issue-1996-04-19•Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-19
Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-19
issue-1996-04-19Federal Register final rules — 1996-04-19Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 96-9716 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and Development; Supportive Housing Program; Technical Correction
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17245-17246]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9716]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
24 CFR Part 583
[Docket No. FR-3379-C-02]
RIN A506-AB45
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and
Development; Supportive Housing Program; Technical Correction
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Community Planning and
Development, HUD.
ACTION: Technical correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document corrects the Department's regulations for the
Supportive Housing Program. The definitions for the terms ``Supportive
housing'' and ``Supportive services'' were incorrectly codified in the
1995 edition of the Code of Federal Regulations. This document will
correct those definitions.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 18, 1994.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jean Whaley, Program Development
Division, Office of Community Planning and Development, Department of
Housing and Urban Development, Room 7260, 451 7th Street, SW.,
Washington, DC 20410; telephone (202) 708-2140. (This is not a toll-
free number.) Hearing- or speech-impaired persons may access this
number via TTY by calling the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The regulations in 24 CFR part 583 implement
the Department's Supportive Housing Program, which provides assistance
for housing and supportive services for homeless persons, as authorized
by section 1403 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1992
(Pub. L. 102-550, approved
[[Page 17246]]
October 28, 1992). The Department established these regulations through
an interim rule published on March 15, 1993 (58 FR 13870). This interim
rule, in Sec. 583.5, provided definitions for the terms ``Supportive
housing'' and ``Supportive services''.
In a final rule published on July 19, 1994 (59 FR 36886), the
Department revised the introductory text for the definition of
``Supportive services''. However, this revision was incorrectly
codified in the 1995 edition of the Department's regulations in the
Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The revision was reflected in the
definition for ``Supportive housing'', rather than in the definition
for ``Supportive services'' as intended. Therefore, this document
corrects Sec. 583.5 so that it accurately reflects the definitions of
``Supportive housing'' and ``Supportive services'' as established in
the May 15, 1993 interim rule, and as revised in the July 19, 1994
final rule.
The effective date of this technical correction, August 18, 1994,
reflects the effective date of the July 19, 1994 final rule. The July
19, 1994 rule was the last revision of Sec. 583.5 prior to the 1995
codification.
List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 583
Homeless, Rent subsidies, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Supportive housing programs--housing and community development,
Supportive services.
PART 583--SUPPORTIVE HOUSING PROGRAM
Accordingly, 24 CFR part 583 is corrected as follows:
1. The authority citation for 24 CFR part 583 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 3535(d) and 11389.
2. In subpart A, Sec. 583.5 is corrected by removing the two
definitions for ``Supportive services'', and by adding, in alphabetical
order, definitions for ``Supportive housing'' and ``Supportive
services'', to read as follows:
Sec. 583.5 Definitions.
* * * * *
Supportive housing means housing in conjunction with which
supportive services are provided for homeless persons if:
(1) The housing is safe and sanitary and meets any applicable State
and local housing codes and licensing requirements in the jurisdiction
in which the housing is located and the requirements of this part; and
(2) The housing is:
(i) Transitional housing;
(ii) Permanent housing for homeless persons with disabilities; or
(iii) Is, or is a part of, a particularly innovative project for,
or alternative method of, meeting the immediate and long-term needs of
homeless persons.
Supportive services means services, which may be designed by the
recipient or program participants, designed to address the special
needs of the homeless persons to be served by the project. Supportive
services include, but are not limited to:
(1) Establishing and operating a child care services program for
homeless families;
(2) Establishing and operating an employment assistance program;
(3) Providing outpatient health services, food, and case
management;
(4) Providing assistance in obtaining permanent housing, employment
counseling, and nutritional counseling;
(5) Providing security arrangements necessary for the protection of
residents of supportive housing and for homeless persons using the
housing or services;
(6) Providing assistance in obtaining other Federal, State, and
local assistance available for such residents including mental health
benefits, employment counseling, Veterans' benefits, medical
assistance, but not including major medical equipment, and income
support assistance, such as Supplemental Security Income benefits, Aid
to Families with Dependent Children, General Assistance, and Food
Stamps; and
(7) Other services as appropriate.
* * * * *
Dated: April 12, 1996.
Camille E. Acevedo,
Assistant General Counsel for Regulations.
[FR Doc. 96-9716 Filed 4-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-29-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9712 Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Deep-water Species Fishery by Vessels using Trawl Gear
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17256]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9712]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
50 CFR Part 672
[Docket No. 960129018-6018-01; I.D. 041296C]
Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska; Deep-water Species Fishery by
Vessels using Trawl Gear
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Closure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for species that comprise
the deep-water species fishery by vessels using trawl gear in the Gulf
of Alaska (GOA). This action is necessary because the second seasonal
bycatch allowance of Pacific halibut apportioned to the deep-water
species fishery in the GOA has been caught.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), April 15, 1996,
until 12 noon, A.l.t., July 1, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Furuness, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the GOA exclusive
economic zone is managed by NMFS according to the Fishery Management
Plan for Groundfish of the Gulf of Alaska (FMP) prepared by the North
Pacific Fishery Management Council under authority of the Magnuson
Fishery Conservation and Management Act. Fishing by U.S. vessels is
governed by regulations implementing the FMP at 50 CFR parts 620 and
672.
In accordance with Sec. 672.20(f)(1)(i) the deep-water species
fishery, which is defined at Sec. 672.20(f)(1)(i)(B)(2) was apportioned
300 mt of Pacific halibut prohibited species catch for the second
season, the period April 1, 1996, through June 30, 1996 (61 FR 4304,
February 5, 1996).
The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined, in accordance
with Sec. 672.20(f)(3)(i), that vessels participating in the trawl
deep-water species fishery in the GOA have caught the second seasonal
bycatch allowance of Pacific halibut apportioned to that fishery.
Therefore, NMFS is prohibiting directed fishing for each species and
species group that comprise the deep-water species fishery by vessels
using trawl gear in the GOA. The species and species groups that
comprise the deep-water species fishery are: all rockfish of the genera
Sebastes and Sebastolobus, Greenland turbot, Dover sole, Rex sole,
arrowtooth flounder, and sablefish.
After the effective date of this closure the maximum retainable
bycatch amounts, calculated using the retainable percentages at
Sec. 672.20(g), apply at any time during a trip.
Classification
This action is taken under 50 CFR 672.20 and is exempt from review
under E.O. 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: April 15, 1996.
Richard H. Schaefer,
Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management, National
Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-9712 Filed 4-16-96; 3:34 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9705 Motor Vehicle Content Labeling
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17253-17256]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9705]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
49 CFR Part 583
[Docket No. 92-64; Notice 08]
RIN 2127-AG03
Motor Vehicle Content Labeling
AGENCY: National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA),
Department of Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Denial of petition for reconsideration.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The American Automobile Labeling Act requires passenger motor
vehicles (passenger cars and other light vehicles) to be labeled with
information about their domestic and foreign parts content. NHTSA
issued a final rule in July 1994 to implement that statute. In
September 1995, in response to petitions for reconsideration, the
agency issued a final rule modifying that final rule. This document
responds to a petition for reconsideration of the September 1995 final
rule. Upon review, the agency is denying the petition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Orron Kee, Office of Planning and
Consumer Programs, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Room
5313, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, DC 20590 (202-366-0846).
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On July 21, 1994, NHTSA published in the Federal Register (59 FR
37294) a new regulation, 49 CFR Part 583, Automobile Parts Content
Labeling, to implement the American Automobile Labeling Act (Labeling
Act). That Act, which is codified at 49 U.S.C. 32304, requires
passenger motor vehicles to be labeled with information about their
domestic and foreign parts content.
Under the Labeling Act and Part 583, vehicle manufacturers are
required to affix to all new passenger motor vehicles a label which
provides the following information: U.S./Canadian Parts Content, Major
Sources of Foreign Parts Content, Final Assembly Point, Country of
Origin for the Engine, and Country of Origin for the Transmission.
Vehicle manufacturers must calculate the information for the label,
relying on information provided to them by suppliers. Under the 1994
final rule, manufacturers and allied suppliers are required to request
their suppliers to provide the relevant content information specified
in Part 583, and the suppliers are required to provide the specified
information in response to such requests.
NHTSA received a number of petitions for reconsideration of the
1994 final rule, including one from the American Automobile
Manufacturers Association (AAMA). NHTSA issued two notices in response
to those petitions.
In a final rule published in the Federal Register (60 FR 14228) on
March 16, 1995, NHTSA partially responded to the petitions for
reconsideration by extending, for an additional year, a temporary
alternative approach for data collection and calculations. This
approach permits manufacturers and suppliers to use procedures that are
expected to yield similar results to the full procedures set forth in
Part 583. NHTSA provided this temporary alternative approach in the
1994 final rule because there was insufficient remaining time, before
the statutory date for beginning to provide labeling information, for
manufacturers to complete the full procedures. The agency provided the
one-year extension of the temporary approach in light of a substantial
number of complex issues raised about the full procedures in the
petitions for reconsideration and the time needed by the agency to
address those issues.
The agency completed its response to the petitions in a final rule
published in the Federal Register (60 FR 47878) on September 15, 1995.
The agency made a number of changes to reduce the burdens associated
with making content calculations and to produce more accurate
information.
The agency received one petition for reconsideration of the
September 1995 final rule. AAMA re-raised an issue that it had raised
in its first petition, concerning a provision in Part 583 which
specifies that the U.S./Canadian content of components must be
defaulted to zero if suppliers fail to respond to a manufacturer's or
allied supplier's request for content information. In initially
adopting this provision in the July 1994 final rule, the agency stated
that it did not believe that this situation will occur very often and
that the provision will ensure that U.S./
[[Page 17254]]
Canadian content is not overstated as a result of the manufacturer or
allied supplier simply assuming that equipment is of U.S./Canadian
origin in the absence of information from the supplier.
AAMA's First Petition and NHTSA's Response
In its first petition for reconsideration, AAMA argued that the
agency's expectation that few suppliers will fail to report is
unreasonable, especially within the first few years of implementation
of Part 583. For purposes of comparison, that organization stated that
requests by one of its members for data from suppliers for NAFTA
certificates of origin had yielded a response rate of only 50 to 60
percent. (In later information provided to the agency, AAMA indicated
that the percentage of suppliers reporting under NAFTA ranged from 60
to 65 percent for GM, Ford and Chrysler.)
AAMA argued in its first petition that the content information
ultimately provided to consumers will be more accurate if manufacturers
are permitted to establish the U.S./Canadian content of components by
other means when a supplier fails to respond. That organization
recommended that if a manufacturer or allied supplier does not receive
a response to its request for information, the manufacturer or allied
supplier should be permitted to use the information in its records to
determine the U.S./Canadian content. The determination could be made by
such means as examining the customs marking country, applying the
substantial transformation test, or other methodologies used for
customs purposes.
After considering AAMA's request in its petition for
reconsideration of the July 1994 final rule, NHTSA concluded that it
would be inappropriate under the statute to make the requested change.
The agency provided the following explanation:
* * * the Labeling Act provides that passenger motor vehicle
equipment supplied by outside suppliers is considered U.S./Canadian
if at least 70 percent of its value is added in the U.S./Canada. See
49 U.S.C. 32304(a)(9). The Labeling Act also provides that outside
suppliers are required to certify, among other things, whether their
equipment is of U.S./Canadian origin.
While it might appear at first glance to be reasonable to permit
manufacturers and allied suppliers to make origin determinations
concerning equipment provided by an outside supplier in the event
that the outside supplier fails to do so, the problem is that the
manufacturers and allied suppliers will not possess the information
needed to make the required determination. The agency assumes that
this is why AAMA suggests that manufacturers and allied suppliers be
permitted to determine whether equipment is U.S./Canadian based on
methods other than the value added approach specified in the
statute. However, the results that would be obtained from those
other methods would not necessarily be consistent with the value
added approach.
NHTSA also notes that the most likely instance in which an
outside supplier would not want to provide the required information
is when the U.S./Canadian content was below 70 percent. In such an
instance, it would be particularly inappropriate to permit the
manufacturer to use alternative methods for determining whether the
equipment was U.S./Canadian.
Moreover, the agency believes that vehicle manufacturers can
obtain the required information from suppliers, assuming that the
manufacturers and suppliers have the time to make any necessary
arrangements. Apart from the fact that outside suppliers are
required by Federal law to provide the information to manufacturers
and allied suppliers, the outside suppliers are dependent on the
auto manufacturers for their business. While NHTSA understands that
there may be some confusion at the time a new program is first
implemented, it does not believe that suppliers will deliberately
refuse to provide the information in response to manufacturers' and
allied suppliers' requests. The agency notes that the manufacturers
can put specific provisions in their purchase agreements to ensure
that they receive the required information.
In its March 1995 initial response to petitions, NHTSA extended
by one year the temporary alternative approach for data collection
and calculations which permits manufacturers and suppliers to use
procedures that are expected to yield similar results. For a more
complete discussion of this alternative, see 59 FR 37324-25, July
21, 1994.
The extension of this temporary alternative gives an extra year
for manufacturers and suppliers to work out any arrangements that
are necessary to ensure that suppliers provide the necessary
information to manufacturers. The agency believes that this should
provide appropriate flexibility in light of AAMA's concerns.
60 FR 47888.
AAMA's Second Petition and NHTSA's Response
AAMA continues to be concerned about the provision in Part 583
which specifies that the U.S./Canadian content of components must be
defaulted to zero if suppliers fail to respond to a manufacturer's or
allied supplier's request for content information. In its new petition
for reconsideration, AAMA noted that the September 1995 final rule
provided outside suppliers additional flexibility for determining U.S./
Canadian content and argued that the same flexibility should be
provided for vehicle manufacturers in situations where suppliers fail
to respond to requests for content information. AAMA argued that
NHTSA's expectation that simple contractual provisions can resolve
problems in gathering required data is incorrect and that the existing
``default-to-zero'' provision will result in inaccurate information
being provided to consumers.
NHTSA has carefully considered AAMA's arguments. For reasons
discussed below, the agency continues to believe that it would be
inappropriate under the statute to make the requested change.
The purported need to change the current provision rests on the
assumption that the vehicle manufacturers will be unable to obtain the
necessary content information from outside suppliers, notwithstanding
that Federal law requires the suppliers to provide this information.
Further, as discussed above, NHTSA noted in the September 1995 notice
that the vehicle manufacturers can put specific provisions in their
purchase agreements to ensure that they receive the required
information.
AAMA stated in its new petition for reconsideration that while
NHTSA assumes that all problems in gathering the required data can be
resolved by simple contractual provisions, its member companies'
extensive real-world experience refutes this notion. AAMA stated that
the elements of cost that lead to the ultimate price of a product are
considered by most business entities to be proprietary and are not
shared with the customer. AAMA stated that the industry's experience
demonstrates that, even with protracted efforts to obtain the data from
suppliers and multiple follow-up contacts, not all suppliers will
respond. According to AAMA, ``best efforts'' for one manufacturer have
resulted in response rates of approximately 70 percent. AAMA also
argued that in an age of increased single-sourcing and reliance on
just-in-time delivery, it is unrealistic for the agency to believe a
nonresponsive supplier could or would be replaced by a manufacturer
simply for not providing content data.
NHTSA notes that AAMA's petition did not discuss whether its member
companies experienced difficulty in obtaining content information from
suppliers in the presence or absence of specific contractual provisions
intended to ensure the provision of content information by suppliers.
As stated in the September 1995 notice, outside suppliers are dependent
on the vehicle manufacturers for their business. Therefore, the agency
believed, and continues to believe, that the ability to obtain the
necessary content
[[Page 17255]]
information is within the control of the vehicle manufacturers.
The purpose of including any specific provision in a business
contract is to make observance of the terms of that provision a
required element of the business relationship. Just as such things as
meeting material specifications, strength requirements and specified
time of delivery are a necessary part of a supplier's doing business
with a vehicle manufacturer and are ensured by provisions included in
contractual agreements, the providing of content information can also
be made a necessary part of that business relationship and be reflected
in the purchase contract.
Moreover, just as liquidated damages clauses can be inserted in a
contract for failure to comply with any other part of the contract, so
can such a provision be included for failure to provide timely content
reports. If a supplier knows that it will be paid less money if it
fails to provide content information, it will have a strong incentive
to provide the information.
The agency also notes that the supplier industry is highly
competitive. If one supplier is unwilling to agree to provide content
information (an agreement to do no more than comply with existing
Federal law), other suppliers would step in to take advantage of the
opportunity for new business.
For the above reasons, including those presented in the September
1995 notice, NHTSA continues to believe that the vehicle manufacturers
will be able to obtain the required content information from their
suppliers. While the rest of AAMA's arguments appear to be premised on
the manufacturers' inability to obtain that information, the agency
will nonetheless discuss those arguments.
AAMA argued that substantial nonreporting, such as the 30 percent
experienced despite the ``best efforts'' of one of its members, would
result in inaccurate labeling. However, NHTSA believes that substantial
nonreporting can be avoided if the vehicle manufacturers utilize the
types of contractual provisions discussed above. Moreover, as suppliers
become familiar with the content labeling program, those providing
parts having at least 70 percent U.S./Canadian content have an
additional incentive to report that information. To the extent that
vehicle manufacturers wish to adverse their vehicles with as high a
domestic percentage as possible, it is to the competitive advantage of
suppliers with parts having at least 70 percent U.S./Canadian content
to provide the necessary information to the vehicle manufacturers. For
this reason, and the others discussed above and in the September 1995
notice, the agency believes that these suppliers will not refuse to
provide information to the vehicle manufacturers. Therefore,
substantial nonreporting will not result in inaccurate labeling.
AAMA also argued that NHTSA should not assume that the vehicle
manufacturers have insufficient knowledge of their suppliers to make
reliable content estimates. As indicated above, AAMA noted that the
September 1995 final rule provided outside suppliers additional
flexibility for determining U.S./Canadian content and argued that the
same flexibility should be provided for vehicle manufacturers in
situations where suppliers fail to respond to requests for content
information.
The November 1994 final rule specified that outside suppliers could
only count the materials they used in producing equipment as U.S./
Canada to the extent that they had ``traced'' value added in the U.S./
Canadian to the extent that they had ``traced'' value added in the
U.S./Canada, back to raw materials. In the September 1995 final rule,
the agency provided additional flexibility to suppliers by permitting
them to base their estimate of value added in the U.S./Canada on all
information that is available to the supplier, e.g., information in its
records, information it can obtain from its suppliers, the supplier's
knowledge of manufacturing processes, etc. AAMA argued that the
nonresponsive supplier issue is essentially the ``same basic issue at
the manufacturers' level'' as the tracing issue was at the supplier
level and that the agency should not have treated the issues
differently.
NHTSA believes that there are fundamental differences between the
tracing issue and the nonresponsive supplier issue. The agency decided
to permit greater flexibility with respect to how suppliers determine
the U.S./Canadian value of the materials they use to produce equipment
primarily to avoid unnecessary burdens on suppliers. Tracing would have
been costly, and potentially impossible at production stages far
removed from the supplier. The nonresponsive supplier issue is not
related to regulatory burdens and, as discussed above, the agency
believes vehicle manufacturers have the ability to obtain the required
information from suppliers.
