Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules 63299

1Under the proposed rule, non-listed businesses

are businesses, otherwise eligible for exemption,

whose stock is not listed on the nation’s major

securities exchanges. Payroll customers are

businesses, otherwise eligible for exemption, that

require cash withdrawals for payroll purposes.

open working meeting on November 7,

1997, in Washington, D.C. to discuss the

proposed regulations. At the meeting a

number of commenters expressed their

views and concerns concerning a

number of matters, including most

importantly the requirement in the

proposed rule that banks estimate when

granting an exemption, and file annual

reports of, aggregate currency deposits

and withdrawals by non-listed

businesses and payroll customers. The

decision to extend the comment period,

and the request for additional comments

contained in this document, result from

that meeting.

Annual Reporting of Aggregate

Currency Transactions

In light of the comments made at the

meeting, FinCEN does not believe that

additional comments concerning the

proposed estimation and aggregate

currency reporting provision are

necessary to complete the

administrative record. Thus persons

who attended the meeting, and other

commenters, need not, if they do not

wish to, file written comments regarding

these provisions.

The comments made at the open

meeting did indicate, however, that it is

important that alternatives to annual

aggregate currency reporting be brought

forward by interested parties. The

preamble to the proposed rule

specifically sought comment on several

such possible alternatives. FinCEN is

considering an additional alternative

about which it would like to receive

specific comments.

The proposed alternative has two

elements.

1. The initial designation of a nonlisted business or payroll customer as an

‘‘exempt person’’ under the rule would

include a specific statement by the bank

of the manner in which it applies its

‘‘know-your-customer’’ standards to the

tracking of currency deposits of

commercial businesses. (The necessary

statements could be made once for all

exempt persons designated by a bank, as

reflective of general bank policies.)

2. The annual renewal of the status of

a non-listed or payroll customer as an

exempt person would include a

certification by the bank. The bank

would certify that during the preceding

year there was no transaction involving

any accounts of the person at the bank

that would have required the bank to

file a suspicious transaction report with

respect to that person under 31 CFR

103.21 (that is, no transaction had

occurred with respect to the account

that the bank knew, suspected, or had

reason to suspect was described in 31

CFR 103.21(a)(2)(i), (ii), or (iii).1

FinCEN specifically invites comment

on this alternative and on ways to allow

such an alternative to operate with clear

lines and without uncertainty or

unnecessary burdens. It also again

invites suggestion of any other

alternatives to the proposed requirement

that a bank initially estimate and

subsequently report annually the

aggregate currency deposits and

withdrawals of a non-listed business or

payroll customer that the bank wishes to

exempt.

Uniform Treatment of Accounts of

Exempt Persons

FinCEN understands from comments

at the November 7 meeting that banks

are concerned about the use of the

words ‘‘shall’’ in proposed 31 CFR

103.22(d)(5)(v) and ‘‘may’’ in proposed

31 CFR 103.22(d)(5)(vi). As stated in the

notice of proposed rulemaking, the

intent of the proposed rule is to reform

and simplify the process by which

banks may exempt transactions from the

reporting requirements. FinCEN

believes that relief would be better

provided by making both provisions

optional rather than mandatory, so that

institutions may, but need not, treat all

accounts of a person at a single

institution as exempt. FinCEN would

appreciate comments on whether such a

change would improve the operation of

the proposed rule.

Commingling

Other comments at the November 7

meeting indicated that banks were not

exempting certain publicly traded

businesses, such as grocery stores,

under the first phase of exemptive relief,

31 CFR 103.22(h), because of the

uncertainty about the treatment of

currency deposits that commingle

receipts from the sale of groceries with

receipts from the sale of money services

products such as money orders or

money transmissions. FinCEN

specifically solicited comments on this

matter in the proposed rule, as it relates

not only to the treatment of non-listed

companies but also listed companies.

The extent to which segregation of

funds is required in circumstances such

as these is still under consideration, and

FinCEN repeats here the request, made

in the notice of proposed rulemaking,

for comments on that issue. Any rule

requiring a grocery store or similar

entity that qualifies as a listed entity

under 31 CFR 103.22(h)(2)(iii), (iv), or

(v) to segregate money from the sale of

money services products in order to

secure treatment as an ‘‘exempt person’’

for any deposit, will not become

effective until the effective date of the

proposed regulations, when issued in

final form.

Dated: November 24, 1997.

Stephen R. Kroll,

Federal Register Liaison Officer, Financial

Crimes Enforcement Network.

[FR Doc. 97–31299 Filed 11–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820–03–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 799

[OPPTS–42187K; FRL–5759–2]

RIN 2070–AC76

Proposed Test Rule for Hazardous Air

Pollutants; Extension of Comment

Period

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of

comment period.

