Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 29673 

List of Subjects in 38 CFR Part 13 

Surety bonds, Trusts and trustees, and 

Veterans. 

Signing Authority 

Denis McDonough, Secretary of 

Veterans Affairs, approved this 

document on May 5, 2022, and 

authorized the undersigned to sign and 

submit the document to the Office of the 

Federal Register for publication 

electronically as an official document of 

the Department of Veterans Affairs. 

Luvenia Potts, 

Regulations Development Coordinator, Office 

of Regulation Policy & Management, Office 

of General Counsel, Department of Veterans 

Affairs. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Department of Veterans 

Affairs amends 38 CFR part 13 as set 

forth below: 

PART 13—FIDUCIARY ACTIVITIES 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 13 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 38 U.S.C. 501, 5502, 5506– 

5510, 6101, 6106–6108, and as noted in 

specific sections. 

Source: 83 FR 32738, July 13, 2018, unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 2. Amend § 13.230 by revising 

paragraph (c)(1) to read as follows: 

§ 13.230 Protection of beneficiary funds. 

* * * * * 

(c) * * *. (1) The provisions of 

paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section do 

not apply to: 

(i) A fiduciary that is a trust company 

or a bank with trust powers organized 

under the laws of the United States or 

a state; 

(ii) A fiduciary who is the 

beneficiary’s spouse; 

(iii) A fiduciary in the Commonwealth 

of Puerto Rico, Guam, or another 

territory of the United States, or in the 

Republic of the Philippines, who has 

entered into a restricted withdrawal 

agreement in lieu of a surety bond; 

(iv) A fiduciary that is also appointed 

by a court and has obtained a state-court 

bond, as referenced in 38 CFR 14.709, 

sufficient to cover both VA and non-VA 

funds; or 

(v) A fiduciary that is also a state 

agency with existing, state-mandated 

liability insurance or a blanket bond 

sufficient to cover both VA and non-VA 

funds. 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2022–10388 Filed 5–13–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 8320–01–P 

POSTAL SERVICE 

39 CFR Part 241 

Post Office Organization and 

Administration: Discontinuance of 

USPS-Operated Retail Facilities 

AGENCY: Postal ServiceTM. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: The United States Postal 

Service® has revised its regulations 

concerning the Postal Service-Operated 

Retail Facilities Discontinuance Guide 

to conform to organizational changes. 

DATES: Effective May 16, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sal 

Faraglia, 202–494–3329, Post Office 

Operations and Processing Logistics and 

Integration. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

revision makes minor changes to § 241.3 

to update the text with the correct job 

titles following organizational changes. 

List of Subjects in 39 CFR Part 241 

Organization and functions 

(Government agencies). 

Accordingly, 39 CFR part 241 is 

amended as follows: 

PART 241—ESTABLISHMENT 

CLASSIFICATION, AND 

DISCONTINUANCE 

■ 1. The authority citation for part 241 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 39 U.S.C. 101, 401, 403, 404, 

410, 1001. 

■ 2. Amend § 241.3 by revising 

paragraphs (b)(2) and (d)(3) introductory 

text to read as follows: 

§ 241.3 Discontinuance of USPS-operated 

retail facilities. 

* * * * * 

(b) * * * 

(2) ZIP Code assignment. The ZIP 

Code for each address formerly served 

from the discontinued USPS-operated 

retail facility should be kept, wherever 

practical. In some cases, the ZIP Code 

originally assigned to the discontinued 

USPS-operated retail facility may be 

changed if the responsible District 

Manager receives approval from his or 

her Vice President of Area Delivery and 

Retail Operations before any proposal to 

discontinue the USPS-operated retail 

facility is posted. 

* * * * * 

(d) * * * 

(3) Other steps. In addition to 

providing notice and inviting comment, 

the District Manager must take any other 

steps necessary to ensure that the 

persons served by affected USPSoperated retail facilities understand the 

nature and implications of the proposed 

action. A community meeting must be 

held to provide outreach and gain 

public input after the proposal is 

posted, unless otherwise instructed by 

the responsible Headquarters Vice 

President or the applicable Vice 

President of Area Delivery and Retail 

Operations. Authorization to forgo a 

community meeting should issue only 

where exceptional circumstances make 

a community meeting infeasible, such as 

where the community no longer exists 

because of a natural disaster or because 

residents have moved elsewhere. 

* * * * * 

Joshua J. Hofer, 

Attorney, Ethics & Legal Compliance. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10283 Filed 5–13–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Part 170 

[EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–0543; FRL–9803–01– 

OCSPP] 

Pesticides; Agricultural Worker 

Protection Standard; Revision of the 

Application Exclusion Zone 

Requirements; Court Order; Stay of 

Effectiveness 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Final rule; court-ordered stay of 

effectiveness. 

