Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 97 / Friday, May 17, 1996 / Proposed Rules 24909

12Section 4.12(b) of the Act grants the FCA

‘‘exclusive power and jurisdiction to appoint a

conservator or receiver’’ for FCS banks and

associations.

13For the past 65 years, the Federal courts have

interpreted various Farm Credit Acts as authorizing

the FCA to determine the priority of claims for

System institutions in liquidation. See Wheeler v.

Greene, 280 US 49 (1929); Knox National Farm

Loan Associations v. Phillips, 300 US 194 (1937);

Little v. First South Production Credit Association,

CA No. J890021 (W) (S.D. Miss. May 16, 1990).

from other lenders without the

permission of their System funding

banks. In contrast to the authorities visa`-vis FCS institutions, the FCA lacks

broad authority to: (1) Appoint a

conservator or receiver for insolvent

OFIs; 12 or (2) determine the priority of

claims against OFIs in liquidation.13

The FCA requests comments and

information that address the following

questions:

I. Eligibility for OFI Status

A. Significant Involvement in

Agricultural or Aquatic Lending

1. What criteria (such as assets,

income, composition of the loan

portfolio, or other factors) best

determine whether an OFI is

significantly involved in agricultural or

aquatic lending as required by section

1.7(b)(4)(B)(i) of the Act and what

specific threshold, if any, should new

regulations use? Please explain your

recommendation.

2. How should the FCA define an

agricultural lender? Would the profiles

of agricultural lenders established by

other Federal agencies be useful? Please

explain your recommendation.

B. An OFI’s Need for Supplemental

Sources of Funds

What criteria should be used to

determine whether depository and nondepository OFIs demonstrate a

continuing need for supplementary

sources of funds to meet the credit

requirements of their agricultural or

aquatic borrowers, as required in section

1.7(b)(4)(B)(ii) of the Act? Please explain

your recommendations.

C. OFI Access to National or Regional

Capital Markets

1. Has the existing regulatory

definition of ‘‘national or regional

capital markets’’ in § 614.4540 become

outmoded? If so, what factors in today’s

financial environment demonstrate that

an OFI has limited access to ‘‘national

or regional capital markets?’’ 2. The Riegle-Neal Interstate Banking

and Branching Efficiency Act of 1994

will enable bank holding companies and

their commercial bank affiliates to

expand, over time, their interstate

banking and branching networks. How

will this law affect the concept of

limited access to ‘‘national or regional

capital markets’’ in section

1.7(b)(4)(B)(iii) of the Act?

D. Mergers, Consolidations, and

Acquisitions of OFIs

When an OFI merges, consolidates, or

is acquired by another financial

institution, the eligibility of the

successor entity to borrow from an FCB

or an ACB must be established anew.

Under what conditions, if any, should a

successor to an existing OFI be entitled

to ‘‘grandfather’’ rights?

E. Parent and Affiliate Relationships

1. What factors should determine

whether an OFI applicant is considered

together with its parents and affiliates as

a single entity? 2. Section 1.7(b)(4)(D) of the Act

establishes specific criteria for FCA

review of OFI application denials based

on the OFI’s subsidiary or affiliate

relationships. Under §§ 614.4550 and

614.4555, the FCA creates a review

procedure when an FCB or ACB rejects

an OFI’s request for financing for any

reason. In the interest of eliminating

unnecessary prior approvals and caseby-case reviews, the FCA requests

comments on whether there is a

compelling need for the regulations to

continue to require an FCA review of all

OFI applications that have been denied.

Please explain your recommendation.

F. Eligibility of Major Financial

Institutions

The statute and the legislative history

indicate that agricultural lenders that do

not meet the criteria of sections

1.7(b)(4)(B) (ii) and (iii) of the Act could

still fund or discount certain loans with

System banks. What restrictions, if any,

should the regulations impose on

System funding to these types of

institutions?

II. Place of Discount

1. Should new regulations continue

the territorial restrictions in existing

§ 614.4660 which require that an OFI

must obtain financing from the FCB or

ACB (designated System bank) in whose

territory: (1) The OFI maintains its

headquarters; or (2) more than 50

percent of the OFI’s borrowers is

concentrated? If not, what criteria

should determine which Farm Credit

bank should finance an OFI? Please

explain your recommendation. 2. Under what circumstances, if any,

should new regulations allow an FCB or

ACB to extend financing to an OFI that

does not operate in its chartered

territory if the designated System bank

does not approve the OFI’s application?

