Proposed Rules. Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations; correction notice
16,506 words·~75 min read·
/register/2007/01/24/07-213A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
BILLING CODE 3510-DS-P, 4310-93-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Internal Revenue Service 26 CFR Part 1 [REG-125632-06] RIN 1545-BF83 Corporate Reorganizations; Distributions Under Sections 368(a)(1)(D) and 354(b)(1)(B); Correction Notice AGENCY: Internal Revenue Service (IRS), Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations; correction notice. SUMMARY: This document contains corrections to notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations that was published in the **Federal Register** on Tuesday, December 19, 2006 (71 FR 75898) providing guidance regarding the qualification of certain transactions as reorganizations described in section 368(a)(1)(D) where no stock and/or securities of the acquiring corporation are issued and distributed in the transaction.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce A. Decker at
(202)622-7550 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations (REG-125632-06) that is the subject of these corrections are under sections 368 and 354 of the Internal Revenue Code. Need for Correction As published, notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations (REG-125632-06) contains errors that may prove to be misleading and are in need of clarification. Correction of Publication Accordingly, the notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations (REG-125632-06) that was the subject of FR Doc. E6-21572, is corrected as follows: On page 75898, column 3, in the preamble, under the caption, line 9, the language “acquiring corporation is issued and” is corrected to read “acquiring corporation are issued and.” LaNita Van Dyke, Chief, Publications and Regulations Branch, Legal Processing Division, Office of Associate Chief Counsel (Procedure and Administration). [FR Doc. E7-860 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4830-01-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [Notice No. 71] RIN 1513-AB27 Proposed Establishment of the Paso Robles Westside Viticultural Area (2006R-087P) AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. SUMMARY: The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau proposes to establish the 179,622-acre “Paso Robles Westside” viticultural area in San Luis Obispo County, California. The proposed viticultural area is totally within the existing Paso Robles and Central Coast viticultural areas. We designate viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. We invite comments on this proposed addition to our regulations. DATES: We must receive written comments on or before March 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments to any of the following addresses: • Director, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Attn: Notice No. 71, P.O. Box 14412, Washington, DC 20044-4412. • 202-927-8525 (facsimile). • *nprm@ttb.gov* (e-mail). • *http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml.* An online comment form is posted with this notice on our Web site. • *http://www.regulations.gov* (Federal e-rulemaking portal; follow instructions for submitting comments). You may view copies of this notice, the petition, the appropriate maps, and any comments we receive about this proposal by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center, 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. To make an appointment, call 202-927-2400. You may also access copies of the notice and comments online at *http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml* . See the Public Participation section of this notice for specific instructions and requirements for submitting comments, and for information on how to request a public hearing. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N. A. Sutton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St., No. 158, Petaluma, CA 94952; telephone 415-271-1254. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (the FAA Act, 27 U.S.C. 201 *et seq.* ) requires that alcohol beverage labels provide consumers with adequate information regarding product identity and prohibits the use of misleading information on those labels. The FAA Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations to carry out its provisions. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB)administers these regulations. Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains the list of approved viticultural areas. Definition Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by geographical features, the boundaries of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its geographic origin. The establishment of viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural area is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area. Requirements Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations requires the petition to include— • Evidence that the proposed viticultural area is locally and/or nationally known by the name specified in the petition; • Historical or current evidence that supports setting the boundary of the proposed viticultural area as the petition specifies; • Evidence relating to the geographic features, such as climate, soils, elevation, and physical features, that distinguish the proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas; • A description of the specific boundary of the proposed viticultural area, based on features found on United States Geological Survey
(USGS)maps; and • A copy of the appropriate USGS map(s) with the proposed viticultural area's boundary prominently marked. Paso Robles Westside Petition TTB has received a petition from Holland & Knight LLP, San Francisco, California, proposing the establishment of the “Paso Robles Westside” American viticultural area in northern San Luis Obispo County, California. The petition was filed on behalf of 21 vintners and grape growers with interests in the proposed viticultural area, which is located approximately 20 miles east of the Pacific Ocean and 180 miles south of San Francisco. There are, according to the petitioner, approximately 2,425 acres within the proposed viticultural area currently dedicated to commercial vineyards. Relationship to Existing Viticultural Areas The proposed 179,622-acre Paso Robles Westside viticultural area is entirely within the existing 609,564-acre Paso Robles viticultural area (27 CFR 9.84), which in turn is entirely within the existing, multi-county Central Coast viticultural area (27 CFR 9.75). The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), TTB's predecessor agency, established the Paso Robles viticultural area in 1983 (see T.D. ATF-148, 48 FR 45239, October 4, 1983). In 1996, ATF expanded the Paso Robles viticultural area along its western boundary, increasing the viticultural area's size from approximately 557,000 acres to 609,564 acres (see T.D. ATF-377, 61 FR 29952, June 13, 1996). As currently defined, the existing Paso Robles viticultural area lies in northern San Luis Obispo County, California, along the east and west sides of the Salinas River. The area forms a rough rectangle that runs from the Monterey County line in the north to just beyond the town of Santa Margarita in the south. The existing area generally extends from the Kern County line in the east to the inland side of the Santa Lucia Mountains in the west. The proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area consists of the portion of the existing Paso Robles viticultural area that is west of the Salinas River. Therefore, the existing Paso Robles viticultural area boundaries located west of the Salinas River are concurrent with the northern, western, and southern boundaries of the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area. The Salinas River serves as the eastern boundary of the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area. If TTB establishes the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area, that action would not affect the existing Paso Robles viticultural area, which would continue as an American viticultural area in its own right within its current boundary. A portion of the western boundary of the existing Paso Robles viticultural area abuts the 6,350-acre York Mountain viticultural area (27 CFR 9.80), which is also located within the Central Coast viticultural area. If established, a portion of the western boundary of the Paso Robles Westside viticultural area would, therefore, also abut the York Mountain viticultural area. If TTB establishes the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area, that action would not affect the York Mountain viticultural area; it would continue unchanged within its current boundary. We summarize below the supporting evidence presented with the petition. Name Evidence The “Paso Robles” name evidence discussed in T.D. ATF-148 justifies the use of “Paso Robles” as a geographic place name for the Paso Robles viticultural area. According to that evidence, the full Spanish name, “El Paso de Robles,” translates to “the Pass of the Oaks.” People traveling between the missions at San Miguel and San Luis Obispo originally named the region, T.D. ATF-148 explains. T.D. ATF-377, which expanded the western boundary of the original Paso Robles viticultural area, included evidence substantiating the use of the “Paso Robles” name for that expansion area. The current petition states that the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area, which includes the 1996 expansion of the Paso Robles viticultural area, is locally and nationally known as the distinctive western portion of the Paso Robles viticultural area. The petitioner explains that the Salinas River divides the Paso Robles region into east and west sides. Local residents and the media refer to “east” or “west” when describing locations within the Paso Robles region, according to the petition. In 2002, the City of Paso Robles Web site explained that water and sewer billing cycles were based on a property's location east or west of the Salinas River. Real estate articles and advertisements, provided by the petitioner, identify some vacation rentals and residential property as being located in the Paso Robles west side region. Chanticleer Vineyard Bed and Breakfast in Paso Robles describes its location “in Paso Robles Westside among vineyards * * *.” Windward Vineyard and Tablas Creek Winery informational materials also note that their vineyards are within the Paso Robles west side area. The October 2005 Wine Enthusiast magazine published an article by Steve Heimoff entitled “The West Side Story” that describes the growth of viticulture on the west side of the Paso Robles viticultural area. The article includes a section, “Nine Westerners to Watch,” that names and describes some wine industry members whose operations are located in the western portion of the Paso Robles viticultural area. A March 21, 2001, article headlined “Bothersome Bottleneck” in the San Luis Obispo Tribune newspaper stated that expansion of the Niblock Bridge over the Salinas River, connecting the west and east sides of Paso Robles, was creating traffic delays and detours. An April 11, 2001, Tribune article, “Weather Worries Paso Growers” described the weather-related damage from recent cold nights to vineyards on the west side of Paso Robles. The petition also included a May 25, 1994, San Francisco Chronicle food section article, “From Plonk to Premium, Paso Robles Offers It All,” by Gerald Asher, which discussed zinfandel grapes from Paso Robles west side growers. Boundary Evidence The history of Paso Robles grape growing, as noted in T.D. ATF-148, started with the inception of the California mission system. Mission San Miguel, founded in 1797 and located north of the town of Paso Robles, produced wines from grapes harvested nearby. The Rotta Winery, located on the west side of Paso Robles and now known as Tablas Creek Winery, started producing wine about 1890, according to T.D. ATF-148. Also, according to T.D. ATF-148, San Luis Obispo County maintains historical records of grape plantings in the County as early as 1873. As noted above, the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area encompasses that portion of the existing Paso Robles viticultural area west of the Salinas River. The petitioner notes that the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area boundary coincides with changes in topography within the larger Paso Robles viticultural area. The portion of the Paso Robles viticultural area east of the Salinas River has flatter terrain and warmer temperatures, with the Cholame Hills creating a natural eastern boundary for the existing area. In contrast, the petitioner notes that the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area is nestled in the hillier terrain located between the Salinas River and the Santa Lucia Range, which forms the existing and proposed areas' western boundaries. Distinguishing Features The distinguishing features of the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area, according to the petition, include its topography, climate, and soils. Using the Salinas River as the dividing line, the petition compares and contrasts the viticultural differences between the east and west sides of the existing Paso Robles viticultural area. Topography According to the provided USGS maps, elevations within the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area range from a low of 591 feet at its northeast corner along the Salinas River to a high of 2,300 feet on along its western boundary line, west-southwest of the city of Paso Robles. While similar elevations are found in the portion of the Paso Robles viticultural area east of the Salinas River, the petitioner contends that the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area is more rugged than regions east of the river. A report included with the petition prepared by Dr. Thomas J. Rice, a certified soil scientist, supports the petitioner's position that the topography of the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area is more rugged than the