20178 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

§ 336.1 Cross-reference to employee

ethical conduct standards and financial

disclosure regulations.

Employees of the Federal Deposit

Insurance Corporation (Corporation) are

subject to the Executive Branch-wide

Standards of Ethical Conduct at 5 CFR

part 2635, the Corporation regulation at

5 CFR part 3201 which supplements the

Executive Branch-wide Standards, the

Executive Branch-wide financial

disclosure regulations at 5 CFR part

2634, and the Corporation regulation at

5 CFR part 3202 which supplements the

Executive Branch-wide financial

disclosure regulations.

§§ 336.2–336.23 [Removed]

§§ 336.29–336.37 [Removed]

Appendix to Part 336 [Removed]

4. Sections 336.2 through 336.23 and

336.29 through 336.37 and all subpart

headings are removed and reserved and

the appendix to part 336 is removed.

[FR Doc. 95–9733 Filed 4–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6714–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 58

[DA–91–010A]

Grading and Inspection, General

Specifications for Approved Plants and

Standards for Grades of Dairy

Products; United States Standards for

Grades of Colby Cheese; Correction

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Correction to final rule.

SUMMARY: This document corrects the

final rule [DA–91–010A], published

Wednesday, March 1, 1995 [60 FR

11246]. The regulations related to

changes in the United States Standards

for Grades of Colby Cheese.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 25, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Roland S. Golden, Dairy Products

Marketing Specialist, Dairy

Standardization Branch, USDA/AMS/

Dairy Division, Room 2750–S, P.O. Box

96456, Washington, DC 20090–6456,

(202) 720–7473.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The final rule that is the subject of

these corrections inadvertently omitted

the word ‘‘not’’ in the third sentence of

7 CFR 58.2475. This omission created

an error in the maximum moisture

content for colby cheese.

Need for Corrections

As published, the final rule contained

an error which needs to be corrected to

provide accuracy.

§ 58.2475 Colby cheese. [Corrected]

On page 11247, at the top of the third

column, in § 58.2475, in sentence three

of the paragraph, after ‘‘common salt

and’’ and before ‘‘more than 40 percent

moisture’’ add the word ‘‘not’’.

Dated: April 19, 1995.

Lon Hatamiya,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 95–10154 Filed 4–25–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–M

Food and Consumer Service

7 CFR Parts 272 and 274

[Amendment No. 333]

RIN 0584–AB32

Food Stamp Program: Benefit Delivery

Rule

AGENCY: Food and Consumer Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rulemaking finalizes

three Food Stamp Program provisions

relating to benefit delivery. These

regulations relate to the staggered

issuance of benefits on Indian

reservations, combined or aggregate

allotments, and the issuance of benefits

in rural areas where households may

experience difficulty in obtaining

program benefits.

In addition to the regulatory changes

described above, this rule makes final

three minor technical changes in current

regulatory issuance provisions which

are deemed appropriate by the

Department to improve benefit issuance.

DATES: The amendments to

§§ 272.2(a)(2) and (d)(1)(xi), and

§§ 274.2(a), (c), and (g) are effective

February 1, 1992. State agencies were

instructed through an agency directive

dated May 20, 1992, to implement these

provisions on that date. The amendment

to § 274.2(d)(2) is effective March 25,

1994. State agencies were instructed

through an agency directive dated

March 31, 1994, to implement this

provision on that date. All remaining

amendments are effective September 1,

1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James I. Porter, Supervisor, Issuance and

Accountability Section, State

Administration Branch, Program

Accountability Division, Food Stamp

Program, Food and Consumer Service,

USDA, 3101 Park Center Drive, Room

904, Alexandria, Virginia 22302,

telephone (703) 305–2383.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Order 12866

This 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.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

This action has also been reviewed

with regard to the requirements of the

Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 (5

U.S.C. 601–612). Ellen Haas, Under

Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and

Consumer Services, has certified that

this final rule will not have a significant

impact on a substantial number of small

entities. The requirements of the rule

will affect State and local agencies

which administer the Food Stamp

Program, as well as food stamp

applicants and recipients.

Paperwork Reduction Act

The provisions of this final rule do

not contain record-keeping or reporting

requirements subject to approval by the

Office of Management and Budget under

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980

(44 U.S.C. 3507).

