(168,601 - 168,620 of 182,215)
Pages
-
-
Title
-
CRS84796EPWpage13
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:80224
-
Text
-
in the Federal matching rate from 70 percent to 68 percent in fiscal years 1988 and 1989, and to 66 per- cent in fiscal year 1990 and each year thereafter; a requirement that each State establish guidelines for child support awards within the State; and a revision of the audit and penalty provision requiring the Federal Office of Child Support Enforcement to conduct audits of State program performance. &apos
-
-
Title
-
CRS84796EPWpage14
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:80224
-
Text
-
CRS-8 expectations that cannot be met. Members of Congress are already receiving letters asking when the amendments will go into effect. The underlying assump- tion of the letter writers is that their child support checks will soon be in the mail. However, whether and when the checks will come will depend on the actions and attitudes of the 50 Governors and their State legislatures, as well as the many thousands of judges, court officials, and child support enforcement personnel who will be involved. The new law is complex, and State legislators and administrators will have to exercise care in working out rules to assure that the new procedures are fairly and effectively implemented. There will have to be substantial comitments of the energies of State and local officials, and in some cases there will also have to be substantial commitments of Statepv and local funds. These may not be forthcoming in all'cases.' The Federal or; fice of Child Support Snforcement will have a delicate task in determining whether programs are, as the law requires, in "substantial compliance" with Federal rules and standards, and in deciding whether to invoke penalties to force States to take needed actions. Some believe that even with full implementation of the new enforce- ment procedures child support collections may not increase as significantly as the public now expects. They point out that inevitably there will be cases that will not benefit at all. They caution that tools such as wage withholding, though of proven usefulness in the States that have them, are not panaceas. Wage withholding, for enample, can be easily implemented inp the case of absent parents who have steady employment and whose employers are known. As child support administrators have already found out, however, there are large numbers of parents owing child support who move frequently from employer to employer and who are difficult to find. Many of the
-
-
Title
-
CRS84796EPWpage05
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:80224
-
Text
-
FOR THE FUTURE......... . . . . ..................................... 7 CHART--Children Under Age 18 Living in Two-parent and One-parent Families, 1960-1983.... . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . . ............................ 12
-
-
Title
-
CRS86796ENRpage46
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:72802
-
Text
-
registration requirement. when Congress rewrote FIFRA in 1972, it recognized that the costs in time and money for the first-time registration of a pesticide would be substantially increased. Prior to 1972, once a pesticide was registered, another party could seek a different registration for that pesticide, and the regulating agency would use the original data to assess the safety of the new use
-
-
Title
-
CRS86796ENRpage49
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:72802
-
Text
-
Stauffer $l74,8OO (paid in LS annual installments) rather than the arbitrators’ actual award of $1,463,000 immediately J ) plus a royalty for l0 years. During mark-up of H.R. 2482 before the House Agriculture Committee, amendments to clarify the definition of what is to be compensated for (the cost of the shared data, or the value of having the shared data) were offered. Amendments to clarify
-
-
Title
-
CRS86796ENRpage39
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:72802
-
Text
-
cas-35 IX. PESTICIDES AND cRoUNowATER11 Pesticides can reach groundwater in many ways, including the misuse or mismanagement of pesticides--for example, improper waste disposal, spills, or backsiphoning during chemigation (adding pesticides to irrigaé tion water)--as well as leaching following normal, label-approved field use. To date, according to EPA, normal field use was the probable source
-
-
Title
-
CRS86796ENRpage08
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:72802
-
Text
-
CRS—4 regulated pesticides, which was an issue of great importance to the pesticide manufacturers.1 In September 1985, representatives of the National Agricultural Chemicals Association (NACA), representing 92 agricultural chemical companies, along with representatives of Al environmental, labor, and consumer groups (known as the Coalition for Pesticide Reform - CPR), announced an agreement
-
-
Title
-
CRS86796ENRpage18
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:72802
-
Text
-