portion of the existing Paso Robles viticultural area east of the Salinas River. The report concludes that while the great majority of the terrain found in the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area is made up of hills and mountains, the portion of the existing Paso Robles viticultural area east of the Salinas River is less hilly, with nearly 30 percent of its land consisting of flatter terraces and plains. Even when compared to the existing Paso Robles viticultural area as a whole, the report notes that the proposed Paso Robles Westside area has more hills and mountains and fewer terraces and plains. The report summarized these topographical differences in the table shown below. Percentage of Terrain Types Terrain type Paso Robles viticultural area Proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area Paso Robles area east of Salinas River Hills & Mountains 64.8 85.0 56.2 Terraces 16.3 9.6 19.2 Alluvial plains and fans, and flood plains 7.4 5.3 8.3 Unidentified 11.5 0.1 16.3 Totals 100.0 100.0 100.0 In addition, the October 2005 Wine Enthusiast magazine article, “The West Side Story,” depicts the geography of the Paso Robles viticultural area west of the Salinas River as a region of remote hills, valleys, and benchlands that contrasts with the “flat as a billiard table” terrain found east of the river. Neil Collins of Tablas Creek Winery also describes the western Paso Robles viticultural area as a region of rugged topography and meager soils that supports low vineyard yields, which contrasts with the higher-yield vineyards located on the flatter terrain of the Paso Robles viticultural area's eastern region. Climate The petitioner states that the Salinas River marks a distinctive climatic dividing line within the established Paso Robles viticultural area, separating the area's west side from its east side. Primary influences on the weather in California, according to the petitioner, include the Pacific Ocean and the State's mountain ranges. The west side of the existing Paso Robles viticultural area, which is concurrent with the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area, lies on the eastern side of the Santa Lucia Mountains, which slope downward to the Salinas River. The Pacific Ocean's marine influence permeates the Santa Lucia Mountains, bringing more moisture to the west side of the Paso Robles viticultural area, according to the petition. In contrast, the petition states, the region east of the Salinas River, with its generally lower elevation and flatter terrain, receives much less marine influence and is drier than the region west of the river. As evidence of this climatic difference, the petitioner provided comparative rainfall data from the Western Regional Climate Center
(WRCC)for both the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area and the east side of the Paso Robles viticultural area. The town of Templeton served as the Westside data collection point, while the Paso Robles Airport served as the east side data collection point. The table below summarizes the rainfall data. Total rainfall inches 1970-1997 Proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area 746.67 East side of Paso Robles 406.78 Variance between Westside and east side 339.89 Percentage difference 46 The petition also included a June 30, 1994, Chicago Tribune article, entitled “California's Paso Robles Has the Climate and the Potential to Produce Fine Red Wines,” which stated that the Paso Robles wine region west of the Salinas River enjoys a moderately warm growing zone with 25 to 35 inches of annual rainfall. The article also noted that the Paso Robles wine region east of the river is hotter and drier, with as little as 10 inches of rain a year, necessitating irrigation. Informational material from the Cinnabar Vineyards and Winery included with the petition takes note of the Templeton Gap, a pass in the Coast Range that draws the cooling Pacific marine layer inland, lowering afternoon temperatures in the western region of the Paso Robles area. Soils In his report on the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area, Dr. Rice describes and compares the soils within the existing Paso Robles viticultural area to the east and to the west of the Salinas River. Soils within the Paso Robles viticultural area vary regionally and within short distances, according to Dr. Rice. Soil differences reflect varying geology (parent material), macroclimatic conditions (slope aspect and elevation), landform position (slope steepness and shape), cropping history, and past natural vegetation. Vineyard soils within the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area, according to Dr. Rice, developed primarily from sedimentary rock parent materials of the Miocene-age Monterey Formation, rich in carbonate and silica. The carbonate-rich rocks display high calcium levels, relatively low potassium and magnesium levels, and subsoil alkaline pH levels between 7.5 and 8.2. The silica-rich rocks display medium calcium levels, relatively low potassium and magnesium levels, and subsoil acid to neutral pH levels between 6.0 and 7.0. Most native soils, Dr. Rice continues, include low levels of nitrogen and phosphorus. Also, loam, clay loam, silty clay loam, and clay soil textures predominate with varying amounts of coarse rock fragments. Soils on the east side of the Paso Robles viticultural area vary in parent materials, according to Dr. Rice. Adjacent to the major creek and river systems, Dr. Rice continues, the soils are mainly derived from weathered alluvial sediments of the Pleistocene-age Paso Robles Formation, along with more recent alluvial deposits. Also, the soils include highly variable textures with depth, consisting of stratified layers of clay, gravel, and sand. Soils from the Paso Robles Formation, Dr. Rice explains, have medium to low levels of calcium, low potassium and magnesium levels, and acid to neutral pH levels of 6.0 to 7.0 in subsoils. Dr. Rice concludes that more than 75 percent of the acreage within the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area has comparable soil physiology, while the land east of the Salinas River has more diverse soils with no single dominant soil physiology. Boundary Description See the narrative boundary description of the petitioned-for viticultural area in the proposed regulatory text published at the end of this notice. Maps The petitioner provided the required maps, and we list them below in the proposed regulatory text. Impact on Current Wine Labels Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. If we establish this proposed viticultural area, its name, “Paso Robles Westside,” will be recognized under 27 CFR 4.39(i)(3) as a name of viticultural significance. The text of the proposed regulation would clarify this point. Consequently, wine bottlers using “Paso Robles Westside” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, must ensure that the product is eligible to use the viticultural area's name as an appellation of origin. The name “Paso Robles” standing alone will continue as a term of viticultural significance for the entire, existing Paso Robles viticultural area. If the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area is established, that action will have no effect on approved “Paso Robles” wine labels. TTB also notes that since the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area is entirely within the existing Paso Robles viticultural area, any wine eligible to use “Paso Robles Westside” as an appellation of origin is also eligible to use the “Paso Robles” name standing alone. For a wine to be labeled with a viticultural area name or with a brand name that includes a viticultural area name or other term identified as viticulturally significant in part 9 of the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of the wine must be derived from grapes grown within the area represented by that name or other term, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible for labeling with the viticultural area name or other viticulturally significant term and that name or other term appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the viticultural area name or other viticulturally significant term appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Accordingly, if a new label or a previously approved label uses the name “Paso Robles Westside” for a wine that does not meet the 85 percent standard, the new label will not be approved, and the previously approved label will be subject to revocation, upon the effective date of the approval of the Paso Robles Westside viticultural area. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a viticultural area name or other viticulturally significant term that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details. Conforming Amendment to 27 CFR 9.84, Paso Robles As a legal matter, TTB has recognized “Paso Robles” as a term of viticultural significance since the establishment of the Paso Robles viticultural area in 1983. However, the regulatory text in 27 CFR 9.84 does not explicitly state that Paso Robles is a term of viticultural significance. Since we are proposing to identify “Paso Robles Westside” as a term of viticultural significance in paragraph
(a)of the proposed regulatory text, we believe for purposes of clarity that it would be advisable to add a sentence to paragraph
(a)of § 9.84 to state that “Paso Robles” is a term of viticultural significance in terms of that section. We also propose to include a cross reference to the viticultural significance of “Paso Robles” as set forth in § 9.84(a) in the “Paso Robles Westside” regulatory text. Public Participation Comments Invited We invite comments from interested members of the public on whether we should establish the proposed Paso Robles Westside viticultural area. We are also interested in receiving comments on the sufficiency and accuracy of the name, boundary, climatic, and other required information submitted in support of the petition. Please provide any available specific information in support of your comments. We are especially interested in comments about the establishment of one viticultural area totally within another viticultural area, when both have “Paso Robles” in the name. Submitting Comments Please submit your comments by the closing date shown above in this notice. Your comments must include this notice number and your name and mailing address. Your comments must be legible and written in language acceptable for public disclosure. We do not acknowledge receipt of comments, and we consider all comments as originals. You may submit comments in one of five ways: • *Mail:* You may send written comments to TTB at the address listed in the ADDRESSES section. • *Facsimile:* You may submit comments by facsimile transmission to 202-927-8525. Faxed comments must—
(1)Be on 8.5- by 11-inch paper;
(2)Contain a legible, written signature; and
(3)Be no more than five pages long. This limitation assures electronic access to our equipment. We will not accept faxed comments that exceed five pages. • *E-mail:* You may e-mail comments to *nprm@ttb.gov.* Comments transmitted by electronic mail must—
(1)Contain your e-mail address;
(2)Reference this notice number on the subject line; and
(3)Be legible when printed on 8.5- by 11-inch paper. • *Online form:* We provide a comment form with the online copy of this notice on our Web site at *http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml.* Select the “Send comments via e-mail” link under this notice number. • *Federal e-rulemaking portal:* To submit comments to us via the Federal e-rulemaking portal, visit *http://www.regulations.gov* and follow the instructions for submitting comments. You may also write to the Administrator before the comment closing date to ask for a public hearing. The Administrator reserves the right to determine whether to hold a public hearing. Confidentiality All submitted material is part of the public record and subject to disclosure. Do not enclose any material in your comments that you consider confidential or inappropriate for public disclosure. Public Disclosure You may view copies of this notice, the petition, the appropriate maps, and any comments we receive by appointment at the TTB Information Resource Center at 1310 G Street, NW., Washington, DC 20220. You may also obtain copies at 20 cents per 8.5- by 11-inch page. Contact our information specialist at the above address or by telephone at 202-927-2400 to schedule an appointment or to request copies of comments. We will post this notice and any comments we receive on this proposal on the TTB Web site. All name and address information submitted with comments will be posted, including e-mail addresses. We may omit voluminous attachments or material that we consider unsuitable for posting. In all cases, the full comment will be available in the TTB Information Resource Center. To access the online copy of this notice and the submitted comments, visit at *http://www.ttb.gov/wine/wine_rulemaking.shtml* . Select the “View Comments” link under this notice number to view the posted comments. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that this proposed regulation, if adopted, would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name would be the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. Executive Order 12866 This proposed rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735. Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment. Drafting Information N.A. Sutton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice. List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 Wine. Proposed Regulatory Amendment For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we propose to amend 27 CFR, chapter 1, part 9, as follows: PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas § 9.84 [Amended] 2. Section 9.84 is amended by adding a sentence at the end of paragraph
(a)to read as follows:
(a)*Name.* * * * For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, “Paso Robles” is a term of viticultural significance. 3. Subpart C is amended by adding a new § 9.__ to read as follows: § 9._ Paso Robles Westside.
