Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 14211

subsection (j) of section 325 of the Act,

42 U.S.C. 6295(j). Each flow rate

disclosure shall also be given in liters

per minute (L/min) or liters per cycle

(L/cycle).

* * * * *

4. Section 305.13 is amended by

revising subparagraph (a)(4) to read as

follows:

§ 305.13 Promotional material displayed or

distributed at point of sale.

(a) * * *

(4) Any manufacturer, distributor,

retailer, or private labeler who prepares

printed material for display or

distribution at point-of-sale concerning

a covered product that is a showerhead,

faucet, water closet, or urinal shall

clearly and conspicuously include in

such printed material the product’s

water use, expressed in gallons and

liters per minute (gpm and L/min) or

per cycle (gpc and L/cycle) or gallons

and liters per flush (gpf and Lpf) as

specified in § 305.11(f).

* * * * *

5. Section 305.14 is amended by

revising subparagraph (d) to read as

follows:

§ 305.14 Catalogs.

* * * * *

(d) Any manufacturer, distributor,

retailer, or private labeler who

advertises a covered product that is a

showerhead, faucet, water closet, or

urinal in a catalog, from which it may

be purchased, shall include in such

catalog, on each page that lists the

covered product, the product’s water

use, expressed in gallons and liters per

minute (gpm and L/min) or per cycle

(gpc and L/cycle) or gallons and liters

per flush (gpf and Lpf) as specified in

§ 305.11(f).

* * * * *

By direction of the Commission.

Donald S. Clark,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 95–6484 Filed 3–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6750–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Customs Service

19 CFR Part 101

[T.D. 95–21]

RIN 1515–AB47

Test Programs

AGENCY: Customs Service, Department

of the Treasury.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document amends the

Customs Regulations by adding a new

provision that allows for test programs

and procedures in general and,

specifically, for purposes of

implementing those Customs

Modernization provisions of the North

American Free Trade Agreement

Implementation Act that provide for the

National Customs Automation Program.

The regulation allows the Commissioner

of Customs to conduct limited test

programs/procedures, which have as

their goal the more efficient and

effective processing of passengers,

carriers, and merchandise. Test

programs may impose upon eligible,

voluntary participants requirements

different from those specified in the

Customs Regulations, but only to the

extent that such different requirements

do not affect the collection of the

revenue, public health, safety, or law

enforcement.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 17, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: John

Durant, Director, Commercial Rulings

Division, (202) 482–6990.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Title VI of the North American Free

Trade Agreement Implementation Act

(the Act), Public Law 103–182, 107 Stat.

2057 (December 8, 1993), contains

provisions pertaining to Customs

Modernization (107 Stat. 2170). Subtitle

B of title VI establishes the National

Customs Automation Program (NCAP)—

an automated and electronic system for

the processing of commercial

importations. Section 631 in Subtitle B

of the Act creates sections 411 through

414 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.

1411–1414), which define and list the

existing and planned components of the

NCAP (section 411), promulgate

program goals (section 412), provide for

the implementation and evaluation of

the program (section 413), and provide

for remote location filing (section 414).

Section 631 of the Act provides

Customs with direct statutory authority

for full electronic processing of all

Customs-related transactions. For each

planned NCAP program component,

Customs is required to prepare a

separate implementation plan in

consultation with the trade community,

establish eligibility criteria for voluntary

participation in the program, test the

component, and transmit to Congress

the implementation plan, testing results,

and an evaluation report. The testing of

any planned NCAP components would

be conducted under carefully delineated

circumstances—with objective measures

of success or failure, a predetermined

time frame, and a defined class of

participants. Notice of any NCAP

program component testing would be

published in both the Customs Bulletin

and the Federal Register and

participants solicited.

In addition to testing planned NCAP

components, Customs also proposed

conducting limited test programs/

procedures in other areas of Customsrelated transactions wherein Customs

and the trade community could benefit

from the valuable information that such

testing could provide. Thus, Customs

proposed a general test authority in

order both to meet its obligations under

the NCAP legislation and to provide

itself with the ability to obtain

information necessary to predict the

effects of various policy options.

