Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 25555

enrollment of each adult participant

including information used to

determine eligibility for free and

reduced price meals in accordance with

§ 226.23(e)(1).

* * * * *

12. In Section 226.23:

a. Paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(C) is revised;

b. Paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(D) is amended

by removing the words ‘‘total current

household income, and the’’;

c. Paragraph (e)(1)(ii)(F) is amended

by removing the first four sentences and

by adding six new sentences in their

place.

d. Paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(C) is revised;

e. Paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(D) is amended

by removing the words ‘‘total current

household income, and the’’;

f. Paragraph (e)(1)(iii)(E) is amended

by removing the first four sentences and

by adding six new sentences in their

place;

g. Paragraph (e)(4) is amended by

adding a new sentence at the beginning

of the paragraph;

h. Paragraphs (h)(2)(iv) through

(h)(2)(viii) are redesignated as

paragraphs (h)(2)(v) through (h)(2)(ix);

and

i. Paragraph (h)(2)(iii) is amended by

redesignating all text after the second

sentence as paragraph (h)(2)(iv), and by

revising the remaining text in paragraph

(h)(2)(iii).

The additions and revisions specified

above read as follows:

§ 226.23 Free and reduced-price meals.

* * * * *

(e)(1) * * *

(ii) * * *

(C) The social security number of the

adult household member who signs the

application, or an indication that he/she

does not possess a social security

number;

* * * * *

(F) A statement which includes

substantially the following information:

‘‘Section 9 of the National School Lunch

Act requires that, unless a food stamp or

AFDC case number is provided for your

child, you must include a social security

number on the application. This must

be the social security number of the

adult household member signing the

application. If the adult household

member signing the application does

not possess a social security number,

he/she must indicate so on the

application. Provision of a social

security number is not mandatory, but

if a social security number is not

provided or an indication is not made

that the adult household member

signing the application does not have

one, the application cannot be

approved. This notice must be brought

to the attention of the household

member whose social security number

is disclosed. The social security number

may be used to identify the household

member in carrying out efforts to verify

the correctness of information stated on

the application. * * *

* * * * *

(iii) * * *

(C) The social security number of the

adult household member who signs the

application, or an indication that he/she

does not possess a social security

number;

* * * * *

(E) A statement which includes

substantially the following information:

‘‘Section 9 of the National School Lunch

Act requires that, unless a food stamp

case number or SSI or Medicaid

assistance identification number is

provided for the adult for whom

benefits are sought, you must include a

social security number on the

application. This must be the social

security number of the adult household

member signing the application. If the

adult household member signing the

application does not possess a social

security number, he/she must indicate

so on the application. Provision of a

social security number is not

mandatory, but if a social security

number is not provided or an indication

is not made that the adult household

member signing the application does

not have one, the application cannot be

approved. This notice must be brought

to the attention of the household

member whose social security number

is disclosed. The social security number

may be used to identify the household

member in carrying out efforts to verify

the correctness of information stated on

the application. * * *

* * * * *

(4) * * * The institution shall take

the income information provided by the

household on the application and

calculate the household’s total current

income. * * *

* * * * *

(h) * * *

(2) * * *

(iii) Households shall be informed in

writing that they have been selected for

verification and they are required to

submit the requested verification

information to confirm their eligibility

for free or reduced-price benefits by

such date as determined by the State

agency. Those households shall be

informed of the type or types of

information and/or documents

acceptable to the State agency and the

name and phone number of an official

who can answer questions and assist the

household in the verification effort. This

information must include a social

security number for each adult

household member or an indication that

he/she does not have one. State agencies

shall inform selected households that:

(A) Section 9 of the National School

Lunch Act requires that, unless

households provide the child’s food

stamp or AFDC case number, or the

adult participant’s food stamp case

number or SSI or Medicaid assistance

identification number, those selected for

verification must provide the social

security number of each adult

household member;

