Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 33235

(D) The court finds that exceptional

circumstances exist justifying waiver of

the former spouse’s consent.

(iv) Approval of a waiver. If OPM

grants a waiver of the requirement of

paragraph (a) of this section, OPM will

notify both the individual and the

employing office of its decision. OPM’s

notice to the employing office is deemed

to complete the individual’s election,

which becomes effective with the first

pay period after the employing office

receives OPM’s notice that the waiver is

granted.

(2) Extension of the time limit to

obtain a former spouse’s consent—(i)

First request. If an employee who is

ineligible to elect FERS coverage solely

because of a qualifying court order files,

prior to January 1, 1999, a completed SF

3111, Request for Waiver, Extension or

Search, requesting an extension of the

time limit to seek an amendment of a

qualifying court order, OPM is deemed

to have approved the extension through

June 30, 1999.

(ii) Second request. OPM will grant

one extension of the time limit to seek

an amendment of a qualifying court

order to an individual who has been

granted an extension under paragraph

(b)(2)(i) of this section if the

individual—

(A) Files an application for the

extension (SF 3109) with the employing

office before July 1, 1999;

(B) Has initiated legal proceedings to

secure the modification of the qualifying

court order on file at OPM to satisfy the

former spouse consent requirement;

(C) Demonstrates to OPM’s

satisfaction that the individual has

exercised due diligence in seeking to

obtain the modification; and

(D) If seeking an extension beyond

December 31, 1999, demonstrates to

OPM’s satisfaction that a longer

extension is necessary.

(iii) Expiration date of a second

extension. An approved extension

under paragraph (b)(2)(ii) of this section

expires on December 31, 1999, unless

OPM’s decision letter states a later

expiration date.

(3) Search for a qualifying court order.

(i) When an employing office notifies

OPM that it has received an employee’s

request for a determination of whether

OPM has a qualifying court order on

file, OPM will determine whether it has

such an order.

(ii) If OPM does not have a copy of a

qualifying court order in its possession,

OPM’s notice to the employing office

that it has no qualifying court order

completes the employee’s election of

FERS coverage and the election becomes

effective at the beginning of the first pay

period after the employing office

receives OPM’s notification.

(iii) If OPM has a copy of a qualifying

court order, OPM will notify both the

individual and the employing office that

it has a qualifying court order and that

an extension until June 30, 1999, has

been granted.

§ 846.723 Agency responsibilities.

(a) The employing office must

determine whether the employee is

eligible to elect FERS coverage.

(b)(1) As close as practicable to the

beginning of the open enrollment

period, the employing office must

provide each employee eligible to elect

FERS coverage with notice of that

employee’s right to make an election.

(2) The employing office must provide

each employee eligible to elect FERS

coverage with a copy of or ready access

to the FERS Transfer Handbook.

(c) An election received by an

employing office before July 1, 1998, is

deemed to have been received by the

employing office on July 1, 1998.

(d) An agency decision that an

employee is not eligible to elect FERS

coverage or refusing to accept a belated

election under § 846.724 must be in

writing, must fully set forth the findings

and conclusions of the agency, and must

notify the employee of the right to

appeal the decision under this section to

the Merit Systems Protection Board,

including all information required

under the Board’s regulations. See 5

CFR 1201.21.

§ 846.724 Belated elections and correction

of administrative errors.

(a) Belated elections. The employing

office may accept a belated election of

FERS coverage if it determines that—

(1) The employing office did not

provide adequate notice to the employee

in a timely manner;

(2) The agency did not provide access

to the FERS Transfer Handbook to the

employee in a timely manner; or

(3) The employee was unable, for

cause beyond his or her control, to elect

FERS coverage within the prescribed

time limit.

(b) Correction of administrative errors.

Failure to begin employee deductions

and Government contributions on the

effective date of coverage must be

corrected in accordance with § 841.505

of this chapter.

§ 846.725 Appeal to the Merit Systems

Protection Board.

(a) A person whose rights or interests

under this part are affected by an agency

decision that an employee is not eligible

to elect FERS coverage or an agency

refusal to accept a belated election

under § 846.724, or an OPM decision

denying an extension or waiver under

§ 846.722, may request the Merit

Systems Protection Board (MSPB) to

review such decision in accord with

procedures prescribed by MSPB. MSPB

regulations relating to appeals are

contained in chapter II of this title.

