from
tolerance is established as set forth below.
Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file
written objections to the regulation and may also request a hearing on
those objections. Objections and hearing requests must be filed with
the Hearing Clerk, at the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy
of the objections and/or hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk
should be submitted to the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The
objections submitted must specify the provisions of the regulation
deemed objectionable and the grounds for the objections (40 CFR
178.25). Each objection must be accompanied by the fee prescribed by 40
CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is requested, the objections must include a
statement of the factual issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, the
requestor's contentions on such issues, and a summary of any evidence
relied upon by the objector (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing
will be granted if the Administrator determines that the material
submitted shows the following: There is genuine and substantial issue
of fact; there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence
identified by the requestor would, if established, resolve one or more
of such issues in favor of the requestor, taking into account
uncontested claims or facts to the contrary; and resolution of the
factual issue(s) in the manner sought by the requestor would be
adequate to justify the action requested (40 CFR 178.32).
A record has been established for this rulemaking under the docket
number [PP 4F4398/R2209] (including any comments and data submitted
electronically). A public version of this
[[Page 11315]]
record, including printed, paper versions of electronic comments, which
does not include any information claimed as CBI, is available for
inspection from 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding
legal holidays. The public record is located in Room 1132 of the Public
Response and Program Resources Branch, Field Operations Division
(7506C), Office of Pesticide Programs, Environmental Protection Agency,
Crystal Mall #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA.
The official record for this rulemaking, as well as the public
version, as described above will be kept in paper form. Accordingly,
EPA will transfer any copies of objections and hearing requests
received electronically into printed, paper form as they are received
and will place the paper copies in the official rulemaking record which
will also include all comments submitted directly in writing. The
official rulemaking record is the paper record maintained at the
address in ``ADDRESSES'' at the beginning of this document.
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order
(i.e., Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines
``significant'' as those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and
materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local or tribal governments or communities (also known as
``economically significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another
agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement,
grants, user fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
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 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, 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, enabling 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. The rule imposes no enforceable duty
on any State, local or tribal governments or the private sector. Thus,
today's rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205
of the UMRA.
In addition, EPA has determined that this rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments because the rule imposes no regulatory requirements
on any party.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: February 29, 1996.
Daniel M. Barolo,
Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, 40 CFR chapter I, part 180 is amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346A and 371.
2. Section 180.1163 is added to subpart D to read as follows:
Sec. 180.1163 Killed Myrothecium verrucaria; exemption from the
requirement of a tolerance.
KilledMyrothecium verrucaria is exempted from the requirement of a
tolerance in or on all raw agricultural commodities when applied as a
pre-seed or pre- or post-planting soil treatment alone or mixed with
water and the mixed suspension be applied through drip or border
irrigation systems at a rate not to exceed 20 to 40 lbs/acre and the
indicator mycotoxin levels do not exceed 15 ppm.
[FR Doc. 96-6730 Filed 3-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6700 Summer Flounder Fishery; Commercial Quota Harvested for North Carolina
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11344-11345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6700]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 625
[Docket No. 951116270-5038-02; I.D. 031396C]
Summer Flounder Fishery; Commercial Quota Harvested for North
Carolina
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Commercial quota harvest.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS issues this notification to announce that the summer
flounder commercial quota available to the State of North Carolina has
been harvested. Vessels issued a commercial Federal fisheries permit
for the summer flounder fishery may not land summer flounder in North
Carolina for the remainder of calendar year 1996, unless additional
quota becomes available through a transfer from another state that has
not reached its annual quota. Regulations governing the summer flounder
fishery require publication of this notification to advise the State of
North Carolina that the quota has been harvested and to advise vessel
and dealer permit holders that no commercial quota is available for
landing summer flounder in North Carolina.
[[Page 11345]]
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 15, 1996, through December 31, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lucy Helvenston, 508-281-9347.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulations governing the summer flounder
fishery are found at 50 CFR part 625. The regulations require annual
specification of a commercial quota that is apportioned among the
states from North Carolina through Maine. The process to set the annual
commercial quota and the percent allocated to each state are described
in Sec. 625.20.
The total commercial quota for summer flounder for the 1996
calendar year is set equal to 11,111,298 lb (5,040,000 kg) (January 4,
1996, 61 FR 291). The percent allocated to vessels landing summer
flounder in North Carolina is 27.44584 percent, or 3,049,589 lb
(1,383,270 kg).
Section 625.21(c) requires the Regional Director, Northeast Region,
NMFS (Regional Director), to monitor state commercial quotas and to
determine when a state commercial quota is harvested. The Regional
Director is further required to publish a notice in the Federal
Register advising a state and notifying Federal vessel and dealer
permit holders that, effective upon a specific date, the state's
commercial quota has been harvested and no commercial quota is
available for landing summer flounder in that state. Because the
available information indicates that the State of North Carolina has
attained its quota for 1996, the Regional Director has determined,
based on dealer reports and other available information, that the
State's commercial quota has been harvested.
The regulations at Sec. 625.4(a)(3) provide that Federal permit
holders agree as a condition of the permit, not to land summer flounder
in any state that the Regional Director has determined no longer has
commercial quota available. Therefore, effective 0001 hours on March
15, 1996, further landings of summer flounder in North Carolina by
vessels holding commercial Federal fisheries permits are prohibited for
the remainder of the 1996 calendar year, unless additional quota
becomes available through a transfer from another state that has not
reached its annual quota, and is announced in the Federal Register.
Federally permitted dealers are also advised that they may not purchase
summer flounder from federally permitted vessels that land in North
Carolina for the remainder of the calendar year, or until additional
quota becomes available through another state.
Classification
This action is required by 50 CFR part 625 and is exempt from
review under E.O. 12286.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: March 15, 1996.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-6700 Filed 3-15-96; 2:22 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6699 Regulations Pertaining to Both Nonimmigrants and Immigrants Under the Immigration and Nationality, as Amended; Failure to Comply With INA; Correction
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11304-11305]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6699]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11305]]
DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Bureau of Consular Affairs
22 CFR Part 40
[Public Notice 2361]
Regulations Pertaining to Both Nonimmigrants and Immigrants Under
the Immigration and Nationality, as Amended; Failure to Comply With
INA; Correction
AGENCY: Bureau of Consular Affairs, DOS.
ACTION: Correction to final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to the final rule
published on March 8, 1996 [61 FR 9325]. The regulation implements sec.
212(o) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) as amended by
section 506(b) of Pub. L. 103-317.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 1, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Stephen K. Fischel, Chief, Legislation
and Regulations Division, 202-663-1204.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 8, 1996 the Department published
Public Notice 2345 [61 FR 9325] which finalized the interim rule
published on October 11, 1994 at 59 FR 51367. The document contained an
error in the third column of page 9325 in the final paragraph. This
document corrects the Federal Register citation in that paragraph to
read 59 FR 51367.
Dated: March 14, 1996.
Mary A. Ryan,
Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs.
[FR Doc. 96-6699 Filed 3-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4710-06-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6696 Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Salable Quantities and Allotment Percentages for the 1996-97 Marketing Year
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11291-11293]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6696]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 985
[FV95-985-5FR]
Spearmint Oil Produced in the Far West; Salable Quantities and
Allotment Percentages for the 1996-97 Marketing Year
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule establishes the quantity of spearmint oil
produced in the Far West, by class, that handlers may purchase from, or
handle for, producers during the 1996-97 marketing year. The Spearmint
Oil Administrative Committee (Committee), the agency responsible for
local administration of the marketing order for spearmint oil produced
in the Far West, recommended this rule for the purpose of avoiding
extreme fluctuations in supplies and prices, thus helping to maintain
stability in the spearmint oil market.
EFFECTIVE DATE: June 1, 1996 through May 31, 1997.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Robert J. Curry, Northwest Marketing
Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and
Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, 1220 SW Third Avenue, room 369,
Portland, Oregon 97204; telephone: (503) 326-2724; or Tershirra T.
Yeager, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable
Division, AMS, USDA, room 2525, South Building, P.O. Box 96456,
Washington, D.C. 20090-6456; telephone: (202) 720-5127.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule is issued under Marketing
Order No. 985 (7 CFR Part 985), regulating the handling of spearmint
oil produced in the Far West (Washington, Idaho, Oregon, and designated
parts of California, Nevada, Montana, and Utah). This marketing order
is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the ``Act.''
The Department of Agriculture (Department) is issuing this rule in
conformance with Executive Order 12866.
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778,
Civil Justice Reform. Under the provisions of the marketing order now
in effect, salable quantities and allotment percentages may be
established for classes of spearmint oil produced in the Far West. This
final rule establishes the quantity of spearmint oil produced in the
Far West, by class, that may be purchased from or handled for producers
by handlers during the 1996-97 marketing year, which begins on June 1,
1996. This final rule will not preempt any State or local laws,
regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable
conflict with this rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted
therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the
petition. After the hearing the Secretary would rule on the petition.
The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any
district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her
principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review the
Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided a bill in equity is filed
no later than 20 days after date of the entry of the ruling.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA), the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS) has considered the economic impact of this action on small
entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that
they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility.
There are 8 spearmint oil handlers subject to regulation under the
marketing order and approximately 260 producers of spearmint oil in the
regulated production area. Of the 260 producers, approximately 160
producers hold Class 1 (Scotch) oil allotment base, and approximately
145 producers hold Class 3 (Native) oil allotment base. Small
agricultural service firms are defined by the Small Business
Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as those having annual receipts of less
than $5,000,000, and small agricultural producers have been defined as
those whose annual receipts are less than $500,000. A minority of
producers and handlers of Far West spearmint oil may be classified as
small entities.
The Far West spearmint oil industry is characterized by producers
whose farming operations generally involve more than one commodity and
whose income from farming operations is not exclusively dependent on
the production of spearmint oil. The U.S. production of spearmint oil
is concentrated in the Far West, primarily Washington, Idaho, and
Oregon (part of the area covered by the marketing order). Spearmint oil
is also produced in the Midwest. The production area covered by the
marketing order accounts
[[Page 11292]]
for approximately 75 percent of the annual U.S. production of spearmint
oil.
A proposed rule was issued on January 17, 1996, and published in
the Federal Register (61 FR 1855, January 24, 1996). That rule provided
a 30-day comment period which ended February 23, 1996. No comments were
received.
Pursuant to authority contained in sections 985.50, 985.51, and
985.52 of the marketing order, the Committee recommended the salable
quantities and allotment percentages for the 1996-97 marketing year at
its September 26, 1995, meeting. The Committee recommended the
establishment of a salable quantity and allotment percentage for Scotch
spearmint oil in a vote of six in favor and one opposed. The member
voting in opposition favored the establishment of a higher salable
quantity and allotment percentage. The Committee recommended the
establishment of a salable quantity and allotment percentage for Native
spearmint oil in a vote of seven in favor and none opposed. The
Chairman abstained from voting on both actions.
This final rule establishes a salable quantity of 989,303 pounds
and an allotment percentage of 55 percent for Scotch spearmint oil, and
a salable quantity of 1,074,902 pounds and an allotment percentage of
54 percent for Native spearmint oil. This final rule limits the amount
of spearmint oil that handlers may purchase from, or handle for,
producers during the 1996-97 marketing year, which begins on June 1,
1996. Salable quantities and allotment percentages have been placed
into effect each season since the marketing order's inception in 1980.
The Committee revised its procedure for calculating the salable
quantity and allotment percentage for Scotch spearmint oil this season
by using a formula based on that portion of the entire North American
market share targeted by the Far West. The Committee chose to use a
targeted percentage of the North American market share in its
deliberations due to the increased production of Scotch spearmint oil
in Canada and certain domestic areas outside of the Far West production
area. The Far West spearmint oil industry maintained approximately 72
percent of the North American Scotch spearmint oil market share during
1980, the marketing order's first year of operation. By 1994, this had
gradually diminished to the point where the Far West had sales of
Scotch spearmint oil representing approximately 52 percent of the North
American market. Reestablishing the Far West with a majority of the
North American market share is a priority of the Committee, while at
the same time maintaining market stability. Although desiring to regain
the market share level realized in 1980, the Committee plans to work at
achieving this goal over a period of several years.
The method of calculating the Native spearmint oil salable quantity
and allotment percentage remains unchanged, with the primary
consideration being price and available supply as affected by the
estimated trade demand for Far West spearmint oil. United States
production of Native spearmint oil is centered in the Far West which
produces approximately 90 percent of the total supply.
The salable quantity and allotment percentage for each class of
spearmint oil for the 1996-97 marketing year is based upon the
Committee's recommendation and the data presented below.
(1) Class 1 (Scotch) Spearmint Oil
(A) Estimated carry-in on June l, 1996--196,384 pounds. This number
is derived by subtracting the estimated 1995-96 marketing year trade
demand of 862,784 pounds from the revised 1995-96 marketing year total
available supply of 1,059,168 pounds.
(B) Estimated North American production (U.S. and Canada) for the
1996-97 marketing year--1,549,316 pounds. This number is an estimate
based on Committee information provided by producers and buyers.
(C) Percentage of North American market targeted--64.67 percent.
This number is an average of the recommended target percentages made at
each of the six regional producer meetings held throughout the Far West
production area during the month of September, 1995.
(D) Total quantity of Scotch spearmint oil needed to reach targeted
percentage--1,001,891 pounds. This number is the product of the
estimated 1996-97 North American production and the targeted
percentage.
(E) Minimum amount desired to have on hand throughout the season--
191,667 pounds. This number is an average of those amounts recommended
by producers at the six regional producer meetings, and reflects the
Committee's commitment in regaining market share by maintaining a
minimum quantity on hand.
(F) Total supply required--1,193,558 pounds. This number is derived
by adding the minimum desired on hand amount to the total quantity
required to meet the targeted percentage.
(G) Additional quantity required--997,174 pounds. This represents
the actual amount of additional or new oil needed to meet the
Committee's projections, and is computed by subtracting the estimated
carry-in of 196,384 pounds from the total supply required of 1,193,558
pounds.
(H) Total allotment base for the 1996-97 marketing year--1,798,732
pounds.
(I) Computed allotment percentage--55 percent. This percentage is
computed by dividing the required salable quantity by the total
allotment base.
(J) Recommended allotment percentage--55 percent.
(K) The Committee's recommended salable quantity--989,303 pounds.
(2) Class 3 (Native) Spearmint Oil
(A) Estimated carry-in on June 1, 1996--44,959 pounds. This number
is derived by subtracting the estimated 1995-96 marketing year trade
demand of 1,084,436 pounds from the revised 1995-96 marketing year
total available supply of 1,129,395 pounds.
(B) Estimated trade demand (domestic and export) for the 1996-97
marketing year--1,084,436 pounds. This number is an estimate based on
the average of total annual sales made between 1988 and 1994, handler
estimates, and Committee information provided by producers and buyers.
(C) Salable quantity required from 1996 production--1,039,477
pounds. This number is the difference between the estimated 1996-97
marketing year trade demand and the estimated carry-in on June 1, 1996.
(D) Total allotment base for the 1996-97 marketing year--1,990,559
pounds.
(E) Computed allotment percentage--52.2 percent. This percentage is
computed by dividing the required salable quantity by the total
allotment base.
(F) Recommended allotment percentage--54 percent. The Committee
recommended a percentage slightly higher than that computed so as to
maintain an ample supply of Native spearmint oil available for the
market.
(G) The Committee's recommended salable quantity--1,074,902 pounds.
The salable quantity is the total quantity of each class of oil
which handlers may purchase from or handle on behalf of producers
during a marketing year. Each producer is allotted a share of the
salable quantity by applying the allotment percentage to the producer's
allotment base for the applicable class of spearmint oil.
The Committee's recommended salable quantities of 989,303 pounds
and 1,074,902 pounds, and allotment percentages of 55 percent and 54
percent for Scotch and Native spearmint oils, respectively, are based
on anticipated 1996-97 marketing year supply and trade demand. The
[[Page 11293]]
relatively higher recommended salable quantities and allotment
percentages for both Scotch and Native spearmint oils for the 1996-97
marketing year, when compared to those initially recommended for the
1995-96 marketing year, are demonstrative of the Committee's concern
with the increasing production of spearmint oil, both inside and
outside the marketing order production area, and the industry's desire
to maintain a significant share of the North American market while
maintaining the overall stability of the market.
The recommended salable quantities are not expected to cause a
shortage of spearmint oil supplies. Any unanticipated or additional
market demand for spearmint oil which may develop during the marketing
year can be satisfied by an increase in the salable quantities. Both
Scotch and Native spearmint oil producers who produce more than their
annual allotments during the 1996-97 season may transfer such excess
spearmint oil to a producer with spearmint oil production less than his
or her annual allotment or put it into the reserve pool.
This regulation is similar to those which have been issued in prior
seasons. Costs to producers and handlers resulting from this final
action are expected to be offset by the benefits derived from improved
returns.
The establishment of these salable quantities and allotment
percentages allows for anticipated market needs based on historical
sales, changes and trends in production and demand, and information
available to the Committee. Adoption of this final rule also provides
spearmint oil producers with information on the amount of oil which
should be produced for next season.
Based on available information, the Administrator of the AMS has
determined that the issuance of this final rule will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
After consideration of all relevant matter presented, the
information and recommendations submitted by the Committee, and other
available information, it is found that this action will tend to
effectuate the declared policy of the Act.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 985
Marketing agreements, Oils and fats, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Spearmint oil.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 985 is
amended as follows:
PART 985--SPEARMINT OIL PRODUCED IN THE FAR WEST
1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 985 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674.
2. A new section 985.215 is added to read as follows:
Note: This section will not appear in the Code of Federal
Regulations.
Sec. 985.215 Salable quantities and allotment percentages--1996-97
marketing year.
The salable quantity and allotment percentage for each class of
spearmint oil during the marketing year beginning on June 1, 1996,
shall be as follows:
(a) Class 1 (Scotch) oil--a salable quantity of 989,303 pounds and
an allotment percentage of 55 percent.
(b) Class 3 (Native) oil--a salable quantity of 1,074,902 pounds
and an allotment percentage of 54 percent.
Dated: March 13, 1996.
Eric M. Forman,
Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-6696 Filed 3-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6695 Milk in the New York-New Jersey Marketing Area; Final Rule: Termination of Certain Order Provisions and Removal of Certain Regulations of the Order
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11293-11294]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6695]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 1002
[DA-95-23B]
Milk in the New York-New Jersey Marketing Area; Final Rule:
Termination of Certain Order Provisions and Removal of Certain
Regulations of the Order
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule removes certain sections of the New York-New
Jersey Federal milk marketing order (Order 2). Specifically, this
document removes the requirements that certain changes to the market
administrator's rules and regulations be published in the Federal
Register. Additionally, this rule removes from the Annual Code of
Federal Regulations the publication of two Order 2 sections containing
the market administrator's rules and regulations concerning cooperative
payments. This action is taken to reduce printing costs and to comply
with the President's regulatory reform initiative.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gino Tosi, Marketing Specialist, USDA/
AMS/Dairy Division, Order Formulation Branch, Room 2971, South
Building, P.O. Box 96456, Washington, DC 20090-6456, (202)690-1366.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Prior documents in this proceeding: Interim
Rule; Issued November 27, 1995; published December 4, 1995 (60 FR
62018).
This regulatory action is being taken as part of the National
Performance Review Program to eliminate unnecessary regulations and
improve those that remain in force.
The Department is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive
Order 12866.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-612) requires the
Agency to examine the impact of a rule on small entities. Pursuant to 5
U.S.C. 605(b), the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service
has certified that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This action reduces
the cost involved with publishing in the Federal Register and the
annual Code of Federal Regulations rules and regulations that are
printed and made available to interested parties by the market
administrator.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. The rule is not intended to have a retroactive effect.
The rule will not preempt any state or local laws, regulations, or
policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with the rule.
The Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7
U.S.C. 601-674), provides that administrative proceedings must be
exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section
608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with
the Secretary a petition stating that the order, any provision of the
order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in
accordance with law and request a modification of an order or to be
exempted from the order. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a
hearing on the petition. After a hearing, the Secretary would rule on
the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United
States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has
its principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review
the Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided a bill in equity is
filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
This rule is issued pursuant to the provisions of the Agricultural
Marketing Agreement Act and of the order regulating the handling of
milk in the New York-New Jersey marketing area. It is hereby found and
determined that the following provisions of the order no longer
effectuate the declared policy of the Act:
[[Page 11294]]
1. In Sec. 1002.77(i)(1), the words: ``published in the Federal
Register and''.
2. In Sec. 1002.77(i)(3), the words: ``approval, and shall be
published in the Federal Register following such''.
In addition, the following provisions of the rules and regulations
issued under the order do not need to be published in the annual Code
of Federal Regulations:
3. Subpart--Conduct of Hearings Relating to Suspended Cooperative
Payments (Secs. 1002.300 through 1002.353).
4. Subpart--Cooperative Payment Rules and Regulations Approval of
Tentative Amendment (Secs. 1002.400 through 1002.444).
Findings and Determinations
This action terminates the provisions which require that in two
particular situations the rules and regulations issued by the market
administrator of the New York-New Jersey order (Order 2) be published
in the Federal Register. Additionally, the two Order 2 subparts which
contain the market administrator's rules and regulations related to
cooperative payments will no longer be published in the annual Code of
Federal Regulations.
The market administrator will continue to issue any specific rules
and regulations that are needed to effectuate the provisions of the
order regulating the handling of milk in the Order 2 marketing area.
These rules and regulations are, and will continue to be, issued to
facilitate the administration of the order and are updated as
necessary, published, and made available to interested parties.
Industry representatives may request a copy of the rules and
regulations, which must be approved by the Secretary, from the market
administrator at any time.
This action will not change the rules and regulations previously
issued by the Order 2 market administrator and in effect now to carry
out the regulatory provisions of the order. Order 2 establishes
specific procedures that must be followed by the market administrator
in revising the rules and regulations. It also sets forth methods
whereby interested parties are informed about proposals to change the
rules and regulations and how they may participate in the rulemaking
process.
The printing and procedural functions involving the implementation
or revision of the rules and regulations concerning cooperative
payments for Order 2 are accomplished by the market administrator in
the performance of his duties. These matters are being adequately
performed by the Order 2 market administrator. Thus, it is not
necessary to replicate the market administrator's efforts by requiring
that they be published in the Federal Register or that the Order 2
subparts containing the rules and regulations be published in the Code
of Federal Regulations each year. Furthermore, this action is
consistent with the President's regulatory reform initiative.
Accordingly, with regard to the termination of the aforesaid
provisions of the order as hereinafter set forth, it is hereby found in
accordance with the Act that these provisions no longer tend to
effectuate the declared policy of the Act. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it
is hereby found and determined that it is unnecessary to postpone the
effective date of this action until 30 days after the publication of
this document in the Federal Register because this action was
previously taken on an interim basis in a document that was published
in the Federal Register on December 4, 1995 (60 FR 62018). Interested
parties had until January 3, 1996, to file their written comments to
the interim action and no comments were received. This document
concludes the proceeding.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 1002
Milk marketing orders.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR Part 1002 is
amended as follows:
PART 1002--MILK IN THE NEW YORK-NEW JERSEY MARKETING AREA
Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 7 CFR part 1002 which
was published at 60 FR 62018 on December 4, 1995, is adopted as a final
rule without change.
Dated: March 13, 1996.
Michael V. Dunn,
Assistant Secretary, Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 96-6695 Filed 3-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6694 Filberts/Hazelnuts Grown in Oregon and Washington; Establishment of Interim and Final Free and Restricted Percentages for the 1995-96 Marketing Year
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11289-11291]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6694]
========================================================================
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. 55 / Wednesday, March 20, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 11289]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Agricultural Marketing Service
7 CFR Part 982
[Docket No. FV95-982-2FIR]
Filberts/Hazelnuts Grown in Oregon and Washington; Establishment
of Interim and Final Free and Restricted Percentages for the 1995-96
Marketing Year
AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Department of Agriculture (Department) is adopting as a
final rule, without change, the provisions of an interim final rule
which established interim and final free and restricted percentages for
domestic inshell filberts/hazelnuts for the 1995-96 marketing year
under the Federal marketing order for filberts/hazelnuts grown in
Oregon and Washington. The percentages allocate the quantity of
domestically produced filberts/hazelnuts which may be marketed in the
domestic inshell market. The percentages are intended to stabilize the
supply of domestic inshell filberts/hazelnuts to meet the limited
domestic demand for such filberts/hazelnuts and provide reasonable
returns to producers. This rule was recommended unanimously by the
Filbert/Hazelnut Marketing Board (Board), which is the agency
responsible for local administration of the order.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 19, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Teresa L. Hutchinson, Marketing
Specialist, Northwest Marketing Field Office, Fruit and Vegetable
Division, Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA, 1220 SW. Third Ave.,
Room 369, Portland, OR 97204; telephone: (503) 326-2725 or Mark A.
Slupek, Marketing Specialist, Marketing Order Administration Branch,
Fruit and Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, Room 2536-S, P.O. Box 96456,
Washington, DC 20090-6456; telephone: (202) 205-2830.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule is issued under Marketing
Agreement and Order No. 982 (7 CFR Part 982), both as amended,
regulating the handling of filberts/hazelnuts grown in Oregon and
Washington, hereinafter referred to as the ``order.'' This order is
effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as
amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the ``Act.''
The Department is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive
Order 12866.
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. It is intended that this action apply to all
merchantable filberts/hazelnuts handled during the 1995-96 marketing
year. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations,
or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this
rule.
The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted
before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the
Act, any handler subject to an order may file with the Secretary a
petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any
obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance
with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted
therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the
petition. After the hearing, the Secretary would rule on the petition.
The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any
district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her
principal place of business, has jurisdiction in equity to review the
Secretary's ruling on the petition, provided a bill in equity is filed
not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling.
Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (RFA), the Administrator of the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS) has considered the economic impact of this rule on small
entities.
The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of
business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will
not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued
pursuant to the Act, and rules issued thereunder, are unique in that
they are brought about through group action of essentially small
entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small
entity orientation and compatibility.
There are approximately 1,000 producers of filberts/hazelnuts in
the production area and approximately 25 handlers subject to regulation
under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers have been
defined by the Small Business Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as those
having annual receipts of less than $500,000, and small agricultural
service firms are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than
$5,000,000. The majority of producers and handlers of filberts/
hazelnuts may be classified as small entities.
The Board's recommendation and this final rule are based on
requirements specified in the order. The interim final rule was issued
on January 22, 1996, and published in the Federal Register (61 FR 2665,
January 29, 1996), with an effective date of January 29, 1996. That
rule established the amount of inshell filberts/hazelnuts that may be
marketed in domestic markets. The domestic outlets for this commodity
are characterized by limited demand, and the finalization of interim
and final free and restricted percentages will continue to benefit the
industry by promoting stronger marketing conditions and stabilizing
prices and supplies, thus improving grower returns. That rule provided
a 30-day comment period which ended February 28, 1996. No comments were
received.
The Board is required to meet prior to September 20 of each
marketing year to compute an inshell trade demand and preliminary free
and restricted percentages, if the use of volume regulation is
recommended during the season. The order prescribes formulas for
computing the inshell trade demand, as well as preliminary, interim
final, and final percentages. The inshell trade demand establishes the
amount of inshell filberts/hazelnuts the handlers may ship to the
domestic market throughout the season, and the percentages release the
volume of filberts/hazelnuts necessary to meet the inshell trade
demand. The preliminary percentages provide for the release of 80
[[Page 11290]]
percent of the inshell trade demand. The interim final percentages
release 100 percent of the inshell trade demand. The inshell trade
demand equals the average of the preceding three ``normal'' years'
trade acquisitions of inshell filberts/hazelnuts, rounded to the
nearest whole number. The Board may increase such figure by no more
than 25 percent, if market conditions warrant such an increase. The
final free and restricted percentages release an additional 15 percent
of the average of the preceding three years' trade acquisitions of
inshell filberts/hazelnuts for desirable carryout. Desirable carryout
is used for early season shipments until the new crop is available for
market.
The preliminary free and restricted percentages make available
portions of the filbert/hazelnut supply subject to regulation which may
be marketed in domestic inshell markets (free) and exported, shelled,
or otherwise disposed of (restricted) early in the 1995-96 season. The
preliminary free percentage is expressed as a percentage of the total
supply subject to regulation and is based on preliminary crop
estimates. The majority of domestic inshell filberts/hazelnuts are
marketed in October, November, and December. By November, the marketing
season is well under way.
At its August 28, 1995, meeting, the Board computed and announced
preliminary free and restricted percentages of 10 percent and 90
percent, respectively, to release 80 percent of the inshell trade
demand. The purpose of releasing only 80 percent of the inshell trade
demand under the preliminary percentage was to guard against
underestimates of crop size. The preliminary free percentage released
3,478 tons of filberts/hazelnuts from the 1995 supply for domestic
inshell use. The preliminary restricted percentage is 100 percent minus
the free percentage.
On or before November 15, the Board must meet again to recommend
interim final and final percentages. The Board uses current crop
estimates to calculate the interim final and final percentages. The
interim final percentages are calculated in the same way as the
preliminary percentages and release 100 percent of the inshell trade
demand previously computed by the Board for the marketing year. Final
free and restricted percentages release an additional 15 percent of the
average of the preceding three years' trade acquisitions to provide an
adequate carryover into the following season. The final free and
restricted percentages must be effective at least 30 days prior to the
end of the marketing year (July 1 through June 30), or earlier, if
recommended by the Board and approved by the Secretary. In addition,
revisions in the marketing policy can be made until February 15 of each
marketing year. However, the inshell trade demand can only be revised
upward.
In accordance with order provisions, the Board met on November 15,
1995, reviewed and approved an amended marketing policy and recommended
the establishment of interim final and final free and restricted
percentages. Interim final percentages were recommended at 12 percent
free and 88 percent restricted, and final free and restricted
percentages were recommended at 14 percent and 86 percent,
respectively. The Board also recommended that the final percentages be
effective on June 1, 1996, which is 30 days prior to the end of the
season. The interim final percentages made an additional 870 tons of
inshell filberts/hazelnuts available for the domestic inshell market.
The interim final marketing percentages are based on the industry's
final production estimates and released 4,348 tons to the domestic
inshell market from the 1995 supply subject to regulation. The final
marketing percentages release an additional 637 tons from the 1995 crop
for domestic use. Thus, a total of 4,985 tons of inshell filberts/
hazelnuts will be available from the 1995 supply subject to regulation
for domestic use when the final percentages are established. The
National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) estimated filbert/
hazelnut production at 38,000 tons for the Oregon and Washington area.
The Board unanimously voted to accept the NASS estimate.
The marketing percentages are based on the Board's production
estimates and the following supply and demand information for the 1995-
96 marketing year:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inshell Supply:
(1) Total production (NASS estimate)................... 38,000
(2) Less substandard, farm use (disappearance)......... 2,466
(3) Merchantable production (the Board's adjusted crop
estimate)............................................. 35,534
(4) Plus undeclared carryin as of July 1, 1995, subject
to regulation......................................... 11
(5) Supply subject to regulation (Item 3 plus Item 4).. 35,545
Inshell Trade Demand:
(6) Average trade acquisitions of inshell filberts/
hazelnuts for three prior years....................... 4,247
(7) Increase to encourage increased sales (15 percent
of Item 6)............................................ 637
(8) Less declared carryin as of July 1, 1995, not
subject to regulation................................. 536
(9) Adjusted Inshell Trade Demand...................... 4,348
(10) 15 percent of the average trade acquisitions of
inshell filberts/hazelnuts for three prior years (Item
6).................................................... 637
(11) Adjusted Inshell Trade Demand plus 15 percent for
carryout (Item 9 plus Item 10)........................ 4,985
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Restricted
Percentages:
(12) Interim final percentages (Item 9
divided by Item 5) x 100............... 12 88
(13) Final percentages (Item 11 divided by
Item 5) x 100.......................... 14 86
In addition to complying with the provisions of the marketing
order, the Board also considers the Department's 1982 ``Guidelines for
Fruit, Vegetable, and Specialty Crop Marketing Orders'' (Guidelines)
when making its computations in the marketing policy. This volume
control regulation provides a method to collectively limit the supply
of inshell filberts/hazelnuts available for sale in domestic markets.
