64132 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules

1This provision of the Act is codified at 7 U.S.C.

6p(b) (1994) and states that:

The Commission shall issue regulations to require

new registrants, within 6 months after receiving

such registration, to attend a training session, and

all other registrants to attend periodic training

sessions, to ensure that registrants understand their

responsibilities to the public under this Act,

including responsibilities to observe just and

equitable principles of trade, any rule or regulation

of the Commission, any rule of any appropriate

contract market, registered futures association, or

other self-regulatory organization, or any other

applicable Federal or state law, rule or regulation.

2 58 FR 19575, 19584–19587, 19593–19594 (Apr.

15, 1993).

United States.’’ The President has

delegated this authority with respect to

the tomato tariff-rate quotas (TRQ’s) to

the United States Trade Representative

(USTR).

Concern has been expressed about the

impact on domestic markets of surges in

imports of Mexican tomatoes.

Allocation of the existing seasonal

TRQ’s on a weekly basis is an option

which could address that concern.

USTR is considering that option and

seeking public comment.

Mexico typically supplies over 90

percent of U.S. fresh tomato imports.

During the winter months, more than 25

percent of the fresh tomatoes consumed

in the United States are grown in

Mexico.

In accordance with terms of the

NAFTA, this proposal would affect only

tomatoes imported into the United

States from Mexico during the periods

March 1 through July 14 through the

year 2002 and November 15 through

February until February 2003. Tomatoes

entered from Mexico eligible for the inquota tariff would be charged the

declining NAFTA rate. All other

Mexican tomatoes would be charged the

most favored nation rate.

Tariffs on tomatoes imported from

Mexico during the period July 15

through November 14 are being phased

out over five years. No TRQ’s apply

from July 15 through November 14.

Entries during this period would be

unaffected.

Allocation Methodology: One method

for allocating the in-quota quantity for

each of the tariff-rate quotas would be

to distribute the specified quantity

evenly on a weekly basis throughout

each TRQ period. Since the in-quota

quantity for each TRQ increases each

year, an annual re-calculation of the

weekly TRQ’s would be necessary.

The following is an example of how

the in-quota quantity could be

distributed on a weekly basis:

According to U.S. Note 10 to

subchapter VI of chapter 99 of the HTS,

for the period November 15, 1995

through February 29, 1996, the in-quota

quantity is 177,469,000 kilograms (kg.).

The seasonal TRQ would be divided

evenly into weekly allocations. The

period from November 15, 1995,

through February 29, 1996, includes 14

complete weeks and portions of two

weeks at the beginning and end of the

period. To calculate the weekly

allocation for the season, the total

seasonal TRQ of 177,469,000 kg would

be divided by 107, the total number of

days in the period. A week would be

defined as a seven-day period running

from Monday through Sunday. The

daily amount would be multiplied times

7 to establish an allocation for each of

14 full weeks. For the period November

15 through November 19, the daily

amount would be multiplied by 5 and

for the February 26 through February 29

period, the daily amount would be

multiplied by 4. This establishes a

weekly allocation of 11,610,121 kg. for

each of the 14 full weeks, an allocation

of 8,292,248 kg. for the November 15–

18, 1995, period, and 6,634,358 kg. for

the February 26–29, 1996, period.

For the period November 15, 1995,

through February 29, 1996, the tariff on

tomatoes imported form Mexico within

the weekly quotas would be 2.6 cents

per kilogram. The tariff on any amounts

which exceed the weekly quotas would

be 3.2 cents per kilogram.

USTR is particularly interested in

comments from the public which

address the following points:

(a) To what extent do surges in

imports of Mexican tomatoes disrupt, or

threaten to disrupt, the U.S. market for

fresh tomatoes?

(b) Would a weekly allocation of the

current seasonal TRQ’s be an effective

mechanism for moderating any

disruption that might otherwise occur?

(c) If the seasonal TRQ is to be subdivided into weekly TRQ’s, how should

it be equitably allocated among the

weeks?