(B) In lieu of providing a social

security number, an adult household

member may indicate that he/she does

not possess one;

(C) Provision of a social security

number is not mandatory, but if a social

security number is not provided for

each adult household member or an

indication is not made that he/she does

not possess one, benefits will be

terminated;

(D) The social security number may

be used to identify household members

in carrying out efforts to verify the

correctness of information stated on the

application and continued eligibility for

the program. These verification efforts

may be carried out through program

reviews, audits, and investigations and

may include contacting employers to

determine income, contacting Federal,

State or local agencies to determine

current certification for receipt of food

stamps or AFDC, SSI or Medicaid

benefits, contacting the State

employment security office to determine

the amount of benefits received, and

checking the documentation produced

by household members to prove the

amount of income received. These

efforts may result in loss or reduction of

benefits, administrative claims or legal

actions if incorrect information was

reported; and

(E) This information must be provided

to the attention of each adult household

member disclosing his/her social

security number. State agencies shall

ensure that the notice complies with

section 7 of Pub. L. 93–579 (Privacy Act

of 1974). These households shall be

provided with the name and phone

number of an official who can assist in

the verification effort.

* * * * *

Dated: April 30, 1996.

William E. Ludwig,

Administrator.

[FR Doc. 96–12851 Filed 5–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–30–U
25556 Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 980

[FV95–980–1FR]

Vegetables; Import Regulations;

Modification of Regulatory Time

Periods for Imported Onions

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule modifies the

time periods when imported onions are

regulated based on the grade, size,

quality, and maturity requirements of

the South Texas onion and IdahoEastern Oregon onion marketing orders.

The change is needed to make the onion

import requirements consistent with

regulatory time period changes made

under the South Texas onion marketing

order.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 4, 1996.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert F. Matthews, Marketing

Specialist, Marketing Order

Administration Branch, F&V, AMS,

USDA, room 2523–S, P.O. Box 96456,

Washington, DC 20090–6456; telephone:

(202) 690–0464; Fax number (202) 720–

5698.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule

is issued under section 8e of the

Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act

of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674),

hereinafter referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’

The Department of Agriculture

(Department) is issuing this final rule in

conformance with Executive Order

12866.

This final rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12778, Civil

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended

to have retroactive effect. This rule will

not preempt any State or local laws,

regulations, or policies, unless they

present an irreconcilable conflict with

this rule. There are no administrative

procedures which must be exhausted

prior to any judicial challenge to the

provisions of this rule.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), 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. There

are approximately 148 importers of

onions who will be affected by this rule.

Small agricultural service firms, which

include onion importers, have been

defined by the Small Business

Administration (13 CFR 121.601) as

those having annual receipts of less than

$5,000,000. The majority of onion

importers may be classified as small

entities.

Import regulations issued under the

Act are based on regulations established

under Federal marketing orders which

regulate the handling of domestically

produced products. Thus, this final rule

should have small entity orientation,

and impact on both small and large

business entities in a manner

comparable to rules issued under

marketing orders. This rule modifies the

dates when imported onions are

regulated, based on requirements of the

South Texas onion and Idaho-Eastern

Oregon onion marketing orders.

Section 8e of the Act provides that

whenever certain specified

commodities, including onions, are

regulated under a Federal marketing

order, imports of that commodity into

the United States are prohibited unless

they meet the same or comparable

grade, size, quality, and maturity

requirements. Section 8e also provides

that whenever two or more marketing

orders regulate the same commodity

produced in different areas of the

United States, the Secretary shall

determine with which area the imported

commodity is in most direct

competition and apply regulations

based on that area to the imported

commodity.