The regulation proposed would allow

the Commissioner of Customs to

conduct limited test programs and

procedures and allow certain eligible

members of the public to participate on

a voluntary basis. Also, because test

programs could require exemptions

from regulations in various parts of the

Customs Regulations, e.g., parts 113

(Customs bonds), 141 (entry of

merchandise), 142 (entry process), 171

(fines, penalties, and forfeitures), 174

(protests), and 191 (drawback),

participants would be subject to

requirements different from those

specified in the Customs Regulations,

but only to the extent that such different

requirements do not affect the collection

of the revenue, public health, safety, or

law enforcement. Accordingly, pursuant

to the Secretary’s authority under

section 624 of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19

U.S.C. 1624) to make such rules and

regulations as may be necessary to carry

out the provisions of the Tariff Act of

1930 and pursuant to the requirement

set forth in section 413 of the Tariff Act

of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 1413) that the

Secretary test planned NCAP program

components, on August 16, 1994,

Customs published a Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking in the Federal Register (59

FR 41992) that proposed to amend part

101 of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR

part 101) by adding a new § 101.9 that

would allow the Commissioner of

Customs to conduct limited test

programs and procedures in general and

for purposes of implementing NCAP

program components. Seven comments,

most favorable to the proposed

regulation, were received. These

comments raised four areas of concern.

The comments received and Customs

responses to them are set forth below.

Discussion of Comments

Comments were received from

corporate sureties (1), customs brokers
14212 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

(4), and transportation associations (2).

The comments raised four areas of

concern. The concerns relate to: (1)

Generally, whether there will be equal

opportunity to participate in tests and

whether statutory requirements would

be subject to suspension; (2) the manner

and amount of notice that would be

provided; (3) the length of time in

which tests would be conducted; and,

(4) the nature of voluntary participation.

We address each of these concerns

seriatim.

In General

Comment: A commenter states that

language should be added to § 101.9(a)

‘‘to protect Customs businesses’’ to the

effect that no test shall be made that will

give economical advantages to one class

of importer, exporter, carrier, customs

broker, freight forwarder, or courier over

another, or one geographic area over

another.

Customs Response: While Customs

understands the commenter’s concern,

it believes that adding the suggested

language to the regulation would

unduly inhibit Customs ability to

modernize, i.e., to streamline and

automate the commercial operations of

the Customs Service, the reason the

Customs Modernization provisions were

promulgated in the first place. The

purpose of a test is to experiment to see

if something works. Hopefully, if the

test is successful, those who have

chosen to participate will benefit.

Customs, however, does not wish to be

unfair to non-participants. Accordingly,

the proposed regulation provides for

notice in the Federal Register to the

public when a test will be run. These

notices of proposed tests will allow all

interested parties to choose to

participate and to comment on any

problem they perceive will result from

the test proposed, including a perceived

problem of economical advantages being

offered to one party over another.

Customs, generally, will attempt to

address such concerns before a test is

run. If there are instances when

Customs may need to conduct tests that

are company-/industry-specific, so that

economies of scale and other program

parameters can be realized, the

proposed regulation seeks to limit the

advantage that the test may provide by

requiring that the test be limited in time

and scope.

While not adding the language

suggested by the commenter, Customs

has determined, after review of this

comment and others, to modify the

proposal to broaden the notice

requirements. As now drafted, the final

regulation no longer provides that

public notice is not required for nonNCAP tests affecting carriers and

passengers. Further, the ‘‘whenever

practicable’’ language in the non-NCAP

paragraph describing the publication

requirement is removed. Instead, the

regulation provides that whenever a

particular test allows for deviation from

any regulatory requirement, notice shall

be published in the Federal Register not

less than 30 days prior to implementing

such test. Customs believes that this

allows all Customs businesses to

comment on all tests and provides

adequate time for comments.

Comment: Two commenters are

concerned with whether tests will be

conducted other than on a parallel basis

which would violate a statutory

requirement. One of these commenters

argues that language should be added to

§ 101.9(a) to the extent that no test

should be implemented that is contrary

to U.S. law, because federal agencies

should not be allowed to set up a ‘‘test’’

as a simple way of circumventing the

laws passed by Congress.