(d) Are there alternative mechanisms

available to cushion the impact of

surges in imports of Mexican tomatoes

that could be more effective, but still

consistent with U.S. obligations under

NAFTA?

Written Comments

Comments on the above Advance

Notice of Proposed Rulemaking are

invited. Written comments should be

directed to Leonard W. Condon, Deputy

Assistant United States Trade

Representative for Agricultural Affairs,

Office of the United States Trade

Representative, Washington, DC, 20508.

Comments, with two copies, should be

received by March 13, 1996.

Michael Kantor,

United States Trade Representative.

[FR Doc. 95–30501 Filed 12–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3190–01–M

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING

COMMISSION

17 CFR Part 3

Ethics Training for Registrants

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading

Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: On July 22, 1994, the

Commodity Futures Trading

Commission (Commission) proposed

amendments to Rule 3.34, which

governs ethics training for Commission

registrants. The Commission has

published a release announcing the

adoption of those rule amendments in

the Federal Register on December 13,

1995. The Commission also is proposing

to amend Rule 3.34 to require that

persons who seek to provide ethics

training must present satisfactory

evidence that they meet a proficiency

testing requirement established by a

registered futures association and

possess a minimum of three years of

relevant experience. The Commission is

also proposing to amend Rule 3.34 to

eliminate the provision permitting stateaccredited entities to provide ethics

training without being subject to the

requirements pertaining to other

providers under the rule.

DATES: Comments must be received by

January 16, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

the Office of the Secretariat, Commodity

Futures Trading Commission, 1155 21st

Street NW., Washington, DC 20581 and

should refer to ‘‘Ethics Training for

Registrants.’’

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lawrence B. Patent, Associate Chief

Counsel or Myra R. Silberstein,

Attorney-Advisor, Division of Trading

and Markets, 1155 21st Street, N.W.,

Washington, D.C. 20581. Telephone

(202) 418–5450.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

Section 210 of the Futures Trading

Practices Act of 1992 added a new

paragraph (b) to Section 4p of the

Commodity Exchange Act (Act) to

mandate ethics training for persons

required to be registered under the Act.1

On April 6, 1993, the Commission

adopted Rule 3.34 to implement this

Congressional mandate.2 In September,

1993, the Commission issued a Federal

Register release to clarify the

procedures to be followed by persons
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules 64133

3 58 FR 47890 (Sept. 13, 1993).

4 59 FR 37446 (July 22, 1994).

5 7 U.S.C. 12a (2) and (3)(1994). The Act specifies

several grounds for disqualification from

registration including, among others, a prior

revocation of registration, felony conviction, and an

injunction relating to futures or securities activities.

6No person may serve on SRO governing boards

or committees who, among other things, has been

found within the prior three years to have

committed a ‘‘disciplinary offense’’ or entered into

a settlement agreement with respect to a charge

involving a ‘‘disciplinary offense,’’ is currently

suspended from trading on any contract market, is

suspended or expelled from membership in any

SRO, or is currently subject to an agreement with

the Commission or an SRO not to apply for

registration or membership. A ‘‘disciplinary

offense’’ for these purposes means any violation of

the Act or the rules promulgated thereunder or SRO

rules other than those relating to: (1) decorum or

attire; (2) financial requirements; or (3) reporting or

recordkeeping, unless resulting in fines aggregating

more than $5,000 in a calendar year, provided such

SRO rule violations did not involve fraud, deceit or

conversion, or result in a suspension or expulsion.

17 CFR 1.63 (1995).

7 7 U.S.C. 6p(a)(1994).

8Presently, the National Futures Association

(NFA) is the only registered futures association.

9Section 17(p)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C.

21(p)(1)(1994), provides, in part, that a registered

futures association must establish training

standards and proficiency testing for persons

involved in the solicitation of transactions subject

to the Act, supervisors of such persons, and all

persons for whom it has registration

responsibilities.

10See NFA Registration Rule 401.