SUMMARY: EPA is extending the public

comment period from December 1, 1997

to January 9, 1998, on the proposed rule

published in the Federal Register of

June 26, 1996 (61 FR 33178)(FRL–4869–

1) requiring the testing of 21 hazardous

air pollutants (HAPs) for certain health

effects. This extension is needed to

allow the Agency more time to amend

the HAPs test rule proposal.

DATES: Written comments on the

proposed rule must be received by EPA

on or before January 9, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Submit three copies of

written comments on the proposed

HAPs test rule, identified by docket

control number (OPPTS–42187A; FRL–

4869–1) to: Environmental Protection

Agency, Office of Pollution Prevention

and Toxics (OPPT), Document Control

Office (7407), Rm. G–099, 401 M St.,

SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Comments and data may also be

submitted electronically to

oppt.ncic@epamail.epa.gov. Follow the

instructions under Unit II. of this

document. No Confidential Business

Information (CBI) should be submitted

through e-mail.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

general information, Susan B. Hazen,

Director, Environmental Assistance

Division (7408), Rm. ET–543B, Office of

Pollution Prevention and Toxics,
63300 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460;

telephone (202) 554–1404; TDD: (202)

554–0551; e-mail: TSCAHotline@epamail.epa.gov. For technical

information contact: Richard W.

Leukroth, Jr., Project Manager, Chemical

Control Division (7405), Office of

Pollution Prevention and Toxics,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460;

telephone: (202) 260–0321; fax: (202)

260–8850; e-mail:

leukroth.rich@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Electronic Availability: Electronic

copies of this document, all Federal

Register support documents, and the

eleven TSCA test guidelines are

available from the EPA Home Page at

the Federal Register — Environmental

Documents entry under ‘‘Laws and

Regulations’’ (http:// www.epa.gov/

fedrgstr).

I. Background and General Information

On June 26, 1996 (61 FR 33178), EPA

proposed health effects testing, under

section 4(a) of TSCA, of the following

hazardous air pollutants (HAPs): 1,1’-

biphenyl, carbonyl sulfide, chlorine,

chlorobenzene, chloroprene, cresols (3

isomers: ortho-, meta-, para-),

diethanolamine, ethylbenzene, ethylene

dichloride, ethylene glycol,

hydrochloric acid, hydrogen fluoride,

maleic anhydride, methyl isobutyl

ketone, methyl methacrylate,

naphthalene, phenol, phthalic

anhydride, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene,

1,1,2-trichloroethane, and vinylidene

chloride. EPA would use the data

generated under the rule to implement

several provisions of section 112 of the

Clean Air Act and to meet other EPA

data needs and those of other Federal

agencies. In the HAPs proposal, EPA

invited the submission of proposals for

pharmacokinetics (PK) studies for the

HAPs chemicals, which could provide

the basis for negotiation of enforceable

consent agreements (ECAs). These PK

studies would be used to conduct routeto-route extrapolation of toxicity data

from routes other than inhalation to

predict the effects of inhalation

exposure, as an alternative to testing

proposed under the HAPs rule.

On October 18, 1996, EPA extended

the public comment period on the

proposed rule from December 23, 1996,

to January 31, 1997 (61 FR 54383) (FRL–

5571–3). This extension was for the

purpose of allowing more time for the

submission of PK proposals and

adequate time for comments on the

proposed rule to be submitted after the

Agency had responded to the proposals.

Due to the complexity of the issues

raised by the eight PK proposals that the

Agency received in response to the

HAPs proposal and other issues related

to test guidelines, EPA successively

extended the public comment period

(61 FR 67516, December 23, 1996 (FRL–

5580–6); 62 FR 9142, February 28, 1997

(FRL–5592–1); 62 FR 14850, March 28,

1997 (FRL–5598–4); 62 FR 29318, May

30, 1997 (FRL–5722–1); 62 FR 37833,

July 15, 1997 (FRL–5732–2)); to allow

the Agency more time to respond to the

PK proposals and to finalize the test

guidelines to be referenced in the

proposed HAPs test rule. EPA extended

the comment period again (62 FR 50546,

September 26, 1997 (FRL–5748–8)), to

allow the Agency time to complete work

on amending the proposed HAPs test

rule to incorporate the new TSCA 799

test guidelines, revise the economic

analysis in consideration of the new test

guidelines, and to complete preliminary

technical analyses for each PK proposal.

This extension of the comment period is

needed to allow the Agency more time

to complete work on amending the

proposed HAPs test rule.

EPA has completed preliminary

technical analyses for each PK proposal

submitted in response to the Agency’s

June 26, 1996 solicitation. These

include the HAPs chemicals: hydrogen

fluoride, 1,1,2-trichlorethane, ethylene

dichloride, maleic anhydride, phthalic

anhydride, 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene,

diethanolamine, and ethylene glycol.

