Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 17631

PART 272—REQUIREMENTS FOR

PARTICIPATING STATE AGENCIES

2. In § 272.1, paragraph (g)(138) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 272.1 General terms and conditions.

* * * * *

(g) Implementation * * *

(138) Amendment No. 359 The

provision of Amendment No. 359

regarding the medical expense

deduction is effective and must be

implemented no later than October 1,

1994. Any variances resulting from

implementation of the provisions of this

amendment shall be excluded from

error analysis for 120 days from this

required implementation date in

accordance with 275.12(d)(2)(vii) of this

chapter. The provision must be

implemented for all households that

newly apply for Program benefits on or

after the required implementation date.

State agencies must notify households

eligible for the deduction of the change

in medical deduction reporting

requirements and the right of the

household to be converted to those new

procedures immediately. The current

caseload shall be converted to these

provisions at the household’s request, at

the time of recertification, or when the

case is next reviewed, whichever occurs

first.

* * * * *

PART 273—CERTIFICATION OF

ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLDS

3. In § 273.10, the eighth sentence of

paragraph (d)(4) is removed, and three

new sentences are added to the end of

paragraph to read as follows:

§ 273.10 Determining household eligibility

and benefit levels.

* * * * *

(d) Determining deductions. * * *

(4) Anticipating expenses. * * * If

the household voluntarily reports a

change in its medical expenses, the

State agency shall verify the change in

accordance with § 273.2(f)(8)(ii) if the

change would increase the household’s

allotment. The State agency has the

option of either requiring verification

prior to acting on the change, or

requiring the verification prior to the

second normal monthly allotment after

the change is reported. In the case of a

reported change that would decrease the

household’s allotment, or make the

household ineligible, the State agency

shall act on the change without

requiring verification, though

verification which is required by

§ 273.2(f)(8) shall be obtained prior to

the household’s recertification.

* * * * *

4. In § 273.21:

a. Paragraph (f)(2)(iv) is amended by

adding the words ‘‘, except medical

expenses,’’ after the words ‘‘prorated

over two or more months’’ in the first

sentence, and by adding a new sentence

after the first sentence.

b. The third sentence of paragraph (i)

is revised and a fourth sentence is

added.

c. Paragraph (j)(3)(iii)(C) is revised.

The revisions and addition read as

follows:

§ 273.21 Monthly Reporting and

Retrospective Budgeting (MRRB).

* * * * *

(f) Calculating allotments for

households following the beginning

months. * * *

(2) Income and deductions. * * *

(iv) * * * Medical expenses shall be

budgeted prospectively. * * *

* * * * *

(i) Verification. * * * If the

household voluntarily reports a change

in its medical expenses, the State

agency shall verify the change in

accordance with § 273.2(f)(8)(ii) before

acting on it if the change would increase

the household’s allotment. In the case of

a reported change that would decrease

the household’s allotment, or make the

household ineligible, the State agency

shall act on the change without

requiring verification, though

verification which is required by

§ 273.2(f)(8)(i) shall be obtained prior to

the household’s recertification.

(j) State agency action on reports.

* * *

(3) Incomplete filing. * * *

(iii) * * *

(C) If a household fails to verify a

change in reported medical expenses in

accordance with § 273.2(f)(8), and that

change would increase the household’s

allotment, the State agency shall not

make the change. The State agency shall

act on reported changes without

requiring verification if the changes

would decrease the household’s

allotment, or make the household

ineligible.

* * * * *

Dated: March 30, 1995.

Ellen Haas,

Under Secretary for Food, Nutrition, and

Consumer Services.

[FR Doc. 95–8492 Filed 4–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–30–U

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

7 CFR Part 354

[Docket No. 95–003–1]

Commuted Traveltime Periods:

Overtime Services Relating to Imports

and Exports

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are amending the

regulations concerning overtime

services provided by employees of Plant

Protection and Quarantine by removing

and adding commuted traveltime

allowances for travel between various

locations in Oregon, Washington, and

Wyoming. Commuted traveltime

allowances are the periods of time

required for Plant Protection and

Quarantine employees to travel from

their dispatch points and return there

from the places where they perform

Sunday, holiday, or other overtime

duty. The Government charges a fee for

certain overtime services provided by

Plant Protection and Quarantine

employees and, under certain

circumstances, the fee may include the

cost of commuted traveltime. This

action is necessary to inform the public

of commuted traveltime between these

locations.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 7, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.

Paul R. Eggert, Assistant to the Deputy

Administrator, Resource Management

Staff, PPQ, APHIS, Suite 4C03, 4700

River Road Unit 130, Riverdale, MD

20737–1228; (301) 734–7764.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations in 7 CFR, chapter III,

and 9 CFR, chapter I, subchapter D,

require inspection, laboratory testing,

certification, or quarantine of certain

plants, plant products, animals, animal

byproducts, or other commodities

intended for importation into, or

exportation from, the United States.