(a)*Name.* The name of the viticultural area described in this section is “Paso Robles Westside”. For purposes of part 4 of this chapter, “Paso Robles Westside” is a term of viticultural significance. “Paso Robles” is also a term of viticultural significance under § 9.84(a).
(b)*Approved maps.* The 12 United Stages Geological Survey
(USGS)1:24,000 scale topographic maps used to determine the boundary of the Paso Robles Westside viticultural area are titled:
(1)San Miguel, Calif., 1948, photorevised 1979;
(2)Paso Robles, Calif., 1948, photorevised 1979;
(3)Templeton, Calif., 1948, photorevised 1979;
(4)Atascadero, Calif., 1965;
(5)Santa Margarita, Calif., 1965, revised 1993;
(6)Lopez Mountain, Calif., 1965, revised 1995;
(7)San Luis Obispo, Calif., 1965, photorevised 1979;
(8)York Mountain, Calif., 1948, photorevised 1979;
(9)Cypress Mountain, Calif., 1948, photorevised 1979;
(10)Lime Mountain, Calif., 1948, photorevised 1979;
(11)Tierra Redonda Mountain, Calif., 1948, photorevised 1979; and
(12)Bradley, Calif., 1949, photorevised 1979.
(c)*Boundary.* The Paso Robles Westside viticultural area is located in San Luis Obispo County, California. The boundary of the Paso Robles Westside viticultural area is as described below:
(1)The beginning point is on the San Miguel map at the intersection of the Monterey-San Luis Obispo County line and the Salinas River, along the northern boundary of section 6, T25S/R12E;
(2)From the beginning point, proceed southerly (upstream) along the western-most bank of the meandering Salinas River, crossing in succession onto the Paso Robles, Templeton, Atascadero, Santa Margarita, and the Lopez Mountain maps, to river's intersection with the R13E/R14E range line, along the eastern boundary of section 36, T29S/R13E; then
(3)Proceed south 0.67 mile along the R13E/R14E range line to its intersection with the T29S/T30S township line at the southeast corner of section 36, T29S/R13E, on the Lopez Mountain map; then
(4)Proceed west 6 miles along the T29S/T30S township line, crossing onto the San Luis Obispo map, to the line's intersection with the R12E/R13E range line at the southwest corner of section 31, T29S/R13E; then
(5)Proceed north-northwest in a straight line approximately 13 miles, crossing onto the Atascadero and then the Templeton map, to the line's intersection with the southern-most corner of the (Rancho) Paso de Robles boundary line, located near the intersection of an unnamed intermittent stream and the 1,200-foot contour line, T27S/R11E, approximately 2.1 miles southwest of the intersection of Paso Robles Creek and U.S. 101; then
(6)Proceed west-northwest for approximately 4.8 miles along the southwestern boundary line of the (Rancho) Paso de Robles, crossing onto the York Mountain map, to the boundary line's intersection with the southeast corner of section 32, T27S/R11E; then
(7)Proceed northerly along the eastern boundary lines of sections 32, 29, 20, and 18, T27S/R11E, to the northeast corner of section 18, T27S/R11E, York Mountain map; then
(8)Proceed west along the northern boundary of section 18, T27S/R11E, for approximately 0.8 mile to the boundary line's intersection with Dover Canyon Road, York Mountain map; then
(9)Proceed westerly along Dover Canyon Road to its intersection with a jeep trail and an unnamed intermittent stream at the mouth of Dover Canyon, section 14, T27S/R10E, York Mountain map; then
(10)Proceed west-northwest in a straight line for approximately 5.5 miles, crossing onto the Cypress Mountain map, to the line's intersection with the junction of the T26/27S and R9E/R10E township and range lines (also the southwest corner of section 31, T26S/R10E); then
(11)Proceed north for approximately 12 miles along the R9E/R10E line, crossing over Las Tablas Creek and the Nacimiento Reservoir on the Lime Mountain map, and continue along onto the R9E/R10E line on the Tierra Redonda Mountain map to the line's intersection with the Monterey-San Luis Obispo County line at the northwest corner of section 6; T24S/T25S; then
(12)Proceed east for approximately 12.3 miles along the Monterey-San Luis Obispo County line, crossing over the Bradley map, and return to the beginning point on the San Miguel map. Dated: December 5, 2006. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. [FR Doc. E7-983 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 [EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0580; FRL-8270-4] Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Designation of Areas for Air Quality Planning Purposes; Arizona; Miami Sulfur Dioxide State Implementation Plan and Request for Redesignation to Attainment; Correction of Boundary of Miami Sulfur Dioxide Nonattainment Area AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve the maintenance plan for the Miami Area in Gila County, Arizona, as a revision to the Arizona state implementation plan; to grant the request submitted by the State to redesignate this area from nonattainment to attainment of the national ambient air quality standards for sulfur dioxide (SO <sup>2</sup> ); and to correct the boundary for the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> nonattainment area. EPA is proposing this action in accordance with the Clean Air Act. DATES: Any comments on this proposal must arrive by February 23, 2007. ADDRESSES: Submit comments, identified by docket number EPA-R09-OAR-2006-0580, by one of the following methods: 1. *Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov* . Follow the online instructions. 2. *E-mail: vagenas.ginger@epa.gov* . 3. *Mail or deliver:* Ginger Vagenas (Air-2), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, CA 94105-3901. *Instructions:* All comments will be included in the public docket without change and may be made available online at *www.regulations.gov* , including any personal information provided, unless the comment includes Confidential Business Information
(CBI)or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. Information that you consider CBI or otherwise protected should be clearly identified as such and should not be submitted through *www.regulations.gov* or e-mail. *www.regulations.gov* is an “anonymous access” system, and EPA will not know your identity or contact information unless you provide it in the body of your comment. If you send e-mail directly to EPA, your e-mail address will be automatically captured and included as part of the public comment. If EPA cannot read your comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for clarification, EPA may not be able to consider your comment. *Docket:* The index to the docket for this action is available electronically at *www.regulations.gov* and in hard copy at EPA Region IX, 75 Hawthorne Street, San Francisco, California. While all documents in the docket are listed in the index, some information may be publicly available only at the hard copy location (e.g., copyrighted material), and some may not be publicly available in either location (e.g., CBI). To inspect the hard copy materials, please schedule an appointment during normal business hours with the contact listed in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ginger Vagenas, EPA Region IX,
(415)972-3964, *vagenas.ginger@epa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the Rules and Regulations section of this **Federal Register** , we are taking direct final action to approve the maintenance plan for the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> nonattainment area and to approve the State of Arizona's request to redesignate the Miami area from nonattainment to attainment. We are also taking direct final action to correct the boundary of the Miami SO <sup>2</sup> nonattainment area. We are taking these actions without prior proposal because we believe these SIP revisions are not controversial. If we receive adverse comments, however, we will publish a timely withdrawal of the direct final rule and address the comments in subsequent action based on this proposed rule. We do not plan to open a second comment period, so anyone interested in commenting should do so at this time. If we do not receive adverse comments, no further activity is planned. For further information, please see the direct final rule in this **Federal Register** . Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 *et seq.* Dated: December 22, 2006. Sally Seymour, Acting Regional Administrator, Region IX. [FR Doc. E7-995 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 6560-50-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Administration for Children and Families 45 CFR Parts 301, 302, 303 and 304 RIN 0970-AC24 Child Support Enforcement Program AGENCY: Office of Child Support Enforcement (OCSE), Administration for Children and Families (ACF), Department of Health and Human Services. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: These proposed regulations implement provisions of title IV-D of the Social Security Act (the Act) as amended by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub. L. 109-171 (DRA of 2005). The proposed regulations address use of the tax refund intercept program to collect past-due child support on behalf of children who are not minors, mandatory review and adjustment of child support orders for families receiving Temporary Assistance to Needy Families (TANF), reduction of Federal matching rate for laboratory costs incurred in determining paternity, States' option to pay more child support collections to former assistance families, and the mandatory annual $25 fee in certain child support (IV-D) cases in which the State has collected and disbursed at least $500 of support. The regulations also make other conforming changes necessary to implement changes to the distribution and disbursement requirements. DATES: Consideration will be given to comments received by March 26, 2007. ADDRESSES: Send comments to: Office of Child Support Enforcement, Administration for Children and Families, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., 4th Floor, Washington, DC 20447. *Attention:* Director, Policy Division, *Mail Stop:* OCSE/DP. Comments will be available for public inspection Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5 p.m. on the 4th floor of the Department's offices at the above address. You may also transmit written comments electronically via the Internet at: *http://www.regulations.acf.hhs.gov* . To download an electronic version of the rule, you may access *http://www.regulations.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paige Hausburg, Policy Specialist, OCSE, 202-401-5635, *e-mail: phausburg@acf.hhs.gov* . Deaf and hearing-impaired individuals may call the Federal Dual Party Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339 between 8 a.m. and 7 p.m. eastern time. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: I. Statutory Authority This notice of proposed rulemaking is published under the authority granted to the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (the Secretary) by section 1102 of the Act, 42 U.S.C. 1302. Section 1102 authorizes the Secretary to publish regulations that may be necessary for the efficient administration of the functions for which he is responsible under the Act. The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (DRA of 2005), Title VII, Subtitle C—Child Support, sections 7301-7311 amends title IV-D of the Act. The specific sections of the DRA of 2005 included in the proposed regulation are discussed in detail under Provisions of the Regulation. II. Provisions of the Regulations Part 301—State Plan Approval and Grant Procedures Section 301.1—General Definitions Section 7301(f) of the DRA of 2005, effective October 1, 2007, amends the definition of “past-due support” at section 464(c) of the Act for purposes of the Federal income tax refund offset program. Currently, the term “past-due support” limits access to the Federal income tax refund offset process to past-due support owed to or on behalf of a qualified child (a child who was a minor or who, while a minor was determined to be disabled under subchapter II or XVI of the Act and for whom an order of support is in force). Prior to enactment of the DRA of 2005, only past-due support due to a qualified child or adult child who was disabled could be submitted for offset. That limitation is removed by section 7301(f) of the DRA of 2005, effective October 1, 2007. This amendment will allow collection of past-due child support from the Federal income tax refund offset program on behalf of individuals who were owed child support as children but then aged out of the system without having collected the full support amount owed to them. Under § 301.1, we propose changes to two definitions. First, we propose to amend the definition of “past-due support” by inserting language to place a time limit on the definition. The revised language would read: “Through September 30, 2007, for purposes of referral for Federal income tax refund offset of support due an individual who is receiving services under § 302.33 of this chapter, past-due support means support owed to or on behalf of a qualified child, or a qualified child and the parent with whom the child is living if the same support order includes support for the child and the parent.” Therefore, effective October 1, 2007, past-due support owed in non-TANF cases will be treated the same as past-due support owed in TANF cases and may be submitted for Federal income tax refund offset until the debt is satisfied. Similarly, in § 301.1, we propose to limit the applicability of the definition of “Qualified child” through September 30, 2007, because there is no longer any reference to a “qualified child” in section 464 of the Act effective October 1, 2007. Therefore, on or after October 1, 2007, past-due support owed on behalf of adults in non-TANF cases would qualify for Federal income tax refund offset, regardless of whether they are disabled. Part 302—State Plan Approval Requirements Section 302.32—Collection and Disbursement of Support Payments by the IV-D Agency The proposed regulations make conforming changes to certain language in § 302.32, Collection and Disbursement of Support Payments by the IV-D Agency, for consistency with certain changes made to sections 454 and 457 of the Act. (The term “distribution” refers to how a support collection is allocated between families and the State and Federal government in accordance with Federal requirements. The term “disbursement” refers to the act of paying, by check or electronic transfer, support collections to families.) Under the new section 454(34) of the Act, effective October 1, 2009, or up to a year earlier at State option, States have a choice to distribute collections first to satisfy support owed to families in IV-D cases. These proposed regulations make technical changes in §§ 302.32(b)(2)(iv) and (3)(ii) to delete reference to a specific statutory requirement for payments to families to simplify the regulatory language. Technical changes to § 302.51 are addressed later in this preamble. Section 302.33—Services to Individuals Not Receiving Title IV-A Assistance We propose to add a new § 302.33(e) to address the statutory requirement in section 454(6)(B)(ii) of the Act to impose an annual $25 fee in certain cases. We are also revising the title of the section to more appropriately reflect the scope of the revised section. Section 7310(a) of the DRA of 2005 added section 454(6)(B)(ii) of the Act to require States, in the case of an individual who has never received assistance under a State program funded under title IV-A of the Act (hereinafter referred to as “title IV-A program”) and for whom the State has collected at least $500 of support in any given Federal fiscal year, to impose an annual fee of $25 for each case in which services are furnished. The statutory effective date is October 1, 2006, or if State legislation is necessary to impose the mandatory $25 fee, the effective date is three months after the first day of the first calendar quarter beginning after the close of the first regular session of the State legislature that begins after the date of the enactment of the DRA of 2005. However, final regulations governing the requirement may not be published until after the mandatory effective date for the annual $25 fee in a State. In such a case, the State should implement the fee in accordance with the statutory requirements until such time as the final regulations are effective. Section 454(6)(B)(ii) of the Act only refers to State programs funded under title IV-A of the Act. However, we believe it is authorized and consistent with the purpose and the scope of the statutory exemption from the $25 fee for current and former TANF cases and the intent of the Congress to not impose the fee in IV-D cases involving individuals who are receiving or have received assistance from a Tribal title IV-A Temporary Assistance to Needy Families
(TANF)program as well. Tribal TANF recipients are a narrow, additional category of individuals receiving assistance under the same basic title IV-A statutory authority as State TANF recipients, just not under a State TANF program. The two programs are linked. Funds to operate Tribal IV-A programs in a State are deducted from the State's title IV-A block grant. The Federal statute at section 454 of the Act does not provide for any additional categories of exempt individuals besides these who may be receiving, or who may have received in the past, other types of Federal, State or Tribal assistance. The proposed regulations at § 302.33(e)(1) would read: “Annual $25 fee.
(1)In the case of an individual who has never received assistance under a State or Tribal title IV-A program, and for whom the State has disbursed to the family at least $500 of support in the Federal fiscal year, the State must impose in, and report for, that year an annual fee of $25 for each case in which services are provided.” A State would be required to impose the $25 fee in any case that meets the conditions for imposition of the fee under § 302.33(e), including both existing and new IV-D cases. For purposes of § 302.33(e)(1), an individual would be considered to have received assistance under a State or Tribal title IV-A program if he or she had received a cash assistance payment or some other type of TANF assistance as defined in Federal regulations governing the State title IV-A program at 45 CFR 260.31, or under a Tribal title IV-A program at 45 CFR 286.10. A State title IV-A program would include both assistance under a State TANF program as well as assistance under the TANF program's predecessor, Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), as defined in Federal regulations governing the AFDC program. Definition of “Annual” We propose that States impose the annual $25 fee within a Federal fiscal year period and report the fees for that Federal fiscal year. This proposal would ensure consistency among State programs in assessing the fee and reporting fees as program income as part of a State's mandated Federal reporting procedures. However, we encourage comments on, and a rationale for, an alternative 12-month period, for example, a calendar year, for providing more State flexibility. When the $500 of Support Threshold Is Reached Under section 454(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, the annual fee must be imposed after the collection of at least $500 in a Federal fiscal year. Paragraph (e)(1) would require that support payments that make up this $500 also must have been disbursed to the family within the Federal fiscal year. We are proposing to require that the $500 support collection must have actually been disbursed to the family in a title IV-D case before imposing the $25 fee because to allow otherwise would result in imposition of a $25 fee in cases in which support is collected but is neither distributed nor disbursed to the family, e.g., a Federal income tax refund offset that is being held by the State because the obligated parent has requested a review under § 303.72, or a collection that has not yet been disbursed because the State has lost contact with, and is attempting to locate, the family. We believe this would be inconsistent with the statute's concept that a case subject to the $25 fee would have benefited from receipt of $500 in support during the year before an annual $25 fee is imposed. Therefore, at least $500 in support collections must have been disbursed to the family in a year before an annual $25 fee is imposed for that year. If $500 in support is collected in one year but not disbursed until the next year, the fee would be imposed in the year in which the collection was actually disbursed to the family. Imposing a time period within which the $500 must be collected and disbursed is consistent with the purpose of the fee provision which requires States to impose an “annual fee.” Setting a specific time period for reaching the $500 threshold (i.e. within a Federal fiscal year) will also contribute to the efficient administration of HHS' oversight responsibility with respect to the title IV-D program. One $25 Fee for Each Qualifying Case Section 454(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, in part, requires a $25 fee to be imposed for each case in which services are provided. A title IV-D case is defined in instructions to the Federal reporting form 157 as a noncustodial parent (or putative father), custodial parent and child(ren) in common. Therefore, only one $25 fee would be imposed in a title IV-D case that otherwise met the requirements for imposition of the fee. If a custodial parent has multiple children by different noncustodial parents, there would be a separate title IV-D case for each noncustodial parent, and the State must impose the annual $25 fee for each of these title IV-D cases in which the State disburses at least $500 in the Federal fiscal year. And, if a noncustodial parent has multiple children in separate title IV-D cases, the State must impose the $25 fee in each qualifying case in which the $500 threshold and other conditions for imposing the fee under § 302.33(e) are met. Who Imposes the Fee in Interstate, International and Intergovernmental Tribal Title IV-D Cases? Section 454(6)(B)(ii) of the Act does not directly address imposition of the annual $25 fee in interstate cases, cases involving tribal members or the Tribal title IV-D programs, or international cases receiving services under section 454(32) of the Act. States have asked for clarification in this regulation about which State imposes a $25 fee when the conditions under section 454(6)(B)(ii) are met in these kinds of cases. We address each type separately, starting with interstate cases that involve more than one State. Many States take direct action against noncustodial parents or putative fathers in different States to establish paternity and a support order using long-arm statutes or to enforce an order through direct income withholding, for example. The requirements of proposed § 302.33(e) would apply to these interstate cases in which one State uses long-arm jurisdiction to establish or enforce support orders in another State where the noncustodial parent is living, without involving the IV-D agency in the other State. Therefore, for purposes of this discussion, we are only referring to title IV-D cases in which one State has requested assistance from another State in a child support case as interstate cases. The proposed regulation, under § 303.7(e), requires the annual $25 fee to be imposed and reported by the initiating State in an interstate case. We have taken this position because the initiating State is the only State that has sufficient information to determine whether all the requirements for imposition of the fee have been met. That change is discussed further later in this preamble. With respect to international cases in which parents live in different countries, we believe such cases are covered by the fee provisions. However, section 454(32)(C) of the Act provides that “no applications will be required from, and no costs will be assessed for such services against, the foreign reciprocating country or foreign obligee (but costs may at State option be assessed against the obligor).” Section 459A of the Act addresses the Federal-level declaration of a foreign country to be a foreign reciprocating country and refers, under section 459A(d), to State-level reciprocal arrangements with foreign countries that are not the subject of a Federal-level declaration. (See PIQ-04-01, Processing Cases with Foreign Reciprocating Countries.) Therefore, while the $25 fee must be imposed when appropriate in international cases (when $500 has been collected in a Federal fiscal year and the family has never received State or Tribal TANF), it may not be taken out of the collection sent