Customs Response: Customs believes

that it is clearly understood that any test

programs will be consistent with

statutes and, therefore, it is unnecessary

to add language to the regulation to so

indicate.

Notice

Comment: The proposed regulatory

text may not provide sureties with

proper and timely notice of variations of

its risk. The commenter, a corporate

surety, states that notice provided

‘‘whenever practicable’’ or ‘‘within a

reasonable period of time’’ may run

contrary to the stated objectives of the

Notice because it would ‘‘affect the

collection of revenue’’ by varying the

surety’s risk under its bond. The

obligation of a compensated surety is

predicated upon certain known risks or

underwriting components and to the

extent a surety’s risk is varied without

its prior consent, sureties could be

discharged from any obligation under

their bonds. Accordingly, the

commenter suggests that proper and

timely notice of all test programs and

results should be provided to sureties to

enable them to decide whether to agree

to be bound under a particular varied

risk arising under a NCAP test program.

Another commenter believing that the

§ 101.9(b)(2) requirement for publication

of complete test results ‘‘within a

reasonable time’’ is not specific enough

recommends that the regulation should

provide that, ‘‘unless extended by

Federal Register Notice, within 60 days

following the completion of the test,

complete test results shall be

published.’’ Further, the commenter

urges that the published results also

include a list of the participants in the

test.

Customs Response: Test programs

will not be run that affect the collection

of the revenue. All duties, taxes, and

fees owed to the U.S. by law continue

to be owed by the responsible parties

throughout any test program.

Regarding the issue of proper and

timely notice to sureties, Customs has

modified the proposal in this final rule

to provide that whenever a particular

test allows for deviation from any

regulation requirement, notice shall be

published not less than 30 days prior to

implementing such test. When there is

publication in the Federal Register,

such publication serves as constructive

notice and is notice to all. Customs

believes that the 30-day time frame

affords interested sureties adequate time

to discuss any of their bond conditions

within the context of participating in a

test program, and to separately respond

to those test notices about which they

may have questions concerning their

underwritten risk. In accordance with

the above, Customs has determined that

it will not provide separate notices to

sureties.

Regarding the suggestion to amend

the proposed regulation to provide that

publication of complete test results be

accomplished within 60 days unless

extended by Federal Register notice,

Customs does not agree. While in

general Customs will make every effort

to publish discrete test results as soon

as possible, setting forth a specific time

frame in the regulation—applicable to

all tests results—will not give the

Customs Service the flexibility it needs

to properly evaluate certain NCAP

program components to assess their

contribution toward achieving specified

program goals. Some tests may not be

one-time tests, and others may build on

other test results.

Concerning publishing a list of the

participants in an NCAP test, while

Customs has no hesitation in providing

this information, Customs does not want

to routinely publish such lists.

Accordingly, Customs will provide a list

of participants upon written request and

believes that this element of test notices

need not be set forth in the regulation.

Comment: A commenter states that,

although notification of tests will be

published in the Federal Register and

the Customs Bulletin, Customs should

ensure that the trade community is

involved and informed about all of the

test programs and procedures for the

various components. Accordingly, the

commenter suggests that test

information be sent via electronic mail

to the main contacts for various trade

community representatives or that a
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 14213

primary contact, knowledgeable of all

test programs and procedures be

appointed as the single contact for the

trade community. Also, the commenter

does not feel that the proposed

regulation should further the cause for

producing additional ‘paper-based’

forms.

Customs Response: Section 631 of the

Act specifically requires the Secretary to

consult with the trade community, to

include importers, brokers, shippers,

and other affected parties when

developing NCAP program components.

To this end, in addition to the

regulatory notification requirements

adopted, Customs will be placing test

information on the Customs electronic

bulletin board. As for furthering the

need for paper-based forms, it is hoped

that the need for this medium of

information will be changed based on

tests proposed to take advantage of new

or changing technologies.

Comment: A commenter states that

proposed § 101.9(a)(2) should be

amended to require advance notification

to passengers and carriers because tests

affecting passengers will necessarily

affect the carriers they use. Thus,

carriers should be notified of proposed

tests well in advance.

