Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28055

explained that North Carolina program’s

proposed revised compliance staffing

benchmarks apply specifically to

personnel for the enforcement of

occupational safety and health

standards and that although an

individual with an educational

background in occupational health

nursing would be eligible to apply for

consideration for these positions, it

would be inappropriate to reserve

staffing positions for individuals with a

particular occupational health degree.

Decision

OSHA has carefully reviewed the

record developed during the above

described proceedings. In light of all the

facts presented on the record, including

the absence of any objections from

interested parties, the Assistant

Secretary has determined that the

revised compliance staffing levels

proposed for North Carolina meet the

requirements of the 1978 Court Order in

AFL–CIO v. Marshall in providing the

number of safety and health compliance

officers for a ‘‘fully effective’’

enforcement program. Therefore, the

revised compliance staffing levels of 64

safety and 50 health compliance officers

for North Carolina are approved.

Effect of Decision

The approval of the revised staffing

levels for North Carolina, set forth

elsewhere in this notice, establishes the

requirement for a sufficient number of

adequately trained and qualified

compliance personnel as set forth in

Section 18(c) of the Act and 29 CFR

1902.37(b)(1). These benchmarks are

established pursuant to the 1978 Court

Order in AFL–CIO v. Marshall and

define the compliance staffing levels

necessary for a ‘‘fully effective’’ program

in North Carolina. The allocation of

sufficient staffing to meet the

benchmarks is one of the conditions

necessary for States to receive an 18(e)

determination (final State plan

approval) with its resultant

relinquishment of concurrent Federal

enforcement jurisdiction.

Explanation of Changes to 29 CFR Part

1952

29 CFR 1952 contains, for each State

having an approved occupational safety

and health plan, a subpart generally

describing the plan and setting forth the

Federal approval status of the plan. This

notice makes several changes to Subpart

I to reflect the approval of North

Carolina’s revised compliance staffing

benchmarks, as well as to reflect minor

editorial modifications to the structure

of the Subpart.

Section 1952.393, Compliance staffing

benchmarks, has been revised to reflect

the approval of the revised benchmarks

for North Carolina. In addition, the

addresses of locations where the North

Carolina plan may be inspected have

been updated and are found at

§ 1952.156.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

OSHA certifies, pursuant to the

Regulatory Act of 1980 (5 U.S.C. 601, et

seq.), that this rulemaking will not have

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Approval of the revised compliance

staffing benchmarks for North Carolina

will not place small employers in the

State under any new or different

requirements nor would any additional

burden be placed upon the State

government beyond the responsibilities

already assumed as part of the approved

plan.

List of Subjects in 29 CFR Part 1952

Intergovernmental relations, Law

enforcement, Occupational safety and

health.

(Sec. 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C. 667); 29

CFR Part 1902, Secretary of Labor’s Order No.

9–83 (43 FR 35736))

Signed at Washington, DC, this 10th day of

May 1996.

Joseph A. Dear,

Assistant Secretary of Labor.

PART 1952—[AMENDED]

Accordingly, Subpart I of 29 CFR Part

1952 is amended as follows:

Subpart I—North Carolina

1. The authority citation for Part 1952

continues to read:

Authority: Sec. 18, 84 Stat. 1608 (29 U.S.C.

667); 29 CFR Part 1902, Secretary of Labor’s

Order No. 9–83 (43 FR 35736).

2. Section 1952.153 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 1952.153 Compliance staffing

benchmarks.

Under the terms of the 1978 Court

Order in AFL–CIO v. Marshall,

compliance staffing levels

(‘‘benchmarks’’) necessary for a ‘‘fully

effective’’ enforcement program were

required for each State operating an

approved State plan. In September 1984,

North Carolina, in conjunction with

OSHA, completed a reassessment of the

levels initially established in 1980 and

proposed revised benchmarks of 50

safety and 27 health compliance

officers. After opportunity for public

comment and service on the AFL–CIO,

the Assistant Secretary approved these

revised staffing requirements on January

17, 1986. In June 1990, North Carolina

reconsidered the information utilized in

the initial revision of its 1980

benchmarks and determined that

changes in local conditions and

improved inspection data warranted

further revision of its benchmarks to 64

safety inspectors and 50 industrial

hygienists. After opportunity for public

comment and service on the AFL–CIO,

the Assistant Secretary approved these

revised staffing requirements on June 4,

1996.

3. Section 1952.156 is revised to read

as follows:

§ 1952.156 Where the plan may be

inspected.

