This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

55141

Vol. 62, No. 205

Thursday, October 23, 1997

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food and Consumer Service

7 CFR Chapter II

Use of Direct Final Rulemaking

AGENCY: Food and Consumer Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Policy statement.

SUMMARY: The Food and Consumer

Service is implementing a new

rulemaking procedure to expedite

making noncontroversial changes to

regulations. Rules that the agency judges

to be noncontroversial and unlikely to

result in adverse comments will be

published as ‘‘direct final’’ rules.

(‘‘Adverse comments’’ are comments

that suggest that a rule should not be

adopted or suggest that a change should

be made to the rule.) Such direct final

rules will advise the public that no

adverse comments are anticipated, and

that unless written adverse comments or

written notices of intent to submit

adverse comments are postmarked

within the comment period, the

revisions made by the rule will, in most

instances, be effective 60 days from the

date the direct final rule is published in

the Federal Register. This new policy

should expedite the promulgation of

noncontroversial rules by reducing the

time that would be required to develop,

review, clear, and publish separate

proposed and final rules.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lillie Ragan, Assistant Branch Chief,

Household Programs Branch, Food

Distribution Division, Food and

Consumer Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Park Office Center, Room

502, 3101 Park Center Drive,

Alexandria, VA 22302–1594, or

telephone (703) 305–2662.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the

interest of implementing needed

changes in program administrative

procedures in a more expeditious

manner, the Food and Consumer

Service (FCS) plans to improve the

efficiency of its regulatory procedures

by employing the rulemaking technique

known as ‘‘direct final rulemaking’’ to

promulgate some of its rules.

The Direct Final Rule Process

Rules that the agency judges to be

noncontroversial and unlikely to result

in adverse comments may be published

as direct final rules. The direct final

rules will specify a comment period of

at least 30 days. Such direct final rules

will advise the public that no adverse

comments are anticipated, and that

unless written adverse comments or

written notices of intent to submit

adverse comments are postmarked

within the comment period, the

revisions made by the rule will, in most

instances, be effective 60 days from the

date the direct final rule is published in

the Federal Register. In instances in

which a waiting period other than 60

days is established, the effective date

will be specified in the rule.

‘‘Adverse comments’’ means

comments that suggest that the rule

should not be adopted, or that suggest

that a change should be made to the

rule. A comment expressing support for

the rule as published would obviously

not be considered adverse. Neither

would a comment suggesting that

requirements in the rule should, or

should not, be employed by FCS in

other programs or situations outside the

scope of the direct final rule.

In accordance with the rulemaking

provisions of the Administrative

Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. 553), this

procedure gives the public general

notice of FCS’ intent to adopt a rule, and

gives interested persons an opportunity

to participate in the rulemaking through

submission of comments. The major

feature of direct final rulemaking is that

if FCS receives neither written adverse

comments nor written notices of intent

to submit adverse comments that are

postmarked within the comment period,

the rule will, in most instances, be

effective 60 days from the date the

direct final rule is published in the

Federal Register.

If FCS receives timely adverse

comments or notices of intent to submit

such comments, a notice of withdrawal

of the direct final rule will be published

in the Federal Register and a proposed

rule will be published establishing a

comment period for the rulemaking

action. Following the close of the

comment period, the comments will be

considered, and a final rule addressing

the comments will be published.

As discussed above, absent timely

adverse comments or notices to submit

such comments, the rule will, in most

instances, become effective 60 days

following the rule’s publication.

However, FCS will publish a notice in

the Federal Register indicating that no

adverse comments were received on the

direct final rule, and confirming that it

is effective on the date indicated in the

direct final rule.

In some instances, FCS may choose to

publish a document in the proposed

rules section of the same issue of the

Federal Register proposing approval of

and soliciting comments on the same

provisions contained in the direct final

rule. In such instances, if timely written

adverse comments or written notices of

intent to submit adverse comments are

received in response to the direct final

rule, the direct final rule will be

withdrawn and the comments received

will be addressed, along with comments

received in response to the proposed

rule, in a subsequent final rule.

Determining When To Use Direct Final

Rulemaking

Not all FCS rules are good candidates

for direct final rulemaking. Many FCS

rules address more complex issues for

which the public may have a variety of

opinions to offer on the need for the

rule, or alternative methods for

achieving the intended results. In these

cases, FCS plans to continue to publish

a proposed rule, and establish a

comment period to allow submission of

comments, followed by a final rule

addressing the comments.

FCS plans to use direct final

rulemaking on a case-by-case basis

when we do not anticipate adverse

comments. The decision to use direct

final rulemaking for a rule would be

based on our experience with similar

rules. If similar rules were published in

the past as proposals that did not elicit

adverse comments, we would consider

publishing such rules in the future as

direct final rules.
55142 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 205 / Thursday, October 23, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

Dated: October 15, 1997.

Yvette S. Jackson,

Acting Administrator, Food and Consumer

Service.

[FR Doc. 97–28062 Filed 10–22–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–30–U

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food and Consumer Service

7 CFR Part 247

RIN 0584–AC60

Commodity Supplemental Food

Program—Caseload Assignment

AGENCY: Food and Consumer Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Direct final rule.