Copies of these preliminary technical

analyses have been sent to the

submitters and placed in the public

record for this action (OPPTS–42187B;

FRL–4869–1). The Agency recognizes

that submitters may need to revise their

proposals based on EPA comments. If

the Agency decides to proceed with the

ECA process, EPA will announce, in the

Federal Register, one or more public

meetings to discuss the proposals and to

negotiate ECAs. In that document, the

Agency will solicit persons interested in

participating in or monitoring

negotiations to develop ECAs based on:

the PK testing proposals or revisions

thereof, EPA’s preliminary technical

analyses, and additional comments on

EPA’s preliminary technical analyses

provided by the submitters. The

procedures for ECA negotiations are

described at 40 CFR 790.22(b).

The Agency emphasizes that the

submission of proposals to develop

ECAs to conduct alternative testing

using PK is no guarantee that EPA and

the submitters will, in fact, conclude

such agreements. Therefore, EPA urges

all submitters of PK proposals to

comment on the HAPs proposed rule as

an activity separate from the PK

proposal/ECA process.

On August 15, 1997, EPA

promulgated eleven new TSCA test

guidelines (62 FR 43820)(FRL–5719–5),

codified at 40 CFR part 799, subpart H.

These TSCA part 799 test guidelines

were developed based on the Office of

Pollution Prevention and Toxic

Substances (OPPTS) harmonized

guidelines that were developed from the

OPPTS guideline harmonization

process. In the original HAPs proposal

and subsequent notices extending the

comment period on the rule, EPA

indicated that, for the purposes of this

rulemaking and testing under TSCA

section 4(a), the Office of Pollution

Prevention and Toxics (OPPT) intends

to reference final TSCA test guidelines

developed from the OPPTS harmonized

guidelines. The eleven TSCA test

guidelines are included in the record for

this rulemaking. EPA is amending the

proposed HAPs test rule to reference the

eleven new TSCA part 799 test

guidelines and to seek comment on the

guidelines as referenced in enforceable

test standards in the forthcoming

amended HAPs proposal. In addition,

the amendment will provide a revised

economic assessment and describe other

changes and clarifications to the

proposed test rule. This amendment to

the proposed HAPs test rule will be

published in the Federal Register as

soon as possible but in any event no

later than January 9, 1998.

II. Public Record

The official record for this

rulemaking, as well as the public

version, has been established for this

rulemaking under docket control

number (OPPTS–42187A; FRL–4869–1)

(including comments and data

submitted electronically as described

below). A public version of this record,

including printed, paper versions of

electronic comments, which does not

include any information claimed as CBI,

is available for inspection from 12 noon

to 4 p.m., Monday through Friday,

excluding legal holidays. The official

rulemaking record is located in the

TSCA Nonconfidential Information

Center, Rm NE–B607, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC.

Electronic comments can be sent

directly to EPA at

oppt.ncic@epamail.epa.gov

Electronic comments must be

submitted as an ASCII file avoiding the

use of special characters and any form

of encryption. Comments and data will

also be accepted on disks in

WordPerfect in 5.1 file format or ASCII

file format. All comments and data in

electronic form must be identified by

the docket control number (OPPTS–

42187A; FRL–4869–1). Electronic
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 229 / Friday, November 28, 1997 / Proposed Rules 63301

1Administration of the North American

Numbering Plan, Carrier Identification Codes

(CICs), Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and

Order, CC Docket No. 92–237, FCC 97–364 (released

October 9, 1997) (62 FR 54817 (10/22/97) (FNPRM

and Order).

2CICs are numeric codes that enable local

exchange carriers (LECs) providing interstate

interexchange access services to identify the

interstate interexchange carrier (IXC) that the

originating caller wishes to use to transmit its

interstate call. LECs use the CICs to route traffic to

the proper IXC and to bill for the interstate access

service provided. CICs facilitate competition by

enabling callers to use the services of

telecommunications service providers either by

presubscription or by dialing CAC, which

incorporates that carrier’s unique Feature Group D

CIC. 3See 47 CFR 1.45.

comments on the proposed rule may be

filed online at many Federal Depository

Libraries.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 799

Environmental protection, Chemicals,

Hazardous substances, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Dated: November 20, 1997.

Charles M. Auer,

Chemical Control Division, Office of Pollution

Prevention and Toxics.

Accordingly, EPA is extending the

comment period on the proposed rule to

January 9, 1997.