When these services must be provided

by an employee of Plant Protection and

Quarantine (PPQ) on a Sunday or

holiday, or at any other time outside the

PPQ employee’s regular duty hours, the

Government charges a fee for the

services in accordance with 7 CFR part

354. Under circumstances described in

§ 354.1(a)(2), this fee may include the

cost of commuted traveltime. Section

354.2 contains administrative

instructions prescribing commuted

traveltime allowances, which reflect, as
17632 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

nearly as practicable, the periods of time

required for PPQ employees to travel

from their dispatch points and return

there from the places where they

perform Sunday, holiday, or other

overtime duty.

We are amending § 354.2 of the

regulations by removing and adding

commuted traveltime allowances for

travel between various locations in

Oregon, Washington, and Wyoming.

The amendments are set forth in the

rule portion of this document. This

action is necessary to inform the public

of the commuted traveltime between the

dispatch and service locations.

Effective Date

The commuted traveltime allowances

appropriate for employees performing

services at ports of entry, and the

features of the reimbursement plan for

recovering the cost of furnishing port of

entry services, depend upon facts

within the knowledge of the Department

of Agriculture. It does not appear that

public participation in this rulemaking

proceeding would make additional

relevant information available to the

Department.

Accordingly, pursuant to the

administrative procedure provisions in

5 U.S.C. 553, we find upon good cause

that prior notice and other public

procedure with respect to this rule are

impracticable and unnecessary; we also

find good cause for making this rule

effective less than 30 days after

publication of this document in the

Federal Register.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This final rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12866. For this

action, the Office of Management and

Budget has waived its review process

required by Executive Order 12866.

The number of requests for overtime

services of a PPQ employee at the

locations affected by our rule represents

an insignificant portion of the total

number of requests for these services in

the United States.

Under these circumstances, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12372

This program/activity is listed in the

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

under No. 10.025 and is subject to

Executive Order 12372, which requires

intergovernmental consultation with

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part

3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12778

This final rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12778, Civil Just

Reform. This rule is intended to have

preemptive effect with respect to any

State or local laws, regulations, or

policies that conflict with its provisions

or that would otherwise impede its full

implementation. This rule is not

intended to have retroactive effect.

There are no administrative procedures

that must be exhausted prior to any

judicial challenge to the provisions of

this rule or the application of its

provisions.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule contains no new

information collection or recordkeeping

requirements under the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.).

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 354

Exports, Government employees,

Imports, Plant diseases and pests,

Quarantine, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Travel and

transportation expenses.

Accordingly, 7 CFR part 354 is

amended as follows:

PART 354—OVERTIME SERVICES

RELATING TO IMPORTS AND

EXPORTS; AND USER FEES

1. The authority citation for part 354

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 2260; 21 U.S.C. 136

and 136a; 49 U.S.C. 1741; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51,

and 371.2(c).

2. Section 354.2 is amended by

removing or adding in the table, in

alphabetical order, the information as

shown below:

§ 354.2 Administrative instructions

prescribing commuted traveltime.

* * * * *

COMMUTED TRAVELTIME ALLOWANCES

[In hours]

Location

covered

Served

from

Metropolitan area

Within Outside

[Remove]

* * * * *

Oregon:

Astoria .. .................. 1

Astoria .. Longview,

WA.

............. 3

* * * * *

Coos Bay

(including

North

Bend).

.................. 1

COMMUTED TRAVELTIME

ALLOWANCES—Continued

[In hours]

Location

covered

Served

from

Metropolitan area

Within Outside

Newport ... Coos Bay . ............. 5

Port Westward................... Astoria 2

* * * * *

Portland ... Longview,

WA.

............. 3

* * * * *

Westport .. Astoria ..... ............. 2

* * * * *

Washington:

* * * * *

Grays Harbor.Astoria,

OR.

............. 3

* * * * *

Kalama .... Longview . ............. 2

* * * * *

Longview . Astoria or

Portland,

OR.

............. 3

Longview . Longview . 2

* * * * *

Raymond . Astoria,

OR.

............. 2

* * * * *

Vancouver Longview . ............. 3

* * * * *

Willapa

Bay.

Astoria,

OR.

............. 2

* * * * *

Undesignated

Ports.

Astoria or

Portland,

Oregon,

Tacoma,

Seattle.

............. 3

* * * * *

[Add]

* * * * *

Washington:

* * * * *

Longview . Portland,

OR.

............. 3

* * * * *

Undesignated

Ports.

Portland,

OR, Tacoma,

Seattle.

............. 3

* * * * *

Wyoming:

Cheyenne................... 1
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 67 / Friday, April 7, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 17633

Done in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of

April 1995.

Lonnie J. King,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–8616 Filed 4–6–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 918

[Docket No. FV95–918–1]

Suspension of Provisions of Marketing

Order 918; Fresh Peaches Grown in

Georgia

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Suspension order.

