Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 33849

market has previously received

Commission approval for trading

between such hours in at least one of its

designated contracts; and

(iii) The contract market labels the

written notice as being submitted

pursuant to paragraph (k) of this section.

* * * * *

Issued in Washington D.C. on June 16,

1998, by the Commission.

Jean A. Webb,

Secretary of the Commission.

[FR Doc. 98–16520 Filed 6–19–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6351–01–M

SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION

20 CFR Part 416

[Regulations No. 16]

RIN 0960–AE87

Supplemental Security Income for the

Aged, Blind, and Disabled; Charging

Administration Fees for Making State

Supplementary Payments

AGENCY: Social Security Administration

(SSA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are revising our rules to

reflect statutory changes that require the

Social Security Administration (SSA) to

increase the administration fees it

charges States for making

supplementary payments on behalf of

States.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective

June 22, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Gareth Dence, Social Insurance

Specialist, Division of Payment Policy,

Office of Program Benefits Policy, Social

Security Administration, 6401 Security

Blvd., Baltimore, MD 21235, (410) 965–

9872 for information about this rule. For

information on eligibility or claiming

benefits, call our national toll-free

number, 1–800–772–1213.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On October 1, 1993, pursuant to

amendments made to the Social

Security Act (the Act) and to Pub. L. No.

93–66 by section 13731 of Pub. L. No.

103–66, SSA began charging States that

had elected Federal administration of

optional and/or mandatory State

supplementary payments a fee for

administering those payments. This

regulation reflects section 5102 of Pub.

L. No. 105–33 (the Balanced Budget Act

of 1997), which increase the

administration fee SSA charges States

for making supplementary payments on

their behalf.

Present Policy

The administration fee is charged

monthly and is derived by multiplying

the number of State supplementary

payments made by SSA on behalf of a

State for a month by the applicable

dollar rate for the fiscal year (FY), as

prescribed in section 13731 of Pub. L.

No. 103–66. The dollar rates are as

follows: for FY 1994, $1.67; for FY 1995,

$3.33; for FY 1996, $5.00. For FY 1997

and each succeeding FY, the statutory

rate reflected in section 13731 of Pub. L.

No. 103–66 is $5.00 or such different

rate as determined by SSA to be

appropriate for any particular State. In

making this determination, SSA may

take into account the complexity of

administering the State’s supplementary

payment program.

Revised Policy

We are amending the regulation at

§ 416.2010(b) to reflect section 5102 of

Pub. L. No. 105–33, that increases the

fees SSA is required to charge for

administering State supplementary

payments.

Regulatory Procedures

Executive Order 12866

We have consulted with the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB) and

determined that this rule does not meet

the criteria for a significant regulatory

action under Executive Order 12866.

Thus, it was not subject to OMB review.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

We certify that this rule will not have

a significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Therefore, a regulatory flexibility

analysis as provided in the Regulatory

Flexibility Act, as amended, 5 U.S.C.

601 et seq. is not required.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule imposes no reporting/

recordkeeping requirements subject to

OMB clearance.

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Program No. 96.006, Supplemental Security

Income)

Regulatory Procedures

Pursuant to section 702(a)(5) of the

Act, SSA follows the procedures

specified in the Administrative

Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553, in

the development of its regulations. The

APA provides exceptions to its Notice of

Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM)

procedures when an agency finds that

there is good cause for dispensing with

such procedures on the basis that they

are impracticable, unnecessary, or

contrary to the public interest. In the

case of this final rule we have

determined that, under 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(B), good cause exists for

dispensing with the NPRM procedures.

This rule contains no discretionary

policy; the changes made by this final

rule merely conform our regulation to

the statutory changes made by Pub. L.

No. 105–33. The statute requiring the

increase in State supplementation

administration fees was effective on

August 5, 1997. Therefore, we find that

opportunity for prior comment is

unnecessary. In addition, we find good

cause for dispensing with the 30-day

delay in the effective date of a

substantive rule provided for by 5

U.S.C. 553(d). We have determined that

a delay in the effective date of this rule

is unnecessary because the rule contains

no discretionary policy but merely

conforms our regulations to a statutory

provision that is already in effect.