SUMMARY: This direct final rule amends

provisions of the Commodity

Supplemental Food Program

Regulations to provide for the allocation

of a single caseload to State agencies

each year, instead of the allocation of

two separate caseloads, one for women,

infants, and children, and one for the

elderly. This rule will permit State

agencies, and the local agencies with

which they have signed agreements, to

utilize this single caseload to serve lowincome women, infants, and children

and elderly populations as needed,

provided they give priority in service to

women, infants, and children over the

elderly. This rule will also streamline

and simplify program management at

the State and local level.

DATES: This rule will become effective

on December 8, 1997, unless the

Department receives written adverse

comments or notices of intent to submit

adverse comments postmarked on or

before November 24, 1997. If adverse

comments within the scope of this

rulemaking are received, the

Department will publish timely

notification of withdrawal of this rule in

the Federal Register.

ADDRESSES: Comments should be sent to

Lillie Ragan, Assistant Branch Chief,

Household Programs Branch, Food

Distribution Division, Food and

Consumer Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, Park Office Center, Room

502, 3101 Park Center Drive,

Alexandria, VA 22302–1594. Comments

in response to this rule may be

inspected at 3101 Park Center Drive,

Room 502, Alexandria, Virginia during

normal business hours (8:30 a.m. to 5

p.m., Mondays through Fridays).

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Lillie Ragan at the above address or

telephone (703) 305–2662.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

This direct final rule has been

determined to be not significant for

purposes of Executive Order 12866, and,

therefore, has not been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB).

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This action has been reviewed with

regard to the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

601–612). The Administrator of the

Food and Consumer Service (FCS) has

certified that this action will not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

While procedures in this rulemaking

will affect State and local agencies that

administer the Commodity

Supplemental Food Program, any

economic effect will not be significant.

Unfunded Mandate Reform Act of 1995

Title II of the Unfunded Mandate

Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public

Law 104–4, establishes requirements for

Federal agencies to assess the effects of

their regulatory actions on State, local,

and tribal governments and the private

sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,

FCS generally must prepare a written

statement, including a cost-benefit

analysis, for proposed and final rules

with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may

result in expenditures to State, local, or

tribal governments, in the aggregate, or

to the private sector, of $100 million or

more in any one year. When such a

statement is needed for a rule, section

205 of the UMRA generally requires FCS

to identify and consider a reasonable

number of regulatory alternatives and

adopt the least costly, more costeffective or lease burdensome

alternative that achieves the objectives

of the rule.

This rule contains no Federal

mandates (under the regulatory

provisions of Title II of the UMRA) for

State, local, and tribal governments or

the private sector of $100 million or

more in any one year. Thus, this direct

final rule is not subject to the

requirements of sections 202 and 205 of

the UMRA.

Executive Order 12372

This program is listed in the Catalog

of Federal Domestic Assistance under

10.565, and is subject to the provisions

of Executive Order 12372, which

requires intergovernmental consultation

with State and local officials (7 CFR part

3015, Subpart V and final rule-related

notices published at 48 FR 29114, June

24, 1983 and 49 FR 22676, May 31,

1984).

Paperwork Reduction Act

This final rule reflects no new

information collection requirements

under the Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507). The existing

recordkeeping and reporting

requirements for 7 CFR part 247, which

were approved by OMB under control

number 0584–0293, will not change as

a result of this final rule.

Executive Order 12988

This direct final rule has been

reviewed under Executive Order 12988,

Civil Justice Reform. This rule is

intended to have preemptive effect with

respect to any State or local laws,

regulations, or policies which conflict

with its provisions or which would

otherwise impede its full

implementation. This rule is not

intended to have retroactive effect

unless so specified in the EFFECTIVE

DATE section of the preamble. There are

no administrative procedures which

must be exhausted prior to any judicial

challenge to the provisions of this rule

or the application of its provisions.

Background

The primary purpose of the

Commodity Supplemental Food

Program (CSFP) is to provide nutritious

commodities and nutrition education to

low-income pregnant, postpartum, and

breastfeeding women, infants, and

children up to the age of six, to help

meet their dietary needs at a critical life

stage of growth and development. This

has been the program’s basic goal since

the initiation of a ‘‘supplemental food

program’’ for pregnant and breastfeeding

women and infants in 1968, utilizing

funds appropriated for child feeding

programs, and its subsequent

designation as the ‘‘Commodity

Supplemental Food Program’’ in the

Food and Agriculture Act of 1977 (Pub.

L. 95–113), which added sections 4 and

5 to the Agriculture and Consumer

Protection Act of 1973 (Pub. L. 93–86).

However, legislation expanded the

eligible population in 1981 and 1982 to

include elderly persons under a pilot

project. With the passage of the Food

Security Act of 1985 (Pub. L. 99–198)

authority to provide program benefits to

the low-income elderly was extended to

all State agencies that had resources

remaining after providing benefits to all

eligible applicant women, infants, and

children. Thus, while women, infants,

and children retained priority in

service, the elderly were established as

a second eligible population group in

the program. This requirement is found