Executive Order 12778

This final rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12778, 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 this

preamble. Prior to any judicial challenge

to the provisions of this rule or the

application of its provisions, all

applicable administrative procedures

must be exhausted. In the Food Stamp

Program the administrative procedures

are as follows: (1) for program benefit

recipients—State administrative

procedures issued pursuant to 7 U.S.C.

2020(e)(10) and set out at 7 CFR 273.15;

(2) for State agencies—administrative

procedures issued pursuant to 7 U.S.C.

2023 and set out at 7 CFR 276.7; and (3)

for program retailers and wholesalers—

administrative procedures issued

pursuant to 7 U.S.C. 2023 and set out at

7 CFR 278.8.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20179

Executive Order 12372

The Food Stamp Program is listed in

the Catalog of Federal Domestic

Assistance under No. 10.551. For the

reasons set forth in the final rule at 7

CFR part 3015, subpart V, and related

Notice (48 FR 29115, June 24, 1983),

this Program is excluded from the scope

of Executive Order 12372 which

requires intergovernmental consultation

with State and local officials.

Public Participation

Section 274.2(c) is simply a

restatement of existing Food Stamp

Program regulations regarding the

obligation of State agencies to provide

combined or aggregate allotments in

certain circumstances and makes no

changes in existing policy. Section

274.2(d)(2) is the regulatory adoption of

Section 102 of Pub. L. 103–225

regarding the availability of staggered

issuance of benefits on Indian

reservations. Therefore, the

amendments to 7 CFR 274.2(c) and

(d)(2) are being issued as final rules

without prior notice and public

comment. The language of § 274.2(d)(2)

is the same as that employed in Pub. L.

103–225. Section 102 of Pub. L. 103–225

is non-discretionary in that it makes an

existing policy, staggered issuance,

available to Indian reservations for at

least 15 days per month at the request

of the tribal governing authority.

Because of the non-discretionary nature

of the amendments to 7 CFR 274.2(c)

and (d)(2), the Department has

determined, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553,

that public comment on these

provisions prior to implementation is

unnecessary as it would serve no

practical purpose.

Background

The Mickey Leland Memorial

Domestic Hunger Relief Act (Title XVII

of Pub. L. 101–624, enacted November

28, 1990) amended three provisions of

the Food Stamp Act of 1977, as

amended, (7 U.S.C. 2011 et seq.) (the

Act), relating to the timing and method

of benefit delivery (issuance). These

amendments related to staggered

issuance of benefits on Indian

reservations, aggregate (combined)

allotments to households applying after

the 15th of the month, and mail

issuance in rural areas where

households experience transportation

difficulties in obtaining benefits.

The Department issued a proposed

rulemaking and sought comments on

these three provisions of Pub. L. 101–

624 on May 20, 1991, at 56 FR 23027.

In the same publication, the Department

also announced its intent to make three

minor technical changes to existing

issuance provisions deemed appropriate

to improve benefit issuance. Comments

were sought on these changes as well.

Each of the six regulatory changes

proposed on May 20, 1991, will be

separately discussed in this rulemaking.

The 1990 Amendments (Pub. L. 101–

624): Comments and Analyses

1. Section 1728 of Pub. L. 101–624

amended Section 7(h)(1) of the Act, 7

U.S.C. 2016(h)(1) to mandate the use of

staggered issuance throughout the

month on Indian reservations. This

provision reflected the findings of a

GAO audit (Recipient and Expert Views

on Food Assistance at Four Indian

Reservations, GAO/RCED 90–152, dated

June 28, 1990) in which auditors were

told by recipients that each month

certain retail food stores authorized to

accept food stamps on or near

reservations were increasing the prices

of eligible food during the week

containing the one or more issuance

days.

Subsequent to the publication of the

proposed rule on this issue, Congress

enacted Section 908 of Pub. L. 102–237,

delaying the implementation of Section

1728 of Pub. L. 101–624 until April 1,

1993. Section 908 of Pub. L. 102–237

directed GAO to report to Congress by

June 13, 1992, on the difficulties that

residents on Indian reservations

experience in obtaining benefits. The

study was to examine prices at food

stores, determine issuance-period

preferences of households, analyze any

transportation problems that may exist,

and examine monthly reporting

requirements.

On November 25, 1992, GAO released

Letter Report RCED–93–70R concerning

the need for staggered issuance on

Indian reservations. This report

summarized comments from 13 State

agencies and two national Indian

organizations, but arrived at no

conclusive recommendation.

Due in significant part to the

inconclusive nature of the GAO Report,

Congress, on April 1, 1993, in Pub. L.