(b) Paragraph (a) of this section is the

exclusive remedy for review of agency

decisions concerning eligibility to make

an election under this subpart. An

agency decision must not allow review

under any employee grievance

procedures, including those established

by chapter 71 of title 5, United States

Code, and 5 CFR part 771.

§ 846.726 Delegation of authority to act as

OPM’s agent for receipt of employee

communications relating to elections.

The employing office is delegated

authority to act as OPM’s agent for the

receipt of any documents that

employees are required by this subpart

to file with OPM. Such documents are

deemed received by OPM on the date

that the employing office receives them.

[FR Doc. 98–16264 Filed 6–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 28

[CN–98–004]

Revision of User Fees for 1998 Crop

Cotton Classification Services to

Growers

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Agricultural Marketing

Service (AMS) is reducing user fees for

cotton producers for 1998 crop cotton

classification services under the Cotton

Statistics and Estimates Act in

accordance with the formula provided

in the Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act

of 1987. The 1997 user fee for this

classification service was $1.40 per bale.

This rule would reduce the fee for the

1998 crop to $1.30 per bale. The

reduction in fees resulted from

increased efficiency in classing

operations. The fee is sufficient to

recover the costs of providing

classification services, including costs

for administration, supervision, and

development and maintenance of

standards.

DATES: Effective Date: July 1, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lee

Cliburn, 202–720–2145.
33236 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposed rule detailing the revisions

was published in the Federal Register

on March 27, 1998, (63 FR 14839). A 30

day comment period was provided for

interested persons to respond to the

proposed rule: No comments were

received.

This final rule has been determined to

be not significant for purposes of

Executive Order 12866, and it has not

been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget (OMB).

This final rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12988, Civil

Justice Reform. It is not intended to

have retroactive effect. This rule would

not preempt any state or local laws,

regulations, or policies unless they

present an irreconcilable conflict with

this rule. There are no administrative

procedures which must be exhausted

prior to any judicial challenge to the

provisions of this rule.

The Administrator, Agricultural

Marketing Service (AMS), has

considered the economic impact of this

rule on small entities pursuant to the

requirements set forth in the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601 et

seq.). It has been determined that the

implementation of this rule would not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small

businesses.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit

regulatory actions to the scale of

businesses subject to such actions in

order that small businesses will not be

disproportionately burdened. There are

an estimated 40,000 cotton growers in

the U.S. who voluntarily use the AMS

cotton classing services annually, and

the majority of these cotton growers are

small businesses under the criteria

established by the Small Business

Administration (13 CFR § 121.601). The

Administrator of AMS has certified that

this action will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities as defined in

the RFA because:

(1) The fee reduction reflects a

decrease in the cost-per-unit currently

borne by those entities utilizing the

services (the 1997 user fee for

classification services was $1.40 per

bale; the fee for the 1998 crop would be

reduced to $1.30 per bale; the 1998 crop

is estimated at 15,684,900 bales);

(2) The cost reduction will not affect

competition in the marketplace; and

(3) The use of classification services is

voluntary. For the 1997 crop, 17,949,575

bales were classed out of 18,346,450

bales produced.

(4) Based on the average price paid to

growers for cotton from the 1996 crop of

69.3 cents per pound, 500 pound bales

of cotton are worth an average of

$346.50 each. The proposed user fee for

classification services, $1.30 per bale, is

less than one percent of the value of an

average bale of cotton.

In compliance with OMB regulations

(5 CFR part 1320) which implement the

Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) (44

U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information

collection requirements contained in the

provisions to be amended by this rule

have been previously approved by OMB

and were assigned OMB control number

0581–0009 under the Paperwork

Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).

The changes will be made effective

July 1, 1998, as provided by the Cotton

Statistics and Estimates Act.

Fees for Classification under the Cotton

Statistics and Estimates Act of 1927

The user fee charged to cotton

producers for High Volume Instrument

(HVI) classification services under the

Cotton Statistics and Estimates Act (7

U.S.C. 473a) was $1.40 per bale during

the 1997 harvest season as determined

by using the formula provided in the

Uniform Cotton Classing Fees Act of

1987, as amended by Public Law 102–

237. The fees cover salaries, costs of

equipment and supplies, and other

overhead costs, including costs for

administration, supervision, and

development and maintenance of cotton

standards.