SUMMARY: This rule is a continuation of

a suspension order that suspends, for

two additional fiscal years, effective

March 1, 1995, through February 28,

1997, all provisions of Federal

Marketing Order No. 918 for fresh

peaches grown in Georgia (order), and

the rules and regulations issued

thereunder. This rule is the result of a

recommendation for continued

suspension made by trustees of the

Georgia Peach Industry Committee

(trustees). The trustees’

recommendation was based upon the

belief that a State program, which is

currently active in market promotion

and merchandising for the Georgia

peach industry, could provide the

quality, maturity, and size regulations

that were in effect under the Federal

order, and would result in more

efficient use of industry funds. The

trustees believe more time is needed to

study changes in the industry, and any

new developments which could affect

the need for, or status of, the order.

EFFECTIVE DATE: March 1, 1995, through

February 28, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Pimental, Southeast Marketing

Field Office, 301 3rd St., NW., suite 201,

Winter Haven, Florida 33883–2276,

telephone 813–299–4770, or Mark

Kreaggor, Marketing Order

Administration Branch, Fruit and

Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O.

Box 96456, room 2525–S, Washington,

DC 20090–6456, telephone 202–720–

2431.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule

is issued under Marketing Agreement

and Order No. 918 (7 CFR part 918)

regulating the handling of peaches

grown in Georgia. The marketing

agreement and order is effective under

the Agricultural Marketing Agreement

Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–

674), hereinafter referred to as the

‘‘Act.’’ The suspension action is being

taken under the provisions of section

8c(16)(A) of the Act.

The Department of Agriculture

(Department) is issuing this rule in

conformance with Executive Order

12866.

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule is a continuation of a

suspension order than suspends,

effective March 1, 1995, through

February 28, 1997, all provisions of the

marketing order and the rules and

regulations issued thereunder. This rule

will not preempt any State or local laws,

regulations, or policies, unless they

present an irreconcilable conflict with

this rule.

The Act provides that administrative

proceedings must be exhausted before

parties may file suit in court. Under

section 8c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler

subject to an order may file with the

Secretary a petition stating that the

order, any provision of the order, or any

obligation imposed in connection with

the order is not in accordance with law

and requesting a modification of the

order or to be exempted therefrom. Such

handler is afforded the opportunity for

a hearing on the petition. After the

hearing the Secretary would rule on the

petition. The Act provides that the

district court of the United States in any

district in which the handler is an

inhabitant, or has as his or her principal

place of business, has jurisdiction in

equity to review the Secretary’s ruling

on the petition, provided a bill in equity

is filed not later than 20 days after date

of the entry of the ruling.

Pursuant to the requirements set forth

in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA),

the Administrator of the Agricultural

Marketing Service (AMS) has

considered the economic impact of this

action on small entities.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit

regulatory actions to the scale of

business subject to such actions in order

that small businesses will not be unduly

or disproportionately burdened.

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the

Act, and rules issued thereunder, are

unique in that they are brought about

through group action of essentially

small entities acting on their own

behalf. Thus, both statutes have small

entity orientation and compatibility.

There are approximately 20 handlers

of Georgia peaches and approximately

150 peach producers. Small agricultural

producers have been defined by the

Small Business Administration (13 CFR

121.601) as those having annual receipts

of less than $500,000. Small agricultural

service firms are defined as those whose

annual receipts are less than $5,000,000.

The majority of these handlers and

producers may be classified as small

entities.

Marketing Order 918 has been in

effect since 1942. The order provides for

the establishment of grade, size, quality,

maturity, container and inspection

requirements. In addition, the order

authorizes production research and

marketing research and development

projects. It also provides for reporting

and recordkeeping requirements on

affected handlers. The production and

marketing season runs from early March

through late July.

The Georgia Peach Industry

Committee members met on November

14, 1992, and unanimously

recommended suspension of the

marketing order at the end of the 1992–

93 fiscal period. The recommendation

was made to eliminate the expense of

administering the marketing order. The

members’ recommendation was based

on the belief that the quality, maturity,

and size standards that were in effect

under the order could be implemented

under a State program that concurrently

conducted market promotion activities

for the Georgia peach industry. The

members believed that by transferring

all functions to a single program,

industry funds would be used more

efficiently. While the Federal order

authorizes marketing research and

development projects, these activities

had been carried out under the authority

of the State program for several years.

The order also authorizes container

requirements and production research,

but these provisions had been inactive

for many years.

The committee members

recommended suspension, not

termination, of the marketing order to

allow the industry an opportunity to

review the effectiveness of operating

under only a State program. If problems

developed, the committee members

wanted the industry to have the

alternative of reactivating the Federal

marketing order.

During the suspension period, all nine

committee members (not including

alternates) served as trustees for the

Georgia Peach Industry Committee.

The trustees met on November 17,

1994, and unanimously recommended

extending the suspension of the

marketing order for two additional

years. The trustees’ recommendation

was based on the belief that extending

the suspension for two more years will

provide the industry with further

opportunity to study changes and any

new developments which could affect