Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 61913

SUMMARY: The Department of the

Treasury is announcing that it has

reviewed the statutes of 13 states which

have recently enacted laws adopting

Revised Article 8 of the Uniform

Commercial Code—Investment

Securities (‘‘Revised Article 8’’) and

determined that they are substantially

identical to the uniform version of

Revised Article 8 for purposes of

interpreting the rules in 31 CFR Part

357, Subpart B (the ‘‘TRADES’’

regulations). Therefore, that portion of

the TRADES rule requiring application

of Revised Article 8 if a state has not

adopted Revised Article 8 will no longer

be applicable for those 13 states.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 20, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sandy Dyson, Attorney-Advisory, (202)

219–3320, or Cynthia E. Reese, Deputy

Chief Counsel, (202) 219–3320.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

23, 1996, the Department published a

final rule to govern securities held in

the commercial book-entry system, now

referred to as the Treasury/Reserve

Automated Debt Entry System

(‘‘TRADES’’) (61 FR 43626).

In the commentary to the final

regulations, Treasury stated that for the

28 states that had by then adopted

Revised Article 8, the versions enacted

were ‘‘substantially identical’’ to the

uniform version for purposes of the rule.

Therefore, for those states, that portion

of the TRADES rule requiring

application of Revised Article 8 was not

invoked. Treasury also indicated in the

commentary that as additional states

adopt Revised Article 8, notice would

be provided in the Federal Register as

to whether the enactments are

substantially identical to the uniform

version so that the federal application of

Revised Article 8 would no longer be in

effect for those states. Treasury adopted

this approach in an attempt to provide

certainty in application of the rule in

response to public comments. Treasury

published such notices with respect to

California (62 FR 26, January 2, 1997)

and the District of Columbia (62 FR

34010, June 18, 1997). 31 CFR Part 357,

Appendix B, the TRADES Commentary

also was amended by final rule (62 FR

43283, August 13, 1997) to update the

list of states that have enacted Revised

Article 8 statutes which Treasury

determined to be substantially identical

to the uniform version.

This notice addresses the recent

adoption of Article 8 by the following

13 states: Delaware, Hawaii, Maine,

Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey,

New York, North Carolina, North

Dakota, Ohio, Tennessee and Puerto

Rico. A ‘‘state’’ is defined in the

regulations as including Puerto Rico.

Treasury has reviewed the 13 state

enactments and has concluded all of

them are substantially identical to the

uniform version of Revised Article 8.

Accordingly, if either § 357.10(b) or

§ 357.11(b) directs a person to Delaware,

Hawaii, Maine, Missouri, Montana,

Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North

Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio,

Tennessee and Puerto Rico, the

provisions of §§ 357.10(c) and 357.11(d)

of the TRADES rule are not applicable.

This means that a total of 43 states

(including D.C. and Puerto Rico) have

enacted Revised Article 8 that have been

either: (1) the subject of notices by

Treasury stating that the laws are

‘‘substantially identical’’ to the uniform

version for purposes of the TRADES

regulations; or (2) included in the list of

states appearing in a footnote to the

Commentary section in Appendix B of

the TRADES regulations.

In addition, Treasury has reviewed

the recent enactment of Revised Article

8 by Connecticut. Because we

understand that Connecticut will likely

be acting within the next year to amend

the statute that was passed, we make no

determination at this time with respect

whether the statute passed is

‘‘substantially identical’’ to the uniform

version for purposes of the rule.

Dated: November 12, 1997.

Richard L. Gregg,

Commissioner of the Public Debt.

[FR Doc. 97–30432 Filed 11–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4810–39–M

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

Department of the Navy

32 CFR Part 701

[Secretary of the Navy Instruction 5211.5]

Department of the Navy Privacy

Program

AGENCY: Department of the Navy, DOD.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of the Navy

is amending a system of records notice

identifier for an exempt system of

records at 32 CFR part 701, subpart G.

This action is needed because the

system identifier for the notice was

previously amended on July 22, 1997, at

62 FR 39225. The amendment changed

the system of records notice identifier

from N01000–4 to N01000–5. This rule

ensures that the system identifier for the

rule and the notice are the same.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 20, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mrs.

Doris Lama at (202) 685–6545 or DSN

325–6545.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866. It has been

determined that this Privacy Act rule for

the Department of Defense does not

constitute ‘significant regulatory action’.

Analysis of the rule indicates that it

does not have an annual effect on the

economy of $100 million or more; does

not create a serious inconsistency or

otherwise interfere with an action taken

or planned by another agency; does not

materially alter the budgetary impact of

entitlements, grants, user fees, or loan

programs or the rights and obligations of

recipients thereof; does not raise novel

legal or policy issues arising out of legal

mandates, the President’s priorities, or

the principles set forth in Executive

Order 12866 (1993).

Regulatory Flexibility Act. It has been

determined that this Privacy Act rule for

the Department of Defense does not

have significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

because it is concerned only with the

administration of Privacy Act systems of

records within the Department of

Defense.

Paperwork Reduction Act. It has been

determined that this Privacy Act rule for

the Department of Defense imposes no

information requirements beyond the

Department of Defense and that the

information collected within the

Department of Defense is necessary and

consistent with 5 U.S.C. 552a, known as

the Privacy Act of 1974.

The Department of the Navy is

amending a system of records notice

identifier for an exempt system of

records at 32 CFR part 701, subpart G.

This action is needed because the

system identifier for the notice was

previously amended on July 22, 1997, at

62 FR 39225. The amendment changed

the system of records notice identifier

from N01000–4 to N01000–5. This rule

ensures that the system identifier for the

rule and the notice are the same.

List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 701,

Subpart G

Privacy.