The agency also notes that there appears to be a paradox in AAMA's
suggesting that vehicle manufacturers have sufficient knowledge of
their suppliers to make reliable content estimates, while at the same
time stating that suppliers consider the elements of cost that lead to
the ultimate price of a product to be proprietary information not to be
shared with the customer. The content determination at issue is whether
a particular item of equipment has, or does not have, at least 70
percent value added in the U.S./Canada. To make this determination, it
is necessary to know a great deal about the value added by the supplier
and the source of materials used by the supplier. The supplier is
obviously in a much better position to make this determination about
its own equipment than the vehicle manufacturer because, for one thing,
the supplier knows how much value it added to the equipment.
While AAMA's petition focused on the nonresponsive supplier issue,
that organization also raised an issue concerning the specified
procedures for outside suppliers to use in estimating the U.S./Canadian
content of materials they purchase to produce items of passenger motor
vehicle equipment. Under the September 1995 final rule, the suppliers
are to make a good faith estimate of the value added in the U.S. or
Canada (to the extent necessary to make required determinations
concerning the value added in the U.S./Canada of their passenger motor
vehicle equipment), based on ``information that is available to the
supplier, e.g., information in its records, information it can obtain
from its suppliers, the supplier's knowledge of manufacturing
processes, etc.'' See Sec. 583.6(c)(4)(ii). AAMA stated that when
applying any of the optional methods, outside suppliers should not be
required to obtain value information from suppliers that have no
responsibility under the statute to respond.
NHTSA notes that the Labeling Act (Sec. 32304(e)) required the
agency to issue regulations which include provisions requiring outside
suppliers to certify whether their passenger motor vehicle equipment is
of U.S./Canadian origin. Moreover, as indicated above, the Labeling Act
provides that this determination must be based on whether the equipment
has at least 70 percent value added in the U.S./Canada. Therefore, the
content of the materials used to produce the equipment is a significant
factor in determining whether the equipment is U.S./Canadian.
The agency decided not to include requirements for lower-tier
suppliers in Part 583, as part of an effort to avoid unnecessary costs
and keep the regulatory scheme as simple as possible. This does not,
however, change the fact
[[Page 17256]]
that ``first-tier'' outside suppliers must certify whether their
equipment has at least 70 percent value added in the U.S./Canada. It
also does not change the fact that lower-tier suppliers, especially the
ones with which the outside suppliers deal directly, are a reliable
source for obtaining information that is relevant to making that
determination.
NHTSA believes it is reasonable to require outside suppliers to
make good faith estimates based on the information that is available to
them, and reliable information may well be available from their
suppliers. Therefore, the agency believes the current requirement is
reasonable.
Upon review, based on the reasons discussed above, NHTSA denies
AAMA's petition for reconsideration.
(Authority: 49 U.S.C. 32304; delegation of authority at 49 CFR
1.50.)
Issued on: April 15, 1996.
Ricardo Martinez,
Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-9705 Filed 4-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-59-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9656 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Little Potato Slough
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17247-17248]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9656]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD11-95-02]
RIN-2115-AE47
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; Little Potato Slough
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: At the request of the California Department of Transportation,
the Coast Guard is amending the regulation for the Highway 12 Swing
Bridge crossing over Little Potato Slough, mile 1.0, at Terminous, near
Stockton, California. The amended regulation stipulates that the draw
must open on 4 hours advance notice at all times. This amendment will
allow the bridge owner to reduce operating expenses, and will provide
for the reasonable needs of navigation.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Christian G. Cerles, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District,
Building 10, Room 214, Coast Guard Island, Alameda, CA. 94501-5100. The
telephone number is (510) 437-3514.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Discussion of the Amendment
Regulatory History
On February 10, 1995, the Coast Guard published a Notice of
Proposed Rulemaking for these regulations in the Federal Register (60
FR 7928). Interested parties were given until April 11, 1995 to submit
comments. The Coast Guard received 40 comments on the proposal. A
public hearing was not requested and one was not held.
Background and Purpose
The Coast Guard is changing the operating regulation for the Little
Potato Slough swing bridge to require 4 hours advance notice at all
times. The Little Potato Slough swing bridge was rebuilt at a higher
elevation in 1991. Prior to its reconstruction, the bridge provided
only 9 feet vertical clearance at Mean High Water and opened more than
3,000 times each year for vessel passage. After reconstruction, it
provides 35 feet vertical clearance and opens much less frequently. In
1993 it opened only 239 times, an average of less than one opening each
day. The Little Potato Slough Bridge can now pass most vessels without
an opening, and the remaining vessels can be accommodated with openings
provided on advanced notice.
[[Page 17248]]
Discussion of comments
One marina owner and one recreational mariner wrote in support of
the regulation. The Coast Guard received 29 postcards and 1 letter
indicating general opposition to any change in the regulations for
Sacramento and San Joaquin River Delta drawbridges. No specific
information was provided in those postcards and letter. The owners of
the Tower Park Marina, adjacent to the bridge, opposed the change on
the basis that it would be an inconvenience to their customers and
would result in a loss of business. They recommended that the existing
regulation be revised slightly to begin the winter operation schedule
one month earlier. Five recreational mariners who moor at, or frequent
Tower Park Marina also opposed the change as an inconvenience to their
use of the waterway. One of them recommended a shorter summer attended
schedule and one recommended openings on the hour or at other
predetermined times. The owner of the Steamboat Resort opposed any
reduced drawbridge service, and recommended providing attended service
during high use periods.
Although the advance notice will be less convenient for mariners
than attended service, it will accommodate all requests for bridge
openings. The number of openings averages less than one per day year-
round (1.3 openings per day during the summer months), thus the
regulation should meet the reasonable needs of navigation. The 4 hour
notice requirement is consistent with the notice requirements for other
bridges in this area, and has been used successfully in the past during
the unattended periods.
Two recreational mariners pointed out that a shoal at the mouth of
the Mokelumne River, the alternate waterway route, limits the access
for deeper draft recreational vessels. The new regulation will provide
for bridge openings at any time-with 4 hours advance notice, thus
deeper draft recreational vessels and commercial vessels will continue
to have access through Little Potato Slough.
The Dutra Dredging Company (Dutra) opposed the change as a
restriction on their operations including emergency response. As noted
above, although the advance notice will be less convenient for mariners
than attended service, it will accommodate all requests for bridge
openings. Second, emergency bridge openings must be provided at all
drawbridges ``as soon as possible'' for vessels in distress or
commercial vessels engaged in rescue or emergency salvage operations,
under 33 CFR 117.31. Dutra questioned whether openings would be
provided on 4 hour notice and believed that openings would be very
numerous on summer weekends. The applicant reaffirmed that openings
would be provided on 4 hours advance notice and provided bridge logs
which showed that there was no significant difference between openings
on summer weekdays or summer weekend days. Dutra also questioned
whether the operators called to open the bridge would be adequately
trained. The applicant advised that all personnel involved in operating
the bridge would be appropriately trained. Dutra noted that there have
been incidents of high-masted vessels losing power near the bridge and
if there was no one available to open the bridge promptly, there would
be damage to both the bridge and vessel. That is a possibility,
however, under those circumstances, the presence of a bridge operator
would not guarantee the safety of either the vessel or bridge, nor
would the absence of a bridge operator guarantee damage to either the
vessel or bridge.
Small Entities
Currently, the number of bridge openings averages less than one per
day year-round. Since the number of affected vessels is small, and the
regulation will still provide access for them, the economic impact to
the adjacent marina should also be small. Therefore, the Coast Guard
certifies under section 605(b) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) that this rule will not have a significant impact
on a substantial number of small entities.
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this proposal under the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that
this rule does not raise sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule
and concluded that, under section 2.B.2.g.(5) of Commandant Instruction
M16475.1B, promulgation of operating requirements or procedures for
drawbridges is categorically excluded from further environmental
documentation. A Categorical Exclusion Determination is available in
the docket.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of costs
under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget under that order. It is not significant
under the Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). The coast Guard expects
the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a Regulatory
Evaluation is unnecessary.
Collection of Information
This rule contains no collection of information requirements under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
Regulation
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
amending 33 CFR Part 117 as follows:
1. The authority citation for Part 117 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; CFR 1.46; and 33 CFR 1.05-1(g);
section 117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587,
106 Stat. 5039.
2. Section 117.167 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 117.167 Little Potato Slough.
The draw of the California Department of Transportation highway
bridge, mile 0.1, at Terminus, shall open on signal if at least 4 hours
notice is given to the drawtender at the Rio Vista bridge across the
Sacramento River, mile 12.8.
Dated: March 6, 1996.
R.A. Appelbaum,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 96-9656 Filed 4-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9655 Drawbridge Operation Regulations; San Leandro Bay, CA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17248-17249]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9655]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
33 CFR Part 117
[CGD11-96-005]
RIN 2115-AE47
Drawbridge Operation Regulations; San Leandro Bay, CA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is amending the regulation for the bridge over
San Leandro Bay to reflect the construction of a new bicycle bridge.
The city of Alameda has built a bascule bicycle
[[Page 17249]]
bridge adjacent to the bascule highway bridge over the entrance to San
Leandro Bay between Bay Farm Island and Alameda, California. The new
bridge is adjacent to the highway bridge, provides the same clearances,
and is operated by the bridgetender at the highway bridge on the same
schedule as the highway bridge. This amendment updates the existing
regulation to include reference to the new bicycle bridge.
EFFECTIVE DATE: April 19, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jerry P. Olmes, Bridge Section, Eleventh Coast Guard District, at (510)
437-3514.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the authority of 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(3)(B), the Coast Guard has for good cause determined that it is
unnecessary to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking for this
revision. There is no substantive change to the existing rule. The new
bridge will be operated by the drawtender at the Bay Farm Island
highway bridge, and will have the same hours of operation. There is no
change to the navigational clearances. When the Coast Guard advertised
the proposed issuance of a permit for the bridge, they described the
intended method of operation, and received no comment about the method
of operation.
Since there is no substantive change, there is no reason to delay
the effective date beyond the date of publication in the Federal
Register.
Drafting Information
The principal persons involved in drafting this document are Jerry
P. Olmes, Project Manager, and Lieutenant Anita Abbott, Project
Attorney.
Background and Purpose
The City of Alameda has built a bascule bicycle bridge adjacent to
the California Department of Transportation bascule highway bridge
between Bay Farm Island and Alameda, California. Construction is
nearing completion. The bicycle bridge provides the same clearances as
the highway bridge, and will be operated by the bridgetender at the
highway bridge on the same schedule as the highway bridge. The
amendment makes editorial changes to the regulation to reflect
construction of the new bicycle bridge.
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule under the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that
this rule does not raise sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this rule
and concluded that, under section 2.B.2.g.(5) of Commandant Instruction
M16475.1B, promulgation of operating requirements or procedures for
drawbridges is categorically excluded from further environmental
documentation. A Categorical Exclusion Determination is available in
the docket.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of costs
under section 6(a)(3) of that order. It has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget under that order. It is not significant
under the Department of Transportation Regulatory Policies and
Procedures (44 FR 11040, February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects
the economic impact of this rule to be so minimal that a Regulatory
Evaluation is unnecessary.
Collection of Information
This rule contains no collection of information requirements under
the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 117
Bridges.
Regulation
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard is
amending 33 CFR Part 117 as follows:
PART 117--DRAWBRIDGE OPERATION REGULATIONS
1.The authority citation for Part 117 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 499; 49 CFR 1.46; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g); section
117.255 also issued under the authority of Pub. L. 102-587, 106
Stat. 5039.
2. Section 117.193 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 117.193 San Leandro Bay.
The draws of the California Department of Transportation highway
bridge, mile 0.0 (kilometer 0.0) and the City of Alameda bicycle
bridge, mile 0.1 (kilometer 0.2) between Alameda and Bay Farm Island,
shall open on signal; except that, from 5 a.m. to 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. to
9 p.m., the draws shall open on signal if at least 12 hours notice is
given. Notice shall be given to the drawtender of the Bay Farm Island
bridges from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. and to the drawtender of the Park Street
bridge at Alameda at all other times. The draws need not be opened for
the passage of vessels from 9 p.m. to 5 a.m.
Dated: April 2, 1996.
R. A. Appelaum,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard Commander, Eleventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 96-9655 Filed 4-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9654 Special Local Regulations; City of Lake Worth, FL
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17246-17247]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9654]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Coast Guard
33 CFR Part 100
[CGD07-96-023]
RIN 2115-AE46
Special Local Regulations; City of Lake Worth, FL
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Temporary final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: Temporary special local regulations are being adopted for the
Lake Worth Sunfest 96. The event will be held on May 1st and 2nd, 1996
from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m. EDT (Eastern Daylight Time), on May 3rd, 1996
from 12 p.m. to 10 p.m. EDT, on May 4th and 5th, 1996 from 9 a.m. to 10
p.m. EDT on the Intracoastal Waterway, Lake Worth, Florida. These
regulations are necessary to provide for the safety of life on
navigable waters during the event.
EFFECTIVE DATES: This section is effective between 5:30 p.m. and 10:30
p.m. EDT on May 1st, and 2nd, 1996 between 11:30 a.m. and 10:30 p.m.
EDT on May 3rd 1996; and between 8:30 a.m. and 10:30 p.m. EDT, on May
4th and 5th 1996.
ADDRESSES: Unless otherwise indicated, documents referred to in this
preamble are available for copying and inspection at U.S. Coast Guard
Group Miami, 100 MacArthur Causeway, Miami Beach, FL 33139, between 8
a.m. and 3 p.m. EDT, Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
QMC T. Kjerulff, Operations Center Supervisor, U.S. Coast Guard Group
Miami at (305) 535-4448.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 553, a notice of
proposed rulemaking was not published for these regulations. Following
normal rulemaking procedures would have been impracticable. The
information necessary to hold the event was not received until January
29, 1996 and there was not sufficient time remaining to published
proposed rules in advance of the event or to provide for a delayed
effective date.
Discussion of Regulations
These temporary special local regulations are being adopted for the
Lake Worth Sunfest 96. The event will be held on May 1st and 2nd, 1996
from 6 p.m. to 10 p.m., on May 3rd, 1996 from 12 p.m. to 10 p.m., on
May 4th and 5th, 1996 from 9 a.m. to 10 p.m. on the intracoastal
waterway, Lake Worth, Florida. There will be approximately 20 racers in
ski boats, jet skis, and canoes, ranging in size from 12 to 17 feet,
participating in the Lake Worth Sunfest 96. Due to concentration of
participant and spectator vessels, these regulations are necessary to
provide for the safety of life on navigable waters during the event.
The event will take place in the Lake Worth Intracoastal Waterway
between the Royal Palm Bridge and the Flagler Memorial Bridge. There
will be a no wake zone between these two bridges.
Regulatory Evaluation
This rule is not a significant regulatory action under section 3(f)
of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an assessment of
potential costs
[[Page 17247]]
and benefits under section 6(a)(f) of that order. It has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget under that order. It is
not significant under the regulatory policies and procedures of the
Department of Transportation (DOT) (44 FR 11040; February 26, 1979).
The Coast Guard expects the economic impact of this proposal to be so
minimal that a full Regulatory Evaluation under paragraph 10e of the
regulatory policies and procedures of DOT is unnecessary. The regulated
area encompasses less than \3/4\ nautical mile on the Intracostal
Waterway between Flagler and Memorial bridges. Vessels entering the
regulated area will only be required to proceed at no wake speed for 5
hours on May 1st and 2nd 1996, 11 hours on May 3rd 1996 and 14 hours on
May 4th and 5th 1996.
Since the impact of this proposal is expected to be minimal, the
Coast Guard certifies that, if adopted, it will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
Collection of Information
These regulations contain no collection of information requirements
under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this rule in accordance with the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has
determined that this regulation does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environmental Assessment
The Coast Guard has considered the environmental impact of this
action consistent with Section 2.B.2. of Commandant Instruction
M16475.1B. In accordance with that section, this action has been
environmentally assessed (EA completed), and the Coast Guard has
determined that it will not significantly affect the quality of the
human environment. An environmental assessment and finding of no
significant impact have been prepared and are available for inspection
and copying at the address listed under ADDRESSES. As a condition to
the permit, the applicant is required to educate the operators of
spectator craft and parade participants regarding the possible presence
of manatees and the appropriate precautions to take if the animals are
sighted.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 100
Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Waterways.
Temporary Final Regulations
In consideration of the foregoing, Part 100 of Title 33, Code of
Federal Regulations, is amended as follows:
PART 100--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 100 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1233, 49 CFR 1.46 and 33 CFR 100.35.
2. A temporary Sec. 100.T07-023 is added as follows:
Sec. 100.T07-023 Special Local Regulations; Intracoastal Waterway at
Lake Worth, FL.
(a) Definitions. (1) Regulated area. A regulated area is
established in the Lake Worth Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) between the
Royal Palm Bridge and the Flagler Memorial Bridge, for the Width of the
ICW.
(2) Coastal Guard Patrol Commander. The Coast Guard Patrol
Commander is a commissioned, warrant, or petty officer of the Coast
Guard who has been designated by the Commander, Coast Guard Group
Miami, Florida.
(b) Special Local Regulations. (1) The regulated area is a no wake
zone. All transiting vessels shall operate a speed so as to not cause a
wake or at five (5) knots, whichever is slower.
(2) All vessels shall immediately follow any specific instructions
given by event patrol craft and exercise extreme caution while
operating in or near the regulated area. A succession of not fewer than
5 short whistle or horn blasts from a patrol vessel will be the signal
for any nonparticipating vessel to stop immediately. The display of an
orange distress smoke signal from a patrol vessel will be the signal
for any and all vessels to stop immediately.
(3) After the termination of the Sunfest 96 event for each
respective day and the regulated area, all vessels may resume normal
operations.
(c) Effective Dates. These regulations are effective on May 1st and
2nd 1996 at 5:30 p.m. EDT and terminate at 10:30 p.m.; on May 3rd 1996
at 11:30 a.m. and terminate at 10:30 p.m.; and on May 4th and 5th 1996
at 8:30 a.m. and terminate at 10:30 p.m.. These times are effective
unless the regulated area is sooner terminated by the Patrol Commander.
Dated: March 21, 1996.
Roger T. Rufe, Jr.,
Rear Admiral, U.S. Coast Guard, Commander, Seventh Coast Guard
District.
[FR Doc. 96-9654 Filed 4-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9652 Safety Zones: Elizabeth River and York River, VA
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17249-17250]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9652]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
33 CFR Part 165
[CGD 05-96-008]
RIN 2115-AA97
Safety Zones: Elizabeth River and York River, VA
AGENCY: Coast Guard, DOT.
ACTION: Temporary rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Coast Guard is establishing three temporary safety zones
on the Elizabeth and York Rivers during the dismantling and replacement
of the Coleman Bridge. The safety zones will include moving zones
around the tugs and tows carrying the bridge spans as they transit the
thirty miles between Norfolk International Terminals (NIT) and the
Coleman Bridge, a stationary zone in the Elizabeth River at NIT, and a
stationary zone in the York River at the Coleman Bridge. The safety
zones are needed to ensure the safety of mariners operating in the
vicinity and to ensure the safety of all personnel involved with the
movement of the bridge spans.
DATES: This rule is effective from 10 p.m. on April 24, 1996 to 10 p.m.