Customs Response: As stated earlier

in the document, Customs is modifying

the proposal in this final rule to provide

notice whenever a particular test allows

for deviation from any regulation

requirement.

Comment: One commenter states that

it is not at all clear from either the

BACKGROUND section or the proposed

regulatory text section of the Notice

whether the procedures which will be

tested will be in addition to those

already required under the regulations,

i.e., will they constitute a parallel test,

or whether the current regulatory

procedures would not be followed. If

the latter is the case, proposed § 101.9

should provide that Customs

Headquarters will issue a letter to each

participant advising them of the fact

that, during the period of the test, they

will not have to abide by certain

identified regulation(s) or specify any

other requirements.

Customs Response: The proposal to

amend § 101.9 to provide that Customs

will issue a letter to participants only

advising them that they will not have to

abide by certain identified regulation(s)

or specify any other requirements is

rejected. This approach is not in

keeping with program requirements to

consult with the trade community.

Instead, each Federal Register notice

published announcing a specific test

will identify which, if any, regulatory

requirements may be suspended for

purposes of the test. Customs believes

such publication will afford all

interested parties an opportunity to

comment on planned tests. Accordingly,

no change to the regulation is made

based on this comment.

Time/Duration

Comment: A commenter believes that

implementation of the proposed rule, as

written, would mean that Customs

would have carte blanche authority to

do whatever it wanted with respect to

‘‘testing’’, ‘‘procedures’’ or any

derivation of these two words. It could

conduct such ‘‘tests’’ or invoke such

‘‘procedures’’ for whatever period of

time it decided—one month, one year,

five years. Customs could select

whomever it chose to participate

without being subject to anyone’s

challenge. The sole interpreter would be

Customs and neither importers nor

brokers would have any timely recourse.

For these reasons, it strongly opposes

issuance of the rule as proposed; there

is too big a chance for misuse.

Customs Response: The purpose of

publishing test proposals in the Federal

Register is to avoid such problems. The

Customs Modernization provisions are

intended, in part, to provide safeguards,

uniformity, and due process rights for

importers. Customs believes that the

publication requirement imposed by the

proposed regulation adequately meets

the unlimited-time-fears expressed by

the commenter and affords all interested

parties the opportunity to comment on

any aspect of proposed tests, including

the proposed length of a test.

Accordingly, no change to the

regulation is made based on this

comment.

Comment: A commenter states that

the 30-day time period for giving notice

prior to implementing a test, provided at

§§ 101.9 (a)(2) and (b)(1), should be

increased to 60 days to allow adequate

time for the trade community to

comment on proposed tests and to give

Customs time to review the comments

before the test is put into effect. To this

end the commenter states that Customs

has, in the past, instituted ‘‘programs’’,

e.g., revising the CF 7512, which

resulted in the public spending

hundreds of thousands of dollars to

acquire the new form only to have

Customs withdraw the form because of

problems with the form. The commenter

suggests that an extended comment

period will save more money than it

costs over the long run. Further, since

almost all tests will involve computer

programming time, the trade will need

the additional time to reprogram their

computers for the test.

Customs Response: As already stated,

Customs will be publishing notice of

proposed tests on the Customs

electronic bulletin board and otherwise

inform the trade community of pending

developments. As no rational basis has

been given to double the length of time

for comments—from 30-days to 60-

days—and the present electronic

environment adequately affords

Customs time to review comments

before a test is implemented, no change

to the regulation is made based on this

comment.

Comment: A commenter suggests that

the ‘‘time’’ for a test should be defined—

given a definite time restriction—and

published with the initial notification of

a test, as, in the past, Customs has had

some ‘‘tests’’ go on for years, e.g.,

monthly periodic Customs entries on

automobile parts and imports of oil and

gas. Further, if the test is successful, the

Customs Regulations and practices

should be changed so that the new

procedure(s) can be enjoyed by all. And

if it is necessary to extend a test period,

30 days prior to the test end date, notice

should be published.