The Guidelines provide that the domestic inshell market have available
a quantity equal to 110 percent of prior years' shipments in those
outlets before secondary market allocations are approved. This provides
for plentiful supplies for consumers and for market
[[Page 11291]]
expansion while retaining the mechanism for dealing with oversupply
situations. At its August 28, 1995, meeting, the Board recommended that
an increase of 15 percent (637 tons) for market expansion be included
in the inshell trade demand which was used to compute the interim
percentages. The established final percentages are based on the final
inshell trade demand, and will make available an additional 637 tons
for desirable carryout. The total free supply will be the final trade
demand of 4,985 tons plus the declared carryin of 536 tons or 5,521
tons. This is 130 percent of prior years' sales and exceeds the goal of
the Guidelines.
Based on the above, the Administrator of the AMS has determined
that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
After consideration of all relevant material presented, the
information and recommendations submitted by the Committee, and other
information, it is found that finalizing the interim final rule,
without change, as published in the Federal Register (61 FR 2665,
January 29, 1996), will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the
Act.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 982
Filberts, Hazelnuts, Marketing agreements, Nuts, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR Part 982 is
amended as follows:
PART 982--FILBERTS/HAZELNUTS GROWN IN OREGON AND WASHINGTON
Accordingly, the interim final rule amending 7 CFR part 982, which
was published at 61 FR 2665 on January 29, 1996, is adopted as a final
rule without change.
Dated: March 13, 1996.
Eric M. Forman,
Deputy Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.
[FR Doc. 96-6694 Filed 3-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-02-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6689 Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11317-11318]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6689]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
44 CFR Part 65
[Docket No. FEMA-7173]
Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA.
ACTION: Interim rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This interim rule lists communities where modification of the
base (1% annual chance) flood elevations is appropriate because of new
scientific or technical data. New flood insurance premium rates will be
calculated from the modified base flood elevations for new buildings
and their contents.
DATES: These modified base flood elevations are currently in effect on
the dates listed in the table and revise the Flood Insurance Rate
Map(s) (FIRMs) in effect prior to this determination for each listed
community.
From the date of the second publication of these changes in a
newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90) days in
which to request through the community that the Associate Director
reconsider the changes. The modified elevations may be changed during
the 90-day period.
ADDRESSES: The modified base flood elevations for each community are
available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer
of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the following
table.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael K. Buckley, P.E., Chief,
Hazard Identification Branch, Mitigation Directorate, 500 C Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The modified base flood elevations are not
listed for each community in this interim rule. However, the address of
the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified base
flood elevation determinations are available for inspection is
provided.
Any request for reconsideration must be based upon knowledge of
changed conditions, or upon new scientific or technical data.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is
shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The modified base flood elevations are the basis for the floodplain
management measures that the community is required to either adopt or
to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to
remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance
Program.
These modified elevations, together with the floodplain management
criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required.
They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any
existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain
management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter
requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, state or regional entities.
The changes in base flood elevations are in accordance with 44 CFR
65.4.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR
Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact
assessment has been prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Associate Director, Mitigation Directorate, certifies that this
rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
because modified base flood elevations are required by the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are required to
maintain community eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program.
No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.
Regulatory Classification
This interim rule is not a significant regulatory action under the
criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
Executive Order 12612, Federalism
This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications
under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.
Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12778.
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65
Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows:
PART 65--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.
Sec. 65.4 [Amended]
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec. 65.4 are
amended as follows:
[[Page 11318]]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates and Name of
Newspaper where Chief executive Effective date of
State and county Location notice was officer of modification Community No.
published community
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Florida: Lee..................... Unincorporated areas............ December 22, 1995, Mr. Donald P. December 7, 1995.... 125124 B
December 29, 1995, Stilwell, Lee
News-Press. County Manager,
Administration
Department, P.O.
Box 398, Fort
Myers, Florida
33902-0398.
Georgia: Chatham................. Unincorporated areas............ December 27, 1995, Mr. Joseph Mahany, April 3, 1996....... 130030-C
January 3, 1996, Chairman of the
Savannah News- Chatham County
Press. Board of
Commissioners, 124
Bull Street, P.O.
Box 8161,
Savannah, Georgia
31412.
Illinois: Dekalb................. City of DeKalb.................. December 8, 1995, The Honorable Greg December 4, 1995.... 170182 B
December 15, 1995, Sparrow, Mayor of
Daily Chronicle. the City of
DeKalb, 200 South
4th Street,
DeKalb, Illinois
60115.
Illinois: Cook................... Prospect Heights (City)......... January 3, 1996, The Honorable December 20, 1995... 170054 B
January 10, 1996, Edward Rotchford,
Daily Herald. Mayor of the City
of Prospect
Heights, No. 1
Elmhurst Road,
Prospect Heights,
Illinois 60070.
Ohio: Lorain..................... Avon (City)..................... December 28, 1995, The Honorable James December 15, 1995... 390348 C
January 4, 1996, A. Smith, Mayor of
The Morning the City of Avon,
Journal. 36774 Detroit
Road, Avon, Ohio
44011.
Ohio: Fairfield and Franklin..... Columbus (City)................. August 30, 1995, The Honorable August 23, 1995..... 390170 G
September 6, 1995, Gregory Lashutka,
The Columbus Mayor of the City
Dispatch. of Columbus,
Columbus City
Hall, 90 West
Broad Street,
Columbus, Ohio
43215.
Massachusetts: Plymouth.......... Plymouth (Town)................. December 14, 1995, Ms. Eleanor Beth, December 7, 1995.... 250278 C
December 21, 1995, Acting Manager of
The Old Colony the Town of
Memorial. Plymouth, 11
Lincoln Street,
Plymouth,
Massachusetts
02360.
New Jersey: Hunterdon............ Delaware (Township)............. December 28, 1995, The Honorable April 4, 1996....... 340506 B
January 4, 1996, Richard Macomber,
Hunterdon County Mayor of the
Democrat. Township of
Delaware, Township
Hall,
Sergeantville, New
Jersey 08557.
Wisconsin: La Crosse............. Unincorporated areas............ January 4, 1996, Mr. James A. December 28, 1995... 550217 A
January 11, 1996, Ehrsam, La Crosse
La Crosse Tribune. County Board
Chairman, 400
North Fourth
Street, La Crosse,
Wisconsin 54601.
Wisconsin: Juneau................ Wonewoc (Village)............... June 8, 1995, June Mr. John P. Cler, May 25, 1995........ 550208 C
15, 1995, The Village of Wonewoc
Wonewoc Reporter. President, P.O.
Box 37, Wonewoc,
Wisconsin 53968-
0037.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, ``Flood
Insurance'')
Dated: March 11, 1996.
Richard W. Krimm,
Acting Associate Director for Mitigation.
[FR Doc. 96-6689 Filed 3-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-04-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6688 Final Flood Elevation Determinations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11318-11320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6688]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
44 CFR Part 67
Final Flood Elevation Determinations
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Base (1% annual chance) flood elevations and modified base
flood elevations are made final for the communities listed below. The
base flood elevations and modified base flood elevations are the basis
for the floodplain management measures that each community is required
either to adopt or to show evidence of being already in effect in order
to qualify or remain qualified for participation in the National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP).
EFFECTIVE DATE: The date of issuance of the Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) showing base flood elevations and modified base flood elevations
for each community. This date may be obtained by contacting the office
where the maps are available for inspection as indicated on the table
below.
ADDRESSES: The final base flood elevations for each community are
available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer
of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the table
below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael K. Buckley, P.E., Chief,
Hazard Identification Branch, Mitigation Directorate, 500 C Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA or Agency) makes final determinations listed below of base flood
elevations and modified base flood elevations for each community
listed. The proposed base flood elevations and proposed modified base
flood elevations were published in newspapers of local circulation and
an opportunity for the community or individuals to appeal the proposed
determinations to or through the community was provided for a period of
ninety (90) days. The proposed base flood elevations and proposed
modified base flood elevations were also published in the Federal
Register.
This final rule is issued in accordance with section 110 of the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and 44 CFR part
67.
The Agency has developed criteria for floodplain management in
floodprone areas in accordance with 44 CFR part 60.
[[Page 11319]]
Interested lessees and owners of real property are encouraged to
review the proof Flood Insurance Study and Flood Insurance Rate Map
available at the address cited below for each community.
The base flood elevations and modified base flood elevations are
made final in the communities listed below. Elevations at selected
locations in each community are shown.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR
Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact
assessment has been prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Associate Director, Mitigation Directorate, certifies that this
rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
because final or modified base flood elevations are required by the
Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4104, and are required
to establish and maintain community eligibility in the National Flood
Insurance Program. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been
prepared.
Regulatory Classification
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the
criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
Executive Order 12612, Federalism
This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications
under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.
Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12778.
Administrative practice and procedure, Flood insurance, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 67 is amended as follows:
PART 67--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 67 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.
Sec. 67.11 [Amended]
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec. 67.11 are
amended as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
#Depth in
feet above
ground.
Source of flooding and location *Elevation
in feet
(NGVD)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
KENTUCKY
Pineville (City), Bell County (FEMA Docket No. 7128)
Cumberland River:
At downstream corporate limits approximately 0.52 miles
downstream of Tennessee Avenue........................... *1019
At upstream corporate limits approximately 530 feet
upstream of Route 119.................................... *1027
Straight Creek:
At its confluence with Cumberland River................... *1022
At its upstream corporate limit, approximately 0.48 mile
upstream of its confluence with Cumberland River......... *1022
Maps available for inspection at the City Hall, Corner of
Walnut and Virginia, Pineville, Kentucky.
MASSACHUSETTS
Monson (Town), Hampden County (FEMA Docket No. 7155)
Twelvemile Brook:
At the upstream side of Pulpit Rock Pond dam.............. *367
Approximately 1,000 feet upstream of Reimers Street....... *426
Thayer Brook:
Approximately 210 feet downstream of Lakeshore Drive...... *367
Approximately 40 feet upstream of Lakeshore Drive......... *385
Maps available for inspection at the Building Inspector's
Office, 110 Main Street, Monson, Massachusetts.
MICHIGAN
Bay City (City), Bay County (FEMA Docket No. 7097)
Saginaw River:
At downstream of corporate limits......................... *586
Approximately 0.4 mile downstream of the upstream
corporate limits......................................... *586
Maps available for inspection at the Code Enforcement
Office, 310 Washington Avenue, Bay City, Michigan.
- - -
Bangor (Charter Township), Bay County (FEMA Docket No. 7136)
Kawkawlin River:
At confluence with Saginaw Bay............................ *586
Approximately 125 feet upstream of Euclid Road............ *586
Saginaw River:
At confluence with Saginaw Bay............................ *586
At upstream corporate limits.............................. *586
Saginaw Bay:
Shoreline along Donohue Road.............................. *588
Shoreline along Bay Shore Drive........................... *588
Shoreline along Killarney Beach Road...................... *588
Remaining shoreline of Bangor Charter Township............ *588
Shoreline from approximately 4,500 feet south of Parrish
Road along Detroit and Mackinac Rail to a point
approximately 1,500 feet south of intersection of Tobico
Road and Ploof Road...................................... *589
Maps available for inspection at the Bangor Administration
Office, 180 State Park Drive, Bay City, Michigan.
- - -
Essexville (City), Bay County (FEMA Docket No. 7097)
Saginaw River:
At the downstream corporate limits........................ *586
Approximately 380 feet upstream of Detroit & Mackinac
Railroad................................................. *586
Maps available for inspection at the Essexville City Hall,
1107 Woodside Avenue, Essexville, Michigan.
- - -
Frankenlust (Township), Bay County (FEMA Docket No. 7097)
Saginaw River:
At the downstream corporate limits (Hotchkiss Road)....... *586
At the upstream corporate limits (the Bay/Saginaw County
Boundary)................................................ *587
Dutch Creek:
At the confluence with Saginaw River West Channel......... *586
At Hotchkiss Road......................................... *586
Squaconning Creek:
At confluence with Dutch Creek............................ *586
At Northbound Interstate Highway 75....................... *586
Maps available for inspection at the Frankenlust Township
Hall, 2401 Delta Road, Bay City, Michigan.
- - -
Fraser (Township), Bay County (FEMA Docket No. 7136)
Saginaw Bay:
Shoreline along Saginaw Bay (approximately 925 feet east
of the intersection of Elevator Road and Anderson Road,
to Gregory Drain......................................... *586
Maps available for inspection at the Fraser Township Hall,
1474 North Mackinaw Road, Linwood, Michigan.
- - -
Hampton (Township), Bay County (FEMA Docket No. 7097)
Saginaw Bay:
Entire shoreline within community......................... *586
Maps available for inspection at the Hampton Township Hall,
801 West Center, Essexville, Michigan.
- - -
Merritt (Township), Bay County (FEMA Docket No. 7097)
Saginaw Bay:
Entire shoreline within community......................... *586
Maps available for inspection at the Merritt Township Hall,
48 East Munger Road, Munger, Michigan.
- - -
Monitor (Township), Bay County (FEMA Docket No. 7136)
Kawkawlin River:
At downstream corporate limits............................ *591
Approximately 500 feet upstream of confluence with North
Branch Kawkawlin River................................... *592
North Branch Kawkawlin River:
At confluence with Kawkawlin River........................ *592
At upstream corporate limits.............................. *593
Maps available for inspection at the Monitor Township Hall,
2483 Midland Road, Bay City, Michigan.
[[Page 11320]]
- - -
Portsmouth (Township), Bay County (FEMA Docket No. 7097)
Saginaw River:
Approximately 1.7 miles downstream of the downstream
corporate limits (near McGraw Avenue).................... *586
At the upstream corporate limits.......................... *587
Maps available for inspection at the Portsmouth Township
Hall, 1711 West Cass Avenue, Bay City, Michigan.
- - -
MINNESTOA
International Falls (City), Koochiching County (FEMA Docket
No. 7138)
Rainy River:
Approximately 3.7 miles downstream of Toll Bridge......... *1,089
Approximately 0.5 mile upstream of Toll Bridge............ *1,111
Maps available for inspection at the City Engineer's Office,
601 3rd Street, International Falls, Minnesota.
MISSISSIPPI
Columbus (City), Lowndes County (FEMA Docket No. 7149)
Moore Creek:
Approximately 900 feet upstream of Willowbrook Road....... *177
At the upstream corporate limits of the City of Columbus.. *180
Maps available for inspection at the City Hall, 523 Main
Street, Columbus, Mississippi.
- - -
Lowndes County (Unincorporated Areas) (FEMA Docket No. 7149)
Moore Creek:
At Columbus and Greenville Railway........................ *181
Approximately 250 feet upstream of Columbus and Greenville
Railway.................................................. *181
Ellis Creek Tributary:
Approximately 3,000 feet upstream of the confluence with
Ellis Creek At Hildreth Road............................. *206
Maps available for inspection at the Lowndes County
Inspection Department, 17 Airline Road, Columbus,
Mississippi.
NEW JERSEY
Flemington (Borough), Hunterdon County (FEMA Docket No.
7155)
Walnut Brook:
Approximately 605 feet downstream of downstream corporate
limits................................................... *169
Approximately 400 feet upstream of State Route 12......... *182
Bushkill Brook:
Approximately 70 feet downstream of State Route 31........ *129
Approximately 900 feet upstream of Elizabethtown Gas
Company bridge........................................... *140
Maps available for inspection at the Flemington Borough
Building, 38 Park Avenue, Flemington, New Jersey.
PENNSYLVANIA
Smithfield (Township), Huntingdon County (FEMA Docket No.
7149)
Juniata River:
Approximately 2,650 feet above confluence of Raystown
Branch Juniata River..................................... *608
Upstream corporate limits................................. *639
Crooked Creek:
At confluence with Juniata River.......................... *619
Approximately 0.71 mile upstream of confluence with
Juniata River............................................ *619
Maps available for inspection at the Smithfield Township
Building, 13th and Mt. Vernon Avenue, Huntingdon,
Pennsylvania.
VIRGINIA
Norfolk (City), Independent City (FEMA Docket No. 7155)
Chesapeake Bay:
Approximately 1,300 feet northeast of the intersection of
Pleasant Avenue and 30th Bay Street...................... *12
Little Creek:
Approximately 1,400 feet east of the intersection of
Pleasant Avenue and 30th Bay Street...................... *10
Maps available for inspection at the Norfolk City Planning
Office, Suite 508, City Hall Building, 810 Union Street,
Norfolk, Virginia.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, ``Flood
Insurance'')
Dated: March 11, 1996.
Richard W. Krimm,
Acting Associate Director for Mitigation.
[FR Doc. 96-6688 Filed 3-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-04-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6687 Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11315-11317]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6687]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
44 CFR Part 65
Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTION: Final rule.
SUMMARY: Modified base (1% annual chance) flood elevations are
finalized for the communities listed below. These modified elevations
will be used to calculate flood insurance premium rates for new
buildings and their contents.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective dates for these modified base flood
elevations are indicated on the following table and revise the Flood
Insurance Rate Map(s) (FIRMs) in effect for each listed community prior
to this date.
ADDRESSES: The modified base flood elevations for each community are
available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer
of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the following
table.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael K. Buckley, P.E., Chief,
Hazard Identification Branch, Mitigation Directorate, 500 C Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2756.
[[Page 11316]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Federal Emergency Management Agency
makes the final determinations listed below of modified base flood
elevations for each community listed. These modified elevations have
been published in newspapers of local circulation and ninety (90) days
have elapsed since that publication. The Associate Director has
resolved any appeals resulting from this notification.
The modified base flood elevations are not listed for each
community in this notice. However, this rule includes the address of
the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified base
flood elevation determinations are available for inspection.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 206 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is
shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The modified base flood elevations are the basis for the floodplain
management measures that the community is required to either adopt or
to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to
remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance
Program.
These modified elevations, together with the floodplain management
criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required.
They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any
existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain
management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter
requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, state or regional entities.
These modified elevations are used to meet the floodplain
management requirements of the NFIP and are also used to calculate the
appropriate flood insurance premium rates for new buildings built after
these elevations are made final, and for the contents in these
buildings.
The changes in base flood elevations are in accordance with 44 CFR
65.4.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR
Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact
assessment has been prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Associate Director, Mitigation Directorate, certifies that this
rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
because modified base flood elevations are required by the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are required to
maintain community eligibility in the National Flood Insurance Program.
No regulatory flexibility analysis has been prepared.
Regulatory Classification
This final rule is not a significant regulatory action under the
criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
Executive Order 12612, Federalism
This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications
under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.
Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12778.
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65
Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as follows:
PART 65--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.
Sec. 65.4 [Amended]
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec. 65.4 are
amended as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates and name of
newspaper where Chief executive Effective date of
State and county Location notice was officer of modification Community No.
published community
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut: Fairfield (FEMA City of Norwalk................. October 4, 1995, The Honorable Frank October 12, 1995.... 090012 D
Docket No. 7158). October 11, 1995, J. Esposito, Mayor
Norwalk Hour. of the City of
Norwalk, City
Hall, 125 East
Avenue, Norwalk,
Connecticut 06851.
Georgia: Cobb (FEMA Docket No. Unincorporated Areas............ September 21, 1995, Mr. William Byrne, September 11, 1995.. 130052
7158). September 28, Chairman of the
1995, Marietta Cobb County Board
Daily Journal. of Commissioners,
100 Cherokee
Street, Suite 300,
Marietta, Georgia
06851.
Illinois: DuPage (FEMA Docket No. Village of Glendale Heights..... September 28, 1995, Mr. Ben Fajardo, September 18, 1995.. 170206 C
7158). October 5, 1995, Glendale Heights
Glendale Heights Village Center
Press. Plaza, Glendale
Heights, Illinois
60139.
Maine: Androscoggin (FEMA Docket City of Lewiston................ September 4, 1995, The Honorable John August 30, 1995..... 230004 B
No. 7150). September 11, Jenkins, Mayor of
1995, The Sun- the City of
Journal. Lewiston, City
Hall, Pine Street,
Lewiston, Maine
04240.
Massachusetts: Plymouth (FEMA City of Duxbury................. July 12, 1995, July Ms. Margaret July 3, 1995........ 250263 C
Docket No. 7150). 19, 1995, Duxbury Kearney, Chairman
Clipper. of the Town of
Duxbury Board of
Selectman, 878
Tremone Street,
Duxbury,
Massachusetts
02332.
Minnesota: Olmsted (FEMA Docket City of Rochester............... September 5, 1995, The Honorable Chuck August 29, 1995..... 275246 C
No. 7150). September 12, Hazama, Mayor of
1995, Post- the City of
Bulletin. Rochester, 224 1st
Avenue SW., City
Hall, Rochester,
Minnesota 55902.
[[Page 11317]]
New York: Erie (FEMA Docket No. Town of Amherst................. August 23, 1995, Mr. Thomas Ahern, August 17, 1995..... 360226
7150). August 30, 1995, Town Supervisor,
Amherst Bee. Amherst Municipal
Building, 5583
Main Street,
Williamsville, New
York 14221.
South Carolina: Greenville (FEMA City of Mauldin................. August 24, , 1995, The Honorable L. S. August 17, 1995..... 450198 C
Docket No. 7150). August 31, 1995, Green, Mayor of
The Greenville the City of
News. Mauldin, P.O. Box
249, Mauldin,
South Carolina
29662.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, ``Flood
Insurance'')
Dated: March 11, 1996.
Richard W. Krimm,
Acting Associate Director for Mitigation.
[FR Doc. 96-6687 Filed 3-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-04-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6659 Radio Broadcasting Services; Onawa, Iowa; Correction
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11320]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6659]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 88-195; RM-5810]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Onawa, Iowa; Correction
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains a correction to the FM Table of
Allotments as published in the October 1, 1994, revision of 47 CFR Part
73. The listing for Onawa, Iowa, in Section 73.202(b) incorrectly shows
Channel 272C1A instead of Channel 272C1. Channel 272C1 was substituted
for Channel 272A at Onawa pursuant to the Report and Order, MM Docket
88-195, 54 FR 3781, January 26, 1989.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Leslie K. Shapiro, Mass Media Bureau,
(202) 418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Channel 272C1 was substituted for Channel 272A at Onawa, IA, and
Channel 272A was substituted for Channel 272A at Vermillion, SD, so
that Station KOOO's construction permit could be modified to specify
the higher powered channel.
Need for Correction
As published, the final regulation contains a wrong channel
allotment at Onawa, IA, which is misleading and needs correction.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Part 73 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended
as follows:
PART 73--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 73 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Secs. 303, 48 Stat., as amended, 1082; 47 U.S.C. 154,
as amended.
Sec. 73.202 [Amended]
2. Section 73.202(b), the Table of FM Allotments under Iowa, is
amended by removing Channel 272C1A and adding Channel 272C1 at Onawa.
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
[FR Doc. 96-6659 Filed 3-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6648 Loan Policies and Operations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11303-11304]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6648]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FARM CREDIT ADMINISTRATION
12 CFR Part 614
RIN 3052-AB52
Loan Policies and Operations
AGENCY: Farm Credit Administration.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Farm Credit Administration (FCA), by the Farm Credit
Administration Board (Board), adopts amendments to the regulations
governing disclosure of loan information. The FCA removes the
requirement that Farm Credit institutions give borrowers 10 days prior
notification of a change in the interest rate on their variable rate
loans and replaces it with a 10-day post notification for interest rate
changes for administered rate loans and a 30-day notice if the loan is
tied to an external index. The current requirement to notify borrowers
of a decrease in interest rate no later than on the day of the decrease
has been changed to the same standard as an increase. This action would
reduce the burden on institutions of a delay in interest rate changes
while still providing borrowers with timely notice of a change. The
final regulation also deletes reference to eligible borrower stock as a
technical amendment.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The regulation shall become effective upon the
expiration of 30 days after publication in the Federal Register during
which either or both houses of Congress are in session. Notice of the
effective date will be published in the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Child, Policy Analyst, Regulation Development, Office of
Examination, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA 22102-5090, (703)
883-4498, TDD (703) 883-4444,
or
Joy E. Strickland, Senior Attorney, Regulatory Enforcement Division,
Office of General Counsel, Farm Credit Administration, McLean, VA
22102-5090, (703) 883-4019, TDD (703) 883-4444.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On November 24, 1995 (60 FR 57962), the FCA
Board published for comment a proposed amendment to
Sec. 614.4367(c)(3). The existing regulation requires Farm Credit
institutions to provide notification to borrowers of an increase in the
borrowers' interest rates 10 days prior to the effective date of the
change and implements section 4.13 of the Farm Credit Act of 1971, as
amended (Act). The proposed regulation would have permitted a rate
change notification 10 days after the effective date of the rate
change. The FCA received nine comments in response to the proposed
regulations. Commenters included the Farm Credit Council (FCC), seven
Farm Credit institutions, and a state agriculture department.
Subsequent to the FCA Board's adoption of the proposed regulation,
section 4.13 of the Act was amended by the Farm Credit System Reform
Act of 1996, Pub. L. 104-105 (Feb. 10, 1996). Section 4.13 of the Act
now provides that notice to the borrower of a change in interest rate
may be made within a reasonable time after the effective date of an
increase or decrease in the interest rate. The FCA believes that the
proposed regulations were consistent with the recently enacted
legislation and that the final regulation implements the requirements
of the legislation. The following discussion contains a summary of the
comments and the final amendment to Sec. 614.4367(c)(3).
I. Summary of Comments
The FCC and several Farm Credit institutions expressed their
general support of the proposed regulation and some commented that if
adopted, the regulation would provide additional flexibility to Farm
Credit institutions in making interest rate changes without any
significant disadvantage to borrowers. The individual Farm Credit
institution commenters, however, urged the FCA to provide institutions
with even greater flexibility in making interest rate changes than was
proposed. Four institutions commented that the notification of an
increase in interest rates should be extended to 30 days after the
effective date of the change for all loans, including those loans not
tied to an external index. Three of those institutions also suggested
that no notice is necessary for decreases in interest rates, while the
other commented that the notification should be the same regardless of
the direction of the change in rates.
In support of a 30-day post notification, the institutions stated
that they would be able to reduce mailing costs by including the notice
in the regular monthly billing notices. They also noted that it is
unlikely that borrowers would attempt to fix their rates or re-finance
their loans if notified of rate increases within 10 days as proposed.
Even if some borrowers might desire to do this, the lenders indicated
that such action could rarely be accomplished within 10 days. The
institutions felt that it is more likely that borrowers use the rate
change notification to monitor the trends in lenders' rates and will
take action after observing the trend in rates. For this reason, the
institutions asserted that a 30-day post notification is just as useful
to borrowers as a 10-day notification, and the 30-day notice results in
much less work and cost for the lenders.
The institutions' basis for requesting no notification for a
decrease in rates is that most lenders will likely take actions
necessary to promote and preserve customer relations. Thus, lenders
would want to notify borrowers of decreases in rates regardless of FCA
disclosure requirements. Such notification could be in combination with
notices of news about the interest rate market, a marketing
opportunity, or information on a new program or service.
Three institutions commented that there should be no regulatory
requirements for notification of a change in interest rates. One
institution noted that a notification requirement is too onerous for
loans tied to an external index, and that other non-System lenders are
not required to notify borrowers of rate changes on similar loan
products priced to LIBOR (London Interbank Offered Rate) or prime
indexes. Another institution commented that notification serves no
purpose and
[[Page 11304]]
that if the FCA believes that the statute requires notice, such notice
should be in the least burdensome means possible. The institution noted
that the least burdensome requirement would be to require notice of an
increase in conjunction with regularly scheduled billing notices, and
that a less favorable alternative would be 30 days post notice for
increases and no notice for decreases. The remaining Farm Credit
institution commenter stated that changing the prior notification to a
10-day post notification would not reduce any administrative or cost
burden on the institution because existing loan products and systems
are designed to meet current regulations and would be contractually out
of sync with a post-notification system. The commenter asserted that
the proposed amendments do not help institutions that have loans tied
to external indexes and Congress did not intend to require prior or
post notice for such loans. The commenter contended that loans that are
priced to an external index should be exempt from any notice
requirements as long as: (1) The interest rate is tied to an index
entirely outside the control of the Farm Credit System; (2) the index
is widely publicized; (3) interest rate disclosures clearly referencing
the index are made when the loan is originated and closed; and (4)
disclosures are required for any change to the index or the margin
points (or spread).
The state agriculture department commented that as a matter of
principle, debtors ought to be notified in advance of interest rate
increases on their loans. The commenter asserted that the minimum
economic advantage that may be gained by lenders would be more than
offset by the negative perception the proposed changes would create in
the eyes of borrowers. Further, the commenter contended that many
farmers do not receive financial publications containing external
indexes, and if they did, they would not necessarily be able to
determine the change in their interest rate from a change in the index.
The commenter finally noted that it did not believe post-notification
would significantly reduce burden on Farm Credit institutions and that
if institutions are concerned about mailing costs, they could delay a
change in interest rates so that the required notice could coincide
with another regular mailing.
II. Response to Commenters and Discussion of Final Regulation
In response to the commenters who asserted that the FCA should
eliminate any notification requirements for changes in interest rates,
the plain language of section 4.13 of the Act, as recently amended,
requires notification to borrowers of a change in their interest rates.
Further, the FCA has reviewed the legislative history of the amendment
and is not aware of any expressed Congressional intent to exempt loans
tied to external indexes from the notice requirement. In addition, the
recent amendment to section 4.13 clearly requires notification of an
increase or decrease in the interest rate. Therefore, the FCA
interprets the Act as requiring notification of increases or decreases
in interest rates for all loans within a reasonable time of the
effective date of the change. The final regulation contains what the
FCA concludes to be a reasonable time for notification under the Act,
after giving consideration to the views of the commenters, the needs of
borrowers for timely notice, and the FCA's desire to reduce burden on
Farm Credit institutions.
The final regulation requires a 10-day post notification for
interest rate changes for administered rate loans. For loans tied to an
external index, prompt notification is required, but must be given
within 30 days of the change in interest rate. The FCA carefully
considered the comments addressing the 30-day post notification
requirement for all loans and finally determined that the need to
provide timely information to borrowers outweighed the regulatory
burden that a 10-day post notice may entail. Although administered rate
loans may closely follow changes in the prime rate or the institution's
cost of funds, many variables may go into a decision to change an
administered rate. Thus a borrower with an administered rate loan
cannot be as certain of a rate change merely by following the prime
rate or other index as is the case of a loan that is clearly tied to an
external index. For those loans that are clearly priced to an external
index, however, the FCA believes that delaying the notice by 20 days
does not seriously disadvantage the borrower and may result in less
burden on the institutions, in part, by reducing mailing costs. In
those situations, borrowers can likely determine the change in their
rates sooner than 30 days by following the changes in the index. The
final regulation, both where a 10-day and 30-day post notification is
permitted, will allow the institutions to make changes in borrowers'
interest rates more quickly than under a prior-notification
requirement.
The FCA is also amending Sec. 614.4367(a)(4) which addresses
disclosures to purchasers of stock. All references to protected
eligible borrower stock are eliminated because the issuance of such
stock is no longer authorized.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 614
Agriculture, Banks, banking, Flood insurance, Foreign trade,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rural areas.
For the reasons stated in the preamble, part 614 of chapter VI,
title 12 of the Code of Federal regulations is amended to read as
follows:
PART 614--LOAN POLICIES AND OPERATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 614 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4012a, 4014a, 4104b, 4106, and 4128; secs.