to, or charged to, a custodial parent in another country. The State could charge the noncustodial parent the fee or pay the fee itself in such cases. The proposed regulations at § 302.33(e)(2) would require the State that receives the request from a foreign reciprocating country or a foreign country covered by a State level reciprocal agreement to impose the annual $25 fee in international cases receiving services under section 454(32) of the Act in which the criteria for imposition of the annual $25 fee under § 302.33(e)(1) are met. Proposed § 302.33(e)(3), discussed later in the preamble, will address how the fee will actually be recovered or paid in these international cases, taking into account the prohibition in section 454(32)(C) of the Act that no costs will be assessed against the foreign reciprocating country or foreign obligee. We also considered the impact of the annual $25 fee on Tribal members and Tribal title IV-D programs. Section 454(6)(B)(ii) is a State plan requirement and as such is not applicable to Tribal IV-D programs. However, if a Tribe is under cooperative agreement with a State title IV-D program under section 454(33) of the Act and § 302.34 to assist the State in delivering title IV-D services, the Tribe would be required to impose the annual $25 fee in appropriate cases, if doing so is addressed under the cooperative agreement with the State. If it is not addressed in the cooperative agreement, the State IV-D agency would be responsible for collecting the fee in any case where it is the jurisdiction receiving the application for services or receiving a referral from the State TANF, foster care or title XIX programs. As described above, under § 302.33(e)(1), a State would only impose the $25 fee in appropriate cases involving Tribal members who are receiving services from a State IV-D program and who have never received State or Tribal title IV-A assistance. A State may not impose a fee in a Tribal IV-D case that is referred to the State IV-D program for assistance in securing child support from a Tribal IV-D program because section 454(6)(B)(ii) of the Act does not apply to Tribal title IV-D programs under section 455(f) of the Act and 45 CFR Part 309. A case where a State IV-D program receives a request from another State IV-D program for assistance involving a tribal member would be treated as an interstate case and the fee would be imposed by the initiating State. Collection of the Annual Fee: State Options To Retain, Charge, Recover or Pay the Annual Fee Under section 454(6)(B)(ii) of the Act, as added by section 7310(a)(1) of the DRA of 2005, there are four options for the collection of the fee. The annual $25 fee may be retained by the State from support collected on behalf of the individual (but not from the first $500 so collected in a Federal fiscal year), or, it may be paid by the individual applying for services, recovered from the absent parent, or paid by the State out of its own funds. To implement this provision, the proposed regulation adds § 302.33(e)(3) under which after the first $500 of support collected in a Federal fiscal year is disbursed to the family, the annual fee must be collected by one or more of the following methods:
(i)retained by the State from support collected in cases subject to the fee under § 302.33(e)(1) and (2), except in international cases receiving services under section 454(32) of the Act;
(ii)paid by the individual applying for title IV-D services under section 454(4)(A)(ii) of the Act and implementing regulations at § 302.33;
(iii)recovered from the noncustodial parent; or
(iv)paid by the State out of its own funds. In accordance with section 454(6)(B)(ii), the proposed § 302.33(e)(3) provides States with flexibility to choose the appropriate method or methods in a case to collect the fee, once imposed. The method or methods selected may affect the cost of administration of the title IV-D program. For example, a State may decide to first attempt to recover the fee by billing the noncustodial parent, and if the noncustodial parent does not pay the fee in a specified period of time (e.g., 60 days), may then choose to withhold the fee from a subsequent collection. Alternatively, a State could choose to require the noncustodial parent to pay the fee as part of the support order, and, should the noncustodial parent designate a portion of a subsequent payment as the $25 fee, or an employer remit to the State IV-D agency withheld wages sufficient to cover both the fee and the support obligation included in the support order, the State may retain that amount from that payment. Section 454(6)(B)(ii) of the Act also authorizes a State to retain the fee from support collected in excess of the first $500 collected in a Federal fiscal year. Section 7310 of the DRA of 2005 also made a conforming amendment to section 457(a)(3) of the Act under which, in the case of a family that has never received assistance under title IV-A or title IV-E of the Act, the State shall distribute to the family the portion of the amount of support collected that remains after withholding any fee imposed pursuant to section 454(b)(B)(ii) of the Act. (A change to § 302.51 to reflect this authority is discussed later in this preamble.) Therefore, under the option to retain the fee from collections, a State does not need the custodial parent or caretaker relative's permission to withhold the annual $25 fee from a collection on his or her behalf. Alternatively, a State could charge the custodial parent or caretaker relative the fee (assuming they were the individuals who applied for services) and require payment within a specified period of time or indicate that if the fee is not paid, the State will use the option to retain the fee from support and the fee will be deducted from the first collection following the deadline for payment of the fee by the custodial parent or caretaker relative. Retaining the annual fee from support collected on behalf of the family may be the least administratively burdensome method when collections in excess of the first $500 are disbursed to the family. However, while a State may charge the $25 fee to a custodial parent in an international case in which the custodial parent is in the U.S. and the noncustodial parent is in a foreign country, a State may not impose the fee on an individual residing in a foreign country in an international case. As discussed previously, section 454(32) of the Act prohibits States from charging application fees or assessing costs against the foreign country or foreign obligee. In such cases, the annual $25 fee imposed in international cases must be recovered from the parent or guardian living in the U.S. or be paid by the State. For purposes of international cases receiving services under section 454(32) of the Act, the $500 in support may be considered disbursed to the family when it is transmitted to the foreign reciprocating country or directly to the family. Requirement That the Fee Be Collected by the End of the Fiscal Year Under proposed § 302.33(e)(4), using the Secretary's rulemaking authority in section 1102 of the Act, the proposed regulations provide that the State must report, in accordance with reporting requirements under 45 CFR 302.15, and instructions issued to States by the Secretary, the total amount of annual $25 fees imposed for each Federal fiscal year as program income, regardless of which method or methods are used under paragraph (e)(3). States are required to report program income on the 4th quarter expenditure report. Requiring States to report the total amount of fees imposed in that year will contribute to the efficient administration of the Secretary's functions under title IV-D of the Act by ensuring that States actually reduce title IV-D administrative costs for the fiscal year by the amount of fees that are due, as intended by the statute. Although section 7310 of the DRA of 2005 does not include any specific sanction for a State's failure to collect the fee, section 454(6)(B)(ii) of the Act conveys a clear expectation that the $25 fee will actually be imposed and retained, collected, or paid in all eligible cases in which at least $500 of support was collected in a Federal fiscal year. Therefore, each State is responsible for imposing, retaining, collecting or paying, and reporting the total of amount of annual $25 fees imposed in all cases in which it is required to be imposed during the fiscal year. If the $500 threshold is reached toward the end of a Federal fiscal year, the methods available to the State to collect or pay the fee may be limited to retaining the fee from a subsequent collection, if there is one made and disbursed before the end of the year, or paying the fee out of State funds. If a State does not make any collections above the $500 threshold or collects less than $25 in excess of the first $500 disbursed to the family in the year, the State must collect the fee using one of the other methods, and, if all else fails, pay the fee itself by the end of the fiscal year. We are specifically soliciting comments on ways to effectively ensure timely collection of the annual fee. Section 7310(b) of the DRA of 2005 makes a conforming amendment to section 457(a)(3) of the Act, which requires that in the case of families that never received assistance, the State must distribute to the family the portion of the amount so collected that remains after withholding any fee pursuant to section 454(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. Therefore, if a State opts to retain the fee from a collection, the State may retain the annual $25 fee imposed under § 302.33(e)(1) and
(2)from a collection in excess of the first $500 disbursed to the family in a never-assistance case, regardless of whether or not the collection is considered, under section 457 of the Act and implementing regulations at § 302.51, a payment on current support or arrearages. For purposes of distribution under section 457 of the Act, assistance is defined in section 457(c)(1) as assistance under a State title IV-A TANF program or the program that TANF replaced, AFDC or title IV-E foster care program. If the State withholds the annual $25 fee from the collection on behalf of a never assistance case ( *i.e.* , opts to retain the fee from a collection in such a case), and chooses to assess the fee against the custodial parent the State must give the noncustodial parent credit in the payment record for the entire amount of the payment. However, the State may deduct the annual $25 fee from a payment if the State has chosen to recover the fee from the noncustodial parent and the noncustodial parent has designated a portion of the payment as the annual $25 fee. In such a case, the noncustodial parent must get credit for paying the fee, and for paying support in the amount that is paid in excess of the fee. Annual $25 Fee as Program Income The intent of the annual $25 fee is to recoup in part the costs of the title IV-D program to the Federal and State governments by decreasing program expenditures. Under § 304.50, Treatment of Program Income, fees, recovered costs, and interest are considered program income that must be used to reduce title IV-D expenditures before seeking Federal financial participation in the title IV-D program's expenditures. Program income is reported in accordance with 45 CFR 302.15 and instructions issued by the Secretary. This reported program income must include the total amount of annual $25 fees imposed, regardless of whether the fees are retained from collections, paid by the custodial parent, recovered from the noncustodial parent or paid by the State. In addition, State-paid annual $25 fees are not an allowable title IV-D expenditure eligible for Federal matching under section 455 of the Act or 45 CFR part 304. Section 454(6)(B)(ii) of the Act requires that State funds used to pay the annual $25 fee may not be considered as an administrative cost of the State title IV-D program and must be counted as program income. Therefore, proposed § 302.33(e)(5) requires that State funds used to pay the annual $25 fee shall not be considered administrative costs of the State for operation of the title IV-D plan, and that all annual $25 fees imposed during a Federal fiscal year must be considered income to the program, in accordance with § 304.50. States will be required to report the total amount of annual $25 fees imposed on Line 2a, Fees and Costs Recovered, on Form OCSE-396A, Child Support Enforcement Program Financial Report, in addition to any other fees, costs recovered and interest. Section 302.51—Distribution of Support Collections Section 7301(b) of the DRA revises section 457(a)(3) of the Act to require a State to pay, to a family that has never received assistance under a title IV-A or IV-E program, the portion of an amount collected that remains after withholding any annual $25 fee that may be imposed under section 454(6)(B)(ii) of the Act. This statutory requirement is being addressed in these proposed regulations by an amendment to § 302.51(a)(1) to include an additional exception in accordance with proposed paragraph (a)(5). Therefore, the revised paragraph (a)(1) would read as follows: “(a)(1)For purposes of distribution in a IV-D case, amounts collected, except as provided under paragraphs (a)(3) and