Also concerned with the length of

time for a test, another commenter

suggests that in all cases, the regulation

should specify that the notice must

contain either the specific dates for the

test (beginning and ending) or the length

of the test. If Customs finds it cannot

adhere to the period specified, a notice

should be published specifying the

reasons for the variance and the new

dates. This procedure, it is felt, will

avoid what has been the past practice of

continuing tests ad infinitum.

Customs Response: These comments

concerning unlimited time periods for

tests do not square with the provisions

of the proposed regulation, which

expressly state that tests will be

‘‘limited in scope, time, and application

to such relief as may be necessary to

facilitate the conduct of a specified

program or procedure.’’ 19 CFR 101.9

(a)(1) and (b). At the risk of sounding

repetitive, we again state that the

publication requirement will allow all

interested parties to comment on

proposed tests and to express their

particular concerns. This publication

requirement does not constitute a

hollow gesture on Customs part, as, for

NCAP tests, Customs must subsequently

prepare a user satisfaction survey of

parties participating in the program and

transmit a report of this survey to

Congress. As the proposed regulations

adequately address these comments, no

change to the regulation is made based

on this comment.
14214 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

Voluntary Participation

Comment: Two commenters express

concern regarding the ‘‘voluntary’’

nature of participation in tests. One

commenter states that voluntary

participation in a test should mean that

volunteers should be allowed to

withdraw from a test upon a change in

the conditions of the test. The other

commenter suggests that, to recognize

the importance of Customs test

programs and filers’ voluntary

participation in these programs, a new

paragraph (c) be added to § 101.9 to read

as follows:

(c) Voluntary participation. For tests

affecting the entry of merchandise, and

for which participation by an entry filer

requires or includes a change in the

manner, amount, or format of data

submitted to Customs by that filer, such

participation shall be entirely voluntary.

An otherwise qualified filer’s entry

privileges, including but not limited to

electronic entry privileges, may not be

reduced, suspended, limited, or

withdrawn by Customs solely because

that filer declines to participate in one

or more such tests.

The commenter states that the

voluntary status of filer participation in

new Customs programs would be

explicitly limited to those involving

merchandise, and to those which are in

fact test programs. There would be no

impediment to Customs mandatory

implementation of uniform procedures

at points past the test stage.

The commenter states the impetus for

this amendment to the proposed

regulations is a recent Customs/FDA

electronic interface pilot program in

Seattle. Although in the first few

months of the program filer

participation was entirely voluntary,

such that brokerage firms could elect

when to participate, for the last year and

a half participation has been mandatory

for Seattle-area brokers who wish to file

their entries electronically. If a Seattle

broker does not wish to participate in

the pilot program, that broker must file

non-ABI entries for cargo subject to FDA

oversight. In effect, the commenter

claims that such a broker is penalized

by Customs for declining to participate

in that particular test program. In

general, the commenter is also very

concerned about the potential impact of

some types of Customs test programs

upon certain sections of the trade

community, especially those test

programs which alter the manner,

amount, or format of data transmitted by

an entry filer to Customs, as such

programs require the filer to incur at

least some additional costs, in order to

participate in each test program.

Customs Response: Section 631 of the

Act expressly provides that

‘‘[p]articipation in the [NCAP] Program

is voluntary.’’ 19 U.S.C. 1411(b).

Accordingly, a broker’s, importer’s, etc.,

initial decision to become automated is

entirely voluntary. However, as stated in

the BACKGROUND portion of the Federal

Register notice of proposed rulemaking,

section 631 of the Act also provides

Customs with direct statutory authority

for full electronic processing of all

Customs-related transactions. Thus, for

Customs to implement the NCAP and

comply with the other mandates of

section 631—(1) development of

separate implementation plans for each

NCAP component, in consultation with

the trade community, (2) establishment

of eligibility criteria for voluntary

participation, (3) testing of the

components, and (4) transmittal to

Congress of the implementation plan,

testing results, and an evaluation

report—a certain continuity of test

participants must be observed.

Accordingly, while Customs will make

every effort to make as many aspects of

tests as completely voluntary as

possible, Customs believes that while

the decision by a broker or other

participant to participate in an

automated Customs program is

voluntary in the first instance,

continued participation in a particular

test may be required. In any event, a

participant may always choose to not

participate with a particular automated

component if the parameters of the

testing are not to their liking. If any

doubts as to participation in a particular

test program or procedure exist after the

parameters of the test are published in

the Federal Register, the hesitant

participant should take advantage of the

comment period to seek clarification.