103–11, ‘‘Food Stamp Requirements on

Indian Reservations: Delay,’’ delayed

implementation of the mandatory

staggered issuance requirement of

Section 1728 of Pub. L. 101–624, until

January 24, 1994. Implementation of

Section 1728 was further delayed until

March 15, 1994, by section 1 of Pub. L.

103–205, ‘‘Food Stamp Program on

Indian Reservations,’’ on December 17,

1993.

With section 102 of the Food Stamp

Improvements Act of 1994, Pub. L. 103–

225, enacted on March 25, 1994,

Congress amended Section 7(h)(1) of the

Act by deleting the mandatory

requirement for staggered issuance on

Indian reservations, which had been

provided for in Section 1728 of Pub. L.

101–624, and making staggered issuance

on Indian reservations discretionary

with each tribal organization. Section

7(h)(1) of the Act, 7 U.S.C. 2016(h)(1),

now provides that staggered issuance

shall be provided to tribal organizations

by State agencies over a period of at

least 15 days each month if so requested

by the organization exercising

governmental jurisdiction over the

reservation.

In light of the amendment to section

7(h)(1) of the Act by section 102 of Pub.

L. 103–225, making staggered issuance

an Indian tribal organization option, the

Department believes that a lengthy

discussion of the public comments on

the proposed rule, pertaining to the

parts of the statutory provision which

were amended, is no longer necessary,

since the comments, while appreciated,

are no longer relevant. The Department

also believes that the implementation of

section 102 of Pub. L. 103–225 does not

require public comment. Congress has

given the Department and State agencies

no discretion and no options with

regard to the use of staggered issuance

on Indian reservations; the sole

discretion to be exercised is with Indian

tribal organizations. Under the notice

and comment provisions of the

Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C.

553, public comment on a regulatory

change is not required if that comment

would serve no practical purpose. As a

reflection of the Department’s absence

of discretion in this matter, the

Department hereby implements as a

final rule without prior notice and

comment section 102 of Pub. L. 103–225

in regulatory language identical to that

employed by Congress in the legislation.

This provision will be located at

§ 274.2(d)(2).

2. In the May 20, 1991, rulemaking

published at 56 FR 23027, the

Department sought comments on its

proposal to implement section 1732 of

Pub. L. 101–624. That provision

amended section 8(c)(3) of the Act, 7

U.S.C. 2017(c)(3), to change program

requirements concerning aggregate

benefits (combined benefits for the

month of application and the first full

month of benefit receipt) for eligible

households applying after the 15th of

the month. Prior to the amendment,

section 8(c)(3) required that an initial

allotment reflecting an aggregate of

prorated benefits for the application

month and benefits for the first full

month was required if the application

was made after the 15th day of the

month. Amended section 8(c)(3) made
20180 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

the combined allotment a State agency

option for eligible households applying

under normal processing standards.

Despite the amendment to section

8(c)(3), combined allotments, however,

remained mandatory for eligible

households that met the requirements

for expedited service. This program

change was implemented by State

agencies retroactively to February 1,

1992, pursuant to an FNS directive

dated May 20, 1992.

To implement section 1732 of Pub. L.

101–624 in the Code of Federal

Regulations, the Department proposed

amendments to several paragraphs of

§ 274.2(b). Subsequently, it was

determined that program regulatory

provisions regarding eligibility for

combined allotments would more

appropriately be located in § 273.2(i) of

program regulations, which deals with

household application requirements. A

rule reflecting this redesignation,

including the adoption as final of the

changes previously proposed for

§ 274.2(b), will be published in the near

future. Comments received on this

program change in response to the May

20, 1991, proposed rule will be

discussed in that rulemaking.

The effect of the above-described

modification will be to locate in part

273 of the program regulations all

provisions regarding eligibility for

combined or aggregate allotments.

Section 274.2 will contain only program

provisions regarding State agency

benefit issuance requirements. To reflect

this redesignation, the Department

adopts as a final rule an amendment to

§ 274.2, paragraph (c), which simply

restates existing program policy with

regard to State agency obligations

concerning combined allotments. As

§ 274.2(c) summarizes existing

regulations and makes no changes to

those regulations, the Department,

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, deems prior

notice and public comment on this

regulatory provision to be unnecessary.

3. Section 1738 of Pub. L. 101–624

amended section 11(e) of the Act, 7

U.S.C. 2020(e), to require State agencies

to use mail issuance in rural areas

where State agencies determine that

recipients face substantial difficulties in

obtaining transportation to issuance

points. Amended section 11(e) provides

an exception to mandatory mail

issuance for households which have

experienced excessive mail issuance

losses. In addition, mail issuance is not

required in localities where the mail

loss rates exceed standards set by the

Secretary. This amendment was

prompted by concern that some eligible

households in rural areas have difficulty

getting to issuance sites because they

lack cars or sufficient funds to hire

someone to drive them (House Report

No. 101–569, pages 433–34).

Under the proposed rule, a State

agency which is not currently using

mail issuance throughout the State must

engage in an assessment of

transportation barriers which rural

recipients may experience in getting to

issuance offices, and report both the

assessment process and its results as an

attachment to its State Plan of

Operation. Section 272.2 of the

regulations is revised to add this

requirement to the State Plan of

Operation. Section 274.2 is also revised

to add a new subsection describing the

required content of this new attachment

to the State Plan of Operation.

In enacting Section 1738 of Pub. L.

101–624, Congress was concerned with

transportation problems that make it

difficult for recipients to obtain their

benefits at issuance offices (House

Report No. 101–569, pages 433–34).

These problems, rather than

transportation problems in general,

should be the focus of the State agency’s

assessment of the need for mail

issuance. For example, mail issuance is

not required where electronic benefits

transfer (EBT) removes the need for

transportation to an issuance office. As

an alternative to mail issuance, State

agencies finding substantial

transportation difficulties could reduce

or eliminate them by a variety of

methods, such as through the use of

authorized representatives as provided

for in 7 CFR 274.5.

To implement the exception to mail

issuance for individual households that

experience excessive mail losses, the

Department proposed to use the current

standard at 7 CFR 274.6(c)(3)(ii), which

provides that households experiencing

two losses or thefts of benefits from the

mail within a six-month period shall be

placed on an alternative delivery

system.

To implement the exception to mail

issuance in amended Section 11(e)(25)

of the Act for localities with excessive

mail losses, the Department proposed to

utilize the standards set by the mail

issuance loss tolerance levels provided

at 7 CFR 276.2(b)(4). State agencies

would not have to use mail issuance

where mail losses exceed, or could

reasonably be expected to exceed, the

mail loss tolerance levels for the

reporting unit within which the

particular rural area is located. Section

276.2(b)(4) provides three separate mail

issuance tolerance levels. The

applicable mail loss tolerance level

depends on the size of the reporting

unit. In determining whether mail losses

in a given rural area would be excessive,

State agencies without mail issuance in

that area may use the tolerance level

associated with a hypothetical reporting

unit. Tolerance levels applied to any

hypothetical reporting area would have

to be consistent with existing rules and

any existing reporting units. For

example, States with some mail

issuance in place, and currently

reporting issuance losses by project

areas, could not exempt a rural area

without mail issuance from the mail

issuance requirements of amended

Section 11(e)(25) on the basis of its

losses exceeding a State-wide tolerance.

Similarly, a State agency that does not

have mail issuance would have to use

the same tolerance levels in assessing

any rural areas subject to this rule; the

State could not exempt some areas

because they would exceed the Statewide tolerance level and other areas

because they would exceed the project

area tolerance level. States which

choose not to introduce mail issuance

based upon findings that losses would

exceed tolerance levels will be required

to provide evidence to support such

findings.

Three comments were received on

these proposals. One State agency was

concerned that the provision requiring

mail issuance would eliminate the

State’s current practice of offering

recipients either mail issuance or direct

delivery of benefits. This is not the case.

State agencies may accommodate

individual household requests; the

requirement is to provide or offer mail

issuance as a means of overcoming

transportation difficulties. Another

commenter was concerned that the

proposed provisions might overturn

established efforts and procedures

geared to reduce mail losses. It would

subvert the purpose of the legislation,

namely to encourage mail issuance, if

the implementing rules prevented

reductions in mail losses that in turn

created pressures to abandon mail

issuance altogether. Therefore, the

Department will not require mail

issuance in situations in which State

agencies can demonstrate that losses

incurred in attempts to issue benefits by

mail in rural areas would be excessive.

The third comment came from a State

agency which stated that it would not be

affected by the provision because the

State currently has statewide direct-mail

issuance.

The wording in the first sentence of

the proposed paragraph has been

revised slightly for conformity with the

description of other planning

documents listed in 7 CFR 272.2(d).

This minor change does not alter the

intent of the provision.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20181

Accordingly, with this final rule, the

wording of the proposed rule, with the

exception noted above, is adopted.

Changes to Current Regulations

On February 15, 1989, at 54 FR 6990,

the Department issued a final rule

constituting the first comprehensive

review and modification of food stamp

issuance regulations since their

adoption pursuant to the Food Stamp

Act of 1977 (Pub. L. 95–113).

This final rule makes changes to three

of those provisions, in an effort to

clarify interpretive problems brought to

the Department’s attention over the past

three years. These changes were

proposed on May 20, 1991, at 56 FR

23028–29.

4. In the May 20, 1991, proposed rule

the Department suggested changes to

make clear that staggering may be used

in any issuance system and that the 40-

day limit on intervals between issuances

applies to all issuance systems. Current

rules at § 274.2(c)(1) refer to a 40-day

limit between ‘‘mail issuances’’ because,

in the past, State agencies staggered

only mail issuance. The word ‘‘mail’’ is

being removed to make it clear that the

40-day limit applies to all staggered

issuance situations, and to remove any

implication that staggering is relevant

only to mail issuance.

Whenever staggered issuance is

utilized, the State agency must ensure

that the interval between any two

issuances after the first full month of

participation is not longer than 40 days

as required by Section 7(h) of the Act,

7 U.S.C. 2016(h)(2). This applies to

instances in which a State agency

changes its issuance system, is starting

to stagger within any issuance system,

decides to no longer stagger within a

system, or is fluctuating the issuance

schedule by a day or two within a

current staggered system. The only

exception to the 40-day limit occurs for

some households which apply after the

15th of the month and receive their first

and second month’s benefit as a

combined allotment. Since they may

receive their benefits for the first and

second months of participation in the

first month, more than 40 days may

elapse before they are put on a regular

issuance schedule, beginning with

benefits issued for the third month.

Three commenters addressed this

proposal. One stated that households

which are required to submit monthly

reports may have to wait as long as 50

days between issuances. Such an

interval would only be permissible in

situations in which the State agency is

required to wait for the household to

meet its monthly reporting requirement.

The 40-day rule pertains to on-going

households which have complied with

all reporting requirements and expect

their benefits at about the same time

every month.

Another commenter was concerned

that the Department is reading

something into the law which

established the 40-day requirement that

Congress did not intend, and that more

than 40 days should be allowed under

normal fluctuations within an

established staggered issuance system.

The Department disagrees; intervals

beyond 40 days between normal

issuances do not meet the requirement

of the law and its legislative history.

The 40-day requirement is an extension

of the requirement at 7 CFR 274.2(c),

which states that issuance schedules

shall be established so that households

receive benefits on or about the same

time each month. The amendment gives

State agencies room to adjust issuance

schedules when issuance systems are

being changed, rather than holding the

State agency to the requirement that

households receive benefits on or about

the same day each month. The

Department considers the amendment

less restrictive, not more so.

The provision in this rule has been

reworded to state more clearly the

situations to which it applies. This also

addresses a third commenter who said

the 40-day rule is simply burdensome.

With this final rule, the Department

adopts as final 7 CFR 274.2(c)(1) as

proposed to indicate that the

requirements of staggered issuance are

applicable to all issuance systems.

5. The regulations at 7 CFR 274.3(e)

currently provide for validity periods

for issuances made in authorization

document, direct access, and direct

delivery issuance systems. A validity

period is the time-frame during which a

household may obtain benefits by

transacting an authorization document

or receiving benefits at an issuance

point. The validity period begins the

day a household is issued an

authorization document or is authorized

to obtain its issuance at an issuance

point. The validity period for issuances

ends on the last day of the month in

which authorization to receive benefits

is made, with two exceptions. First, for

normal issuances made on or after the

20th day of the month, the State agency

must extend the validity or availability

period at least 20 days into the

following month and may extend the

validity or availability period until the

end of the following month; second, for

combined issuances for households

applying after the 15th of the month, the

validity period must continue until the

end of the month following application

since benefits for which the household

is eligible are intended for use during

both months. States have pointed out

that Program administration would be

simplified if normal issuances made

after the 15th of the month could have

the same validity period as the validity

period for combined issuance made in

the month of application. The proposed

rule addressed that concern by changing

the issuance date that initiates an

extension for validity periods for normal

issuances from ‘‘on or after the 20th’’ to

‘‘after the 15th’’ of the month.