1. The authority citation for 32 CFR

part 701, Subpart G continues to read as

follows:

Authority: Pub. L. 93–579, 88 Stat.

1896 (5 U.S.C. 552a).

2. Section 701.118, is amended by

revising paragraph (r) introductory text

as follows:

§ 701.118 Exemptions for specific Navy

record systems.

* * * * *
61914 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 224 / Thursday, November 20, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

(r) System Identifier and Name:

N01000–5, Naval Clemency and Parole

Board Files.

* * * * *

Dated: November 14, 1997.

L. M. Bynum,

Alternate OSD Federal Register Liaison

Officer, Department of Defense.

[FR Doc. 97–30418 Filed 11–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 5000–04–F

POSTAL SERVICE

39 CFR Part 4

Board of Governors Bylaws

AGENCY: Postal Service.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Board of Governors of the

United States Postal Service has

approved an amendment to its bylaws.

The amendment adjusts provisions

concerning the office of the Chief Postal

Inspector in light of statutory

amendments enacted by Public Law

100–504.

EFFECTIVE DATE: November 20, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas J. Koerber, (202) 268–4800.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Board

of Governors of the Postal Service has

amended its bylaw provisions

concerning the office of Chief Postal

Inspector. Under former provisions of

the Inspector General Act, the Chief

Postal Inspector served as the Inspector

General for the Postal Service. The law

specifically required the concurrence of

the Governors for a transfer or removal

of the Chief Inspector. Public Law 100–

504 created an independent Inspector

General for the Postal Service, and

revised the language governing the Chief

Postal Inspector. As now codified in 39

U.S.C. 204, the law currently requires

notice to the Governors and Congress

but does not expressly require the

Governors’ concurrence. At its meeting

on November 3, 1997, the Board revised

sections 4.5 and 4.6 of its bylaws

conforming them to the language of the

statute. Section 4.6, dealing separately

with the Chief Postal Inspector, is

removed, and provisions concerning the

appointment and removal of the Chief

Inspector in line with 39 U.S.C. 204 are

transferred to section 4.5.

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 4

Administrative practice and

procedure, Organization and functions

(Government agencies), Postal Service.

Accordingly, 39 CFR Part 4 is

amended as follows:

PART 4—OFFICERS (ARTICLE IV)

1. The authority citation for Part 4 is

revised to read as follows:

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 202–205, 401(2), (10),

402, 1003, 3013.

2–3. Section 4.5 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 4.5 Assistant Postmasters General,

General Counsel, Judicial Officer, Chief

Postal Inspector.

There are within the Postal Service a

General Counsel, a Judicial Officer, a

Chief Postal Inspector, and such number

of officers, described in 39 U.S.C. 204 as

Assistant Postmasters General, whether

so denominated or not, as the Board

authorizes by resolution. These officers

are appointed by, and serve at the

pleasure of, the Postmaster General. The

Chief Postal Inspector shall report to,

and be under the general supervision of,

the Postmaster General. The Postmaster

General shall promptly notify the

Governors and both Houses of Congress

in writing if he or she removes the Chief

Postal Inspector or transfers the Chief

Postal Inspector to another position or

location within the Postal Service, and

shall include in any such notification

the reasons for such removal or transfer.

§ 4.6 [Removed]

4. Section 4.6 is removed.

§ 4.7 [Redesignated as § 4.6]

5. Section 4.7 is redesignated as § 4.6.

Stanley F. Mires,

Chief Counsel, Legislative.

[FR Doc. 97–30412 Filed 11–19–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7710–12–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[FRL–5925–4]

Final Determination To Extend

Deadline for Promulgation of Action on

Section 126 Petitions

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The EPA is extending by a

second one-month period the deadline

for taking final action on petitions that

eight States have submitted to require

EPA to make findings that sources

upwind of those States contribute

significantly to nonattainment problems

in those States. Under the Clean Air Act

(CAA or Act), EPA is authorized to grant

this time extension if EPA determines

that the extension is necessary, among

other things, to meet the purposes of the

Act’s rulemaking requirements. By this

notice, EPA is making that

determination. The eight States that

have submitted the petitions are

Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts,

New Hampshire, New York,

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and

Vermont.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This action is effective

as of November 14, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Howard J. Hoffman, Office of General

Counsel, MC–2344, 401 M St. SW,

Washington, D.C. 20460, (202) 260–

5892.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Today’s action follows closely EPA’s

final action taken by notice dated

October 22, 1997 (62 FR 54769).

Familiarity with that document is

assumed, and background information

in that document will not be repeated

here.

In the October 22, 1997 document,

EPA extended by one month, pursuant

to its authority under CAA section

307(d)(10), the time frame for taking

final action on petitions submitted by

eight states under CAA section 126.

These eight states are Connecticut,

Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,

New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island,

and Vermont. By these petitions, the

eight states have asked EPA to make

findings that major stationary sources in

upwind states emit in violation of the

prohibition of CAA section 110(a)(2)(D),

by contributing significantly to

nonattainment problems in the

petitioning States.

EPA received the petitions on August

14–15, 1997. Under section 126(b), for

each petition, EPA must make the

requested finding, or deny the petition,

within 60 days of receipt of the petition.

As indicated in the October 22, 1997

document, EPA has the authority to

extend the deadline for up to six

months, under CAA section 307(d)(10).

By the October 22, 1997 document, EPA

extended the deadline for one month, to

November 14, 1997, and further

indicated that EPA was reserving its

option to extend the period by all or

part of the remaining five months of the

six-month extension period.

EPA is today extending the deadline

for an additional one month, to

December 14, 1997. EPA’s reasons are

identical to those articulated in the

October 22, 1997 document. In the

October 22, 1997 document, EPA

explained the basis for the first onemonth extension as follows: