Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19859

1Notice of Maine Exemption from the Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act, 60 Fed. Reg. 68173

(December 27, 1995).

by submitting a request to the Federal

Aviation Administration, Manager,

Airspace Branch, ASO–520, Air Traffic

Division, P.O. Box 20636, Atlanta,

Georgia 30320. Communications must

identify the notice number of this

NPRM. Persons interested in being

placed on a mailing list for future

NPRM’s should also request a copy of

Advisory Circular No. 11–2A, which

describes the application procedure.

The Proposal

The FAA is considering an

amendment to part 71 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 71) to

amend Class E airspace at Daytona

Beach, FL. The VOR RWY 8 SIAP at the

Ormond Beach Municipal Airport has

been amended to a VOR or GPS RWY

17 SIAP. As a result, the airspace for the

Ormond Beach Municipal Airport must

be amended from a 6.4- to a 7.3-mile

radius to accommodate the SIAP and for

Instrument Flight Rules (IFR) operations

at the airport. Additionally, the airspace

extension for the previous VOR RWY 8

SIAP will be removed. Class E airspace

designations for airspace areas

extending upward from 700 feet or more

above the surface are published in

Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 7400.9E

dated September 10, 1997, and effective

September 16, 1997, which is

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR

71.1. The Class E airspace designation

listed in this document would be

published subsequently in the Order.

The FAA has determined that this

proposed regulation only involves an

established body of technical

regulations for which frequent and

routine amendments are necessary to

keep them operationally current. It,

therefore, (1) is not a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ under Executive

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant

preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation

as the anticipated impact is so minimal.

Since this is a routine matter that will

only affect air traffic procedures and air

navigation, it is certified that this rule,

when promulgated, will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

under the criteria of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act.

List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71

Airspace, Incorporation by reference,

Navigation (Air).

The Proposed Amendment

In consideration of the foregoing, the

Federal Aviation Administration

proposes to amend 14 CFR part 71 as

follows:

PART 71—DESIGNATION OF CLASS A,

CLASS B, CLASS C, CLASS D, AND

CLASS E AIRSPACE AREAS;

AIRWAYS; ROUTES; AND REPORTING

POINTS

1. The authority citation for Part 71

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g); 40103, 40113,

40120; E.O. 10854, 24 FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959–

1963 Comp., p. 389.

§ 71.1 [Amended]

2. The incorporation by reference in

14 CFR 71.1 of Federal Aviation

Administration Order 7400.9E, Airspace

Designations and Reporting Points,

dated September 10, 1997, and effective

September 16, 1997, is amended as

follows:

Paragraph 6005 Class E airspace areas

extending upward from 700 feet or more

above the surface of the earth.

* * * * *

ASO FL E5 Daytona Beach, FL [Revised]

Daytona Beach International Airport, FL

(Lat. 29°10′48′′ N, long. 81°03′27′′ W)

Spruce Creek Airport

(Lat. 29°04′49′′ N, long. 81°02′48′′ W)

Ormond Beach Municipal Airport

(Lat. 29°18′04′′ N, long. 81°06′50′′ W)

Ormond Beach VORTAC

(Lat. 29°18′12′′ N, long. 81°06′46′′ W)

That airspace extending upward from 700

feet or more above the surface of the earth

within a 10-mile radius of Daytona Beach

International Airport, within a 6.4-mile

radius of Spruce Creek Airport and within a

7.3-mile radius of Ormond Beach Municipal

Airport.

* * * * *

Issued in College Park, Georgia, on April 8,

1998.

Wade T. Carpenter,

Acting Manager, Air Traffic Division,

Southern Region.

[FR Doc. 98–10677 Filed 4–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–13–M

FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION

16 CFR Part 901

Request for Comments Concerning

Procedures for State Application for

Exemption From the Fair Debt

Collection Practices Act

AGENCY: Federal Trade Commission.

ACTION: Request for public comments.

SUMMARY: The Federal Trade

Commission (‘‘Commission’’) requests

public comments about the overall costs

and benefits and the continuing needs

for its Procedures for State Application

for Exemption from the Provisions of

the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

(‘‘FDCPA’’), hereinafter known as

‘‘Procedures.’’

DATES: Written comments will be

accepted until June 22, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be

directed to: Secretary, Federal Trade

Commission, Room H–159, Sixth Street

and Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20580. Comments

should be identified as ‘‘Procedures for

Exemption from FDCPA, 16 CFR Part

901—Comment.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

John F. LeFevre, Attorney, Federal

Trade Commission, Washington, D.C.

