Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules 1303

Title: Investment Advisers Act Rule

202(a)(1)–1 (Certain transactions not

deemed assignments).

Citation: 17 CFR 275.202(a)(1)–1.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 80b–3, 80b–4,

80b–6A, and 80b–11.

Title: Investment Advisers Act Rule

206(4)–4 (Financial and disciplinary

information that investment advisers

must disclose to clients).

Citation: 17 CFR 275.206(4)–4.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 80b–3, 80b–4,

80b–6A, and 80b–11.

Title: Form ADV–W (Notice of

withdrawal from registration as

investment adviser).

Citation: 17 CFR 279.2.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 80b–3, 80b–4,

80b–6A, and 80b–11.

The Commission invites public

comment on both the list and the rules

to be reviewed.

Dated: January 3, 1997.

By the Commission.

Margaret H. McFarland,

Deputy Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–488 Filed 1–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8010–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 21

RIN 2900–AI45

Survivors and Dependents Education:

Extension of Eligibility Period

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This document proposes to

amend the educational assistance and

educational benefit regulations of the

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA). It

restores provisions that govern the

extension of the period eligible spouses

and surviving spouses have to use

Survivors’ and Dependents’ Educational

Assistance (DEA). These provisions

previously were removed by error. Also,

this document requests Paperwork

Reduction Act comments concerning

the requirement that a spouse or

surviving spouse must apply for the

extension.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before March 10, 1997.

ADDRESSES: Mail or hand deliver written

comments to: Director, Office of

Regulations Management (02D),

Department of Veterans Affairs, 810

Vermont Ave., NW, Room 1154,

Washington, DC 20420. Comments

should indicate that they are submitted

in response to ‘‘RIN 2900–AI45’’. All

written comments will be available for

public inspection in the Office of

Regulations Management, Room 1158,

between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30

p.m., Monday through Friday (except

holidays).

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 24, 1996 (61 FR 26107),

VA published a final rule removing

many regulatory provisions. As

explained in that document, many of

the provisions were removed because

they contained ‘‘sunsetted’’ provisions

authorized by the Vietnam Era GI Bill.

No benefits can be paid under the

Vietnam Era GI Bill for training that

occurred after December 31, 1989.

Among those provisions that were

removed was § 21.1043. This section

provided that if a veteran training under

the Vietnam Era GI Bill could not

complete a program of education within

the ten-year period due to a physical or

mental disability that is not the result of

willful misconduct, that period (the

delimiting period) could be extended.

A similar extension is authorized by

statute for eligible spouses and

surviving spouses under DEA.

Unfortunately, by removing § 21.1043,

VA inadvertently removed the

provisions that governed whether such

a spouse or surviving spouse could

receive an extension of the delimiting

period, since § 21.3046(e) states that the

provisions of § 21.1043 are to be used to

determine whether the extension should

be granted.

To correct this error, VA would

restate the provisions of the former

§ 21.1043 in the appropriate places in

part 21, subpart C, since that subpart

governs DEA claims. The definition

formerly contained in § 21.1043 would

be restated in § 21.3021. The remainder

of § 21.1043 would be restated in a new

section, § 21.3047. References would be

updated and some minor changes would

be made for clarification. There would

be no substantive changes.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act

of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), the

provisions of the proposed 38 CFR

21.3047 would include a collection of

information. Accordingly, as required

by the Act at section 3507(d), VA has

submitted a copy of this rulemaking

action to the Office of Management and

Budget (OMB) for its review of the

collection of information.

OMB assigns a control number for

each collection of information it

approves. VA may not conduct or

sponsor, and a person is not required to

respond to, a collection of information

unless it displays a currently valid OMB

control number.

Comments on the proposed collection

of information should be submitted to

the Office of Management and Budget,

Attention: Desk Officer for the

Department of Veterans Affairs, Office

of Information and Regulatory Affairs,

Washington, DC 20503, with copies

mailed or hand-delivered to: Director,

Office of Regulations Management

(02D), Department of Veterans Affairs,

810 Vermont Ave., NW, Room 1154,

Washington, DC 20420. Comments

should indicate that they are submitted

in response to ‘‘RIN 2900–AI45’’.

Title: Application for an Extension of

Eligibility Period under Survivors’ and

Dependents’ Educational Assistance.

Summary of collection of information:

The collection of information in the

proposed § 21.3047 implements a

statutory provision that requires that an

individual who wishes to receive a

benefit must apply for it.

Description of need for information

and proposed use of information: A

spouse or surviving spouse under DEA

may qualify for an extension of her or

his eligibility period if training during

that period was medically infeasible.

VA needs an application for this

extension in order to learn who wants

the extension. VA may need medical

evidence in order to determine if

training was medically infeasible and to

determine the time when training

became medically feasible.

Description of likely respondents:

Eligible spouses and surviving spouses

who would like an extension of the

delimiting period under DEA.

Estimated number of respondents:

100.

Estimated frequency of responses:

Once.

Estimated total annual reporting and

recordkeeping burden: 100 hours of

reporting burden. VA does not believe

that there will be an additional

recordkeeping burden.

Estimated average burden per

collection: 60 minutes.

The Department considers comments

by the public on proposed collections of

information in—

• Evaluating whether the proposed

collections of information are necessary

for the proper performance of the

functions of the Department, including

whether the information will have

practical utility;

• Evaluating the accuracy of the

Department’s estimate of the burden of
1304 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules

the proposed collections of information,

including the validity of the

methodology and assumptions used;

• Enhancing the quality, usefulness,

and clarity of the information to be

collected; and

• Minimizing the burden of the

collections of information on those who

are to respond, including through the

use of appropriate automated,

electronic, mechanical, or other

technological collection techniques or

other forms of information technology,

e.g., permitting electronic submission of

responses.

OMB is required to make a decision

concerning the proposed collection of

information contained in this proposed

rule between 30 and 60 days after

publication of this document in the

Federal Register. Therefore, a comment

to OMB is best assured of having its full

effect if OMB receives it within 30 days

of publication. This does not affect the

deadline for the public to comment on

the proposed regulations.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Secretary of Veterans Affairs

hereby certifies that this proposed rule,

if promulgated, will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities as

they are defined in the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. This

proposed rule affects only individuals.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b), this

proposed rule, therefore, is exempt from

the initial and final regulatory flexibility

analysis requirements of sections 603

and 604.

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

The Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance number for the program affected

by this proposed rule is 64.117.

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 21

Administrative practice and

procedure, Armed forces, Civil rights,

Claims, Colleges and universities,

Conflict of interests, Education,

Employment, Grant programseducation, Grant programs-veterans,

Health care, Loan programs-education,

Loan programs-veterans, Manpower

training programs, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Schools,

Travel and transportation expenses,

Veterans, Vocational education,

Vocational rehabilitation.

Approved: December 9, 1996.

Jesse Brown,

Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 38 CFR part 21 (subparts C

and F) is proposed to be amended as set

forth below.

PART 21—VOCATIONAL

REHABILITATION AND EDUCATION

Subpart C—Survivors’ and

Dependents’ Educational Assistance

Under 38 U.S.C. Chapter 35

1. The authority citation for subpart C

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), 512, 3500–

3566.

2. In §21.3021, paragraph (l) is

redesignated as paragraph (m); and new

paragraph (l) is added, to read as

follows:

§ 21.3021 Definitions.

* * * * *

(l) Disabling effects of chronic

alcoholism. (1) The term disabling

effects of chronic alcoholism means

alcohol-induced physical or mental

disorders or both, such as habitual

intoxication, withdrawal, delirium,

amnesia, dementia, and other like

manifestations of chronic alcoholism

which in the particular case:

(i) Have been medically diagnosed as

manifestations of alcohol dependency or

chronic alcohol abuse; and

(ii) Are determined to have prevented

commencement or completion of the

affected individual’s chosen program of

education.

(2) A diagnosis of alcoholism, chronic

alcoholism, alcohol-dependency,

chronic alcohol abuse, etc., in and of

itself, does not satisfy the definition of

this term.

(3) Injury sustained by an eligible

spouse or surviving spouse as a

proximate and immediate result of

activity undertaken by the eligible

spouse or surviving spouse while

physically or mentally unqualified to do

so due to alcoholic intoxication is not

considered a disabling effect of chronic

alcoholism.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 105, 3512(b))

* * * * *

§ 21.3046 [Amended]

3. In § 21.3046, paragraph (e) is

removed.

4. Section 21.3047 is added, to read as

follows:

§ 21.3047 Extended period of eligibility

due to physical or mental disability.

(a) General. (1) An eligible spouse or

surviving spouse shall be granted an

extension of the applicable period of

eligibility as otherwise determined by

§ 21.3046 provided the eligible spouse

or surviving spouse:

(i) Applies for the extension within

the appropriate time limit;

(ii) Was prevented from initiating or

completing the chosen program of

education within the otherwise

applicable period of eligibility because

of a physical or mental disability that

did not result from the willful

misconduct of the eligible spouse or

surviving spouse;

(iii) Provides VA with any requested

evidence tending to show that the

requirement of paragraph (a)(1)(ii) of

this section has been met; and

(iv) Is otherwise eligible for payment

of educational assistance for the training

pursuant to 38 U.S.C. chapter 35.

(2) In determining whether the

eligible spouse or surviving spouse was

prevented from initiating or completing

the chosen program of education

because of a physical or mental

disability, VA will consider the

following:

(i) It must be clearly established by

medical evidence that such a program of

education was medically infeasible.

(ii) An eligible spouse or surviving

spouse who is disabled for a period of

30 days or less will not be considered

as having been prevented from initiating

or completing a chosen program, unless

the evidence establishes that the eligible

spouse or surviving spouse was

prevented from enrolling or reenrolling

in the chosen program of education or

was forced to discontinue attendance,

because of the short disability.

(iii) VA will not consider the

disabling effects of chronic alcoholism

to be the result of willful misconduct

and will consider those disabling effects

as physical or mental disabilities.

(b) Commencing date. The eligible

spouse or surviving spouse shall elect

the commencing date of an extended

period of eligibility. The date chosen—

(1) Must be on or after the original

date of expiration of eligibility as

determined by § 21.3046(c); and

(2) Must be on or before the 90th day

following the date on which the eligible

spouse’s or surviving spouse’s

application for an extension was

approved by VA, if the eligible spouse

or surviving spouse is training during

the extended period of eligibility in a

course not organized on a term, quarter,

or semester basis; or

(3) Must be on or before the first

ordinary term, quarter, or semester

following the 90th day after the eligible

spouse’s or surviving spouse’s

application for an extension was

approved by VA if the eligible spouse or

surviving spouse is training during the

extended period of eligibility in a course

organized on a term, quarter, or

semester basis.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3512(b))

(c) Length of extended periods of

eligibility. An eligible spouse’s or
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 6 / Thursday, January 9, 1997 / Proposed Rules 1305

surviving spouse’s extended period of

eligibility shall be for the length of time

that the individual was prevented from

initiating or completing his or her

chosen program of education. This shall

be determined as follows:

(1) If the eligible spouse or surviving

spouse is in training in a course

organized on a term, quarter, or

semester basis, his or her extended

period of eligibility shall contain the

same number of days as the number of

days from the date during the eligible

spouse’s or surviving spouse’s original

period of eligibility that his or her

training became medically infeasible to

the earliest of the following dates:

(i) The commencing date of the

ordinary term, quarter, or semester

following the day the eligible spouse’s

or surviving spouse’s training became

medically feasible;

(ii) The ending date of the eligible

spouse’s or surviving spouse’s period of

eligibility as determined by § 21.3046(c);

or

(iii) The date the eligible spouse or

surviving spouse resumed training.

(2) If the eligible spouse or surviving

spouse is training in a course not

organized on a term, quarter, or

semester basis, his or her extended

period of eligibility shall contain the

same number of days from the date

during the eligible spouse’s or surviving

spouse’s original period of eligibility

that his or her training became

medically infeasible to the earlier of the

following dates:

(i) The date the eligible spouse’s or

surviving spouse’s training became

medically feasible; or

(ii) The ending date of the eligible

spouse’s or surviving spouse’s period of

eligibility as determined by § 21.3046.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 3512(b))

Subpart F—Education Loans

5. The authority citation for subpart F

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 3537, 3698, 3699.