11 58 FR 19575, 19586. However, initially the

Commission elected not to establish specific

requirements with respect to these matters in Rule

3.34.

seeking to provide ethics training

pursuant to Rule 3.34.3

Rule 3.34 requires natural persons

registered under the Act to attend ethics

training to ensure that they understand

their responsibilities to the public under

the Act. The required training must

address the requirements of the Act and

all rules concerning the treatment and

handling of customer orders and

business. Issues to be addressed may

include: honesty, fairness and the

interests of customers and the integrity

of the markets; effective supervisory

systems and controls; assessment of

financial situations and the investment

experience of customers; disclosure of

material information; and avoidance of

conflicts of interest. New registrants

must attend ethics training within six

months of being granted registration and

every three years thereafter. The initial

training must be at least four hours in

duration; subsequent training must be of

at least one hour in duration. Persons

registered when Rule 3.34 became

effective on April 26, 1993 were granted

until April 26, 1996 to attend an initial

training session, of at least two hours in

duration, and must thereafter attend a

one-hour session every three years.

Ethics trainers must maintain records of

materials used in such training and of

attendees at such training.

In July 1994, the Commission

proposed amendments to Rule 3.34 to

improve the operation of its ethics

training program and furnish additional

guidance with respect to the activities of

ethics training providers.4 The

Commission has published a release

announcing the adoption of those

amendments published in the Federal

Register on December 13, 1995. The

amendments adopted will, among other

things, require a person seeking to

provide ethics training to certify that he

is not subject to a statutory

disqualification from registration under

the Act,5 barred from service on selfregulatory organization (SRO) governing

boards or committees,6 or subject to a

pending proceeding concerning possible

violations of the Act or rules or orders

promulgated thereunder.

II. Proposed Amendments

A. Proficiency Testing and Minimum

Experience Requirements

The Commission is now proposing

further amendments to Rule 3.34 to

require any person seeking to provide

ethics training to furnish satisfactory

evidence to a registered futures

association that he has met the

proficiency testing requirement 7

established by a registered futures

association 8 pursuant to Section

17(p)(1) of the Act for the registration of

commodity professionals 9 and

possesses three years of relevant

experience. Currently, the National

Commodity Futures Examination (Series

3 Exam) is the proficiency test required

to be completed by most commodity

professionals.10

In commenting on the amendments

proposed in July, 1994, NFA suggested

that a proficiency testing requirement be

incorporated in Rule 3.34 to require

ethics training providers to satisfy an

objective standard designed to reflect a

minimum level of knowledge of the

futures industry and the relevant

statutory and regulatory structure. NFA

and another commenter also

recommended that to ensure that an

ethics training provider possesses a

working knowledge of the futures

industry and is capable of teaching

relevant rules and regulations, ethics

training providers should be required to

have at least three years of industry or

teaching experience.

The Commission agrees that requiring

persons who seek to provide ethics

training to provide proof of satisfactory

completion of a proficiency testing

requirement applicable to registrants

and of possession of three years of

relevant industry or pedagogical

experience provides an objective,

readily administered measure for

determining knowledge of relevant

matters and should not be unduly

burdensome. The Commission believes

that it would be inconsistent with the

Congressional mandate for ethics

training and contrary to the public

interest for a person to teach others

about their responsibilities under

applicable laws and rules if such a

person is not able to demonstrate at

least the same minimum acceptable

level of proficiency as is required of

those he intends to educate. Further,

such requirements would be consistent

with the approach followed by the

Commission to date in evaluating

applications from potential offerors of

ethics training. In proposing Rule 3.34,

the Commission noted its belief that

‘‘pedagogical expertise and knowledge

of futures are factors that should be

taken into consideration in evaluating

potential offerors of ethics training.’’ 11

Consequently, in reviewing applications

filed under Rule 3.34 for authorization

to provide ethics training, the

Commission has endeavored to assure

that such providers demonstrate

pedagogical experience and knowledge

of the futures markets. Should these

proposed amendments be adopted, the

Commission anticipates that NFA will

promulgate rules establishing specific

proficiency standards for ethics training

providers.