This final rule establishes the user fee

charged to producers for HVI

classification at $1.30 per bale during

the 1998 harvest season.

Public Law 102–237 amended the

formula in the Uniform Cotton Classing

Fees Act of 1987 for establishing the

producer’s classification fee so that the

producer’s fee is based on the prevailing

method of classification requested by

producers during the previous year. HVI

classing was the prevailing method of

cotton classification requested by

producers in 1997. Therefore, the 1998

producer’s user fee for classification

service is based on the 1997 base fee for

HVI classification.

The fee was calculated by applying

the formula specified in the Uniform

Cotton Classing Fees Act of 1987, as

amended by Public Law 102–237. The

1997 base fee for HVI classification

exclusive of adjustments, as provided by

the Act, was $2.08 per bale. A two

percent, or four cents per bale increase

due to the implicit price deflator of the

gross domestic product added to the

$2.08 would result in a 1998 base fee of

$2.12 per bale. The formula in the Act

provides for the use of the percentage

change in the implicit price deflator of

the gross national product (as indexed

for the most recent 12-month period for

which statistics are available). However,

this has been replaced by the gross

domestic product by the Department of

Commerce as a more appropriate

measure for the short-term monitoring

and analysis of the U.S. economy.

The number of bales to be classed by

the United States Department of

Agriculture from the 1998 crop is

estimated at 15,684,900 bales. The 1998

base fee was decreased 15 percent based

on the estimated number of bales to be

classed (one percent for every 100,000

bales or portion thereof above the base

of 12,500,000, limited to a maximum

adjustment of 15 percent). This

percentage factor amounts to a 32 cents

per bale reduction and was subtracted

from the 1998 base fee of $2.12 per bale,

resulting in a fee of $1.80 per bale.

With a fee of $1.80 per bale, the

projected operating reserve would be

46.806 percent. The Act specifies that

the Secretary shall not establish a fee

which, when combined with other

sources of revenue, will result in a

projected operating reserve of more than

25 percent. Accordingly, the fee of $1.80

must be reduced by 50 cents per bale,

to $1.30 per bale, to provide an ending

accumulated operating reserve for the

fiscal year of 25 percent of the projected

cost of operating the program. This

would establish the 1998 season fee at

$1.30 per bale.

Accordingly, § 28.909, paragraph (b)

will be revised to reflect the reduction

in the HVI classification fees.

As provided for in the Uniform Cotton

Classing Fees Act of 1987, as amended,

a five cent per bale discount will

continue to be applied to voluntary

centralized billing and collecting agents

as specified in § 28.909 (c).

Growers or their designated agents

requesting classification data provided

on computer punched cards will be

charged a fee of 10 cents per card to

reflect the costs of providing this

service. Requests for punch card

classification data represent only 2.6

percent of the total bales classed. This

change will be reflected in § 28.910 (a).

Growers or their designated agents

receiving classification data by methods

other than computer punched cards will

continue to incur no additional fees if

only one method of receiving

classification data was requested. The

fee for each additional method of

receiving classification data in § 28.910

will remain at five cents per bale, and

it will be applicable even if the same

method was requested. However, if

computer punched cards were

requested, a fee of ten cents per card

would be charged. The fee in § 28.910

(b) for an owner receiving classification

data from the central database will
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 117 /Thursday, June 18, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 33237

remain at five cents per bale, and the

minimum charge of $5.00 for services

provided per monthly billing period

will remain the same. The provisions of

§ 28.910 (c) concerning the fee for new

classification memoranda issued from

the central database for the business

convenience of an owner without

reclassification of the cotton will remain

the same.

The fee for review classification in

§ 28.911 will be reduced from $1.40 per

bale to $1.30 per bale.

The fee for returning samples after

classification in § 28.911 will remain at

40 cents per sample.

Finally, the authority citation for

Subpart D of Part 28 was revised at 61

FR 19512. This action would correct

that revision by specifying Subpart D

rather than a reference to Part 28 in its

entirety.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 28

Administrative practice and

procedure, Cotton, Cotton samples,

Grades, Market news, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Standards,

Staples, Testing, Warehouses.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR Part 28 is amended as

follows:

PART 28—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 28,

subpart D, is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 471–476.