(5)of this section, shall be treated first as payment on the required support obligation for the month in which the support was collected and if any amounts are collected which are in excess of such amount, these excess amounts shall be treated as amounts which represent payment on the required support obligation for previous months.” Paragraph (a)(5) would read as follows: “(a)(5) The State must pay to a family that has never received assistance under a State program funded or approved under title IV-A of the Act or foster care under title IV-E of the Act the portion of the amount collected that remains after withholding any annual $25 fee that the State imposes under § 302.33(e) of this part.” Certain changes made by section 7301(b) of the DRA which allow States to increase child support payments to families and simplify child support distribution rules were explained earlier under the discussion of § 302.32, Collection and Disbursement of Support Payments by the IV-D agency, including a new State plan requirement at section 454(34) of the Act under which a State must certify which option for distribution of collections in former assistance cases it will use. This statutory requirement is being addressed in these proposed regulations at § 302.51(a)(3) for consistency with State options for distribution of collections in former assistance cases authorized under the section 7301(b) of the DRA of 2005. Current § 302.51(a)(3) requires that amounts collected through Federal income tax refund offset must be distributed as arrearages in accordance with implementing regulations for the Federal income tax refund offset process in § 303.72(h), and section 457(a)(2)(B)(iv) of the Act, under which Federal income tax refund offsets are first retained to satisfy any past-due support assigned to the State. We are making a conforming change to § 302.51(a)(3) to include the States' option, effective October 1, 2009, or up to a year earlier at State option, under section 454(34) of the Act, to use Federal income tax refund offset collections to satisfy current support, if not already paid for the month and to first pay collections, including Federal income tax refund offsets, to a former assistance family, before satisfying any support assigned to the State. Section 302.70—Required State Laws Section 7302 of the DRA of 2005 amended section 466(a)(10) of the Act to require States to enact laws requiring the use of procedures to review, and if appropriate, adjust at least once every three years, child support orders for families receiving TANF in which there is an assignment of support under title IV-A of the Act. Under section 466(a)(10) of the Act and § 303.8, States may review orders using State child support guidelines and adjust them if appropriate, apply a cost-of-living adjustment to the orders, or use automated methods to identify orders eligible for review, conduct the reviews and adjust the orders, if appropriate. Section 7302 of the DRA of 2005 reinstates the pre-1996 requirement for States to review and, if appropriate, adjust orders in TANF cases on a three-year cycle. This change only affects those cases in which the families are currently receiving TANF. It does not apply to arrearage-only IV-D cases in which a State is only collecting arrearages assigned to the State because of title IV-A assistance provided in years past. For consistency with section 466(a)(10) of the Act, the proposed regulations revise § 302.70(a)(10), under which the State must have in effect laws providing for the review and adjustment of child support orders. The requirements in current §§ 302.70(a)(10)(i) and
(ii)are obsolete and would be replaced with reference to requirements for review and adjustment of child support orders in accordance with § 303.8. Specific changes to the content of § 303.8(b)(1), which address the requirements that are in effect until September 30, 2007 and those that become effective on October 1, 2007, are discussed later in this preamble. Part 303—Standards for Program Operations Section 303.7—Provision of Services in Interstate Title IV-D Cases In § 302.33(c)(2), in an interstate case, the application fee is charged by the State in which the individual applies for services. Under responding State responsibilities in interstate cases in § 303.7(c)(7)(iv), the responding State must forward collections to the location specified by the initiating State title IV-D agency for distribution and disbursement. Because the application fee is paid in the initiating State and that State is responsible for distribution and disbursement of collections in interstate cases in accordance with Question and Answer 12 of OCSE-AT-98-24 ( *http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/cse/pol/AT/1998/at-9824.htm* , only the initiating State has all the information necessary to know whether the annual $25 fee should be imposed in a particular case. Accordingly, we believe it is appropriate for the initiating State to impose the annual $25 fee in eligible cases after the $500 threshold is met, and to report the amount of fees imposed as required under § 302.33(e)(3). Section 7310 of the DRA does not specifically address which State is to impose and collect the annual $25 fee. Using the Secretary's rulemaking authority in section 1102 of the Act, we are proposing to amend § 303.7(e) to require that the title IV-D agency in the initiating State impose the annual $25 fee in accordance with proposed changes to § 302.33(e) discussed earlier in this preamble. This change is necessary to ensure consistency in the collection of the mandatory annual $25 fee in interstate cases. Section 303.8—Review and Adjustment of Child Support Orders As discussed earlier, section 7302 of the DRA of 2005 revised section 466(a)(10) of the Act, effective October 1, 2007, to require States to review and, if appropriate, adjust orders in State title IV-A cases at least once every three years. Now that title IV-A assistance is time limited under TANF, it is especially important that States ensure, prior to the family ceasing to receive TANF, that the support order, which is essential to the family's continued financial independence, is set at the appropriate level based on the responsible parent's or parents' income and ability to pay. Under current § 303.8(b)(1), a State must conduct a review every three years only if requested by either the parent or the title IV-D agency. Proposed § 303.8(b)(1) would require, effective October 1, 2007, a State to have procedures under which, every three years (or such shorter cycle as the State may determine), if there is an assignment under part A or upon the request of either parent, the State shall, with respect to a support order being enforced under this part, take into account the best interests of the child involved and
(i)review and, if appropriate, adjust orders in accordance with the State's guidelines;
(ii)apply a cost-of-living adjustment to the order; or
(iii)use automated methods to identify orders eligible for review, conduct the review, identify orders eligible for adjustment, and apply the appropriate adjustment to the orders eligible for adjustment under any threshold that may be established by the State. Section 303.72—Requests for Collection of Past-Due Support by Federal Tax Refund Offset As discussed earlier in the preamble, section 7301(f) of the DRA of 2005 changes the definition of “past-due support” at section 464(c) of the Act to allow, effective October 1, 2007, arrearages owed to grown children to be submitted for Federal income tax refund offset process. Therefore, the proposed regulations revise § 303.72(a)(3)(i), with respect to past-due support owed in cases in which the IV-D agency is providing services under § 302.33, to allow support owed to or on behalf of a child, or a child and the parent with whom the child is living if the same support order includes support for the child and the parent, to be submitted for Federal income tax refund offset, effective October 1, 2007. As discussed earlier with respect to distribution options for States under section 454(34) of the Act, as added by section 7301(b)(2)(C) of the DRA of 2005, effective October 1, 2009, or up to a year earlier at State option, a State may choose either to apply amounts collected, including amounts offset from Federal income tax refunds, to satisfy any support owed to the family first or to continue to distribute Federal tax offset amounts, as under current 457(a)(2)(B)(iv), to satisfy any past-due support assigned to the State first. Section 303.72(h)(1) would be revised to eliminate reference to distributing amounts offset as past-due support and to refer simply to distribution in accordance with section 457 of the Act, and effective October 1, 2009, or up to a year earlier at State option, in accordance with section 454(34) of the Act, pursuant to which States elect which distribution priority in former assistance cases to use under their IV-D programs. In addition, § 303.72(h)(3) would be revised to include the requirement that a IV-D agency, effective October 1, 2009, or up to a year earlier at State option, must inform individuals receiving services under § 302.33 in advance, when the State has opted, under section 454(34) of the Act, to continue to apply amounts offset first to satisfy any past-due support which has been assigned to the State and submitted for Federal income tax refund offset. Part 304—Federal Financial Participation Section 304.20—Availability and Rate of Federal Financial Participation Section 7303 of the DRA of 2005 reduces the previously enhanced Federal matching rate for laboratory costs to determine paternity, effective October 1, 2006. The enhanced matching rate was originally implemented in 1988 because of the high costs of genetic testing for the determination of paternity. However, the cost of genetic testing is much more reasonable than it was in 1988. The Federal matching rate of 66 percent applies to laboratory costs for determining paternity beginning October 1, 2006. Currently, § 304.20(d) allows Federal financial participation at the 90 percent rate for laboratory costs incurred in determining paternity on or after October 1, 1988. The proposed regulation revises § 304.20(d) by eliminating the availability of enhanced funding for genetic testing costs after September 30, 2006. III. Impact Analysis Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 This rule contains information collection requirements that have been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA). Under this Act, no persons are required to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB control number. These requirements will not become effective until approved by OMB. There is a new reporting requirement for a State's IV-D plan in section 454(34) of the Act, to indicate which distribution option the State will choose to implement. A new State plan preprint page has been developed as part of this Paperwork Reduction Act