Marketing Order No. 958 regulates

onions grown in certain counties of

Idaho and Eastern Oregon and

Marketing Order No. 959 regulates

onions grown in South Texas. Fresh

onion shipments from Idaho-Eastern

Oregon are regulated throughout the

year, while onion shipments from South

Texas had been regulated from March 1

through June 15 each year. On the basis

of past shipment data, the Secretary

determined that onions imported during

the March 10 through June 15 period

were in most direct competition with

onions grown in South Texas and found

that the minimum grade, size, quality,

and maturity requirements for onions

imported during that period should be

the same as those established for South

Texas onions under Marketing Order

No. 959. The Secretary further

determined that onions imported during

the June 16 through March 9 period

were in most direct competition with

onions grown in Idaho-Eastern Oregon

and that the minimum grade, size,

quality, and maturity requirements for

onions imported during that period

should be the same as those established

for Idaho-Eastern Oregon onions under

Marketing Order No. 959.

Based on a recommendation of the

South Texas Onion Committee

(committee), the agency responsible for

local administration of Marketing Order

No. 959, the Department has changed

the end of the South Texas regulatory

period from June 15 to June 4. Because

South Texas onions will no longer be

regulated after June 4, and Idaho-Eastern

Oregon onions are regulated throughout

the year, the Department has

determined that onions imported during

the March 10 through June 4 period are

in most direct competition with onions

produced in South Texas and that the

minimum grade, size, quality, and

maturity requirements established

under the South Texas marketing order

should apply to onions imported during

the March 10 through June 4 period,

instead of the previous March 10

through June 15 period. Imports of

onions during the June 5 through March

9 period will be required to meet

minimum grade, size, quality, and

maturity requirements based on those

established under the Idaho-Eastern

Oregon marketing order.

The proposed rule concerning this

action was published in the February 9,

1996, Federal Register (61 FR 4941),

with a 30-day comment period ending

March 11, 1996. No comments were

received.

In accordance with section 8e of the

Act, the U.S. Trade Representative has

concurred with the issuance of this final

rule.

Based on the above, the AMS has

determined that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

After consideration of all relevant

matter presented, it is hereby found that

this rule, as hereinafter set forth, will

tend to effectuate the declared policy of

the Act.

Pursuant to 5 U.S.C 553, it is further

found that good cause exists for not

postponing the effective date of this

action until 30 days after publication in

the Federal Register because: (1) This

regulation imposes no additional

restrictions on onion importers by

ending import requirements based on

South Texas on June 4 of each season

rather than June 15 of each season; (2)

section 8e of the Act requires import

requirements based on South Texas (7

CFR part 959) to change to those based

on Idaho-Eastern Oregon (7 CFR part

958) when South Texas is no longer the

area of production with which the

imported commodity is in most direct

competition; (3) changing the ending

date of the domestic regulation was

discussed at a public meeting, and all

interested persons had an opportunity

to provide input; and (4) there are no
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 100 / Wednesday, May 22, 1996 / Rules and Regulations 25557

regulatory burdens imposed by this rule

which require special preparations of

importers.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 980

Food grades and standards, Imports,

Marketing agreements, Onions, Potatoes,

Tomatoes.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 980 is hereby

amended as follows:

PART 980—VEGETABLES; IMPORT

REGULATIONS

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 980 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.

§ 980.117 [Amended]

2. In § 980.117, paragraph (a)(2) is

amended by removing ‘‘June 16’’ and

adding in its place ‘‘June 5’’ and by

removing ‘‘June 15’’ and adding in its

place ‘‘June 4’’; paragraph (b)(1) is

amended by removing ‘‘June 16’’ and

adding in its place ‘‘June 5’’; and

paragraph (b)(2) is amended by

removing ‘‘June 15’’ and adding in its

place ‘‘June 4.’’

Dated: May 14, 1996.