The Commission believes that the

proposed requirement of three years of

relevant experience may be satisfied not

only by pedagogical or teaching

experience but, also, by relevant

industry experience. For example, such

industry experience might be acquired

by the practice of law in the fields of

futures or securities or employment as

a trader or risk manager at a brokerage

or end-user firm. The Commission

welcomes comments as to the types of

experience that should be deemed

sufficient for this purpose.

The Series 3 Exam is the only relevant

proficiency test currently available for

ethics training providers, since it is the

proficiency test that is generally

applicable to Commission registrants

and is designed to assure a broad

working knowledge of the futures

industry. Successful completion of the

Series 3 Exam is required of all natural

persons seeking to be registered as a

commodity pool operator (CPO),

commodity trading advisor (CTA),

futures commission merchant,

introducing broker, leverage transaction

merchant or an associated person (AP)
64134 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules

12See also the 400 Series of the NFA Registration

Rules, which sets forth the proficiency

requirements for industry professionals and the

alternatives to and exemptions from the Series 3

Exam requirements. Currently, floor traders and

floor brokers are not required to pass the Series 3

Exam in order to become registered. Most floor

traders and floor brokers receive orientation and

ethics training from their respective exchanges.

of any of the foregoing.12 The

Commission recently approved an

alternative proficiency testing

requirement under which general

securities representatives whose

commodity interest activity will be

limited to managed accounts or

commodity pool interests may take the

Futures Managed Funds Examination

(Series 31 Exam) in lieu of the Series 3

Exam. The Commission believes that

even if an ethics training provider

wishes to instruct only CPOs, CTAs and

their APs, the more comprehensive

based Series 3 Exam is the appropriate

proficiency test.

B. Applicability of Certification,

Proficiency Testing and Experience

Requirements

Currently, Rule 3.34 requires that any

provider of ethics training other than an

SRO offering ethics training to its

members or employees or an entity

accredited to conduct continuing

education programs by a state

professional licensing authority in the

fields of law, finance, accounting or

economics must be approved by the

Commission for this purpose. A

comment letter addressing the

amendments to Rule 3.34 published in

the Federal Register on December 13,

1995, suggested that SROs and stateaccredited entities should no longer be

exempted from the general requirement

under Rule 3.34 that entities seeking to

provide ethics training submit an

application to the Commission

summarizing their ethics training

program, as all ethics training providers

should be subject to equivalent

standards. The Commission believes

that the business purposes and

functions of SROs, the statutory and

regulatory requirements applicable to

SROs, and the Commission’s oversight

program for assuring compliance by

SROs with their responsibilities under

the Act and Commission rules provide

sufficient assurance of the expertise and

fitness of SROs as ethics training

providers without the necessity for

imposing additional requirements.

Consequently, the Commission’s

proposals with respect to proficiency

training and pedagogical or industry

experience do not apply to SROs

seeking to provide ethics training to

their members or employees. The

Commission invites commenters to

address the continued appropriateness

of this approach for SROs in light of the

proposed modifications of the

requirements with respect to other types

of ethics training providers.

The Commission has determined,

however, to propose that stateaccredited entities be required to file

with the NFA the certification required

under Rule 3.34(b)(3)(iii) and to comply

with the other relevant provisions of

Rule 3.34, including proficiency testing

and experience requirements. In the

absence of such compliance and in light

of the potential for significant variations

among state-accreditation regimes, the

Commission would have no ready

means of assuring that such providers

have a minimum level of relevant

knowledge or experience.

The Commission is proposing that the

proficiency testing and minimum

experience requirements apply to the

provider or sponsor of the ethics

training program, to any instructors or

presenters employed by the provider of

such ethics training, and to those

persons who prepare ethics training

videotapes or electronic presentations.

Existing providers, instructors and

preparers operating pursuant to specific

Commission authorization or otherwise

in compliance with Rule 3.34 as

currently in effect would not be subject

to these requirements. However, if an

entity whose application to provide

ethics training has previously been

granted by the Commission seeks to add

a new instructor or course preparer,

such person would be subject to the

proficiency testing and minimum

relevant experience standards.