3. Are there any aspects of the RiegleNeal Interstate Banking and Branching

Efficiency Act of 1994 that the FCA

should consider as it develops new

regulatory provisions that determine the

place of discount for commercial banks

and nonbank affiliates of bank holding

companies whose networks operate in

the chartered territories of more than

one Farm Credit bank? Please explain

your recommendation.

III. Safety and Soundness

A. Supplemental Collateral

Under what circumstances, if any,

should OFIs be required by the new

regulations to pledge cash and readily

marketable securities or other assets as

additional collateral for their loans from

System banks?

B. OFI Lending Limit

Current regulations at § 614.4565

impose a lending limit on OFIs. Is this

limit appropriate? If not, what

alternatives do you suggest and why?

How should concentration risk be

addressed in a general financing

agreement between an OFI and a Farm

Credit bank?

C. Insolvency of an OFI

How should new regulations

safeguard the interests of an FCB or ACB

when an OFI is liquidated?

IV. Fair Treatment Between OFIs and

Direct Lender Associations

1. Do current regulations adequately

and appropriately ensure that FCBs and

ACBs accord impartial and equitable

treatment to both FCS associations and

OFIs? If not, what changes should be

made and why?

2. The regulations currently require,

with certain limited exceptions, that

OFIs must be treated in a manner that

is comparable to direct lender

associations. To the extent feasible, the

FCA seeks to ensure that OFIs and FCS

associations are treated equitably by

their funding banks. What

circumstances, if any, justify different

standards concerning equity investment

in the funding bank, interest rate

charges, and servicing fees?

V. Other Issues

Are there other regulatory changes,

not addressed above, that would

improve an FCS bank’s ability to serve

an OFI and its agricultural customers?

Please explain your recommendations.

Dated: May 13, 1996.

Floyd Fithian,

Secretary, Farm Credit Administration Board.

[FR Doc. 96–12411 Filed 5–16–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6705–01–P
24910 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 97 / Friday, May 17, 1996 / Proposed Rules

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 3

RIN 2900–AH51

Evidence of Dependents and Age

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of Veterans

Affairs (VA) proposes to amend its

adjudication regulations concerning the

evidence required to establish marriage,

dissolution of a marriage, birth of a

child, and death of a family member.

This amendment would implement a

provision of the ‘‘Veterans’ Benefits

Improvements Act of 1994,’’ which

authorizes the Secretary to accept the

written statement of a claimant as proof

of the existence of these relationships.

This amendment is intended to facilitate

proof of the existence of these

relationships.

DATES: Comments must be received on

or before July 16, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to:

Director, Office of Regulations

Management (02D), Department of

Veterans Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20420; or handdeliver written comments to: Office of

Regulations Management, Room 1176,

801 Eye Street, NW., Washington, DC

20001. Comments should indicate that

they are in response to ‘‘RIN 2900–

AH51.’’ All written comments received

will be available for public inspection in

the Office of Regulations Management,

Room 1176, 801 Eye Street, NW.,

Washington, DC 20001, between the

hours of 8:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,

Monday through Friday (except

holidays).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Steven Thornberry, Consultant,

Regulations Staff, Compensation and

Pension Service, Veterans Benefits

Administration, 810 Vermont Avenue,

NW., Washington, DC 20420, telephone

(202) 273–7210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

301 of the ‘‘Veterans’ Benefits

Improvements Act of 1994,’’ Public Law

103–446, authorizes the Secretary of

Veterans Affairs to accept the written

statement of a claimant as proof of the

existence of the following relationships

between the claimant and another

person: marriage, dissolution of a

marriage, birth of a child, and death of

any family member. The statute further

authorizes the Secretary to require

documentation in support of the

claimant’s statement if: (1) The claimant

does not reside within a State; (2) the

claimant’s statement on its face raises a

question of its validity; (3) there is

conflicting information of record; or (4)

there is reasonable indication, in the

claimant’s statement or otherwise, of

fraud or misrepresentation.

The Secretary proposes to exercise

this discretionary authority.

Accordingly, we are proposing to amend

38 CFR 3.204. We are proposing to

require that a claimant’s written

statement contain the date (month and

year) and place of the event, the full

name and relationship of the other

person to the claimant, and, where the

claimant’s dependent child does not

reside with the claimant, the name and

address of the person who has custody

of the child. It appears that we need this

information, which currently must be

supplied by an individual claiming

additional dependency allowance, not

only to make a proper determination of

dependency, but also to determine

whether or not the claimant’s statement

is valid or in conflict with other

information of record. We are further

proposing to require that a claimant

seeking benefits on behalf of a

dependent provide the social security

number of the dependent in accordance

with the provisions of 38 CFR 3.216.

