Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules 29715

it may not otherwise have applied. It

was never intended to (nor could it)

prevent the application of the tax

pursuant to the statutory provisions that

apply based on the original taxable

transfer. To eliminate any uncertainty

concerning the proper application of the

GST tax, the regulations under section

2652(a) will be clarified by eliminating

§ 26.2652–1(a)(4) and Example 9 and

Example 10 in § 26.2652–1(a)(6) from

the final regulations.

Proposed Effective Date

These amendments apply to transfers

to trusts on or after June 12, 1996.

Special Analysis

It has been determined that this notice

of proposed rulemaking is not a

significant regulatory action as defined

in EO 12866. Therefore, a regulatory

assessment is not required. It has also

been determined that section 553(b) of

the Administrative Procedure Act (5

U.S.C. chapter 5) and the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6) do

not apply to these regulations, and

therefore, a Regulatory Flexibility

Analysis is not required. Pursuant to

section 7805(f) of the Internal Revenue

Code, the notice of proposed rulemaking

preceding these regulations was

submitted to the Small Business

Administration for comment on its

impact on small business.

Comments and Requests for a Public

Hearing

Before this proposed regulation is

adopted as a final regulation,

consideration will be given to any

written comments (a signed original and

eight (8) copies) that are submitted

timely to the IRS. All comments will be

available for public inspection and

copying. A public hearing may be

scheduled if requested in writing by a

person that timely submits written

comments. If a public hearing is

scheduled, notice of the date, time, and

place for the hearing will be published

in the Federal Register.

Drafting Information

The principal author of this proposed

regulation is James F. Hogan, Office of

the Chief Counsel, IRS. Other personnel

from the IRS and Treasury Department

participated in its development.

List of Subjects in 26 CFR Part 26

Estate taxes, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Adoption of Amendments to the

Regulations

Accordingly, 26 CFR part 26 is

proposed to be amended as follows:

PART 26—GENERATION-SKIPPING

TRANSFER TAX REGULATIONS

UNDER THE TAX REFORM ACT OF

1986

Paragraph 1. The authority citation

for part 26 continues to read, in part, as

follows:

Authority: 26 U.S.C. 7805 * * *

Par. 2. Section 26.2652–1 is amended

as follows:

§ 26.2652–1 [Amended]

1. Paragraph (a)(4) is removed and

paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6) are

redesignated as paragraphs (a)(4) and

(a)(5), respectively.

2. In newly designated paragraph

(a)(5), Examples 9 and 10 are removed

and Example 11 is redesignated as

Example 9.

Margaret Milner Richardson,

Commissioner of Internal Revenue.

[FR Doc. 96–13858 Filed 6–11–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4830–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

28 CFR Part 74

Redress Provisions for Persons of

Japanese Ancestry: Guidelines Under

Ishida v. United States

AGENCY: Department of Justice.

ACTION: Notice of extension of deadline

for public comment.

SUMMARY: On April 22, 1996, the

Department of Justice published in the

Federal Register (61 FR 17667) a

proposed rule to amend the

Department’s regulation governing

redress provisions for persons of

Japanese ancestry. This change will

amend the standards of the Civil

Liberties Act of 1988 to make eligible for

payments of $20,000 those persons who

were born after their parents

‘‘voluntarily’’ evacuated from the

prohibited military zones of the West

Coast of the United States as a result of

military proclamations issued pursuant

to Executive Order 9066. This change

will also make eligible for redress those

persons who were born outside the

prohibited military zones in the United

States after their parents were released

from internment camps during the

defined war period and whose parents

had resided in the prohibited military

zones on the West Coast immediately

prior to their internment.

The period for accepting comments

was published as ending on June 6,

1996. Due to a clerical mistake,

however, the period for accepting

comments should end on June 20, 1996,

upon the expiration of the standard

sixty day comment period. Due to this

mistake and requests from interested

parties to have the full sixty day period

in which to submit comments, the

comment period is extended through

June 20, 1996.