1.3, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.9, 1.10, 2.0, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.10, 2.12, 2.13,
2.15, 3.0, 3.1, 3.3, 3.7, 3.8, 3.10, 3.20, 3.28, 4.12, 4.12A, 4.13,
4.13B, 4.14, 4.14A, 4.14C, 4.14D, 4.14E, 4.18, 4.19, 4.36, 4.37,
5.9, 5.10, 5.17, 7.0, 7.2, 7.6, 7.7, 7.8, 7.12, 7.13, 8.0, 8.5 of
the Farm Credit Act (12 U.S.C. 2011, 2013, 2014, 2015, 2017, 2018,
2071, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2091, 2093, 2094, 2096, 2121, 2122, 2124,
2128, 2129, 2131, 2141, 2149, 2183, 2184, 2199, 2201, 2202, 2202a,
2202c, 2202d, 2202e, 2206, 2207, 2219a, 2219b, 2243, 2244, 2252,
2279a, 2279a-2, 2279b, 2279b-1, 2279b-2, 2279f, 2279f-1, 2279aa,
2279aa-5); sec. 413 of Pub. L. 100-233, 101 Stat. 1568, 1639; sec.
207 of Pub. L. 104-105, 110 Stat. 162.
Subpart K--Disclosure of Loan Information
Sec. 614.4367 [Amended]
2. Section 614.4367 is amended by removing the words ``Except with
respect to eligible borrower stock under section 4.9A of the Act,'' and
capitalizing the word ``a'' in paragraph (a)(4); by removing the words
``the effective date of a decrease in the interest rate and not later
than 10 days before the effective date of an increase in the interest
rate.'' and adding in its place, the words ``10 days after the
effective date of a change in the interest rate. However, if the
interest rate is directly tied to an external index that is widely
publicized, the notice of change must be made promptly but not later
than 30 days after the change in interest rate.'' at the end of
paragraph (c)(3).
Dated: March 12, 1996.
Floyd Fithian,
Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.
[FR Doc. 96-6648 Filed 3-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6705-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6631 Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch Sharing Plans
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11336-11344]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6631]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11337]]
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 301
[Docket No. 960111003-6068-03; I.D. 030796A]
RIN 0648-AI48
Pacific Halibut Fisheries; Catch Sharing Plans
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Final rule and approval of Catch Sharing Plans.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS, on behalf of the International Pacific Halibut
Commission (IPHC), publishes regulations governing the Pacific halibut
fishery that are recommended by the IPHC and approved by the Secretary
of State. NMFS also approves regulations implementing Catch Sharing
Plans (CSPs) for Areas 2A and 4, and makes several minor regulatory
changes. This final rule is necessary to implement approved regulatory
changes for the halibut fishery in 1996. The intended effect of this
action is to enhance the conservation and growth of the Pacific halibut
stock in the northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: NMFS Alaska Region, 709 W. 9th St., P.O. Box 21668, Juneau,
AK 99802-1668; or NMFS Northwest Region, Bldg. 1, 7600 Sand Point Way
NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jay Ginter, 907-586-7228, or Joe
Scordino, 206-526-6150.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The IPHC has implemented regulations
governing the Pacific halibut fishery in 1996, under the Convention
between the United States and Canada for the Preservation of the
Halibut Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea
(Convention), signed at Ottawa, Ontario, on March 2, 1953, as amended
by a Protocol Amending the Convention (signed at Washington, D.C., on
March 29, 1979). The IPHC regulations have been approved by the
Secretary of State of the United States under section 4 of the Northern
Pacific Halibut Act (Halibut Act, 16 U.S.C. 773-773k). Except for the
changes described below, the approved regulations for the 1996 fishery
are the same as those for the 1995 fishery (60 FR 14651, March 20,
1995). The catch limit for each of the IPHC regulatory areas remains
unchanged. Substantive changes include: (1) New fishing periods in Area
2A, (2) revision of the prohibition on mutilating halibut, (3) revision
of the logbook requirement, (4) new requirements for fishing in
multiple regulatory areas, (5) new vessel clearance requirements for
Area 4, and (6) a new possession limit in the Area 2B sport fishery.
In addition, this action implements the CSPs for regulatory Areas
2A and 4. These CSPs were developed respectively by the Pacific Fishery
Management Council (PFMC) and the North Pacific Fishery Management
Council (NPFMC) under authority of the Halibut Act. Section 5 of the
Halibut Act (16 U.S.C. 773c) provides that the Secretary of Commerce
(Secretary) shall have general responsibility to carry out the Halibut
Convention (Convention) between the United States and Canada, and that
the Secretary shall adopt such regulations as may be necessary to carry
out the purposes and objectives of the Convention and the Halibut Act.
The Secretary's authority has been delegated to the Assistant
Administrator for Fisheries, NOAA. Section 5 of the Halibut Act (16
U.S.C. 773c(c)) also authorizes the Regional Fishery Management Council
having authority for the geographic area concerned to develop
regulations governing the Pacific halibut catch in U.S. Convention
waters that are in addition to, but not in conflict with, regulations
of the IPHC. Pursuant to this authority, NMFS requested the PFMC and
NPFMC to allocate halibut catches should such allocation be necessary.
IPHC Regulations
On behalf of the IPHC, the approved IPHC regulations are published
in the Federal Register to provide notice of
[[Page 11338]]
their effectiveness and to inform persons subject to the regulations of
the restrictions and requirements. The IPHC held its Annual Meeting on
January 22-25, 1996, in Bellevue, WA, and adopted regulations for 1996.
The substantive changes to the IPHC regulations are discussed below.
Area 2A Fishing Periods
In Area 2A, six 10-hour fishing periods for the non-treaty directed
commercial fishery are specified at Sec. 301.7(b) for July 10, July 24,
August 14, August 28, September 11, and September 25, 1996. All fishing
periods will begin at 8 a.m. and end at 6 p.m. local time unless
announced otherwise, and will be further restricted by fishing period
limits announced by the IPHC.
Prohibition Against Mutilating Halibut
IPHC regulations at Sec. 301.12 specify minimum size limits for
halibut taken in the commercial fishery, and further prohibit the
mutilation of halibut in a manner that prevents authorized officers
from determining whether the halibut complies with those minimum size
limits. To improve enforcement of the minimum size limits, the IPHC
amended these regulations at Sec. 301.12(b)(2) to prohibit possession
of filleted halibut on board vessels. The IPHC also amended these
regulations to address an industry request to remove and freeze halibut
cheeks on board vessels. Paragraph 301.12(b)(1) now authorizes
possession on board vessels of halibut cheeks cut from halibut caught
by persons authorized to process that halibut on board in accordance
with NMFS regulations implementing the individual fishing quota (IFQ)
program for the halibut fishery in and off Alaska.
Logbooks
The commercial fishery logbook required by Sec. 301.15 now may be
kept in groundfish daily fishing logbooks provided by NMFS pursuant to
50 CFR parts 672 and 675. Before this change, IPHC regulations required
commercial halibut fishermen to keep their halibut logbooks separate
from other records maintained on board the vessel.
Fishing in Multiple Regulatory Areas
The IPHC collects halibut stock data, by regulatory area, from
halibut landed in the commercial fishery to carry out its stock
assessment and conservation responsibilities. Fishermen harvesting
halibut in Areas 2C, 3, and 4 under the IFQ regulations increasingly
are taking advantage of the longer, slower-paced fishery by fishing in
more than one regulatory area during a single fishing trip. The IPHC is
concerned that this practice eventually could degrade stock data
collected at landing for each regulatory area. Consequently, the IPHC
developed new regulations at Sec. 301.17 restricting the practice of
fishing in more than one regulatory area during a fishing trip. Halibut
caught in Areas 2C, 3A, and 3B may be possessed on board a vessel at
the same time only if the operator of the vessel has a NMFS-certified
observer aboard as required by the IFQ regulations published at 50 CFR
part 676. Halibut caught in the more remote Areas 4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D
may be possessed aboard a vessel at the same time only if the operator
of the vessel has a NMFS-certified observer on board whenever halibut
caught from more than one of those regulatory areas is on board.
Moreover, halibut caught in more than one regulatory area may be
possessed on board a vessel only if the operator can identify the
regulatory area in which each halibut on board was caught. The
regulations do not specify any single method of identifying the halibut
by area, but suggest that identification may be accomplished by
separating the catch in the hold or by tagging each fish according to
the area of harvest.
Area 4 Vessel Clearances
IPHC regulations at Sec. 301.14 implement some modifications in the
vessel clearance requirements for vessels fishing in Area 4. Any vessel
that is used to fish for halibut only in Area 4A and lands its total
annual halibut catch at a port within Area 4A is exempt from all
clearance requirements. Any vessel that is used to fish for halibut
only in Area 4B, 4C, or 4D/4E and lands its total annual halibut catch
at a port within the area in which the vessel fished continues to be
exempt from the clearance requirements. Vessel clearances required
prior to fishing in Areas 4C and 4D may be obtained only in St. Paul or
St. George. Vessel clearances required at the completion of fishing in
Areas 4C and 4D may be obtained at St. Paul, St. George, Dutch Harbor,
or Akutan. The clearances obtained at St. Paul or St. George may be
obtained via VHF radio provided visual identification of the vessel can
be confirmed from shore. Clearance requirements for Areas 4A and 4B are
unchanged from 1995.
IPHC regulations at Sec. 301.14(i) provide that vessels that fish
in more than one regulatory area within Area 4 during the same trip, as
authorized by Sec. 301.17(c), are exempt from the general clearance
requirements of Sec. 301.14(a). However, before beginning to fish and
before unloading halibut, these vessels must obtain clearances in Dutch
Harbor, Akutan, St. George, St. Paul, or Nazan Bay on Atka Island.
Area 2B Sport Fishery Possession Limit
IPHC regulations at paragraphs 301.22 (h) and (i) are changed to
increase the possession limit in waters off the coast of British
Columbia from two to three halibut.
Catch Sharing Plan for Area 2A
The PFMC has prepared CSPs since 1988 to allocate the halibut catch
limit for Area 2A among treaty Indian, non-Indian commercial, and non-
Indian sport fisheries in and off Washington, Oregon, and California.
For 1995 and beyond, NMFS implemented a long-term CSP (60 FR 14651,
March 20, 1995) recommended by the PFMC that was published at 50 CFR
301.23 (redesignated 301.24 by this notice). After reviewing the
conduct of the halibut fisheries in Area 2A under the first year of the
long term CSP, the PFMC recommended several revisions to the CSP
affecting sport fishery subareas in Washington and management of
incidental halibut harvest in the salmon troll fishery. Further, the
long term CSP only provided sport fishery structuring for the area off
Oregon for 1995, and the PFMC recommended provisions in the CSP to
apply over the long term to Oregon sport fishery subareas. In addition,
in accordance with the CSP, the PFMC made recommendations on the
specific seasons, dates, and other management measures in the sport
fisheries necessary to implement the CSP in 1996. A complete
description of the PFMC recommendations and proposed changes to the CSP
and implementing regulations were published at (61 FR 2782, January 29,
1996) with a request for public comments. No comments were received on
the proposed changes to the CSP, and NMFS approves the changes to the
CSP at Secs. 301.24(e)(1), (3), and (f)(1) (i), (iii), (v) and (vi).
In accordance with the CSP, the Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW) held a public workshop on February 1, 1996, (after the
IPHC set the Area 2A quota) to develop recommendations on the opening
dates and weekly structure of the sport fisheries in Washington. The
WDFW sent NMFS a letter on February 12, 1996 advising on the outcome of
the workshop and recommended only one change to the proposed
regulations on sport fisheries. In the Puget Sound sport fishery
subarea, WDFW recommends that the fishing season open on May 23 and
continue through July 27. NMFS
[[Page 11339]]
agrees with this recommendation and the final regulation at
Sec. 301.22(d)(2)(i)(A) has been modified.
The CSP also stipulates that the treaty Indian tribes will estimate
their ceremonial and subsistence (C&S) harvest expectations in January
of each year, and the remainder of the tribal allocation will be for
the tribal commercial fishery. On January 24, 1996, the tribes advised
NMFS that the C&S harvest expectation for 1996 is 14,000 lb (6.35 mt).
The regulations as shown herein at 50 CFR 301.21 (d) and (g) therefore
have a tribal commercial quota of 168,000 lb (76.2 mt) and a year-round
C&S fishery that is expected to harvest 14,000 lb (6.35 mt).
Catch Sharing Plan for Area 4
The NPFMC developed a CSP to apportion the IPHC's catch limit for
Area 4 among subareas 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E in and off the State of
Alaska. NMFS published the proposed CSP for Area 4 on January 30, 1996
(61 FR 2992). The rationale for the CSP for Area 4 is discussed in the
proposed CSP. No comments on the proposed CSP were received from the
public or from other government agencies. No changes from the proposed
CSP are made in the final CSP, which is adopted as follows:
Introduction: This CSP constitutes a framework that applies to the
annual Area 4 catch limit established by the IPHC. The purpose of the
CSP is to establish subareas within Area 4, and to provide for the
apportionment of the Area 4 catch limit among the subareas as necessary
to carry out the objectives of the IFQ and CDQ programs that allocate
halibut among U.S. fishermen. The IPHC, consistent with its
responsibilities, implemented the measures specified in this CSP at its
annual meeting in January 1996, based on an assumption that the CSP
would be approved by NMFS. This CSP will continue in effect until
amended by the NPFMC or superseded by action of the IPHC.
Area 4 subareas: Regulatory Areas 4A, 4B, 4C, 4D, and 4E will be
established as they are defined currently at paragraphs (f), (g), (h),
(i), and (j), respectively, at Sec. 301.6. For the convenience of the
reader, definitions of these subareas are set out as follows:
Area 4A includes all waters in the Gulf of Alaska west of Area 3B
defined in Sec. 301.6(e) and in the Bering Sea west of the closed area,
defined in Sec. 301.9, that are east of 172 deg.00'00'' W. long. and
south of 56 deg.20'00'' N. lat.
Area 4B includes all waters in the Bering Sea and the Gulf of
Alaska west of Area 4A and south of 56 deg.20'00'' N. lat.
Area 4C includes all waters in the Bering Sea north of Area 4A and
north of the closed area defined in Sec. 301.9, that are east of
171 deg.00'00'' W. long., south of 58 deg.00'00'' N. lat., and west of
168 deg.00'00'' W. long.
Area 4D includes all waters in the Bering Sea north of Areas 4A and
4B, north and west of Area 4C, and west of 168 deg.00'00'' W. long.
Area 4E includes all waters in the Bering Sea north and east of the
closed area defined in Sec. 301.9, east of 168 deg.00'00'' W. long.,
and south of 65 deg.34'00'' N. lat.
Catch limit apportionments: Apportionments of the Area 4 catch
limit specified annually by the IPHC are as follows:
Subarea 4A...................................................33 percent
Subarea 4B...................................................39 percent
Subarea 4C...................................................13 percent
Subarea 4D...................................................13 percent
Subarea 4E....................................................2 percent
An exception to this CSP apportionment schedule is provided when
the Area 4 catch limit is greater than 5,920,000 lb (2,685.3 metric
tons (mt)) and less than or equal to 6,000,000 lb (2,721.6 mt). In this
event, the amount of the Area 4 catch limit that is greater than
5,920,000 lb (2,685.3 mt) but less than or equal to 6,000,000 lb
(2,721.6 mt) would be assigned to subarea 4E. The amount of the Area 4
catch limit that is greater than 6,000,000 lb (2,721.6 mt) would be
distributed among all Area 4 subareas according to the CSP
apportionment schedule.
Example 1: If the IPHC specifies the Area 4 catch limit to be
5,980,000 lb (2,712.5 mt), then 5,920,000 lb (2,685.3 mt) would be
distributed among the Area 4 subareas according to the CSP
apportionment schedule, and 60,000 lb (27.2 mt) would be added to
subarea 4E as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subarea lb mt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4A................ .33 x 5,920,000....... = 1,953,600 886.1
4B................ .39 x 5,920,000....... = 2,308,800 1,047.3
4C................ .13 x 5,920,000....... = 769,600 349.1
4D................ .13 x 5,920,000....... = 769,600 349.1
4E................ .02 x 5,920,000+60,000 = 178,400 80.9
Totals...... 1.00.................. .. 5,980,000 2,712.5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Example 2: If the IPHC specifies the Area 4 catch limit to be
6,100,000 lb (2,766.9 mt), then 5,920,000 lb (2,685.3 mt) plus the
amount that is greater than 6,000,000 lb (2,721.6 mt) (i.e., 100,000 lb
(45.4 mt)) would be distributed among the Area 4 subareas according to
the CSP apportionment schedule, and the 80,000 lb (36.3 mt) remainder
would be added to subarea 4E as follows:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subarea lb mt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4A................ .33 x 6,020,000....... = 1,986,600 901.1
4B................ .39 x 6,020,000....... = 2,347,800 1,064.9
4C................ .13 x 6,020,000....... = 782,600 355.0
4D................ .13 x 6,020,000....... = 782,600 355.0
4E................ .02 x 6,020,000+80,000 = 200,400 90.9
Totals............ 1.00.................. .. 6,100,000 2,766.9
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classification
IPHC Regulations
Because approval by the Secretary of State of the IPHC regulations
is a foreign affairs function, Jensen v. National Marine Fisheries
Service, 512 F.2d 1189 (9th Cir. 1975), 5 U.S.C. 553 of the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) does not apply to this notice of the
effectiveness and content of the IPHC regulations. Because proposed
rulemaking is not required, the preparation of a regulatory flexibility
analysis is not required.
[[Page 11340]]
CSP for Area 2A
This action has been determined to be not significant for purposes
of E.O. 12866.
NMFS finds under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the APA that good cause
exists for waiving the 30-day delayed-effectiveness period for the
implementation of the Area 2A CSP. It would be contrary to the public
interest to disrupt the tribal halibut commercial fishery, which opens
on March 15, 1996.
CSP for Area 4
Copies of the Environmental Assessment/Regulatory Impact Review
prepared for the CSP are available (see ADDRESSES).
This final rule has been determined to be not significant for
purposes of E.O. 12866.
NMFS finds under 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3) of the APA that good cause
exists for waiving the 30-day delayed-effectiveness period for the
implementation of the Area 4 CSP. It would be contrary to the public
interest to disrupt the halibut commercial fishery, which open on March
15, 1996.
List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 301
Fisheries, Fishing, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Treaties.
Dated: March 13, 1996.
C. Karnella,
Acting Program Management Officer, National Marine Fisheries Service.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 301 is amended
as follows:
PART 301--PACIFIC HALIBUT FISHERIES
1. The authority citation for 50 CFR part 301 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 UST 5; TIAS 2900; 16 U.S.C. 773-773k.
2. In Sec. 301.3, paragraph (h) is revised, paragraphs (i), (j),
(k), (l), (m), (n), and (o) are redesignated (j), (k), (l), (m), (n),
(o), and (p), respectively, and new paragraph (i) is added, to read as
follows:
Sec. 301.3 Licensing vessels.
* * * * *
(h) A vessel operating in the directed commercial fishery in Area
2A must have its ``Application for Vessel License for the Halibut
Fishery'' form postmarked no later than 11:59 p.m. on April 30, or the
first weekday in May if April 30 is a Saturday or a Sunday.
(i) A vessel operating in the incidental commercial fishery during
the salmon troll season in Area 2A must have its ``Application for
Vessel License for the Halibut Fishery'' form postmarked no later than
11:59 p.m. on March 31, or the first weekday in April if March 31 is a
Saturday or Sunday.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 301.5, paragraphs (b), (c), (d), (e), and (f) are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 301.5 Application.
* * * * *
(b) Section 301.6 through 301.20 apply to commercial fishing for
halibut.
(c) Section 301.21 applies to the U.S. treaty Indian tribal fishery
in Area 2A-1.
(d) Section 301.22 applies to sport fishing for halibut.
(e) Section 301.23 applies to non-Indian commercial and sport
fishing for halibut in Area 2A.
(f) Section 301.24 applies to all fishing for halibut in Area 2A.
* * * * *
4. In Sec. 301.7, paragraphs (b) and (c) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 301.7 Fishing periods.
* * * * *
(b) Each fishing period in the Area 2A directed fishery south of
46 deg.53'18'' N. lat. shall begin at 0800 hours and terminate at 1800
hours local time on July 10, July 24, August 14, August 28, September
11, and September 25, unless the Commission specifies otherwise.
(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (b) of this section and
Sec. 301.10(g), an incidental catch fishery is authorized during salmon
troll seasons in Area 2A. Operators of vessels participating in the
salmon troll fishery in Area 2A may retain halibut caught incidentally
during authorized periods, in conformance with the annual salmon
management measures announced in the Federal Register. Halibut landing
restrictions for the salmon troll fishery will be based on the expected
number of incidental harvest permits, halibut allocation, and other
pertinent information, and may include landing ratios, landing limits,
or other means to control the rate of halibut harvest. Inseason changes
to the halibut landing restrictions will be announced in accordance
with Sec. 301.22(d)(3)(iii).
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 301.8, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 301.8 Closed periods.
* * * * *
(c) Subject to Sec. 301.18 (g) and (h), fishing is not prohibited
for any species of fish other than halibut during the closed periods.
* * * * *
6. In Sec. 301.10, paragraphs (a) and (b) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 301.10 Catch Limits.
(a) The total allowable catch of halibut to be taken during the
halibut fishing periods specified in Sec. 301.7 shall be limited to the
weight expressed in pounds or metric tons shown in the following table.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catch limits
------------------------
Regulatory area Metric
Pounds tons
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2A............................................. 107,120 49
2B............................................. 9,520,000 4,318
2C............................................. 9,000,000 4,082
3A............................................. 20,000,000 9,072
3B............................................. 3,700,000 1,678
4A............................................. 1,950,000 885
4B............................................. 2,310,000 1,048
4C............................................. 770,000 349
4D............................................. 770,000 349
4E............................................. 120,000 54
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Notwithstanding paragraph (a) of this section, the catch limit
in Area 2A shall be divided between a directed halibut fishery to
operate south of 46 deg.53'18'' N. lat. during the fishing periods set
out in Sec. 301.7(b) and an incidental halibut catch fishery during the
salmon troll fishery in Area 2A described in Sec. 301.7(c). Inseason
actions to transfer catch between these fisheries may occur in
conformance with Sec. 301.24.
* * * * *
7. In Sec. 301.12, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 301.12 Size limits.
* * * * *
(b) No person shall possess on board a vessel a halibut that has
been mutilated or otherwise disfigured in any manner that prevents
determination of whether the halibut complies with the size limits
specified in this section, except that:
(1) This paragraph shall not prohibit the possession on board a
vessel of halibut cheeks cut from halibut caught by persons authorized
to process the halibut on board in accordance with NMFS regulations
published at 50 CFR part 676; and
(2) No person shall possess a filleted halibut on board a vessel.
* * * * *
8. Section 301.14 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 301.14 Vessel clearance in Area 4.
(a) The operator of any vessel that fishes for halibut in Areas 4A,
4B, 4C, or 4D must obtain a vessel clearance before fishing in any of
these areas, and before the unloading of any halibut
[[Page 11341]]
caught in any of these areas, unless specifically exempted in
paragraphs (i), (l), (m), (n), or (o) of this section.
(b) The vessel clearance required under paragraph (a) of this
section prior to fishing in Area 4A may be obtained only at Dutch
Harbor or Akutan, AK, from an authorized officer of the United States,
a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor.
(c) The vessel clearance required under paragraph (a) of this
section prior to fishing in Area 4B may only be obtained at Nazan Bay
on Atka Island, AK, from an authorized officer of the United States, a
representative of the Commission, or a designated fish processor.
(d) The vessel clearance required under paragraph (a) of this
section prior to fishing in Areas 4C or 4D may be obtained only at St
Paul or St. George, AK, from an authorized officer of the United
States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish
processor by VHF radio and allowing the person contacted to confirm
visually the identity of the vessel.
(e) The vessel operator shall specify the specific regulatory area
in which fishing will take place.
(f) Before unloading any halibut caught in Area 4A, a vessel
operator may obtain the clearance required under paragraph (a) of this
section only in Dutch Harbor or Akutan, AK, by contacting an authorized
officer of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a
designated fish processor.
(g) Before unloading any halibut caught in Area 4B, a vessel
operator may obtain the clearance required under paragraph (a) of this
section only in Nazan Bay on Atka Island, AK, either in person or by
contacting an authorized officer of the United States, a representative
of the Commission, or a designated fish processor by VHF radio and
allowing the person contacted to confirm visually the identity of the
vessel.
(h) Before unloading any halibut caught in Areas 4C or 4D, a vessel
operator may obtain the clearance required under paragraph (a) of this
section only in St. Paul, St. George, Dutch Harbor, or Akutan, AK,
either in person or by contacting an authorized officer of the United
States, a representative of the Commission, or a designated fish
processor. The clearances obtained in St. Paul or St. George, AK, can
be obtained by VHF radio and allowing the person contacted to confirm
visually the identity of the vessel.
(i) Any vessel operator who complies with the requirements in
Sec. 301.17 of this part for possessing halibut on board a vessel that
was caught in more than one regulatory area in Area 4 is exempt from
the clearance requirements of paragraph (a) of this section, but must
comply with the following requirements:
(1) The operator of the vessel must obtain a vessel clearance prior
to fishing in Area 4 in either Dutch Harbor, Akutan, St. Paul, St.
George, or Nazan Bay on Atka Island by contacting an authorized officer
of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a
designated fish processor. The clearance obtained in St. Paul, St.
George, or Nazan Bay on Atka Island can be obtained by VHF radio and
allowing the person contacted to confirm visually the identity of the
vessel. This clearance will list the areas in which the vessel will
fish; and
(2) Before unloading any halibut from Area 4, the vessel operator
must obtain a vessel clearance from Dutch Harbor, Akutan, St. Paul, St.
George, or Nazan Bay on Atka Island by contacting an authorized officer
of the United States, a representative of the Commission, or a
designated fish processor. The clearance obtained in St. Paul, St.
George, or Nazan Bay on Atka Island can be obtained by VHF radio and
allowing the person contacted to confirm visually the identity of the
vessel.
(j) Vessel clearances shall be obtained between 0600 and 1800
hours, local time.
(k) No halibut shall be on board the vessel at the time of
clearances required prior to fishing in Area 4.
(l) Any vessel that is used to fish for halibut only in Area 4A and
lands its total annual halibut catch at a port within Area 4A is exempt
from the clearance requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
(m) Any vessel that is used to fish for halibut only in Area 4B and
lands its total annual halibut catch at a port within Area 4B is exempt
from the clearance requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
(n) Any vessel that is used to fish for halibut only in Area 4C and
lands its total annual halibut catch at a port within Area 4C is exempt
from the clearance requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
(o) Any vessel that is used to fish for halibut only in Areas 4D
and 4E and lands its total annual halibut catch at a port within Areas
4D, 4E, or the closed area defined at Sec. 301.9 is exempt from the
clearance requirements of paragraph (a) of this section.
9. In Sec. 301.15, paragraph (b)(1) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 301.15 Logs.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) Separate from other records maintained on board the vessel or
recorded in groundfish daily fishing logbooks provided by NMFS.
* * * * *
10. Sections 301.17 through 301.24 are redesignated as Secs. 301.18
through 301.25, and a new Sec. 301.17 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 301.17 Fishing multiple regulatory areas.
(a) Except as provided in this section, no person shall possess at
the same time on board a vessel halibut caught in more than one
regulatory area.
(b) Halibut caught in regulatory Areas 2C, 3A, and 3B may be
possessed on board a vessel at the same time providing the operator of
the vessel:
(1) Has a NMFS-certified observer aboard when required by NMFS
regulations at 50 CFR part 676; and
(2) Can identify the regulatory area in which each halibut on board
was caught by separating halibut from different areas in the hold,
tagging halibut, or by other means.
(c) Halibut caught in regulatory areas 4A, 4B, 4C, and 4D may be
possessed aboard a vessel at the same time providing the operator of
the vessel:
(1) Has a NMFS-certified observer on board the vessel when halibut
caught in different regulatory areas are on board; and
(2) Can identify the regulatory area in which each halibut on board
was caught by separating halibut from different areas in the hold,
tagging halibut, or by other means.
11. In newly redesignated Sec. 301.21, paragraphs (d), (f), and (g)
are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 301.21 Fishing by U.S. treaty Indian tribes.
* * * * *
(d) Commercial fishing for halibut by treaty Indians is permitted
only in subarea 2A-1 with hook-and-line gear from March 15 through
November 15, or until 168,000 lb (76.2 mt) are taken by treaty Indians,
whichever occurs first.
* * * * *
(f) Commercial fishing for halibut by treaty Indians shall comply
with the provisions of Secs. 301.12, 301.13, 301.15, and 301.18, except
that the 72-hour fishing restriction preceding the opening of a halibut
fishing period shall not apply to treaty Indian fishing.
(g) Ceremonial and subsistence fishing for halibut by treaty
Indians in
[[Page 11342]]
subarea 2A-1 is permitted with hook-and-line gear from January 1
through December 31, and is estimated to take 14,000 lb (6.35 mt).
* * * * *
12. In newly redesignated Sec. 301.22, paragraphs (d)(2)(i) through
(d)(2)(vii) are revised, paragraphs (i) through (o) are redesignated as
paragraphs (j) through (p) respectively, new paragraph (i) is added,
and paragraphs (h) through (p) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 301.22 Sport fishing for halibut.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) In Puget Sound and the U.S. waters in the Strait of Juan de
Fuca, east of a line from the lighthouse on Bonilla Point on Vancouver
Island, British Columbia (48 deg.35'44'' N. lat., 124 deg.43'00'' W.
long.) to the buoy adjacent to Duntze Rock (48 deg.24'55'' N. lat.,
124 deg.44'50'' W. long.) to Tatoosh Island lighthouse (48 deg.23'30''
N. lat., 124 deg.44'00'' W. long.) to Cape Flattery (48 deg.22'55'' N.
lat., 124 deg.43'42'' W. long.), there is no quota. This area is
managed by setting a season that is projected to result in a catch of
34,653 lb (15.7 mt).
(A) The fishing season is May 23 through July 27, 5 days a week
(Thursday through Monday).
(B) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per
person.
(ii) In the area off the north Washington coast, west of the line
described in paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section and north of the
Queets River (47 deg.31'42'' N. lat.), the quota for landings into
ports in this area is 71,410 lb (32.4 mt). Landings into Neah Bay of
halibut caught in this area will count against this quota and are
governed by the regulations in this paragraph (d)(2)(ii).
(A) The fishing season commences on May 1, and continues 5 days a
week (Tuesday through Saturday) until 71,410 lb (32.4 mt) are estimated
to have been taken and the season is closed by the Commission.
(B) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per
person.
(C) A portion of this area about 19 nm (35 km) southwest of Cape
Flattery is closed to sport fishing for halibut. The closed area is
within a rectangle defined by these four corners: 48 deg.18'00'' N.
lat., 125 deg.11'00'' W. long.; 48 deg.18'00'' N. lat., 124 deg.59'00''
W. long.; 48 deg.04'00'' N. lat., 125 deg.11'00'' W. long.; and,
48 deg.04'00'' N. lat., 124 deg.59'00'' W. long.
(iii) In the area between the Queets River, WA and Leadbetter
Point, WA (46 deg.38'10'' N. lat.), the quota for landings into ports
in this area is 15,222 lb (6.9 mt).
(A) The fishing season commences on May 1 and continues every day
until 1,000 lb (0.45 mt) are projected to remain in the subarea quota
of 15,222 lb (6.9 mt). Immediately following this closure, the area
from the Queets River south to 47 deg.00'00'' N. lat. and east of
124 deg.40'00'' W. long. will reopen for 7 days per week until either
15,222 lb (6.9 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the season is
closed by the Commission, or until September 30, whichever occurs
first.
(B) The daily bag limit is one halibut of any size per day per
person.
(C) The northern offshore portion of this area west of
124 deg.40'00'' W. long. and north of 47 deg.10'00'' N. lat. is closed
to sport fishing for halibut.
(iv) In the area between Leadbetter Point, WA and Cape Falcon, OR
(45 deg.46'00'' N. lat.), the quota for landings into ports in this
area is 4,617 lb (2.1 mt).
(A) The fishing season commences on May 1, and continues every day
through September 30, or until 4,617 lb (2.1 mt) are estimated to have
been taken and the area is closed by the Commission, whichever occurs
first.
(B) The daily bag limit is one halibut with a minimum overall size
limit of 32 inches (81.3 cm).
(v) In the area off Oregon between Cape Falcon and the Siuslaw
River at the Florence north jetty (44 deg.01'08'' N. lat.), the quota
for landings into ports in this area is 94,694 lb (43 mt).
(A) The fishing seasons are:
(1) Commencing May 16, and continuing 3 days a week (Thursday
through Saturday) until 64,392 lb (29.2 mt) are estimated to have been
taken and the season is closed by the Commission;
(2) Commencing the day following the closure of the season in
paragraph (d)(2)(v)(A)(1) of this section, and continuing every day
through August 1, in the area inside the 30-fathom (55 m) curve nearest
to the coastline as plotted on National Ocean Service charts numbered
18520, 18580, and 18600, or until 6,629 lb (3.0 mt) or the subarea
quota is estimated to have been taken (except that any poundage
remaining unharvested after the earlier season will be added to this
season) and the season is closed by the Commission, whichever is
earlier; and
(3) Commencing August 2, and continuing 2 days a week (Friday and
Saturday) through September 30, or until the combined quotas for the
subareas described in paragraphs (d)(2)(v) and (vi) of this section
totaling 102,193 lb (46.4 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the
area is closed by the Commission, whichever is earlier.
(B) The daily bag limit is two halibut, one with a minimum overall
size limit of 32 inches (81.3 cm) and the second with a minimum overall
size limit of 50 inches (127.0 cm).
(vi) In the area off Oregon between the Siuslaw River at the
Florence north jetty and the California border (42 deg.00'00'' N.
lat.), the quota for landings into ports in this area is 7,499 lb (3.4
mt).
(A) The fishing seasons are:
(1) Commencing May 16 and continuing 3 days a week (Thursday
through Saturday) until 5,999 lb (2.7 mt) are estimated to have been
taken and the season is closed by the Commission;
(2) Commencing the day following the closure of the season in
paragraph (d)(2)(vi)(A)(1) of this section, and continuing every day
through August 1, in the area inside the 30-fathom (55 m) curve nearest
to the coastline as plotted on National Ocean Service charts numbered
18520, 18580, and 18600, or until a total of 1,500 lb (0.7 mt) or the
area quota is estimated to have been taken (except that any poundage
remaining unharvested after the earlier season will be added to this
season) and the season is closed by the Commission, whichever is
earlier; and
(3) Commencing August 2 and continuing 2 days a week (Friday and
Saturday) through September 30, or until the combined quotas for the
subareas described in paragraphs (d)(2) (v) and (vi) of this section
totaling 102,193 lb (46.4 mt) are estimated to have been taken and the
area is closed by the Commission, whichever is earlier.
(B) The daily bag limit is two halibut, one with a minimum overall
size limit of 32 inches (81.3 cm) and the second with a minimum overall
size limit of 50 inches (127.0 cm).
(vii) In the area off the California coast, there is no quota. This
area is managed on a season that is projected to result in a catch of
less than 2,785 lb (1.3 mt).
(A) The fishing season will commence on May 1, and continue every
day through September 30.
(B) The daily bag limit is one halibut with a minimum overall size
limit of 32 inches (81.3 cm).
* * * * *
(h) The possession limit for halibut in the waters off the coast of
British Columbia is three halibut.
(i) The possession limit for halibut in the waters off Washington,
Oregon, and California is the same as the daily bag limit.
[[Page 11343]]
(j) The possession limit for halibut on land in Area 2A north of
Cape Falcon, OR is two daily bag limits.
(k) The possession limit for halibut on land in Area 2A south of
Cape Falcon, OR is one daily bag limit.
(l) Any halibut brought on board a vessel and not immediately
returned to the sea with a minimum of injury will be included in the
daily bag limit of the person catching the halibut.
(m) No person shall be in possession of halibut on a vessel while
fishing in a closed area.
(n) No halibut caught by sport fishing shall be offered for sale,
sold, traded, or bartered.
(o) No halibut caught in sport fishing shall be possessed on board
a vessel when other fish or shellfish on board the said vessel are
destined for commercial use, sale, trade, or barter.
(p) The operator of a charter vessel shall be liable for any
violations of this part committed by a passenger aboard said vessel.
* * * * *
13. In newly redesignated Sec. 301.23, paragraphs (a) and (b) are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 301.23 Fishing election in Area 2A.
(a) A vessel that fishes in Area 2A may participate in only one of
the following three fisheries in Area 2A:
(1) The recreational fishery under Sec. 301.22;
(2) The commercial directed fishery for halibut during the fishing
period(s) established in Sec. 301.7(b); or
(3) The incidental catch fishery during the salmon troll fishery as
authorized in Sec. 301.7(c).
(b) No person shall fish for halibut in the recreational fishery in
Area 2A under Sec. 301.22 from a vessel that has been used during the
same calendar year for commercial halibut fishing in Area 2A or that
has been issued a permit for the same calendar year for the commercial
halibut fishery in Area 2A.
* * * * *
14. In newly redesignated Sec. 301.24, paragraphs (a), (e)(1),
(e)(3), (f)(1)(i), (iii), (v), (vi), and (g) are revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 301.24 Catch sharing plan for Area 2A.
(a) This Plan constitutes a framework that shall be applied to the
annual Area 2A total allowable catch (TAC) approved by the Commission
each January. The framework shall be implemented in both Commission
regulations and domestic regulations (implemented by NMFS) as published
in the Federal Register as rulemaking in Secs. 301.1 through 301.23.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) Incidental halibut catch in the salmon troll fishery.
Fifteen percent of the non-Indian commercial fishery allocation is
allocated to the salmon troll fishery in Area 2A as an incidental catch
during salmon fisheries. The quota for this incidental catch fishery is
3.1 percent of the Area 2A TAC.
(i) The Pacific Fishery Management Council (Council) will recommend
landing restrictions at its spring public meeting each year to control
the amount of halibut caught incidentally in the troll fishery. The
landing restrictions will be based on the number of incidental harvest
license applications submitted to the Commission, halibut catch rates,
the amount of allocation, and other pertinent factors, and may include
catch or landing ratios, landing limits, or other means to control the
rate of halibut harvest. NMFS will publish the landing restrictions
annually in the Federal Register, along with the salmon management
measures.
(ii) Inseason adjustments. (A) NMFS may make inseason adjustments
to the landing restrictions, if requested by the Council Chairman, as
necessary to assure that the incidental harvest rate is appropriate for
salmon and halibut availability, does not encourage target fishing on
halibut, and does not increase the likelihood of exceeding the quota
for this fishery. In determining whether to make such inseason
adjustments, NMFS will consult with the applicable state
representative(s) on the Halibut Managers Group, a representative of
the Council's Salmon Advisory Sub-Panel, and Council staff.
(B) Notice and effectiveness of inseason adjustments will be made
by NMFS in accordance with Sec. 301.22(d)(3) (iii) and (iv).
(iii) If the quota for this fishery is not harvested during the
May/June salmon troll fishery, the remaining quota will be made
available by the Commission to the directed halibut fishery on July 1.
(iv) If the quota for the non-Indian commercial fisheries specified
at paragraph (e) of this section has not been harvested by July 31 and
the quota for the salmon troll fishery was not harvested during the
May/June fishery, landings of halibut caught incidentally during salmon
troll fisheries will be allowed effective August 1 and will continue
until the quota for the troll fishery is taken or the overall non-
Indian commercial quota is estimated to have been achieved by the
Commission. Landing restrictions implemented for the May/June salmon
troll fishery will apply to this reopening of the fishery.
(v) A salmon troller may participate in this fishery or in the
directed commercial fishery targeting halibut, but not in both.
* * * * *
(3) Commercial license restrictions/declarations. Commercial
fishers must choose either to operate in the directed commercial
fishery in Area 2A, or to retain halibut caught incidentally during the
salmon troll fishery. Commercial fishers operating in the directed
halibut fishery must send their license application to the Commission
postmarked no later than April 30, or the first weekday in May, if
April 30 falls on a weekend, in order to obtain a license to fish for
halibut in Area 2A. Commercial fishers operating in the salmon troll
fishery who seek to retain incidentally caught halibut must send their
application for a license to the Commission for the incidental catch of
halibut in Area 2A postmarked no later than March 31, or the first
weekday in April, if March 31 falls on a weekend. Fishing vessel
operators who are issued licenses to fish commercially in Area 2A are
prohibited from obtaining a Commission charterboat license for Area 2A.
Sport fishing for halibut is prohibited from a vessel licensed to fish
commercially for halibut in Area 2A.
(f) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) Washington inside waters subarea. This sport fishery subarea is
allocated 28.0 percent of the Washington sport allocation, which equals
6.66 percent of the Area 2A TAC. This subarea is defined as all U.S.
waters east of the Bonilla-Tatoosh line, defined as follows: From
Bonilla Point (48 deg.35'44'' N. lat., 124 deg.43'00'' W. long.) to the
buoy adjacent to Duntze Rock (48 deg.24'55'' N. lat., 124 deg.44'50''
W. long.) to Tatoosh Island lighthouse (48 deg.23'30'' N. lat.,
124 deg.44'00'' W. long.) to Cape Flattery (48 deg.22'55'' N. lat.,
124 deg.43'42'' W. long.), including Puget Sound. The structuring
objective for this subarea is to provide a stable sport fishing
opportunity and maximize the season length. Due to inability to monitor
the catch in this area inseason, a fixed season will be established
preseason based on projected catch per day and number of days to
achievement of the quota. No inseason adjustments will be made, and
estimates of actual catch will be made postseason. The fishery will
open in May and continue at least through July 4, or until a date
established preseason (and published in the sport fishery regulations)
when the quota is predicted to be taken, or until September 30,
whichever is earlier. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
will
[[Page 11344]]
sponsor a public workshop shortly after the IPHC annual meeting to
develop recommendations to NMFS on the opening date and weekly
structure of the fishery each year. The daily bag limit is one fish per
person, with no size limit.
* * * * *
(iii) Washington south coast subarea. This sport fishery subarea is
allocated 12.3 percent of the Washington sport allocation, which equals
2.93 percent of the Area 2A TAC. This subarea is defined as waters
south of the Queets River (47 deg.31'42'' N. lat.) and north of
Leadbetter Point (46 deg.38'10'' N. lat.). The structuring objective
for this subarea is to maximize the season length, while providing for
a limited halibut fishery. The fishery opens on May 1, for 7 days per
week and continues until 1,000 lb (.45 mt) are projected to remain in
the subarea quota. Immediately following this closure, the area from
the Queets River south to 47 deg.00'00'' N. lat. and east of
124 deg.40'00'' W. long. will reopen for 7 days per week until either
the subarea quota is estimated to have been taken and the season is
closed by the Commission, or until September 30, whichever occurs
first. The daily bag limit is one halibut per person, with no size
limit. Sport fishing for halibut is prohibited in the area south of the
Queets River (47 deg.31'42'' N. lat.), west of 124 deg.40'00'' W. long.
and north of 47 deg.10'00'' N. lat.
* * * * *
(v) Oregon central coast subarea. If the Area 2A TAC is 388,350 lb
(176.2 mt) and above, this subarea extends from Cape Falcon to the
Siuslaw River at the Florence north jetty (44 deg.01'08'' N. lat.) and
is allocated 88.4 percent of the Oregon/California sport allocation,
which is 18.21 percent of the Area 2A TAC. If the Area 2A TAC is below
388,350 lb (176.2 mt), this sport fishery subarea extends from Cape
Falcon to the California border and is allocated 95.4 percent of the
Oregon/California sport allocation. The structuring objectives for this
subarea are to provide one or two periods of fishing opportunity in
productive deeper water areas along the coast, principally for charter
and larger private boat anglers, and provide a period of fishing
opportunity in nearshore waters for small boat anglers. Any poundage
remaining in this subarea quota from earlier seasons will be added to
the last season in this subarea. This subarea has three seasons as set
out in paragraphs (f)(1)(v) (A) through (C) of this section. The
Council will recommend opening dates for these seasons annually at its
fall public meeting. The daily bag limit for all seasons is two halibut
per person, one with a minimum 32-inch (81.3-cm) size limit and the
second with a minimum 50-inch (127.0-cm) size limit.
(A) The first season is an all-depth fishery that begins in May and
continues at least 3 days per week (dependent on TAC) until 68 percent
of the subarea quota is taken.
(B) The second season opens the day following closure of the first
season, only in waters inside the 30-fathom (55 m) curve, and continues
every day until 7 percent of the subarea quota is taken, or until early
August, whichever is earlier.
(C) The last season begins in early August, with no depth
restrictions, and continues at least 2 days per week, until the
combined Oregon subarea quotas south of Falcon are estimated to have
been taken, or September 30, whichever is earlier.
(vi) Oregon south coast subarea. If the Area 2A TAC is 388,350 lb
(176.2 mt) and above, this subarea extends from the Siuslaw River at
the Florence north jetty (44 deg.01'08'' N. lat.) to the California
border (42 deg.00'00'' N. lat.) and is allocated 7.0 percent of the
Oregon/California sport allocation, which is 1.44 percent of the Area
2A TAC. If the Area 2A TAC is below 388,350 lb (176.2 mt), this subarea
will be included in the Oregon Central sport fishery subarea. The
structuring objective for this subarea is to create a south coast
management zone designed to accommodate the needs of both charterboat
and private boat anglers in this area where weather and bar crossing
conditions very often do not allow scheduled fishing trips. This
subarea has three seasons as set out in paragraphs (f)(1)(vi) (A)
through (C) of this section. The Council will recommend opening dates
for these seasons annually at its fall public meeting. The daily bag
limit for all seasons is two halibut per person, one with a minimum 32-
inch (81.3-cm) size limit and the second with a minimum 50-inch (127.0
cm) size limit.
(A) The first season is an all-depth fishery that begins in May and
continues at least 3 days per week (dependent on TAC) and continues at
least 3 days per week until 80 percent of the subarea quota is taken.
(B) The second season opens the day following closure of the first
season, only in waters inside the 30-fathom (55 m) curve, and continues
every day until the subarea quota is estimated to have been taken, or
early August, whichever is earlier.
(C) The last season begins in early August, with no depth
restrictions, and continues at least 3 days per week, until the
combined Oregon subarea quotas south of Falcon are estimated to have
been taken, or September 30, whichever is earlier.
* * * * *
(g) Procedures for implementation. Each year, NMFS will publish a
proposed rule with any regulatory modifications necessary to implement
the Plan for the following year, with a request for public comments.
The comment period will extend until after the Commission's annual
meeting, so that the public will have the opportunity to consider the
final Area 2A TAC before submitting comments. After the Area 2A TAC is
known, and after NMFS reviews public comments, NMFS will implement
final rules governing the sport fisheries. The final ratio of halibut
to chinook to be allowed as incidental catch in the salmon troll
fishery will be published with the annual salmon management measures.
Inseason actions in the sport fisheries as stipulated in this Plan will
be accomplished by NMFS in accordance with Sec. 301.22(d)(3).
[FR Doc. 96-6631 Filed 3-15-96; 2:54 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-W
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6629 Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Inshore Component Pollock in the Aleutian Islands Subarea
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11345]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6629]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 675
[Docket No. 960129019-6019-01; I.D. 031496A]
Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Inshore
Component Pollock in the Aleutian Islands Subarea
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Modification of a closure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is opening directed fishing for pollock by vessels
catching pollock for processing by the inshore component in the
Aleutian Islands subarea of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to fully utilize the
total allowable catch (TAC) amount specified for pollock in this area.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), March 15, 1996,
until 12 noon, A.l.t., March 16, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Furuness, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive
economic zone is managed by NMFS according to the Fishery Management
Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
under authority of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management
Act. Fishing by U.S. vessels is governed by regulations implementing
the FMP at 50 CFR parts 620 and 675.
The directed fishery for pollock by vessels catching pollock for
processing by the inshore component in the Aleutian Islands subarea was
closed on March 10, 1996 (March 13, 1996, 61 FR 10287), in order to
provide amounts anticipated to be needed for incidental catch in other
fisheries. NMFS has determined that as of March 2, 1996, 3,200 metric
tons (mt) of pollock remain unharvested.
The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the 1996 TAC
amount for pollock by vessels catching pollock for processing by the
inshore component in the Aleutian Islands subarea has not been reached.
Therefore, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is opening the
directed fishery for pollock by vessels catching pollock for processing
by the inshore component in the Aleutian Islands subarea for a 24-hour
period from 12 noon, A.l.t., March 15, 1996, until 12 noon, A.l.t.,
March 16, 1996. NMFS is taking this action to allow a controlled
fishery to occur, thereby preventing the underharvest of the pollock
TAC allocated to the inshore component as authorized by
675.20(e)(2)(iii).
All other closures remain in full force and effect.
Classification
This action is taken under 50 CFR 675.20 and is exempt from review
under E.O. 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: March 14, 1996.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-6629 Filed 3-14-96; 4:52 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6626 Transfer of Responsibilities and Effectiveness of PADC Regulations After PADC Termination
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6626]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
PENNSYLVANIA AVENUE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
36 CFR Chapter IX
Transfer of Responsibilities and Effectiveness of PADC
Regulations After PADC Termination
AGENCIES: Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation; General Services
Administration; National Capital Planning Commission; National Park
Service.
ACTION: Notification of transfer of responsibilities and status of
regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation (PADC) is
issuing this document to inform the public of the transfer of its
responsibilities to successor agencies and of the effectiveness of the
PADC's regulations after PADC's termination. In accordance with Pub. L.
104-99, PADC will terminate on April 1, 1996, and the General Services
Administration (GSA), the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC),
and the National Park Service (NPS) will succeed PADC for any remaining
actions and will be responsible for managing any remaining assets and
liabilities of PADC. Congress included a provision preserving the
effectiveness of PADC's regulations until such time as they are
suspended by GSA. PADC is publishing this document to inform the public
that, when GSA, NCPC, and NPS assume responsibility for PADC's
functions at termination, PADC's regulations generally will continue to
govern the successor agencies' performance of these functions for
occurrences that arise post-termination.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Madeleine B. Schaller, General
Counsel, Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation, Suite 1220 North,
1331 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004, (202) 724-9084.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. General Rule
Pub. L. 104-99 provides that PADC will terminate as of April 1,
1996. At that time, GSA, NCPC, and NPS will succeed PADC for any
remaining actions and will be responsible for managing any remaining
PADC assets and liabilities, in accordance with Pub. L. 104-99.
Congress included a provision preserving the effectiveness of PADC's
regulations, 36 CFR Chapter IX, until the regulations are suspended by
GSA. Therefore, after PADC terminates on April 1, 1996, and its
functions are transferred to GSA, NCPC, and NPS, PADC's regulations
relating to the Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation Act of 1972
(40 USC 971) and the Federal Triangle Development Act (40 USC 1101-
1109) as contained in 36 CFR Chapter IX (July 1, 1995, edition)
generally will continue to govern GSA's, NCPC's, or NPS's performance
of such functions in dealing with occurrences that arise post-
termination until such time as the regulations are suspended by GSA.
The termination of PADC does not affect rights or obligations of
PADC or third parties that have arisen under PADC's regulations prior
to PADC's termination.
B. General Division of Responsibilities
1. The Federal Triangle Project
The Federal Triangle Project will continue to be administered by
GSA. Contact Person: Lester M. Hunkele, III, Project Executive, General
Services Administration, Suite 1220 North, 1331 Pennsylvania Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20004, (202) 724-9073.
2. Maintenance and Use of Public Spaces
Contact Person: Arnold Goldstein, Superintendent, National Capital
Parks Central, 900 Ohio Drive, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20242, (202) 485-
9880.
3. Square Development
Contact Person: Judith Binder, Senior Asset Manager (WPT), Room
7618, GSA Regional Office Building, 7th and D Streets, S.W.,
Washington, D.C. 20407, (202) 708-8174.
4. Compliance With the Pennsylvania Avenue Plan
Sandra H. Shapiro, General Counsel, National Capital Planning
Commission, 801 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W., Suite 301, Washington, D.C.
20576, (202) 724-0187.
By order of the Executive Director.
Dated at Washington, DC, this 14th day of March 1996.
Diane G. Smith,
Secretary, Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation.
The following note is added to 36 CFR chapter IX:
Note: Public Law 104-99, which incorporated the terms of the
Department of the Interior and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
1996 (H.R. 1977), as passed by the House of Representatives on
December 13, 1995, provides that the Pennsylvania Avenue Development
Corporation terminates as of April 1, 1996. H.R. 1977 provides that
``any regulations prescribed by the [Pennsylvania Avenue
Development] Corporation in connection with the Pennsylvania Avenue
Development Corporation Act of 1972 (40 U.S.C. 871-885) and the
Federal Triangle Development Act (40 U.S.C. 1101-1109) shall
continue in effect until suspended by regulations prescribed by the
Administrator of the General Services Administration.'' Accordingly,
the authority to administer the regulations in 36 CFR Chapter IX is
transferred to the General Services Administration. See the
Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corporation document, ``Transfer of
Responsibilities and Effectiveness of PADC Regulations After PADC
Termination'', published at 61 FR ______, March 20, 1996.
[FR Doc. 96-6626 Filed 3-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7630-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6624 Nonbank Trustee Net Worth Requirements; Correction
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11306-11307]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6624]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11307]]
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
26 CFR Part 1
[TD 8635]
RIN 1545-AS92
Nonbank Trustee Net Worth Requirements; Correction
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
ACTION: Correction to final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final regulations (TD
8635) which were published in the Federal Register on Wednesday,
December 20, 1995 (60 FR 65547), and relates to nonbank trustees with
respect to the adequacy of net worth requirements that must be
satisfied in order to be or remain an approved nonbank trustee.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 20, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marjorie Hoffman, (202) 622-6030 (not
a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The final regulations that are the subject of these corrections are
under sections 401 and 408 of the Internal Revenue Code.
Need for Correction
As published, the final regulations (TD 8635) contain errors that
are misleading and in need of clarification.
Correction of Publication
Accordingly, the publication of the final regulations (TD 8635),
which was the subject of FR Doc. 95-30684, is corrected as follows:
Sec. 1.401(f)-1 [Corrected]
1. On page 65549, column 1, amendatory instruction 2. under ``Par.
4.'', line 1 is corrected by adding a closed quotation mark following
the number ``401(d)(1)''.
Sec. 1.408-2 [Corrected]
2. On page 65549, column 1, amendatory instruction 8. under ``Par.
5.'', line 3, the language ``the language `(n)(3) to (n)(7)' and'' is
corrected to read ``the language `(n)(3) to (7)' and''.
3. On page 65549, column 1, amendatory instruction 9. under ``Par.
5.'', in line 5, the language ``adding `the address prescribed by the''
is corrected to read ``adding `address prescribed by the''; and in the
last two lines, the language ``(e)(6)(9)(iv), and in the first sentence
of newly designated (e)(6)(v)(B).'' is corrected to read ``(e)(6)(iv),
and in the first sentence of newly designated (e)(7)(v)(B).''.
4. On page 65549, column 2, amendatory instruction 17. under ``Par.
5.'' is corrected to read as follows:
17. Removing the language ``subparagraph, subdivision (n)(3)(v)''
and adding ``paragraph (e)(5), and paragraph (e)(2)(v)'' in its place,
and removing the language ``subparagraph (n)(8)'' and adding
``paragraph (e)(7)'' in its place, in newly designated paragraph
(e)(5)(viii).
5. On page 65549, column 2, amendatory instruction 18. under ``Par.
5.'', line 3, the language ``(e)(5)(i)(A)(3)' in its place, and `` is
corrected to read ``(e)(5)(i)(A)(3)' in its place, and''.
6. On page 65549, column 2, amendatory instruction 20. under ``Par.
5.'' is corrected to read as follows:
20. Adding new paragraphs (e)(5)(ii) (A) and (D).
7. On page 65549, column 2, Sec. 1.408-2 (e)(5)(ii)(A), second line
from the bottom of the paragraph, the reference to ``paragraph
(e)(6)(ii)(B) and (C)'' is corrected to read ``paragraph (e)(5)(ii)(B)
and (C)''.
8. On page 65549, column 3, Sec. 1.408-2 (e)(5)(ii)(D), sixth line
from the top of the column, the reference to ``paragraph
(e)(5)(ii)(B)(2)'' is corrected to read ``paragraph (e)(5)(ii)(B)(2)''.
9. On page 65549, column 3, Sec. 1.408-2 (e)(5)(ii)(D), eighth line
from the top of the column, the reference to ``paragraph
(e)(5)(ii)(C)(2)'' is corrected to read ``paragraph (e)(5)(ii)(C)(2)''.
10. On page 65549, column 3, Sec. 1.408-2 (e)(5)(ii)(D)(2),
paragraph (c) of the Example, line 2, the reference to ``Sec. 1.408-2
(e)(6)(ii)(B)'' is corrected to read ``Sec. 1.408-2 (e)(5)(ii)(B)''.
11. On page 65550, column 1, Sec. 1.408-2 (e)(5)(ii)(D)(2),
paragraph (d) of the Example, line 2, the reference to ``Sec. 1.408-2
(e)(6)(ii)(C)'' is corrected to read ``Sec. 1.408-2 (e)(5)(ii)(C)''.
Michael L. Slaughter,
Acting Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 96-6624 Filed 3-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6623 Backup Withholding, Statement Mailing Requirements, and Due Diligence; Correction
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11307-11308]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6623]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
26 CFR Parts 1, 31, and 35a
[TD 8637]
RIN 1545-AT76
Backup Withholding, Statement Mailing Requirements, and Due
Diligence; Correction
AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service, Treasury.
ACTION: Correction to final and temporary regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to final and temporary
regulations (TD 8637) which were published in the Federal Register
Thursday, December 21, 1995 (60 FR 66105), providing final and
temporary rules on backup withholding, statement mailing requirements,
and due diligence.
EFFECTIVE DATE: December 21, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Renay France of the Office of
Assistant Chief Counsel (Income Tax and Accounting) with respect to
domestic transactions, (202) 622-4910 (not a toll-free call); and
Teresa Burridge Hughes of the Office of Assistant Chief Counsel
(International) with respect to international transactions, (202) 622-
3880 (not a toll-free number).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The final and temporary regulations that are the subject of these
corrections are under sections 3406, 6042, 6044, 6049, and 6050N of the
Internal Revenue Code.
Need for Correction
As published, the final and temporary regulations (TD 8637) 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 8637),
which was the subject of FR Doc. 95-30733, is corrected as follows:
Sec. 1.6049-6 [Corrected]
1. On page 66111, column 2, in the Par. 4. amendatory instruction,
an amendatory instruction is added after 2.c. to read ``d. Paragraph
(a), fifth sentence.''.
Sec. 31.3406(d)-4 [Corrected]
2. On page 66126, column 1, Sec. 31.3406(d)-4 (a)(3), line 18, the
language ``as described in sections 3406(a)(1)(B) or'' is corrected to
read ``as described in section 3406(a)(1)(B) or''.
3. On page 66126, column 2, Sec. 31.3406(d)-4 (b)(1)(iii), line 4,
the language ``subject to withholding under sections'' is corrected to
read ``subject to withholding under section''.
Sec. 31.3406(h)-2 [Corrected]
4. On page 66130, column 3, Sec. 31.3406(h)-2 (b)(2)(i), line 5,
the language ``under section 3406 31 percent of the fair'' is corrected
to read
[[Page 11308]]
``under section 3406, 31 percent of the fair''.
PART 35a-- [CORRECTED]
5. On page 66134, columns 1 and 2, Par. 12 and Par. 13 amendatory
instructions are corrected to read as follows:
Par. 12. The authority citation for part 35a continues to read in
part as follows:
Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *
Par. 13. Section 35a.3406-2 is amended by adding paragraph (l) to
read as follows:
Sec. 35a.3406-2 Imposition of backup withholding for notified payee
underreporting of reportable interest or dividend payments.
* * * * *
(l) Effective date. This section is effective until December 31,
1996.
Michael L. Slaughter,
Acting Chief, Regulations Unit, Assistant Chief Counsel (Corporate).
[FR Doc. 96-6623 Filed 3-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4830-01-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6596 Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and South Atlantic; Trip Limit Reduction
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11345-11346]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6596]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 642
[Docket No. 950725189-5260-02; I.D. 031496B]
Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico and
South Atlantic; Trip Limit Reduction
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Trip limit reduction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS reduces the commercial trip limit of king mackerel in the
Florida east coast sub-zone to 25 per day in or from the exclusive
economic zone (EEZ). This trip limit reduction is necessary to protect
the overfished Gulf king mackerel resource.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The 25-fish commercial trip limit is effective March
15, 1996, and remains in effect through March 31, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mark F. Godcharles, 813-570-5305.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The fishery for coastal migratory pelagic
fish (king mackerel, Spanish mackerel, cero, cobia, little tunny,
dolphin, and, in the
[[Page 11346]]
Gulf of Mexico only, bluefish) is managed under the Fishery Management
Plan for the Coastal Migratory Pelagic Resources of the Gulf of Mexico
and South Atlantic (FMP). The FMP was prepared by the Gulf of Mexico
and South Atlantic Fishery Management Councils (Councils) and is
implemented by regulations at 50 CFR part 642 under the authority of
the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management Act.
Based on the Councils' recommended total allowable catch and the
allocation ratios in the FMP, NMFS implemented a commercial quota for
the Gulf migratory group of king mackerel in the Florida east coast
sub-zone at 865,000 lb (392,357 kg). In accordance with 50 CFR
642.28(a), from the date that 75 percent of the sub-zone's commercial
quota has been harvested, provided that the date occurs before March 1,
until a closure of the Florida east coast sub-zone has been effected,
king mackerel in or from the EEZ may be possessed on board or landed
from a permitted vessel in amounts not exceeding 25 per day. The 25-
fish trip limit remains in effect through March 31, 1996, when the
boundary of the Gulf migratory group of king mackerel shifts from the
east coast to the west coast of Florida, unless 100 percent of the
commercial quota is reached before March 31, in which case the
commercial fishery for king mackerel in the Florida east coast sub-zone
is closed by publication of a notification in the Federal Register.
NMFS has determined that 75 percent of the commercial quota for
Gulf group king mackerel from the Florida east coast sub-zone was
reached by March 1, 1996. Accordingly, a 25-fish trip limit applies to
king mackerel in or from the EEZ in the Florida east coast sub-zone
effective 12:01 a.m., local time, March 15, 1996.
The Florida east coast sub-zone extends from the Dade/Monroe
County, FL boundary (25 deg.20.4' N. lat.) to the Volusia/Flagler
County, FL boundary (29 deg.25' N. lat.) from November 1 through March
31.
Classification
This action is taken under 50 CFR 642.28(c) and is exempt from
review under E.O. 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: March 14, 1996.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-6596 Filed 3-14-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6595 Atlantic Tuna Fisheries; Closure
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11336]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6595]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 285
[I.D. 031296A]
Atlantic Tuna Fisheries; Closure
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Fishery closure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS has determined that the 1996 Atlantic bluefin tuna (ABT)
Angling category quota for fish between 47 inches (119 cm) and 73
inches (185 cm) has been reached. Therefore, landing large school and
small medium ABT under the Angling category is prohibited effective at
11:30 p.m. on March 17, 1996. This action is being taken to prevent
overharvest of this category.
EFFECTIVE DATE: The closure is effective 11:30 p.m., local time, March
17, 1996, through December 31, 1996, or until the effective date of any
future adjustment, which will be published in the Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: William Hogarth, 301-713-2339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Regulations implemented under the authority
of the Atlantic Tunas Convention Act (16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.) governing
the harvest of ABT by persons and vessels subject to U.S. jurisdiction
are found at 50 CFR part 285.
Implementing regulations for the Atlantic tuna fisheries at 50 CFR
285.22 provide for a total annual quota of large school and small
medium ABT to be harvested from the regulatory area. NMFS is required,
under Sec. 285.20(b)(1), to monitor the catch and landing statistics
and, on the basis of these statistics, to project a date when the catch
of ABT will equal the quota applicable to any period.
Preliminary information on total angling effort and catch of ABT
between 47 inches (119 cm) and 73 inches (185 cm) indicates that for
January and February, 1996, landings may total nearly 100 mt.
Information available to NMFS on fishing effort and catch rates since
March 1, 1996, indicates that the remaining quota is likely to be taken
by March 17, 1996. Therefore, fishing for, retention, possessing, or
landing large school or small medium ABT must cease at 11:30 p.m.,
local time, March 17, 1996. This action is to prevent overharvest of
the quota established for this category.
Anglers may continue to fish for and land school size ABT,
measuring 27 inches (69 cm) to less than 47 inches (119 cm) total
curved fork length. Retention of school ABT is subject to the revised
bag limit of one fish per boat per day as set in a prior document (61
FR 8223, March 4, 1996). Anglers may also continue to fish for ABT 47
inches (119 cm) or greater under the NMFS tag and release program (50
CFR 285.27).
Classification
This action is taken under 50 CFR 285.20(b) and 50 CFR 285.22 and
is exempt from review under E.O. 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 971 et seq.
Dated: March 14, 1996.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-6595 Filed 3-14-96; 3:56 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6497 Reservists Education: Commencing Date of Award of Educational Assistance
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11310-11311]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6497]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 21
RIN 2900-AF74
Reservists Education: Commencing Date of Award of Educational
Assistance
AGENCIES: Department of Defense, Department of Transportation (Coast
Guard) and Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends the Educational Assistance Regulations
pertaining to the commencing dates of awards of educational assistance
for members of the Selected Reserve. These regulations are changed to
provide that all commencing dates for awards or increased awards of
educational assistance be on or reasonably close to the date of the
first day of class. The intended effect of the amendments is to make
uniform the regulations governing the dates of commencement of awards
of educational assistance under the Montgomery GI Bill--Selected
Reserve, both for reservists pursuing a college degree and for those
enrolled in courses not leading to a college degree.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 19, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: June C. Schaeffer, Assistant Director
for Policy and Program Administration, Education Service, Veterans
Benefits Administration, (202) 273-7187.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In a document published in the Federal
Register on May 2, 1995 (60 FR 21486), the Department of Defense, the
Department of Transportation (Coast Guard), and the Department of
Veterans Affairs (VA) proposed to amend the ``Educational Assistance
for Members of the Selected Reserve'' regulations (38 CFR Part 21,
Subpart L). Interested persons were given 62 days to submit comments.
No comments were received. Based on the rationale set forth in the
proposal and in this document, the Department of Defense, the
Department of Transportation, and the Department of Veterans Affairs
are adopting the proposal as a final rule with nonsubstantive changes.
The Secretary of Veterans Affairs, the Secretary of Defense, and
the Commandant of the Coast Guard have certified 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 final rule will not directly affect any small
entities. Only VA beneficiaries could be directly affected. Therefore,
pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), the amended regulation is exempt from the
initial and final regulatory flexibility analyses requirements of
sections 603 and 604.
This amended regulation has been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget pursuant to Executive Order 12866.
There is no Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance number for the
program affected by this final rule.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 21
Administrative practice and procedure, Armed forces, Civil rights,
Claims, Colleges and universities, Conflict of interests, Defense
Department, Education, Employment, Grant programs--education, Grant
programs--veterans, Health care, Loan programs--education, Loan
programs--veterans, Manpower training programs, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Schools, Travel and transportation
expenses, Veterans,
[[Page 11311]]
Vocational education, Vocational rehabilitation.
Approved: November 20, 1995.
Jesse Brown,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
Deborah R. Lee,
Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs.
Richard M. Larrabee,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Office of Readiness and Reserve.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 38 CFR part 21, subpart L
is amended as set forth below.
PART 21--VOCATIONAL REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION
Subpart L--Educational Assistance for Members of the Selected
Reserve
1. The authority citation for part 21, subpart L is revised to read
as follows:
Authority: 10 U.S.C. ch. 1606; 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless
otherwise noted.
2. In Sec. 21.7631, paragraphs (b) and (c) and their authority
citations are revised, to read as follows:
Sec. 21.7631 Commencing dates.
* * * * *
(b) Certification by school--the course or subject leads to a
standard college degree. (1) When a student enrolls in a course offered
by independent study, the commencing date of the award or increased
award of educational assistance will be the date the student began
pursuit of the course according to the regularly established practices
of the educational institution.
(2) When a student enrolls in a resident course or subject, the
commencing date of the award will be the date of reporting provided
that--
(i) The published standards of the school require the student to
register before reporting,
(ii) The published standards of the school require the student to
report no more than 14 days before the first scheduled date of classes
for the term, quarter or semester for which the student has registered,
and
(iii) The first scheduled class for the course or subject in which
the student is enrolled begins during the calendar week when, according
to the school's academic calendar, classes are generally scheduled to
commence for the term.
(3) When a student enrolls in a resident course or subject whose
first scheduled class begins after the calendar week when, according to
the school's academic calendar, classes are scheduled to commence for
the term, quarter, or semester, the commencing date of the award or
increased award of educational assistance allowance will be the actual
date of the first class scheduled for the particular course or subject.
(4) When a student enrolls in a resident course or subject and
neither the provisions of paragraph (b)(2) nor (b)(3) of this section
apply to the enrollment, the commencing date of the award or increased
award of educational assistance will be the first scheduled date of
classes for the term, quarter, or semester in which the student is
enrolled.
(Authority: 10 U.S.C. 16136(b)).
(c) Certification by educational institution or training
establishment--course does not lead to a standard college degree. (1)
When a reservist enrolls in a course which does not lead to a standard
college degree and which is offered in residence, the commencing date
of the award of educational assistance will be as stated in paragraph
(b) of this section.
(2) When a reservist enrolls in a course which is offered by
correspondence, the commencing date of the award of educational
assistance shall be the later of--
(i) The date the first lesson was sent, or
(ii) The date of affirmance in accordance with 38 U.S.C. 3686.
(3) When a reservist enrolls in a program of apprenticeship or
other on-job training, the commencing date of the award of educational
assistance shall be the first date of employment in the training
position.
(Authority: 10 U.S.C. 16136(b))
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-6497 Filed 3-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6496 Rulemaking Procedures
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 11309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6496]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 1
RIN 2900-AH84
Rulemaking Procedures
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends the ``General Provisions'' in 38 CFR Part
1 by removing Secs. 1.12 and 1.551. The regulatory history of Sec. 1.12
indicates that, despite a statutory exemption, VA intended to self-
impose the notice-and-comment provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553 on VA
rulemaking concerning public property, loans, grants, benefits, or
contracts (see 37 FR 3552, Feb. 17, 1972). Subsequent to the
promulgation of Sec. 1.12, statutory provisions were established that
specifically applied the public notice-and-comment provisions of 5
U.S.C. 553 to VA rulemaking concerning ``loans, grants, or benefits''
(see 38 U.S.C. 501(d)). These statutory provisions did not impose the
same notice-and-comment provisions for rulemaking concerning public
property or contracts. In our view, notice-and-comment requirements for
rulemaking concerning public property and contracts should only be
those imposed by statute. Also, there is no need to retain the
provisions of Sec. 1.551. In large part Sec. 1.551 merely contained
restatements of 5 U.S.C. 552. In addition, Sec. 1.551 contained
internal instructions to agency components which were not required to
be promulgated as rules.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thomas O. Gessel, Director, Office of
Regulations Management (02D), Office of General Counsel, Department of
Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202)
565-7625.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule merely reflects VA policy.
Accordingly, it is promulgated without regard to the notice-and-comment
and effective-date provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking was required in connection
with the adoption of this final rule, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.).
There is no Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program number.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 1
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Freedom of
information, Government contracts, Government employees, Government
property, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Approved: March 8, 1996.
Jesse Brown,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 38 CFR part 1 is amended
as set forth below:
PART 1--GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. The authority citation for part 1 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted.
Secs. 1.12 and 1.55 [Removed]
2. Sections 1.12 and 1.551 are removed.
[FR Doc. 96-6496 Filed 3-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6495 Standards of Ethical Conduct and Related Responsibilities
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11308-11309]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6495]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 0
RIN 2900-AH80
Standards of Ethical Conduct and Related Responsibilities
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
regulations captioned ``STANDARDS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT AND
[[Page 11309]]
RELATED RESPONSIBILITIES.'' It removes VA regulations that in essence
restate Government-wide standards contained in 5 CFR Part 735 and
Chapter XVI. It also amends the VA regulations to refer VA employees to
the Government-wide standards. The intended effect of this final rule
is to delete unnecessary and repetitive material in VA regulations and
to refer VA employees to the Government-wide standards.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walter A. Hall, Assistant General
Counsel (023), Office of General Counsel, Department of Veterans
Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue NW., Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273-6334.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final rule involves nonsubstantive
changes. Accordingly, it is promulgated without regard to the notice-
and-comment and effective-date provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553.
Because no notice of proposed rulemaking was required in connection
with the adoption of this final rule, no regulatory flexibility
analysis is required under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601
et seq.). Nevertheless, the Secretary hereby 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, since the final rule is
nonsubstantive and does not concern small entities.
There is no Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance program number.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 0
Employee ethics and related responsibilities.
Approved: February 21, 1996.
Jesse Brown,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 38 CFR part 0 is amended
as set forth below:
PART 0--STANDARDS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT AND RELATED RESPONSIBILITIES
1. The authority citation for Part 0 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 38 U.S.C. 501; see sections 201, 301,
and 502 (a) of E.O. 12674, 54 CFR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p. 215
as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 CFR 42547, 3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306.
Secs. 0.735-1, 0.735-2, 0.735-5, 0.735-6, 0.735-7, 0.735-8 [Removed]
2. Sections 0.735-1, 0.735-2, 0.735-5, 0.735-6, 0.735-7, and 0.735-
8 are removed.
Secs. 0.735-3 and 0.735-4 [Redesignated as 0.735-1 and 0.735-2]
3. Sections 0.735-3 and 0.735-4 are redesignated as 0.735-1 and
0.735-2, respectively.
4. A new Sec. 0.735-3 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 0.735-3 Government-wide standards.
For government-wide standards of ethical conduct and related
responsibilities for Federal employees, see 5 CFR Part 735 and Chapter
XVI.
[FR Doc. 96-6495 Filed 3-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6494 Lump-Sum Payment Under Public Law 93-177
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11309-11310]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6494]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
38 CFR Part 3
RIN 2900-AH85
Lump-Sum Payment Under Public Law 93-177
AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document amends the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
adjudication regulations to remove a provision for making lump-sum
payments based on the service of veterans who were dishonorably
discharged from the United States Army as the result of an incident
that occurred in Brownsville, Texas, on August 13, 1906. The law
required that applications for the lump-sum payment be filed within 5
years after December 6, 1973. Since the time limit for filing for the
lump-sum payment has expired, the rule is obsolete.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This amendment is effective March 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul Trowbridge, Consultant,
Regulations Staff, Compensation and Pension
[[Page 11310]]
Service, Veterans Benefits Administration, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW.,
Washington, DC 20420, telephone (202) 273-7210.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The ``Brownsville Incident'' occurred on
August 13, 1906, when an estimated 5 to 20 persons shot up the town of
Brownsville, Texas. One civilian was killed and one wounded. It was
charged that soldiers from the 25th Infantry Regiment, which was
stationed adjacent to the town at Fort Brown, were responsible for the
shootings, but it proved impossible to establish the guilt of
individual soldiers. On November 5, 1906, President Theodore Roosevelt
ordered that all 167 enlisted men in the three companies stationed at
Fort Brown be dishonorably discharged.
On April 6, 1910, 14 of the 167 soldiers were exonerated by a
special Army Tribunal and permitted to reenlist. On September 22, 1972,
the Secretary of the Army ordered the discharges of all the
dishonorably discharged soldiers changed to honorable.
On December 6, 1973, Congress enacted Public Law 93-177. Section 7
of Public Law 93-177 provided for payment of $25,000 to surviving
veterans who were dishonorably discharged as a result of the
``Brownsville Incident'' and were not thereafter eligible for
reenlistment. It also provided for payment of $10,000 to the
unremarried surviving spouses of such veterans. The law provided that
applications for these payments must be filed within 5 years after
December 6, 1973.
Section 3.811 of 38 CFR was promulgated in 1974. Since more than 15
years have passed since anyone could file for payments under Public Law
93-177, we are removing 38 CFR 3.811 as obsolete.
Since this rulemaking merely removes an obsolete nonsubstantive
provision, the Secretary finds under 5 U.S.C. Sec. 553(b) that prior
notice and comment are unnecessary and that there is a basis for
dispensing with a 30-day delay of the effective date.
The Secretary hereby certifies that these regulatory amendments
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities as they are defined in the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA), 5 U.S.C. 601-612. The amendments would not directly affect any
small entities. Therefore, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), these
amendments are exempt from the initial and final regulatory flexibility
analysis requirements of sections 603 and 604.
There are no applicable Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
program numbers.
List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3
Administrative practice and procedure, Claims, Disability benefits,
Health care, Pensions, Veterans, Vietnam.
Approved: March 11, 1996.
Jesse Brown,
Secretary of Veterans Affairs.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 38 CFR part 3 is amended
as follows:
PART 3--ADJUDICATION
Subpart A--Pension, Compensation, and Dependency and Indemnity
Compensation
1. The authority citation for part 3, subpart A continues to read
as follows:
Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless otherwise noted.
Sec. 3.811 [Removed and reserved]
2. Section 3.811 is removed and reserved.
[FR Doc. 96-6494 Filed 3-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8320-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6485 Certification of Speed Limit Enforcement
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11305-11306]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6485]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
23 CFR Part 1260
[Docket No. 96-06; Notice 1]
RIN 2125-AD77
Certification of Speed Limit Enforcement
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), Department of Transportation.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Section 205(d) of the National Highway System Designation Act
of 1995 repealed the National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL) Compliance
Program. It made the repeal effective on December 8, 1995, but provided
that the Governors of certain States could delay the effective date of
the repeal. This Final Rule provides that 23 CFR Part 1260, which
contains the procedures for implementing the NMSL, is now applicable
only to those States whose Governor delayed the effective date of the
repeal of the NMSL. In effect, the regulation is rescinded for all
other States. This Final Rule also rescinds the provisions of Part 1260
concerning speed monitoring, certification requirements and compliance
standards.
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: In FHWA, Janet Coleman, Office of
Highway Safety, 202-366-4668; or Raymond W. Cuprill, Office of the
Chief Counsel, 202-366-1377. In NHTSA, J. Michael Sheehan, Police
Traffic Services Division, 202-366-4295; or Heidi L. Coleman, Office of
the Chief Counsel, 202-366-1834.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The 55 mph National Maximum Speed Limit (NMSL) was first instituted
in 1974 as a temporary conservation measure in response to the oil
embargo imposed by certain oil-producing nations. Because of the
reduction in traffic fatalities that accompanied the institution of the
speed limit, it was made permanent in 1975.
In 1978, Congress amended the law to require that, in addition to
posting and enforcing the speed limit, States would have to achieve
specific levels of compliance. In April 1987, Congress passed
legislation which allowed States to post 65 mph maximum speed limits on
rural Interstate highways. In December 1987, the President approved
legislation enacting a limited demonstration program, which allowed the
posting of speed limits as high as 65 mph on certain rural non-
Interstate highways through the end of FY 1991.
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991
(ISTEA) made the demonstration program permanent, and allowed other
rural non-Interstate highways that were not a part of the demonstration
program to be posted at the 65 mph speed limit, provided they met
certain criteria.
ISTEA also required the Secretary of Transportation to publish a
rule to establish speed limit compliance requirements on 65 mph roads,
in addition to 55 mph roads, and to include a formula for determining
compliance by the States.
FHWA and NHTSA had shared responsibility for the implementation of
the NMSL compliance program since 1980. To implement this program and
the requirements of ISTEA, the agencies promulgated a joint regulation,
23 CFR Part 1260.
On November 28, 1995, the President signed into law the National
Highway System Designation Act of 1995 (NHS Act). Section 205(d) of the
NHS Act repealed the NMSL compliance program, as set forth in 23 U.S.C.
Secs. 141(a) and 154.
The NHS Act made the repeal effective on December 8, 1995, but
provided some States with an option to delay this effective date. In
any State whose legislature was not in session on November 28, 1995,
the Governor could declare, before December 8, 1995, that the
legislature was not in session and that the State preferred to delay
the effective date until after the State's legislature next convenes.
In accordance with the NHS Act, such a declaration would delay the
effective date of the repeal of the NMSL until the 60th day following
the date on which the legislature next convenes. The agencies are aware
of five States that have chosen to exercise the option: Kansas,
Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri and Ohio.
Accordingly, as provided in the NHS, on December 8, 1995, the NMSL
was repealed for all States other than these five States. In these five
States, it remains in effect until the 60th day following the date on
which the legislature of that State next convenes.
This final rule adds an applicability section to Part 1260 (section
1260.4), making the regulation applicable only to these five States. By
adding this section, the agencies in effect rescind the regulation for
all other States.
While Part 1260 will continue to apply to these five States, the
agencies have decided to rescind the sections of the regulation that
pertain to speed monitoring, certification requirements and compliance
standards (sections 1260.9, 1260.11, 1260.13, 1260.15, 1260.17, 1260.19
and 1260.21). This recision will greatly reduce the regulatory burden
on these States. The section of the regulation that pertains to the
adoption of the NMSL (1260.7) will remain in effect. Conforming changes
have been made to other sections of the regulation (1260.1, 1260.3 and
1260.5).
Once the legislature has convened in each of these five States, and
60 additional days have passed, the NMSL will be repealed for each
State. The agencies plan to rescind 23 CFR Part 1260 in its entirety
upon the expiration of the 60-day period for the last State.
[[Page 11306]]
Regulatory Analyses and Notices
Civil Justice Reform
This final rule will not have any preemptive or retroactive effect.
It imposes no requirements on the States, but rather removes regulatory
obligations that are no longer authorized by statute.
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The agencies have analyzed the effect of this action and determined
that it is not significant within the meaning of Executive Order 12866
or of Department of Transportation regulatory policies and procedures.
This final rule imposes no additional burden on the public. Regulatory
obligations have been removed since they are no longer authorized by
statute. Therefore, a regulatory evaluation is not required and was not
prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act, the agencies
have evaluated the effects of this action on small entities. Based on
the evaluation, we certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Accordingly,
the preparation of a Regulatory Flexibility Analysis is unnecessary.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has approved the
information collection requirements associated with 23 CFR Part 1260
(OMB Clearance No. 2125-0027). By rescinding the sections of Part 1260
that pertain to speed monitoring, certification requirements and
compliance standards, the information collection requirement, as that
term is defined by OMB in 5 CFR Part 1320, has been reduced by 93,024
reporting hours, to zero.
National Environmental Policy Act
The agencies have analyzed this action for the purpose of
compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act and have
determined that it will not have a significant effect on the human
environment.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612. There are no federalism
implications pursuant to Executive Order 12612 since regulatory
obligations are being suspended because they are no longer authorized
under current law. Under these circumstances, the preparation of a
Federalism Assessment is not warranted.
Notice and Comment
The agencies find that prior notice and opportunity for comment are
unnecessary under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B) because the agencies are not
exercising discretion in a way that could be meaningfully affected by
public comment. Instead, this repeal of the agencies' speed limit
compliance regulations is mandated by the repeal of the NMSL compliance
program in Section 205(d) of the NHS Act. Therefore, notice and
opportunity for comment are not required under the regulatory policies
and procedures of the Department of Transportation.
In addition, good cause exists to dispense with the 30-day delayed
effective date requirement of 5 U.S.C. 553(d) because this final rule
``grants or recognizes an exemption or relieves a restriction'' in
accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1). In repealing the NMSL regulation
for all but five States, this action lifts Federal speed limit
provisions and enables these States to make their own decisions as to
appropriate speed limits. Consequently, the agencies are proceeding
directly to a final rule which is effective upon its date of
publication.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 1260
Grant programs--transportation, Highway and roads, Motor vehicles,
Traffic regulations.
In consideration of the foregoing, Part 1260 of Title 23, Code of
Federal Regulations, is amended as follows:
PART 1260--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 1260 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: Pub. L. 104-59, Stat. 577 and 23 U.S.C. 118, 141,
154, 315; delegation of authority at 49 CFR 1.48 and 1.50.
2. Section 1260.1 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1260.1 Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to implement the provisions of 23
U.S.C. 154 as amended by the National Highway System Designation Act of
1995 relating to the adoption of the National Maximum Speed Limit.
3. Section 1260.3 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1260.3 Objective.
The objective is to maintain the fund transfer provisions for
noncompliance with the National Maximum Speed Limits until 60 days
after each State's legislature next convenes.
4. A new Sec. 1260.4, is added to read as follows:
Sec. 1260.4 Applicability.
This part applies to each State only until the 60th day after the
first date after December 8, 1995, on which the legislature in such
State convenes.
5. Section 1260.5 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 1260.5 Definitions.
As used in this part:
(a) Highway means all streets, roads or parkways under the
jurisdiction of a State, including its political subdivisions, open for
use by the general public, and including toll facilities.
(b) Interstate System means the Interstate System as is described
in 23 USC 103(e).
(c) Motor vehicle means any vehicle driven or drawn by mechanical
power manufactured primarily for use on public highways, except any
vehicle operated exclusively on a rail or rails.
(d) National Maximum Speed Limits mean the speed limits provided
for the highways described in Section 1260.7 of this Part.
(e) State means the States in which the legislature was not in
session on November 28, 1995, and the Governor of the State declared,
before December 8, 1995, that the legislature was not in session and
that the State prefers to delay the effective date of the repeal of the
National Maximum Speed Limits until after the State's legislature next
convenes.
Secs. 1260.9, 1260.11, 1260.13, 1260.15, 1260.17, 1260.19, 1260.21 and
Appendix to Part 1260 [Removed]
6. Sections 1260.9, 1260.11, 1260.13, 1260.15, 1260.17, 1260.19 and
1260.21, and the Appendix to Part 1260, are removed.
Issued on: March 13, 1966.
Rodney E. Slater,
Administrator, Federal Highway Administration.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration.
[FR Doc. 96-6485 Filed 3-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6481 Real Estate Lending and Appraisals
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11294-11303]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6481]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Office of the Comptroller of the Currency
12 CFR Part 34
[Docket No. 96-06]
RIN 1557-AB48
Real Estate Lending and Appraisals
AGENCY: Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, Treasury.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) is
revising its rules governing real estate lending as part of its
Regulation Review Program. Consistent with the goals of the Program,
the final rule modernizes and clarifies the rules, reduces unnecessary
regulatory burdens, and applies regulatory requirements only where
needed to address safety and soundness concerns or accomplish other
statutory responsibilities of the OCC.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 19, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Laura Goldman, Attorney, Bank
Activities and Structure (202) 874-5300; Thomas Watson, National Bank
Examiner, Credit & Management Policy (202) 874-5170; Frank R. Carbone,
National Bank Examiner, Credit & Management Policy (202) 874-5170;
Roland G. Ullrich, National Bank Examiner, Consumer and Fiduciary
Compliance (202) 874-4866; or Mark Tenhundfeld, Senior Attorney,
Legislative and Regulatory Activities (202) 874-5090, 250 E Street SW,
Washington, DC 20219.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The OCC has reviewed 12 CFR part 34 as another component of its
Regulation Review Program (Program). The goal of the Program is to
review all of the OCC's rules and to eliminate provisions that do not
contribute significantly to maintaining the safety and soundness of
national banks or to accomplishing the OCC's other statutory
responsibilities. Another goal of the Program is to clarify regulations
so that they more effectively convey the standards the OCC seeks to
apply. Consistent with these goals, the OCC intends for this final rule
to reduce regulatory costs and other burdens on national banks by
eliminating regulatory requirements that are neither essential to
maintaining the safety and soundness of national banks nor needed to
accomplish the OCC's statutory responsibilities.
The Proposal
On July 7, 1995, the OCC published a notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM or proposal) (60 FR 35353) to revise subparts A (General), B
(Adjustable-Rate Mortgages) (ARMs), and E (Other Real Estate Owned)
(OREO) of 12 CFR part 34.1 In the NPRM, the OCC proposed to
[[Page 11295]]
permit the suspension of the disposition period for leases that are
treated as OREO if a bank, acting in good faith, has entered into a
non-coterminous sublease (i.e., a sublease that has a term shorter than
the remainder of the master lease's term).2 Following termination
of a non-coterminous sublease, a bank would have the same amount of
time in which to dispose of the property that the bank had when it
entered into the sublease. The proposal also summarized the OCC's
general approach to questions of Federal preemption of State laws
governing real estate lending while emphasizing that this clarification
did not expand the scope of State law preemption beyond what appeared
in the former rule. Finally, the proposal removed redundant or
otherwise unnecessary provisions from the former rule and made several
other changes intended to improve the rule's clarity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ As explained in the preamble to the NPRM, the OCC did not
propose to amend subparts C (Appraisals) or D (Real Estate Lending
Standards) because the OCC recently adopted these subparts on an
interagency basis and the OCC wishes to gather additional
information on their effectiveness before deciding whether to
recommend an interagency effort to revise them.
\2\ Under both the former rule and the NPRM, a coterminous
sublease is deemed to be an effective disposition of a lease that
has been transferred to OREO.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Final Rule and Comments Received
The OCC received 12 comments. Most commenters supported the
proposed changes. Comments were received from seven national banks, two
bank holding companies that control national banks, two trade groups,
and one law firm. Several commenters, while supporting the proposal,
suggested that the OCC make additional changes, as discussed later in
this preamble.
Three commenters raised issues concerning appraisals (subpart C of
part 34) while two offered suggestions concerning the real estate
lending standards (subpart D). The OCC will take these comments into
consideration when reviewing those subparts at a later date.
One commenter suggested that section 114 of the Riegle-Neal
Interstate Banking and Branching Efficiency Act (12 U.S.C. 43) (Riegle-
Neal Act) requires the OCC to resubmit for public comment proposed
Secs. 34.4, 34.5, 34.21, and 34.23, which contain statements of
preemption of various State laws. Section 114 requires, inter alia,
that the OCC publish notice of requests for the OCC to issue opinions
on whether Federal law preempts certain types of State laws, or when
the OCC, on its own initiative, proposes to issue such an opinion.
The OCC does not believe that section 114 applies to this
rulemaking. First, no prior notice under section 114 is required for
preemption issues that are essentially identical to those on which the
agency previously has opined. As was explained in the NPRM, each of the
sections at issue in the proposal is substantively identical to those
found in the existing rule.3 Second, the OCC has followed formal
rulemaking procedures in adopting and amending part 34, giving the
public ample opportunity to comment on each section. Third, the OCC is
adopting a rule, not issuing a preemption opinion or interpretation.
Thus, the section 114 procedures do not apply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See 60 FR at 35354, 35355, and 35356.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following discussion summarizes the amendments to part 34 and
the remaining comments.
Subpart A--General
Purpose and Scope (Sec. 34.1)
A national bank may make real estate loans pursuant to 12 U.S.C.
371 and 12 U.S.C. 24 (Seventh). Part 34 formerly identified (in
Sec. 34.3) loans that are not considered ``real estate loans'' for
purposes of 12 U.S.C. 371 but which national banks nevertheless may
make pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 24 (Seventh). The proposal removed the list
in Sec. 34.3, and eliminated cross-references in Sec. 34.1 to that
list. However, since former paragraphs (f) and (g) of Sec. 34.3
contained an exception to the regulation's scope, the proposal
incorporated the substance of those provisions into the proposed
``Scope'' section of the revised regulation. The proposal also
relocated the text authorizing national banks to engage in real estate-
related transactions from Sec. 34.1(a) to proposed Sec. 34.3. This
change was proposed to conform the order of subpart A of part 34 to
that of other OCC rules. Finally, the proposal set forth a statement of
the purpose of part 34.
The OCC received no comments on this section, which is adopted as
proposed with stylistic changes and one clarification. The final rule
adds a statement clarifying that part 34 applies to national banks and
their operating subsidiaries, except where otherwise noted (see, e.g.,
12 CFR 34.21(b)).
Definitions (Sec. 34.2)
The proposal placed definitions used in subpart A in one location.
The definition of ``due-on-sale clause'' was moved from former
Sec. 34.4 to proposed Sec. 34.2 without any change to the definition's
substance. The proposal added definitions of ``State'' and ``State law
limitations'' to avoid restating of the full scope of preemption in
every section that refers to preemption.
The OCC received no comments on this section, which is adopted as
proposed with minor stylistic edits.
General Rule (Sec. 34.3)
The proposal set forth the general rule authorizing national banks
to engage in real estate lending and related transactions, and
relocated this general rule to a new section to conform the order of
subpart A of part 34 to that followed in other OCC regulations.
The OCC received no comments on this section, which is adopted as
proposed with minor stylistic edits.
Loans Not Constituting Real Estate Loans (former Sec. 34.3--Removed)
Former Sec. 34.3 listed several types of loans that are not
considered real estate loans for purposes of part 34, but are
permissible for national banks under 12 U.S.C. 24 (Seventh). The former
provision was confusing and unnecessary. Therefore, the proposal
removed Sec. 34.3 in its entirety.
The OCC received no comments on this proposed removal, and
accordingly adopts the proposed change.
Applicability of Law (Sec. 34.4)
The proposal retained a statement of specific areas where Federal
law preempts State law in order to provide continued guidance in this
area. The proposal removed the vague reminder, found at former
Sec. 34.2(b), that national banks must comply with applicable laws, but
added, in Sec. 34.4(b), a general statement of the OCC's position with
respect to preemption in order to clarify that the list of areas where
State law is preempted, carried over from the former rule, is not
necessarily exhaustive. The proposed rule clarified that the OCC will
apply traditional principles of Federal preemption when determining
whether a State law affecting real estate lending is preempted. Under
these principles, State laws apply to national banks unless the State
law expressly or impliedly conflicts with Federal law, the State law
stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment of the full purposes and
objectives of the Federal law, or Federal law is so comprehensive as to
evidence a Congressional intent to occupy a given field.4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ The Supreme Court's most recent discussion of the principles
of Federal preemption may be found in Gade v. National Solid Wastes
Management Ass'n, 120 L. Ed. 2d 73 (1992), in which the Court
stated:
As both the majority and dissent acknowledge, we have identified
three circumstances in which a federal statute pre-empts state law:
First, Congress can adopt express language defining the existence
and scope of pre-emption. Second, state law is pre-empted where
Congress creates a scheme of federal regulation so pervasive as to
leave no room for supplementary state regulation. And third, ``state
law is pre-empted to the extent that it actually conflicts with
federal law.'' This third form of pre-emption, so-called actual
conflict pre-emption, occurs either ``where it is impossible for a
private party to comply with both state and federal requirements * *
* or where state law `stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment
and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress.' ''
120 L. Ed. 2d at 91 (Kennedy, J., concurring; citations
omitted). The plurality and dissenting opinions in Gade contain
essentially the same formulation. See id. at 84 and 95,
respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 11296]]
Other than the comment summarized earlier concerning the
application of section 114 of the Riegle-Neal Act (see text following
``The Final Rule and Comments Received,'' above), the OCC received no
comments on this provision, which is adopted as proposed with minor
stylistic edits.
Due-On-Sale Clauses (Sec. 34.5)
The proposal modified this section to improve clarity and to remove
unnecessary restatements of statutory provisions. No change was
proposed to the substance of those descriptions.
Other than the comment summarized above concerning the application
of section 114 of the Riegle-Neal Act (see text following ``The Final
Rule and Comments Received,'' above), the OCC received no comments on
this provision. The final rule makes minor stylistic edits to the
provision as proposed and removes the definition of the term
``lender,'' given that this term is not used in the final rule.
Subpart B--ARMs
Definitions (Sec. 34.20)
The proposal amended the definition of ``ARM loan'' by deleting the
provisions, found in former Sec. 34.5(a)(2), that exempt fixed-rate
extensions of credit that are payable either on demand or without any
interim amortization. The proposal made stylistic changes to the
definition of ``ARM loan,'' and removed the definition of ``consumer
credit'' because other changes to the rule make that definition
unnecessary. In order to consolidate all definitions used in subpart B,
the proposal relocated to Sec. 34.20 the definitions of ``affiliate''
and ``subsidiary'' formerly found in Sec. 34.6(b). Finally, the
proposal used the term ``renewal'' instead of ``refinance'' as that
term was used in former Sec. 34.5(a)(2) in order to avoid creating the
impression that the OCC rule applies to refinancings as that term is
narrowly defined in Regulation Z (Reg. Z, 12 CFR part 226) of the Board
of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (Federal Reserve).
In addition, the proposal sought comment on whether it remains
necessary or appropriate to continue to exempt from the definition of
``ARM loan'' fixed-rate loans that are payable at the end of a term
that, when added to all terms for which the bank has promised to
refinance the loan, is shorter than the term of the amortization
schedule. This exemption is similar, but not identical, to the
treatment of variable-rate transactions in Reg. Z. Specifically, the
OCC sought comment on (1) whether the difference between part 34 and
Reg. Z poses an unnecessary burden, and (2) whether commenters favor
amending part 34 to eliminate the difference, notwithstanding that such
approach would result in more loans being subject to the requirement
that a bank use an index beyond its control.
The OCC received three comments in response to the proposed changes
and the request for comments. Those commenters responding to the issues
raised by the exemption from the definition of ``ARM loan'' requested
that the OCC retain the exemption in the final rule. One commenter
noted that the highlighted difference between Reg. Z and part 34 does
not pose an unnecessary burden and that the bank already has systems in
place to deal with the difference. Another commenter noted that
removing the exemption would add a new layer of confusion to the
affected loans and would have the result of requiring banks to tie the
loans to an independent index. For the reasons advanced by the
commenters, and in light of the absence of any expression of problems
experienced by national banks, the OCC is retaining the exemption.
Another commenter suggested that the OCC should expand the
definition of ``ARM loan'' to be consistent with the definition of
``alternative mortgage transaction'' found in the Alternative Mortgage
Transaction Parity Act (Parity Act) (12 U.S.C. 3801 et seq.).5 The
suggested change would apply the general rule stated in Sec. 34.21
(which permits national banks to make, sell, purchase, participate in,
or otherwise deal in ARM loans without regard to State law limitations
on those activities) to a broader variety of loans, including home
equity loans. The commenter advocating this change suggested that the
former rule created a competitive disadvantage for national banks by
authorizing fewer types of ARM loans than may be made by other types of
lenders. No other commenter suggested that the definition of ``ARM
loan'' presents a problem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Parity Act defines ``alternative mortgage transaction''
as:
[A] loan or credit sale secured by an interest in residential
real property, a dwelling, all stock allocated to a dwelling unit in
a residential cooperative housing corporation, or a residential
manufactured home * * * (A) in which the interest rate or finance
charge may be adjusted or renegotiated; (B) involving a fixed-rate,
but which implicitly permits rate adjustments by having the debt
mature at the end of an interval shorter than the term of the
amortization schedule; or (C) involving any similar type of rate,
method of determining return, term, repayment, or other variation
not common to traditional fixed-rate, fixed-term transactions,
including without limitation, transactions that involve the sharing
of equity or appreciation; described and defined by applicable
regulation.
12 U.S.C. 3802(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OCC has determined not to make the suggested change to the
definition of ``ARM loan.'' Historically, the OCC has confined the
scope of its ARM lending rule to home-purchase loans.6 While the
OCC's ARM lending rule does not authorize home equity lending, such
lending clearly is permissible under 12 U.S.C. 371, which permits any
national banking association to ``make, arrange, purchase or sell loans
or extensions of credit secured by liens on interests in real estate. *
* *'' Id. at 371(a). Thus, national banks may make the types of loans
that would be covered by the proposed expanded definition of ARM loan.
If a national bank encounters a provision of State law that it believes
is inappropriately restrictive, the bank may seek the OCC's opinion
concerning whether Federal law preempts the provision of State law in
question according to recognized principles of Federal preemption.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See, e.g., 46 FR 18932, 18935 (March 27, 1981) (``The intent
of the regulation is to improve the availability of mortgage funds
for purchasing residential property and to provide protection to
home purchases. The intent is not to regulate adjustable rate loans
made for other purposes.'').
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The final rule adopts the changes to Sec. 34.20 as proposed in the
NPRM, except that it relocates the definitions of ``affiliate'' and
``subsidiary'' from Sec. 34.20 to Sec. 34.21(b). This change from the
proposal clarifies that only the provision concerning the purchase of
loans not in compliance with part 34 (Sec. 34.21(b)) applies to a
bank's affiliates and subsidiaries as these terms are defined in
section 23A of the Federal Reserve Act (12 U.S.C. 371c). Generally
speaking, part 34 applies to national banks and their operating
subsidiaries, unless the OCC determines otherwise.
General Rule (Sec. 34.21)
The proposal made only minor changes to simplify the general rule,
which provides that national banks and their subsidiaries may make,
sell, purchase, participate, or otherwise deal in ARM loans,
notwithstanding any State law to the contrary that applies to these
activities. The proposal intended no change in the former rule
governing preemption of State law limitations on ARM lending. A
national bank may
[[Page 11297]]
purchase or participate in ARM loans that were not made in accordance
with the OCC's regulations, except that, as already noted, loans
purchased from an affiliate or subsidiary must comply with part 34.
As noted earlier, the final rule relocates the definitions of
``affiliate'' and ``subsidiary'' to Sec. 34.21(b) to clarify that these
broadly encompassing definitions apply only in the limited
circumstances specified in that section. The final rule otherwise
adopts the proposal as published.
Index (Sec. 34.22)
Former Sec. 34.7 required ARM loans that are subject to 12 CFR
226.19(b) to specify an index to which changes in the interest rate
shall be linked. Under that section, the index is to be readily
available to, and verifiable by, the borrower and beyond the control of
the lending bank. Proposed Sec. 34.22 made no changes to the substance
of the former rule.
One commenter requested that the OCC drop the requirement of an
independent index altogether, and suggested that the secondary market
and competitive pressures will protect the consumer. The OCC has
decided to keep the independent index, because the agency believes that
the requirement provides a significant protection to the consumer and
that it creates only limited burden on national banks.
Another commenter expressed concern that the former and proposed
rules could be construed to prohibit rate changes based on such
criteria as termination of employment, discontinuance of payment by a
particular method, default, or termination of certain banking
relationships by the customer. The commenter suggested that the OCC
clarify that a national bank may decrease the interest rate at any time
and increase the rate pursuant to a formula or schedule set forth in
the relevant loan documents specifying the amount of the increase and
the times at which, or circumstances under which, the increase may be
made. The OCC agrees with the commenter that this clarification is
appropriate, and has made the suggested change along with minor
stylistic edits in the final rule.
Rate Changes (Former Sec. 34.8--Removed)
Former Sec. 34.8 set forth the limitation found in section 1204 of
the Competitive Equality Banking Act of 1987 (CEBA), Pub. L. 100-86,
100 Stat. 552 (12 U.S.C. 3806(a)), which requires a consumer credit ARM
loan to include a limitation on the maximum rate of interest that may
apply during the term of the loan. The proposal removed Sec. 34.8
because it is an unnecessary and potentially confusing restatement of
the statute. Moreover, CEBA vests rulemaking authority with the Federal
Reserve, which has implemented section 1204 of CEBA at 12 CFR 226.30.
The OCC received no comments on the proposed change, and the
section is removed as proposed.
Prepayment Fees (Sec. 34.23)
The proposal made no substantive change to this section (former
Sec. 34.9), which provides that national banks may impose fees for
prepayments of ARM loans, notwithstanding any State law to the
contrary.
The OCC received no comments on this section, which is adopted as
proposed with minor stylistic edits.
Disclosure (Former Sec. 34.10--Removed)
This section requires a national bank that offers consumer ARM
loans to provide the disclosures required by the Truth-in-Lending Act
(15 U.S.C. 1601, et seq.), as implemented by the Federal Reserve in
Reg. Z (12 CFR part 226). The OCC believes that the reminder to comply
with Reg. Z disclosures when making a consumer ARM loan was appropriate
when the OCC-imposed disclosure requirements were removed, but now is
unnecessary. Accordingly, the proposal removed this section in its
entirety. The proposal also removed the term ``consumer credit'' from
the definition section (former Sec. 34.5(b)) since it was used only in
former Sec. 34.10.
One person commented on this proposed change, requesting that the
final rule retain the reference to Reg. Z in order to remind national
banks that the Federal Reserve has promulgated rules governing
disclosure requirements related to ARM lending. The OCC remains of the
view that a general reminder that Reg. Z applies is unnecessary, and
that the presence of a reminder about the applicability of a separate
regulation in one portion of an OCC rule, but not in others, is
potentially confusing. Therefore, this section is removed from the
final rule.
Nonfederally Chartered Commercial Banks (Sec. 34.24)
Section 807(b) of the Garn-St Germain Act (Pub. L. 97-320, 96 Stat.
1545 (12 U.S.C. 3801 note)) requires the OCC to identify those
provisions of its ARM regulation that are inappropriate for
nonfederally chartered banks. In implementing section 807(b), the OCC
determined that all of the provisions of subpart B were appropriate,
and so stated in former Sec. 34.11. Proposed Sec. 34.25 retained this
statement in order to comply with the statute, and removed certain
unnecessary citations to statutory authority.
The OCC received no comments on this section, which is adopted as
proposed with stylistic edits.
Transition Rule (Sec. 34.25)
The former rule (Sec. 34.12) provided that national banks were
authorized to make or administer loans during a ``window period''
beginning on the date the former rule was adopted (March 11, 1988) and
ending October 1, 1988, if the loans complied with the OCC rules in
effect before the March 11, 1988 amendment. Following October 1, 1988,
all ARM loans have been required to comply with part 34, as revised.
The proposal retained most of the former rule but removed what are now
unnecessary references to the window period.
The OCC received no comments on this section, which is adopted as
proposed with stylistic edits.
Subpart C--Appraisals
The OCC did not propose any changes to the rules governing the use
of appraisals. Accordingly, subpart C is not amended.
Subpart D--Real Estate Lending Standards
The OCC did not propose any changes to the real estate lending
standards. Accordingly, subpart D is not amended.
Subpart E--OREO
Definitions (Sec. 34.81)
Former Sec. 34.81 contained the definitions used in subpart E. The
proposal made several changes to these definitions in addition to
stylistic edits. First, proposed Sec. 34.81 defined OREO to include
only ``debts previously contracted'' (DPC) real estate and former
banking premises, and removed the term ``covered transactions real
estate'' from the definition of OREO (thereby rendering the definition
of covered transactions real estate unnecessary). The proposal also
removed the term ``transaction value'' and corresponding definition.
The OCC received no comments on these proposed changes, which are
adopted as proposed with stylistic edits. However, one commenter
suggested that the OCC make an additional change that was not proposed
in the NPRM, namely, to exempt leases from the definition of OREO. This
commenter noted that the proposal, which required a bank to dispose of
OREO leases after the expiration of a non-coterminous sublease, would
require the bank to track properties for an extended period
[[Page 11298]]
of time in order to insure that the bank ultimately complied with the
disposition requirements. The commenter also raised a number of
questions prompted by the NPRM, such as whether the existence of a
sublease is sufficient despite the fact that a subtenant is delinquent
and whether the sublease must be at market rates.
The OCC believes that long-term leases of real property can present
many of the same risks that are presented by ownership of a fee simple
interest and, therefore, that safety and soundness reasons dictate that
leases be covered by the rules governing disposition of OREO. The
commenter is correct in concluding that a bank that has entered into a
non-coterminous sublease must dispose of the lease within the time
remaining under the OREO disposition rules once the sublease expires.
However, the OCC believes that the tracking burden associated with this
disposition requirement is minimal and reasonable in light of the
safety and soundness benefits derived by continuing to treat leases as
OREO. Questions regarding the adequacy of a particular sublease will be
addressed on a case-by-case basis. However, national banks are to
exercise good faith in entering into non-coterminous subleases.
Holding Period (Sec. 34.82)
The proposal clarified, in Sec. 34.82(b)(2), that the holding
period begins on the date that a national bank ceases to use former
banking premises without relocating the business formerly conducted
there to another site. The proposed rule also made changes to improve
clarity and to remove provisions that are redundant in light of 12
U.S.C. 29. The proposal relocated the requirement that a national bank
dispose of OREO when prudent judgment dictates from Sec. 34.83 (which
addresses the method of disposition) to Sec. 34.82 (which addresses
timing of disposition). Finally, proposed Sec. 34.82 retained a
statement regarding a bank's obligation to dispose of OREO. This
statement clarified that OREO, as defined in the regulation, is subject
to the divestiture provisions.
The OCC received no comments on this section, which is adopted as
proposed with minor stylistic edits.
Disposition of Real Estate (Sec. 34.83)
Formerly, Sec. 34.83(a)(5) permitted disposition of leases only
through assignment or a ``coterminous sublease'' (i.e., a lease with
the same duration as the remainder of the master lease). Many national
banks hold long-term leases and are unable either to assign them or to
find a coterminous sublessee, notwithstanding the bank's best efforts
to do so. As industry consolidation and technological advances further
reduce the utilization of branches and back- office space, this problem
likely will become more severe.
To address this problem, proposed Sec. 34.83(a)(3) permitted the
divestiture period to be suspended for the duration of a non-
coterminous sublease. The proposal also made numerous stylistic changes
to Sec. 34.83 that simplify the former regulation and eliminate
unnecessary repetition. The proposal modified Sec. 34.83(b) to clarify
that disposition efforts must be ongoing throughout the disposition
period. Finally, as previously noted, the proposal relocated the
provision in former Sec. 34.83 (requiring disposition when prudent
judgment dictates) to proposed Sec. 34.82.
The OCC received six comments on the proposed change affecting non-
coterminous subleases, and all six favored the change. In light of
these comments and for the reasons stated in the preamble to the NPRM,
the OCC adopts the proposed changes to this section, with the
additional changes noted as follows.
Two commenters requested that the OCC permit a national bank to
exercise options to extend a lease if the extension is necessary to
attract prospective sublessees. These commenters noted that a third
party will not enter into a sublease if the duration of the sublease is
insufficient to justify making whatever expenditures are required to
conform the property to the third party's business. The OCC agrees that
a national bank should have the flexibility to extend a lease if the
extension enables the bank to sublease the property and certain
safeguards are satisfied, and has modified Sec. 34.83(a)(3)
accordingly.
Historically, the OCC has required national banks to divest of OREO
as soon as possible. See, e.g., OCC Interpretive Letter No. 491 (1989-
1990 Transfer Binder) Fed. Banking L. Rep. (CCH) ] 83,074 at p. 71,184
(Sept. 6, 1989) (``It should be recognized that the Bank's paramount
obligation is to dispose of its interest in the lease [that has become
OREO] at the earliest possible date, consistent with 12 U.S.C. Sec. 29
* * *''). The OCC continues to require divestiture of OREO as soon as
possible but in any event within the divestiture period prescribed by
statute. The change proposed by the commenters is consistent with this
requirement. Under the changes proposed in the NPRM and by the
commenters, national banks remain obligated to take appropriate steps
before the disposition period expires either to dispose of a lease
outright (by assigning the lease or entering into a coterminous
sublease) or to enter into a non-coterminous sublease that will suspend
the running of the disposition period. The change proposed by the
commenters will facilitate a bank's compliance with this obligation.
While the OCC agrees that the change proposed by the commenters is
appropriate and consistent with applicable law, a national bank may not
enter into an extension of a master lease for the purpose of
speculating in real estate. For this reason, the final rule clarifies
that the OCC reserves the right to require a national bank to take
immediate steps to dispose of an extended lease if the OCC finds that
the bank entered into the extension for the purpose of real estate
speculation.7 The final rule also prohibits a national bank from
entering into an extension unless (1) the bank, prior to entering into
an extension of the master lease, has a firm commitment from a third
party to sublease the property and (2) the duration of the extension is
reasonable and does not materially exceed the duration of the sublease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
7 The NPRM stated that the OCC reserves this right in
connection with leases in general but was silent on the question of
extensions of lease.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The OCC also has amended Sec. 34.83(a)(3) to clarify that the
agency retains the authority to require a national bank to take
appropriate steps to dispose of a lease (or extension thereof) if the
OCC finds that the bank has not acted in good faith in entering into a
sublease. Thus, for instance, if a bank subleases property to a related
third party for a nominal amount so that the bank may retain possession
of the lease and speculate on the property's future value, the bank
will not have acted in good faith and the OCC will require the bank to
take immediate steps to dispose of the master lease.
Future Bank Expansion (Sec. 34.84)
Proposed Sec. 34.84 created a new section for the OCC's rule on
future bank expansion that formerly appeared in Sec. 34.83(c) in order
to make the future bank expansion rule easier to locate.
The OCC received no comments on this section, which is adopted as
proposed.
Appraisal Requirements (Sec. 34.85)
The proposal made no substantive change to the existing rule set
forth in former Sec. 34.84. This rule provides that a national bank
should obtain either an appraisal or evaluation, as appropriate
[[Page 11299]]
under 12 CFR part 34, subpart C, when real estate is transferred to
OREO or when OREO is sold. The former rule provided an exception to
this requirement if a national bank already has a valid appraisal or
evaluation for the property in question. Banks are to monitor the value
of each parcel of OREO in a manner consistent with prudent banking
practices.
One commenter suggested that the OCC not require appraisals every
time property formerly used (or intended to be used) as bank premises
is transferred to OREO. The OCC will consider this comment when the
agency reviews subpart C of part 34, which sets forth the rules
governing when and what type of an appraisal is required. The OCC
received no other comments on this section. The final rule makes
stylistic edits to the proposal and removes an unnecessary reminder in
Sec. 34.85(b) that a bank is to follow its real estate collateral
evaluation policy.
Additional Expenditures and Notification (Sec. 34.86)
The proposal rearranged Sec. 34.86 (former Sec. 34.85) to improve
clarity, and modified other parts of this section to simplify the
procedures for informing banks of the OCC's decision regarding proposed
additional expenditures. The OCC specifically sought comment on whether
the standard regarding completion of OREO development or improvement
projects provides sufficient guidance.
The OCC received one comment on this section. The commenter stated
that the existing guidance on the development of OREO is sufficient. In
light of this comment and the absence of comments requesting further
guidance, the OCC adopts this section as proposed with minor stylistic
edits.
Accounting Treatment (Sec. 34.87)
The proposal retained the former rule, which specified that OREO
reporting should conform to instructions in the Consolidated Report of
Condition and Income.
The OCC received one comment on the accounting treatment that
should be applied to OREO. The commenter suggested that, since the
leased property during the term of a non-coterminous sublease will not
be an asset to be disposed of, the OCC should require national banks to
account for the lease as ``premises'' and not ``held for sale.''
However, since a bank no longer uses OREO property as premises, the OCC
believes that OREO property that has been subleased by a bank is
appropriately accounted for as ``held for sale.'' The OCC received no
other comments on this section, which is adopted as proposed with minor
stylistic edits.
Application (Former Sec. 34.87)
Former Sec. 34.87 provided that subpart E is applicable to all OREO
held by a national bank, including OREO in existence since September
17, 1993. The proposal removed this provision since it is unnecessary
and potentially confusing.
The OCC received no comment on this proposed removal. Accordingly,
the OCC has removed former Sec. 34.87.
Effective Date
Section 302 of the Riegle Community Development and Regulatory
Improvement Act of 1994 delays the effective date of regulations
promulgated by the Federal banking agencies that impose additional
reporting, disclosure, or new requirements to the first day of the
first calendar quarter following publication of the final rule. The OCC
believes that section 302 is not applicable to this final rule, because
the effect of the regulation is to reduce burdens on national banks.
The final regulation does not impose any additional reporting or other
requirements not already contained in the current version of the OCC's
real estate lending regulations. The effective date of this final rule
is April 19, 1996.
Derivation Table
The following derivation table directs readers to the provision(s)
of the former regulation, if any, upon which the final provision is
based, and identifies generally the action taken.
Derivation Table
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revised section Original section Comments
------------------------------------------------------------------------
34.1(a)......................... ................. Added.
34.1(b)......................... 34.1(b) Modified.
34.2(a)......................... 34.4(a) Modified.
34.2(b)......................... ................. Added.
34.2(c)......................... ................. Added.
34.3............................ 34.1(a) Modified.
34.4(a)......................... 34.2(a) Modified.
34.4(b)......................... ................. Added.
34.2(b) Removed.
34.3 Removed.
34.5............................ 34.4(a) Modified.
34.5............................ 34.4(b) Modified.
34.20........................... 34.5(a) Modified.
34.5(b) Removed.
34.21(a)........................ 34.6(a) Modified.
34.21(b)........................ 34.6(b) Modified.
34.22........................... 34.7 Modified.
34.8 Removed.
34.23........................... 34.9 Modified.
34.10 Removed.
34.24........................... 34.11 Modified.
34.25........................... 34.12 Modified.
34.81(a)........................ ................. Added.
34.81(b) Removed.
34.81(b)........................ 34.81(c) No change.
34.81(c)........................ 34.81(d) No change.
34.81(d)........................ 34.81(e) No change.
34.81(e)........................ 34.81(a) Modified.
[[Page 11300]]
34.81(f)........................ 34.81(f) No change.
34.81(g) Removed.
34.82(a)........................ 34.82(a) Modified.
34.82(b)........................ 34.82(b) Modified.
34.82(c)........................ 34.82(c) Modified.
34.82(a)........................ 34.83(a) Modified.
34.83(a)(1)(i).................. 34.83(a)(1) Modified.
34.83(a)(1)(ii)................. 34.83(a)(2) Modified.
34.83(a)(1)(iii)................ 34.83(a)(3) Modified.
34.83(a)(2)..................... 34.83(a)(4) Modified.
34.83(a)(3)..................... 34.83(a)(5) Modified.
34.83(a)(4)..................... 34.83(a)(6) Modified.
34.83(b)........................ 34.83(b) Modified.
34.84........................... 34.83(c) No change.
34.85(a)........................ 34.84(a) Modified.
34.85(b)........................ 34.84(b) Modified.
34.85(c)........................ 34.84(c) Modified.
34.86(a)(1)..................... 34.85(a)(2)(i) No change.
34.86(a)(2)..................... 34.85(a)(2)(ii) No change.
34.86(a)(3)..................... ................. Added.
34.86(b)........................ 34.85(b) Modified.
34.86(b)(1)..................... 34.85(a)(1) Modified.
34.87........................... 34.86 No change.
34.87 Removed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Act
It is hereby certified that this regulation will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Accordingly, a regulatory flexibility analysis is not required. This
regulation will reduce the regulatory burden on national banks,
regardless of size, by simplifying and clarifying former regulatory
requirements.
Executive Order 12866
The OCC has determined that this final rule is not a significant
regulatory action under Executive Order 12866.
Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995
Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Act of 1995 (Unfunded Mandates
Act) requires that an agency prepare a budgetary impact statement
before promulgating an NPRM likely to result in a rule that includes a
Federal mandate that may result in the annual expenditure of $100
million or more in any one year by State, local, and tribal
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector. If a budgetary
impact statement is required, section 205 of the Unfunded Mandates Act
requires an agency to identify and consider a reasonable number of
alternatives before promulgating an NPRM. The OCC has determined that
the final rule will not result in expenditures by State, local, and
tribal governments, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million
in any one year. Accordingly, the OCC has not prepared a budgetary
impact statement or specifically addressed the regulatory alternatives
considered. As discussed in the preamble, the final rule will reduce
unnecessary burdens on national banks seeking to engage in real estate
lending.
List of Subjects in 12 CFR Part 34
Mortgages, National banks, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Authority and Issuance
For the reasons set out in the preamble, part 34 of chapter I of
title 12 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as set forth
below:
PART 34--REAL ESTATE LENDING AND APPRAISALS
1. The authority citation for part 34 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 12 U.S.C. 1 et seq., 29, 93a, 371, 1701j-3, 1828(o),
and 3331 et seq.
2. Part 34 is amended by revising subparts A, B, and E to read as
follows:
Subpart A--General
Sec.
34.1 Purpose and scope.
34.2 Definitions.
34.3 General rule.
34.4 Applicability of State law.
34.5 Due-on-sale clauses.
Subpart B--Adjustable-Rate Mortgages
34.20 Definitions.
34.21 General rule.
34.22 Index.
34.23 Prepayment fees.
34.24 Nonfederally chartered commercial banks.
34.25 Transition rule.
Subpart C--Appraisals
* * * * *
Subpart D--Real Estate Lending Standards
* * * * *
Subpart E--Other Real Estate Owned
34.81 Definitions.
34.82 Holding period.
34.83 Disposition of real estate.
34.84 Future bank expansion.
34.85 Appraisal requirements.
34.86 Additional expenditures and notification.
34.87 Accounting treatment.
Subpart A--General
Sec. 34.1 Purpose and scope.
(a) Purpose. The purpose of this part is to set forth standards for
real estate-related lending and associated activities by national
banks.
(b) Scope. This part applies to national banks and their operating
subsidiaries as provided in 12 CFR 5.34. For the purposes of 12 U.S.C.
371 and subparts A and B of this part, loans secured by liens on
interests in real estate include loans made upon the security of
condominiums, leaseholds, cooperatives, forest tracts, land sales
contracts, and construction project loans. Construction project loans
are not subject to subparts A and B of this part, however, if they have
a maturity not exceeding 60 months and are made to finance the
construction of either:
(1) A building where there is a valid and binding agreement entered
into by a financially responsible lender or other party to advance the
full amount of the
[[Page 11301]]
bank's loan upon completion of the building; or
(2) A residential or farm building.
Sec. 34.2 Definitions.
(a) Due-on-sale clause means any clause that gives the lender or
any assignee or transferee of the lender the power to declare the
entire debt payable if all or part of the legal or equitable title or
an equivalent contractual interest in the property securing the loan is
transferred to another person, whether by deed, contract, or otherwise.
(b) State means any State of the United States of America, the
District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Northern
Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Guam.
(c) State law limitations means any State statute, regulation, or
order of any State agency, or judicial decision interpreting State law.
Sec. 34.3 General rule.
A national bank may make, arrange, purchase, or sell loans or
extensions of credit, or interests therein, that are secured by liens
on, or interests in, real estate, subject to terms, conditions, and
limitations prescribed by the Comptroller of the Currency by regulation
or order.
Sec. 34.4 Applicability of State law.
(a) Specific preemption. A national bank may make real estate loans
under 12 U.S.C. 371 and Sec. 34.3 without regard to State law
limitations concerning:
(1) The amount of a loan in relation to the appraised value of the
real estate;
(2) The schedule for the repayment of principal and interest;
(3) The term to maturity of the loan;
(4) The aggregate amount of funds that may be loaned upon the
security of real estate; and
(5) The covenants and restrictions that must be contained in a
lease to qualify the leasehold as acceptable security for a real estate
loan.
(b) General standards. The OCC will apply recognized principles of
Federal preemption in considering whether State laws apply to other
aspects of real estate lending by national banks.
Sec. 34.5 Due-on-sale clauses.
A national bank may make or acquire a loan or interest therein,
secured by a lien on real property, that includes a due-on-sale clause.
Except as set forth in 12 U.S.C. 1701j-3(d) (which contains a list of
transactions in which due-on-sale clauses may not be enforced), due-on-
sale clauses in loans, whenever originated, will be valid and
enforceable, notwithstanding any State law limitations to the contrary.
For the purposes of this section, the term real property includes
residential dwellings such as condominium units, cooperative housing
units, and residential manufactured homes.
Subpart B--Adjustable-Rate Mortgages
Sec. 34.20 Definitions.
Adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) loan means an extension of credit
made to finance or refinance the purchase of, and secured by a lien on,
a one-to-four family dwelling, including a condominium unit,
cooperative housing unit, or residential manufactured home, where the
lender, pursuant to an agreement with the borrower, may adjust the rate
of interest from time to time. An ARM loan does not include fixed-rate
extensions of credit that are payable at the end of a term that, when
added to any terms for which the bank has promised to renew the loan,
is shorter than the term of the amortization schedule.
Sec. 34.21 General rule.
(a) Authorization. A national bank and its subsidiaries may make,
sell, purchase, participate in, or otherwise deal in ARM loans and
interests therein without regard to any State law limitations on those
activities.
(b) Purchase of loans not in compliance. A national bank may
purchase or participate in ARM loans that were not made in accordance
with this part, except that loans purchased, in whole or in part, from
an affiliate or subsidiary must comply with this part. For purposes of
this paragraph, the terms affiliate and subsidiary have the same
meaning as in 12 U.S.C. 371c.
Sec. 34.22 Index.
If a national bank makes an ARM loan to which 12 CFR 226.19(b)
applies (i.e., the annual percentage rate of a loan may increase after
consummation, the term exceeds one year, and the consumer's principal
dwelling secures the indebtedness), the loan documents must specify an
index to which changes in the interest rate will be linked. This index
must be readily available to, and verifiable by, the borrower and
beyond the control of the bank. A national bank may use as an index any
measure of rates of interest that meets these requirements. The index
may be either single values of the chosen measure or a moving average
of the chosen measure calculated over a specified period. A national
bank also may increase the interest rate in accordance with applicable
loan documents specifying the amount of the increase and the times at
which, or circumstances under which, it may be made. A national bank
may decrease the interest rate at any time.
Sec. 34.23 Prepayment fees.
A national bank offering or purchasing ARM loans may impose fees
for prepayments notwithstanding any State law limitations to the
contrary. For purposes of this section, prepayments do not include:
(a) Payments that exceed the required payment amount to avoid or
reduce negative amortization; or
(b) Principal payments, in excess of those necessary to retire the
outstanding debt over the remaining loan term at the then-current
interest rate, that are made in accordance with rules governing the
determination of monthly payments contained in the loan documents.
Sec. 34.24 Nonfederally chartered commercial banks.
Pursuant to 12 U.S.C. 3803(a), a State chartered commercial bank
may make ARM loans in accordance with the provisions of this subpart.
For purposes of this section, the term ``State'' shall have the same
meaning as set forth in Sec. 34.2(b).
Sec. 34.25 Transition rule.
If, on October 1, 1988, a national bank had made a loan or binding
commitment to lend under an ARM loan program that complied with the
requirements of 12 CFR part 29 in effect prior to October 1, 1988 (see
12 CFR Parts 1 to 199, revised as of January 1, 1988) but would have
violated any of the provisions of this subpart, the national bank may
continue to administer the loan or binding commitment to lend in
accordance with that loan program. All ARM loans or binding commitments
to make ARM loans that a national bank entered into after October 1,
1988, must comply with all provisions of this subpart.
Subpart C--Appraisals
* * * * *
Subpart D--Real Estate Lending Standards
* * * * *
Subpart E--Other Real Estate Owned
Sec. 34.81 Definitions.
(a) Capital and surplus means:
(1) A bank's Tier 1 and Tier 2 capital as calculated under the
OCC's risk-based capital standards set out in appendix A to part 3 of
this chapter based upon the bank's Consolidated
[[Page 11302]]
Report of Condition and Income filed under 12 U.S.C. 161; plus
(2) The balance of a bank's allowance for loan and lease losses not
included in the bank's Tier 2 capital, for purposes of the calculation
of risk-based capital under Appendix A to 12 CFR part 3, based upon the
bank's Consolidated Report of Condition and Income filed under 12
U.S.C. 161.
(b) Debts previously contracted (DPC) real estate means real estate
(including capitalized and operating leases) acquired by a national
bank through any means in full or partial satisfaction of a debt
previously contracted.
(c) Former banking premises means real estate (including
capitalized and operating leases) for which banking use no longer is
contemplated. This includes real estate originally acquired for future
expansion that no longer will be used for expansion or other banking
purposes.
(d) Market value means the value determined in accordance with
subpart C of this part.
(e) Other real estate owned (OREO) means:
(1) DPC real estate; and
(2) Former banking premises.
(f) Recorded investment amount means:
(1) For loans, the recorded loan balance, as determined by
generally accepted accounting principles; and
(2) For former banking premises, the net book value.
Sec. 34.82 Holding period.
(a) Holding period for OREO. A national bank shall dispose of OREO
at the earliest time that prudent judgment dictates, but not later than
the end of the holding period (or an extension thereof) permitted by 12
U.S.C. 29.
(b) Commencement of holding period. The holding period begins on
the date that:
(1) Ownership of the property is originally transferred to a
national bank;
(2) A bank completes relocation from former banking premises to new
banking premises or ceases to use the former banking premises without
relocating; or
(3) A bank decides not to use real estate acquired for future bank
expansion.
(c) Effect of statutory redemption period. For DPC real estate that
is subject to a redemption period imposed under State law, the holding
period begins at the expiration of that redemption period.
Sec. 34.83 Disposition of real estate.
(a) Disposition. A national bank may comply with its obligation to
dispose of real estate under 12 U.S.C. 29 in the following ways:
(1) With respect to OREO in general:
(i) By entering into a transaction that is a sale under generally
accepted accounting principles;
(ii) By entering into a transaction that involves a loan guaranteed
or insured by the United States government or by an agency of the
United States government or a loan eligible for purchase by a
Federally-sponsored instrumentality that purchases loans; or
(iii) By selling the property pursuant to a land contract or a
contract for deed;
(2) With respect to DPC real estate, by retaining the property for
its own use as bank premises or by transferring it to a subsidiary or
affiliate for use in the business of the subsidiary or affiliate;
(3) With respect to a capitalized or operating lease:
(i) By obtaining an assignment or a coterminous sublease. If a
national bank enters into a sublease that is not coterminous, the
period during which the master lease must be divested will be suspended
for the duration of the sublease, and will begin running again upon
termination of the sublease. A national bank holding a lease as OREO
may enter into an extension of the lease that would exceed the holding
period referred to in Sec. 34.82 if the extension meets the following
criteria:
(A) The extension is necessary in order to sublease the master
lease;
(B) The national bank, prior to entering into the extension, has a
firm commitment from a prospective subtenant to sublease the property;
and
(C) The term of the extension is reasonable and does not materially
exceed the term of the sublease;
(ii) Should the OCC determine that a bank has entered into a lease,
extension of a lease, or a sublease for the purpose of real estate
speculation in violation of 12 U.S.C. 29 and this part, the OCC will
take appropriate measures to address the violation, which may include
requiring the bank to take immediate steps to divest the lease or
sublease; and
(4) With respect to a transaction that does not qualify as a
disposition under paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section, by
receiving or accumulating from the purchaser an amount in a down
payment, principal and interest payments, and private mortgage
insurance totalling at least 10 percent of the sales price, as measured
in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.
(b) Disposition efforts and documentation. A national bank shall
make diligent and ongoing efforts to dispose of each parcel of OREO,
and shall maintain documentation adequate to reflect those efforts.
Sec. 34.84 Future bank expansion.
A national bank normally should use real estate acquired for future
bank expansion within five years. After holding such real estate for
one year, the bank shall state, by resolution of the board of directors
or an appropriately authorized bank official or subcommittee of the
board, definite plans for its use. The resolution or other official
action must be available for inspection by national bank examiners.
Sec. 34.85 Appraisal requirements.
(a) General. (1) Upon transfer to OREO, a national bank shall
substantiate the parcel's market value by obtaining either:
(i) An appraisal in accordance with subpart C of this part; or
(ii) An appropriate evaluation when the recorded investment amount
is equal to or less than the threshold amount in subpart C of this
part.
(2) A national bank shall develop a prudent real estate collateral
evaluation policy that allows the bank to monitor the value of each
parcel of OREO in a manner consistent with prudent banking practice.
(b) Exception. If a national bank has a valid appraisal or an
appropriate evaluation obtained in connection with a real estate loan
and in accordance with subpart C of this part, then the bank need not
obtain another appraisal or evaluation when it acquires ownership of
the property.
(c) Sales of OREO. A national bank need not obtain a new appraisal
or evaluation when selling OREO if the sale is consummated based on a
valid appraisal or an appropriate evaluation.
Sec. 34.86 Additional expenditures and notification.
(a) Additional expenditures on OREO. For OREO that is a development
or improvement project, a national bank may make advances to complete
the project if the advances:
(1) Are reasonably calculated to reduce any shortfall between the
parcel's market value and the bank's recorded investment amount;
(2) Are not made for the purpose of speculation in real estate; and
(3) Are consistent with safe and sound banking practices.
(b) Notification procedures. (1) A national bank shall notify the
appropriate supervisory office at least 30 days before implementing a
development or improvement plan for OREO when the sum of the plan's
estimated cost and the bank's current
[[Page 11303]]
recorded investment amount (including any unpaid prior liens on the
property) exceeds 10 percent of the bank's capital and surplus. A
national bank need notify the OCC under this paragraph (b)(1) only
once. A national bank need not notify the OCC that the bank intends to
re-fit an existing building for new tenants or to make normal repairs
and incur maintenance costs to protect the value of the collateral.
(2) The required notification must demonstrate that the additional
expenditure is consistent with the conditions and limitations in
paragraph (a) of this section.
(3) Unless informed otherwise, the bank may implement the proposed
plan on the thirty-first day (or sooner, if notified by the OCC)
following receipt by the OCC of the bank's notification, subject to any
conditions imposed by the OCC.
Sec. 34.87 Accounting treatment.
A national bank shall account for OREO, and sales of OREO, in
accordance with the Instructions for the preparation of the
Consolidated Reports of Condition and Income.
Dated: March 7, 1996.
Eugene A. Ludwig,
Comptroller of the Currency.
[FR Doc. 96-6481 Filed 3-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810-33-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6438 Pesticide Tolerance for Cadre
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11311-11313]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6438]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 180
[PP 4F4390/R2215; FRL-5354-3]
Pesticide Tolerance for Cadre
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This regulation establishes a tolerance for residues of the
new herbicide, (AC 263,222) (+)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-
methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-methyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid
applied as its ammonium salt and its metabolite (+)-2-[4,5- dihydro-4-
methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-hydromethyl-3-
pyridinecarboxylic acid both free and conjugated, in or on peanut nut
meat at 0.1 ppm. The regulation to establish a maximum permissible
level for the residues of the herbicide was requested in petitions
submitted by American Cyanamid Company.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation becomes effective March 20, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written objections and hearing requests, identified by the
docket number, [PP 4F4390/R2215], may be submitted to: Hearing Clerk
(1900), Environmental Protection Agency, Room M3708, 401 M St., SW.,
Washington, DC 20460. A copy of any objections and hearing request
filed with the Hearing Clerk should be identified by the docket number
and submitted to: Public Response and Program Resources Branch, Field
Operations Division (7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,
Environmental Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW., Washington, DC 20450.
In person, bring copy of objections and hearing request to: Room 1132,
CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA 22202. Fees
accompanying objections shall be labeled ``Tolerance Petition Fees''
and forwarded to: EPA Headquarters Accounting Operations Branch, OPP
(Tolerance Fees), P.O. Box 360277M, Pittsburgh, PA 15251.
A copy of objections and hearing requests filed with the Hearing
Clerk may also be submitted electronically by sending electronic mail
(e-mail) to: [email protected]. Copies of objections and
hearing requests must be submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the use of
special characters and any form of encryption. Copies of objections and
hearing requests will also be accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1 file
format or ASCII file format. All copies of objections and hearing
requests in electronic form must be identified by the docket number [PP
4F4390/R2215]. No Confidential Business Information (CBI) should be
submitted through e-mail. Electronic copies of objections and hearing
requests on this rule may be filed online at many Federal Depository
Libraries. Additional information on electronic submissions can be
found below in this document.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By mail: Robert J. Taylor, Product
Manager (PM) 25, Registration Division (7505C), Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M. St., SW., Washington, DC 20460. Office
location and telephone number: Rm. 241, CM #2, 1921 Jefferson Davis
Highway, Arlington, VA 22202, 703-305-6027, e-mail:
[email protected].
[[Page 11312]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA issued a notice, published in the
Federal Register on (August 17, 1995) (FRL-4963-7), which announced
that the American Cyanamid Company, P.O. Box 400, Princeton, NJ 08543-
0400, had submitted pesticide petition, PP 4F4390 to EPA requesting
that the Administrator, pursuant to section 408(d) of the Federal Food,
Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA), 21 U.S.C. 34a(d), amend 40 CFR part
180, by establishing a regulation to permit residues of the herbicide,
(+)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1- methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-
5-methyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid applied as its ammonium salt and its
metabolite (+)-2-[4,5- dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-
imidazol-2-yl]-5- hydromethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid both free and
conjugated, in or on the raw agricultural commodity (RAC), peanut
nutmeat at 0.1 part per million ppm.
There were no comments or requests for referral to an advisory
committee received in response to the notice of filing.
Discussion of Toxicology Data
The scientific data submitted in the petition and all other
relevant material have been evaluated. The toxicology data listed below
were considered in support of this tolerance.
1. An acute oral toxicity study in rats utilizing AC 263,222 as the
test material resulted in a LD50 of greater than 5,000 mg/kg
(males and females).
2. An acute dermal toxicity study in rabbits utilizing AC 263,222
as the test material resulted in a LD50 of greater than 2,000 mg/
kg (males and females).
3. An acute inhalation toxicity study in rats utilizing AC 263,222
as the test material resulted in a LC50 of greater than 5.52 mg/
liter (males and females).
4. In a 21-day dermal study in rabbits, AC 263,222 was applied at
dose levels of 0, 250, 500 or 1,000 mg/kg/day. The no-observed-effect-
level (NOEL) was 1,000 mg/kg/day for both systemic toxicity and dermal
irritation. The lowest observed effect level (LEL) was not determined
(greater than 1,000 mg/kg/day).
5. In a 3-month subchronic feeding study, AC 263,222 was
administered in the diet to male and female Sprague-Dawley rats at dose
levels of 0, 5,000, 10,000 or 20,000 ppm (0, 386, 760 or 1,522 mg/kg/
day in males and 0, 429, 848 or 1,728 mg/kg/day in females). No
treatment-related effects were observed. The NOEL was 20,000 ppm. The
LEL was not determined (greater than 20,000 ppm).
6. A 2-year combined chronic feeding/carcinogenicity study was
conducted with rats. AC 263,222 was administered in the diet to male
and female Sprague-Dawley rats at dose levels of 0, 5,000, 10,000 or
20,000 ppm (0, 253, 505 or 1,029 mg/kg/day in males and 0, 308, 609 or
1,237 mg/kg/day in females). No treatment-related effects were observed
and no increase in tumors was observed at any dose level. The NOEL for
both male and female rats was 20,000 ppm. A LEL was not determined
(greater than 20,000 ppm).
7. In a 1-year chronic feeding study, AC 263,222 was administered
in the diet to male and female beagle dogs at dose levels of 0, 5,000,
20,000 or 40,000 ppm (0, 137, 501 or 1,141 mg/kg/day in males and 0,
180, 534 or 1,092 mg/kg/day in females). The NOEL was not determined in
this study (below 5,000 ppm). The LEL was 5,000 ppm, based on slight
degeneration/necrosis and lymphocyte/macrophage infiltration in
skeletal muscle in males and females and slightly decreased creatinine
levels in females.
8. An 18-month carcinogenicity study was conducted with mice. AC
263,222 was administered in the diet to male and female CD-1 mice at
dose levels of 0, 1,750, 3,500 or 7,000 ppm (0, 271, 551 or 1,134 mg/
kg/day in males and 0, 369, 733 or 1,422 mg/kg/day in females). No
treatment-related effects were observed and no increase in tumors was
observed at any dose level. The NOEL for both male and female mice was
7,000 ppm. A LEL was not determined (greater than 7,000 ppm).
9. A developmental toxicity study was conducted with rats. AC
263,222 was administered orally by gavage to pregnant Sprague-Dawley
rats at dose levels of 0, 250, 500 or 1,000 mg/kg/day during gestation
days 6 to 15. The maternal NOEL was 1,000 mg/kg/day. The maternal LEL
was not determined (greater than 1,000 mg/kg/day). The developmental
NOEL was 1,000 mg/kg/day. The developmental LEL was not determined
(greater than 1,000 mg/kg/day).
10. In a developmental toxicity study with rabbits, AC 263,222 was
administered orally by gavage to pregnant rabbits at dose levels of 0,
175, 350, 500 or 700 mg/kg/day during gestation days 7 to 19. The
maternal NOEL was 350 mg/kg/day. The maternal LEL was 500 mg/kg/day,
based on decreased body weight gain and decreased food consumption. The
developmental NOEl was 500 mg/kg/day. The developmental LEL was not
determined (greater than 500 mg/kg/day).
11. A reproduction study was conducted with rats. AC 263,222 was
administered in the diet for 2 generations to Sprague-Dawley rats at
dose levels of 0, 5,000, 10,000 or 20,000 ppm (equivalent to premating
dose levels of 0, 301, 605 or 1,205 mg/kg/day in males and to premating
dose levels of 0, 378, 737 or 1,484 mg/kg/day in females). The NOEL for
both parents and offspring in the study was 20,000 ppm. A LEL was not
determined (greater than 20,000 ppm).
12. Mutagenicity data included an Ames assay in S. typhimurium TA
strains and E. coli WP2 (negative with and without metabolic
activation), a forward mutation assay in CHO/HGPRT cells (negative with
and without metabolic activation), an in vitro chromosomal aberration
assay in CHO cells (negative with and without metabolic activation) and
an in vivo bone marrow cytogenetic assay in rats (negative).
13. A metabolism study was conducted in which the absorption,
distribution, metabolism and excretion of 14C-AC 263,222 was
studied in male and female rats. Radioactivity was rapidly absorbed and
excreted, mostly in less than 6 hours. The major route of excretion was
the urine. No significant bioaccumulation occurred in tissues. Less
than 6% of the administered dose was metabolized, the majority of
radioactivity appearing in the urine as unchanged parent compound.
The Reference Dose (RfD) for AC 263,222 is 0.50 mg/kg/day. This
value is based on the LEL of 5,000 ppm (137 mg/kg/day in males and 180
mg/kg/day in females) determined in the 1-year chronic feeding study in
dogs. An uncertainty factor (UF) of 300 was applied to the NOEL based
on the following: an UF of 100 to account for inter-species
extrapolation and intra-species variability and an additional UF of 3
to account for the lack of a NOEL in the study.
Nature of the Residue and Analytical Method
The nature of the AC 263,222 residue in plants ruminants is
adequately understood. The residues of concern are the parent AC
263,222 and its hydroxymethyl metabolite, AC 263,284.
An adequately validated HPLC residue analytical method has been
presented to gather the magnitude of the residue data for AC 263,222
and its metabolite AC 263,284 ranging from 0.1 ppm to 5 pm in peanut
hulls and nutmeats. This method, M 2253.01, is suitable to enforce the
tolerances of 0.1 ppm.
[[Page 11313]]
The nature of the residue in poultry has not been defined. It has
been concluded that there is no reasonable expectation of finite AC
263,222 residues occurring in poultry from this use.
Since there are very low residues in peanuts and a livestock
feeding and grazing restriction on the AC 263,222 treated peanut hay,
there is no need to have cattle and poultry feeding studies; nor is
there any need for secondary tolerances of AC 263,222 and its
hydroxymethyl metabolite in meat, milk, poultry, and eggs in this
petition only.
Risk Assessment
The DRES chronic analysis used the Reference Dose (RfD) of 0.50 mg/
kg/day, based upon results in the 1-year chronic feeding study in dogs.
For chronic dietary exposure from the new use of AC 263,222 on
peanuts the TMRC for the general U.S. population and the most highly
exposed subgroups are as follows (as percent of the Reference Dose):
------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
U.S. population............................................ 0.0015%
Children (1-6 Years Old)................................... 0.0047%
Children (6-12 Years Old).................................. 0.0034%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
An acute dietary risk assessment is not required for AC 263,222.
The pesticide is considered useful for the purpose for which the
tolerance is sought. Based on the information and data considered, the
Agency has determined that the tolerance established by amending 40 CFR
part 180 will protect the public health. Therefore, the tolerance is
established as set forth below.
Any person adversely affected by this regulation may, within 30
days after publication of this document in the Federal Register, file
written objections and/or request a hearing with the Hearing Clerk, at
the address given above (40 CFR 178.20). A copy of the objections and/
or hearing requests filed with the Hearing Clerk should be submitted to
the OPP docket for this rulemaking. The objections submitted must
specify the provisions of the regulation deemed objectionable and the
grounds for the objections (40 CFR 178.25). Each objection must be
accompanied by the fees provided by 40 CFR 180.33(i). If a hearing is
requested, the objections must include a statement of the factual
issue(s) on which a hearing is requested, and the requestor's
contentions on each such issue, and a summary of the evidence relied
upon by the objection (40 CFR 178.27). A request for a hearing will be
granted if the Administrator determines that the material submitted
shows the following: there is a genuine and substantial issue of fact;
there is a reasonable possibility that available evidence identified by
the requestor would, if established, resolve on or more of such issues
in favor of the requestor, taking into account uncontested claims or
facts to the contrary; and resolution of the factual issue(s) in the
manner sought by the requestor would be adequate to justify the action
requested (40 CFR 178.32).
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the
Agency must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant''
and therefore subject to all the requirements of the Executive Order
(i.e., Regulatory Impact Analysis, review by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB)). Under section 3(f), the order defines
``significant'' as those actions likely to lead to a rule (1) having an
annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or adversely and
materially affecting a sector of the economy, productivity,
competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State,
local or tribal governments or communities (also known as
``economically significant''); (2) creating serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfering with an action taken or planned by another
agency; (3) materially altering the budgetary impacts of entitlement,
grants, user fees, or loan programs; or (4) raising novel legal or
policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles set forth in this Executive Order.
Pursuant to the terms of this Executive Order, EPA has determined
that this rule is not ``significant'' and is therefore not subject to
OMB review.
Pursuant to the requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act
(Pub. L. 96-354, 94 Stat. 1164, 5 U.S.C. 601-612), the Administrator
has determined that regulations establishing new tolerances or raising
tolerance levels or establishing exemptions from tolerance requirements
do not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. A certification statement to this effect was published
in the Federal Register of May 4, 1981 (46 FR 24950).
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 180
Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure,
Agricultural commodities, Pesticides and pests, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 5, 1996.
Penelope A. Fenner-Crisp,
Acting Director, Office of Pesticide Programs.
Therefore, chapter I of title 40 Code of Federal Regulations is
amended as follows:
PART 180--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 180 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 346a and 371.
2. By adding Sec. 180.490 to subpart C, to read as follows:
Sec. 180.490 Cadre, tolerance for residues.
Tolerance is established for residues of the herbicide; (+)-2-[4,5-
dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-methyl-3-
pyridinecarboxylic acid applied as its ammonium salt and its metabolite
(+)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-
5-hydromethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acid both free and conjugated; in or
on the following raw agricultural commodity:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Parts
Commodities per
million
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peanut nutmeat 0.1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. 96-6438 Filed 3-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-6418 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development; Community Development Block Grant Program; Streamlining Final Rule
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 55 (Wednesday, March 20, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 11474-11482]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-6418]
[[Page 11473]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part II
Department of Housing and Urban Development
_______________________________________________________________________
24 CFR Part 570
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and
Development; Community Development Block Grant Program; Streamlining;
Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 55 / Wednesday, March 20, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 11474]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
24 CFR Part 570
[Docket No. FR-3978-F-01]
RIN 2506-AB77
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and
Development; Community Development Block Grant Program; Streamlining
Final Rule
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and
Development, HUD.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends HUD's regulations for the Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. In an effort to comply with the
President's regulatory reform initiatives, this rule will streamline
the CDBG regulations by eliminating provisions that are redundant of
statutes or are otherwise unnecessary. This final rule will make the
CDBG regulations clearer and more concise.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 19, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Deirdre Maguire-Zinni, Director,
Entitlement Communities Division, Room 7282, Department of Housing and
Urban Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20410,
telephone number (202) 708-1577. (This telephone number is not toll-
free). Hearing- or speech-impaired persons may access this number via
TDD by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at (800) 877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On March 4, 1995, President Clinton issued a
memorandum to all Federal departments and agencies regarding regulatory
reinvention. In response to this memorandum, the Department of Housing
and Urban Development conducted a page-by-page review of its
regulations to determine which can be eliminated, consolidated, or
otherwise improved. While the Community Development Block Grant
regulations serve as important program guidance, HUD has determined
that the regulations can be improved and streamlined by eliminating
unnecessary provisions.
Several provisions in the CDBG regulations repeat statutory
language from the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 5301 et seq.) (the Act), and other statutes. It is
unnecessary to maintain statutory requirements in the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR), since those requirements are otherwise fully
accessible and binding. Furthermore, if regulations contain statutory
language, HUD must amend the regulations whenever Congress amends the
statute. Therefore, this final rule will remove repetitious statutory
language and replace it with a citation to the specific statutory
section for easy reference.
Other provisions in the CDBG regulations apply to more than one
program, and therefore HUD repeated these provisions in different
subparts within part 570. This repetition is unnecessary, and updating
these scattered provisions is cumbersome and often creates confusion.
Therefore, this final rule will consolidate these duplicative
provisions.
Some provisions in the CDBG regulations are obsolete. For instance,
Congress has not appropriated funds for the Urban Development Action
Grant (UDAG) program since Fiscal Year 1988. While several approved
grants have not yet reached the final close-out stage, it is
unnecessary for HUD to maintain all of the regulations for these
grants. Therefore, this rule removes many of the UDAG provisions from
subpart G of part 570, such as those related to the submission and
approval of applications for new grants. This rule also removes
obsolete regulations regarding Urban Renewal projects in subpart N.
Loans and grants are no longer authorized under the Urban Renewal
program. All of the existing projects are the subject of close-out
agreements that contain all the regulatory provisions. Therefore, HUD
can remove the obsolete regulations in subpart N.
This final rule makes the following specific amendments:
1. Amends Sec. 570.1 by updating paragraphs (a)(4) and (b) to refer
to Special Purpose Grants, rather than the Secretary's Fund program;
2. Moves the essential language of Sec. 570.2 into a new paragraph
(c) in Sec. 570.1, and removes the unnecessary remainder of Sec. 570.2;
3. Amends Sec. 570.3 by removing the statutory language from
several definitions, by updating the definition of ``CDBG funds'' to
include funds received under Sec. 570.405 or under section 108(q) of
the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, and by updating the
definition of ``Discretionary grant'' to refer to Special Purpose
Grants, rather than to the Secretary's Fund;
4. Adds a streamlined Sec. 570.5, which contains a reference to
HUD's waiver authority in the CDBG program. This section was
inadvertently removed in the General HUD Program Requirements final
rule, published in the Federal Register on February 9, 1996 (61 FR
5198);
5. Amends Sec. 570.200(a)(3) by removing the statutory language and
clarifying the requirements for the HUD-administered Small Cities
Program. This rule also corrects Sec. 570.200(a)(3), which was recently
amended in a final rule published on November 9, 1995 (60 FR 56892), to
clarify that Insular areas must use 70 percent of their CDBG funds for
activities that benefit low- to moderate-income persons each year;
6. Removes obsolete provisions regarding the New Communities
program, maintaining a savings clause in Sec. 570.403;
7. Corrects Sec. 570.420(e)(2) to refer to Sec. 570.208(d)(5) or
(6), in addition to Sec. 570.208(a);
8. Removes obsolete provisions regarding the UDAG program from
subpart G;
9. Consolidates, to the extent possible, the provisions in
Secs. 570.488 and 570.606, which are essentially the same. In effect,
this rule removes most of the information in Sec. 570.488, maintaining
a cross-reference to Sec. 570.606, and makes minor conforming changes
to Sec. 570.606 so that it applies both to grantees and States/state
recipients. This rule makes no substantive changes to the requirements
in Sec. 570.606;
10. Removes the statutory and other repetitive language in
Secs. 570.600, 570.601, 570.603, 570.604, 570.605, 570.608, 570.701,
and 570.706, maintaining statutory citations for easy reference;
11. Makes conforming changes to Secs. 570.703(d) and 570.704 to
reflect the consolidation of Secs. 570.488 and 570.606;
12. Removes obsolete provisions regarding Urban Renewal projects
from subpart N, maintaining a savings clause in Sec. 570.800; and
13. Makes conforming changes to Sec. 570.904 to reflect this rule's
amendment to Sec. 570.601.
This final rule will eliminate approximately 34 pages of unnecessary
regulations from the CFR.
Justification for Final Rulemaking
HUD generally publishes a rule for public comment before issuing a
rule for effect, in accordance with its own regulations on rulemaking
in 24 CFR part 10. However, part 10 provides for exceptions to the
general rule if the agency finds good cause to omit advance notice and
public participation. The good cause requirement is satisfied when
prior public procedure is ``impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to
the public interest'' (24 CFR 10.1).
[[Page 11475]]
HUD finds that good cause exists to publish this rule for effect
without first soliciting public comment. This rule merely removes
unnecessary regulatory provisions and does not establish or affect
substantive policy. Therefore, prior public comment is unnecessary.
Other Matters
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Secretary, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed and approved this final rule, and in so
doing certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule streamlines
the Community Development Block Grant regulations by removing
unnecessary provisions. The rule will have no adverse or
disproportionate economic impact on small businesses.
Environmental Impact
This rule does not have an environmental impact. This rule simply
amends existing regulations by consolidating and streamlining
provisions; it does not alter the environmental effect of the
regulations being amended. At the time of development of regulations in
part 570, a Finding of No Significant Impact with respect to the
environment was made in accordance with HUD regulations in 24 CFR part
50 that implement section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332). That finding remains applicable to
this rule, and is available for public inspection between 7:30 a.m. and
5:30 p.m. weekdays in the Office of the Rules Docket Clerk, Office of
General Counsel, Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC.
Executive Order 12612, Federalism
The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under section 6(a)
of Executive Order 12612, Federalism, has determined that this rule
will not have substantial direct effects on States or their political
subdivisions, or the relationship between the Federal Government and
the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among
the various levels of Government. No programmatic or policy changes
will result from this rule that would affect the relationship between
the Federal Government and State and local governments.
Executive Order 12606, The Family
The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under Executive
Order 12606, The Family, has determined that this rule will not have
the potential for significant impact on family formation, maintenance,
or general well-being, and thus is not subject to review under the
Order. No significant change in existing HUD policies or programs will
result from promulgation of this rule.
List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 570
Administrative practice and procedure, American Samoa, Community
development block grants, Grant programs--education, Grant programs--
housing and community development, Guam, Indians, Lead poisoning, Loan
programs--housing and community development, Low and moderate income
housing, New communities, Northern Mariana Islands, Pacific Islands
Trust Territory, Pockets of poverty, Puerto Rico, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Small cities, Student aid, Virgin Islands.
Accordingly, 24 CFR part 570 is amended as follows:
PART 570--COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANTS
1. The authority citation for part 570 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 5300-5320.
Subpart A--General Provisions
2. Section 570.1 is amended by revising the section heading,
paragraph (a)(4), and the second sentence of paragraph (b); and by
adding a new paragraph (c), to read as follows:
Sec. 570.1 Purpose and primary objective.
(a) * * *
(4) Special Purpose Grants (subpart E);
* * * * *
(b) * * * In the application of the subparts to Special Purpose
Grants or the Urban Development Action Grant program, the reference to
funds in the form of grants in the term ``CDBG funds'', as defined in
Sec. 570.3, shall mean the grant funds under those programs. * * *
(c) The primary objective of the programs authorized under title I
of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, as amended, is
described in section 101(c) of the Act (42 U.S.C. 5301(c)).
Sec. 570.2 [Removed]
3. Section 570.2 is removed.
4. Section 570.3 is amended by adding introductory text; and by
revising the definitions of ``Age of housing'', ``Buildings for the
general conduct of government'', ``CDBG funds'', ``Discretionary
grant'', ``Extent of growth lag'', ``Extent of housing overcrowding'',
``Indian tribe'', ``Metropolitan area'', ``Metropolitan city'',
``Microenterprise'', ``Nonentitlement area'', ``State'', ``Unit of
general local government'', and ``Urban county''; to read as follows:
Sec. 570.3 Definitions.
The terms HUD and Secretary are defined in 24 CFR part 5. All of
the following definitions in this section that rely on data from the
United States Bureau of the Census shall rely upon the data available
from the latest decennial census.
* * * * *
Age of housing means the number of year-round housing units, as
further defined in section 102(a)(11) of the Act.
* * * * *
Buildings for the general conduct of government shall have the
meaning provided in section 102(a)(21) of the Act.
CDBG funds means Community Development Block Grant funds, including
funds received in the form of grants under subpart D, F, or
Sec. 570.405 of this part, funds awarded under section 108(q) of the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974, loans guaranteed under
subpart M of this part, urban renewal surplus grant funds, and program
income as defined in Sec. 570.500(a).
* * * * *
Discretionary grant means a grant made from the various Special
Purpose Grants in accordance with subpart E of this part.
* * * * *
Extent of growth lag shall have the meaning provided in section
102(a)(12) of the Act.
Extent of housing overcrowding shall have the meaning provided in
section 102(a)(10) of the Act.
* * * * *
Indian tribe shall have the meaning provided in section 102(a)(17)
of the Act.
* * * * *
Metropolitan area shall have the meaning provided in section
102(a)(3) of the Act.
Metropolitan city shall have the meaning provided in section
102(a)(4) of the Act.
Microenterprise shall have the meaning provided in section
102(a)(22) of the Act.
* * * * *
Nonentitlement area shall have the meaning provided in section
102(a)(7) of the Act.
* * * * *
[[Page 11476]]
State shall have the meaning provided in section 102(a)(2) of the
Act.
Unit of general local government shall have the meaning provided in
section 102(a)(1) of the Act.
Urban county shall have the meaning provided in section 102(a)(6)
of the Act. For the purposes of this definition, HUD will determine
whether the county's combined population contains the required
percentage of low- and moderate-income persons by identifying the
number of persons that resided in applicable areas and units of general
local government based on data from the most recent decennial census,
and using income limits that would have applied for the year in which
that census was taken.
* * * * *
5. Section 570.5 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 570.5 Wavers.
HUD's authority for the waiver of regulations and for the
suspension of requirements to address damage in a Presidentially
declared disaster area is described in 24 CFR part 5 and in section 122
of the Act, respectively.
Subpart C--Eligible Activities
6. Section 570.200 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (a)(3) to read as follows:
Sec. 570.200 General policies.
(a) * * *
(3) Compliance with the primary objective. The primary objective of
the Act is described in section 101(c) of the Act. Consistent with this
objective, Entitlement recipients and recipients of the HUD-
administered Small Cities program in Hawaii must ensure that over a
period of time specified in their certification not to exceed three
years, not less than 70 percent of the aggregate of CDBG fund
expenditures shall be for activities meeting the criteria under
Sec. 570.208(a) or Sec. 570.208(d)(5) or (6) for benefitting low- and
moderate-income persons; Insular area recipients must meet this
requirement for each separate grant. The requirements for the HUD-
administered Small Cities program in New York are in
Sec. 570.420(e)(2). Additional requirements for the HUD-administered
Small Cities program in Hawaii are in Sec. 570.430(e). In determining
the percentage of funds expended for such activities:
* * * * *
7. Section 570.403 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 570.403 New Communities.
The regulations for New Communities grants in this section, that
were effective immediately before April 19, 1996, will continue to
govern the rights and obligations of recipients and HUD with respect to
grants under the New Communities program.
Subpart F--Small Cities
8. Section 570.420 is amended by revising the first sentence of
paragraph (e)(2) to read as follows:
Sec. 570.420 General.
