[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 137 (Tuesday, July 16, 1996)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37096-37097]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-18019]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
Submission for OMB Review; Comment Request; Review of an
Information Collection
AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Notice.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public
Law 104-13, May 22, 1995), this notice announces that the Office of
Personnel Management has submitted to the Office of Management and
Budget a final request for clearance of an information collection, the
voluntary commercial garnishment application form. The Application For
Federal Employee Commercial Garnishment is intended to be completed by
creditors in order to facilitate the Federal Government's compliance
with commercial garnishment orders as mandated by section 9 of the
Hatch Act Reform Amendments of 1993, Public Law 103-94, by providing
information about each commercial garnishment order in a uniform manner
that would otherwise not be available due to the wide variety of
commercial garnishment orders issued by various state and local
jurisdictions.
We estimate that approximately 100 forms will be completed annually
for OPM employees, each requiring an estimated ten minutes to complete,
for a total public burden of approximately 17 hours. OPM anticipates,
of course, that many other federal agencies will also be suggesting
that creditors complete the form. OPM is unable to predict the total
annual public burden as a result of the completion of this form.
On September 18, 1995, an initial notice of OPM's clearance request
was published in the Federal Register (60 FR 48176). In response to the
initial notice, OPM received written comments from four federal
agencies, the National Association of Retail Collection Attorneys, the
National Association of Federal Credit Unions, the Commercial Law
League of America, and one individual. A fifth federal agency provided
oral comments and a fourth organization, Nationwide Credit Corporation,
did not comment directly, but forwarded comments from two law firms.
While not in response to any suggestion, OPM renumbered the items
on the form and replaced the word ``Applicant'' with ``Authorized
Payee'' in Parts C and D.
Two federal agencies recommended that the form be mandatory. OPM
disagrees with making the use of this form mandatory since it would be
unnecessary interference with the operation of state courts. Further,
regardless of whether or not use of the form is mandatory, it is
expected that the form will be in widespread use.
One organization noted that in the collection industry the word
``commercial'' is interchangeable with the word ``business'' and that
it would be better to simply delete the word ``commercial'' from the
form. However, OPM has opted not to delete the word ``commercial'' from
the form, lest the form be associated by some as being intended to be
completed in conjunction with the garnishment of child support
indebtednesses which has no ``commercial'' implication. OPM has been
advised that the Department of Health and Human Services is currently
conducting a pilot program that utilizes a wholly different form in
connection with child support garnishment. It is OPM's intent to avoid
any inconsistency or confusion with the child support form.
One agency suggested that number 3 of the ``Instructions'' on the
form be rewritten to explain that agencies are not required to respond
until 30 days after receipt by the designated agent. OPM has, however,
retained the proposed instruction that more closely follows the
language of the statute which provides for agency responses ``within
thirty days.''
Another agency suggested that the use of certified mail be
encouraged. In order to make the form as clear and concise as possible,
OPM has opted to have the form include only the statutory mailing
provisions.
While one agency suggested that specific identifying information
concerning the employee-obligor be made mandatory when completing Part
A of the form, such a requirement would conflict with the statutory
authority for commercial garnishment which only requires that
sufficient identifying information be provided so as to enable the
employing agency to identify the employee-obligor. See the Hatch Act
Reform Amendments of 1993, Public Law 103-94, section 9, codified at 5
U.S.C. 5520a.
One of the creditor associations expressed concern that incomplete
forms might be rejected and noted that creditors typically do not
obtain an employee-obligor's date of birth or social security number.
The instructions in Part A of the proposed form reflect the statutory
identification requirements. It should be emphasized that where
sufficient information has been provided for the employing agency to
identify the employee-obligor, a garnishment order must not be rejected
as being incomplete.
One agency recommended that the form ask the creditor to identify
the employee-obligor's payroll office. OPM has not adopted this
suggestion. It is doubtful that many creditors would know or could
easily obtain the employee-obligor's payroll office. However,
individual agencies could include such a request in the ``For Agency
Use'' block at A.6 of the form.
A second agency suggested that block B.7 (now block B.1) identify
the court as well as the case number. OPM has adopted this suggestion.
Two creditor organizations suggested that block B.8 (now block B.2)
be revised to request the garnishment amount rather than the judgment
amount. OPM has adopted this suggestion in order to clarify that the
amount to be garnished is the amount listed on the garnishment order,
i.e., what is not referred to in block B.2 as the ``Garnishment
Amount,'' rather than what might have been mistaken as being the amount
of the underlying judgment.
One federal agency also suggested that block B.10 (now B.4) be
revised. The agency opined that as written, the block could be
misinterpreted to mean that there were instances when the Consumer
Credit Protection Act was inapplicable. As rewritten, the form
[[Page 37097]]
now avoids the word ``inapplicable'' and focuses on the need for
information in instances where the percentage limitation provided in
the Consumer Credit Protection Act is replaced by a lower limitation in
accordance with state or local law.
OPM emphasizes that the purpose of the form is to elicit as much
helpful information as possible from the garnishor so as to facilitate
the processing of the garnishment order by agencies of the Federal
Government. OPM emphasizes this point in response to one organization's
comment that the form should be changed to place the burden of
providing applicable law on the garnishee.
While OPM reaches no conclusion concerning what is ``common
practice'' in the collection industry, it is reasonable to assume that
the party that brought the garnishment action will be best able to
provide the legal basis for the garnishment. OPM would, however, also
explain that a failure to cite the correct legal provision in block
B.10 (now B.4) should not, by itself, serve as a basis for an agency to
refuse to comply with the garnishment order.
One organization suggested that creditors not be asked to provide
copies of relevant statutory provisions. While OPM appreciates the
organization's concern, OPM believes that it will be helpful for this
information to be provided.
One agency recommended that information concerning bankruptcy
filings be included. It is OPM's belief that most creditors will comply
with the automatic stay provision of the Bankruptcy Code and not
attempt to garnish if they have knowledge that a bankruptcy petition
has been filed by the employee-obligor.
One of the law firms commented that the form will not solve all of
the problems relating to the Federal Government's processing of
commercial garnishment orders. OPM does not disagree, but OPM remains
hopeful that usage of the form will facilitate the processing of
commercial garnishments by the Federal Government.
For copies of this proposal, contact Jim Farron on (202) 418-3208,
or E-mail to [email protected].
DATES: Comments on this proposed form should be received on or before
August 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to:
Lorraine Lewis, General Counsel, U.S. Office of Personnel Management,
1900 E Street, NW., Washington, DC 20415
and
Joseph Lackey, OPM Desk Officer, Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, U.S. Office of Management and Budget, New Executive Office
Building, NW., Room 10235, Washington, DC 20503
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Murray M. Meeker, Senior Attorney,
Office of the General Counsel, (202) 606-1701.
U.S. Office of Personnel Management
Lorraine A. Green,
Deputy Director.
[FR Doc. 96-18019 Filed 7-15-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M