Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26839

Comment: With respect to the

submittal of Advance Planning

Document Updates, one commenter

noted that meeting the timeframe for

submitting an APD may be problematic

due to new Federal requirements,

identification of proposed project

changes and the internal State review

process.

Similarly, another commenter

expressed concern that the timeframe

will be difficult for some States to meet

and encouraged ACF to actively seek

out States to which this section applied

to ensure they understand the

importance of meeting this critical

deadline.

Response: The regulations at 45 CFR

95.605(3)(b), indicate that a State must

submit an As Needed APD Update when

significant changes are expected to a

project. We have identified and worked

with the States affected by this

requirement and have either granted

final or conditional approval of their

APD Updates. None of the concerned

States were adversely affected by this

requirement.

Comment: On a miscellaneous issue,

one commenter noted that paragraph (b)

has been reserved under 45 CFR 95.641

or 45 CFR 1355.55 and questioned this.

Response: The issue raised by the

commenter merely speaks to a

regulatory drafting requirement. Under

regulatory drafting rules it is

inappropriate to refer to a paragraph

designated as ‘‘(a)’’ without referencing

a ‘‘(b)’’ cite. There are no plans to add

to this section.

Failure to Meet the Condition of the

Approved APD

Comment: One commenter thought

that it was unclear whether recoupment

of enhanced FFP applies only to those

components of the APD that are

required under 45 CFR 1355.53. States

could develop an APD that proposes to

develop an automated system that

included some permissive components,

develop required components and then

fail to get sufficient funding to complete

the permissive components. States

should not be penalized for revising the

APD downward as long as they meet the

minimum requirements.

Response: While we would hope that

States would ensure that their plans are

realistic prior to submittal, States would

not be penalized in cases where

optional automation plans were

dropped, unless such changes

negatively affected either the costeffectiveness of the system or the State’s

ability to complete the project

successfully. In such cases, if a State

pulled back on discretionary items, we

would simply recalculate funding to

make the necessary adjustments.

Comment: Another commenter noted

that § 1355.56 provides that failure to

meet the conditions of these regulations

may result in an approved APD being

suspended while at the same time

recognizing that penalties are provided

for failure to comply with the AFCARS

regulations. The commenter was

concerned that this could put States in

the position of being unable to meet

AFCARS because of a loss of SACWIS

funding.

Response: We would like to clarify

that the loss of funding discussed with

respect to § 1355.56 refers only to

enhanced funding for SACWIS and good

systems planning would ensure that no

State is put in the position of losing this

funding.

We agree that there is a strong

interrelationship between AFCARS

implementation and SACWIS

development and for this reason have

allowed States to implement their

SACWIS on a phased based to ensure

that AFCARS requirements are met

expeditiously.

Cost allocation

Comment: One commenter expressed

interest that we acknowledge that

systems transfer from another State may

not be the best solution, but shared

development (and funding) program to

program in the State be encouraged.

Another asked that we provide more

detail on cost allocation.

Response: We agree that systems

transfer from another State may not be

the best solution in SACWIS design and,

as indicated in the preamble to the

interim final rule, plan to be flexible in

our consideration of State analysis

provided in the APD for not going this

route in SACWIS development.

For information regarding the effect of

shared development on cost allocation

or for detailed specification of the cost

allocation requirement, please see our

action transmittal, ACF–OISM–AT–95–

001.

Regulatory Impact Analysis

Executive Order 12866 requires that

regulations be reviewed to ensure that

they are consistent with the priorities

and principles set forth in the Executive

Order. The Department has determined

that this rule is consistent with these

priorities and principles. An assessment

of the costs and benefits of available

regulatory alternatives (including not

regulating) demonstrated that the

approach taken in the regulation is the

most cost-effective and least

burdensome while still achieving the

regulatory objectives.

Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

Consistent with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96–354) which

requires the Federal government to

anticipate and reduce the impact of

rules and paperwork requirements on

small businesses and other small

entities, the Secretary certifies that this

rule has no significant effect on a

substantial number of small entities.

Therefore, a regulatory flexibility

analysis is not required.

List of Subjects

45 CFR Part 1355

Adoption and foster care, Child

welfare, Data collection, Definitions

grant programs—Social programs

45 CFR Part 1356

Adoption and foster Care,

Administrative costs, Child welfare,

Fiscal requirements (title IV–E), Grant

programs—social programs, Statewide

information systems

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program No. 13.658, Foster Care

Maintenance, 13.659, Adoption Assistance

and 13.645, Child Welfare Services—State

Grants)

Approved: April 5, 1995.

Mary Jo Bane,

Assistant Secretary for Children and Families.

Accordingly, the interim rule

amending 45 CFR Parts 1355 and 1356

which was published at 58 FR 67939 on

December 22, 1993, is adopted as a final

rule with the following change:

PART 1355—GENERAL

1. The authority citation for Part 1355

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 42 U.S.C. 620 et seq., 42 U.S.C.

670 et seq.; 42 U.S.C. 1301 and 1302.

§ 1355.53 [Amended]

2. Section 1355.53(b)(3) is amended

by replacing the reference to ‘‘section

427’’ in the first line with a reference to

‘‘section 422.’’

[FR Doc. 95–11909 Filed 5–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4184–01–P

INTERSTATE COMMERCE

COMMISSION

49 CFR Part 1039

[Ex Parte No. 346 (Sub-No. 35)]

Rail General Exemption Authority—

Exemption of Ferrous Recyclables

AGENCY: Interstate Commerce

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.
26840 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 97 / Friday, May 19, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

SUMMARY: Pursuant to its authority, the

Commission is exempting from

regulation the transportation by rail of

iron and steel scrap (STCC No. 40–211)

and steel shipping containers (STCC No.

