This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

20701

Vol. 61, No. 90

Wednesday, May 8, 1996

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Part 532

RIN 3206–AH28

Prevailing Rate Systems; Changes in

Survey Responsibilities for Certain

Appropriated Fund Federal Wage

System Wage Areas

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel

Management (OPM) is issuing a final

rule to change survey responsibilities

for several appropriated fund Federal

Wage System (FWS) wage areas in

recognition of shifting employment

patterns among agencies and the need

for lead agencies to balance their wage

survey workloads throughout the 2-year

survey cycle. The changes are designed

to improve administration of the Federal

Wage System and affect the following

local wage areas: Eastern South Dakota;

Ft. Wayne-Marion, Indiana; Madison,

Wisconsin; Buffalo, New York;

Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; Augusta,

Maine; Southeastern Michigan; and

Southwestern Oregon.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 7, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Angela Graham Humes, (202) 606–2848.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On

February 9, 1996, OPM published a

proposed rule (61 FR 4940) to change

the survey responsibilities (lead agency

designation and/or wage survey timing)

for eight appropriated fund FWS wage

areas (Eastern South Dakota; Ft. WayneMarion, Indiana; Madison, Wisconsin;

Buffalo, New York; Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania; Augusta, Maine;

Southeastern Michigan; and

Southwestern Oregon). The proposed

rule provided for a 30-day period for

public comment. OPM received no

comments during the comment period.

Therefore, the proposed rule is being

adopted as a final rule.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that these regulations will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities

because they will affect only Federal

agencies and employees.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532

Administrative practice and

procedure, Freedom of information,

Government employees, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements, Wages.

Office of Personnel Management.

Lorraine A. Green,

Deputy Director.

Accordingly, OPM is amending 5 CFR

part 532 as follows:

PART 532—PREVAILING RATE

SYSTEMS

1. The authority citation for part 532

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; § 532.707

also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552.

2. Appendix A to subpart B of part

532 is amended by revising the entries

for Fort Wayne-Marion, Indiana;

Augusta, Maine; Southwestern

Michigan; Buffalo, New York;

Southwestern Oregon; Pittsburgh,

Pennsylvania; Eastern South Dakota;

and Madison, Wisconsin, and by adding

a footnote to read as follows:

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART B OF PART 532—NATIONWIDE SCHEDULE OF APPROPRIATED FUND REGULAR WAGE SURVEYS

State Wage area Lead

agency Beginning month of survey

Fiscal year

of full

scale odd

or even

* * * * *

Indiana .................................................. Fort Wayne-Marion .............................. DoD October ................................................ Odd.

* * * * *

Maine .................................................... Augusta 1 ............................................. VA May ...................................................... Even.

* * * * *

Michigan ............................................... Southwestern Michigan 1 ..................... VA October ................................................ Odd.

* * * * *

New York .............................................. Buffalo 1 ............................................... DoD September ........................................... Odd.

* * * * *

Oregon .................................................. Southwestern Oregon .......................... VA June ..................................................... Even.

Pennsylvania ........................................ Pittsburgh ............................................. VA July ...................................................... Odd.

* * * * *

South Dakota ........................................ Eastern South Dakota 1 ....................... DoD October ................................................ Even.

* * * * *

Wisconsin ............................................. Madison ............................................... DoD July ...................................................... Even.
20702 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 90 / Wednesday, May 8, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

APPENDIX A TO SUBPART B OF PART 532—NATIONWIDE SCHEDULE OF APPROPRIATED FUND REGULAR WAGE

SURVEYS—Continued

State Wage area Lead

agency Beginning month of survey

Fiscal year

of full

scale odd

or even

* * * * *

1The revised fiscal year entries are scheduled to begin for Augusta, Maine, in fiscal year 1996; for Buffalo, New York, and Southwestern

Michigan in fiscal year 1997; and for Eastern South Dakota in fiscal year 1998.