[FR Doc. 97–31128 Filed 11–26–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–F

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS

COMMISSION

47 CFR Parts 52 and 64

[CC Docket No. 92–237; DA 97–2439]

Administration of the North American

Numbering Plan, Carrier Identification

Codes (CICs)

AGENCY: Federal Communications

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On November 21, 1997, the

Network Services Division of the

Commission’s Common Carrier Bureau,

released an Order extending the

deadline for filing comments to the

Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking

in this docket addressing carrier

identification code use and assignment

[62 FR 54817 (10/22/97)]. The Order is

intended to grant the extension request

filed by the North American Numbering

Council (NANC) and to make the public

aware of the extensions of the filing

deadlines.

DATES: Comments must be filed on or

before March 6, 1998, and reply

comments must be filed on or before

April 3, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Federal Communications

Commission, Secretary, Room 222, 1919

M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Elizabeth Nightingale, Attorney,

Network Services Division, Common

Carrier Bureau, (202) 418–2352.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Administration of the North American

Numbering Plan, Carrier Identification

Codes (CICs); Order [CC Docket No. 92–

237; DA 97–2439]

[Adopted: November 20, 1997; Released:

November 21, 1997]

1. On October 9, 1997, the

Commission released a Further Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking and Order 1 in

this docket, addressing issues related to

Feature Group D carrier identification

code (CIC) use and assignment.2 In the

FNPRM, the Commission sought

comment on, for example, the use and

application of Feature Group D CICs, on

the definition of ‘‘entity’’ used to

determine who may receive a CIC, and

on CIC conservation issues. In the

Order, the Commission directed the

North American Numbering Council

(NANC) to present to the Commission,

no later than December 15, 1997, the

NANC’s recommendations on the

tentative conclusions and proposals in

the FNPRM, including any alternatives

to them. The Commission stated that

NANC’s recommendations (including

any recommended rules or

recommended resolutions of

ambiguities or policy disputes) should

address, for example, how to define

‘‘entity’’ and whether CIC conservation

measures, such as a limit on CIC

assignments per entity, a limit on the

total number of four-digit CICs available

for assignment, and mandatory CIC

reclamation procedures, are needed to

meet the Commission’s numbering

policy goals.

2. In a letter dated November 19,

1997, the North American Numbering

Council (NANC), through its Chairman,

Alan C. Hasselwander, requested

extension of the deadlines set in the

FNPRM and Order. Specifically, NANC

asks that the deadline by which it must

present recommendations to the

Commission, as required by the Order,

be extended from December 15, 1997, to

February 19, 1998 (the day following

NANC’s February meeting). In addition,

NANC requested that the time by which

parties must file comments and reply

comments in response to the FNPRM be

extended from November 24, 1997, and

December 22, 1997, respectively, to a

period following the date for NANC’s

submission.

3. NANC states that at its November

18, 1997 meeting, the members

unanimously agreed that such a delay is

required. NANC also asserts that the

delay ‘‘will allow NANC to assemble a

diverse group of industry

representatives to consider the

questions raised in the Order and work

diligently to find common ground.’’ In

support of its request that the time by

which parties must file comments in

response to the FNPRM be extended

until after the deadline for NANC’s

submission, NANC states that ‘‘industry

may achieve a more uniform position if

NANC attempts to achieve consensus

before interested parties have publicly

stated their positions.’’

4. The Commission does not routinely

grant extensions of time.3 It is

important, however, that the record be

as complete as possible. A

recommendation from NANC that

reflects consensus based on a diverse

group of industry views is desirable.

Granting NANC’s additional time to

submit its recommendation to the

Commission increases the likelihood

that the recommendation will be

comprehensive. Further, if delaying the

pleading cycle until after NANC reports

will allow NANC to achieve a more

uniform view from a cross-section of the

industry, because interested parties

would not have publicly stated their

positions in advance of NANC’s

opportunity to address them, the record

in this proceeding will benefit. For these

reasons, we grant NANC’s request and,

accordingly, we: (1) extend the period of

time by which NANC must provide its

recommendations to the Commission

until February 19, 1998; and (2) extend

the period of time by which parties

must file comments and reply

comments on the issues raised in the

FNPRM until March 6, 1998, and April

3, 1998, respectively. We emphasize

that the comments and reply comments

on the FNPRM should address the

proposals and tentative conclusions

raised by the Commission in the

FNPRM, and should not be limited to

NANC’s recommendations.

5. Accordingly, it is ordered, pursuant

to Section 1.46 of the Commission’s

Rules, 47 CFR § 1.46, that the North

American Numbering Council’s request

to extend the deadline by which it must

present recommendations to the

Commission in response to the Order

issued in this proceeding on October 9,

1997, Is granted, by extending the

deadline until February 19, 1998.

6. It is further ordered, pursuant to

Section 1.46 of the Commission’s Rules,

47 CFR 1.46, that the North American