Three commenters addressed this

provision. One simply stated the

amount of time (3 months) that would

be required to make the necessary

computer changes, but made no

statement for or against the provision.

Another commenter questioned whether

the new trigger date would allow State

agencies to retain the option to extend

the validity period for normal issuances

for 20 days or until the end of the

following issuance month. The answer

to this question is that, as stated in the

proposed rule, State agencies will retain

the option. The third commenter

suggested that the provision of having

the validity dates coincide be optional

because of the time and expense

required in modifying the State agency’s

on-line issuance computer. Because this

provision was adopted in response to

State agency requests as a means of

easing the Program’s administrative

burden, the Department is making this

date change an option for State agencies.

The Department would also like to

clarify that when a combined allotment

is issued with the use of two documents

in authorization document systems

during the month of application, the

validity period for both documents must

continue until the end of the second

month, as that is the period of intended

use for the combined benefits.

With this final rule, the Department

adopts as final 7 CFR 274.3(e) as

previously proposed by making the

proposed modification of the validity

period for normal issuances a State

agency option.

6. In 7 CFR 274.11(a) a change was

proposed by the Department to clarify

which issuance documents, including

signature cards used by direct-delivery

agents, are required to be retained for

three years in order to provide an audit

trail for accountability. The current

regulation at 7 CFR 274.11(a)(1) lists

specific forms required to be retained.

However, as established issuance

systems have changed and newer ones

have been implemented, the list has not

been revised. The Department proposed

to replace the listing of specific forms

with a general retention requirement

covering all issuance system documents
20182 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

which provide an audit record for

accountability. An additional change

made the wording about the period of

retention conform to 7 CFR 272.1(f).

The one commenter responding to the

Department’s proposal stated that the

provision would not affect the program

operations of that State. Wording and

punctuation within the first ten words

in paragraphs (a) and (a)(1) of 7 CFR

274.11 are revised slightly from the

proposed rule to make clearer the fact

that the provision addresses four

separate groups of documents to be

retained—issuance records, inventory

records, reconciliation records, and

other records. These latter changes do

not affect the meaning or intent of the

proposed rule.

Therefore, the wording of the

proposed rule, regarding sections 7 CFR

274.11(a) and (a)(1) with the exception

noted above, is adopted as final.

Dates

1. Effective. Section 1738 of Pub. L.

101–624 was effective February 1, 1992.

Section 102 of Pub. L. 103–225 was

effective March 25, 1994. The effective

date for the amendments to 274.2(d)(1),

274.3(e), and 274.11(a) is September 1,

1995.

2. Implementation. The

implementation date for Section 102 of

Pub. L. 103–225 was March 25, 1994.

The implementation date for Section

1738 of Pub. L. 101–624 was February

1, 1992. By that date, or soon thereafter,

States should have submitted to FCS, an

approvable amendment to the State Plan

of Operation, for direct-mail issuance in

rural areas. The timetable for actual

implementation of any new direct-mail

issuance system will be set by the State

agency, with FCS approval. The

implementation date for the

amendments to 274.2(d)(1), 274.3(e),

and 274.11(a) is September 1, 1995.

List of Subjects

7 CFR Part 272

Alaska, Civil rights, Food stamps,

Grant programs—social programs,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

7 CFR Part 274

Administrative practice and

procedure, Food stamps, Grant

programs—social programs, Reporting

and recordkeeping requirements.

As stated in the Preamble, parts 272

and 274 of chapter II of Title 7, Code of

Federal Regulations, are amended as

follows:

1. The authority citation for parts 272

and 274 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2011–2032.

PART 272—REQUIREMENTS FOR

PARTICIPATING STATE AGENCIES

2. In § 272.1, a new paragraph (g)(140)

is added to read as follows:

§ 272.1 General terms and conditions.

* * * * *

(g) Implementation. * * *

(140) Amendment No. 333. The

provisions of Amendment No. 333 are

effective and must be implemented as

follows:

(i) The provisions relating to

aggregated (combined) allotments to

households applying after the 15th of

the month and mail issuance in rural

areas where households experience

transportation difficulties in obtaining

benefits are effective and must be

implemented by statute retroactive to

February 1, 1992.

(ii) The provision relating to staggered

issuance on Indian reservations was in

place on March 25, 1994, is effective

and must be implemented according to

statute retroactive to March 25, 1994.