CRS~l4 present data packages to EPA within the proposed timeframes; and 3) EPA's ability to review the submitted data and come to regulatory conclusions about necessary additional data or any possible use restrictions in light of the data. Adequate funding for EPA to complete its share of these tasks will be another key factor. Successful reregistration will also depend on the resolution of certain additional policy issues which so far have not been addressed by EPA since no active ingredient_has been through both the Registration Standard and reregistration process. Simply put, no clear agreement has emerged on exactly what "reregistration" will be and how it will be implemented. For example, will the standards of evidence for the first time registration of a new active ingredient be the same as the standards for reregistration of existing active ingredients? If, in light of evidence,generated by reregistration data requirements, a pesticide is found to be a weak carcinogen or otherwise raises a question of I unreasonable adverse effects, will these risks be balanced against benefits as they are with registrations? Obviously the benefits of older compounds are better known than speculative benefits of new compounds. However, one question is whether older compounds should receive a kind of special treatment, that is. a different standard of evidence, even though the newer compound may be an improvement in other ways (less estimated risk, less likely to encourage pest resistance, etc.) Also uncertain are the costs of reregistration in terms of EPA review time and regulatory effort under any scheme to consider risks and benefits of individual reregistration decisions. The original deadline for completing reregistration was l975, which later had to be abandoned
-
-
Title
-
CRS86796ENRpage06
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:72802
-
Text
-
in the 1973 reauthorization). Briefly, the 1978 Pesticide Act expedited the registration process by providing for registration on the basis of the generic chemical, allowing conditional registration. developing limited data requirements for minor uses of pesticides. and providing the developer of a pesticide with a 10-year exclusive use of data period. In addition, States were given primary enforcement
-
-
Title
-
CRS86796ENRpage25
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:72802
-
Text
-
to come to a decision. It is argued that waiting years for the resolution of possible problems. once identified, benefits no one - not the public, nor the registrant, nor the users of the product. EPA officials expect this proposal to be extremelv iifficult toi implement: it shortens the time to reach 1 decision. ggg increases the number of pesticides likely to need a review. Even without changes
-
-
Title
-
CRS86796ENRpage17
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:72802
-
Text
-
. Fifth, after submission of all required data, EPA will have to make a reregistration decision within one year. One-time fees will be charged for reregistration of each active ingredient - $lS0,000 total: $50,000 when a desire to reregister is first indicated by the identification of missing and clearly inadequate studies, and $100,000 when the reregistration data package is submitted. Fees for non
-
-
Title
-
CRS86796ENRpage29
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:72802
-
Text
-
review the same material twice, and develop two identical dockets to reach the same and point-~once during :he Special Review process and again before the Administrative Law Judge. H.R. 2&82 H.R. 2482 would not fundamentally change the current process for de- registering a pesticide. It would not allow EPA to restrict pesticides
-
-
Title
-
CRS83110EPWpage80
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:85452
-
Text
-
of 1977), fifteen provided no funds, re- quiring local governments to finance aid 2/; 12 used a combination of State and local funds; 3/ and 1 (Arkansas) had no program, having suspended it on June 20, 1975. B. Eligibility Requirements Financial "need" is the primary requirement, but definitions of need vary among States and even within them. In 15 States GA is wholly a local operation (those
-
-
Title
-
CRS83110EPWpage111
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:85452
-
Text
-
for free milk, a child must be income-eligible for a free school lunch or breakfast. iThat is, his family's income must not exceed 130 percent of the Office of Manage- ment and Budget (OMB) poverty guidelines, $12,090 for a family of four in the 1982-83 school year 2/ (a limit estimated at $12,870 in the 1983-84 school year). '- Regulations require school lunch authorities to judge a family
-
-
Title
-
CRS83110EPWpage105
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:85452
-
Text
-
CRS-89 The rules require that congregate meal service be located as close as possible to where the majority of eligible older persons reside, preferably within walking distance. Means tests are prohi- bited. In FY 1981, approximately 60 percent of the program parti- cipants were classified as economically needy. C. Benefit Levels Federal regulations require providers to offer at least one meal
-
-
Title
-
CRS83110EPWpage110
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:85452
-
Text
-
(in cents) (snack) o Child care centers - Free meal 115.0 60.0 31.5 - Reduced-price meal 175.0 30.0 15.75 - "Paid" meal--served to non—needy child 11.0 ’8.75 3.0 - Family or group home rates (no income test) 98.5 50.25 29.5 In addition, the Federal Government provides donated commodities or cash in lieu of commodities for lunches and suppers served in such institutions. For the 1982-83 school
-
-
Title
-
CRS83110EPWpage109
-
Page from
-
info:fedora/mu:85452
-
Text
-
is not more than 185 percent of the poverty guideline are eligible for a reduced-price meal. 3/ Countable income limits for a family of four for the 1982-83 school year: $12,09O for free meals and $17,210 for reduced-price meals. 4/ Estimated compar- able limits in the 1983-84 school year are §l2,87O and $18,320. A family's eligibility is to be based on current rate of income. For the most part
Pages