We also propose to revise the heading

of § 3.204 to reflect its contents more

accurately. Finally, in §§ 3.204 and

3.213(a) we propose technical

amendments to conform to the

substantive changes proposed, and we

propose technical changes in the ‘‘Cross

References’’ following §§ 3.205 through

3.214 to conform to the heading revision

of § 3.204.

Previously, we promulgated an

amendment to our adjudication

regulations to allow claimants to submit

uncertified photocopies of documents to

establish birth, death, marriage, or

relationship (59 FR 46337 and 60 FR

46531). That amendment implemented a

recommendation of VA’s Blue Ribbon

Panel on Claims Processing and was

intended to reduce delays and improve

efficiency in claims processing. This

proposed rule would, we believe,

further improve timeliness and

efficiency.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The collection of information

contained in this notice of proposed

rulemaking has been submitted to the

Office of Management and Budget for

review in accordance with the

Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

3504(h)). Comments on the collection of

information should be sent to the Office

of Management and Budget, Attention:

Desk Officer for the Department of

Veterans Affairs, Office of Information

and Regulatory Affairs, Washington, DC

20503, with copies to the Director,

Office of Regulations Management

(02D), Department of Veterans Affairs,

810 Vermont Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20420.

The collection of information

included in proposed §§ 3.204 and

3.213 in this rulemaking proceeding

merely concerns the quality of

information that may be submitted to

VA to establish marriage, dissolution of

marriage, birth, death, or marriage of a

child. The provisions of 38 U.S.C. 5124

contain specific authority to allow such

information collection. The basic

requirements for collection of

information concerning marriage,

dissolution of a marriage, birth, death,

or marriage of a child for this

rulemaking are set forth at §§ 3.205

through 3.211, 3.215, 3.216.

Title: Written statements concerning

existence of dependents.

Summary of collection of information:

See discussion above.

Description of the need for

information and proposed use of

information: See discussion above.

Description of likely respondents:

claimants of VA benefits.

Estimated total annual reporting

burden: 0 hours.

The estimated annual burden per

respondent: 0 hours.

Estimated number of respondents:

541.054.

Estimated annual frequency of

responses: 1.

The proposed rule will not increase

the information collection burden on

the public. This information is already

collected on VA Forms 21–526,

Veteran’s Application for Compensation

or Pension, 21–534, Application for

Dependency and Indemnity

Compensation, Death Pension and

Accrued Benefits by a Surviving Spouse

or Child and 21–686c, Declaration of

Status of Dependents.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Secretary hereby certifies that

this proposed rule will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities as

defined in the Regulatory Flexibility

Act, 5 U.S.C. 601–612. This proposed

rule would not directly affect small

entities. Only VA beneficiaries would be

directly affected. Therefore, pursuant to

5 U.S.C. 605(b), this proposed rule is

exempt from the initial and final

regulatory flexibility analysis

requirements of sections 603 and 604.

Since this is a significant amendment,

we have prepared a Costs and Benefits

analysis in accord with Executive Order

12866 of September 30, 1993, and the
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 97 / Friday, May 17, 1996 / Proposed Rules 24911

Office of Management and Budget has

reviewed this analysis.

The Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance program numbers are 64.104,

64.105, 64.109, and 64.110.

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 3

Administrative practice and

procedure, Claims, Health care,

Individuals with disabilities, Pensions,

Veterans.

Approved: October 12, 1995.

Jesse Brown,

Secretary of Veterans Affairs.

Editorial Note: This document was

received at the Office of the Federal Register

on May 13, 1996.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, VA proposes to amend 38

CFR part 3 as follows:

PART 3—ADJUDICATION

Subpart A—Pension, Compensation,

and Dependency and Indemnity

Compensation

1. The authority citation for part 3,

subpart A continues to read as follows:

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501(a), unless

otherwise noted.

2. In § 3.204, the section heading is

revised, current paragraphs (a) and (b)

are redesignated as paragraphs (b) and

(c), respectively, and a new paragraph

(a) is added to read as follows:

§ 3.204 Evidence of dependents and age.

(a)(1) Except as provided in paragraph

(a)(2) of this section, VA will accept, for

the purpose of determining entitlement

to benefits under laws administered by

VA, the written statement of a claimant

as proof of marriage, dissolution of a

marriage, birth of a child, or death of a

dependent, provided that the statement

contains: the date (month and year) and

place of the event; the full name and

relationship of the other person to the

claimant; and, where the claimant’s

dependent child does not reside with

the claimant, the name and address of

the person who has custody of the child.