List of Subjects in 20 CFR Part 416

Administrative practice and

procedure, Aged, Blind, Disability

benefits, Public assistance programs,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Supplemental Security

Income (SSI).

Dated: June 9, 1998.

Kenneth S. Apfel,

Commissioner of Social Security.

Subpart T of part 416 of chapter III of

title 20 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL

SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED,

BLIND, AND DISABLED

Subpart T—[Amended]

1. The authority citation for subpart T

of part 416 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1616, 1618, and

1631 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C.

902(a)(5), 1382e, 1382g, and 1383); sec. 212,

Pub. L. 93–66, 87 Stat. 155 (42 U.S.C. 1382

note); sec. 8(a), (b)(1)–(b)(3), Pub. L. 93–233,

87 Stat. 956 (7 U.S.C. 612c note, 1431 note

and 42 U.S.C. 1382e note); secs. 1(a)–(c) and

2(a), 2(b)(1), 2(b)(2), Pub. L. 93–335, 88 Stat.

291 (42 U.S.C. 1382 note, 1382e note).

2. Section 416.2010 is amended by

removing ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph

(b)(1)(iii), by revising (b)(1)(iv), and by

adding (b)(1) (v) through (x) to read as

follows:

§ 416.2010 Essentials of the administration

agreements.

* * * * *

(b) Administrative costs.

(1) * * *

(iv) For fiscal year 1997, $5.00;

(v) For fiscal year 1998, $6.20;

(vi) For fiscal year 1999, $7.60;
33850 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 119 / Monday, June 22, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

(vii) For fiscal year 2000, $7.80;

(viii) For fiscal year 2001, $8.10;

(ix) For fiscal year 2002, $8.50; and

(x) For fiscal year 2003 and each

succeeding fiscal year—

(A) The applicable rate in the

preceding fiscal year, increased by the

percentage, if any, by which the

Consumer Price Index for the month of

June of the calendar year of the increase

exceeds the Consumer Price Index for

the month of June of the calendar year

preceding the calendar year of the

increase, and rounded to the nearest

whole cent; or

(B) Such different rate as the

Commissioner determines is appropriate

for the State taking into account the

complexity of administering the State’s

supplementary payment program.

[FR Doc. 98–16207 Filed 6–19–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4190–29–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms

27 CFR Part 9

[TD ATF–399; Re: Notice No. 853]

RIN 1512–AA07

Diablo Grande Viticultural Area (97–

104)

AGENCY: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco

and Firearms (ATF) Treasury.

ACTION: Treasury decision, final rule.

SUMMARY: This Treasury decision

establishes a viticultural area located in

the western foothills of Stanislaus

County, California, to be known as

‘‘Diablo Grande’’ under 27 CFR part 9.

The viticultural area occupies over 45

square miles, or approximately 30,000

acres. This viticultural area is the result

of a petition submitted by Dr. Vincent

E. Petrucci, Sc.D., on behalf of the

Diablo Grande Limited Partnership, the

principal property owner within the

viticultural area and developers of the

Diablo Grande Resort Community.

EFFECTIVE DATE: August 21, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David W. Brokaw, Regulations Division,

Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and

Firearms, 650 Massachusetts Avenue,

NW, Washington, DC 20226, (202) 927–

8199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

On August 23, 1978, ATF published

Treasury Decision ATF–53 (43 FR

37672, 54624) revising regulations in 27

CFR part 4. These regulations allow the

establishment of definitive viticultural

areas. The regulations allow the name of

an approved viticultural area to be used

as an appellation of origin on wine

labels and in wine advertisements. On

October 2, 1979, ATF published

Treasury Decision ATF–60 (44 FR

56692) which added a new part 9 to 27

CFR, for the listing of approved

American viticultural areas, the names

of which may be used as appellations of

origin.

