[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