20580, telephone number (202) 326–

3209 or Tom Kane, Attorney, Federal

Trade Commission, Washington, D.C.

20580, telephone number (202) 326–

2304, E-mail [tkane@ftc.gov].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

A. The Fair Debt Collection Practices

Act

The Fair Debt Collection Practices

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1691 et seq. (‘‘FDCPA’’),

prohibits a number of deceptive, unfair

and abusive practices by third party

debt collectors. Section 817 of the

FDCPA requires that the Commission

exempt from its requirements ‘‘any class

of debt collection practices within any

state if the Commission determines that

under the law of the state, the class of

debt collection practices is subject to

requirements substantially similar to

those imposed by [the FDCPA], and that

there is adequate provision for

enforcement.’’ The Commission has

received one application for exemption

from Sections 803–812 of the FDCPA

from the State of Maine for debt

collection practices conducted within

that State and granted that exemption.1

The FDCPA prohibits debt collectors

from using false or misleading

statements, harassing or abusive

conduct or any unfair methods to collect

debts. Among the practices which are

specifically prohibited are making false

threats to coerce payment (such as false

threats of suit); using deceptive

collection notices that falsely appear to

be from an attorney or court; and

engaging in any sort of harassment, such

as threatening violence, using profanity

and obscenities, or making continuous

phone calls. The FDCPA also restricts

the extent to which debt collectors may

call a consumer at work and prohibits

them from making calls to consumers
19860 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules

very early in the morning or late at

night. With a few narrow exceptions, it

prohibits collectors from contacting

third parties and revealing the existence

of a consumer’s debt. In addition, the

FDCPA prohibits collectors from adding

charges to a debt unless the consumer

involved agrees to them or they are

permitted by law, and from filing suit

against a consumer outside of the

district of the consumer’s residence or

where the contract creating the debt was

signed.

Under the FDCPA, if a consumer

disputes the debt in writing, the

collector is required to stop all

collection efforts until the debt is

verified. The FDCPA also states that if

the consumer demands in writing that

the debt collector cease all further

collection efforts, the debt collector

must comply even if the debt is valid.

Finally, the FDCPA gives a consumer

the right to bring suit against a debt

collector in any court for violations of

the FDCPA, and, if successful, to receive

actual damages and additional damages

up to $1,000, as well as costs and

attorney’s fees.

The FDCPA is enforced primarily by

the Federal Trade Commission. A

violation of the FDCPA is deemed an

unfair or deceptive practice in violation

of the Federal Trade Commission Act.

All of the functions and powers of the

Federal Trade Commission Act are

available to the Commission to enforce

compliance with the FDCPA. The

Commission may enforce the provisions

of the FDCPA in federal court, seeking

civil penalties and injunctive relief, as

appropriate.

B. The Procedures

The Commission promulgated

procedures in 1979 for state

applications for exemption from the

provisions of the FDCPA, which are

published in 16 CFR 901 (1995)

(‘‘Procedures’’). Section 901.2 of the

Procedures provides that any state may

apply to the Commission for a

determination that, under the laws of

that State, (1) any class of debt

collection practices within that State is

subject to requirements that are

substantially similar to, or provide

greater protection for consumers than,

those imposed under Sections 803

through 812 of the FDCPA; and (2) there

is adequate provision for state

enforcement of such requirements.

Section 901.4 of the Procedures

describes the criteria for making the

determination. Section 901.4(a) requires

that (1) the definitions and rules of

construction in the state law import the

same meaning and have the same

application as those prescribed by the

FDCPA; (2) debt collectors provide all

the applicable notifications under the

state law that are required by the

FDCPA; (3) debt collectors under the

state law take all affirmative actions and

abide by obligations substantially

similar to, or more extensive than, those

prescribed by the FDCPA; (4) debt

collectors under the state law abide by

the same or more stringent prohibitions

as are prescribed by the FDCPA; (5)

obligations and responsibilities imposed

on consumers under the state law are no

more costly, lengthy, or burdensome

than corresponding obligations or

responsibilities imposed on consumers

by the FDCPA; and (6) consumers’ rights

and protections under the state law are

substantially similar to, or more

favorable than, those provided by the

FDCPA. Section 901.4(b) requires that

the Commission consider (1) the

facilities, personnel and funding

devoted to administrative enforcement

of the state law; (2) provisions in the

state law for civil liability for actions

brought in the private sector as

compared with Section 813 of the

FDCPA; and (3) the statute of limitations

for civil liability in the state law (for

actions brought in the private sector)

which should be substantially similar or

longer than that in the FDCPA. The

Commission must consider each

provision of the state law in comparison

with each corresponding provision in

Sections 803 through 812 of the FDCPA,

and not the state law as a whole in

comparison with the FDCPA as a whole.