May 30, 1996, unless sooner terminated by the Captain of the Port.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Lieutenant Katherine Weathers, Chief, Port Safety and Security Branch,
Coast Guard Marine Safety Office Norfolk, VA, (804) 441-3290.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background and Purpose
A notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) for this temporary rule was
published on Thursday, March 14, 1996 (61 FR 10493). The comment period
for the NPRM ended April 3, 1996. No comments were received.
Changes from Proposed Rule
The Coast Guard adopts the proposed rule as a temporary rule except
that it is changing the effective date of the temporary rule. This
temporary rule will become effective on April 24, 1996 instead of April
26, 1996 as proposed in the NPRM. The first replacement bridge span was
moved from Norfolk to the area of the Coleman Bridge on March 27, 1996.
To ensure safety of that movement, the Coast Guard Captain of
[[Page 17250]]
the Port Hampton Roads issued a temporary rule [CGD 05-96-015]
establishing moving safety zones effective from March 26, 1996 through
April 24, 1996. This temporary rule will become effective upon
expiration of that existing temporary rule.
Discussion of Temporary Rule
The Coast Guard is establishing a 500-yard moving safety zone
around the tugs and tows transporting the bridge spans being used in
the Coleman Bridge Replacement Project. Tows consisting of two or three
barges abreast connected by pipe bracing and tension rods will be
pushed by two tugs attached at the hip. The bridge spans will sit
perpendicular to the barges atop steel towers simulating the height of
the bridge piers. The barges are specially configured for the carriage
of these spans and will be severely restricted in their ability to
maneuver and susceptible to wake damage. Therefore, these moving safety
zones will be in effect while the vessels transit each way between NIT
and the Coleman Bridge in both loaded and unloaded conditions.
The stationary zones will be in effect at both the Coleman Bridge
and at NIT where the new spans are currently located. The safety zone
at the Coleman Bridge will extend west upstream 500 yards and east
downstream 500 yards from the bridge, stretching from shore to shore.
This safety zone will be in effect during the entire dismantling and
replacement evolution. The safety zone at NIT will include all waters
within a line connecting red buoy 12 to red buoy 14, from buoy 12 due
east across the Norfolk Harbor Reach of the Elizabeth River to land,
and from buoy 14 due east across the reach to land. This safety zone
will only be enforced during the loading and unloading of the spans.
Regulatory Evaluation
This temporary rule is not a significant regulatory action under
section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 and does not require an
assessment of potential costs and benefits under section 6(a)(3) of
that order. It has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget under that order. It is not significant under the regulatory
policies and procedures of the Department of Transportation (DOT) (44
FR 11040; February 26, 1979). The Coast Guard expects the economic
impact of this temporary rule to be so minimal that a full Regulatory
evaluation under paragraph 10e of the regulatory policies and
procedures of DOT is unnecessary.
Small Entities
Under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), the
Coast Guard must consider whether this temporary rule will have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
``Small entities'' may include (1) small businesses and not-for-profit
organizations that are independently owned and operated and are not
dominant in their fields and (2) governmental jurisdictions with
populations of less than 50,000. Because of the limited duration and
location of the zones established under this rule, the Coast Guard
expects the impact of this temporary rule to be minimal, the Coast
Guard certifies under 5 U.S.C. 605(b) that this temporary rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Collection of Information
This temporary rule contains no collection-of-information
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et
seq.).
Federalism
The Coast Guard has analyzed this temporary rule under the
principles and criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and has
determined that this temporary rule does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
Environment
The Coast Guard considered the environmental impact of this
temporary rule and concluded that under paragraph 2.B.2.e(34) of
Commandant Instruction M16475.1B (as revised by 59 FR 38654; July 29,
1994), this temporary rule is categorically excluded from further
environmental documentation. A ``Categorical Exclusion Determination''
is available in the docket for inspection or copying.
List of Subjects in 33 CFR Part 165
Harbors, Marine Safety, Navigation (water), Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Security measures, Waterways.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, the Coast Guard amends 33
CFR part 165 as follows:
PART 165--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for Part 165 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 33 U.S.C. 1231; 50 U.S.C. 191; 33 CFR 1.05-1(g),
6.04-1, 6.04-6, and 160-5; 49 CFR 1.46.
2. Temporary Section 165.T05-008 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 165.T05-008 Safety Zone: James River, Elizabeth River, Chesapeake
Bay, Port of Hampton Roads, VA.
(a) Location. The following areas are safety zones:
(1) All waters within 500 yards of any tug and tow involved in
moving the Coleman Bridge spans while in both loaded and unloaded
condition while transiting in either direction between Norfolk
International Terminals (NIT) located on the Elizabeth River at the
Norfolk Harbor Reach and the Coleman Bridge, which crosses the York
River connecting Yorktown, Virginia with Gloucester Point, Virginia.
(2) All waters within 500 yards upstream and 500 yards downstream
of the Coleman Bridge in the York River.
(3) All waters within a line connecting red buoy 12 to red buoy 14,
and a line drawn due east from buoy 12 due east across the Norfolk
Harbor Reach of the Elizabeth River to land, and from buoy 14 due east
across the reach to land. This zone will be enforced during the loading
and unloading of the bridge spans at NIT.
(b) Definitions. Captain of the Port means the Captain of the Port
of Hampton Roads, VA. or any Coast Guard commissioned, warrant, or
petty officer who has been authorized by the Captain of the Port
Hampton Roads to act on his behalf.
(c) (1) In accordance with the general provisions in Secs. 165.23
and 165.501, entry into the zones described in paragraph (a) of this
section is prohibited unless authorized by the Captain of the Port. The
general requirements of Secs. 165.23 and 165.501 also apply to this
section.
(2) Persons or vessels requiring entry into or passage through the
safety zones must first request authorization from the Captain of the
Port. The Coast Guard vessels enforcing the safety zones can be
contacted on VHF Marine Band Radio, channels 13 and 16. The Captain of
the Port may be contacted at telephone number (804) 441-3314 or at the
Marine Safety Office, Hampton Roads, VA.
(d) The Captain of the Port will notify the public of vessel
movements and changes in the status of these zones by Marine Safety
Broadcast on VHF Marine Band Radio, Channel 22 (157.1 MHz).
Dated: April 12, 1996.
Dennis A. Sande,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the Port.
[FR Doc. 96-9652 Filed 4-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-14-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9618 Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Pacific Ocean Perch in the Western Aleutian District
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17256]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9618]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
50 CFR Part 675
[Docket No. 960129019-6019-01; I.D. 041596A]
Groundfish of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands Area; Pacific
Ocean Perch in the Western Aleutian District
AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce.
ACTION: Modification of a closure.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: NMFS is opening directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in
the Western Aleutian District of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
management area (BSAI). This action is necessary to fully utilize the
total allowable catch (TAC) of Pacific ocean perch in this area.
EFFECTIVE DATE: 12 noon, Alaska local time (A.l.t.), April 15, 1996,
until 12 midnight, A.l.t., December 31, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mary Furuness, 907-586-7228.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The groundfish fishery in the BSAI exclusive
economic zone is managed by NMFS according to the Fishery Management
Plan for the Groundfish Fishery of the Bering Sea and Aleutian Islands
Area (FMP) prepared by the North Pacific Fishery Management Council
under authority of the Magnuson Fishery Conservation and Management
Act. Fishing by U.S. vessels is governed by regulations implementing
the FMP at 50 CFR parts 620 and 675.
In accordance with Sec. 675.20(a)(7)(ii), the TAC of Pacific ocean
perch for the Western Aleutian District was established by the Final
1996 Harvest Specifications of Groundfish (61 FR 4311, February 5,
1996) for the BSAI as 5,143 metric tons (mt). The Western Aleutian
District was closed to directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch on
March 20, 1996 (58 FR 12041, March 25, 1996). As of March 30, 1996,
1,465 mt remain unharvested.
The Director, Alaska Region, NMFS, has determined that the 1996 TAC
for Pacific ocean perch in the Western Aleutian District has not been
reached. Therefore, NMFS is terminating the previous closure and is
reopening directed fishing for Pacific ocean perch in the Western
Aleutian District.
All other closures remain in full force and effect.
Classification
This action is taken under Sec. 675.20 and is exempt from review
under E.O. 12866.
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 et seq.
Dated: April 15, 1996.
Richard W. Surdi,
Acting Director, Office of Fisheries Conservation and Management,
National Marine Fisheries Service.
[FR Doc. 96-9618 Filed 4-15-96; 4:16 pm]
BILLING CODE 3510-22-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9613 Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing; Low-Income Public Housing Performance Funding SystemStreamlining
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17538-17542]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9613]
[[Page 17537]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Housing and Urban Development
_______________________________________________________________________
24 CFR Part 990
Low-Income Public Housing Performance Funding System; Streamlining;
Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 77 / Friday, April 19, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 17538]]
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
24 CFR Part 990
[Docket No. FR-3760-F-01]
RIN 2577-AB50
Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing;
Low-Income Public Housing Performance Funding System--Streamlining
AGENCY: Office of the Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian
Housing, HUD.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule eliminates obsolete provisions from part 990
that had been retained solely for historical purposes. Additionally,
revisions have been made to part 990 to reflect recent policy actions
relating to the submission of operating budgets and the elimination of
the maximum operating reserve.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: MaryAnn Russ, Deputy Assistant
Secretary, Office of Public and Assisted Housing Operations, Public and
Indian Housing, Room 4204, Department of Housing and Urban Development,
451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410, telephone (202) 708-0614.
For hearing or speech-impaired persons, this number may be accessed via
TDD by contacting the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-
8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
On March 4, 1995, President Clinton issued a memorandum on
regulatory reform wherein he directed all Federal departments and
agencies to, among other things, delete obsolete and unnecessary
regulations, and revise necessary regulations. The memorandum built on
the regulatory philosophy set forth in the President's Executive Order
12866 of September 30, 1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, which is
premised on the recognition of the legitimate role of government to
govern, but to do so in a focused and sensible way.
This final rule accomplishes the President's goal by eliminating
obsolete sections in 24 CFR part 990, and revising several other
sections.
In addition to the removal of obsolete provisions which had been
retained in the regulation for historical purposes, the rule has been
changed to reflect the following policy changes:
(1) In 1994, as part of HUD's reinvention efforts and
recommendations made as a result of the Public and Indian Housing
Statutory and Regulatory Review Program on financial management, a
streamlined operating budget submission procedure was adopted. HUD
waived the requirement in Section 407 of the Annual Contributions
Contract for the submission of annual operating budgets and revisions
for certain housing authorities (HAs) which have successfully passed
performance measures found in the Public Housing Management Assessment
Program.
(2) In 1995, HUD administratively removed the maximum allowable
operating reserve for the Low Rent Public Housing and Turnkey III
programs. As a result of this step, the requirement (for applicable
programs) to remit to HUD residual receipts generated out of operations
of HAs is inoperative because such residual receipts were created by a
maximum allowable operating reserve.
II. Summary of Amendments
Section 990.101 has been revised to remove a general discussion of
the background leading to the development of the Performance Funding
System (PFS) in 1975. It also removes an overview of the PFS which
summarized in a general way the basic elements of the PFS.
The following changes have been made to the definitions found in
Sec. 990.102. The statement that the Formula is subject to annual
update has been removed because the Formula published in this
regulation in 1992 is not updated annually. The definition of Interim
Formula has been removed because it is a historical reference to the
formula used before PFS. The definition of Local Inflation Factor has
been simplified to remove language describing the adoption of a revised
factor in 1982. The definition of Operating Budget has been revised to
reflect the fact that some HAs are no longer required to submit
operating budgets for HUD approval. Top of Range, which has changed
over time, is now defined here and will no longer have to be defined
each time it is referenced in Sec. 990.105.
Section 990.103 has been revised to eliminate a reference to the
starting dates for commencement of the PFS in 1975.
The following changes have been made to Sec. 990.105. Section
990.105(a) has been revised to drop two references to budgets being
``approved'' because some HAs are no longer required to obtain HUD
approval of their operating budgets. The detailed description of the
current PFS formula has been moved to Sec. 990.105 from
Sec. 990.110(f), the FY 1992 Formal Review Process section. The Top of
Range is now defined in Sec. 990.102, and its definition has been
removed from Sec. 990.105. Sections describing the Allowable Expense
Level calculations before 1992 have been removed.
Section 990.107 has been revised to eliminate a general discussion
of the reasons behind the PFS treatment of utilities. It has also been
revised to reflect that there is no longer a heating degree day
adjustment and to remove reference to the 1983 starting date for the
current provisions.
References to Residual Receipts have been eliminated from
Sec. 990.108 to reflect the fact that the requirement to remit residual
receipts is no longer operative. A sentence on the proration of audit
costs has been removed because it only discussed proration of
development costs and proration to other programs is also often
appropriate. The limitation on approval of costs attributable to
changes in Federal law or regulation has been revised to remove the
requirement for a determination that sufficient other funds are not
available. The Section on Costs beyond Control has been removed because
this provision is statutory and does not need to be repeated in
regulation.
The revisions to Sec. 990.109 have been made to simplify the
reference to the Tenant Rent Roll and to reflect the fact that some HAs
are no longer required to submit an operating budget.
Section 990.110 has also been changed to reflect elimination of a
universal requirement to submit operating budgets. The phrase
``independent audit'' has been substituted for ``IPA audit.'' The
section on utility adjustments has been simplified so that separate
discussions of upward and downward adjustments are combined into one
paragraph. This section has also been revised to reflect the fact that
the requirement to remit residual receipts is no longer operative. The
discussion of rental income adjustments has been shortened by removing
examples of two of the reasons for these adjustments. The paragraph
covering the Formal Review Process which took place in 1992 has been
removed.
Section 990.111, Operating Reserves, has been removed to reflect
the elimination of a maximum operating reserve.
The entire description of operating budget submission and approval
has been rewritten to reflect the fact that some HAs are no longer
required to submit an operating budget.
[[Page 17539]]
Section 990.113 has been revised to eliminate specific regulatory
citations for occupancy regulations.
A one-time 1982 Energy Conservation procedure has been removed by
deleting Sec. 990.116.
A change in a regulatory reference has been made in Sec. 990.401(a)
to reflect the revision to Sec. 990.105.
III. Justification for Final Rulemaking
The Department has determined that it is unnecessary to subject
this rule to public comment. Since this rule is limited to removing
obsolete provisions and updating provisions in part 990 to reflect
current practices, prior public comment was determined to be
unnecessary. Section 10.1 of 24 CFR part 10 states that notice and
public procedure can be omitted if the Department determines in a
particular case or class of cases that notice and public procedure are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.
IV. Findings and Certifications
Executive Order 12866
The Office of Management and Budget reviewed this final rule under
Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review. Any changes made
to the rule as a result of that review are clearly identified in the
docket file, which is available for public inspection at the Office of
General Counsel, Room 10276, Department of Housing and Urban
Development, 451 Seventh Street, SW, Washington, DC 20410-0500.
Environmental Impact
In accordance with 40 CFR 1508.4 of the regulations of the Council
on Environmental Quality and 24 CFR 50.20(o) of the HUD regulations,
the policies and procedures contained in this final rule relate only to
operating costs that do not affect a physical structure or property
and, therefore, are categorically excluded from the requirements of the
National Environmental Policy Act.
Impact on Small Entities
The Secretary, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this rule before publication and by
approving it certifies that this rule would not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This rule
eliminates obsolete provisions which had been retained solely for
historical purposes.
Federalism Impact
The General Counsel, as the Designated Official under section 6(a)
of Executive Order 12612, Federalism, has determined that the policies
contained in this rule do not have federalism implications and, thus,
are not subject to review under the Order.
Impact on the Family
The General Counsel of HUD, as the Designated Official under
Executive Order 12606, The Family, has determined that this rule does
not have potential for significant impact on formation, maintenance,
and general well-being of families, and thus, is not subject to review
under the Order. No significant change in existing HUD policies or
programs will result from promulgation of this rule, as those policies
and programs relate to family concerns.
List of Subjects in 24 CFR Part 990
Grant programs--housing and community development; Public housing,
Reporting and record keeping requirements.
Accordingly, 24 CFR part 990 is amended as follows:
PART 990--ANNUAL CONTRIBUTIONS FOR OPERATING SUBSIDY
1. The authority citation for part 990 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 11437(g) and 3535(d).
2-3. Section 990.101 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 990.101 Purpose.
Implementation of Section 9(a). The purpose of this subpart is to
establish standards and policies for the determination of operating
subsidy eligibility in accordance with section 9(a) of the U.S. Housing
Act of 1937, 42 U.S.C. 1437g. Section 9(a) authorizes the Secretary of
Housing and Urban Development (HUD) to make annual contributions for
the operation of PHA-owned rental housing (operating subsidy).
4. In Sec. 990.102, the following definitions are amended:
(a) The last sentence of the definition of Formula is removed;
(b) The definition of ``Interim Formula'' is removed;
(c) The definition for Local Inflation Factor is revised:
* * * * *
Local Inflation Factor. The HUD-supplied weighted average
percentage increase in local government wages and salaries for the area
in which the PHA is located and non-wage expenses;
* * * * *
(d) The definition for ``Operating budget'' is revised:
* * * * *
Operating budget. The PHA's operating budget and all related
documents, as required by HUD, approved by the PHA Board of
Commissioners;
* * * * *
and
(e) The definition of ``Top of Range'' is added:
* * * * *
Top of Range. Formula Expense Level multiplied by 1.15.
* * * * *
5. In Sec. 990.103, paragraph (a) is revised; paragraph (b) is
removed; and paragraph (c) is redesignated as paragraph (b), to read as
follows:
Sec. 990.103 Applicability of PFS.
(a) PFS has been and will be utilized in determining the amounts of
operating subsidy payable to PHAs. PFS is applicable to all PHA-owned
rental units under Annual Contributions Contracts. PFS applies to PHAs
that have not received operating subsidy payments previously, but are
eligible for such payments under PFS. PFS, as described in this part,
is not applicable to Indian Housing, the Section 23 Leased Housing
Program, the Section 23 Housing Assistance Payments Program, the
Section 8 Housing Assistance Payments Program, or the Turnkey III or
Turnkey IV Homeownership Opportunity Programs. PFS is not applicable to
housing owned by the PHAs of the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, and
Alaska. Operating subsidy payments to these PHAs are made in accordance
with subpart B of this part. PFS for Indian Housing is described in 24
CFR part 950.
* * * * *
6. Section 990.105 is amended by revising the introductory text,
paragraph (a), introductory text, paragraph (c), paragraph (d),
introductory text, paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2), introductory text,
paragraph (d)(4), and (d)(5), to read as follows:
Sec. 990.105 Computation of allowable expense level.
The PHA shall compute its Allowable Expense Level using forms
prescribed by HUD, as follows:
(a) Computation of Base Year Expense Level. The Base Year Expense
Level includes Payments in Lieu of Taxes (PILOT) required by a
Cooperation Agreement even if PILOT is not included in the Operating
Budget for the Base Year because of a waiver of the requirements by the
local taxing jurisdiction(s). The Base Year Expense Level includes all
other operating expenditures as reflected in the PHA's
[[Page 17540]]
Operating Budget for the Base Year except the following:
* * * * *
(c) Computation of Formula Expense Level. The PHA shall compute its
Formula Expense Level in accordance with a HUD-prescribed formula that
estimates the cost of operating an average unit in a particular PHA's
inventory. It uses weights and a Local Inflation Factor assigned each
year to derive a Formula Expense Level for the current year and the
requested budget year. The formula is the sum of the following six
numbers and the weights of the formula and the formula are subject to
updating by HUD:
(1) The number of pre-1940 rental units occupied by poor households
in 1980 as a percentage of the 1980 population of the community
multiplied by a weight of 7.954. This Census-based statistic applies to
the county of the PHA, except that, if the PHA has 80 percent or more
of its units in an incorporated city of more than 10,000 persons, it
uses city-specific data. County data will exclude data for any
incorporated cities of more than 10,000 persons within its boundaries.