III. Related Matters

A. Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),

5 U.S.C. 601–611 (1988), requires that

agencies, in proposing rules, consider

the impact of those rules on small

businesses. The rule amendments

proposed herein will not affect SROs

who wish to provide ethics training but

would affect all others who seek to be

included on a list of authorized ethics

training providers, including entities

accredited to conduct continuing

education programs by state

professional licensing authorities in the

fields of law, finance, accounting or

economics. The impact of this proposal

on persons seeking to become providers

of ethics training should be minimal. At

this time, a one-time processing fee for

the Series 3 Exam offered by the NFA

is seventy-five dollars. This should not

constitute an unduly burdensome entry

cost for ethics training providers; the

same cost is incurred by all the

attendees at ethics training as a cost of

registration. Requiring a minimum level

of experience also should not adversely

impact small businesses as this

requirement does not impose additional

financial cost upon such entities.

Therefore, on behalf of the

Commission, the Chairman hereby

certifies, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 605(b),

that the rule amendments proposed

herein will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The

Commission nonetheless invites

comments from any persons or entities

who believe that these proposed rule

amendments will have a significant

impact on their operations.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

(PRA), 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., imposes

certain requirements on federal agencies

(including the Commission) in

connection with their conducting or

sponsoring any collection of

information as defined by the PRA. In

compliance with the PRA, the

Commission has previously submitted

the proposed rule and its associated

information collection requirements to

the Office of Management and Budget.

While the amendments proposed herein

have no burden, Rule 3.34 is a part of

a group of rules which has the following

burden: Rules 3.16, 3.32 and 3.34

(3038–0023, approved June 2, 1993):

Average Burden Hours Per

Response—1.13

Number of Respondents—60,980

Frequency of Response—On Occasion

and Triennially

Persons wishing to comment on the

information which will be required by

these rules as amended should contact

Jeff Hill, Office of Management and

Budget, Room 3228, NEOB, Washington,

D.C. 20503, (202) 395–7340. Copies of

the information collection submission to

OMB are available from Joe F. Mink,

CFTC Clearance Officer, 1155 21st St.

N.W., Washington, D.C. 20581, (202)

418–5170.

List of Subjects in 17 CFR Part 3

Registration, Ethics Training.

Accordingly, the Commission,

pursuant to the authority contained in

the Commodity Exchange Act and, in

particular, Sections 1a, 4d, 4e, 4g, 4m,

4p, 8a and 17 thereof (7 U.S.C. 1a, 6d,

6e, 6g, 6m, 6p, 12a and 21 (1994),

hereby proposes to amend Part 3 of

Chapter I of Title 17 of the Code of

Federal Regulations as follows:
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 240 / Thursday, December 14, 1995 / Proposed Rules 64135

PART 3—REGISTRATION

1. The authority citation for Part 3

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. la, 2, 4, 4a, 6, 6b, 6d,

6e, 6f, 6g, 6h, 6i, 6k, 6m, 6o, 6p, 8, 9, 9a, 12,

12a, 13b, 13c, 16a, 18, 19, 21 and 23; 5 U.S.C.

552, 552b.

§ 3.34 [Amended]

2. Section 3.34 as amended by a final

rule published on December 13, 1995, is

proposed to be amended by removing

and reserving paragraph (b)(3)(ii) and

revising the introductory text of

paragraph (b)(3)(iii) to read as follows:

§ 3.34 Mandatory ethics training for

registrants.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(3) * * *

(ii) [Reserved]

(iii) A person included on a list

maintained by a registered futures

association who has presented

satisfactory evidence to the registered

futures association that he has taken and

passed the proficiency testing

requirements established by a registered

futures association for an ethics training

provider, possesses a minimum of three

years of relevant experience, and who

certifies that:

* * * * *

Issued in Washington, D.C. on December 7,

1995, by the Commission.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 95–30359 Filed 12–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 52

[AK6–1–6587; FRL–5345–7]

State Implementation Plan: Alaska;

Withdrawal

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Withdrawal.