§ 21.4501 [Amended]

6. In § 21.4501, paragraphs (b)(1),

(b)(2)(iv), (b)(2)(v)(A), (b)(2)(v)(B), (c)(1),

and (c)(3) are each amended by

removing ‘‘(d)’’ and adding, in its place,

‘‘(d), or § 21.3047’’.

[FR Doc. 97–437 Filed 1–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 721

[OPPTS–50610C; FRL–5578–6]

Certain Acrylate Esters; Withdrawal of

Proposed Significant New Use Rule

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal of proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA is withdrawing a

proposed significant new use rule

(SNUR) for certain acrylate substances

based on receipt of new toxicity data.

The data, which were generated through

a voluntary industry testing program,

resulted in a significant lowering of

hazard concerns for acrylate substances

such that EPA can no longer support a

finding that activities designated by the

proposed SNUR are significant new uses

under section 5(a) of TSCA.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Susan B. Hazen, Director,

Environmental Assistance Division

(7408), Office of Pollution Prevention

and Toxics, Environmental Protection

Agency, Rm. E–543A, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460; telephone: (202)

554–1404; TDD: (202) 554–0551; e-mail:

TSCA-Hotline@epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Register of November 22, 1993

(58 FR 61649) (FRL–4186–2), EPA

proposed a SNUR to be codified at 40

CFR 721.340 establishing significant

new uses for certain acrylate esters. EPA

is withdrawing this proposal in light of

additional toxicity data received for

acrylate substances

I. Rulemaking Record

The rulemaking record for the

proposed rule which is being

withdrawn by today’s rule was

designated as OPPTS–50610. That

record includes information considered

by the Agency in developing the

proposed rule and includes the test data

to which the Agency has responded

with this notice of withdrawal.

II. Background

EPA is withdrawing the significant

new use and recordkeeping

requirements proposed for certain

acrylate esters under 40 CFR part 721,

subpart E. Further background

information for the substances is

contained in the rulemaking record

referenced in Unit I of this preamble.

EPA proposed a SNUR which was to

be codified at 40 CFR 721.340,

establishing certain significant new uses

for all acrylate substances falling within

the ‘‘acrylate category’’ description,

based on EPA’s systematic regulation of

this category of chemicals. The

proposed SNUR was intended to serve

as a chemical category-wide substitute

for the Agency’s current practice of

regulating individual acrylate

substances one-at-a-time as those

substances underwent premanufacture

notice review pursuant to section 5(e) of

TSCA. The proposed SNUR would have

saved time and resources for both EPA

and PMN submitters. The Agency

believed that available data were

sufficient to warrant regulation,

including the promulgation of a

category SNUR, based on the potential

unreasonable risk of cancer from

uncontrolled exposure to acrylates.

While the final rule was being

developed, a voluntary testing program

was being developed jointly by EPA and

industry and was subsequently

conducted by a group of acrylate

manufacturers affected by acrylate

regulation, the Specialty Acrylates

Manufacturers (SAM). EPA and SAM

negotiated this voluntary testing

program for this category of chemicals

based on SAM’s commitment to conduct

toxicity testing for acrylate and

methacrylate substances. The purpose of

the testing program was to cooperatively

supply test data to address EPA’s health

concerns for the acrylate category. SAM

conducted several short term studies on

a series of acrylates and two long-term

dermal bioassays on Triethylene Glycol

Diacrylate (TREGDA) and Triethylene

Glycol Dimethacrylate (TREGDMA).

This testing was intended to correlate

activity in certain short term assays with

longer-term carcinogenic potential, as

well as to better characterize the toxicity

of the acrylate chemical category

generally.

After reviewing the test data

generated by the voluntary testing

program, including the long term

bioassays, EPA found that neither

TREGDA nor TREGDMA were

carcinogenic under the conditions of the

studies. Based on the TREGDMA

bioassay and data for other

methacrylates, EPA no longer supports

the carcinogenicity concern for

methacrylates. However, in the case of

TREGDA, the maximum tolerated dose

(MTD) may not have been attained

because skin irritation noted in the

range finding studies was not present

over the entire term of the bioassay.

Therefore, because the MTD may not

have been attained in the TREGDA

study, and based on available data for

other acrylates, EPA still has concerns

that some acrylates may be carcinogenic

after repeated application at higher

doses.