(iii) The remaining provisions are

effective and must be implemented

September 1, 1995.

3. In § 272.2, a new sentence is added

to the end of paragraph (a)(2), and a new

paragraph (d)(1)(xi) is added, to read as

follows:

§ 272.2 Plan of operation.

(a) General purpose and

content. * * *

(2) Content. * * * The Plan’s

attachments shall describe the State

agency’s review of direct-mail issuance

requirements in rural areas.

* * * * *

(d) Planning Documents.

(1) * * *

(xi) A plan to review direct-mail

issuance requirements in rural areas.

State agencies using direct-mail

issuance throughout the State with

exceptions only for individual

households, shall simply state this fact.

State agencies which use methods of

benefit issuance other than direct-mail

issuance in any part of the State shall

submit an attachment to their State Plan

of Operation which includes the State

agency’s procedure for reviewing directmail issuance requirements in rural

areas, and the results of applying that

procedure for designating parts of, or

entire, project areas as requiring directmail issuance because they are rural,

and are areas in which benefit-eligible

households face substantial difficulties

in obtaining transportation. The

requirements for this attachment to the

State Plan of Operation are described in

§ 274.2(g) of this chapter.

* * * * *

PART 274—ISSUANCE AND USE OF

COUPONS

4. In § 274.2:

a. a new sentence is added at the end

of paragraph (a);

b. the heading of paragraph (b) is

revised;

c. paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4)

are removed;

d. paragraphs (b)(1), (c), (d), and (e)

are redesignated as paragraphs (b), (d),

(e), and (f), respectively;

e. two new sentences are added at the

end of newly-redesignated paragraph

(b);

f. newly-redesignated paragraph (d)(1)

is revised;

g. paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) are

redesignated as paragraphs (d)(3) and

(d)(4), respectively;

h. newly-redesignated paragraph

(d)(3) is revised; and

i. new paragraphs (c), (d)(2) and (g)

are added.

The additions and revisions read as

follows:

§ 274.2 Providing benefits to participants.

(a) General * * * Requirements to

assure timely and accurate issuance of

benefits to eligible households in rural

areas are described in paragraph (g) of

this section.

(b) Availability of benefits. * * * For

households entitled to expedited

service, the State agency shall make

benefits available to the household not

later than the fifth calendar day

following the date of application.

Whatever system a State agency uses to

ensure meeting this delivery standard

shall be designed to allow a reasonable

opportunity for redemption of ATPs no

later than the fifth calendar day

following the date of application.

(c) Combined allotments. For those

households which are to receive a

combined allotment, the State agency

shall provide the benefits for both

months as an aggregate (combined)

allotment, or as two separate allotments,

with the same validity period, made

available at the same time, in

accordance with the timeframes

specified in § 273.2 of this chapter.

(d) Ongoing households * * *

(1) State agencies that use direct-mail

issuance shall stagger issuance over at

least 10 days of the issuance month, and

may stagger issuance over the entire

issuance month. State agencies using a

method other than direct-mail issuance

may stagger issuance throughout the

month, or for a shorter period. When

staggering benefit delivery, however,

State agencies shall not allow more than

40 days to elapse between the issuance

of any two allotments provided to a
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 79 / Tuesday, April 25, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 20183

household participating longer than two

consecutive, complete months.

Regardless of the issuance schedule

used, the State agency shall adhere to

the reporting requirements specified in

§ 274.4.

(2) Upon the request of the tribal

organization that exercises

governmental jurisdiction over a

reservation, the State agency shall

stagger the issuance of benefits for

eligible households located on

reservations for at least 15 days each

month.

(3) When a participating household is

transferred from one issuance system or

procedure to another issuance system or

procedure, the State agency shall not

permit more than 40 days to elapse

between the last issuance under the

previous system or procedure, and the

first issuance under the new system or

procedure. The 40-day requirement does

not apply to instances in which actions

by recipients, such as failure to submit

a monthly report, disrupt benefits.

Transfers include, but are not limited to,

households being moved into or out of

a staggered issuance procedure,

households on a fluctuating schedule

within a staggered system, and

households being moved from a directmail issuance system to an

authorization document system. If the

State agency determines that more than

40 days may elapse between issuances,

the State agency shall divide the new

issuance into two parts, with one part

being issued within the 40-day period,

and the second part, or supplemental

issuance, being issued on the

household’s established issuance date in

the new system or procedure. The

supplemental issuance cannot provide

the household more benefits than the

household is entitled to receive.