In addition, a claimant must provide the

social security number of any

dependent on whose behalf he or she is

seeking benefits (see § 3.216).

(2) VA shall require the types of

evidence indicated in §§ 3.205 through

3.211 where: the claimant does not

reside within a state; the claimant’s

statement on its face raises a question of

its validity; the claimant’s statement

conflicts with other evidence of record;

or, there is a reasonable indication, in

the claimant’s statement or otherwise, of

fraud or misrepresentation of the

relationship in question.

(Authority: 38 U.S.C. 5124)

* * * * *

§ 3.204 [Amended]

3. In § 3.204, redesignated paragraph

(b) is amended by removing the first

sentence and adding in its place ‘‘The

classes of evidence to be furnished for

the purpose of establishing marriage,

dissolution of marriage, age,

relationship, or death, if required under

the provisions of paragraph (a)(2), are

indicated in §§ 3.205 through 3.211 in

the order of preference.’’

§ 3.213 [Amended]

4. In § 3.213, paragraph (a) is

amended by removing the first sentence

and adding in its place ‘‘For the purpose

of establishing entitlement to a higher

rate of pension, compensation, or

dependency and indemnity

compensation based on the existence of

a dependent, VA will require evidence

which satisfies the requirements of

§ 3.204.’’

5. In the ‘‘Cross References’’ following

§§ 3.205, 3.206, 3.207, 3.208, 3.209,

3.210, 3.211, 3.212, 3.213, and 3.214,

remove the words ‘‘Evidence other than

evidence of service’’ wherever they

appear and add in their place the words

‘‘Evidence of dependents and age.’’

[FR Doc. 96–12365 Filed 5–16–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Parts 180 and 186

[PP 1E4020 and FAP 2H5619/P655; FRL–

5364–2]

RIN 2070–AC18

Tau-fluvalinate; Pesticide Tolerance

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: EPA proposes to establish

tolerances for residues of the insecticide

tau-fluvalinate in or on the raw

agriculture commodities (RAC) apples,

oriental pears, and kiwi, to increase the

tolerance for the insecticide taufluvalinate in or on the RAC fat of cattle

and to change the chemical

nomenclature in the tolerance. The

proposed regulations to establish the

maximum permissible levels for

residues of the pesticide were requested

pursuant to a petition submitted by

Sandoz Agro, Inc.

DATES: Comments, identified by the

docket control number [PP 1E4020/

P655], must be received on or before

June 17, 1996.

ADDRESSES: By mail, submit written

comments to: Public Response and

Program Resources Branch, Field

Operations Division (7506C), Office of

Pesticide Programs, Environmental

Protection Agency, 401 M St., SW.,

Washington, DC 20460. In person, bring

comments to: Rm. 1132 CM #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA

22202.

Comments and data may also be

submitted to OPP by sending electronic

mail (e-mail) to: oppdocket@epamail.epa.gov. Electronic

comments must be submitted as an

ASCII file avoiding the use of special

characters and any form of encryption.

Comments and data will also be

accepted on disks in WordPerfect 5.1

file format or ASCII file format. All

comments and data in electronic form

must be identified by the docket number

[PP 1E4020/P655]. Electronic comments

on this proposed rule may be filed

online at many Federal Depository

Libraries. Additional information on

electronic submissions can be found

below in this document.

Information submitted as a comment

concerning this document may be

claimed confidential by marking any

part or all of that information as

‘‘Confidential Business Information.’’

CBI should not be submitted through email. Information marked as CBI will

not be disclosed except in accordance

with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part

2. A copy of the comment that does not

contain CBI must be submitted for

inclusion in the public record.

Information not marked confidential

may be disclosed publicly by EPA

without prior notice. All written

comments will be available for public

inspection in Rm. 1132 at the address

given above, from 8 a.m. to 4 p.m.,

Monday through Friday, excluding legal

holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: By

mail: George T. LaRocca, Product

Manager (PM) 13, Registration Division

(7505C), Office of Pesticide Programs,

Environmental Protection Agency, 401

M St., SW., Washington, DC 20460.

Office location, telephone number, and

e-mail address: Rm. 202, CM #2, 1921

Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington, VA

22202, (703) 305-6100, e-mail:

larocca.george.gov.epamail.epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

Federal Registers of December 13, 1991

(56 FR 65080) and June 10, 1992 (57 FR

24644), EPA issued rules that gave

notice that Sandoz Agro., Inc. (formerly

Sandoz Crop Protection Corp), 1300 East

Touhy Ave., Des Plaines, Illinois 60018-