Section 901.3 of the Procedures

requires that an application be

accompanied by a variety of documents

including (1) the state law; (2) a

comparison of the provisions of the state

law with various sections of the FDCPA;

(3) a copy of the full text of the law that

provides for its enforcement; (4) a

comparison of provisions of the law that

provides for enforcement with the

provisions of Section 814 of the FDCPA;

and (5) a statement identifying the state

office designated to administer the state

law, along with a description of the

ability of that office to effectively

administer the statute. If an application

is filed in accordance with the

Procedures, Section 901.5 states that the

filing shall be published in the Federal

Register. Section 901.6 provides that the

Commission may grant an exemption

under the provisions of the Procedures.

II. Regulatory Review Program

The Commission has determined to

review all current Commission

regulations periodically. These reviews

seek information about the costs and

benefits of the Commission’s regulations

and their regulatory and economic

impact. The information obtained

assists the Commission in identifying

regulations that warrant modification or

rescission. Therefore, the Commission

solicits comments on, among other

things, the economic impact of and the

continuing need for the Procedures;

possible conflict between the

Procedures and state, local, or other

federal laws; and the effect on the

Procedures of any technological,

economic, or other industry changes.

III. Request for Comment

The Commission solicits written

public comments on the following

questions:

(1) Is there a continuing need for the

Procedures?

(a) What benefits have the Procedures

provided to consumers covered by the

FDCPA?

(b) Have the Procedures imposed

costs on consumers?

(2) What changes, if any, should be

made to the Procedures to increase the

benefits of the Procedures to consumers

covered by the FDCPA?

(a) How would these changes affect

the benefits to consumers covered by

the FDCPA?

(b) How would these changes affect

the costs the Procedures impose on

states considering applying for

exemption?

(3) What significant burdens or costs,

including costs of compliance, have the

Procedures imposed on any state that

has considered applying for exemption,

or that has actually applied for

exemption?

(a) Have the Procedures provided

benefits to such states? If so, what

benefits?

(4) What changes, if any, should be

made to the Procedures to reduce the

burdens or costs imposed on states

considering applying for an exemption?

(a) How would these changes affect

the benefits provided by the

Procedures?

(5) Do the Procedures overlap or

conflict with other federal, state, or local

laws or regulations?

(6) Since the Procedures were issued,

what effects, if any, have changes in

new technology, such as the Internet or

E-mail, or changes in other economic

conditions, had on the Procedures?

(7) Section 901.4 of the Procedures

requires that the Commission compare

civil liability provisions of private suits

in the state law and those contained in

Section 813 of the FDCPA, but Section

901.6(d) prohibits the Commission from

exempting any state from the provision

of Section 813. Should Section 901.4 be

changed to remove the requirement that

civil liability provisions in the state law
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 77 /Wednesday, April 22, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19861

1Standards For Business Practices of Interstate

Natural Gas Pipelines, Order No. 587, 61 FR 39053

(Jul. 26, 1996), III FERC Stats. & Regs. Regulations

Preambles ¶ 31,038 (Jul. 17, 1996), Order No. 587–

B, 62 FR 5521 (Feb. 6, 1997), III FERC Stats. & Regs.

Regulations Preambles ¶ 31,046 (Jan. 30, 1997),

Order No. 587–C, 62 FR 10684 (Mar. 10, 1997), III

FERC Stats. & Regs. Regulations Preambles ¶ 31,050

(Mar. 4, 1997).

2 18 CFR 284.10(b)(1)(i) (1997), Nominations

Related Standards 1.3.10.

3 18 CFR 284.10(b)(1)(i) (1997), Nominations

Related Standards 1.2.4.

and those contained in Section 813 of

the FDCPA be compared?

(8) Are there any other changes that

should be made to the Procedures? If so,

please specify and state reasons for the

changes.

Lists of Subjects in 16 CFR Part 901

Fair Debt Collection Practices Act.

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 41–58.

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 98–10699 Filed 4–21–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY

Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission

18 CFR Part 284

[Docket No. RM96–1–008]

Standards for Business Practices of

Interstate Natural Gas Pipelines

April 16, 1998.