SUMMARY: On December 28, 2020, the 

United States District Court for the 

Southern District of New York issued an 

order in the case of State of New York 

et al. v. United States Environmental 

Protection Agency, which resulted in a 

stay of the effectiveness for an October 

30, 2020 final rule (2020 AEZ Rule) 

amending certain provisions of EPA’s 

Agricultural Worker Protection 

Standard (WPS) regulations under the 

Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 

Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) related to the 

application exclusion zone (AEZ). 

Subsequent orders have extended this 

stay of the effectiveness. Although the 

text of the Code of Federal Regulations 

reflects the amendments to the AEZ 

provisions under the 2020 AEZ Rule, 

the district court’s stay orders have 

prevented those amendments from 

going into effect. Accordingly, the 

regulatory text prior to the amendments 

provides the operative regulatory 

language during the current stay and 

any future extensions of the stay. 

DATES: As of February 15, 2022, the 

effectiveness of the final rule published 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
29674 Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 

at 85 FR 68760 (October 30, 2020) is 

stayed by court order until August 22, 

2022. EPA intends to publish another 

document in the Federal Register to 

address the status of the 2020 final rule 

if the stay of effectiveness expires or is 

lifted, but the Agency does not intend 

to publish additional Federal Register 

documents to announce any additional 

court orders entered to further stay the 

effectiveness of the 2020 final rule. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Carolyn Schroeder, Pesticide ReEvaluation Division (7508M), Office of 

Pesticide Programs, Environmental 

Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania 

Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460; 

telephone number: (202) 566–2376; 

email address: schroeder.carolyn@

epa.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. General Information 

A. Does this announcement affect me? 

You may be interested in this 

announcement if you work in or employ 

persons working in crop production 

agriculture where pesticides are 

applied. The following list of North 

American Industrial Classification 

System (NAICS) codes is not intended 

to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 

guide to help readers determine whether 

this document applies to them. 

Potentially affected entities may 

include: 

• Agricultural Establishments (NAICS 

code 111000). 

• Nursery and Tree Production 

(NAICS code 111421). 

• Timber Tract Operations (NAICS 

code 113110). 

• Forest Nurseries and Gathering of 

Forest Products (NAICS code 113210). 

• Farm Workers (NAICS codes 11511, 

115112, and 115114). 

• Pesticide Handling on Farms 

(NAICS code 115112). 

• Farm Labor Contractors and Crew 

Leaders (NAICS code 115115). 

• Pesticide Handling in Forestry 

(NAICS code 115310). 

• Pesticide Manufacturers (NAICS 

code 325320). 

• Farm Worker Support 

Organizations (NAICS codes 813311, 

813312, and 813319). 

• Farm Worker Labor Organizations 

(NAICS code 813930). 

• Crop Advisors (NAICS codes 

115112, 541690, 541712). 

If you have any questions regarding 

the applicability of this action to a 

particular entity, consult the person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

B. How can I get copies of this document 

and other related information? 

The docket for this announcement, 

identified by docket identification (ID) 

number EPA–HQ–OPP–2017–0543, is 

available at https://www.regulations.gov 

or at the Office of Pesticide Programs 

Regulatory Public Docket (OPP Docket) 

in the Environmental Protection Agency 

Docket Center (EPA/DC), West William 

Jefferson Clinton Bldg., Rm. 3334, 1301 

Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC 

20460–0001. The Public Reading Room 

is open from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., 

Monday through Friday, excluding legal 

holidays. The telephone number for the 

Public Reading Room and the OPP 

Docket is (202) 566–1744. Please review 

the visitor instructions and additional 

information about the docket available 

at https://www.epa.gov/dockets. 

II. Announcement of Court Order 

On December 28, 2020, the United 

States Southern District of New York 

issued an order granting plaintiffs’ 

request for a temporary restraining order 

(TRO) and injunctive relief in the case 

of State of New York et al. v. United 

States Environmental Protection 

Agency, Case No. 1:20–cv–10642 (Ref. 

1). The Court’s order stayed the 

December 29, 2020 effective date of the 

2020 AEZ Rule (Ref. 2) and enjoined all 

EPA authorities who would otherwise 

take action to make the 2020 AEZ Rule 

effective from doing so (Ref. 1). 

Following the December 2020 Order, the 

Court has issued several additional 

stipulated orders further extending the 

preliminary injunction staying the 

effectiveness of the 2020 AEZ Rule 

(Refs. 3–10). The most recent stipulated 

order, issued on February 15, 2022, 

continues the stay of the effectiveness of 

the 2020 AEZ Rule through August 22, 

2022. Additional stay orders may be 

entered in the future. 

III. Current Status of the WPS in Light 

of Court Orders 

In November 2015, the Agency 

finalized amendments to the WPS that 

included the establishment of the AEZ 

and related provisions (2015 WPS) (Ref. 