Robert C. Keeney,

Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 96–12836 Filed 5–21–96; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 95–NM–185–AD; Amendment

39–9629; AD 96–11–04]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 and Model DC–9–

80 Series Airplanes, Model MD–88

Airplanes, and C–9 (Military) Series

Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD),

applicable to certain McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 and Model DC–9–

80 series airplanes, Model MD–88

airplanes, and C–9 (military) series

airplanes, that requires modification of

the slant panel insulation blankets on

the slant pressure panel of the main

landing gear. The amendment also

requires a visual inspection to detect

discrepancies of the left and right seal

assemblies of the overwing emergency

exit door, and replacement of any

discrepant door seal. This amendment is

prompted by a report that the flaps and

landing gear did not extend or retract

properly due to water accumulation in

the slant pressure panel area. The

actions specified by this AD are

intended to prevent such water

accumulation, which could result in the

failure of the flaps or landing gear to

properly extend or retract.

DATES: Effective June 26, 1996.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of June 26,

1996.

ADDRESSES: The service information

referenced in this AD may be obtained

from McDonnell Douglas Corporation,

3855 Lakewood Boulevard, Long Beach,

California 90846, Attention: Technical

Publications Business Administration,

Department C1–L51 (2–60). This

information may be examined at the

Federal Aviation Administration (FAA),

Transport Airplane Directorate, Rules

Docket, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW.,

Renton, Washington; or at the FAA, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

Transport Airplane Directorate, 3960

Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California; or at the Office of the Federal

Register, 800 North Capitol Street, NW.,

suite 700, Washington, DC.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Brent Bandley, Aerospace Engineer,

Airframe Branch, ANM–120L, FAA, Los

Angeles Aircraft Certification Office,

3960 Paramount Boulevard, Lakewood,

California 90712; telephone (310) 627–

5237; fax (310) 627–5210.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: A

proposal to amend part 39 of the Federal

Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) to

include an airworthiness directive (AD)

that is applicable to certain McDonnell

Douglas Model DC–9 and Model DC–9–

80 series airplanes, Model MD–88

airplanes, and C–9 (military) series

airplanes was published in the Federal

Register on January 31, 1996 (61 FR

3341). That action proposed to require

modification of the slant panel

insulation blankets on the slant pressure

panel of the main landing gear. That

action also proposed to require a visual

inspection to detect discrepancies of the

left and right seal assemblies of the

overwing emergency exit door, and

replacement of the discrepant door seal.

Interested persons have been afforded

an opportunity to participate in the

making of this amendment. Due

consideration has been given to the

comments received.

Support for the Proposal

Two commenters support the

proposed rule.

Requests to Extend the Compliance

Time

Several commenters request that the

compliance time for accomplishment of

the modification be extended from the

proposed 24 months. These commenters

request an extension to as much as 36

months, which will allow the

modification to be accomplished during

a regularly scheduled heavy

maintenance check when the airplanes

are brought to main base for an

extended hold. Two of these

commenters state that they would have

to special schedule their fleet in order

to accomplish the modification within

the proposed compliance time; this

would entail considerable additional

expenses.

After consideration of all the available

information, the FAA cannot conclude

that an extension of the proposed

compliance time is warranted. In

developing an appropriate compliance

time for this action, the FAA considered

not only the degree of urgency

associated with addressing the subject

unsafe condition, but the availability of

required parts and the practical aspect

of accomplishing the required

modification within an interval of time

that parallels normal scheduled

maintenance for the majority of affected

operators. Further, the proposed

compliance time of 24 months was

arrived at initially with the concurrence

of affected operators, the manufacturer,

and the FAA. In light of this, and in

consideration of the amount of time that

has already elapsed since issuance of

the original notice, the FAA has

determined that further delay of

accomplishment of the requirements of

this final rule is not appropriate.

However, under the provisions of

paragraph (b) of the final rule, the FAA

may approve requests for adjustments to

the compliance time if data are

submitted to substantiate that such an

adjustment would provide an acceptable

level of safety.

Conclusion

After careful review of the available

data, including the comments noted

above, the FAA has determined that air

safety and the public interest require the

adoption of the rule as proposed.

Cost Impact

There are approximately 1,500

McDonnell Douglas Model DC–9 and

Model DC–9–80 series airplanes, Model

MD–88 airplanes, and C–9 (military)

series airplanes of the affected design in