34–912). These commodities are added

to the list of exempt commodities, as set

forth below.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 18, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Beryl Gordon, (202) 927–5610. [TDD for

the hearing impaired: (202) 927–5721.]

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August

24, 1994, at 59 FR 43528, we requested

comments on a proposal by the

Association of American Railroads

(AAR) and the Institute of Scrap

Recycling Industries, Inc. (ISRI)

(collectively, petitioners), to exempt

from regulation under 49 U.S.C. 10505

the rail transportation of certain ferrous

recyclables. After receiving and

analyzing the comments filed in this

proceeding, we now partially approve

petitioners’ proposal. We exempt iron

and steel scrap (STCC No. 40–211) and

steel shipping containers (STCC No. 34–

912) from regulation, but decline at this

time to exempt blast furnace, open

hearth, rolling mill, or coke oven

products, NEC (STCC No. 33–119).

We reaffirm our initial finding that

the exemption will not significantly

affect either the quality of the human

environment or the conservation of

energy resources.

We also reaffirm our initial finding

that the exemption will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

For further information, see the

Commission’s printed decision. To

obtain a copy of the full decision, write

to, call, or pick up in person from:

Dynamic Concepts, Inc., Interstate

Commerce Commission Building, 1201

Constitution Avenue, NW., Room 2229,

Washington, DC 20423. Telephone (202)

289–4357/4359. [Assistance for the

hearing impaired is available through

TDD services (202) 927–5721.]

List of Subjects in 49 CFR Part 1039

Intermodal transportation,

Manufactured commodities, Railroads.

Decided: April 28, 1995.

By the Commission, Chairman Morgan,

Vice Chairman Owen, and Commissioners

Simmons and McDonald.

Vernon A. Williams,

Secretary.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, title 49, chapter X, part 1039

of the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows:

PART 1039—EXEMPTIONS

1. The authority citation for part 1039

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 49 U.S.C. 10321 and 10505; and

5 U.S.C. 553.

2. In § 1039.11, paragraph (a), the

following new entries are added at the

end of the table to read as follows:

§ 1039.11 Miscellaneous commodities

exemptions.

(a) * * *

STCC

No. STCC tariff Commodity

* * * * *

34 912 6001–W, eff.

1–1–95..

Steel shipping

containers.

40 211 ......do .............. Iron and steel

scrap.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 95–12338 Filed 5–18–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7035–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration

50 CFR Part 301

[Docket No. 950106003–5070–02; I.D.

051595G]

Pacific Halibut Fisheries

AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries

Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and

Atmospheric Administration (NOAA),

Commerce.

ACTION: Inseason action; vessel

clearance procedures.

SUMMARY: The Assistant Administrator

for Fisheries, NOAA, on behalf of the

International Pacific Halibut

Commission (IPHC), publishes this

inseason action pursuant to IPHC

regulations approved by the U.S.

Government to govern the Pacific

halibut fishery. This action is intended

to enhance the conservation of the

Pacific halibut stock in order to help

sustain it at an adequate level in the

northern Pacific Ocean and Bering Sea.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 15, 1995,

through December 31, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Stephen Pennoyer, 907–586–7221;

William W. Stelle, Jr., 206–526–6140; or

Donald McCaughran, 206–634–1838.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The IPHC,

under the Convention between the

United States of America and Canada

for the preservation of the Halibut

Fishery of the Northern Pacific Ocean

and Bering Sea (signed at Ottawa,

Ontario, on March 2, 1953), as amended

by a Protocol Amending the Convention

(signed at Washington, DC, on March 29

1979), has issued this inseason action

pursuant to IPHC regulations governing

the Pacific halibut fishery. The

regulations have been approved by

NMFS (60 FR 14651, March 20, 1995).

On behalf of the IPHC, this inseason

action is published in the Federal

Register to provide additional notice of

its effectiveness, and to inform persons

subject to the inseason action of the

restrictions and requirements

established therein.

Inseason Action

1995 Bering Sea Halibut Vessel

Clearance Procedures

All halibut vessels fishing in Area 4A

must obtain a vessel clearance from a

designated fish processor either in

Akutan or Dutch Harbor both prior to

fishing, and prior to unloading.

All halibut vessels fishing in Area 4B

must obtain a vessel clearance from

Atka Pride Seafoods in Nazan Bay on

Atka Island, both prior to fishing and

prior to unloading and/or departure

from Area 4B. The vessel operator must

obtain the clearance required prior to

fishing, in person. The clearance

required after fishing may be obtained

in person, or via VHF radio (call on VHF

channel 6) as long as the person

granting the clearance can visually

confirm the identity of the vessel.

Vessels that fish only in Area 4B and

land their entire annual halibut catch at

a port within Area 4B are exempt from

the vessel clearance requirements.

All halibut vessels fishing in Area 4C

and 4D must obtain a vessel clearance

prior to fishing from a designated fish

processor in either Akutan or Dutch

Harbor. The vessel clearance required

prior to unloading must be obtained at

St. George or St. Paul, either in person,

or via VHF radio as long as the person

granting the clearance can visually

confirm the identity of the vessel.

Clearance at St. George can be obtained

from the harbor master (call on VHF

channel 16). Clearance at St. Paul can be

obtained from either Trident Seafoods

(call on VHF channel 73) or from Unisea

(call on VHF channel 74). Vessels that

only fish in Area 4C and land their total

annual halibut catch at a port within

Area 4C are exempt from the vessel

clearance requirements. Vessels that fish

only in Area 4D and 4E, and land their

total annual halibut catch at a port

within Areas 4D, 4E, or the Bering Sea

closed area, are also exempt from the

vessel clearance requirements.