[FR Doc. 96–11379 Filed 5–7–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 51

[Docket Number FV–93–301]

Florida Grapefruit, Florida Oranges

and Tangelos, and, Florida Tangerines;

Grade Standards

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule revises the

United States Standards for Grades of

Florida Grapefruit, United States

Standards for Grades of Florida Oranges

and Tangelos, and, United States

Standards for Grades of Florida

Tangerines. The Agricultural Marketing

Service (AMS), in cooperation with

industry, and other interested parties

develops and improves standards of

quality, condition, quantity, grade and

packaging in order to facilitate

commerce by providing buyers, sellers,

and quality assurance personnel

uniform language and criteria for

describing various levels of quality and

condition as valued in the marketplace.

The revisions will: Redefine terms to

reflect more clearly current cultural and

marketing practices; add and revise the

grades so as to make them uniform and

consistent with each other and other

recently revised U.S. grade standards;

express defect tolerances in terms of

percentages instead of specific numbers

of defective fruit; revise the size sections

to provide greater flexibility in

marketing and packaging new varieties

of fruit; and, delete references to a

visual aid which is no longer available.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This regulation is

effective August 1, 1996. The

incorporation by reference of certain

publications listed in the regulations is

approved by the Director of the Federal

Register as of August 1, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Frank O’Sullivan, Fresh Products

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Division,

Agricultural Marketing Service, U.S.

Department of Agriculture, P.O. Box

96456, Room 2056 South Building,

Washington, DC 20090–6456, (202) 720–

2185.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The U.S.

Department of Agriculture (USDA) is

issuing this rule in conformance with

Executive Order 12866.

Pursuant to the requirements set forth

in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5

U.S.C. 601 et. seq.), AMS has

determined that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

The revision of U.S. Standards for

Grades of Florida Grapefruit, U.S.

Standards for Grades of Florida Oranges

and Tangelos, and U.S. Standards for

Grades of Florida Tangerines will not

impose substantial direct economic cost,

recordkeeping, or personnel workload

changes on small entities, and will not

alter the market share or competitive

position of these entities relative to large

businesses.

The final rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12778, Civil

Justice Reform. This action is not

intended to have retroactive effect. This

final 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 the rule.

Agencies periodically review existing

regulations. An objective of the review

is to ensure that the grade standards are

serving their intended purpose, the

language is clear, and the standards are

consistent with AMS policy and

authority.

The proposed rule, United States

Standards for Grades of Florida

Grapefruit, Florida Orange and

Tangelos, and Florida Tangerines, was

published in the Federal Register on

February 22, 1995, (60 FR 9990–10004).

The Florida Citrus Packers (FCP),

which represents the majority of citrus

growers and packers in Florida,

requested that the standards be revised

in order to bring them into conformity

with current cultural, harvesting and

marketing practices developed since the

standards were last revised in December

1980.

The 60-day comment period ended

April 24, 1995, and a total of fourteen

comments were received from growers,

shippers, receivers, and researchers.

Nine comments from growers, and

shippers were in favor of the proposal

in its entirety. These commentors agreed

that due to changes in current cultural,

harvesting, and marketing practices of

Florida citrus, it was necessary to

change the standards as proposed.

A copy of the proposed rule was

provided to the Agricultural Research

Service (ARS) for help in identifying

studies, data collection or other

information concerning the possible

effect of the proposed revision on

pesticide use. ARS was unable to

identify any relevant information.

One comment from a broker did not

address the provisions of the proposal,

and indicated that the standards do not

pertain to them.

One comment stated that they were

‘‘not in favor of the proposed changes

and that there needs to be an effort to

bring about standardization of grades of

citrus.’’ AMS disagrees. In light of the

vast differences between the various

citrus growing regions in the United

States and the necessary differences in

their respective citrus products, it

would not be helpful to commerce in

these commodities to create one U.S.

standard that could not accurately

identify quality and condition

characteristics.

Two comments were in favor of the

proposal except for its provisions

regarding size, bruising, oil spots and

skin breakdown. One comment from a

grower/shipper/marketer stated that in

the proposal §§ 51.762, 51.1153, and

51.1822 paragraph (a) concerning

‘‘approved and recognized methods’’

could be misconstrued to refer to pack

patterns in the current size sections and

therefore should reference the Florida

Department of Citrus Code, a State

regulation. AMS disagrees. Although