(PRA)request. In addition, a new State plan preprint page has been developed for the State to indicate that a State will impose a fee and how it will be collected. States will also be required to keep track of the total amount of $25 fees that must be included as program income reported on the OCSE-396A. A State plan preprint page is not necessary. However, the tracking burden is indicated below. All States already have the capability of automating the new and revised information collection requirements imposed by the DRA of 2005 and these implementing regulations. Therefore, as provided below, the paperwork impact on States under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)) will be minimal. The additional incremental estimated burdens for these data collections (i.e. not including existing burden) are: Requirement Number of respondents Yearly submittals Average burden hours per response Total burden hours State Plan (OCSE-100) Preprint page 2.4 Collection/Distribution of Support Payments 54 1 .25 13.5 State Plan Transmittal Page (Distribution) 54 1 .25 13.5 Preprint page 2.5-4 Services to Individuals
(Fee)54 1 .25 13.5 State Plan Transmittal Page
(Fee)54 1 .25 13.5 Financial Form 396A (Tracking the $25 fee) 54 4 1 216 The total estimated burden for the entire State Plan and Financial Report Forms are: Requirement Number of respondents Yearly submittals Total burden hours * State Plan (OCSE-100) 54 6 189 State Plan Transmittal (OCSE-21-U4) 54 6 108 Total Financial Report Form
(396A)54 4 1944 * Includes incremental burden noted in previous chart. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, this notice invites the general public and other public agencies to comment on the information collection requirements contained in this proposed rule. The Administration for Children and Families
(ACF)will consider comments by the public on this proposed collection of information in the following areas:
(1)Evaluating whether the proposed collection is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of ACF, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluating the accuracy of ACF's estimate of the burden of the proposed collection of information, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhancing the quality, usefulness and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimizing the burden of the collection of information on those who are to respond, including through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technology, e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses. OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60 days after publication of this document in the **Federal Register** . Therefore, a comment is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication. This does not affect the deadline for the public to comment to the Department on the proposed regulations. To make sure that your comments and related material do not reach OMB more than once, please submit them by only one of the following means: 1. By fax to OMB at
(202)395-6974. To ensure your comments are received in time, mark the fax to the attention of the Desk Officer for the Administration for Children and Families. 2. By e-mail to *kmatsuoka@omb.eop.gov* . Copies of the proposed collection may be obtained by writing to the Administration for Children and Families, Office of Administration, Office of Information Services, 370 L'Enfant Promenade, SW., Washington, DC 20447, Attn: ACF Reports Clearance Officer. All requests should be identified by the title of the information collection (i.e., State Plan OCSE-100 and State Plan Transmittal OCSE-21-U4). E-mail address: *rsargis@acf.hhs.gov* Regulatory Flexibility Analysis The Secretary certifies that, under 5 U.S.C. 605(b), as enacted by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354), this rule will not result in a significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The primary impact is on State governments. State governments are not considered small entities under the Act. Regulatory Impact Analysis Executive Order 12866 requires that regulations be reviewed to ensure that they are consistent with the priorities and principles set forth in the Executive Order. The Department has determined that these proposed rules are consistent with these priorities and principles and is an economically significant rule as defined by the Executive Order because it will have an estimated $500 million impact on the economy over a 5 year period and, potentially, a $100 million impact on the economy in any given year. Specifically, we estimate that the requirement for review and adjustment of child support orders in TANF cases every three years will cost the Federal government approximately $15 million in FY 2008 but result in approximately $40 million in savings over four years. Similarly, this provision will cost State governments approximately $10 million in FY 2008 but save States almost $40 million over four years with a net government impact of approximately $25 million in costs in FY 2008 and approximately $80 million in savings by FY 2011. These costs reflect the upfront increased administrative costs involved in reviewing these cases and as appropriate updating the orders every three years and the savings that will result overtime in the way of increased revenues (Federal and State shares of the larger collections amounts). This provision also is beneficial to families in terms of ensuring that support order remain fair and equitable over time and reflect the noncustodial parent's current ability to pay support. The provision on imposition of a $25 annual collection fee for never-TANF cases with at least $500 in collections will save the Federal government a little less than $50 million in FY 2007 (when the provision is effective) and result in approximately $270 in Federal savings over five years. The provision will save State governments approximately $25 million in FY 2007 and approximately $140 million over five years. These fees will partially offset the government's costs of providing services and are representative of Federal and State cost sharing in the program (66 and 34 percent respectively). Finally, the provision eliminating enhanced Federal funding for the cost of paternity testing will save the Federal government almost $8 million in FY 2007 and approximately $40 million over five years and will result in a dollar for dollar increase in State costs. In other words, for each dollar saved by the Federal government because of the decrease in federal financial participation will result in a dollar in State costs. Enhanced federal funding for paternity testing is no longer necessary because the cost of these tests has decreased significantly over time. All together these provisions save the Federal and State governments approximately $66 million in FY 2007 and approximately $495 million over five years. As each of these provisions was mandated under the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, alternatives to this rulemaking are limited. We could have chosen not to update program regulations to reflect these statutory changes but that would be confusing to the public and would ultimately have no budgetary impact since these provisions are effective without regard to the issuance of regulations. In the end, the proposed rule remains consistent with the statute and the underlying budget implications. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 requires that a covered agency prepare a budgetary impact statement before promulgating a rule that includes any Federal mandate that may result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $120 million or more in any one year. If a covered agency must prepare a budgetary impact statement, section 205 further requires that it select the most cost-effective and least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule and is consistent with the statutory requirements. In addition, section 203 requires a plan for informing and advising any small governments that may be significantly or uniquely impacted by the rule. The Department has determined that this proposed rule, in implementing the new statutory requirements of the Deficit Reduction Act, would not impose a mandate that will result in the expenditure by State, local, and Tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of more than $100 million in any one year. Rather, we estimate that combined the proposed provisions will result in savings to States. Over five years, the Federal government will save approximately $315 million as a result of the review and adjustment and collection fee provisions of the regulation and States will save almost $180 million. States will receive approximately $40 million less in federal reimbursement for laboratory costs associated with paternity establishment over five years. Thus, the net impact of the regulation on States is a savings of almost $140 million over five years. Congressional Review This notice of proposed rule making is not a major rule as defined in 5 U.S.C. chapter 8. Assessment of Federal Regulations and Policies on Families Section 654 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act of 1999 requires Federal agencies to determine whether a proposed policy or regulation may negatively affect family well-being. If the agency's determination is affirmative, then the agency must prepare an impact assessment addressing seven criteria specified in the law. The required review of the regulations and policies to determine their effect on family well-being has been completed and these regulations will have a positive impact on family well-being as defined in the legislation because expanded access to the Federal income tax refund offset, mandatory three-year reviews of support orders in TANF cases, and State options to pay more collections to families will ensure more child support is paid to families. Executive Order 13132 Executive Order 13132 prohibits an agency from publishing any rule that has federalism implications if the rule either imposes substantial direct compliance costs on State and local governments or is not required by statute, or the rule preempts State law, unless the agency meets the consultation and funding requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order. We do not believe the regulation has federalism impact as defined in the Executive order. However, consistent with Executive Order 13132, the Department specifically solicits comments from State and local government officials on this proposed rule. List of Subjects 45 CFR Part 301 Child support, Grants programs/social programs. 45 CFR Part 302 Child support, Grants programs/social programs. 45 CFR Part 303 Child support, Grant programs/social programs. 45 CFR Part 304 Child support, Grants programs/social programs. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Programs No. 93.563, Child Support Enforcement Program.) Wade F. Horn, Assistant Secretary for Children and Families. Approved: October 23, 2006. Michael O. Leavitt, Secretary of Health and Human Services. For the reasons discussed above, we propose to amend title 45 chapter III of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows: PART 301—STATE PLAN APPROVAL AND GRANT PROCEDURES 1. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 651 through 658, 660, 664, 666, 667, 1301, and 1302. 2. In § 301.1, revise the definitions of “Past-due support” and “Qualified child” to read as follows: § 301.1 General definitions. *Past due support* means the amount of support determined under a court order or an order of an administrative process established under State law for support and maintenance of a child, or of a child and the parent with whom the child is living, which has not been paid. Through September 30, 2007, for purposes of referral for Federal income tax refund offset of support due an individual who is receiving services under § 302.33 of this chapter, past-due support means support owed to or on behalf of a qualified child, or a qualified child and the parent with whom the child is living if the same support order includes support for the child and the parent. *Qualified child* , through September 30, 2007, means a child who is a minor or who, while a minor, was determined to be disabled under title II or XVI of the Act, and for whom a support order is in effect. PART 302—STATE PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS 1. The authority citation for part 302 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 651 through 658, 660, 664, 666, 667, 1302, 1396a(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p), and 1396k. 2. In § 302.32, revise paragraphs
(b)introductory text, (b)(2) introductory text, (b)(2)(iv), and (b)(3)(ii) to read as follows: § 302.32 Collection and disbursement of support payments by the title IV-D Agency.
(b)Timeframes for disbursement of support payments by the State disbursement unit
(SDU)under section 454B of the Act.