Section 4.25a(e)(1), title 27, CFR,

defines an American viticultural area as

a delimited grape-growing region

distinguishable by geographical

features, the boundaries of which have

been delineated in subpart C of part 9.

Section 4.25a(e)(2) outlines the

procedure for proposing an American

viticultural area. Any interested person

may petition ATF to establish a grapegrowing region as a viticultural area.

The petition should include:

(a) Evidence that the name of the

proposed viticultural area is locally

and/or nationally known as referring to

the area specified in the petition;

(b) Historical or current evidence that

the boundaries of the viticultural area

are as specified in the petition;

(c) Evidence relating to the

geographical characteristics (climate,

soil, elevation, physical features, etc.)

which distinguish the viticultural

features of the proposed area from

surrounding areas;

(d) A description of the specific

boundaries of the viticultural area,

based on features which can be found

on United States Geological Survey

(U.S.G.S.) maps of the largest applicable

scale; and

(e) A copy (or copies) of the

appropriate U.S.G.S. map(s) with the

boundaries prominently marked.

Petition

Dr. Vincent E. Petrucci, Sc.D.,

petitioned ATF on behalf of the Diablo

Grande Limited Partnership, for the

establishment of a new viticultural area

located in the western foothills of

Stanislaus County, California, to be

known as ‘‘Diablo Grande.’’ The Diablo

Grande Limited Partnership is the

principal property owner within the

proposed viticultural area and the

developer of the Diablo Grande Resort

Community. The viticultural area

occupies over 45 square miles, or

approximately 30,000 acres. Currently

there are 35 acres of grapes planted with

an additional 17 acres planned for 1997.

The petitioner claims that the area can

accommodate an additional 2700 acres

of future grape plantings.

Comments

A Notice of Proposed Rulemaking,

Notice No. 853 (62 FR 34027) was

published in the Federal Register on

June 24, 1997, requesting comments

from all interested persons concerning

the proposed ‘‘Diablo Grande’’

viticultural area. No comments were

received in response to this notice.

Evidence That the Name of the Area Is

Locally or Nationally Known

‘‘Diablo Grande,’’ is the name of the

destination resort and residential

community that occupies the

viticultural area. The petitioner stated

that this name was given to the area

because of its proximity to Mount

Diablo, the highest peak of the Pacific

Coast mountain range. Mount Diablo is

located 38–40 miles due north of the

proposed area. The petitioner

emphasized the fact that the proposed

area lies in the Diablo Mountain Range,

which extends from Mount Diablo State

Park in Contra Costa County to the

south of and beyond the proposed

‘‘Diablo Grande’’ viticultural area

located in Stanislaus County. There is

evidence that the name, ‘‘Diablo

Grande,’’ has become associated with

the area by both the residents of

California, and perhaps the nation, as a

result of the development of the

destination resort and residential

community. The resort community has

been in existence since the early 1990s.

As evidence that the area is known as

‘‘Diablo Grande,’’ the petitioner

submitted copies of 21 newspaper

articles that discuss the development of

the resort. With the exception of the

Golf Course Report, Alexandria,

Virginia, all of the articles are from local

California newspapers.

There is also evidence that the area

occupied by the resort was historically

known as the ‘‘Oak Flats Valley.’’ A

working ranch, known as the Oak Flats

Valley Ranch once occupied this land.

Many of the newspaper articles

submitted by the petitioner refer to the

area as the ‘‘Oak Flats Valley Ranch’’ or

the ‘‘Oak Flats Valley.’’ No evidence

was provided that the area was tied to

Mount Diablo prior to the development

of the resort. Accordingly, ATF solicited

comments in Notice No. 853 on whether

the use of the name ‘‘Diablo Grande’’

was proper for this area. No comments

were received on this issue.

Consequently, based on the evidence

submitted by the petitioner, ATF

believes the name ‘‘Diablo Grande’’ is

now associated with the area.