Accordingly, because of the extensive

statutory requirements that Customs

must meet to conduct NCAP tests,

Customs does not believe that further

regulatory language is needed at this

time.

Inapplicability of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, and Executive Order

12866

Pursuant to the provisions of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601

et seq.) and based upon the information

set forth above, it is certified that the

regulation will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. Accordingly, the regulation is

not subject to the regulatory analysis or

other requirements of U.S.C. 603 and

604. Further, this document does not

meet the criteria for a ‘‘significant

regulatory action’’ as specified in E.O.

12866.

Drafting Information

The principal author of this document

was Gregory R. Vilders, Attorney, Office

of Regulations and Rulings, Regulations

Branch. However, personnel from other

offices participated in its development.

List of Subjects in 19 CFR Part 101

Customs duties and inspection,

Exports, Imports, Organization and

functions (Government agencies),

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Sureties, Tests.

Amendments to the Regulations

For the reasons stated above, part 101

of the Customs Regulations (19 CFR part

101) is amended as set forth below:

PART 101—GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. The authority citation for part 101

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 19 U.S.C. 2, 66,

1202 (General Note 17, Harmonized Tariff

Schedule of the United States (HTSUS)),

1623, 1624.

Section 101.3 and 101.4 also issued under

19 U.S.C. 1 and 58b;

Section 101.9 also issued under 19 U.S.C.

1411–1414.

2. In part 101, a new § 101.9 is added

to read as follows:

§ 101.9 Test programs or procedures;

alternate requirements.

(a) General testing. For purposes of

conducting a test program or procedure

designed to evaluate the effectiveness of

new technology or operational

procedures regarding the processing of

passengers, vessels, or merchandise, the

Commissioner of Customs may impose

requirements different from those

specified in the Customs Regulations,

but only to the extent that such different

requirements do not affect the collection

of the revenue, public health, safety, or

law enforcement. The imposition of any

such different requirements shall be

subject to the following conditions:

(1) Defined purpose. The test is

limited in scope, time, and application

to such relief as may be necessary to

facilitate the conduct of a specified

program or procedure;

(2) Prior publication requirement.

Whenever a particular test allows for

deviation from any regulatory

requirements, notice shall be published

in the Federal Register not less than

thirty days prior to implementing such

test, followed by publication in the

Customs Bulletin. The notice shall

invite public comments concerning the

methodology of the test program or

procedure, and inform interested

members of the public of the eligibility

criteria for voluntary participation in
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 51 / Thursday, March 16, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 14215

the test and the basis for selecting

participants.

(b) NCAP testing. For purposes of

conducting an approved test program or

procedure designed to evaluate planned

components of the National Customs

Automation Program (NCAP), as

described in section 411(a)(2) of the

Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C. 411), the

Commissioner of Customs may impose

requirements different from those

specified in the Customs Regulations,

but only to the extent that such different

requirements do not affect the collection

of the revenue, public health, safety, or

law enforcement. In addition to the

requirement of paragraph (a)(1) of this

section, the imposition of any such

different requirements shall be subject

to the following conditions:

(1) Prior publication requirement. For

tests affecting the NCAP, notice shall be

published in the Federal Register not

less than thirty days prior to

implementing such test, followed by

publication in the Customs Bulletin.

The notice shall invite public comments

concerning any aspect of the test

program or procedure, and inform

interested members of the public of the

eligibility criteria for voluntary

participation in the test and the basis for

selecting participants; and,

(2) Post publication requirement.

Within a reasonable time period

following the completion of the test, a

complete description of the results shall

be published in both the Federal

Register and the Customs Bulletin.

Approved: February 21, 1995.

George J. Weise,

Commissioner of Customs.

John P. Simpson,

Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Treasury.

