19414 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules

and that an exclusive representative

‘‘shall file with the Authority its

response to the statement.’’ Consistent

with section 7117(c)(5), the Authority,

in its discretion, may hold a hearing on

the petition for review before making a

determination.

3. Issues on Which Comments Are

Requested

Following are several groups of

subjects on which the Task Force is

seeking comments. This is not intended

to be an exclusive list; comment on any

matter relevant to the processing of

petitions for review in negotiability

appeals is invited.

a. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)

in the Negotiability Appeal Process

Should the Authority require and/or

offer ADR services to the parties as part

of the negotiability appeal process? If

the Authority requires the parties to

participate in ADR in connection with

the negotiability appeal process, are

there any particular issues that the

Authority should consider in the

drafting of its amendments to the

negotiability regulations?

b. Compliance With Procedural

Requirements

What consequences, if any, should

result from either an agency’s failure to

file a statement of position, as required

by section 7117(c)(3)(A) of the Statute or

an exclusive representative’s failure to

file a response to this statement, as

required by section 7117(c)(4) of the

Statute?

Under what circumstances, if any,

should the Authority exercise its

authority under section 7117(c)(5) of the

Statute to hold hearings?

Are there any general requirements, in

addition to those set forth in part 2429

of the Authority’s regulations, that the

Authority should consider in drafting its

amendments to the negotiability

regulations?

c. The Meaning of a Proposal or

Provision

What burdens should the Authority

place on the parties with respect to the

meaning of proposals or provisions, the

factual record, and the arguments?

Where the Authority is unable to

determine the meaning of a proposal or

provision, what action should the

Authority take?

d. The Relationship Between Issues

Arising Under the Negotiability Appeal

Process and the Unfair Labor Practice

Process

Should the Authority modify its

procedure for processing complaints

alleging unfair labor practices and

negotiability petitions? If so, how

should the Authority process cases

involving alleged unfair labor practices

and negotiability petitions?

How should ‘‘duty to bargain issues’’

(such as whether a matter is ‘‘covered

by’’ an existing agreement or whether a

union has waived its right to bargain) as

opposed to ‘‘scope of bargaining’’ issues

(whether a proposal is consistent with

law, rule, or regulation) be addressed

when arising in connection with a

negotiability appeal?

e. Authority Orders in Decisions on

Review of Negotiability Appeals;

Compliance With the Authority’s Orders

Part 2424.10 of the Authority’s

regulations currently provides that, if in

a decision the Authority finds that the

duty to bargain extends to ‘‘a matter

proposed to be bargained,’’ then the

Authority shall include a bargaining

order and, if the Authority finds that the

duty to bargain does not extend to the

matter, or that the duty extends to the

matter ‘‘only at the election of the

agency,’’ then the Authority shall

dismiss the petition for review.

Should the regulations be modified to

include other orders? If so, what other

orders should be included and in what

circumstances should they be used?

Should the Authority’s regulations

concerning compliance with

negotiability orders be modified? If so,

how should the Authority address a

party’s failure to comply with the

Authority’s negotiability order?

f. Proposals for Bargaining and

Provisions Subject to Agency-Head

Review

Should the Authority’s negotiability

regulations differ depending on whether

the petition for review concerns a

proposal for bargaining or a provision

that has been agreed on and

subsequently disapproved?

g. Other Issues

The foregoing questions are not

intended to exclude any other subjects

relevant to the negotiability appeal

process. What other subjects relevant to

the negotiability appeal process should

the Authority consider in developing

amendments to the existing

negotiability regulations?

(Authority: 5 U.S.C. 7105(a)(2)(E) and (I)).

Dated: April 15, 1998.

Solly Thomas,

Executive Director, Federal Labor Relations

Authority.

[FR Doc. 98–10390 Filed 4–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6727–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 29

[Docket No. TB–97–17]

Tobacco Inspection—Growers

Referendum

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Notice of referendum.

SUMMARY: This document announces

that a referendum will be conducted by

mail during the period of April 27–May

1, 1998, for producers of flue-cured

tobacco who sell their tobacco at

auction in Tabor City-Whiteville, North

Carolina, and Loris, South Carolina, to

determine producer approval of the

designation of the Tabor City-Whiteville

and Loris tobacco markets as one

consolidated auction market.

DATES: The referendum will be held

April 27–May 1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Coats, Associate Deputy

Administrator, Tobacco Programs,

Agricultural Marketing Service, United

States Department of Agriculture, P.O.

Box 96456, Washington, D.C. 20090–

6456; telephone number (202) 205–

0508.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is

hereby given of a mail referendum on

the designation of a consolidated

auction market at Tabor City-Whiteville,

North Carolina, and Loris, South

Carolina. Tabor City-Whiteville, North

Carolina, was designated on June 5,

1997, (7 CFR 29.8001) as flue-cured

tobacco auction market and Loris, South

Carolina, was designated on August 16,

1941, under the Tobacco Inspection Act

(7 U.S.C. 511 et seq.). Under this Act

those markets have been receiving

mandatory grading services from USDA.

On September 11, 1997, an

application was made to the Secretary of

Agriculture to consolidate the

designated markets of Tabor CityWhiteville, North Carolina, and Loris,

South Carolina. The application, filed

by warehouse operators on those

markets, was made pursuant to the

regulations promulgated under the

Tobacco Inspection Act (7 CFR Part

29.1–29.3). On November 5, 1997, a

public hearing was held in Tabor City,

North Carolina, pursuant to the

regulations. A Review Committee,

established pursuant to § 29.3(h) of the

regulations 7 CFR 29.3(h), has reviewed

and considered the application, the

testimony presented at the hearing, the

exhibits received in evidence, and other
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 75 / Monday, April 20, 1998 / Proposed Rules 19415

available information. The Committee

recommended to the Secretary that the

application be granted and the Secretary

approved the application on March 16,

1998.