(1)* * *
(2)Amounts collected by the title IV-D agency on behalf of recipients of aid under the State's title IV-A or title IV-E plan for whom an assignment under section 408(a)(3) or 471(a)(17) of the Act is effective shall be disbursed by the SDU within the following timeframes:
(i)* * *
(ii)* * *
(iii)* * *
(iv)Collections as a result of Federal income tax refund offset paid to the family or distributed in title IV-E foster care cases under § 302.52(b)(4) of this part, must be sent to the title IV-A family or title IV-E agency, as appropriate, within 30 calendar days of the date of initial receipt by the title IV-D agency, unless State law requires a post-offset appeal process and an appeal is filed timely, in which case the SDU must send any payment to the title IV-A family or title IV-E agency within 15 calendar days of the date the appeal is resolved. (3)(i) * * *
(ii)Collections due the family as a result of Federal income tax refund offset must be sent to the family within 30 calendar days of the date of initial receipt in the title IV-D agency, except:
(A)If State law requires a post-offset appeal process and an appeal is timely filed, in which case the SDU must send any payment to the family within 15 calendar days of the date the appeal is resolved; or
(B)As provided in § 303.72(h)(5) of this chapter. 3. In § 302.33, revise the section heading and add new paragraph
(e)to read as follows: § 302.33 Services to individuals not receiving title IV-A assistance.
(e)*Annual $25 fee.*
(1)In the case of an individual who has never received assistance under a State or Tribal title IV-A program, and for whom the State has disbursed to the family at least $500 of support in the Federal fiscal year, the State must impose in, and report for, that year an annual fee of $25 for each case in which services are provided.
(2)The State must impose the annual $25 fee in international cases under section 454(32) of the Act in which the criteria for imposition of the annual $25 fee under paragraph (e)(1) of this section are met.
(3)For each Federal fiscal year, after the first $500 of support is disbursed to the family, the fee must be collected by one or more of the following methods:
(i)Retained by the State from support collected in cases subject to the fee except in international cases receiving services under section 454(32) of the Act;
(ii)Paid by the individual applying for services under section 454(4)(A)(ii) of the Act and implementing regulations in this section;
(iii)Recovered from the noncustodial parent; or
(iv)Paid by the State out of its own funds.
(4)The State must report, in accordance with § 302.15 of this part and instructions issued by the Secretary, the total amount of annual $25 fees imposed under this section for each Federal fiscal year as program income, regardless of which method or methods are used under paragraph (e)(3) of this section.
(5)State funds used to pay the annual $25 fee shall not be considered administrative costs of the State for the operation of the title IV-D plan, and all annual $25 fees imposed during a Federal fiscal year must be considered income to the program, in accordance with § 304.50 of this chapter. 4. In § 302.51, revise paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(3) and add paragraph (a)(5) to read as follows: § 302.51 Distribution of support collections. (a)(1) For purposes of distribution in a IV-D case, amounts collected, except as provided under paragraphs (a)(3) and
(5)of this section, shall be treated first as payment on the required support obligation for the month in which the support was collected and if any amounts are collected which are in excess of such amount, these excess amounts shall be treated as amounts which represent payment on the required support obligation for previous months.
(2)* * * (3)(i) Except as provided in subparagraph
(ii)of this paragraph, amounts collected through Federal income tax refund offset must be distributed as arrearages in accordance with § 303.72 of this chapter, and section 457 of the Act;
(ii)Effective October 1, 2009, or up to a year earlier at State option, amounts collected through Federal income tax refund offset shall be distributed in accordance with § 303.72 of this chapter and the option selected under section 454(34) of the Act.
(4)* * *
(5)The State must pay to a family that has never received assistance under a state program funded or approved under title IV-A or foster care under title IV-E of the Act the portion of the amount collected that remains after withholding any annual $25 fee that the State imposes under § 302.33(e) of this part. 5. In § 302.70, revise paragraph (a)(10) in its entirety to read as follows: § 302.70 Required State laws.
(a)* * *
(10)Procedures for the review and adjustment of child support orders in accordance with § 303.8(b) of this chapter. PART 303—STANDARDS FOR PROGRAM OPERATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 303 is revised to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 651 through 658, 659, 659A, 660, 663, 664, 666, 667, 1302, 1396a(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p), and 1396k. 2. In § 303.7, add new paragraph
(e)to read as follows: § 303.7 Provision of services in interstate cases.
(e)Imposition and reporting of annual *$25 fee in interstate cases.* The title IV-D agency in the initiating State must impose and report the annual $25 fee in accordance with § 302.33(e) of this chapter. 3. In § 303.8, revise paragraphs
(b)introductory text and (b)(1) introductory text to read as follows: § 303.8 Review and adjustment of child support orders.
(a)* * *
(b)Required procedures. Pursuant to section 466(a)(10) of the Act, effective October 1, 2007, when providing services under this chapter:
(1)The State must have procedures under which, every three years (or such shorter cycle as the State may determine), if there is an assignment under part A, or upon the request of either parent, the State shall, with respect to a support order being enforced under this part, taking into account the best interests of the child involved: 4. In § 303.72 revise paragraphs (a)(3) introductory text, (a)(3)(i), and (h)(1) and (h)(3) to read as follows: § 303.72 Requests for collection of past-due support by Federal tax refund offset.
(a)* * *
(1)* * *
(2)* * *
(3)For support owed in cases where the title IV-D agency is providing title IV-D services under § 302.33 of this chapter:
(i)The support is owed to or on behalf of a child, or a child and the parent with whom the child is living if the same support order includes support for the child and the parent.
(h)*Distribution of collections.*
(1)Collections received by the IV-D agency as a result of refund offset to satisfy title IV-A or non-IV-A past-due support shall be distributed as required in accordance with section 457 and, effective October 1, 2009, or up to a year earlier at State option, in accordance with the option selected under section 454(34) of the Act. (3)(i) Through September 30, 2009, or up to a year earlier at State option, the IV-D agency must inform individuals receiving services under § 302.33 of this chapter in advance that amounts offset will be applied to satisfy any past-due support which has been assigned to the State and submitted for Federal tax refund offset.
(ii)Effective October 1, 2009, or up to a year earlier at State option, the IV-D agency must inform individuals receiving services under § 302.33 of this chapter in advance when the State has opted, under section 454(34) of the Act, to continue to apply amounts offset first to satisfy any past-due support which has been assigned to the State and submitted for Federal tax refund offset. PART 304—FEDERAL FINANCIAL PARTICIPATION 1. The authority citation for part 304 continues to read as follows: Authority: 42 U.S.C. 651 through 655, 657, 1302, 1396a(a)(25), 1396b(d)(2), 1396b(o), 1396b(p), and 1396k. § 304.20 [Amended] 2. In § 304.20, revise paragraph
(d)to read as follows: § 304.20 Availability and rate of Federal financial participation.
(d)Federal financial participation at the 90 percent rate is available for laboratory costs incurred in determining paternity on or after October 1, 1988, and until September 30, 2006, including the costs of obtaining and transporting blood and other samples of genetic material, repeated testing when necessary, analysis of test results, and the costs for expert witnesses in a paternity determination proceeding, but only if the expert witness costs are included as part of the genetic testing contract. [FR Doc. E7-953 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4184-01-P FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION 47 CFR Part 25 [IB Docket 06-160; DA 07-25] Processing Applications in the Direct Broadcast Satellite Service; Feasibility of Reduced Orbital Spacing for Provision of Direct Broadcast Satellite Service in the United States AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of reply comment period. SUMMARY: On August 18, 2006, the Commission released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (71 FR 56923, September 28, 2006)
(NPRM)in the proceeding captioned above. The NPRM seeks comment from the public on proposed licensing procedures and service rules for satellites providing Direct Broadcast Satellite
(DBS)service. The NPRM also seeks comment on licensing non-nine-degree-spaced DBS applications. On December 22, 2006, SES Americom, Inc. filed a Motion for Extension of Time, requesting the Commission to extend the reply comment filing deadline in this proceeding. SES Americom, Inc. stated that an extension would enable the parties to the proceeding to provide a more complete record for review, considering the important policy and technical issues raised in the proceeding. The Commission concurred that the issues raised in the proceeding are complex, technical, and of great importance to the DBS service and to direct-to-home satellite consumers throughout the United States. Thus, the Commission granted SES Americom, Inc.'s request, and extended the reply comment pleading deadline to January 25, 2007. The Commission stated that the public interest will be served by the extension to enable the filing of a more complete record in this proceeding. Accordingly, pursuant to section 1.46 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 1.46, the request of SES Americom, Inc. is granted. The deadline for filing reply comments in this proceeding is extended to January 25, 2007. This action is taken under delegated authority pursuant to sections 0.51 and 0.261 of the Commission's rules, 47 CFR 0.51, 0.261. Federal Communications Commission. Robert G. Nelson, Chief, Satellite Division, International Bureau. [FR Doc. 07-213 Filed 1-23-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 14
Traces to 14 documents
U.S. Code
- Short title§ 201
- Unfair competition and unlawful practices§ 205
- Congressional findings and declaration of purpose§ 7401
- Rules and regulations; impact analyses of Medicare and Medicaid rules and regulations on small rural hospitals§ 1302
- Public information collection activities; submission to Director; approval and delegation§ 3507
- Avoidance of duplicative or unnecessary analyses§ 605
- Authorization of appropriations§ 651
CFR
16 references not yet in our index
- 26 CFR 1
- 27 CFR 9
- 27 CFR 4
- Pub. L. 109-171
- 45 CFR 260.31
- 45 CFR 286.10
- 45 CFR 309
- 45 CFR 302.15
- 45 CFR 304
- Pub. L. 96-354
- 45 CFR 301
- 45 CFR 302
- 45 CFR 303
- 47 CFR 25
- 47 CFR 1.46
- 47 CFR 0.51
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Notice of proposed rulemaking by cross-reference to temporary regulations; correction notice
Cite26 CFR 1
Cite27 CFR 9
Cite27 CFR 4
Cites 30 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources