54426 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 196 / Friday, October 9, 1998 / Proposed Rules 

exterior wall (such as interior walls, 

ceilings, floors and doors); or more than 

10 percent of the total surface area on 

an interior or exterior component with 

a small surface area including, but not 

limited to window sills, baseboards, and 

trim. Comments on this proposal were 

mixed. Some commenters found it 

difficult to understand and put in 

practice, indicating that people would 

spend too much time measuring the 

exact areas of deteriorated paint instead 

of focusing on making housing lead safe. 

Others welcomed the proposal as a 

reasonable way to target hazard 

reduction resources. Data on the 

frequency with which deteriorated paint 

occurs in housing at levels above the de 

minimis are limited, making it difficult 

to confidently estimate its cost effect. 

Qualifications. Another subject of 

concern to HUD was the qualifications 

of individuals performing the hazard 

evaluation and reduction activities 

required by the rule. The proposed rule 

would require that lead-based paint 

inspections, risk assessments, 

clearances and abatements be performed 

by people certified in accordance with 

EPA regulations and that workers 

conducting interim controls be 

supervised by a certified abatement 

supervisor. Recognizing, however, that 

certified individuals may not be readily 

available in some parts of the country, 

HUD provided in the proposed rule that 

the Secretary could establish temporary 

qualifications requirements that would 

help to meet scarcities. Also, the 

proposed rule would allow dust and soil 

testing by persons employed by local 

housing agencies that are trained but not 

certified. Two commenters felt that it 

would be a mistake to allow uncertified 

individuals take dust and soil tests, 

indicating that this appeared to be an 

avoidance of the certification law 

established by EPA regulations. Some 

commenters felt that it was unnecessary 

to require that interim controls workers 

be supervised by a certified abatement 

supervisor, suggesting that such workers 

could simply be trained in safe work 

practices. 

Prescriptiveness. Another important 

topic is the prescriptiveness of the 

methods and standards described in the 

June 7, 1996 proposed rule. Several 

commenters on the proposed rule were 

concerned that the proposed 

requirements were too detailed with 

regard to technical methods and 

standards and that there was the 

potential for rigidity in the rule that 

would inhibit adoption of technological 

improvements. Others urged greater 

deference to State, tribal or local 

regulations. There are several areas 

where HUD could reduce 

prescriptiveness, especially for leadbased paint inspections, risk 

assessments and reevaluations. 

Options to provide greater flexibility. 

In a similar vein, several commenters 

urged that HUD allow greater flexibility 

in ways to meet the goals of the rule. In 

particular, it was suggested that options 

be provided, such as the standard 

treatments recommended by the Task 

Force on Lead-Based Hazard Reduction 

and Financing as an option to 

conducting a risk assessment and 

interim controls. Such options would 

allow owners to select the procedure 

that is most cost-effective for them to 

achieve the goal of lead-based paint 

hazard control. 

Avoidance of duplication. The June 7, 

1996 proposed rule was written with 

careful consideration of existing 

regulations developed by other Federal 

agencies, States, Indian tribes and 

localities. To minimize duplication and 

avoid confusion, HUD has explicitly 

stated that this rulemaking does not 

preclude States, Indian tribes or 

localities from conducting a more 

protective procedure than the minimum 

requirements set out in the proposed 

rule. Similarly, if more than one 

requirement covers a condition or 

activity, the most protective method 

shall apply. HUD has worked and 

continues to work closely with the EPA 

and CDC to ensure that regulations from 

two or more Federal agencies are 

consistent and not duplicative. 

Wherever possible, HUD has referenced 

relevant requirements established by 

EPA. 

VI. Conclusion 

For the reasons discussed above, HUD 

continues to believe that the proposed 

regulatory requirements described in the 

June 7, 1996 rule would not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

HUD welcomes written comments on 

this analysis, especially comments 

addressing issues that may impact small 

entities and are not addressed in this 

notice. Comments must be identified as 

responses to this analysis and must be 

filed by the deadline for comments. The 

Director of HUD’s Office of Small and 

Disadvantaged Business Utilization has 

sent a copy of this analysis to the Chief 

Counsel for Advocacy of the Small 

Business Administration. 

Dated: October 4, 1998. 

David E. Jacobs, 

Director, Office of Lead Hazard Control. 

[FR Doc. 98–27274 Filed 10–8–98; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4210–32–P 

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY 

Fiscal Service 

31 CFR Part 212 

RIN 1510–AA61 

Taxpayer Identifying Number 

Requirement 

AGENCY: Financial Management Service, 

Fiscal Service, Treasury. 

ACTION: Withdrawal of notice of 

proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Debt Collection 

Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA) 

requires executive agencies to include 

payee taxpayer identifying numbers 

(TINs) on certified payment vouchers 

which are submitted to disbursing 

officials. The Financial Management 

Service (FMS), the Department of the 

Treasury disbursing agency, and other 

executive branch disbursing agencies 

are responsible for examining certified 

payment vouchers to determine whether 

such vouchers are in proper form. To 

ensure that executive branch agencies 

submit payment certifying vouchers in a 

form which includes payee TINs, FMS 

issued a proposed rule on September 2, 

1997. The rule, as proposed, would 

require disbursing officials to reject 

payment requests without TINs. 

Upon review of the comments 

received in response to the proposed 

rule, FMS has determined that a better 

approach to ensure compliance with the 

DCIA TIN requirement, in lieu of 

issuing a final rule, is to require each 

executive agency to submit a TIN 

Implementation Report to FMS 

documenting how the agency is 

complying with this requirement. 

Accordingly, FMS is issuing this 

document withdrawing the September 

2, 1997, notice of proposed rulemaking. 

The Policy Statement outlining TIN 

Implementation Report requirements is 

being published in the Federal Register 

concurrently with this document. 

DATES: The notice of proposed 

rulemaking published at 62 FR 46428 is 

withdrawn on October 9, 1998. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Cindy Johnson (Director, Cash 

Management Policy and Planning 

Division) at 202–874–6657, Dean 

Balamaci (Director, Agency Liaison 

Division, Debt Management Services) at 

202–874–6660, Sally Phillips (Policy 

Analyst) at 202–874–6749, or James 

Regan (Attorney-Advisor) at 202–874– 

6680. This document is available on the 

Financial Management Service’s web 

site: http://www.fms.treas.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On April 

26, 1996, the Debt Collection 
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 196 / Friday, October 9, 1998 / Proposed Rules 54427 

Improvement Act of 1996 (DCIA) was 

enacted as Chapter 10 of the Omnibus 

Consolidated Rescissions and 

Appropriations Act of 1996, Pub. L. 

104–134, 110 Stat. 1321–358. A major 

purpose of the DCIA is to enhance the 

government-wide collection of 

delinquent debts owed to the Federal 

Government. 

Section 31001(d)(2) of the DCIA, 

codified at 31 U.S.C. 3716(c), generally 

requires Federal disbursing officials to 

offset an eligible Federal payment to a 

payee to satisfy a delinquent non-tax 

debt owed by the payee to the United 

States. A Federal disbursing official will 

conduct such an offset when the name 

and Taxpayer Identifying Number (TIN) 

of the payee match the name and TIN 

of the delinquent debtor, provided all 

other requirements for offset have been 

met. This process, known as 

‘‘centralized offset,’’ also may be used to 

collect delinquent debts owed to States, 

including past-due child support. The 

Department of the Treasury, Financial 

Management Service (FMS) is 

responsible for implementing the DCIA, 

including the centralized offset 

authority. 

Section 31001(y) of the DCIA, 

codified at 31 U.S.C. 3325(d), facilitates 

centralized offset by requiring the head 

of an executive agency or an agency 

certifying official to include the TINs of 

payees on certified payment vouchers 

which are submitted to Federal 

disbursing officials. FMS, as the 

Department of Treasury disbursing 

agency, disburses more than 850 million 

Federal payments annually. See 31 

U.S.C. 3321. FMS and other executive 

branch disbursing agencies are 

responsible for examining certified 

payment vouchers to determine whether 

such vouchers are in the proper form. 31 

U.S.C. 3325(a)(2)(A). 

In an effort to ensure that executive 

branch agencies submit certified 

payment vouchers in a form which 

includes payee TINs, FMS issued a 

proposed rule on September 2, 1997 (62 

FR 46428), 31 CFR Part 212, Taxpayer 

Identifying Number Requirement. The 

rule, as proposed, would require 

disbursing officials to reject payment 

requests without TINs, effective 6 

months after publication of the final 

rule. 