(2) The Local Government Wage Rate multiplied by a weight of
116.496. The wage rate used is a figure determined by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics. It is a county-based statistic, calibrated to a unit-
weighted PHA standard of 1.0. For multi-county PHAs, the local
government wage is unit-weighted. For this formula, the local
government wage index for a specific county cannot be less than 85
percent or more than 115 percent of the average local government wage
for counties of comparable population and metro/non-metro status, on a
state-by-state basis. In addition, for counties of more than 150,000
population in 1980, the local government wage cannot be less than 85
percent or more than 115 percent of the wage index of private
employment determined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics and the
rehabilitation cost index of labor and materials determined by the R.S.
Means Company.
(3) The lesser of the current number of the PHA's two or more
bedroom units available for occupancy, or 15,000 units, multiplied by a
weight of .002896.
(4) The current ratio of the number of the PHA's two or more
bedroom units available for occupancy in high-rise family projects to
the number of all the PHA's units available for occupancy multiplied by
a weight of 37.294. For this indicator, a high-rise family project is
defined as averaging 1.5 or more bedrooms per unit available for
occupancy and averaging 35 or more units available for occupancy per
building and containing at least one building with units available for
occupancy that is 5 or more stories high.
(5) The current ratio of the number of the PHA's three or more
bedroom units available for occupancy to the number of all the PHA's
units available for occupancy multiplied by a weight of 22.303.
(6) An equation calibration constant of -.2344.
(d) Computation of Allowable Expense Level. The PHA shall compute
its Allowable Expense Level as follows:
(1) Allowable Expense Level for first budget year under PFS where
Base Year Expense Level does not exceed the top of the range. Every PHA
whose Base Year Expense Level is less than the top of the range shall
compute its Allowable Expense Level for the first budget year under the
PFS by adding the following to its Base Year Expense Level (before
adjustments under Sec. 990.110):
* * * * *
(2) Allowable Expense Level for first budget year under PFS where
Base Year Expense Level exceeds the top of the range. Every PHA whose
Base Year Expense Level exceeds the top of the range shall compute its
Allowable Expense Level for the first budget year under PFS by adding
the following to the top of the range (not to its Base Year Expense
Level, as in paragraph (d)(1) of this section):
* * * * *
(4) Allowable Expense Level for budget years after the first budget
year under PFS. For each budget year after the first budget year under
PFS, the AEL shall be computed as follows:
(i) The Allowable Expense Level shall be increased by any increase
to the AEL approved by HUD under Sec. 990.108(c);
(ii) The AEL for the Current Budget Year also shall be adjusted as
follows:
(A) Increased by one-half of one percent (.5 percent); and
(B) If the PHA has experienced a change in the number of units in
excess of 5 percent or 1,000 units, whichever is less, since the last
adjustment to the AEL based on this paragraph, it shall use the
increase (decrease) between the Formula Expense Level calculated using
the PHA's characteristics that applied to the Requested Year when the
last adjustment to the AEL was made based on this paragraph and the
Formula Expense Level calculated using the PHA's characteristics for
the Requested Budget Year.
(iii) The amount computed in accordance with paragraphs (d)(4) (i)
and (ii) of this section shall be multiplied by the Local Inflation
Factor.
(5) Adjustment of Allowable Expense Level for budget years after
the first budget year under PFS. HUD may adjust the Allowable Expense
Level of budget years after the first year under PFS under the
provisions of Sec. 990.105(b) or Sec. 990.108(c).
7. Section 990.107 is amended by revising paragraphs (a) and
(c)(1), introductory text, to read as follows:
Sec. 990.107 Computation of utilities expense level.
(a) The PHA's Utilities Expense Level for the requested Budget Year
shall be computed by multiplying the AUCL per unit per month for each
utility, determined as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, by
the projected utility rate determined as provided in paragraph (b) of
this section.
(c) * * *
(1) Rolling Base Period System. For project utilities with
consumption data for the entire Rolling Base Period, the AUCL is the
average amount consumed per unit per month during the Rolling Base
Period adjusted in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section. The
PHA shall determine the average amount of each of the utilities
consumed during the Rolling Base period (i.e., the 36-month period
ending 12 months prior to the first day of the Requested Budget Year).
An example of a rolling base is as follows:
* * * * *
8. In Sec. 990.108, paragraphs (a) (1) and (2) and (c) are revised,
paragraph (d) is removed, paragraph (e) is redesignated as paragraph
(d), paragraph (f) is redesignated as paragraph (e), and paragraph (g)
is redesignated as paragraph (f).
Sec. 990.108 Other costs.
(a) Cost of independent audits. (1) Eligibility to receive
operating subsidy for independent audits is considered separately from
the PFS. However, the PHA shall not request, nor will HUD approve, an
operating subsidy for the cost of an independent audit if the audit has
already been funded by subsidy in a prior year. The PHA's estimate of
cost of the independent audit is subject to adjustment by HUD. If the
PHA requires assistance in determining the amount of cost to be
estimated, the HUD Field Office should be contacted.
(2) A PHA that is required by the Single Audit Act (see 24 CFR part
44) to conduct a regular independent audit may receive operating
subsidy to cover the cost of the audit. The estimated cost of an
independent audit, applicable to the operations of PHA-owned rental
housing, is not included in the Allowable Expense Level, but it is
[[Page 17541]]
allowed in full in computing the amount of operating subsidy under
Sec. 990.104, above.
* * * * *
(c) Costs attributable to changes in Federal law or regulation. In
the event that HUD determines that enactment of a Federal law or
revision in HUD or other Federal regulation has caused or will cause a
significant increase in expenditures of a continuing nature above the
Allowable Expense Level and Utilities Expense Level, HUD may in HUD's
sole discretion decide to prescribe a procedure under which the PHA may
apply for or may receive an increase in operating subsidy.
* * * * *
9. In Sec. 990.109, paragraphs (b), introductory text, (b)(1), and
(d) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 990.109 Projected operating income level.
* * * * *
(b) Computation of projected average monthly dwelling rental
income. The projected average monthly dwelling rental income per unit
for the PHA is computed as follows:
(1) Average monthly dwelling rental charge per unit. The dollar
amount of the average monthly dwelling rental charge per unit shall be
computed on the basis of the total dwelling rental charges (total of
the adjusted rent roll amounts) for all Project Units, as shown on the
Tenant Rent Rolls which the PHA is required to maintain, for the first
day of the month which is six months prior to the first day of the
Requested Budget Year, except that if a change in the total of the Rent
Rolls has occurred in a subsequent month which is prior to the
beginning of the Requested Budget Year and prior to the submission of
the Requested Budget Year calculation of operating subsidy eligibility,
the PHA shall use the latest changed Rent Roll for the purpose of the
computation. This aggregate dollar amount shall be divided by the
number of occupied dwelling units as of the same date.
* * * * *
(d) Estimate of additional dwelling rental income. After
implementation of the provisions of any legislation enacted or any HUD
administrative action taken subsequent to the effective date of these
regulations, which affects rents paid by tenants of Projects, each PHA
shall submit a revision of its calculation of operating subsidy
eligibility showing an estimate of any change in rental income which it
anticipates as the result of the implementation of said provisions. HUD
shall have complete discretion to adjust the projected average monthly
dwelling rental charge per unit to reflect such change or in the
absence of this submission, if HUD has knowledge of such change. HUD
also shall have complete discretion to reduce or increase the operating
subsidy approved for the PHA current fiscal year in an amount
equivalent to the change in the rental income.
* * * * *
Sec. 990.110 [Amended]
10. Section 990.110 is amended as follows:
(a) The first sentence of the introductory text is amended by
removing the phrase ``operating budget'' and adding the phrase
``calculation of operating subsidy eligibility'';
(b) Paragraph (a)(1) is amended by removing the phrase ``IPA'' and
adding the word ``independent'' in its place; paragraph (a)(2) is
amended by removing the phrase ``operating budget'' and adding the
phrase ``calculation of operating subsidy eligibility'' in its place;
(c) Paragraph (c) is amended by removing the phrase ``IPA'' in two
places and adding the word ``independent'' in its place;
(d) Paragraph (c)(1)(i) is amended by removing the ``(i)'' and the
first sentence and adding the sentence ``A change in the Utilities
Expense Level because of changes in utility rates-to the extent funded
by the operating subsidy-will result in an adjustment of future
operating subsidy payments.'' in its place;
(e) Paragraph (c)(1)(ii) is removed;
(f) Paragraph (c)(2)(ii) is amended by removing the sentence ``The
decreased consumption is to be determined by adjusting for any utility
rate changes.'' and adding ``The decreased consumption is to be
determined by adjusting for any utility rate changes and may be
adjusted, subject to HUD approval, using a heating degree day
adjustment for space heating utilities.'' in its place;
(g) Paragraph (c)(2)(iii) is amended by removing the phrase, ``then
50 percent of the amount will be funded by increased operating subsidy
payment, subject to the availability of funds.'' and the following
phrase is added in its place ``fifty percent of an increase in the
Utilities Expense Level attributable to increased consumption, after
adjustment for any utility rate change, will be funded by HUD by
adjusting future operating subsidy payments.'';
(h) The first sentence of paragraph (d)(1) is amended by removing
the phrase ``, such as a substantial increase in general unemployment
in the locality, or because of a revision of the PHA's rent schedule
which has been approved by HUD'';
(i) Paragraph (e) is amended by removing the phrase
``990.107(g)(2)'' and adding ``990.107(f)(2)'' in its place;
(j) Paragraph (e)(1)(i) is revised:
* * * * *
(e) * * *
(1) * * *
(i) The consumption level that would have been expected if the
energy conservation measure had not been undertaken would be adjusted
for any change in utility rate and may be adjusted, subject to HUD
approval, using a heating degree day adjustment for space heating
utilities;
* * * * *
(k) Paragraph (f) is removed; and
(l) Paragraph (g) is redesignated as paragraph (f).
11. Section 990.111 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 990.111 Submission and Approval of Operating Subsidy Calculations
and Budgets.
(a) Required Documentation. (1) Prior to the beginning of its
fiscal year, the PHA shall prepare an operating budget in a manner
prescribed by HUD. The Board of Commissioners shall review and approve
the budget by resolution. Each fiscal year, the PHA shall submit to the
HUD Field Office, in a time and manner prescribed by HUD, the approved
board resolution and the required operating subsidy eligibility
calculation forms. The PHA shall submit revised calculations in support
of mandatory or other adjustments based on procedures prescribed by
HUD.
(2) HUD may direct the PHA to submit its complete operating budget
if the PHA has failed to achieve certain specified operating standards,
or for other reasons which in HUD's determination threaten the PHA's
future serviceability, efficiency, economy, or stability.
(b) HUD operating budget review. (1) The HUD Field Office will
perform a detailed review on operating budgets that are subject to HUD
review and approval. If the HUD Field Office finds that an operating
budget is incomplete, includes illegal or ineligible expenditures,
mathematical errors, errors in the application of accounting
procedures, or is otherwise unacceptable, the HUD Field Office may at
any time require the submission by the PHA of further information
regarding an operating budget or operating budget revision.
(2) When the PHA no longer is operating in a manner that threatens
the future serviceability, efficiency,
[[Page 17542]]
economy, or stability of the housing it operates, HUD will notify the
PHA that it no longer is required to submit an operating budget to HUD
for review and approval.
12. Section 990.112 is removed and the present Sec. 990.113 is
redesignated as Sec. 990.112.
13. Section 990.115 is redesignated as Sec. 990.113 and paragraphs
(a) and (b) are revised to read as follows:
Sec. 990.113 Payments of operating subsidy conditioned upon
reexamination of income of families in occupancy.
(a) Policy. The income of each family must be reexamined at least
annually. PHAs must be in compliance with this reexamination
requirement to be eligible to receive full operating subsidy payments.
(b) PHAs in compliance with requirements. Each submission of the
original calculation of operating subsidy eligibility for a fiscal year
shall be accompanied by a certification by the PHA that it is in
compliance with the annual income reexamination requirements and that
rents have been or will be adjusted in accordance with current HUD
requirements.
* * * * *
Sec. 990.116 [Removed]
14. Section 990.116 is removed.
Sec. 990.401 [Amended]
15. Section 990.401(a) is amended by removing from the last
sentence the phrase Sec. 990.105(e)(5) and adding the phrase
Sec. 990.105(e)(4) in its place.
Dated: March 14, 1996.
Michael B. Janis,
General Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Indian Housing.
[FR Doc. 96-9613 Filed 4-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4210-33-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9606 Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17250-17253]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9606]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17251]]
FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
44 CFR Part 65
[Docket No. FEMA-7174]
Changes in Flood Elevation Determinations
AGENCY: Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA.
ACTION: Interim rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This interim rule lists communities where modification of the
base (1% annual chance) flood elevations is appropriate because of new
scientific or technical data. New flood insurance premium rates will be
calculated from the modified base flood elevations for new buildings
and their contents.
DATES: These modified base flood elevations are currently in effect on
the dates listed in the table and revise the Flood Insurance Rate
Map(s) (FIRMs) in effect prior to this determination for each listed
community.
From the date of the second publication of these changes in a
newspaper of local circulation, any person has ninety (90) days in
which to request through the community that the Acting Associate
Director reconsider the changes. The modified elevations may be changed
during the 90-day period.
ADDRESSES: The modified base flood elevations for each community are
available for inspection at the office of the Chief Executive Officer
of each community. The respective addresses are listed in the following
table.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Michael K. Buckley, P.E., Chief,
Hazard Identification Branch, Mitigation Directorate, 500 C Street,
SW., Washington, DC 20472, (202) 646-2756.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The modified base flood elevations are not
listed for each community in this interim rule. However, the address of
the Chief Executive Officer of the community where the modified base
flood elevation determinations are available for inspection is
provided.
Any request for reconsideration must be based upon knowledge of
changed conditions, or upon new scientific or technical data.
The modifications are made pursuant to section 201 of the Flood
Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are in accordance
with the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.,
and with 44 CFR part 65.
For rating purposes, the currently effective community number is
shown and must be used for all new policies and renewals.
The modified base flood elevations are the basis for the floodplain
management measures that the community is required to either adopt or
to show evidence of being already in effect in order to qualify or to
remain qualified for participation in the National Flood Insurance
Program.
These modified elevations, together with the floodplain management
criteria required by 44 CFR 60.3, are the minimum that are required.
They should not be construed to mean that the community must change any
existing ordinances that are more stringent in their floodplain
management requirements. The community may at any time enact stricter
requirements of its own, or pursuant to policies established by other
Federal, state or regional entities.
The changes in base flood elevations are in accordance with 44 CFR
65.4.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule is categorically excluded from the requirements of 44 CFR
Part 10, Environmental Consideration. No environmental impact
assessment has been prepared.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Acting Associate Director, Mitigation Directorate, certifies
that this rule is exempt from the requirements of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act because modified base flood elevations are required by
the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. 4105, and are
required to maintain community eligibility in the National Flood
Insurance Program. No regulatory flexibility analysis has been
prepared.
Regulatory Classification
This interim rule is not a significant regulatory action under the
criteria of section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 of September 30,
1993, Regulatory Planning and Review, 58 FR 51735.
Executive Order 12612, Federalism
This rule involves no policies that have federalism implications
under Executive Order 12612, Federalism, dated October 26, 1987.
Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform
This rule meets the applicable standards of section 2(b)(2) of
Executive Order 12778.
List of Subjects in 44 CFR Part 65
Flood insurance, Floodplains, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements. Accordingly, 44 CFR part 65 is amended to read as
follows:
PART 65--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 65 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq.; Reorganization Plan No. 3 of
1978, 3 CFR, 1978 Comp., p. 329; E.O. 12127, 44 FR 19367, 3 CFR,
1979 Comp., p. 376.
Sec. 65.4 [Amended]
2. The tables published under the authority of Sec. 65.4 are
amended as follows:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dates and name of
State and county Location newspaper where Chief executive officer Effective date of modification Community
notice was published of community No.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama: Calhoun.................. Unincorporated areas. March 6, 1996, March Mr. Kenneth Joiner, Feb. 28, 1996.................. 010013C
13, 1996, The Calhoun County
Anniston Star. Administrator, 1702
Noble Street, Suite 103,
Anniston, Alabama 36201.
Alabama: Calhoun and Talladega.... Oxford (City)........ March 6, 1996, March The Honorable Leon Smith, Feb. 28, 1996.................. 010023C
13, 1996, The Mayor of the City of
Anniston Star. Oxford, P.O. Box 3383,
100 Choccolocco Street,
Oxford, Alabama 36203.
Florida: Broward.................. Hillsboro Beach February 1, 1996, The Honorable Howard Jan. 24, 1996.................. 120040F
(Town). February 8, 1996, Sussman, Mayor of the
Observer. Town of Hillsboro Beach,
1210 Hillsboro Mile,
Hillsboro Beach, Florida
33062.
[[Page 17252]]
Florida: Duval.................... Jacksonville (City).. February 1, 1996, The Honorable John Jan. 25, 1996.................. 120077E
February 8, 1996, Delaney, Mayor of the
The Florida Times- City of Jacksonville,
Union. 220 East Bay Street,
14th Floor,
Jacksonville, Florida
32202-3495.
Florida: Pinellas................. St. Petersburg (City) January 26, 1996, The Honorable David J. Jan. 19, 1996.................. 125148C
February 2, 1996, Fisher, Mayor of the
St. Petersburg City of St. Petersburg,
Times. P.O. Box 2842, St.
Petersburg, Florida
33731.
Georgia: Fulton................... Fairburn (City)...... February 29, 1996, The Honorable Betty June 5, 1996................... 130314B
March 7, 1996, The Hannah, Mayor of the
South Fulton City of Fairburn, P.O.
Neighbor. Box 145, Fairburn,
Georgia 30213.
Georgia: Fulton................... Unincorporated areas. February 8, 1996, Mr. Mitchell Skandalakis, May 15, 1996................... 135160B
February 15, 1996, Chairman of the Fulton
Daily Report. County Board of
Commissioners, 141 Pryor
Street, S.W., Atlanta,
Georgia 30303.
Illinois: Marion and Clinton...... Centralia (City)..... February 23, 1996, Ms. Becky Roeckeman, Aug. 16, 1996.................. 170453C
March 1, 1996, Community Development
Centralia Sentinel. Director, 222 South
Poplar Street,
Centralia, Illinois
62801.
Illinois: Cook.................... Village of Matteson.. February 8, 1996, Mr. Mark Stricker, Feb. 1, 1996................... 170123C
February 15, 1996, Matteson Village
The Matteson-- President, 3625 West
Richton Park Star. 215th Street, Matteson,
Illinois 60443.