A copy of the principal documents

comprising the plan may be inspected

and copied during normal business

hours at the following locations:

Office of State Programs, Occupational Safety

and Health Administration, U.S.

Department of Labor, Third Street and

Constitution Avenue, NW., Room N3700,

Washington, DC 20210;

Office of the Regional Administrator,

Occupational Safety and Health

Administration, U.S. Department of Labor,

1375 Peachtree Street, NE., Suite 587,

Atlanta, Georgia 30367; and

Office of the Commissioner, North Carolina

Department of Labor, 319 Chapanoke Road,

Raleigh, North Carolina 27603.

[FR Doc. 96–13913 Filed 6–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4510–26–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Coast Guard

33 CFR Part 165

[CGD01–96–023]

RIN 2115–AA97

Safety Zone: Empire State Regatta,

Albany, New York

AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.

ACTION: Temporary final rule.

SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is

establishing a temporary safety zone for

the Empire State Regatta on June 7,

1996, from 12:01 p.m. until 3 p.m., and

on June 8, 1996, from 6 a.m. until 6 p.m.

This safety zone will temporarily close

the Hudson River at Albany, New York,

from the Patroon Island Bridge to the

Dunn Memorial Bridge. This safety zone

is necessary to protect the maritime

public from the hazards associated with

crew shells racing in lanes and having

limited maneuverability while

underway.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is

effective from 12:01 p.m. to 3 p.m. on
28056 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Friday, June 7, 1996, and from 6 a.m. to

6 p.m. on Saturday, June 8, 1996, unless

extended or terminated sooner by the

Captain of the Port New York.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lieutenant Commander R. Trabocchi,

Chief, Coordination and Analysis

Branch, U.S. Coast Guard Activities

New York (212) 668–7906.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Regulatory History

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, a notice of

proposed rulemaking (NRPM) was not

published for this regulation. Good

cause exists for not publishing an NPRM

and for making this regulation effective

less than 30 days after Federal Register

publication. Due to the date complete

information regarding this event was

received, there was insufficient time to

draft and publish an NPRM. Any delay

encountered in this regulation’s

effective date would be contrary to

public interest since immediate action is

needed to close this waterway and

protect the maritime public from the

hazards of crew shells with limited

maneuverability racing in confined

waters.

Background and Purpose

The Coast Guard received a request

from the Albany Rowing Center to close

a portion of the Hudson River for the

Empire State Regatta. This safety zone

closes a portion of the Hudson River,

shore to shore, at Albany, New York,

between the Patroon Island Bridge and

the Dunn Memorial Bridge. The start

docks and start platform will be

installed on Friday, June 7, 1996, by

means of a cable crossing the width of

the river. After 3 p.m., the cable will be

sunk and the docks clustered on the

western shoreline of the Hudson River

at Albany, New York. Crew shells will

race in designated lanes within the race

course on Saturday, June 8, 1996.

Commercial and recreational traffic will

be escorted through the race course by

law enforcement vessels. Vessels

desiring escort can contact the on-scene

U.S. Coast Guard Patrol Commander on

channel 16 VHF–FM. The times that

vessels can be escorted through the race

course are tentative because actual race

times are largely dependent on winds

and currents. The tentative times for

escort are 10:10 a.m., 12:30 p.m., and

2:10 p.m.; escort periods are expected to

be no longer than 15 minutes in

duration.The safety zone closes all

waters south of the Patroon Island

Bridge at 42°39′50′′ N latitude;

073°43′45′′ W longitude (NAD 1983)

and north of the Dunn Memorial Bridge

at 42°38′43′′ N latitude; 073°44′51′′ W

longitude (NAD 1983), Albany, New

York. This safety zone precludes all

vessels not participating in the event

from transiting this portion of the

Hudson River and is needed to protect

mariners from the hazards of crew shells

with limited maneuverability racing in

confined waters. Participating vessels

include race participants and race

committee craft. All other vessels,

swimmers, and personal watercraft of

any nature are precluded from entering

or moving within the safety zone

without permission of the Captain of the

Port New York.