SUMMARY: Due to an adverse comment,

EPA is withdrawing the effective date

for the approval of a moderate

nonattainment area state

implementation plan revision for

Anchorage, Alaska, submitted by the

Alaska Department of Environmental

Conservation for the purpose of

implementing an oxygenated gasoline

program in the Municipality of

Anchorage. The original action was

published in the Federal Register on

October 24, 1995, as a direct final rule.

60 FR 54435. As stated in the Federal

Register notice, if adverse or critical

comments were received by November

24, 1995, the effective date would be

delayed and timely notice would be

published in the Federal Register.

Therefore, due to receiving an adverse

comment within the comment period,

EPA is withdrawing the final rule and

will address the comments received in

a subsequent final rule based on the

proposed rule also published on

October 24, 1995. 60 FR 54465. EPA

will not institute a second comment

period on this document.

DATES: This withdrawal notice is

effective December 14, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Montel Livingston, Office of Air (AT–

082), EPA, Region 10, 1200 6th Avenue,

Seattle, WA 98101, (206–553–0180).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the

information provided in the direct final

rule located in the final rules section of

the October 24, 1995 Federal Register,

and in the short informational notice

located in the proposed rule section of

the October 24, 1995 Federal Register.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52

Environmental protection, Air

pollution control, Carbon monoxide,

Hydrocarbons, Incorporation by

reference, Ozone, and Volatile organic

compounds.

Dated: December 7, 1995.

Chuck Clarke,

Regional Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–30509 Filed 12–13–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE

48 CFR Parts 215, 219, 236, 242, 252,

and 253

[DFARS Case 95–D039]

Defense Federal Acquisition

Regulation Supplement; Small

Disadvantaged Business Concerns

AGENCY: Department of Defense (DoD).

ACTION: Proposed rule with request for

comments.

SUMMARY: The Department of Defense

has suspended the sections of the

Defense Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (DFARS) that prescribe the

set-aside of acquisitions for small

disadvantaged businesses (SDBs). The

Department of Defense is proposing to

amend the DFARS to implement

initiatives designed to limit the adverse

impact of the suspension. This proposal

is an initial response to the suspension.

The efforts of a government-wide group

to reform affirmative action programs

continue. It is expected that further

proposals will be published for

comment in the near future. This action

was reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget under

Executive Order 12866.

DATES: Comment Date: Comments on

the proposed rule should be submitted

in writing to the address below on or

before February 12, 1996, to be

considered in the formulation of the

final rule.

ADDRESSES: Interested parties should

submit written comments to: Defense

Acquisition Regulations Council, Attn:

Ms. Susan Schneider,

PDUSD(A&T)DP(DAR), IMD 3D139,

3062 Defense Pentagon, Washington, DC

20301–3062. Telefax number (703) 602–

0350. Please cite DFARS Case 95–D039

in all correspondence related to this

issue.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Ms. Susan Schneider, (703) 602–0131.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

A. Background

This proposed rule amends the

Defense Federal Acquisition Regulation

Supplement (DFARS) to implement

initiatives designed to facilitate awards

to SDBs while taking account of the

Supreme Court’s decision in Adarand

Constructors, Inc. vs. Pena, 63 U.S.L.W.

4523 (U.S. June 12, 1995).

B. Regulatory Flexibility Act

This proposed rule may have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities

within the meaning of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. An

Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis

(IRFA) has been prepared and may be

obtained from the address specified

herein. A copy of the IRFA has been

submitted to the Chief Counsel for

Advocacy of the Small Business

Administration. Comments are invited

from small businesses and other

interested parties. Comments from small

entities concerning the affected DFARS

subparts will be considered in

accordance with Section 610 of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act. Such

comments must be submitted separately

and cite DFARS Case 95–D039 in

correspondence.

C. Paperwork Reduction Act

The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

(Pub. L. 104–13) applies because the

proposed rule contains a reporting and

recordkeeping requirement. The

necessary request for approval of the

information collection requirement has

been submitted to the Office of