Illinois: Tazewell................ Morton (Village)..... March 6, 1996, March Robert D. Hertenstein, Feb. 28, 1996.................. 170652D
13, 1996, Tazewell M.D., President of the
News. Village of Morton Board
of Trustees, P.O. Box
28, 120 North Main
Street, Morton, Illinois
61550-0028.
Indiana: Hamilton................. Town of Westfield.... February 13, 1996, Mr. Mike McDonald, May 20, 1996................... 180083C
February 20, 1996, Westfield Town Council
Noblesville Daily President, 130 Penn
Ledger. Street, Westfield,
Indiana 46074.
Massachusetts: Bristol............ Mansfield (Town)..... January 26, 1996, Mr. William F. Williams, May 2, 1996.................... 250057
February 2, 1996, Mansfield Town Manager,
Mansfield News. 50 West Street,
Mansfield, Massachusetts
02048.
New Jersey: Middlesex............. Township of East February 9, 1996, The Honorable Ira Feb. 2, 1996................... 340260C
Brunswick. February 16, 1996, Oskowsky, Mayor of the
The Home News and Township of East
Tribune. Brunswick, P.O. Box
1081, East Brunswick,
New Jersey 08816.
New York: Erie.................... Amherst (Town)....... January 31, 1996, Mr. Thomas Ahern, Town of May 8, 1996.................... 360226D
February 7, 1996, Amherst Supervisor,
Amherst Bee. Amherst Municipal
Building, 5583 Main
Street, Williamsville,
New York 14221.
New York: Allegany................ Wellsville (Town).... March 14, 1996, Mr. Michael T. Baldwin, Sept. 6, 1996.................. 360035B
March 21, 1996, The Supervisor of the Town
Wellsville Daily of Wellsville, Municipal
Reporter. Building, 156 North Main
Street, Wellsville, New
York 14895.
New York: Allegany................ Wellsville (Village). March 14, 1996, The Honorable Susan C. Sept. 6, 1996.................. 360036B
March 21, 1996, The Goetschius, Mayor of the
Wellsville Daily Village of Wellsville,
Reporter. Municipal Building, 156
North Main Street,
Wellsville, New York
14895.
New York: Erie.................... Willamsville January 31, 1996, The Honorable Basil May 8, 1996.................... 360263B
(Village). February 7, 1996, Piazza, Mayor of the
Amherst Bee. Village of
Williamsville, P.O. Box
1557, Williamsville, New
York 14231-1557.
North Carolina: Haywood........... Unincorporated areas. January 31, 1996, Mr. Ed Russell, Chairman Jan. 24, 1996.................. 370120B
February 7, 1996, of the Haywood County
The Mountaineer. Board of Commissioners,
420 North Main Street,
Waynesville, North
Carolina 28786.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 17253]]
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance No. 83.100, ``Flood
Insurance.'')
Dated: April 9, 1996.
Richard W. Krimm,
Acting Associate Director for Mitigation.
[FR Doc. 96-9606 Filed 4-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6718-03-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9558 General Material Requirements; Warranty Clauses
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17243-17245]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9558]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
23 CFR Part 635
[FHWA Docket 95-21]
RIN 2125-AD61
General Material Requirements; Warranty Clauses
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FHWA is adopting, as final, a current interim final rule
that revises the use of guaranty and warranty clauses on Federal-aid
highway construction contracts. This final rule permits greater use of
warranties in Federal-aid highway construction contracts within
prescribed limits.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 25, 1995.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. James Daves, Office of
Engineering, (202) 366-0355 or Mr. Wilbert Baccus, Office of the Chief
Counsel, (202) 366-0780, Federal Highway Administration, 400 Seventh
Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On August 25, 1995, the FHWA published in
the Federal Register (60 FR 44271) an interim final rule along with a
request for comments, revising its regulation regarding warranty
clauses on Federal-aid highway construction contracts. That action
permitted the greater use of warranties in Federal-aid highway
construction contracts within prescribed limits.
Discussion of Comments
The public comment period for the interim final rule closed on
October 24, 1995. The FHWA received 20 written responses from 19
organizations including 11 associations, six State Departments of
Transportation (DOTs), and two private companies. The responses
concerning this interim final rule are available for review at the
Federal Highway Administration, Public Docket Room 4232, Office of the
Chief Counsel, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590.
Of the 20 responses received, 13 comments did not support the
interim final rule and seven did support the interim final rule. The
significant comments are summarized in the following discussion.
Requiring Warranties
An association responding to the interim final rule stated that by
revising its regulation the FHWA was requiring
[[Page 17244]]
the use of warranty clauses on Federal-aid highway construction
contracts. This statement, however, is inaccurate. The FHWA removed its
regulation prohibiting the use of warranty clauses, but left it to the
State DOTs to decide when or if they will use warranty clauses. If
warranty clauses are used on Federal-aid highway construction
contracts, it will be because the State DOT chooses to use them, with
FHWA concurrence.
Bonding Capacity
Four associations, two private companies and one DOT commented on
the effect of warranty provisions on bonding capacity, particularly on
smaller contractors. They noted that requiring warranties of several
years typically requires the contractor to provide a performance bond
for that period of time. The size of the performance bond could be
quite large and, particularly in the case of smaller contractors, the
effect on their overall bonding capacity could affect their ability to
obtain work. The seven commenters argue that this would effectively
stifle competition for contracts and ultimately increase the cost to
the taxpayers. One commenter felt that the effect on smaller
contractors violates the Regulatory Flexibility Act. Discussion of that
comment is included in the following paragraphs, and later under the
heading ``Regulatory Flexibility Act.''
The FHWA believes that removing the restriction on warranty clauses
will not stifle competition or negatively affect smaller contractors'
overall bonding capacity and ability to obtain work. In the first
place, experience to date has shown no negative effect on the bonding
capacity of small businesses. State DOTs have been following their own
procedures regarding the inclusion of warranties in non-NHS Federal-aid
contracts since the passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation
Efficiency Act of 1991 (Pub. L. 102-240, 105 Stat. 1914). These non-NHS
projects constitute approximately one-third of the FHWA's Federal-aid
highway program, and have amounted to several billions of dollars worth
of construction each fiscal year. The FHWA has not observed any problem
with the bonding capacity of smaller contractors who perform work
eligible for such warranties. This regulation allows the FHWA simply to
extend the option to use such warranty clauses by the State DOTs on the
remaining two-thirds of the program, and the FHWA does not believe that
this added flexibility will be used to an extent or in such a way as to
negatively impact the bonding capacity of small businesses.
Secondly, the warranties allowed by this regulation are limited to
a specific construction product or feature. This regulation does not
apply to design engineering or full project warranties. The FHWA
believes that this fact will limit the warranties given and, in turn,
the contractor's exposure.
Thirdly, the FHWA anticipates these warranties will be primarily
applied to small specialty or experimental item contracts. As a result,
some small businesses may benefit from the ability to offer warranties
on specialty or experimental items, either included as one element of
the contract or as the main element of the contract. When warranties
are prohibited, such items are often limited to experimental item
contracts because the contracting agent (State DOT) has no assurance of
the item's effectiveness. By removing the restriction on such
warranties, the FHWA believes the smaller contractors may in fact have
greater opportunity to enter the market with their experimental items
because they can be guaranteed by a warranty.
Finally, the FHWA believes that the concern over this regulation's
effect on the bonding capacity of smaller contractors is overstated.
These warranties are expected to be relatively short term--five years
or less. Given the type of contracts involved (relatively short term
and for a specific product or item), the FHWA expects that the bonding
capacity of smaller contractors will not be adversely affected.
Since publication of the interim final rule, one State DOT has
proposed a warranty contract provision which eliminates the need for a
long term bond and, in turn, the criticism that warranties affect
bonding capacity. In this State's proposal, a portion of the
contractor's bid amount is retained and paid to the contractor on an
annual cycle based on satisfactory performance of the item which has
been warranted. Using such an approach, no long term bond is required
by the contractor. The FHWA sees this as a possible alternative to
bonding warranties, which deserves monitoring to determine if it is
effective.
Increased Flexibility
Six State DOTs (one DOT responded twice) responding to the interim
final rule commented on the increased flexibility afforded to
contracting agencies by the revision of the FHWA regulation. These
commenters saw this as a positive change, and generally supported
allowing contracting agencies to decide when to use warranty clauses
within the framework of the revised regulation, with concurrence by the
FHWA.
Design Liability
Four associations and one private company stated that they opposed
the contractor being liable for the design of a project under the
umbrella of a warranty. They felt that such design exposure was outside
the control of the construction contractor and, therefore,
inappropriate. The warranty regulation as revised by the FHWA states
that the warranty provision shall be for a specific construction
product or feature. There is no mention in the regulation of design
being warranted, as these commenters assert. Furthermore, the warranty
regulation states that the construction contractor will not be
obligated for items over which the contractor has no control. A
construction contractor does not typically have any control over the
design of a project, therefore a warranty provision could not bind them
to the project design.
Administrative Procedure Act
One association commenting on the interim final rule discussed the
publication of an interim final rule as it relates to the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA). That commenter criticized the
FHWA's decision to waive the notice and comment requirements of the
APA, 5 U.S.C. 553, and proceed directly to an interim final rule. The
commenter stated that the interim final rule imposes ``significant new
obligations on the States by granting the government the authority to
mandate greater use of warranties on Federal-aid highway projects.'' In
fact, the interim final rule relieves a restriction and imposes no new
obligation or requirement on the States. It merely enables the States
to include warranty clauses in Federal-aid highway construction
contracts if they find such clauses would be beneficial. Warranty
clauses have been found to enhance the quality of highway construction
projects, so proceeding to an interim final rule in this instance was
in the public interest. Moreover, the FHWA did solicit comments on this
rulemaking and is considering and responding to those comments to the
same extent it would be in the case of a notice of proposed rulemaking.
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda
One association commenting on the interim final rule noted its
objection to the FHWA's failure to publish this rulemaking in the DOT's
Semiannual Regulatory Agenda (Agenda) prior to publication of the
interim final rule. (The current rulemaking was published
[[Page 17245]]
in the DOT's Semiannual Regulatory Agenda on November 28, 1995.) While
the commenter is correct in noting that Executive Order 12866 and the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) (5 U.S.C. 601-612) require the DOT to
prepare a semiannual regulations agenda for publication in the Federal
Register, neither the Executive Order nor the RFA prevent the FHWA from
publishing a rulemaking document which has not previously been listed
in the Agenda. Section 602(d) explicitly provides that the requirement
to publish such an agenda does not preclude the agency from considering
or acting on any matter not listed in such agenda.
Rulemaking Analyses and Notices
Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Policies and Procedures) and DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures
The FHWA has determined that this action is not a significant
regulatory action within the meaning of Executive Order 12866 or
significant within the meaning of Department of Transportation
regulatory policies and procedures. The revisions would merely
accommodate expanded use of warranty clauses on Federal-aid
construction contracts. Therefore, it is anticipated that the economic
impact of this rulemaking will be minimal and a full regulatory
evaluation is not required.
This final rule makes no changes to the interim final rule and
merely informs the public that the interim final rule remains
unchanged. Therefore, the FHWA finds that good cause exists to dispense
with the 30-day delayed effective date requirement under 5 U.S.C.
553(d).
Regulatory Flexibility Act
In compliance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-345,
5 U.S.C. 601-612), the FHWA has evaluated the effects of this rule on
small entities. Based on the evaluation, the FHWA hereby certifies that
this action will not have a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities. As stated above, the FHWA made
this determination based on the fact that: (1) experience to date with
non-NHS Federal-aid projects that allow the use of warranties has shown
no negative effect on the bonding capacity of small businesses for non-
NHS Federal-aid projects; (2) some small businesses may benefit from
the ability to enter the market with specialty or experimental items,
either included as one element of the contract or as the main element
of the contract; and (3) given the type of contracts involved
(relatively short term and for a specific product or item), the FHWA
expects that the bonding capacity of smaller contractors will not
experience any significant adverse effect.
Executive Order 12612 (Federalism Assessment)
This action has been analyzed in accordance with the principles and
criteria contained in Executive Order 12612 and it has been determined
that this interim final rule does not have sufficient federalism
implications to warrant the preparation of a separate Federalism
assessment. Nothing in this document preempts any State law or
regulation, and no new requirements or obligations are imposed on
States or local governments by this action. Instead, this interim final
rule provides States with additional discretion to determine for
themselves whether to include warranty clauses in Federal-aid highway
construction contracts for projects on the National Highway System.
Executive Order 12372 (Intergovernmental Review)
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Program Number 20.205,
Highway Planning and Construction. The regulations implementing
Executive Order 12372 regarding intergovernmental consultation on
Federal programs and activities apply to this program.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This action does not contain a collection of information
requirement for purposes of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
U.S.C. 3501-3520.
National Environmental Policy Act
This rulemaking does not have any effect on the environment. It
does not constitute a major action having a significant effect on the
environment, and therefore does not require the preparation of an
environmental impact statement pursuant to the National Environmental
Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.)
Regulation Identification Number
A regulation identification number (RIN) is assigned to each
regulatory action listed in the Unified Agenda of Federal Regulations.
The Regulatory Information Service Center publishes the Unified Agenda
in April and October of each year. The RIN contained in the heading of
this document can be used to cross reference this action with the
Unified Agenda.
List of Subjects in 23 CFR Part 635
Government contracts, Grant programs--transportation, Highways and
roads.
In consideration of the foregoing and under the authority of 23
U.S.C. 315, the interim final rule amending the authority for 23 CFR
part 635 and revising Sec. 635.413 which was published at 60 FR 44271,
August 25, 1995 is adopted as final without change.
Issued on: April 3, 1996.
Rodney E. Slater,
Federal Highway Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-9558 Filed 4-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9557 Qualification of Drivers; Vision and Diabetes; Limited Exemptions
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 17253]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9557]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
49 CFR Part 391
[FHWA Docket No. MC-96-2]
RIN 2125-AD73
Qualification of Drivers; Vision and Diabetes; Limited Exemptions
AGENCY: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), DOT.
ACTION: Final rule; technical correction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document corrects the amendatory language for 49 CFR
391.2 in the issue of March 26, 1996, in FR Doc. 96-7226 on page 13346
(61 FR 13338). The March 26 document contained, among other things, a
technical amendment to relocate an existing provision on exemptions for
intracity zone drivers, found at 49 CFR 391.2(d), to 49 CFR 391.62 so
that all limited exemptions from driver qualification standards could
be found in the same subpart. Paragraphs 391.2(a), (b), and (c), were
to remain unchanged.
Inadvertently, the paragraph designation for Sec. 391.2(d) was
omitted in the amendatory language where the text of this paragraph
only was redesignated as Sec. 391.62, thereby deleting Sec. 391.2 (a),
(b), and (c). This document technically corrects that amendatory
language to include the omitted paragraph designation and thereby
reinstate the text of Sec. 391.2 (a), (b), and (c).
EFFECTIVE DATE: March 31, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information regarding program
issues: Ms. Sandra Zywokarte, Office of Motor Carrier Research and
Standards, (202) 366-4001. For information regarding legal issues: Mr.
Paul Brennan, Office of Chief Counsel, (202) 366-0834. Office hours are
from 7:45 a.m. to 4:15 p.m., e.t., Monday through Friday, except
Federal holidays.
The FHWA hereby corrects the amendatory language for 49 CFR 391.2
as published on March 26, 1996, in FR Doc. 96-7226 on page 13346 to
read as follows:
Sec. 391.2(d) [Redesignated as Sec. 391.62]
2. Part 391 is amended by redesignating Sec. 391.2(d) as
Sec. 391.62 and revising it to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 504, 31133, 31136, and 31502; and 49 CFR
1.48.
Issued on: April 8, 1996.
Edward V.A. Kussy,
Acting Chief Counsel.
[FR Doc. 96-9557 Filed 4-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-22-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-9266 Importation of Sheep and Goats and Germ Plasm From Sheep and Goats
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 77 (Friday, April 19, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 17231-17243]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-9266]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
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.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 77 / Friday, April 19, 1996 / Rules
and Regulations
[[Page 17231]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 92 and 98
[Docket No. 94-085-3]
Importation of Sheep and Goats and Germ Plasm From Sheep and
Goats
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending the animal importation regulations to revise
who may issue health certificates for ruminants offered for
importation. This amendment will make the regulations more consistent
with regard to different animals and countries and will provide an
alternative method of issuing health certificates.
We are also amending the animal importation regulations to revise
the conditions for importing sheep and goats. We are similarly amending
the animal germ plasm regulations to revise the conditions for
importing germ plasm from sheep and goats. These changes appear
necessary to prevent the importation of sheep and goats, and germ plasm
from sheep and goats, that may be affected with scrapie.
We are also amending the animal importation regulations to allow
imported goats to be quarantined in privately operated quarantine
facilities that meet the requirements that now apply to privately
operated quarantine facilities for sheep. This amendment will provide
uniform rules for the quarantine of animals which pose a similar
disease risk.
In addition, we are removing from the regulations health
certificate requirements that apply specifically to the importation of
sheep from New Zealand. Since sheep from New Zealand pose no greater
disease risk than sheep from other countries, there is no longer a need
to retain separate health certification requirements for sheep imported
from New Zealand.
Lastly, we are adopting as a final rule, without change, an interim
rule that amended the regulations for importing sheep and goats from
Canada and Mexico. The rule requires that, with the exception of sheep
and goats imported through land border ports for immediate slaughter,
and wethers imported through land border ports, all sheep and goats
imported into the United States from Canada and Mexico be accompanied
by an import permit. This requirement is necessary to prevent the
importation of sheep and goats that may be affected with scrapie.
EFFECTIVE DATE: May 20, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Joyce Bowling or Dr. Roger
Perkins, Staff Veterinarian, Import Animals Program, National Center
for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale,
MD 20737-1228, (301) 734-8170.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in 9 CFR part 92 govern the importation into the
United States of live animals, including sheep and goats, which are
regulated in part to prevent those infected with scrapie from
transmitting the disease to livestock in the United States. The
regulations in 9 CFR part 98 govern the importation into the United
States of germ plasm (semen and embryos), including germ plasm from
sheep and goats.
Scrapie is a progressive degenerative disease of the central
nervous system of sheep and goats. Scrapie occurs more often in certain
flocks and certain bloodlines, indicating that these animals may be
genetically predisposed to become infected with or develop the disease.
Scrapie may be transmitted through contact with the placenta or bodily
fluids of infected animals which have just given birth.
The disease develops slowly, with an incubation period lasting up
to 5 years. The signs which then become manifest may include
nervousness, incoordination, slight muscular tremors, visible weight
loss, lack of luster in the animals' wool, and itching. Affected
animals become debilitated and die. There is no diagnostic test for
confirming the presence of the disease in a live animal or in germ
plasm. Therefore, presence of the disease cannot be detected until an
animal becomes clinically ill. There is no known treatment for the
disease. The impact of the disease in the United States could increase
if spread of the disease is not controlled, or if incidence of the
disease increases. For these reasons, our regulations are intended to
prevent the importation of animals and germ plasm that could transmit
scrapie, while controlling spread of the disease as it exists in the
United States and eliminating foci of infection.
The regulations in 9 CFR parts 92 and 98 are designed, in part, to
prevent the importation of scrapie-infected animals and germ plasm into
the United States. Other regulations concerning scrapie are contained
in 9 CFR parts 54 and 79. The regulations in part 54 deal with
controlling scrapie in the United States, and include, among other
things, the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification Program. The
regulations in part 79 concern identification of sheep and goats in the
United States that are or may be affected with scrapie, and restrict
the interstate movement of sheep and goats so as to prevent the
interstate spread of scrapie.