11). The text of the 2015 WPS and the 

AEZ provisions within the rule is 

available at 80 FR 67496 (November 2, 

2015) (FRL–9931–81). As described 

above, court orders have stayed the 

effectiveness of the 2020 AEZ Rule, 

which would have modified the AEZ 

provisions in the 2015 WPS, until 

August 22, 2022. Additional court 

orders may extend this stay. 

Because the 2020 AEZ Rule has not 

taken effect, the AEZ provisions from 

the 2015 WPS remain in effect and will 

continue to remain in effect in the event 

of future stays of the effectiveness. 

Accordingly, any enforcement activity 

by EPA officials and other authorities 

tasked with enforcing the WPS should 

be conducted based on the AEZ 

requirements in the 2015 WPS, until 

such time as a subsequent rule goes into 

effect. 

IV. Status of Rulemaking 

EPA has commenced a new 

rulemaking effort to address the AEZ 

and anticipates issuing a proposal in 

2022, which is identified in the SemiAnnual Unified Regulatory Agenda 

under RIN 2070–AK92. As part of the 

future proposed rulemaking, EPA 

intends to thoroughly review the 2020 

AEZ Rule to determine the extent to 

which it is consistent with the policies 

established in Executive Order 13990, 

entitled ‘‘Protecting Public Health and 

the Environment and Restoring Science 

to Tackle the Climate Crisis’’ (86 FR 

7037, January 25, 2021). Any final rule 

resulted from this rulemaking process 

may modify content of the 2015 WPS, 

the 2020 AEZ Rule, or both. 

V. References 

The following is a listing of the 

documents that are specifically 

referenced in this document. The docket 

includes these documents and other 

information considered by EPA, 

including documents that are referenced 

within the documents that are included 

in the docket, even if the referenced 

document is not physically located in 

the docket. For assistance in locating 

these other documents, please consult 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

1. State of New York et al. v. United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Case 

No. 1:20–cv–10642; (United States 

Southern District of New York, 

December 28, 2020). Amended Order Re: 

Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive 

Relief. 

2. EPA. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker 

Protection Standard Revisions; Revision 

of the Application Exclusion Zone 

Requirements; Final Rule. Federal 

Register. 85 FR 68760, October 30, 2020 

(FRL–10016–03). 

3. State of New York et al. v. United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Case 

No. 1:20–cv–10642; (United States 

Southern District of New York, January 

19, 2021). Stipulation and Consent Order 

Extending Stay and Entering Injunction. 

4. State of New York et al. v. United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Case 

No. 1:20–cv–10642; (United States 

Southern District of New York, February 

10, 2021). Stipulation and Consent Order 

Further Extending Stay and Extending 

Injunction. 


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1
Federal Register / Vol. 87, No. 94 / Monday, May 16, 2022 / Rules and Regulations 29675 

1https://www.medicaid.gov/federal-policyguidance/downloads/cib080316.pdf. 

5. State of New York et al. v. United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Case 

No. 1:20–cv–10642; (United States 

Southern District of New York, April 12, 

2021). Second Stipulation and Consent 

Order Further Extending Stay and 

Extending Injunction. 

6. State of New York et al. v. United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Case 

No. 1:20–cv–10642; (United States 

Southern District of New York, June 14, 

2021). Third Stipulation and Consent 

Order Further Extending Stay and 

Extending Injunction. 

7. State of New York et al. v. United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Case 

No. 1:20–cv–10642; (United States 

Southern District of New York, August 

12, 2021). Fourth Stipulation and 

Consent Order Further Extending Stay 

and Extending Injunction. 

8. State of New York et al. v. United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Case 

No. 1:20–cv–10642; (United States 

Southern District of New York, October 

12, 2021). Fifth Stipulation and Consent 

Order Further Extending Stay and 

Extending Injunction. 

9. State of New York et al. v. United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Case 

No. 1:20–cv–10642; (United States 

Southern District of New York, 

December 14, 2021). Sixth Stipulation 

and Consent Order Further Extending 

Stay and Extending Injunction. 

10. State of New York et al. v. United States 

Environmental Protection Agency, Case 

No. 1:20–cv–10642; (United States 

Southern District of New York, February 

15, 2022). Seventh Stipulation and 

Consent Order Further Extending Stay 

and Extending Injunction. 

11. EPA. Pesticides; Agricultural Worker 

Protection Standard Revisions; Final 

Rule. Federal Register. 80 FR 67496, 

November 2, 2015 (FRL–9931–81). 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 136–136y. 

Dated: May 5, 2022. 

Michal Freedhoff, 

Assistant Administrator, Office of Chemical 

Safety and Pollution Prevention. 