AGENCY: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission (Commission) is

proposing to amend § 284.10 of its

regulations governing standards for

conducting business practices and

electronic communication with

interstate natural gas pipelines. The

Commission is proposing to incorporate

by reference, in § 284.10(b)(1)(i), the

standards relating to intra-day

nominations promulgated March 12,

1998 by the Gas Industry Standards

Board (GISB).

DATES: Comments are due May 22, 1998.

ADDRESSES: Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,

Washington DC, 20426.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Michael Goldenberg, Office of the

General Counsel, Federal Energy

Regulatory Commission, 888 First

Street, NE., Washington, DC 20426,

(202) 208–2294

Marvin Rosenberg, Office of Economic

Policy, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208–

1283

Kay Morice, Office of Pipeline

Regulation, Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission, 888 First Street, N.E.,

Washington, DC 20426, (202) 208–

0507

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In

addition to publishing the full text of

this document in the Federal Register,

the Commission provides all interested

persons an opportunity to inspect or

copy the contents of this document

during normal business hours in Room

2A, 888 First Street, N.E., Washington

D.C. 20426. The complete text on

diskette in WordPerfect format may be

purchased from the Commission’s copy

contractor, La Dorn Systems

Corporation. La Dorn Systems

Corporation is located in the Public

Reference Room at 888 First Street, N.E.,

Washington, D.C. 20426.

The Commission Issuance Posting

System (CIPS), an electronic bulletin

board service, also provides access to

the texts of formal documents issued by

the Commission. CIPS is available at no

charge to the user. CIPS can be accessed

over the Internet by pointing your

browser to the URL address: http://

www.ferc.fed.us. Select the link to CIPS.

The full text of this document can be

obtained in ASCII or WordPerfect

format. CIPS also may be accessed using

a personal computer with a modem by

dialing 202–208–1397 if dialing locally

or 1–800–856–3920 if dialing long

distance. To access CIPS, set your

communications software to 19200,

14400, 12000, 9600, 7200, 4800, 2400,

or 1200 bps, full duplex, no parity, 8

data bits and 1 stop bit. The full text of

this order will be available on CIPS in

ASCII and WordPerfect 6.1 format. CIPS

user assistance is available at 202–208–

2474.

The Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission (Commission) is proposing

to amend § 284.10 of its regulations

governing standards for conducting

business practices and electronic

communications with interstate natural

gas pipelines. The Commission is

proposing to adopt the consensus

standards, promulgated March 12, 1998,

by the Gas Industry Standards Board

(GISB) dealing with intra-day

nominations and revisions to

nomination and confirmation

procedures.

I. Background

In Order Nos. 587, 587–B, and 587–

C1 the Commission adopted regulations

to standardize the business practices

and communication methodologies of

interstate pipelines in order to create a

more integrated and efficient pipeline

grid. In those orders, the Commission

incorporated by reference consensus

standards developed by GISB, a private,

consensus standards developer

composed of members from all segments

of the natural gas industry.

In Order No. 587, the Commission

adopted a standard requiring pipelines

to permit shippers to make at least one

intra-day nomination per day.2 An intraday nomination is a nomination

submitted after the initial nomination

deadline at 11:30 a.m. to change a

shipper’s scheduled quantities for the

next gas day.3

In Order No. 587–C, the Commission

did not adopt additional standards

approved by GISB concerning intra-day

nominations, because the standards did

not clearly outline the pipelines’

obligations. The Commission further

noted that pipelines had implemented

GISB’s previous intra-day standards in

divergent ways, for instance, by

establishing different times for

submission of intra-day nominations.

These differences prevented shippers

from coordinating their intra-day

nominations across the pipeline grid.

The Commission gave GISB and the

industry until September 1, 1997 to

propose additional standards that would

create the needed uniformity in intraday procedures.

On September 2, 1997, GISB filed a

report detailing its progress in reaching

consensus on the intra-day standards.

While GISB reported making significant

progress in developing the standards, it

highlighted conflicts between its

members that were inhibiting

completion of the standards. The

disagreements concerned the

circumstances under which intra-day

nominations by shippers holding firm

capacity should be given scheduling

priority over previously scheduled

interruptible service.

In Order No. 587–G, issued

contemporaneously with this NOPR, the

Commission resolved this conflict. It

issued regulations requiring pipelines to

accord an intra-day nomination

submitted by a firm shipper scheduling

priority over nominated and scheduled

volumes for interruptible shippers. The

Commission, however, deferred

implementation of this requirement

until GISB had developed, and the

Commission had adopted, standards to

implement the regulation.

On March 23, 1998, GISB filed with

the Commission intra-day nomination

standards approved, on March 12, 1998,