Regulatory Evaluation

This regulation is not a significant

regulatory action under section 3(f) of

Executive Order 12866 and does not

require an assessment of potential costs

and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of that

order. It has been exempted from review

by the Office of Management and

Budget under that order. It is not

significant under regulatory policies and

procedures of the Department of

transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040;

February 26, 1979) The Coast Guard

expects the economic impact of this

regulation to be so minimal that a full

Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph

10(e) of the regulatory policies and

procedures of DOT is unnecessary. This

safety zone closes the Hudson River,

shore to shore, south of the Patroon

Island Bridge and north of the Dunn

Memorial Bridge, Albany, New York,

from 12:01 p.m. to 3 p.m. on Friday,

June 7, 1996, and from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.

on Saturday, June 8, 1996, unless

extended or terminated sooner by the

Captain of the Port, New York. Although

this regulation prevents traffic from

transiting this area, the effect of this

regulation is not significant for several

reasons: this is an annual event with

local support and has been held for the

past several years without incident or

complaint, the closure of the river has

been reduced from three days to two

days this year, vessel traffic will have

greater opportunities to transit during

the effective period of this regulation

due to modifications to the race course,

and the notifications that will be made

to the maritime community via local

notices to mariners.

Small Entities

Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act

(5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the Coast Guard

must consider whether this regulation

will have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. ‘‘Small entities’’ may include

(1) small businesses and not-for-profit

organizations that are independently

owned and operated and are not

dominant in their fields and (2)

government jurisdictions with

populations less than 50,000.

For the reasons given in the

Regulatory Evaluation, the Coast Guard

certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this

regulation will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities.

Collection of Information

This regulation contains no

collection-of-information requirements

under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq).

Federalism

The Coast Guard has analyzed this

action in accordance with the principles

and criteria contained in Executive

Order 12612, and has determined that

this regulation does not have sufficient

federalism implications to warrant the

preparation of a Federalism Assessment.

Environment

The Coast Guard has considered the

environmental impact of this regulation

and concluded that, under section

2.B.2.e. (34)(g) of Commandant

Instruction M16475.1B, (as revised by

59 FR 38654, July 29, 1994), the

promulgation of this regulation is

categorically excluded from further

environmental documentation. A

Categorical Exclusion Determination

and Environmental Analysis Checklist

are included in the docket.

List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165

Harbors, Marine safety, Navigation

(water), Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Security measures,

Waterways.

Final Regulation

For reasons set out in the preamble,

the Coast Guard amends 33 CFR Part

165 as follows:

PART 165—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for Part 165

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191;

33 CFR 1.05–1(g), 6.04–1, 6.046–6, and 160.5;

49 CFR 1.46.

2. A temporary section, 165.T01–023,

is added to read as follows:

§ 165.T01–023 Safety Zone: Empire State

Regatta, Hudson River, Albany, New York.

(a) Location. The waters of Hudson

River, Albany, New York, shore to

shore, south of the Patroon Island

Bridge at 42°39′50′′ N latitude;

073°43′45′′ W longitude, (NAD 1983)

and north of the Dunn Memorial Bridge

at 42°38′43′′ N latitude; 073°44′51′′ W

longitude (NAD 1993).
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 108 / Tuesday, June 4, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 28057

(b) Effective period. This section is

effective from 12:01 p.m. until 3 p.m. on

June 7, 1996, and from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m.

on June 8, 1996, unless extended or

terminated sooner by the Captain of the

Port, New York.

(c) Regulations. (1) The general

regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23

apply to this safety zone.

(2) Vessels not participating in this

event, swimmers, and personal

watercraft of any nature are precluded

from entering or moving within the

safety zone without permission from the

Captain of the Port New York.

(3) All persons and vessels shall

comply with the instructions of the

Coast Guard Captain of the Port or the

designated on scene patrol personnel.

U.S. Coast Guard patrol personnel

include commissioned, warrant, and

petty officers of the Coast Guard. Upon

being hailed by a U.S. Coast Guard

vessel via siren, radio, flashing light, or

other means, the operator of a vessel

shall proceed as directed.

Dated: May 9, 1996.

T.H. Gilmour,

Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the

Port, New York.

[FR Doc. 96–13859 Filed 6–3–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4910–14–M

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS

AFFAIRS

38 CFR Part 36

RIN 2900–AI01

Loan Guaranty: Miscellaneous

AGENCY: Department of Veterans Affairs.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This document amends the

Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)

regulations governing the VA home loan

program by deleting superseded

provisions, amending provisions to

reflect statutory changes, deleting

provisions that have no legal effect, and

updating a position title. This document

also amends the regulations by

incorporating a precedent opinion of the

VA General Counsel stating that the law

governing the housing loan and

specially adapted housing programs

does not preclude VA from approving a

loan or grant when the property will be

held in a Family Living Trust, provided

the veteran has at least an equitable life

estate in the property, the lien for any

VA financing attaches to the remainder,

and the trust arrangement is valid under

State law.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.