[FR Doc. 2022–10019 Filed 5–13–22; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND 

HUMAN SERVICES 

Centers for Medicare & Medicaid 

Services 

42 CFR Part 447 

[CMS–2444–F] 

RIN 0938–AU73 

Medicaid Program; Reassignment of 

Medicaid Provider Claims 

AGENCY: Centers for Medicare & 

Medicaid Services (CMS), HHS. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This final rule reinterprets the 

scope of the general requirement that 

State payments for Medicaid services 

under a State plan must generally be 

made directly to the individual 

practitioner or institution providing 

services or to the beneficiary, in the case 

of a class of practitioners for which the 

Medicaid program is the primary source 

of revenue. Specifically, this final rule 

explicitly authorizes States to make 

payments to third parties on behalf of 

individual practitioners, for individual 

practitioners’ health insurance and 

welfare benefits, skills training, and 

other benefits customary for employees, 

if the individual practitioner consents to 

such payments on their behalf. 

DATES: These regulations are effective 

June 15, 2022. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Christopher Thompson, (410) 786–4044. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. Prohibition on Payment 

Reassignment 

Congress established the Medicaid 

program in 1965 to provide health care 

services for low-income beneficiaries 

and beneficiaries with disabilities. 

Section 1902(a)(32) of the Social 

Security Act (the Act) imposes certain 

requirements on how States may make 

payments for services furnished to 

Medicaid beneficiaries. Section 

1902(a)(32) of the Act provides 

generally that ‘‘no payment under the 

plan for any care or service provided to 

an individual shall be made to anyone 

other than such individual or the person 

or institution providing such care or 

service, under an assignment or power 

of attorney or otherwise.’’ This 

prohibition is followed by four 

enumerated exceptions. On September 

29, 1978, we codified these exceptions 

under 42 CFR 447.10, the regulation 

implementing section 1902(a)(32) of the 

Act, in the ‘‘Payment for Services’’ final 

rule (43 FR 45253) (hereinafter referred 

to as the ‘‘1978 final rule’’). The 1978 

final rule simply reorganized and 

redesignated existing Medicaid 

regulations that previously appeared at 

42 CFR 449.31. Since the 1990s, we 

have mostly understood this provision 

as governing only assignments and other 

similar Medicaid payment 

arrangements. 

Consistent with this understanding, 

from 2012 to 2014, we engaged in 

rulemaking in the ‘‘State Plan Home and 

Community-Based Services, 5-Year 

Period for Waivers Provider Payment 

Reassignment, and Setting 

Requirements for Community First 

Choice’’ proposed rule published in the 

May 3, 2012 Federal Register (77 FR 

26362) (hereinafter referred to as the 

‘‘2012 proposed rule’’) to make it 

explicit that section 1902(a)(32) of the 

Act did not apply to certain payments 

made by the State Medicaid program on 

behalf and for the benefit of individual 

Medicaid practitioners whose primary 

source of revenue is the State Medicaid 

program. We finalized this regulation in 

the ‘‘State Plan Home and Community 

Based Services, 5-Year for Waivers, 

Provider Payment Reassignment, and 

Home and Community-Based Setting 

Requirements for Community First 

Choice and Home and Community 

Based Services (HCBS) Waivers’’ final 

rule published in the January 16, 2014 

Federal Register (79 FR 2948) 

(hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘2014 

final rule’’). In that rulemaking, we 

reasoned that the statute permitted this 

policy because the apparent purpose of 

section 1902(a)(32) of the Act was to 

prohibit factoring arrangements, the 

practice by which providers sold their 

claims for a percentage of their value to 

companies that would then submit the 

claims to the State. The purpose was not 

to preclude a Medicaid program that is 

functioning as the practitioner’s primary 

source of revenue from fulfilling the 

basic employer-like responsibilities that 

are associated with that role, a scenario 

that was not contemplated by section 

1902(a)(32) of the Act and was outside 

of the intended scope of the statutory 

prohibition. 

We codified this policy as a regulatory 

exception under § 447.10(g)(4) to permit 

withholding from the payment due to 

the individual practitioner for amounts 

paid by the State directly to third parties 

for health and welfare benefits, training 

costs, and other benefits customary for 

employees. In an August 3, 2016 Center 

for Medicaid and CHIP Services 

Informational Bulletin, we outlined 

suggested approaches for strengthening 

and stabilizing the Medicaid home care 

workforce, including by supporting 

home care worker training and 

development. We noted that under 

§ 447.10(g)(4), State Medicaid agencies 

could facilitate this goal by, with the 

consent of the individual practitioner, 

making payment on behalf of the 

practitioner to a third party that 

provides benefits to the workforce, such 

as health insurance, skills training, and 

other benefits customary for 

employees.1


JSPEARS on DSK121TN23PROD with RULES1