DATES: The comment period is extended

to June 20, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Written comments may be

mailed to the Office of Redress

Administration, P.O. Box 66260,

Washington, D.C. 20035–6260.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tink

D. Cooper or Emlei M. Kuboyama,

Office of Redress Administration, Civil

Rights Division, U.S. Department of

Justice, P.O. Box 66260, Washington,

D.C. 20035–6260; (202) 219–6900

(voice) or (202) 219–4710 (TDD). These

are not toll-free numbers.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The

proposed rule published in the Federal

Register on April 22, 1996, would

amend the regulation of the Department

of Justice governing redress provisions

for persons of Japanese ancestry. A

number of persons have asserted claims

for redress based on their parents’

evacuation or internment by the United

States Government prior to their birth

and their subsequent inability to legally

return to their parents’ original place of

residence in the prohibited military

zones on the West Coast. Based on

section 108 of the Civil Liberties Act of

1988, Public Law No. 100–383 (codified

at 50 U.S.C. app 1989 et seq., as

amended) and 28 CFR 74.4, the Civil

Rights Division found these persons

ineligible for redress. Approximately

1,000 persons who were born after their

parents ‘‘voluntarily’’ evacuated from

the prohibited military zones or after

their parents were released from

internment camps claimed

compensation under the Act. Most of

these claimants were born prior to

midnight on January 2, 1945, the

effective date of Proclamation Number

21, which rescinded the prohibited

military zones on the West Coast and

lifted the general exclusion restrictions

on persons of Japanese ancestry.

However, the United States Court of

Appeals for the Federal Circuit

determined that the Civil Rights

Division’s policy of denying such claims

was inconsistent with the terms of the

Act. Ishida v. U.S., No. 94–5151 (Fed.

Cir., July 6, 1995). In order to conform

to the court decision, the Civil Rights

Division proposed this revision to the

regulation.
29716 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 114 / Wednesday, June 12, 1996 / Proposed Rules

To be assured of consideration,

comments must be in writing and must

be received on or before June 20, 1996.

* * * * *

Dated: June 4, 1996.

Deval Patrick,

Assistant Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 96–14638 Filed 6–11–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

28 CFR Part 74

[AG Order No. 2033–96]

RIN 1190–AA42

Redress Provisions for Persons of

Japanese Ancestry: Guidelines for

Individuals Who Relocated to Japan as

Minors During World War II

AGENCY: Department of Justice.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of Justice

(‘‘Department’’) hereby proposes a

change to the regulations governing

redress provisions for persons of

Japanese ancestry. This change will

amend the standards of the Civil

Liberties Act of 1988 to make eligible for

payments of $20,000 those persons who

are otherwise eligible for redress under

these regulations, but who involuntarily

relocated during World War II to a

country with which the United States

was at war. In practice, this amendment

will make potentially eligible those

persons who were evacuated, relocated,

or interned by the United States

Government; who, as minors, relocated

to Japan during World War II, and

otherwise were unemancipated and

lacked the legal capacity to leave the

custody and control of their parents (or

legal guardians) who chose to relocate to

Japan during the war; and who did not

enter active military service on behalf of

the Japanese Government or another

enemy government during the

statutorily-defined war period.

DATES: Comments must be submitted on

or before July 12, 1996.

ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to

the Office of Redress Administration,

PO Box 66260, Washington, DC 20035–

6260.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Tink D. Cooper or Emlei Kuboyama,

Office of Redress Administration, Civil

Rights Division, U.S. Department of

Justice, PO Box 66260, Washington, DC

20035–6260; (202) 219–6900 (voice) or

(202) 219–4710 (TDD). These are not

toll-free numbers.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The Civil Liberties Act of 1988, Pub.

L. No. 100–383 (codified at 50 U.S.C.

app. 1989 et seq., as amended) (‘‘the

Act’’), enacted into law the

recommendations of the Commission on

Wartime Relocation and Internment of

Civilians (‘‘Commission’’) established

by Congress in 1980. See Commission

on Wartime Relocation and Internment

of Civilians Act, Pub. L. No. 96–317

(1980). This bipartisan commission was

established: (1) To review the facts and

circumstances surrounding Executive

Order 9066, issued February 19, 1942,

and the impact of that Executive Order

on American citizens and permanent

resident aliens of Japanese ancestry; (2)

to review directives of United States

military forces requiring the relocation

and, in some cases, detention in

internment camps of these American

citizens and permanent resident aliens;

and (3) to recommend appropriate

remedies. The Commission submitted to

Congress in February 1983 a unanimous

report, Personal Justice Denied, which

extensively reviewed the history and

circumstances of the decisions to

exclude, remove, and then to detain

Japanese Americans and Japanese

resident aliens from the West Coast, as

well as the treatment of Aleuts during

World War II. Redress Provisions for

Persons of Japanese Ancestry, 54 FR

34,157 (1989). The final part of the

Commission’s report, Personal Justice

Denied Part 2: Recommendations,

concluded that these events were

influenced by racial prejudice, war

hysteria, and a failure of political

leadership, and recommended remedial

action to be taken by Congress and the

President. Id.

On August 10, 1988, President Ronald

Reagan signed the Act into law. The

purposes of the Act were to

acknowledge and apologize for the

fundamental injustice of the evacuation,

relocation, and internment of Japanese

Americans and permanent resident

aliens of Japanese ancestry, to make

restitution, and to fund a public

education program to prevent the

recurrence of any similar event in the

future. 50 U.S.C. app. 1989–1989a.

Section 105 of the Act makes the

Attorney General responsible for

identifying, locating, an authorizing

payment of redress to eligible

individuals. Id. 1989b–4. The Attorney

General delegated the responsibilities

and duties assigned to her to the

Assistant Attorney General for Civil

Rights, who, in keeping with precedent,

has designated ORA in the Civil Rights

Division to carry out the execution of

the responsibilities and duties under the

Act. The regulations governing the

eligibility and restitution were drafted

by ORA and published under the

authority of the Justice Department in

1989. 54 FR 34,157 (1989) (final rule)

(codified at 28 CFR part 74).

ORA is charged with the

responsibility of identifying and

locating persons eligible for redress

under the Act. To date, restitution has

been paid to a total of 79,911 Japanese

Americans and permanent resident

aliens of Japanese ancestry.

Section 108 of the Act articulates the

standards for redress eligibility. 50

U.S.C. app. 1989b–7(2). Among those

excluded from eligibility under that

section are those ‘‘who, during the

period beginning on December 7, 1941,

and ending on September 2, 1945,

relocated to a country while the United

States was at war with that country

* * *.’’ Id. As part of a citizen exchange

program during World War II, the

United States returned formerly

interned persons of Japanese ancestry to

Japan on two occasions. On June 18,

1942, approximately 1,083 persons of

Japanese ancestry returned to Japan

aboard the M.S. Gripsholm, and on

September 2, 1943, the Gripsholm

returned another 1,340 persons of

Japanese ancestry to Japan. A number of

these persons asserted claims for redress

based on their evacuation and

internment by the United States

Government prior to their return to

Japan. However, based on section 108 of

the Act and 28 CFR 74.4, ORA found

them ineligible for redress. 54 FR 34,162

(1989). In all, 175 persons who returned

to Japan aboard the Gripsholm claimed

compensation under the Act;

approximately 124 of these claimants

were persons who were under the age of

21 upon their departure from the United

States. ORA’s denial of redress to these

claimants was upheld during the

administrative appeal process set forth

in 28 CFR 74.17. 54 FR 34,164–65

(1989).

It is helpful to describe the

circumstances of these individuals. The

West Coast voluntary evacuation period

began with the issuance of Proclamation

No. 1, on March 2, 1942, and ended

with the issuance of Proclamation No. 4,

effective on March 29, 1942. After this

date, persons of Japanese ancestry were

prohibited from leaving the West Coast

because the Government was preparing

to forcibly relocate and intern them

later. Over 120,000 Japanese Americans

were eventually interned. Of these

120,000, approximately 124 were minor

children whose parents decided to

depart the United States for Japan

during the war on one of the M.S.