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(2) In addition to the objectives described in paragraph (e)(1) of
this section, with respect to grants made through the Small Cities
Program, not less than 70 percent of the total of grant funds from each
grant and Section 108 loan guarantee funds received under subpart M of
this part within a fiscal year must be expended for activities which
benefit low- and moderate-income persons under the criteria of
Sec. 570.208(a) or Sec. 570.208(d)(5) or (6). * * *
* * * * *
Subpart G--Urban Development Action Grants
9. Section 570.450 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 570.450 Purpose.
The purpose of urban development action grants is to assist cities
and urban counties that are experiencing severe economic distress to
help stimulate economic development activity needed to aid in economic
recovery. This subpart G contains those regulations that are essential
for the continued operation of this grant program.
Secs. 570.451, 570.452, 570.453, 570.454, 570.455, 570.458, 570.459,
and 570.460 [Removed]
10. Sections 570.451, 570.452, 570.453, 570.454, 570.455, 570.458,
570.459, and 570.460 are removed.
11. Section 570.461 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 570.461 Post-preliminary approval requirements; Lead-based paint.
The recipient may receive preliminary approval prior to the
accomplishment of notification, inspection, testing, and abatement as
described in Sec. 570.608, but no funds will be released until such
actions are complete and evidence of compliance is submitted to HUD.
Sec. 570.462 [Removed]
12. Section 570.462 is removed.
13. Section 570.463 is amended by revising the undesignated
sentence of paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 570.463 Project amendments and revisions.
(a) * * * The applicant must hold at least one public hearing prior
to making a significant revision to the application.
* * * * *
14. Section 570.466 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 570.466 Additional application submission requirements for
Pockets of Poverty--employment opportunities.
Applicants for Action Grants under the Pockets of Poverty provision
must describe the number and, to the extent possible, the types of new
jobs (construction and permanent) that will be provided to the low- and
moderate-income residents of the Pocket of Poverty as a direct result
of the proposed project. If the application calls for job training
programs (such as those related to the CETA program) or job recruiting
services for the pocket's residents, then such proposed activities must
be clearly and fully explained. HUD requires applicants to ensure that
at least 75 percent of whatever permanent jobs initially result from
the project are provided to low- and moderate-income persons and that
at least 51 percent of whatever permanent jobs initially result from
the project are provided to low- and moderate-income residents from the
pocket. HUD encourages applicants to ensure that at least 20 percent of
all permanent jobs are filled by persons from the pocket qualified to
participate in the CETA program on a continuous basis. HUD requires all
applicants to continuously use best efforts to ensure that at least 75
percent of all permanent jobs resulting from any Action Grant-assisted
project are provided to low- and moderate-income persons and that at
least 51 percent of all permanent jobs resulting from any Action Grant-
assisted project are provided to low- and moderate-income residents
from the pocket. The application should clearly describe how the
applicant intends to meet initial and continuous job requirements.
Private participating parties must meet these employment requirements
in the aggregate. To enable the private participants to do so, lease
agreements executed by a private participating party shall include:
(a) Provisions requiring lessees to follow hiring practices that
the private participating party has determined will enable it to meet
these requirements in the aggregate; and
(b) Provisions that will enable the private participating party to
declare a default under the lease agreement if the lessees do not
follow such practices.
[[Page 11477]]
Sec. 570.467 [Removed]
15. Section 570.467 is removed. Subpart I--State Community
Development Block Grant Program
16. Section 570.480 is amended by revising the last sentence of
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 570.480 General.
(a) * * * Other subparts of part 570 are not applicable to the
State CDBG Program, except as expressly provided otherwise.
* * * * *
17. Section 570.488 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 570.488 Displacement, relocation, acquisition, and replacement of
housing.
The requirements for States and state recipients with regard to the
displacement, relocation, acquisition, and replacement of housing are
in Sec. 570.606 and 24 CFR part 42.
Subpart K--Other Program Requirements
18. Section 570.600 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 570.600 General.
(a) This subpart K enumerates laws that the Secretary will treat as
applicable to grants made under section 106 of the Act, other than
grants to States made pursuant to section 106(d) of the Act, for
purposes of the Secretary's determinations under section 104(e)(1) of
the Act, including statutes expressly made applicable by the Act and
certain other statutes and Executive Orders for which the Secretary has
enforcement responsibility. This subpart K applies to grants made under
the Insular areas program in Sec. 570.405, with the exception of
Sec. 570.612. The absence of mention herein of any other statute for
which the Secretary does not have direct enforcement responsibility is
not intended to be taken as an indication that, in the Secretary's
opinion, such statute or Executive Order is not applicable to
activities assisted under the Act. For laws that the Secretary will
treat as applicable to grants made to States under section 106(d) of
the Act for purposes of the determination required to be made by the
Secretary pursuant to section 104(e)(2) of the Act, see Sec. 570.487.
* * * * *
19. Section 570.601 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 570.601 Public Law 88-352 and Public Law 90-284; affirmatively
furthering fair housing; Executive Order 11063.
(a) The following requirements apply according to sections 104(b)
and 107 of the Act:
(1) Public Law 88-352, which is title VI of the Civil Rights Act of
1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), and implementing regulations in 24 CFR
part 1.
(2) Public Law 90-284, which is the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C.
3601-3620). In accordance with the Fair Housing Act, the Secretary
requires that grantees administer all programs and activities related
to housing and community development in a manner to affirmatively
further the policies of the Fair Housing Act. Furthermore, in
accordance with section 104(b)(2) of the Act, for each community
receiving a grant under subpart D of this part, the certification that
the grantee will affirmatively further fair housing shall specifically
require the grantee to assume the responsibility of fair housing
planning by conducting an analysis to identify impediments to fair
housing choice within its jurisdiction, taking appropriate actions to
overcome the effects of any impediments identified through that
analysis, and maintaining records reflecting the analysis and actions
in this regard.
(b) Executive Order 11063, as amended by Executive Order 12259 (3
CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 652; 3 CFR, 1980 Comp., p. 307) (Equal
Opportunity in Housing), and implementing regulations in 24 CFR part
107, also apply.
20. Section 570.603 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 570.603 Labor standards.
(a) Section 110(a) of the Act contains labor standards that apply
to nonvolunteer labor financed in whole or in part with assistance
received under the Act. In accordance with section 110(a) of the Act,
the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act (40 U.S.C. 327 et
seq.) also applies. However, these requirements apply to the
rehabilitation of residential property only if such property contains
not less than 8 units.
(b) The regulations in 24 CFR part 70 apply to the use of
volunteers.
21. Section 570.604 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 570.604 Environmental standards.
For purposes of section 104(g) of the Act, the regulations in 24
CFR part 58 specify the other provisions of law which further the
purposes of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the
procedures by which grantees must fulfill their environmental
responsibilities. In certain cases, grantees assume these environmental
review, decisionmaking, and action responsibilities by execution of
grant agreements with the Secretary.
22. Section 570.605 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 570.605 National Flood Insurance Program.
Notwithstanding the date of HUD approval of the recipient's
application (or, in the case of grants made under subpart D of this
part or HUD-administered small cities recipients in Hawaii, the date of
submission of the grantee's consolidated plan, in accordance with 24
CFR part 91), section 202(a) of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of
1973 (42 U.S.C. 4106) and the regulations in 44 CFR parts 59 through 79
apply to funds provided under this part 570.
23. Section 570.606 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 570.606 Displacement, relocation, acquisition, and replacement of
housing.
(a) General policy for minimizing displacement. Consistent with the
other goals and objectives of this part, grantees (or States or state
recipients, as applicable) shall assure that they have taken all
reasonable steps to minimize the displacement of persons (families,
individuals, businesses, nonprofit organizations, and farms) as a
result of activities assisted under this part.
(b) Relocation assistance for displaced persons at URA levels. (1)
A displaced person shall be provided with relocation assistance at the
levels described in, and in accordance with the requirements of 49 CFR
part 24, which contains the government-wide regulations implementing
the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition
Policies Act of 1970 (URA) (42 U.S.C. 4601-4655).
(2) Displaced person. (i) For purposes of paragraph (b) of this
section, the term ``displaced person'' means any person (family,
individual, business, nonprofit organization, or farm) that moves from
real property, or moves his or her personal property from real
property, permanently and involuntarily, as a direct result of
rehabilitation, demolition, or acquisition for an activity assisted
under this part. A permanent, involuntary move for an assisted activity
includes a permanent move from real property that is made:
(A) After notice by the grantee (or the state recipient, if
applicable) to move permanently from the property, if the move occurs
after the initial official submission to HUD (or the State, as
[[Page 11478]]
applicable) for grant, loan, or loan guarantee funds under this part
that are later provided or granted.
(B) After notice by the property owner to move permanently from the
property, if the move occurs after the date of the submission of a
request for financial assistance by the property owner (or person in
control of the site) that is later approved for the requested activity.
(C) Before the date described in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) or (B) of
this section, if either HUD or the grantee (or State, as applicable)
determines that the displacement directly resulted from acquisition,
rehabilitation, or demolition for the requested activity.
(D) After the ``initiation of negotiations'' if the person is the
tenant-occupant of a dwelling unit and any one of the following three
situations occurs:
(1) The tenant has not been provided with a reasonable opportunity
to lease and occupy a suitable decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling in
the same building/complex upon the completion of the project, including
a monthly rent that does not exceed the greater of the tenant's monthly
rent and estimated average utility costs before the initiation of
negotiations or 30 percent of the household's average monthly gross
income; or
(2) The tenant is required to relocate temporarily for the activity
but the tenant is not offered payment for all reasonable out-of-pocket
expenses incurred in connection with the temporary relocation,
including the cost of moving to and from the temporary location and any
increased housing costs, or other conditions of the temporary
relocation are not reasonable; and the tenant does not return to the
building/complex; or
(3) The tenant is required to move to another unit in the building/
complex, but is not offered reimbursement for all reasonable out-of-
pocket expenses incurred in connection with the move.
(ii) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (b)(2)(i) of this
section, the term ``displaced person-'' does not include:
(A) A person who is evicted for cause based upon serious or
repeated violations of material terms of the lease or occupancy
agreement. To exclude a person on this basis, the grantee (or State or
state recipient, as applicable) must determine that the eviction was
not undertaken for the purpose of evading the obligation to provide
relocation assistance under this section;
(B) A person who moves into the property after the date of the
notice described in paragraph (b)(2)(i)(A) or (B) of this section, but
who received a written notice of the expected displacement before
occupancy.
(C) A person who is not displaced as described in 49 CFR
24.2(g)(2).
(D) A person who the grantee (or State, as applicable) determines
is not displaced as a direct result of the acquisition, rehabilitation,
or demolition for an assisted activity. To exclude a person on this
basis, HUD must concur in that determination.
(iii) A grantee (or State or state recipient, as applicable) may,
at any time, request HUD to determine whether a person is a displaced
person under this section.
(3) Initiation of negotiations. For purposes of determining the
type of replacement housing assistance to be provided under paragraph
(b) of this section, if the displacement is the direct result of
privately undertaken rehabilitation, demolition, or acquisition of real
property, the term ``initiation of negotiations'' means the execution
of the grant or loan agreement between the grantee (or State or state
recipient, as applicable) and the person owning or controlling the real
property.
(c) Residential antidisplacement and relocation assistance plan. In
accordance with section 104(d) of the Act, each grantee must adopt,
make public, and certify (or, as applicable, each State must ensure
that each state recipient adopts, makes public, and certifies to the
State) that it is following a residential antidisplacement and
relocation assistance plan providing one-for-one replacement units
(paragraph (c)(1) of this section), and relocation assistance
(paragraph (c)(2) of this section). As applicable, section 106(d)(5)(A)
of the Act requires the state recipient also to certify to the State
that it will minimize displacement of persons as a result of assisted
activities. Except with regard to the State CDBG Program, the plan
shall also indicate the steps that will be taken consistent with other
goals and objectives of this part to minimize the displacement of
families and individuals from their homes and neighborhoods as a result
of any activities assisted under this part.
(1) One-for-one replacement of low/moderate-income dwelling units.
(i) All occupied and vacant occupiable low/moderate-income dwelling
units that are demolished or converted to a use other than as low/
moderate-income dwelling units in connection with an activity assisted
under this part must be replaced with low/moderate-income dwelling
units.
(ii) Replacement low/moderate-income dwelling units may be provided
by any government agency or private developer, and must meet the
following requirements:
(A) The units must be located within the jurisdiction of the
grantee (or the state recipient, as applicable). To the extent feasible
and consistent with other statutory priorities, the units shall be
located within the same neighborhood as the units replaced.
(B) The units must be sufficient in number and size to house no
fewer than the number of occupants who could have been housed in the
units that are demolished or converted. The number of occupants who
could have been housed in units shall be determined in accordance with
applicable local housing occupancy codes. The grantee (or state
recipient, as applicable) may not replace those units with smaller
units (e.g., a 2-bedroom unit with two 1-bedroom units), unless the
grantee (or state recipient, as applicable) has provided the
information required under paragraph (c)(1)(iii)(G) of this section.
(C) The units must be provided in standard condition. Replacement
low/moderate-income dwelling units may include units that have been
raised to standard from substandard condition if:
(1) No person was displaced from the unit as a direct result of an
assisted activity (see definition of ``displaced person'' in paragraph
(c)(3)(ii) of this section; and
(2) The unit was vacant for at least three months before execution
of the agreement between the grantee and the property owner.
(D) The units must initially be made available for occupancy at any
time during the period beginning one year before the grantee's (or
state recipient's, as applicable) submission of the information
required under paragraph (c)(1)(iii) of this section and ending three
years after the commencement of the demolition or rehabilitation
related to the conversion.
(E) The units must be designed to remain low/moderate-income
dwelling units for at least 10 years from the date of initial
occupancy. Replacement low/moderate-income dwelling units may include,
but are not limited to, public housing, or existing housing receiving
Section 8 project-based assistance under the United States Housing Act
of 1937.
(iii) Before the grantee (or state recipient, as applicable) enters
into a contract committing it to provide funds under this part for any
activity that will directly result in the demolition of low/moderate-
income dwelling units or the conversion of low/moderate-income dwelling
units to another use, the grantee (or state recipient, as applicable)
must make public, and submit the
[[Page 11479]]
following information in writing to the HUD Field Office (or State, as
applicable) for monitoring purposes:
(A) A description of the proposed assisted activity;
(B) The location on a map and number of dwelling units by size
(number of bedrooms) that will be demolished or converted to a use
other than for low/moderate-income dwelling units as a direct result of
the assisted activity;
(C) A time schedule for the commencement and completion of the
demolition or conversion;
(D) The location on a map and the number of dwelling units by size
(number of bedrooms) that will be provided as replacement dwelling
units. If such data are not available at the time of the general
submission, the submission shall identify the general location on an
area map and the approximate number of dwelling units by size, and
information identifying the specific location and number of dwelling
units by size shall be submitted and disclosed to the public as soon as
it is available;
(E) The source of funding and a time schedule for the provision of
replacement dwelling units;
(F) The basis for concluding that each replacement dwelling unit
will remain a low/moderate-income dwelling unit for at least 10 years
from the date of initial occupancy; and
(G) Information demonstrating that any proposed replacement of
dwelling units with smaller dwelling units (e.g., a 2-bedroom unit with
two 1-bedroom units) is consistent with the needs analysis contained in
the HUD-approved consolidated plan; or, for purposes of the State CDBG
program, consistent with the housing needs of low- and moderate-income
households in the jurisdiction. A grantee that is not required to
submit a consolidated plan to HUD must submit information demonstrating
that the proposed replacement is consistent with the housing needs of
low- and moderate-income households in the jurisdiction.
(iv)(A) The one-for-one replacement requirement of paragraph (c)(1)
of this section does not apply to the extent the Field Office
determines, based upon objective data, that there is an adequate supply
of vacant low/moderate-income dwelling units in standard condition
available on a nondiscriminatory basis within the jurisdiction of the
grantee (or state recipient, as applicable). In determining the
adequacy of supply, HUD will consider whether the demolition or
conversion of the low/moderate-income dwelling units will have a
material impact on the ability of low- and moderate-income households
to find suitable housing. HUD will consider relevant evidence of
housing supply and demand including, but not limited to, the following
factors: the housing vacancy rate in the jurisdiction; the number of
vacant low/moderate-income dwelling units in the jurisdiction
(excluding units that will be demolished or converted); the number of
eligible families on waiting lists for housing assisted under the
United States Housing Act of 1937 in the jurisdiction; the needs
analysis contained in any applicable HUD-approved consolidated plan;
and relevant past or predicted demographic changes.
(B) HUD may consider the supply of vacant low/moderate-income
dwelling units in a standard condition available on a nondiscriminatory
basis in an area that is larger than the jurisdiction of the grantee
(or state recipient, as applicable). Such additional dwelling units
shall be considered if the Field Office determines that the units would
be suitable to serve the needs of the low- and moderate-income
households that could be served by the low/moderate-income dwelling
units that are to be demolished or converted to another use. HUD will
base this determination on geographic and demographic factors, such as
location and access to places of employment and to other facilities.
(C) The grantee (or state recipient, as applicable) must submit the
request for determination under paragraph (c)(1)(iv) of this section
directly to the Field Office (or State, as applicable). Simultaneously
with the submission of the request, the grantee (or state recipient, as
applicable) must make the submission public and inform interested
persons that they have 30 days from the date of submission to provide
to HUD (or to the State, as applicable) additional information
supporting or opposing the request. For purposes of the State CDBG
program, if the State, after considering the submission and the
additional data, agrees with the request, the State must provide its
recommendation with supporting information to HUD.
(2) Relocation assistance under section 104(d) of the Act. Under
section 104(d), each ``displaced person'' (defined in paragraph
(c)(3)(ii) of this section) is entitled to choose to receive either
assistance at URA levels (see paragraph (b) of this section) or the
following relocation assistance:
(i) Advisory services at the levels described in 49 CFR part 24,
subpart C (General Relocation Requirements). Tenants shall be advised
of their rights under the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601-19) and of
replacement housing opportunities in such a manner that, to the extent
feasible, will provide a choice between relocating within their
neighborhoods and other neighborhoods consistent with the
responsibility of the grantee (or the state recipient, as applicable)
to affirmatively further fair housing;
(ii) Payment for moving expenses at the levels described in 49 CFR
part 24, subpart D.
(iii) The reasonable and necessary cost of any security deposit
required to rent the replacement dwelling unit, and for credit checks
required to rent or purchase the replacement dwelling unit.
(iv) Interim living costs. The grantee (or state recipient, as
applicable) shall reimburse a person for actual reasonable out-of-
pocket costs incurred in connection with temporary relocation,
including moving expenses and increased housing costs, if:
(A) The person must relocate temporarily because continued
occupancy of the dwelling unit constitutes a substantial danger to the
health or safety of the person or the public; or
(B) The person is displaced from a ``low/moderate-income dwelling
unit,'' none of the comparable replacement dwelling units to which the
person has been referred qualifies as a low/moderate-income dwelling
unit (defined in paragraph (c)(3)(iii) of this section), and a suitable
low/moderate-income dwelling unit is scheduled to become available in
accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section. (Because a
``comparable replacement dwelling unit'' may be made affordable to a
person through a rental assistance payment and its market rent may
exceed the Fair Market Rent (FMR) under the Section 8 Existing Housing
Program, it may not meet the definition of a ``low/moderate-income
dwelling unit''.)
(v) Replacement housing assistance. Persons are eligible to receive
one of the following two forms of replacement housing assistance:
(A) Each person must be offered rental assistance equal to 60 times
the amount necessary to reduce the monthly rent and estimated average
monthly cost of utilities for a replacement dwelling (comparable
replacement dwelling or decent, safe, and sanitary replacement dwelling
to which the person relocates, whichever costs less) to the ``Total
Tenant Payment,'' as determined under Sec. 813.107 of this title. All
or a portion of this assistance may be offered through a certificate or
housing voucher for rental assistance (if available) provided through
the Local Public Agency under Section 8 of the United States Housing
Act of 1937. If a Section
[[Page 11480]]
8 certificate or housing voucher is provided to a person, the grantee
(or state recipient, as applicable) must provide referrals to
comparable replacement dwelling units for which the owner is willing to
participate in the Section 8 Existing Housing Program. To the extent
that cash assistance is provided, it will be provided in installments.
(B) If the person purchases an interest in a housing cooperative or
mutual housing association and occupies a decent, safe, and sanitary
dwelling in the cooperative or association, the person may elect to
receive a lump sum payment. This lump sum payment shall be equal to the
capitalized value of 60 monthly installments of the amount that is
obtained by subtracting the ``Total Tenant Payment,'' as determined
under Sec. 813.107 of this title, from the monthly rent and estimated
average monthly cost of utilities at a comparable replacement dwelling
unit. To compute the capitalized value, the installments shall be
discounted at the rate of interest paid on passbook savings deposits by
a Federally insured bank or savings and loan institution conducting
business within the jurisdiction of the grantee (or state recipient, as
applicable). To the extent necessary to minimize hardship to the
household, the grantee (or state recipient, as applicable) shall,
subject to appropriate safeguards, issue a payment in advance of the
purchase of the interest in the housing cooperative or mutual housing
association.
(C) Displaced low/moderate income tenants shall be advised of their
right to elect relocation assistance pursuant to the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and the
regulations appearing at 49 CFR part 24 as an alternative to the
relocation assistance available under paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
(3) Definitions. For purposes of providing section 104(d)
assistance under paragraph (c) of this section:
(i) Comparable replacement dwelling unit. The term ``comparable
replacement dwelling unit'' means a dwelling unit that:
(A) Meets the criteria of 49 CFR 24.2(d) (1) through (6); and
(B) Is available at a monthly cost for rent plus estimated average
monthly utility costs that does not exceed the ``Total Tenant Payment''
determined under Sec. 813.107 of this title, after taking into account
any rental assistance the household would receive.
(ii) Displaced person. (A) The term ``displaced person'' means any
low/moderate-income family or individual that moves from real property,
or moves his or her personal property from real property, permanently
and involuntarily, as a direct result of the conversion of a low/
moderate-income dwelling unit (defined in paragraph (c)(3)(iv) of this
section) or demolition in connection with an activity assisted under
this part. A permanent involuntary move for an assisted activity
includes a permanent move from real property that is made:
(1) After notice by the grantee (or state recipient, as applicable)
to move permanently from the property, if the move occurs after the
initial official submission to HUD for grant, loan, or loan guarantee
funds under this part that are later granted; or, for purposes of the
State CDBG Program, if the move occurs after the initial submission of
an application to the State by the recipient requesting assistance
under this subpart that is later granted for the requested activity.
(2) After notice by the property owner, to move permanently from
the property, if the move occurs after the date of submission of a
request for financial assistance by the property owner (or person in
control of the site) that is later approved for the requested activity.
(3) Before the date described in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A) (1) or (2)
of this section, if either HUD or the grantee (or State or state
recipient, as applicable) determines that the displacement directly
resulted from the conversion of a low/moderate-income dwelling unit or
demolition in connection with the requested activity.
(4) After the execution of the agreement by the grantee (or state
recipient, as applicable) covering the rehabilitation or demolition, if
the person is the tenant-occupant of a dwelling unit and any one of the
following three situations occurs:
(i) The tenant has not been provided with a reasonable opportunity
to lease and occupy a suitable decent, safe, and sanitary dwelling in
the same building/complex upon completion of the project, including a
monthly rent that does not exceed the greater of the tenant's monthly
rent and estimated average utility costs before the execution of such
agreement (or, for purposes of the State CDBG Program, before the
``initiation of negotiations''), or the ``Total Tenant Payment'' for
the person as determined under Sec. 813.107 of this title; or
(ii) The tenant, required to relocate temporarily for the activity,
does not return to the building/complex; and either the tenant is not
offered payment for all reasonable out-of-pocket expenses incurred in
connection with the temporary location (including the cost of moving to
and from the temporary location and any increased housing costs), or
other conditions of the temporary relocation are not reasonable; or
(iii) The tenant is required to move to another unit in the
building/complex, but is not offered reimbursement for all reasonable
out-of-pocket expenses incurred in connection with the move.
(B) Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A) of
this section, the term ``displaced person'' does not include:
(1) A person who is evicted for cause based upon serious or
repeated violations of material terms of the lease or occupancy
agreement. To exclude a person on this basis, the grantee (or state
recipient, as applicable) must determine that the eviction was not
undertaken for the purpose of evading the obligation to provide
relocation assistance under this section;
(2) A person who moves into the property after the date of the
notice described in paragraph (c)(3)(ii)(A) (1) or (2) of this section,
but received a written notice of the expected displacement before
commencing occupancy.
(3) A person who is not displaced as defined under 49 CFR
24.2(g)(2).
(4) A person who the grantee (or State, as applicable) determines
is not displaced as a direct result of the conversion of a low/
moderate-income dwelling or demolition in connection with an assisted
activity. For a grantee or State to exclude a person on this basis, HUD
must concur in that determination.
(C) A grantee may, at any time, request HUD to determine whether a
person is a displaced person under paragraph (c) of this section.
(iii) Low/moderate-income dwelling unit. The term ``low/moderate-
income dwelling unit'' means a dwelling unit with a market rent
(including utility costs) that does not exceed the applicable Fair
Market Rent (FMR) for existing housing established under 24 CFR part
888, except that the term does not include a unit that is owned and
occupied by the same person before and after the assisted
rehabilitation.
(iv) Standard condition and substandard condition suitable for
rehabilitation. (A) If the grantee has a HUD-approved consolidated
plan, the definitions of ``standard condition'' and ``substandard
condition suitable for rehabilitation'' established in the plan will
apply.
(B) For purposes of the State CDBG program, a State may define the
terms ``standard condition'' and ``substandard condition suitable for
rehabilitation'', or
[[Page 11481]]
it may allow the state recipient to establish and make public its
definition of these terms. If a State permits the recipient to
establish its definition of these terms, the State must determine if
the state recipient's definition is acceptable.
(v) Vacant occupiable dwelling unit. The term ``vacant occupiable
dwelling unit'' means a vacant dwelling unit that is in a standard
condition; a vacant dwelling unit that is in a substandard condition,
but is suitable for rehabilitation; or a dwelling unit in any condition
that has been occupied (except by a squatter) at any time within the
period beginning one year before the date of execution of the agreement
by the grantee (or state recipient, as applicable) covering the
rehabilitation or demolition.
(d) Optional relocation assistance. Under section 105(a)(11) of the
Act, the grantee may provide (or the State may permit the state
recipient to provide, as applicable) relocation payments and other
relocation assistance to persons displaced by activities that are not
subject to paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section. The grantee may also
provide (or the State may also permit the state recipient to provide,
as applicable) relocation assistance to persons receiving assistance
under paragraphs (b) or (c) of this section at levels in excess of
those required by these paragraphs. Unless such assistance is provided
under State or local law, the grantee (or state recipient, as
applicable) shall provide such assistance only upon the basis of a
written determination that the assistance is appropriate (see, e.g., 24
CFR 570.201(i), as applicable). The grantee (or state recipient, as
applicable) must adopt a written policy available to the public that
describes the relocation assistance that the grantee (or state
recipient, as applicable) has elected to provide and that provides for
equal relocation assistance within each class of displaced persons.
(e) Acquisition of real property. The acquisition of real property
for an assisted activity is subject to 49 CFR part 24, subpart B.
(f) Appeals. If a person disagrees with the determination of the
grantee (or the state recipient, as applicable) concerning the person's
eligibility for, or the amount of, a relocation payment under this
section, the person may file a written appeal of that determination
with the grantee (or state recipient, as applicable). The appeal
procedures to be followed are described in 49 CFR 24.10. In addition, a
low- or moderate-income household that has been displaced from a
dwelling may file a written request for review of the grantee's
decision to the HUD Field Office. For purposes of the State CDBG
program, a low- or moderate-income household may file a written request
for review of the state recipient's decision with the State.
(g) Responsibility of grantee or State. (1) The grantee (or State,
if applicable) is responsible for ensuring compliance with the
requirements of this section, notwithstanding any third party's
contractual obligation to the grantee to comply with the provisions of
this section. For purposes of the State CDBG program, the State shall
require state recipients to certify that they will comply with the
requirements of this section.
(2) The cost of assistance required under this section may be paid
from local public funds, funds provided under this part, or funds
available from other sources.
(3) The grantee (or State and state recipient, as applicable) must
maintain records in sufficient detail to demonstrate compliance with
the provisions of this section.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under OMB control
number 2506-0102.)
24. Section 570.608 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as
follows:
Sec. 570.608 Lead-based paint.
(a) Prohibition against the use of lead-based paint. Section 401(b)
of the Lead-Based Paint Poisoning Prevention Act (42 U.S.C. 4831(b))
and regulations in 24 CFR part 35, subpart B apply to residential
structures constructed or rehabilitated with assistance provided under
this part 570.
* * * * *
Subpart M--Loan Guarantees
25. Section 570.701 is amended by revising the definition of
``Public entity'', to read as follows:
Sec. 570.701 Definitions.
* * * * *
Public entity shall have the meaning provided for the term
``Eligible public entity'' in section 108(o) of the Act.
* * * * *
26. Section 570.703 is amended by revising paragraphs (d)(1) and
(d)(2), to read as follows:
Sec. 570.703 Eligible activities.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) Required under the provisions of Sec. 570.606(b) or (c); or
(2) Determined by the public entity to be appropriate under the
provisions of Sec. 570.606(d).
* * * * *
27. Section 570.704 is amended by revising paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(D),
(b)(8)(vii), and (e); to read as follows:
Sec. 570.704 Application requirements.
(a) * * *
(2) * * *
(i) * * *
(D) The proposed activities likely to result in displacement and
the public entity's plans, consistent with the policies developed under
Sec. 570.606 for minimizing displacement of persons as a result of its
proposed activities.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(8) * * *
(vii) It will comply with the requirements governing displacement,
relocation, real property acquisition, and the replacement of low and
moderate income housing described in Sec. 570.606.
* * * * *
(e) Displacement, relocation, acquisition, and replacement of
housing. The public entity (or the designated public agency) shall
comply with the displacement, relocation, acquisition, and replacement
of low/moderate-income housing requirements in Sec. 570.606 in
connection with any activity financed in whole or in part with
guaranteed loan funds.
28. Section 570.706 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 570.706 Federal guarantee; subrogation.
Section 108(f) of the Act provides for the incontestability of
guarantees by HUD under subpart M of this part in the hands of a holder
of such guaranteed obligations. If HUD pays a claim under a guarantee
made under section 108 of the Act, HUD shall be fully subrogated for
all the rights of the holder of the guaranteed debt obligation with
respect to such obligation.
Subpart N--Urban Renewal Provisions
29. Section 570.800 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 570.800 Urban Renewal regulations.
The regulations governing urban renewal projects and neighborhood
development programs in subpart N of this part, that were effective
immediately before April 19, 1996, will continue to govern the rights
and obligations of recipients and HUD with respect to such projects and
programs.
Secs. 570.801, 570.802, 570.803, and 570.804 [Removed]
30. Sections 570.801, 570.802, 570.803, and 570.804 are removed.
[[Page 11482]]
Subpart O--Performance Reviews
31. Section 570.904 is amended by revising the introductory text of
paragraph (b), and by revising paragraph (c), to read as follows:
Sec. 570.904 Equal Opportunity and Fair Housing Review Criteria.
* * * * *
(b) Review for equal opportunity. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 (42 U.S.C. 2000d et seq.), and implementing regulations in 24
CFR part 1, together with section 109 of the Act (see Sec. 570.602),
prohibit discrimination in any program or activity funded in whole or
in part with funds made available under this part.
* * * * *
(c) Fair housing review criteria. See the requirements in the Fair
Housing Act (42 U.S.C. 3601-20), as well as Sec. 570.601(a), which sets
forth the grantee's responsibility to certify that it will
affirmatively further fair housing.
* * * * *
Dated: March 7, 1996.
Mark C. Gordon,
General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and
Development.
[FR Doc. 96-6418 Filed 3-19-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-29-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.