After careful review and 

consideration of the comments 

submitted by Federal agencies in 

response to the proposed rule, FMS has 

determined that a better approach to 

ensure compliance with the DCIA TIN 

requirement, in lieu of issuing a final 

rule, is to require each executive agency 

to submit an agency TIN 

Implementation Report to FMS. This 

approach will address more effectively 

the underlying barriers to collecting 

TINs, and therefore increase compliance 

with the DCIA. The rejection of payment 

requests lacking TINs, as contemplated 

in the notice of proposed rulemaking, 

may not resolve these underlying 

barriers, and would unduly interfere 

with the timely disbursement of Federal 

funds. 

Some of the barriers to collecting and 

providing TINs as identified by agencies 

include systems reprogramming 

requirements, the need for agency 

finance and procurement offices to 

coordinate on TIN collection and data 

sharing requirements, the need to 

develop a reliable TIN validation 

process, as well as the resolution of TIN 

requirements involving payments to 

third parties or escrow agents. Many 

agencies also suggested that certain 

classes of payments should be exempt 

from the DCIA TIN requirement such as 

payments under the witness protection 

program and foreign payments to 

entities who do not have assigned TINs. 

Agency TIN Implementation Reports 

will address the current status of agency 

compliance with the requirement to 

furnish TINs with each certified 

voucher, strategies for achieving 

compliance, agency specific barriers to 

collecting and providing TINs, and 

strategies for resolving such barriers. 

The preparation and review of TIN 

Implementation Reports will enable 

payment certifying agencies and FMS to 

best determine how to resolve these 

issues. For additional information on 

these reports, FMS is publishing 

elsewhere in this issue of the Federal 

Register a Policy Statement 

concurrently with this document. 

Agencies are reminded that the DCIA 

has required them to furnish the TINs of 

payment recipients on all certified 

vouchers submitted to disbursing 

officials since April 26, 1996, the 

effective date of the DCIA. In its interim 

rule creating 31 CFR Part 208, 

Management of Federal Agency 

Disbursements, FMS advised agencies of 

this DCIA requirement. See 61 FR 

39254, July 26, 1996. Prior to the 

enactment of the DCIA, FMS issued 

Treasury Financial Management 

Bulletin No. 95–10 on August 18, 1995, 

which required that the payee’s TIN be 

included on all certified vouchers for 

vendor, miscellaneous, and salary 

payments. Currently, FMS is working to 

ensure that TIN requirements for 

contractors and vendors are 

incorporated in anticipated revisions to 

the Prompt Payment circular issued by 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB) (OMB Circular No. A–125, rev. 

Dec. 12, 1989), in consultation with 

FMS, and in anticipated revisions to the 

Federal Acquisition Regulations (48 

CFR). 

Therefore, for the foregoing reasons, 

FMS withdraws the proposed rule 

published on September 2, 1997. 

Agency compliance requirements with 

respect to the TIN requirement are set 

forth in the Policy Statement referenced 

above. 

Authority and Issuance 

For the reasons set out above, 31 CFR 

Part 212, Taxpayer Identifying Number 

Requirement, Proposed Rule, 62 FR 

46428, September 2, 1997, is 

withdrawn. 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 31 U.S.C. 321, 

3301, 3302, 3321, 3325, and 3528. 

Dated: October 5, 1998. 

Richard L. Gregg, 

Commissioner. 

[FR Doc. 98–27069 Filed 10–8–98; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–35–P 

FEDERAL EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT AGENCY 

44 CFR Part 67 

[Docket No. FEMA–7258] 

Proposed Flood Elevation 

Determinations 

AGENCY: Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: Technical information or 

comments are requested on the 

proposed base (1% annual chance) flood 

elevations and proposed base flood 

elevation modifications for the 

communities listed below. The base 

flood elevations and modified base 

flood elevations are the basis for the 

floodplain management measures that 

the 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). 

DATES: The comment period is ninety 

(90) days following the second 

publication of this proposed rule in a 

newspaper of local circulation in each 

community. 

ADDRESSES: The proposed 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: 

Matthew B. Miller, P.E., Chief, Hazards 

Study Branch, Mitigation Directorate,