2. In § 28.909, paragraph (b) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 28.909 Costs.

* * * * *

(b) The cost of High Volume

Instrument (HVI) cotton classification

service to producers is $1.30 per bale.

* * * * *

3. In § 28.910, paragraph (a) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 28.910 Classification of samples and

issuance of classification data.

(a) (1) The samples submitted as

provided in the subpart shall be

classified by employees of the Division

and classification memoranda showing

the official quality determination of

each sample according to the official

cotton standards of the United States

shall be issued by any one of the

following methods at no additional

charge:

(i) Computer diskettes,

(ii) Computer tapes, or

(iii) Telecommunications, with all

long distance telephone line charges

paid by the receiver of data.

(2) When an additional copy of the

classification memorandum is issued by

any method listed in paragraph (a)(1),

there will be a charge of five cents per

bale. If provided as an additional

method of data transfer, the minimum

fee for each tape or diskette issued shall

be $10.00.

(3) Upon request, computer punch

cards may be issued. The fee for this

service shall be 10 cents per card.

* * * * *

4. In § 28.911, the last sentence of

paragraph (a) is revised to read as

follows:

§ 28.911 Review classification.

(a) * * * The fee for review

classification is $1.30 per bale.

* * * * *

Dated: June 16, 1998.

Enrique E. Figueroa,

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing

Service.

[FR Doc. 98–16376 Filed 6–17–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Parts 997 and 998

[Docket Nos. FV97–997–1 FIR and FV97–

998–1 FIR]

Peanuts Marketed in the United States;

Relaxation of Handling Regulations

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service

(AMS), USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of

Agriculture (Department) is adopting, as

a final rule, with modifications, the

provisions of an interim final rule (IFR)

that relaxed for 1997 and subsequent

crop peanuts, several provisions

regulating the handling of domestically

produced peanuts marketed in the

United States. This finalization

continues the IFR’s improved efficiency

and reduced program costs resulting in

a similar reduction in assessments

charged Agreement signer and nonsigner handlers.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 19, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

George J. Kelhart or Jim Wendland,

Marketing Order Administration

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,

AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room

2525–S, Washington, D.C. 20090–6456;

telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202)

205–6632. Small businesses may request

information on compliance with this

regulation by contacting: Jay Guerber,

Marketing Order Administration

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs,

AMS, USDA, P.O. Box 96456, room

2525–S, Washington, D.C., 20090–6456;

telephone: (202) 720–2491, Fax: (202)

205–6632.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule

is issued under Marketing Agreement

No. 146 (Agreement)(7 CFR part 998)

and the Agricultural Marketing

Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7

U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to

as the ‘‘Act.’’ The Agreement and the

regulations issued thereunder and the

non-signatory peanut handler

regulations (7 CFR part 997) regulate the

quality of domestically produced

peanuts.

The Department is issuing this final

rule in conformance with Executive

Order 12866.

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule is not intended to

have retroactive effect. This rule will

not preempt any State or local laws,

regulations, or policies, unless they

present an irreconcilable conflict with

this rule. There are no administrative

procedures which must be exhausted

prior to any judicial challenge to the

provisions of this rule.

Following explanation of each change

to the Agreement’s regulation, the

corresponding change to the nonsignatory handlers’ regulation is

discussed.

Incoming Regulations

Farmers Stock Storage and Handling

Facilities

The Peanut Administrative

Committee (Committee) recommended

amending § 998.100 Incoming quality

regulation for 1996 and subsequent crop

peanuts by removing paragraph (g)

Farmers Stock Storage and Handling

Facilities which previously regulated

the condition of such facilities and

authorized Committee inspection. The

Committee recommended the change to

save approximately $450,000, by

eliminating the positions of the seven

fieldmen whose specified duties

through the 1996 crop year included

spending an estimated 60–65 percent of

their time inspecting and approving

such facilities. The vote was 17 ‘‘For’’

and 1 ‘‘Against’’, with the dissenting

voter contending that the fieldmen were

providing valuable services, their

positions should not be eliminated, and

that inspection and approval of such

facilities by the Committee staff were

important. Handlers contended they

were already paying their own

employees to do facilities inspections

and the cost of such duplication of effort

needed to be eliminated and the

Department issued the change. Also,

this cost-cutting has not adversely