[FR Doc. 95–6525 Filed 3–15–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4820–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND

HUMAN SERVICES

Social Security Administration

20 CFR Part 416

[Regulations No. 16]

RIN 0960–AC22

Supplemental Security Income for the

Aged, Blind, and Disabled;

Continuation of Benefits and Special

Eligibility for Certain Severely Impaired

Recipients Who Work; Appeal Rights

Following Mass Change Resulting in

Reduction, Suspension, or Termination

of State Supplementary Payments; and

Deemed Application Date Based on

Misinformation; Correction

AGENCY: Social Security Administration,

HHS.

ACTION: Correction to final rules.

SUMMARY: This document contains

corrections to the final rules published

in the Federal Register on Friday,

August 12, 1994 (59 FR 41400),

Monday, August 22, 1994 (59 FR

43035), and Wednesday, August 31,

1994 (59 FR 44918). We are correcting

incorrect paragraph redesignations and

related amendatory instructions, as well

as making one technical correction to a

paragraph in one regulatory section.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 16, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Regarding this Federal Register

document—Richard M. Bresnick, Legal

Assistant, Office of Regulations, Social

Security Administration, 6401 Security

Boulevard, Baltimore, MD 21235, (410)

965–1758; regarding eligibility or filing

for benefits—our national toll-free

number, 1–800–772–1213.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

final rules that appeared on page 41400

in the Federal Register issued of Friday,

August 12, 1994, we had incorrect

paragraph redesignations in amendatory

item 15. We indicated that in § 416.1402

we were redesignating paragraphs (i)

through (n) as paragraphs (h) through

(m). However, paragraph (n) had not yet

been published. Thus, paragraphs (i)

through (m) should have been

redesignated as paragraphs (h) through

(l). The new paragraph (n) was to be

contained in other final rules, ‘‘Deemed

Application Date Based on

Misinformation,’’ which were to be

published before these rules but were

not published until August 31, 1994 (59

FR 44918). We discovered this before

‘‘Deemed Application Date Based on

Misinformation’’ was published,

however, and changed the designation

of that new paragraph in the later rules

to paragraph (m) to reflect the proper

redesignation which should have been

made in the rules published on August

12, 1994.

In the interim, on August 22, 1994, we

published other final rules, ‘‘Appeal

Rights Following Mass Change

Resulting in Reduction, Suspension, or

Termination of State Supplementary

Payments’’ (59 FR 43035), which

contained a new paragraph designated

paragraph (n) in § 416.1402 which

would have been correct if the

regulations had been published in the

anticipated sequence. The amendatory

item 3 in these final rules contained

other incorrect paragraph designations

and instructions for punctuating

§ 416.1402. Further, similar incorrect

instructions for revising § 416.1402 were

contained under part 416 in amendatory

item 6 in the final rules published on

August 31, 1994. Also, paragraph (m) as

published in these rules was incorrectly

punctuated and did not have the word

‘‘and’’ following it. Therefore, we are

correcting all three amendatory items

and paragraph (m) itself to reflect the

correct paragraph designations,

punctuation, and ending word ‘‘and.’’

With these corrections, all the

paragraphs and amendatory instructions

will be correct. Make the corrections as

follows:

1. In the Federal Register issue of

August 12, 1994, in the second column

on page 41405, amendatory item 15

should read as follows:

15. Section 416.1402 is amended by

revising paragraphs (a) and (b), removing

paragraph (h), and redesignating paragraphs

(i) through (m) as paragraphs (h) through (l),

respectively to read as follows:

2. In the Federal Register issue of

August 22, 1994, in the first column on

page 43039, amendatory item 3 should

read as follows:

3. Section 416.1402 is amended by

removing the word ‘‘and’’ following the

semicolon at the end of paragraph (k),

replacing the period at the end of paragraph

(l) with a semicolon and adding the word

‘‘and’’ after the semicolon, and adding a new

paragraph (n) to read as follows:

3. In the Federal Register issue of

August 31, 1994, in the third column on

page 44927, amendatory item 6 under

part 416 should read as follows:

6. Section 416.1402 is amended by

removing the word ‘‘and’’ following the

semicolon at the end of paragraph (l) and

adding a new paragraph (m) to read as

follows:

§ 416.1402 Administrative actions that are

initial determinations.

* * * * *