Judith Caden, Assistant Director for

Loan Policy (264), Loan Guaranty

Service, Veterans Benefits

Administration, Department of Veterans

Affairs, 810 Vermont Avenue, NW.,

Washington, DC 20420, (202) 273–7368.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

36.4216 is deleted since it has been

superseded by a new 38 CFR Part 44

which sets forth the current

requirements for governmentwide

debarment and suspension of program

participants, including manufactured

home lenders and loan holders from the

VA Loan Guaranty Program.

A recent legal opinion of the VA

General Counsel, VAOPGCPREC 26–95,

published in summary form in the

Federal Register on March 12, 1996, 61

FR 10063, holds that the law governing

the housing loan and specially adapted

housing programs does not preclude VA

from approving a loan or grant when the

property will be held in a Family Living

Trust, provided the veteran has at least

an equitable life estate in the property,

the lien for any VA financing attaches

to the remainder, and the trust

arrangement is valid under State law.

Previous regulations specifying the title

interest a veteran must obtain in the

subject property in order to qualify for

assistance under these programs did not

address property held in trust for estateplanning reasons. Accordingly, sections

36.4253(a), 36.4350(a), 36.4402(a), and

36.4515(a) are revised to reflect the

holding in this precedent opinion.

The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act

of 1944 originally permitted VA to pay

a guaranty claim when the holder

reported the loan as being in default.

The Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, P.L.

98–369, § 2512, amended what is now

codified as 38 U.S.C. § 3732(a) to require

that a liquidation sale must be held

before a claim may be paid. Sections

36.4316 and 36.4318 are amended to

reflect these statutory changes.

Section 36.4346(g)(2) is revised to

correct citation references.

Section 36.4402(a) is revised to

provide that a veteran is eligible for

assistance under section 2101(a) of

Chapter 21 if he or she has or will

acquire an interest in a suitable housing

unit which is at least a beneficial

interest in a revocable Family Living

Trust. This change incorporates the

holding of VAOPGCPREC 26–95, as

discussed above.

Section 36.4404(a) is revised to note

that the maximum statutory amount of

a grant to obtain specially adapted

housing is $38,000. Section 36.4404(b)

is revised to update the maximum

statutory amount of a grant for a

residence already adapted with special

features from $6,000 to $6,500.

The authority cited for § 36.4507(c) is

corrected, from 38 U.S.C. § 3710(c) to

§ 3711.

Regulations referring to covenants

purporting to restrict the sale or

occupancy of property by race, color,

religion, or national origin are removed.

Previous regulations (§§ 36.4350(b)(7)

and 36.4515(b)(7)) provided that the

violation of such a covenant will not

render title to property unacceptable to

VA. Also, under previous § 36.4510(d),

a borrower’s recording such a covenant

may have constituted an event of default

on a VA direct loan.

In removing these provisions, VA

stresses its continuing commitment to

fair housing. VA affirmatively

administers its housing programs in a

manner to further the purposes and

objectives of the Fair Housing Act, 42

U.S.C. §§ 3601–3631. VA will not

condone any violation of fair housing

law in its programs, and will take all

necessary measures to deal with any

violation that comes to VA’s attention.

VA believes, however, that present law

makes these regulatory provisions

unnecessary.

The provisions relating to raciallyrestrictive covenants were originally

added to the regulations in response to

the Supreme Court decision in Shelley

v. Kraemer, 334 U.S. 1 (1948). Although

that decision held that courts may not

enforce racially-restrictive covenants, it

also held such privately-created

covenants were not invalid and could be

effectuated by voluntary adherence.

Much has changed in the area of fair

housing since 1948. The Fair Housing

Act clearly and unambiguously

prohibits discrimination in the sale,

rental, or financing of housing on the

basis of race, color, religion, sex,

familial status, or national origin. VA

believes it is clear that such restrictive

covenants are absolutely null and void,

and any attempt to create or enforce

such a covenant would be unlawful.

Since these covenants have absolutely

no effect, VA sees no reason to provide

by regulation that violations of such

purported restrictions may be ignored in

considering whether or not a veteran

has good and marketable title. VA does

not believe any knowledgeable attorney

or title professional would consider the

existence of such an obsolete, unlawful

covenant in reviewing title.

Case law also holds that recorders of

deeds may not accept for recording new

racially restrictive covenants.

Accordingly, VA sees no purpose in

making the recording of such a covenant

an event of default.