* * * * *

(g) Issuance in rural areas. State

agencies shall use direct-mail issuance

in any rural areas where the State

agency determines that recipients face

substantial difficulties in obtaining

transportation in order to obtain their

food stamp benefits by methods other

than direct-mail issuance. Exceptions

shall be made for households which

have exceeded the two allowable

reported losses within a six-month

period and replacements set forth in

§ 274.6 (b) and (g), and direct-mail

issuance is not required in those

localities where the direct mail loss

rates exceed, or are likely to exceed,

standards set by the Secretary at

§ 276.2(b) of this chapter. The State

agency shall:

(1) Submit an attachment to the State

Plan of Operation (§ 272.2(d)(1)(xi) of

this chapter) which describes the State’s

exemption from this requirement,

because the State agency uses directmail issuance throughout the State, or

(2) Submit an attachment to the State

Plan of Operation (§ 272.2(d)(1)(xi) of

this chapter) which describes:

(i) The areas designated by the State

agency as rural;

(ii) The rural areas where direct-mail

issuance will not be used because:

(A) Recipients do not face substantial

difficulties in obtaining transportation

to obtain their benefits, and/or;

(B) Direct-mail issuance losses exceed

the loss tolerance levels, or there is

evidence which indicates that directmail issuance, if used, would produce

losses which would exceed the loss

tolerance levels established under

§ 276.2(b)(4) of this chapter.

(iii) The State agency’s criteria for

designating an area as rural. Such

criteria may include, but are not limited

to: the use of the Bureau of the Census

definition; the distances that recipients

may need to travel to reach an issuance

office; or, other criteria described by the

State agency.

(iv) The State agency’s minimum

criteria for determining that recipients

in an area designated as rural do not

face substantial difficulties in obtaining

transportation to obtain their benefits.

(v) The State agency’s schedule for

introducing direct-mail issuance into

any rural areas requiring direct-mail

issuance because of substantial

transportation problems.

5. In § 274.3, paragraph (e)(1) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 274.3 Issuance systems.

* * * * *

(e) Validity periods. (1) State agencies

shall establish validity periods for

issuances made in both authorization

document and direct access systems. A

validity period is the time frame during

which a household may obtain benefits

by transacting an authorization

document, or receiving the benefits

directly at an issuance point. Generally,

the validity period coincides with the

issuance month or the period of

intended use, which may or may not be

a calendar month. However, in

instances in which authorization

documents are distributed, or benefits

become available for ongoing

households late in the issuance month,

the State agency shall extend the

validity or availability period for either

twenty (20) additional days, or until the

end of the following issuance month, at

the State agency’s option. The State

agency may also choose one of two

dates which will initiate this extension

of the validity or availability period.

The State agency may choose to extend

the period for authorization documents

distributed or for benefits made

available, on or after the 20th day of the

issuance month or after the 15th day of

the issuance month. Whichever date the

State agency chooses to initiate the

required extension, the State agency

must use the date consistently for all

extensions in this category. A household

which does not transact its

authorization document, or obtain the

benefits directly from an issuance point

during the issuance’s validity period,

shall lose its entitlement to the benefits,

and the State agency shall not issue

benefits to such a household for such a

period.

* * * * *

6. In § 274.11, the section heading, the

heading and introductory text of

paragraph (a), and paragraph (a)(1) are

revised to read as follows:

§ 274.11 Issuance and inventory record

retention, and forms security.

(a) Availability of records. The State

agency shall maintain issuance,

inventory, reconciliation, and other

accountability records for a period of

three years as specified in § 272.1(f) of

this chapter. This period may be

extended at the written request of FNS.

(1) Issuance, inventory, reconciliation,

and other accountability records shall

include all Agency, State, and local

forms involved in the State agency’s

receipt, storage, handling, issuance, and

destruction of coupons completed by

contract agents or any other individuals

or entities involved in issuance or

inventory, as well as those completed by

the State agency.

* * * * *

Dated: April 11, 1995.

Ellen Haas,

Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and

Consumer Services.

[FR Doc. 95–10091 Filed 4–24–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–30–U

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Part 20

RIN 3150–AA38

Standards for Protection Against

Radiation; Clarification

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule; clarification.

SUMMARY: A final rule was published in

the Federal Register on December 22,

1993 (58 FR 67657) that made a number