Before a new market can be officially

designated, a referendum must be held

to determine that a two-thirds majority

of producers favor the designation. It is

hereby determined that the referendum

will be held by mail during the period

of April 27–May 1, 1998. The purpose

of the referendum is to determine

whether farmers who sold their tobacco

on the designated markets at Tabor CityWhiteville and Loris are in favor of, or

opposed to, the designation of the

consolidated market for the 1998 and

succeeding crop years. Accordingly, if a

two-thirds majority of those tobacco

producers voting in the referendum

favor the consolidation, a new market

will be designated as and will be called

Tabor City-Whiteville-Loris.

To be eligible to vote in the

referendum a tobacco producer must

have sold flue-cured tobacco on either

the Tabor City-Whiteville, North

Carolina, or Loris, South Carolina,

auction markets during the 1997

marketing season. Any farmer who

believes he or she is eligible to vote in

the referendum but has not received a

mail ballot by April 27, 1998, should

immediately contact William Coats at

(202) 205–0508.

The referendum will be held in

accordance with the provisions for

referenda of the Tobacco Inspection Act,

as amended (7 U.S.C. 511d) and the

regulations for such referendum set

forth in 7 CFR 29.74.

Dated: April 15, 1998.

Enrique E. Figueroa,

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing

Service.

[FR Doc. 98–10458 Filed 4–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 29

[Docket No. TB–97–16]

Tobacco Inspection—Growers

Referendum

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Notice of referendum.

SUMMARY: This document announces

that a referendum will be conducted by

mail during the period of April 27–May

1, 1998, for producers of flue-cured

tobacco who sell their tobacco at

auction in Clarksville and Chase City,

Virginia, to determine producer

approval of the designation of the

Clarksville and Chase City tobacco

markets as one consolidated auction

market.

DATES: The referendum will be held

April 27–May 1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Coats, Associate Deputy

Administrator, Tobacco Programs,

Agricultural Marketing Service, United

States Department of Agriculture, P.O.

Box 96456, Washington, D.C. 20090–

6456; telephone number (202) 205–

0508.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Notice is

hereby given of a mail referendum on

the designation of a consolidated

auction market at Clarksville and Chase

City, Virginia. Clarksville and Chase

City were designated on June 26, 1942

(7 CFR 29.8001) as flue-cured tobacco

auction markets under the Tobacco

Inspection Act (7 U.S.C. 511 et seq.).

Under this Act those markets have been

receiving mandatory grading services

from USDA.

On September 3, 1997, an application

was made to the Secretary of

Agriculture to consolidate the

designated markets of Clarksville and

Chase City, Virginia. The application,

filed by warehouse operators on those

markets, was made pursuant to the

regulations promulgated under the

Tobacco Inspection Act (7 CFR Part

29.1–29.3). On November 7, 1997, a

public hearing was held in Clarksville,

Virginia, pursuant to the regulations. A

Review Committee, established

pursuant to § 29.3(h) of the regulations

7 CFR 29.3(h)), has reviewed and

considered the application, the

testimony presented at the hearing, the

exhibits received in evidence, and other

available information. The Committee

recommended to the Secretary that the

application be granted and the Secretary

approved the application on March 16,

1998.

Before a new market can be officially

designated, a referendum must be held

to determine that a two-thirds majority

of producers favor the designation. It is

hereby determined that the referendum

will be held by mail during the period

of April 27–May 1, 1998. The purpose

of the referendum is to determine

whether farmers who sold their tobacco

on the designated markets at Clarksville

and Chase City are in favor of, or

opposed to, the designation of the

consolidated market for the 1998 and

succeeding crop years. Accordingly, if a

two-thirds majority of those tobacco

producers voting in the referendum

favor this consolidation, a new market

will be designated as and will be called

Clarksville-Chase City.

To be eligible to vote in the

referendum a tobacco producer must

have sold flue-cured tobacco on either

Clarksville or Chase City, Virginia,

auction markets during the 1997

marketing season. Any farmer who

believes he or she is eligible to vote in

the referendum but has not received a

mail ballot by April 27, 1998, should

immediately contact William Coats at

(202) 205–0508.

The referendum will be held in

accordance with the provisions for

referenda of the Tobacco Inspection Act,

as amended (7 U.S.C. 511d) and the

regulations for such referendum set

forth in 7 CFR 29.74.

Dated: April 15, 1998.

Enrique E. Figueroa,

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing

Service.

[FR Doc. 98–10457 Filed 4–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Food and Nutrition Service

7 CFR Part 246

RIN 0584–AC50

Special Supplemental Nutrition

Program for Women, Infants and

Children (WIC): WIC/Food Stamp

Program (FSP) Vendor Disqualification

AGENCY: Food and Nutrition Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This proposed rule would

amend regulations governing the

Special Supplemental Nutrition

Program for Women, Infants and

Children (WIC) to implement a mandate

of the Personal Responsibility and Work

Opportunity Reconciliation Act of 1996,

which requires the disqualification of

WIC vendors who are disqualified from

the Food Stamp Program (FSP).

According to the law, the

disqualification shall be for the same

length of time as the FSP

disqualification and may begin at a later

date than the FSP disqualification.

Furthermore, the law states that

disqualification from WIC on the basis

of an FSP disqualification is not subject

to judicial or administrative review.

This proposed rule would also

mandate uniform sanctions across States

for the most serious WIC Program

vendor violations, including seven

specific WIC Program violations that

result in FSP disqualification in

addition to WIC Program