In an interim rule effective and published in the Federal Register
on March 15, 1995 (60 FR 13898-13900, Docket No. 94-085-1), we amended
the regulations in part 92 to require that, with the exception of sheep
and goats imported through land border ports for immediate slaughter,
and wethers imported through land border ports, all sheep and goats
imported into the United States from Canada and Mexico be accompanied
by an import permit. This action was necessary to prevent the
importation of sheep and goats that may be affected with scrapie.
We solicited comments concerning the interim rule for 60 days
ending May 15, 1995. We received 4 comments by that date. They were
from one foreign government, and from industry representatives and
businesses.
On May 11, 1995, we published in the Federal Register (60 FR 25151-
25162, Docket No. 94-085-2) a proposal to amend the regulations in
parts 92 and 98 by: (1) Revising who may issue health certificates for
ruminants offered for importation; (2) revising the conditions for
importing sheep and goats; (3) revising the conditions for
[[Page 17232]]
importing germ plasm from sheep and goats; (4) allowing imported goats
to be quarantined in privately operated quarantine facilities that meet
the requirements that now apply to privately operated quarantine
facilities for sheep; and (5) removing health certificate requirements
that apply specifically to the importation of sheep from New Zealand.
We solicited comments concerning the proposed rule for 60 days
ending July 10, 1995. We received 15 comments by that date. They were
from foreign governments, Federal and State government agencies,
industry representatives, livestock producers, and private individuals.
Of the comments received in response to the interim rule, one
addressed issues which were not contained in the interim rule, but
which were contained in the proposed rule. Although we did not count
this comment as being received in response to the proposed rule, we did
consider suggestions made in the comment when we determined changes
necessary in the proposed rule.
Two comments received in response to the interim rule failed to
address any issue raised by either the interim rule or the proposed
rule. One commenter discussed the importation of washed and frozen
embryos, a topic not relevant to either the interim rule or the
proposed rule. The other comment contained the results of an industry
association member survey concerning the importation of animal
genetics. However, the survey, as described in the comment, did not
appear to have addressed the specific provisions of either the interim
or the proposed rule. For these reasons, we did not consider either of
these comments when determining changes necessary in the interim and
proposed rules.
We have carefully considered all of the relevant comments we
received in response to both the interim rule and the proposed rule.
Issues raised by the comments are discussed below by topic. In our
discussion, we refer to the regulations in both parts 92 and 98 as
``the regulations.''
Scientific Basis of Regulations
Two commenters objected to our statement, in the background of both
the interim rule and the proposed rule, that scrapie is transmitted by
breeding. The commenters are correct--breeding, itself, does not appear
to transmit scrapie. Scrapie is also not a hereditary disease. However,
it does appear that scrapie can be transmitted through contact with the
placenta or bodily fluids of infected animals which have just given
birth. In addition, there is a tendency to develop the disease which
appears to follow bloodlines. Therefore, we have amended the background
information in this document concerning scrapie transmission so that it
more accurately reflects current scientific knowledge about this
disease.
One commenter objected to proposed Sec. 92.405(b)(2), which would
have required the certificate accompanying imported sheep or goats to
state that none of the female sheep or goats in the flock or herd from
which the sheep or goats will be imported was impregnated, during the 5
years immediately preceding shipment of the sheep or goats to the
United States, with embryos or semen from another country other than
the United States or from a flock or herd of unknown scrapie status.
The commenter maintained that it is scientifically unjustified to
restrict the importation of sheep and goats from flock or herds in
which females have been impregnated with germ plasm from Australia or
New Zealand. We agree with this comment, and we have made two changes
to this provision, as discussed below.
Our proposed rule and this document allow the importation of sheep
from countries other than Australia, Canada, or New Zealand, provided
such sheep enter a flock participating in the Voluntary Scrapie Flock
Certification Program (VSFCP). It was never our intention to be more
restrictive with regard to sheep from flocks in which any female has
been impregnated with germ plasm from (1) a country other than the
United States or (2) a flock of unknown scrapie status, provided such
sheep enter a flock participating in the VSFCP. Any risk of scrapie
presented by such sheep would be mitigated by placing them in a flock
participating in the VSFCP. Therefore, we are removing the requirement
that the certificate state that none of the female sheep in the flock
from which the sheep will be imported has been impregnated with germ
plasm from a country other than the United States or from a flock of
unknown scrapie status.
Additionally, sheep imported from Australia, Canada, and New
Zealand will be required to enter a flock participating in the VSFCP if
any of the females in the flock from which the sheep will be imported
has been impregnated, during the 5 years immediately preceding shipment
of the sheep to the United States, with germ plasm from a country other
than Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the United States. Any risk of
scrapie presented by such sheep would be mitigated by placing them in a
flock participating in the VSFCP. As the commenter indicated, Australia
and New Zealand are free of scrapie. Germ plasm from sheep in Australia
and New Zealand can therefore be used to impregnate animals without
fear of transmitting scrapie. Although Canada is not free of scrapie,
Canada employs reporting and surveillance requirements equivalent to
those of the United States. Germ plasm from sheep in Canada can
likewise be utilized under the conditions set forth above without fear
of transmitting scrapie into the United States.
We are not making any specific changes on this issue with regard to
goats. This is because, as explained elsewhere in this document, we are
amending Sec. 92.405 to exempt goats under certain circumstances from
many of the requirements of this section. Together, we believe these
amendments impose the fewest restrictions on importers while still
protecting U.S. livestock from the importation of scrapie.
We are also amending Sec. 92.405 to clarify that sheep and goats
must be accompanied by a certificate stating that none of the female
sheep or goats in the flock or herd from which the sheep or goats will
be imported has been impregnated, during the 5 years immediately
preceding shipment of the sheep or goats to the United States, with
germ plasm from a flock or herd known to be infected with scrapie. This
requirement, along with restrictions on progeny of scrapie-infected
animals, is designed to prohibit importation into the United States of
animals most likely to be infected with scrapie. This requirement was
implied in our proposed regulations. However, as we are completely
revising Sec. 92.405 in this final rule, we are taking this opportunity
to include a clear statement of this requirement.
Compliance With International Agreements
One commenter stated that requiring a permit for sheep and goats
imported from Canada is ``contrary to the domestic regulatory position
currently in effect and, therefore, not consistent with the principles
of the Treaty of the World Trade Organization [WTO].'' The commenter
did not explain how our proposal is ``inconsistent.'' The same
commenter also stated that imposing a permit requirement would be
``counterproductive to our mutual commitment under the North American
Free Trade Agreement [NAFTA] Animal Health Technical Working Group to
facilitate trade through shared risk assessments and common import
policies.'' Again, the commenter did not
[[Page 17233]]
explain how our proposal is ``counterproductive.''
We do not agree with either assertion. If the comment is
interpreted literally, no WTO signatory country would be permitted to
substantively amend its regulations, because substantive amendments
would always be ``contrary to the domestic regulatory position
currently in effect.'' This is clearly not the intention of the WTO.
The WTO clearly maintains, in Article 2, the right of countries to take
any sanitary (animal) and phytosanitary (plant) measure necessary to
protect human, animal, and plant life and health. Furthermore, the WTO
requires, in Article 5, that signatory countries base their SPS, that
is, sanitary and phytosanitary requirements, on an assessment of the
risks. If, according to this assessment, the level of risk changes, a
country may adjust its requirements. We agree with the commenter that
NAFTA obligates Canada, Mexico and the United States to work towards
common import policies. However, that commitment is secondary to each
country's biosecurity needs.
In the case of Canada, there has been an increase in the level of
risk of transmitting scrapie into the United States. Until 1994, Canada
did not generally import animals or germ plasm from countries where
scrapie exists. The few importations that did occur were rare and
easily traced. However, this is no longer true. Canada now frequently
imports germ plasm from countries where the United States believes
scrapie exists. For example, germ plasm from France and the United
Kingdom has recently been imported into Canada. This has increased the
risk that scrapie will be transmitted into the United States by animals
and germ plasm from Canada. Our proposal to require that animals and
germ plasm from Canada be accompanied by an import permit is a response
to the increase in disease risk brought about by this change in
Canadian imports.
One commenter stated that we should, to fulfill the ``rights and
obligations of the United States as a signatory to the Sanitary/Phyto-
Sanitary (SPS) Chapter of the World Trade Organization, * * * recognize
the use of [germ plasm] from sources which provide equivalent
assurances to those achieved under the Voluntary Scrapie Flock
Certification Program.'' Implementation of this SPS concept (i.e.,
equivalency), depends, to a large extent, on an official recognition of
the exporting country's procedures or systems as being equivalent. We
believe our proposed regulations recognize the use of germ plasm from
equivalent sources. Sections 92.435, 98.10a, and 98.37 of the
regulations specifically provide for importation of sheep, goats, and
sheep germ plasm in programs determined by the Administrator of the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to be equivalent to
the VSFCP. Countries must make an official request for U.S. recognition
of equivalency in these matters. If the Administrator determines that a
country's programs are equivalent, animals from that country will then
be allowed to be imported into the United States into a flock or herd
that participates in the VSFCP, and will be required to remain in such
a flock or herd until they reach Certified status. However, the time
required for them to reach Certified status will take into account the
time spent by them in an equivalent program in the country of origin.
Classification of Countries
One commenter suggested that the Republic of South Africa be
classified as scrapie-free. We are not making any changes based on this
comment at this time. Currently, Australia and New Zealand are
recognized by the United States and the World Health Organization as
scrapie-free countries. However, we are constantly reevaluating the
disease status of countries. If we determine that the status of any
country should be changed, we will publish a proposal for public
comment in the Federal Register.
Imports From Canada
One commenter stated that the disease situation in Canada has not
changed, and there is therefore no justification to require permits for
animals imported from Canada. Two commenters stated that import permits
for sheep and goats and germ plasm from sheep and goats from Canada are
unnecessary.
We have not made any changes based on this comment. As explained
above, until 1994, Canada did not generally import animals or germ
plasm from countries where scrapie exists. The few importations that
did occur were rare and easily traced. However, this is no longer true.
Canada now frequently imports germ plasm from countries where the
United States believes scrapie exists. To ensure that there is no risk
of transmitting scrapie to livestock in the United States, we need to
be able to trace the movements of this germ plasm and animals resulting
from the germ plasm. To obtain the information needed to make tracing
possible, we are requiring that animals and germ plasm from Canada be
accompanied by an import permit.
Several commenters stated that sheep and goats imported from Canada
should be handled differently under the regulations (i.e., be subject
to more stringent requirements) than sheep and goats imported from
Australia and New Zealand. Commenters also suggested that Canada could
serve as a ``back door'' into the United States for sheep and goats
from third countries.
We had proposed to exempt sheep and goats and germ plasm of sheep
and goats from Canada, Australia and New Zealand from proposed
Secs. 92.435, 98.10a, and 98.37, which would require such animals and
germ plasm to enter a flock or herd in the United States that
participates in the VSFCP. It is true that Australia and New Zealand
are free of scrapie, while Canada is not. However, the Canadian
government has an effective system to report, trace, and destroy
infected animals. Canada employs reporting and surveillance
requirements equivalent to the United States. Such requirements
include, but are not limited to: (1) Reporting incidence of scrapie;
(2) restriction of animal movement within the country because of
scrapie; (3) identification of flocks or herds with scrapie; and (4)
depopulation mechanisms for scrapie (i.e., removal of high-risk
animals). Canadian regulations are distinctly designed to control the
spread of scrapie within that country. Furthermore, APHIS and Canadian
animal health authorities closely coordinate scrapie control efforts.
For these reasons, we consider the risk of scrapie from animals and
germ plasm from Canada to be negligible, provided that certain
requirements are met. As explained above, we are requiring that
importers obtain an import permit for sheep, goats, and germ plasm from
Canada. The permit application process is designed to provide us with
the information we need to ensure that animals and germ plasm to be
imported meet our requirements and that they are not exposed or
infected with any disease or pest of concern. This includes not only
scrapie, but other diseases and pests. The permit requirement applies
to animals and germ plasm from all countries, including Australia and
New Zealand.
As to whether Canada could serve as a ``back door'' for infected
animals or germ plasm to enter the United States, we believe the permit
requirements imposed by our interim rule should close the ``back door''
that now exists. With these requirements in place, animals and germ
plasm from Canada may enter the United States only when
[[Page 17234]]
APHIS has been alerted to their health history. The application for an
import permit gives us specific information on the scrapie status of
animals and germ plasm to be imported, including the genetic history of
germ plasm donors. These requirements, along with certificate
requirements we proposed (see Secs. 92.405, 98.5, and 98.35 in this
final rule), will help ensure that animals and germ plasm are imported
into this country only under conditions designed to prevent the
importation and spread of scrapie. For example, pregnant sheep imported
from Canada will be required to enter VSFCP flocks if they have been
impregnated with germ plasm from any country other than Australia,
Canada, New Zealand or the United States.
One commenter also stated that it is ``unfair'' to treat subsequent
generations of animals differently, depending on whether they were born
in the United States or in Canada. We have carefully considered this
comment and we are not making any changes based on this comment. We
believe the commenter attempts to compare two dissimilar issues: The
treatment of animals to be imported into the United States and the
treatment of animals already in the United States. We believe these
issues require different approaches. Our intention in both the interim
rule and the proposed rule was to protect livestock in the United
States from being exposed to scrapie through imported animals and germ
plasm. The regulations in part 92 and 98 were not designed to reduce
the spread of scrapie within the United States. To accomplish that goal
we have established the VSFCP (see 9 CFR part 54). That program is
designed to encourage sheep and goats owners to eliminate scrapie
within their herds and flocks and thereby help prevent spread of the
disease within the United States. We believe the final regulations
contained in this document will encourage participation in the VSFCP.
Exemptions From Permit Requirement
Commenters suggested that certain animals or germ plasm be exempted
from the permit requirements contained in the interim rule. Suggestions
were made to exempt feeder lambs imported into the United States from
Canada and sheep and goats imported into the United States from Canada
for temporary exhibition. A suggestion was also made that sheep and
goats from flocks or herds in Canada where the only genetic material
imported into the flock or herd was semen or embryos should not be
subject to permit ``restrictions.''
We have carefully considered the suggestion that we exempt from the
permit requirement sheep and goats imported from Canada for temporary
exhibition in the United States. We need to know where these animals
are located and when and where they are moved after they enter the
United States. This information is necessary to help ensure that these
animals do not come into contact with livestock in the United States
under circumstances where they could transmit scrapie. We obtain this
information through the import permit process and therefore cannot
exempt these animals from this requirement.
We have also carefully considered the suggestion that we exempt
feeder lambs from Canada from the permit requirement. We agree that
feeder lambs are generally kept in confinement. However, we do not
agree that they pose no greater risk of transmitting scrapie than do
slaughter animals simply because they are normally kept in confinement.
On the contrary, we believe feeder lambs pose considerable risk. Feeder
lambs are usually shipped in mixed loads of ewe lambs and wether lambs.
At the time they cross into the United States, they have entered U.S.
commerce. Unlike wethers, which have no value other than slaughter, and
which in any case are unlikely to transmit scrapie, feeder ewes are
bought and sold for other purposes. Many are sold directly from
feedlots for use as breeding ewes. It is not illegal to sell and buy
feeder lambs for this purpose. Under these circumstances, we do not
believe that exempting feeder lambs from Canada from the permit
requirement is appropriate. We are therefore making no changes based on
this comment.
The comment requesting that permit ``restrictions'' not be placed
on animals from flocks or herds in Canada where the only genetic
material imported into the flock or herd was semen or embryos was also
carefully considered. It has been theorized that scrapie is not
transmitted through germ plasm. However, at this time there is
insufficient data or research to support this theory. While the topic
is under study, we believe the most prudent course is to monitor
through the VSFCP importation of animals from Canada that are from
flocks where semen or embryos have been imported into the flock from a
country other than Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the United
States. Therefore, we are making no changes based on this comment.
Who May Issue Health Certificates
One commenter suggested that we simplify the proposed regulations
to allow licensed veterinarians to certify source flocks as free of
scrapie. We are not making any changes based on this comment. We
require government certification to ensure that the information on
certificates is reliable. If we allowed any licensed veterinarian to
certify animals, we would have no means of ensuring that the
information was accurate, and no recourse if it were not.
Additional Restrictions
Commenters also suggested that certain animals or germ plasm be
placed under greater restrictions than provided in the interim and
proposed requirements. The suggestions were to: (1) Prohibit
importation of live animals born in the same flock during the same
lambing or kidding season as progeny of scrapie-positive dams; (2)
require that sheep or goats remain for a minimum of 5 years in a flock
or herd participating in a disease prevention program; (3) restrict
movement of animals located in zoos in the United States; (4) require
identification of certain progeny; and (5) require necropsy of certain
imported animals that die before they have been in the United States
for 5 years.
We have determined that no changes are needed in response to the
suggestion that we prohibit importation of live animals born in the
same flock during the same lambing or kidding season as progeny of
scrapie-positive dams. These animals would be prohibited importation
under Sec. 92.405. That section requires that, with limited exceptions,
all ruminants intended for importation be accompanied by certificates.
The certificates for sheep and goats (except for those animals from
Australia, Canada, or New Zealand) must, in addition, specifically
state that the animals have not been in any flock or herd nor had
contact with sheep or goats which have been in any flock or herd where
scrapie has been diagnosed or suspected during the 5 years immediately
prior to shipment. Also under Sec. 92.405(a), ruminants, including
sheep or goats, would have to be accompanied by a certificate stating
that the animals are not in quarantine in the country of origin. This
is a new requirement in this final rule and is discussed below under
``Animals in quarantine in New Zealand.'' These requirements would have
the practical effect of prohibiting the importation of live animals
born in the same flock during the same lambing or kidding season as
progeny of scrapie-positive dams.
We have carefully considered the comment that we should require
sheep and goats to participate in a scrapie
[[Page 17235]]
control program for a minimum of 5 years. We have determined that no
changes are necessary in response to this comment. Except for limited
exemptions discussed elsewhere in this document, our requirements will
allow the unrestricted importation of sheep and goats and sheep germ
plasm only from countries which are free of scrapie or, in the case of
Canada, which employ reporting and surveillance requirements equivalent
to the United States and have regulations distinctly designed to
control the spread of scrapie within the country. All imported sheep
and goats and germ plasm of sheep and goats must be accompanied by a
certificate. With the exception of sheep and goats from Australia,
Canada, and New Zealand, the certificate accompanying animals must
specifically state that the sheep and goats have not been in contact
with other sheep and goats, during the 5 years previous to importation,
such that they could have been exposed to scrapie (see Sec. 92.405).
The certificate accompanying germ plasm must specifically state that,
in the case of embryos, the donor animals, and in the case of semen,
the donor sire, have not been in contact with other sheep and goats,
during the 5 years previous to collection of the germ plasm, such that
they could have been exposed to scrapie (see Secs. 98.5(b)(1) and
98.35(e)(1)). Except as explained later in this document (see the
discussion below headed ``Goats''), sheep, goats, and sheep germ plasm
from countries other than Canada, Australia, and New Zealand may enter
the United States only into a flock or herd participating in the VSFCP
(see Secs. 92.435, 98.10a and 98.37).1 These imported animals and
all first generation progeny resulting from the imported germ plasm
must remain in a participating flock or herd until the flock or herd
qualifies as ``Certified.'' If the flock or herd is a level ``C'' flock
or herd when the animals or germ plasm enter it, the process of
attaining ``Certified'' status takes a minimum of 5 years. Animals and
germ plasm may qualify to enter a flock or herd of higher status if
they have been imported from a source flock or herd participating in a
program which the Administrator has determined is equivalent to the
APHIS VSFCP. In that situation, the animals and any first generation
progeny resulting from the imported germ plasm may have to remain in a
participating flock or herd for fewer than 5 years. However, the
animals (or donor animals, in the case of imported germ plasm) would
have been in a participating flock or herd, or in an equivalent flock
or herd in the country of origin, for at least 5 years.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Note: Under this final rule, although it is not required
(except in one instance), sheep and goats and sheep germ plasm from
Australia, Canada, and New Zealand may be imported into the United
States into flocks and herds participating in the VSFCP. Likewise,
goat germ plasm, regardless of the country of origin, may be
imported into the United States into herds participating in the
VSFCP. These importations must, of course, meet the necessary
certification, permit, and quarantine requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are also not making any changes in response to the comment that
we place additional restrictions on the movement of animals from zoos
in the United States. Very few animals are imported to zoos, and those
which are imported are mainly from other zoos. Most zoo animals are
captive-bred and rarely moved from their home zoo. Under these
circumstances, we believe the disease risk presented by zoo animals to
be very slight. Under our current regulations, animals moving from a
zoo in the United States must be accompanied by a permit. The
information provided as part of the permit process--when and where and
under what conditions the animal is being moved--is sufficient to allow
us to trace the animal and ensure that it does not come into contact
with livestock under circumstances where it could transmit scrapie. We
believe these requirements are adequate to prevent the spread of
scrapie.
We have carefully considered the comment that we require progeny of
imported sheep and goats to be permanently identified, and that we
require a necropsy on animals which die less than 5 years after
importation. The ``Uniform Methods and Rules--Voluntary Scrapie Flock
Certification'' (UM&R), governs the VSFCP. The UM&R requires all
animals in the flock or herd, including animals born into the flock or
herd, to be permanently identified. The UM&R also requires that a
necropsy be performed on any animals that die under suspicious
circumstances. Sheep and goats imported into the United States under
this final rule, with certain exceptions, will be required to enter a
participating flock or herd. They would therefore be required to be
permanently identified. They would also have to be necropsied should
they die under suspicious circumstances. We believe these requirements
are adequate to prevent the spread of disease, should it occur. The
only sheep and goats imported into the United States not subject to
these requirements would be animals which are exempt from entering a
participating herd because they present no risk of disease. Each
category of exempt animals is explained elsewhere in this document, or
in the proposed rule.
Goats
Several commenters suggested that sheep and goats should be treated
differently under the regulations, as scrapie rarely occurs in goats.
We have carefully reviewed these comments and have determined that
some changes in the regulations with regard to goats are warranted. It
is true that goats are susceptible to scrapie. However, since 1947 in
the United States there have been only 5 reported cases of scrapie in
goats. All occurred in goats which had been in contact with scrapie-
infected sheep. As goats are not normally kept in contact with sheep,
and as the incubation period for scrapie can last up to 5 years, we
believe goats that have had no contact with sheep for a period of at
least 5 years would pose an insignificant risk of scrapie. Therefore,
under this final rule, goats will not be subject to Sec. 92.435 if they
are certified as having had no contact with sheep for at least the
previous 5 years. Further, goats from Australia, Canada, and New
Zealand would not be subject to Sec. 92.435 even if they have had
contact with sheep. Australia and New Zealand are free of scrapie.
Contact with sheep in New Zealand and Australia would therefore not
result in potential exposure to scrapie. Canada employs reporting and
surveillance requirements equivalent to those of the United States and
has regulations distinctly designed to control the spread of scrapie
within the country. Therefore, under the conditions set forth in this
final rule, we consider the risk of scrapie from goats in Canada to be
negligible.
Under this final rule, goats, regardless of the country of origin,
will not need to be certified as coming from a herd in which none of
the female goats has been impregnated, during the 5 years immediately
preceding shipment of the goats to the United States, with germ plasm
from a country other than Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the United
States, or with germ plasm from a herd of unknown scrapie status. In
addition, goat germ plasm, regardless of the country of origin, will be
required to meet certification requirements, but will not be required
to be placed in a herd that participates in the VSFCP. We believe these
changes are warranted due to the low risk of transmitting scrapie posed
by goats.
Enforcing the Regulations
Several commenters expressed concern about enforcement of our
regulations. We are not making any changes based on these comments. We
believe these regulations are enforceable
[[Page 17236]]
and that we have adequate manpower to enforce them.
Animals in Quarantine in New Zealand
As pointed out by one commenter, there are sheep currently in
quarantine in New Zealand in a Scrapie Free Accreditation Program.
These sheep were imported into a New Zealand quarantine facility from a
country which the United States does not consider scrapie free. The
commenter asks what the ``status'' of these animals is under our
proposed rule.
Under this final rule, imported sheep must be accompanied by a
certificate issued under Sec. 92.405. Among other things, Sec. 92.405
requires the certificate to contain a statement that the sheep are not
in quarantine in the country of origin. Therefore, as long as the sheep
are in quarantine in New Zealand, they cannot be imported into the
United States.
As a matter of policy, we do not accept any ruminants from any
country which are in quarantine in the source country. To clarify that
this requirement applies to all ruminants from all countries, we are
amending Sec. 92.405 to include this requirement.
Clarify Regulations
Several commenters asked that different provisions of the proposed
regulations be clarified.
The first commenter of this group asked that we clarify whether we
are proposing to remove all import requirements for sheep from New
Zealand, or whether only some health certificate requirements would be
removed. As explained elsewhere in this document, we are removing
certain health certificate requirements that apply specifically to
sheep imported from New Zealand. In addition, depending upon the
circumstances of each individual animal, sheep from New Zealand would
not be required to enter a flock participating in the VSFCP. Import
permits would still need to be obtained for sheep from New Zealand, and
sheep from New Zealand would still need to be accompanied by a
certificate, and be quarantined upon arrival in the United States.
The second commenter asked us to clarify the meaning of
``suspect.'' By ``suspect,'' we mean any animal which displays signs
that could indicate it is infected with scrapie. There is no live
animal test for scrapie, and a positive diagnosis can be made only
after the animal dies.
Several commenters asked for clarification of ``progeny'' when the
term is used to refer to animals required to remain in a herd or flock
in the VSFCP. In this connection, we intended the term ``progeny'' to
mean only the first generation of animals resulting from natural
breeding, artificial insemination, or embryo transfer. To eliminate any
confusion as to the meaning of ``progeny,'' we are amending the
proposed regulations to read ``first generation progeny'' where
appropriate. It would be impractical to require progeny beyond the
first generation of animals to remain in a VSFCP herd or flock. All
VSFCP herds and flocks are maintained under surveillance. In addition,
except for animals moving to slaughter, all sheep and goats in
participating herds or flocks must be permanently identified, and herd
and flock owners must maintain certain records for a minimum of 5 years
after an animal dies or has otherwise been removed from the herd or
flock. These records, along with the individual animal identification,
allows us to trace animals which leave the herd or flock.
One commenter approved of the proposed requirement that progeny
resulting from germ plasm imported under the regulations remain in a
flock or herd participating in the VSFCP until that flock or herd
qualifies as ``Certified.'' The commenter asked if the proposed
requirement would apply to each importation of germ plasm. Our response
is yes, each importation of germ plasm would be subject to this
requirement.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Analysis
One commenter stated that the Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis
needed to clarify that it costs ``something'' to participate in the
VSFCP. Flock and herd owners who elect to participate in the VSFCP do
incur the costs of making and maintaining records on the animals in
their flock or herd. However, the program is completely voluntary, and
in most cases any recordkeeping costs would be inconsequential. In
addition, the increased value of animals in VSFCP herds and flocks
would offset any recordkeeping cost.
Questions
One commenter asked if Boer goats were bred especially to sell in
the United States. The term ``Boer goat'' was used in the 19th century
in South Africa to mean farm goat. The term was apparently used to
distinguish indigenous goats from imported Angora goats. The present-
day Boer goat, bred from native stock, was developed in the early 20th
century for meat production.
A couple of other commenters asked for clarification of the length
of time under our proposed rule that various animals would have to
remain in a flock or herd that is participating in the VSFCP. All
animals must remain in a flock or herd participating in the Program
until the flock or herd reaches ``Certified'' status. This usually
takes a minimum of 5 years. If a live animal is imported into the
United States, APHIS may give ``credit'' for years the animal's flock
or herd of origin participated in a program which the Administrator of
APHIS determines is equivalent to the VSFCP. If germ plasm is imported,
the first generation of animals resulting from that germ plasm must
remain in a participating flock in the United States until the flock
reaches ``Certified'' status.
Miscellaneous Comments
One commenter suggested that APHIS should certify animals for
importation only if they come from a country where scrapie exists.
According to the comment, animals from such countries would have some
immunity to the disease. Unfortunately, we are not aware of any
evidence demonstrating that animals can develop immunity to scrapie.
For this reason we are not making any changes based on this comment.
Miscellaneous
Since we published the proposed rule, the regulations in part 98,
subpart B, which concern embryos from countries where rinderpest or
foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) exists, have been amended (see 61 FR 15180
et seq., Docket No. 94-006-2). Among other things, the regulations were
amended so they apply not only to certain cattle embryos, but to all
ruminant embryos, including sheep and goat embryos. Therefore, we are
amending part 98, subpart B, at this time to add the same health
certificate requirements concerning scrapie as are included in this
final rule for sheep and goat embryos from countries free of rinderpest
and FMD. This amendment will make the requirements consistent in
subparts A and B of part 98. We are also amending the language in
Sec. 98.14(a), stating who may issue health certificates, to make it
consistent with similar language in Secs. 92.405, 98.5, and 98.35, as
we proposed.
We have also made minor, nonsubstantive changes to correct
punctuation and to maintain consistent wording. In addition, in some
parts of this final rule, we have set out current regulatory text that
did not appear in the proposed rule. This has been done in places where
less than an entire sentence appeared in the proposed rule
[[Page 17237]]
so that readers will have an easier time understanding the text.
We have also updated our Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis to
include the latest available data.
Therefore, based on the rationale set forth in the interim rule of
March 11, 1995, and in this document, we are affirming the provisions
of the interim rule without change. In addition, based on the rationale
set forth in the proposed rule of May 11, 1995, and in this document,
we are adopting the provisions of the proposed rule, with the changes
discussed in this document.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The 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.
This rule requires an import permit for certain sheep and goats
imported into the United States from Canada and Mexico through a land
border port. In 1994, 28,357 sheep and 527 goats were imported from
Canada through a land border port; none were imported from Mexico
through a land border port. Over 97 percent of these sheep and goats
were wethers or were imported for immediate slaughter. Wethers and
sheep and goats imported through land border ports for immediate
slaughter continue to be exempt from the requirement for an import
permit. Based on these numbers, we expect that only 3 percent of sheep
and goats imported from Canada or Mexico through land border ports will
be required to be accompanied by an import permit under this rule.
APHIS does not charge a user fee specifically for the import permit.
However, APHIS does charge a user fee for import or entry services
provided at all ports of entry, including land border ports along the
United States-Mexico border. These user fees may need to be adjusted to
account for the cost of issuing import permits required under this
final rule. If this is necessary, a proposed rule will be published for
public comment in the Federal Register.
This rule also requires additional certification information for
sheep, goats, and germ plasm. However, no direct charges or user fees
will be assessed by APHIS as these certificates are issued in foreign
countries. The cost impact will be minimal.
In addition, under this rule: (1) Sheep and goat imports from New
Zealand will no longer be required to meet special health certification
requirements, and (2) regulations governing privately operated
quarantine facilities for imported sheep will apply to privately
operated quarantine facilities for imported goats as well. These
changes will not have a significant impact on importers or producers.
We believe any impact will be positive, in that the changes will
facilitate importation of sheep and goats.
Our economic analysis indicates that these amendments will have a
positive economic impact on U.S. importers of sheep, goats, and their
germ plasm, since importation into the United States will be easier.
The current requirements surrounding the importation of sheep, goats,
and their germ plasm are confusing and considered by many interested
parties to be too restrictive.
In 1995, there were 82,120 agricultural operations with sheep in
the United States. Under Small Business Administration criteria, 99
percent of them are believed to be small entities (having less than
$0.5 million in gross annual receipts for domestic producers and fewer
than 100 employees for importers). No information is available on the
number or U.S. agricultural operations with goats.
We anticipate that participation in the VSFCP will increase, as
sheep germ plasm and breeding stock from countries other than
Australia, Canada, and New Zealand, will be allowed to be introduced
only into VSFCP flocks and herds. Because of the termination by the
U.S. government of the subsidy to wool and mohair growers, the expected
shift from wool and mohair production to meat production in sheep and
goats should create additional demand for breeding stock and germ plasm
imports. Wider participation in the Program will better safeguard the
U.S. sheep and goat industry against a scrapie outbreak. Participation
requires operations to maintain records on their animals, although it
is likely that potential importers of breeding animals or germ plasm
are already keeping such records. There will be no increase in costs
for sheep and goat operations if they participate in the VSFCP.
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 12778
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12778, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and
regulations that are inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no
retroactive effect; and (3) does not require administrative proceedings
before parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C.
3501 et seq.), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements
included in this rule have been approved by the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) under OMB control numbers 0579-0040 and 0579-0101.
List of Subjects
9 CFR Part 92
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products,
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
9 CFR Part 98
Animal diseases, Imports.
Accordingly, we are adopting as a final rule, without change, the
interim rule that amended 9 CFR 92.400, 92.417, and 92.424, and that
was published at 60 FR 13898-13900 on March 15, 1995.
Accordingly, 9 CFR parts 92 and 98 are amended as follows:
PART 92--IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN ANIMALS AND POULTRY AND CERTAIN
ANIMAL AND POULTRY PRODUCTS; INSPECTION AND OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR
CERTAIN MEANS OF CONVEYANCE AND SHIPPING CONTAINERS THEREON
1. The authority citation for part 92 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 102-105,
111, 114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134d, 134f, 135, 136, and 136a; 31
U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).
2. Section 92.400 is amended by revising the definition of Herd and
by adding a definition for Flock, in alphabetical order, to read as
follows:
Sec. 92.400 Definitions.
* * * * *
Flock. A herd.
Herd. All animals maintained on any single premises; and all
animals under common ownership or supervision on two or more premises
which are geographically separated, but among which there is an
interchange or movement of animals.
* * * * *
3. Section 92.405 is amended as follows:
a. By revising paragraphs (a) and (b) to read as set forth below.
b. By redesignating paragraph (c) as paragraph (d), and by adding a
new paragraph (c) to read as set forth below.
c. In newly designated paragraph (d), by removing the words
``paragraphs (a)
[[Page 17238]]
and (b)'' and adding in their place the words ``paragraphs (a), (b),
and (c)''.
d. By adding a parenthetical at the end of the section to read as
set forth below.
Sec. 92.405 Certificate for ruminants.
(a) All ruminants intended for importation from any part of the
world, except as provided in Secs. 92.418(a), 92.419(a), 92.423(c), and
92.428(d), shall be accompanied by a certificate issued by a full-time
salaried veterinary officer of the national government of the country
of origin, or issued by a veterinarian designated or accredited by the
national government of the country of origin and endorsed by a full-
time salaried veterinary officer of the national government of the
country of origin, representing that the veterinarian issuing the
certificate was authorized to do so. The certificate shall state:
(1) That the ruminants have been kept in that country during the
last 60 days immediately preceding the date of shipment to the United
States, and that during this time the country has been entirely free
from foot-and-mouth disease, rinderpest, contagious pleuropneumonia,
and surra; provided, however, that for wild ruminants for exhibition
purposes, the certificate need specify only that the district of origin
has been free from the listed diseases; and provided further, that for
sheep and goats, with respect to contagious pleuropneumonia, the
certificate may specify only that the district of origin has been free
from this disease; and
(2) That the ruminants are not in quarantine in the country of
origin.
(b) Goats. (1) In addition to the statements required by paragraph
(a) of this section, the certificate accompanying goats intended for
importation from any part of the world must state:
(i) That none of the goats in the herd from which the goats will be
imported is the progeny of a sire or dam that has been affected with
scrapie or that has produced offspring that have been affected with
scrapie;
(ii) That none of the female goats in the herd from which the goats
will be imported has been impregnated, during the 5 years immediately
preceding shipment of the goats to the United States, with germ plasm
from a herd known to be infected with scrapie;
(iii) That the veterinarian issuing the certificate has inspected
the goats in the herd from which the animals will be imported and found
the herd to be free of any evidence of infectious or contagious
disease; and
(iv) That as far as it is possible for the veterinarian who
inspects the animals to determine, none of the goats in the herd from
which the animals will be imported has been exposed to any infectious
or contagious disease during the 60 days immediately preceding shipment
to the United States.
(2) In addition, the certificate accompanying goats intended for
importation from any part of the world except Australia, Canada, and
New Zealand must state:
(i) That the goats have not been in any herd nor had contact with
sheep or goats that have been in any flock or herd where scrapie has
been diagnosed or suspected during the 5 years immediately prior to
shipment; and
(ii) That the goats have not had any contact with sheep during the
5 years immediately prior to shipment; provided that, this statement is
not required if the goats are imported in accordance with
Sec. 92.435(a) into a herd in the United States that participates in
the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification Program.
(c) Sheep. (1) In addition to the statements required by paragraph
(a) of this section, the certificate accompanying sheep intended for
importation from any part of the world must state:
(i) That none of the sheep in the flock from which the sheep will
be imported is the progeny of a sire or dam that has been affected with
scrapie or that has produced offspring that have been affected with
scrapie;
(ii) That none of the female sheep in the flock from which the
sheep will be imported has been impregnated, during the 5 years
immediately preceding shipment of the sheep to the United States, with
germ plasm from a flock known to be infected with scrapie;
(iii) That the veterinarian issuing the certificate has inspected
the sheep in the flock from which the animals will be imported and
found the flock to be free of any evidence of infectious or contagious
disease; and
(iv) That as far as it is possible for the veterinarian who
inspects the animals to determine, none of the sheep in the flock from
which the animals will be imported has been exposed to any infectious
or contagious disease during the 60 days immediately preceding shipment
to the United States.
(2) In addition, the certificate accompanying sheep intended for
importation from any part of the world except Australia, Canada, and
New Zealand must state that the sheep have not been in any flock nor
had contact with sheep or goats that have been in any flock or herd
where scrapie has been diagnosed or suspected during the 5 years
immediately prior to shipment.
(3) In addition, the certificate accompanying sheep intended for
importation from Australia, Canada, and New Zealand must state that
none of the female sheep in the flock from which the sheep will be
imported has been impregnated, during the 5 years immediately preceding
shipment of the sheep to the United States, with germ plasm from a
country other than Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or the United
States, or from a flock of unknown scrapie status; provided that, this
statement is not required if the sheep are imported in accordance with
Sec. 92.435(a) into a flock in the United States that participates in
the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification Program.
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0040)
4. Section 92.411 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 92.411 Quarantine requirements.
(a) Except for cattle from Central America and the West Indies, and
except for ruminants from Canada and Mexico, all ruminants imported
into the United States shall be quarantined for not less than 30 days
counting from the date of arrival at the port of entry.
(b) Wild ruminants shall be subject, during their quarantine, to
such inspections, disinfection, blood tests, or other tests as may be
required by the Administrator to determine their freedom from disease.
5. In Sec. 92.418, paragraph (a) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 92.418 Cattle from Canada.
(a) Health certificates. Except for cattle imported for immediate
slaughter in accordance with Sec. 92.420, cattle intended for
importation from Canada shall be accompanied by a certificate issued in
accordance with Sec. 92.405(a). The certificate shall state that the
cattle have been inspected and found to be free from any evidence of
communicable disease and that, as far as can be determined, they have
not been exposed to any such disease during the preceding 60 days.
Cattle found unqualified upon inspection at the port of entry will be
refused entry into the United States.
* * * * *
6. Section 92.419 is amended as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (a) to read as set forth below.
b. By adding a parenthetical at the end of the section to read as
set forth below.
[[Page 17239]]
Sec. 92.419 Sheep and goats from Canada.
(a) Except for sheep and goats imported for immediate slaughter in
accordance with Sec. 92.420, sheep and goats intended for importation
from Canada shall be accompanied by a certificate issued in accordance
with Sec. 92.405.
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0040)
7. Section 92.423 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (a), by revising the first sentence to read as set
forth below.
b. By revising paragraph (b) to read as set forth below.
c. By adding a parenthetical at the end of the section to read as
set forth below.
Sec. 92.423 Ruminants from Central America and the West Indies.
(a) Ruminants intended for importation from Central America and the
West Indies, except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, must
be accompanied by a certificate issued in accordance with
Sec. 92.405(a) stating that the animals have been in that country at
least 60 days immediately preceding the date of shipment to the United
States; that he or she has inspected the ruminants on the premises of
origin and found them free from evidence of any communicable disease;
and that, as far as it has been possible to determine, the ruminants
have not been exposed to any communicable disease during the preceding
60 days. * * *
(b) The certificate accompanying sheep and goats intended for
importation from Central America and the West Indies must, in addition
to the statements required by paragraph (a) of this section, meet all
of the requirements of Sec. 92.405.
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0040)
8. Section 92.427 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (b)(1), by revising the first sentence to read as
set forth below.
b. By revising paragraphs (b)(2)(i) and (b)(2)(ii) to read as set
forth below.
c. In paragraph (c)(1), by revising the last sentence to read as
set forth below.
d. By revising paragraph (d)(1) introductory text, to read as set
forth below.
Sec. 92.427 Cattle from Mexico.
* * * * *
(b) Fever ticks. (1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this
section, all cattle intended for importation from Mexico, for purposes
other than immediate slaughter, shall be accompanied by a certificate
issued in accordance with Sec. 92.405(a), and showing that the
veterinarian issuing the certificate inspected the cattle at the time
of movement to the port of entry and found them free from any evidence
of communicable disease and that, as far as it has been possible to
determine, they have not been exposed to any such disease, including
splenetic, southern or tick fever, during the preceding 60 days and, if
shipped by rail or truck, the certificate shall further specify that
the cattle were loaded into clean and disinfected cars or trucks for
transportation direct to the port of entry. * * *
(2) * * *
(i) The cattle shall be accompanied by a certificate issued in
accordance with Sec. 92.405(a), and showing that the veterinarian
issuing the certificate has inspected the cattle and found them free
from fever ticks and any evidence of communicable disease, and that, as
far as it has been possible to determine, they have not been exposed to
any such disease, except splenetic, southern, or tick fever, during the
60 days immediately preceding their movement to the port of entry.
(ii) The cattle shall be shown by a certificate issued in
accordance with Sec. 92.405(a) to have been dipped in a tickicidal dip
within 7 to 12 days before being offered for entry.
* * * * *
(c) * * *
(1) * * * However, cattle, including steers, that originated in
herds declared to be tuberculosis-accredited by the Government of
Mexico in accordance with that country's standards do not have to
comply with the other provisions of this paragraph if they are moved
directly to the U.S. port of entry from their herd of origin without
having commingled with cattle from any herd not so accredited enroute
to the port of entry, and they are accompanied by a health certificate,
issued in accordance with Sec. 92.405(a), stating that the cattle
originated in such a tuberculosis-accredited herd and identifying the
animals by official Mexican Ministry of Agriculture and Water Resources
(SARH) blue eartag and tattoo numbers.
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) Are accompanied by a certificate issued in accordance with
Sec. 92.405(a) stating:
* * * * *
9. Section 92.428 is amended as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (a) to read as set forth below.
b. By adding a parenthetical at the end of the section to read as
set forth below.
Sec. 92.428 Sheep and goats and wild ruminants from Mexico.
(a) Sheep and goats intended for importation from Mexico shall be
accompanied by a certificate issued in accordance with Sec. 92.405 and
stating, if such sheep and goats are shipped by rail or truck, that
such animals were loaded into cleaned and disinfected cars or trucks
for transportation direct to the port of entry. Notwithstanding such
certificate, such sheep and goats shall be detained as provided in
Sec. 92.427(a) and shall be dipped at least once in a permitted scabies
dip under supervision of an inspector.
* * * * *
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0040)
10. In Sec. 92.429, the first sentence is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 92.429 Ruminants for immediate slaughter.
Ruminants, other than sheep and goats, may be imported from Mexico,
subject to the applicable provisions of Secs. 92.424, 92.425, 92.426,
and 92.427(b)(2) for immediate slaughter if accompanied by a
certificate issued in accordance with Sec. 92.405(a) and stating that
the veterinarian who issued the certificate has inspected the animals
in the herd from which the ruminants will be imported and found them
free of evidence of communicable disease, and that, so far as it has
been possible to determine, they have not been exposed to any such
disease common to animals of their kind during the preceding 60 days,
and if the ruminants are shipped by rail or truck, the certificate
shall further specify that the ruminants were loaded into cleaned and
disinfected cars or trucks for transportation directly to the port of
entry. * * *
Sec. 92.433 [Removed and Reserved]
11. Section 92.433, Sheep from New Zealand, is removed and
reserved.
Sec. 92.434 [Amended]
12. Section 92.434 is amended as follows:
a. By revising the heading to read as follows:
Sec. 92.434 Standards for approval of privately operated quarantine
facilities for sheep or goats, and handling procedures for the
importation of sheep or goats.
* * * * *
b. In paragraph (b) introductory text, by redesignating footnote 19
and the reference to it as footnote 15.
[[Page 17240]]
c. In paragraph (d)(1), by redesignating footnote 20 and the
reference to it as footnote 16.
d. By adding the words ``or goats'' after the word ``sheep'' in the
following places:
i. In paragraph (a).
ii. In paragraph (b)(2)(i)(B).
iii. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A).
iv. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B).
v. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(D) each time it appears.
vi. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(E).
vii. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(F) each time it appears.
viii. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(G), after only the third time
``sheep'' appears.
ix. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(K).
x. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(L).
xi. In paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A)(5).
xii. In paragraph (b)(3)(ii).
xiii. In paragraph (b)(3)(iv), in the heading and text.
xiv. In paragraph (b)(3)(iv)(A), in the first sentence.
xv. In paragraph (b)(3)(iv)(B).
xvi. In paragraph (b)(3)(v) each time it appears.
xvii. In paragraph (b)(5) each time it appears.
xviii. In paragraph (c).
xix. In paragraph (d)(2) introductory text.
xx. In paragraph (d)(2)(iv).
xxi. In paragraph (d)(4).
e. by adding the words ``or goat'' after the word ``sheep'' in the
following places:
i. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(G), after the first and second time
``sheep'' appears.
ii. In paragraph (b)(3)(iv)(A), in the second sentence.
f. By removing the word ``sheep-holding'' and adding the words
``sheep- or goat-holding'' in the following places:
i. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(K).
ii. In paragraph (b)(2)(iii)(J).
iii. In paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) introductory text.
iv. In paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A)(1).
v. In paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A)(3).
vi. In paragraph (b)(3)(ii).
13. A new Sec. 92.435 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 92.435 Sheep and goats.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, all sheep
and goats imported into the United States must be placed in a flock or
herd in the United States that participates in the Voluntary Scrapie
Flock Certification Program (see 9 CFR part 54, subpart B) and:
(1) The flock or herd qualifies as a ``Certified'' flock or herd;
or
(2) The flock or herd owner has agreed, in writing, to maintain the
flock or herd in compliance with all requirements of the Voluntary
Scrapie Flock Certification Program until the flock or herd qualifies
as a ``Certified'' flock or herd.
(b) The following sheep and goats are not subject to paragraph (a)
of this section:
(1) Goats intended for importation from Australia, Canada, or New
Zealand;
(2) Goats intended for importation from any country other than
Australia, Canada, or New Zealand, provided that such goats have not
had any contact with sheep during the 5 years immediately prior to
shipment, in accordance with Sec. 92.405(b)(2)(ii);
(3) Sheep intended for importation from Australia, Canada, or New
Zealand, provided that none of the female sheep in the flock from which
the sheep will be imported has been impregnated, during the 5 years
immediately preceding shipment of the sheep to the United States, with
germ plasm from a country other than Australia, Canada, New Zealand, or
the United States, in accordance with Sec. 92.405(c)(3);
(4) Wethers;
(5) Sheep or goats imported for immediate slaughter; and
(6) Wild sheep or goats imported for exhibition purposes to an
approved zoological park in accordance with Sec. 92.404(c).
(c) Sheep or goats may be imported under paragraph (a) of this
section only if the importer provides the Voluntary Scrapie Flock
Certification Program identification number of the receiving flock or
herd as part of the application for an import permit.
(d) Sheep and goats may be imported under paragraph (a)(1) of this
section only if they come from a flock or herd in the country of origin
that participates in a program determined by the Administrator to be
equivalent to the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification Program, and
the flock or herd has been determined by the Administrator to be at a
level equivalent to ``Certified'' in the Voluntary Scrapie Flock
Certification Program.
(e) Sheep and goats may be imported under paragraph (a)(2) of this
section only if they are placed in a Certifiable Class C flock or herd
participating in the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification Program;
except, that if the sheep and goats come from a flock or herd in the
country of origin that participates in a program determined by the
Administrator to be equivalent to the Voluntary Scrapie Flock
Certification Program, then the sheep and goats may be placed in a herd
or flock in the United States which would be classified at a level
equivalent to or lower (i.e., at a greater risk) than the certification
level, as determined by the Administrator, of the flock or herd from
which the sheep or goats are to be imported.
(f) Sheep and goats imported under paragraph (a)(2) of this section
must be monitored for scrapie disease until the flock or herd qualifies
as a ``Certified'' flock or herd.
(g) Except for imported sheep and goats placed in Certifiable Class
C flocks or herds, the certificate accompanying sheep or goats imported
under paragraph (a) of this section must contain the following
statement: ``The animals identified on this certificate have been
monitored by a salaried veterinary officer of [name of country of
origin], for [number of months], in the same source flock or herd which
had been determined by the Administrator, APHIS, prior to the
exportation of these animals to the United States, to be equivalent to
[certification level] of the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification
Program authorized under 9 CFR part 54, subpart B.''
(1) The Administrator will determine, based upon information
supplied by the importer, whether the flock or herd from which the
animals are to be imported participates in a program in the country of
origin that is equivalent to the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification
Program, and if so, at what level the source flock or herd should be
classified.
(2) In order for the Administrator to make a determination, the
importer must supply the following information with the application for
an import permit no less than 1 month prior to the anticipated date of
importation:
(i) The name, title, and address of a knowledgeable official in the
veterinary services of the country of origin;
(ii) The details of scrapie control programs in the country of
origin, including information on disease surveillance and border
control activities and the length of time such activities have been in
effect;
(iii) Any available information concerning additions, within the 5
years immediately preceding shipment to the United States, to the flock
or herd from which the sheep and goats will be imported;
(iv) Any available data concerning disease incidence, within the 5
years immediately preceding shipment to the United States, in the flock
or herd from which the sheep or goats are to be imported, including,
but not limited to, the results of diagnostic tests, especially
histopathology tests, conducted on any animals in the flock or herd;
[[Page 17241]]
(v) Information concerning the health, within the 5 years
immediately preceding shipment to the United States, of other
ruminants, flocks, and herds with which the imported sheep and goats,
and with which animals in the sheep or goats' flock or herd might have
had physical contact, and a description of the type and frequency of
such physical contact; and
(vi) Any other information requested by the Administrator in
specific cases as needed to make a determination.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
numbers 0579-0040 and 0579-0101)
PART 98--IMPORTATION OF CERTAIN ANIMAL EMBRYOS AND ANIMAL SEMEN
14. The authority citation for part 98 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 103-105,
111, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134d, 134f, 136, and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7
CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).
15. Section 98.2 is amended by adding definitions for flock and
herd, in alphabetical order, to read as follows:
Sec. 98.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Flock. A herd.
Herd. All animals maintained on any single premises; and all
animals under common ownership or supervision on two or more premises
which are geographically separated, but among which there is an
intercha
FR Doc. 96-9266 Importation of Sheep and Goats and Germ Plasm From Sheep and Goats
nge or movement of animals.
* * * * *
16. Section 98.5 is amended as follows:
a. By redesignating the introductory text of the section and
paragraphs (a), (b), (c), (d), and (e) as paragraph (a) introductory
text and paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), and (a)(5),
respectively.
b. By revising newly designated paragraph (a) introductory text to
read as set forth below.
c. By adding a new paragraph (b) to read as set forth below.
Sec. 98.5 Health certificate.
(a) Except as provided in subpart B of this part, an animal embryo
shall not be imported into the United States unless it is accompanied
by a certificate issued by a full-time salaried veterinary officer of
the national government of the country of origin, or issued by a
veterinarian designated or accredited by the national government of the
country of origin and endorsed by a full-time salaried veterinary
officer of the national government of the country of origin,
representing that the veterinarian issuing the certificate was
authorized to do so. The certificate shall state:
* * * * *
(b) The certificate accompanying sheep or goat embryos intended for
importation from any part of the world shall, in addition to the
statements required by paragraph (a) of this section, state that:
(1) The embryos' sire and dam have not been in any flock or herd
nor had contact with sheep or goats which have been in any flock or
herd where scrapie has been diagnosed or suspected during the 5 years
prior to the date of collection of the embryos;
(2) The embryos' sire and dam showed no evidence of scrapie at the
time the embryos were collected;
(3) Scrapie has not been suspected nor confirmed in any progeny of
the embryos' donor dam; and
(4) The parents of the embryos' sire and dam are not, nor were not,
affected with scrapie.
17. In part 98, subpart A, a new Sec. 98.10a is added to read as
follows:
Sec. 98.10a Embryos from sheep in countries other than Australia,
Canada, and New Zealand.
(a) Except for embryos from sheep in Australia, Canada, or New
Zealand, embryos from sheep may only be imported into the United States
if they comply with all applicable provisions of this subpart and one
of the following conditions:
(1) The embryos are transferred to females in a flock in the United
States that participates in the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification
Program (see 9 CFR part 54, subpart B) and qualifies as a ``Certified''
flock; or
(2) The embryos are transferred to females in a flock in the United
States that participates in the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification
Program (see 9 CFR part 54, subpart B) and the flock owner has agreed,
in writing, to maintain the flock, and all first generation progeny
resulting from embryos imported in accordance with this section, in
compliance with all requirements of the Voluntary Scrapie Flock
Certification Program until the flock, including all first generation
progeny resulting from embryos imported in accordance with this
section, qualifies as a ``Certified'' flock.
(b) Sheep embryos may be imported under paragraph (a) of this
section only if the importer provides the Voluntary Scrapie Flock
Certification Program identification number of the receiving flock as
part of the application for an import permit.
(c) Sheep embryos may be imported under paragraph (a)(1) of this
section only if they are the progeny of a dam and sire that are part of
flocks in the country of origin that participate in a program
determined by the Administrator to be equivalent to the Voluntary
Scrapie Flock Certification Program, and the flocks have been
determined by the Administrator to be at a level equivalent to
``Certified'' in the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification Program.
(d) Sheep embryos may be imported under paragraph (a)(2) of this
section only if they are transferred to animals in a Certifiable Class
C flock participating in the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification
Program; except, that if the embryos are the progeny of a dam and sire
whose flock in the country of origin participates in a program
determined by the Administrator to be equivalent to the Voluntary
Scrapie Flock Certification Program, then the embryos may be placed in
a flock in the United States which would be classified at a level
equivalent to or lower (i.e., at a greater risk) than the certification
level, as determined by the Administrator, of either the flock of the
dam or the flock of the sire, whichever one presents the greater risk.
(e) The flock to which the sheep embryos are transferred pursuant
to paragraph (a)(2) of this section must be monitored for scrapie
disease until the flock, and all first generation progeny resulting
from the embryos imported in accordance with this section, qualifies as
a ``Certified'' flock.
(f) Except for sheep embryos being placed in Certifiable Class C
flocks, the certificate accompanying sheep embryos imported under
paragraph (a) of this section must contain the following statement:
``The embryos identified on this certificate are the progeny of a dam
and sire that have been monitored by a salaried veterinary officer of
[name of country of origin], for [number of months], in the same source
flock which had been determined by the Administrator, APHIS, prior to
the exportation of these embryos to the United States, to be equivalent
to [certification level (of dam or sire) presenting greater risk] of
the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification Program authorized under 9
CFR part 54, subpart B.''
(1) The Administrator will determine, based upon information
supplied by the importer, whether the flock of the embryos' dam and
sire participates in a program in the country of origin that is
equivalent to the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification Program, and if
so, at
[[Page 17242]]
what level the source flock would be classified.
(2) In order for the Administrator to make a determination, the
importer must supply the following information with the application for
an import permit, no less than 1 month prior to the anticipated date of
importation:
(i) The name, title, and address of a knowledgeable official in the
veterinary services of the country of origin;
(ii) The details of scrapie control programs in the country of
origin, including information on disease surveillance and border
control activities and the length of time such activities have been in
effect;
(iii) Any available information concerning additions, within the 5
years immediately preceding collection of the embryos, to the flock of
the embryos' sire and dam;
(iv) Any available data concerning disease incidence, within the 5
years immediately preceding collection of the embryos, in the flock of
the embryos' sire and dam, including, but not limited to, the results
of diagnostic tests, especially histopathology tests, conducted on any
animals in the flock;
(v) Information concerning the health, within the 5 years
immediately preceding collection of the embryos, of other ruminants,
flocks, and herds with which the embryos' sire and dam and the flock of
the embryos' sire and dam might have had physical contact, and a
description of the type and frequency of the physical contact; and
(vi) Any other information requested by the Administrator in
specific cases as needed to make a determination.
(g) All first generation progeny resulting from embryos imported
under this section are subject to the requirements of 9 CFR part 54 and
all other applicable regulations.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
numbers 0579-00040 and 0579-0101)
18. In part 98, subpart B, Sec. 98.14 is amended as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (a) to read as set forth below.
b. By redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph (e).
c. By adding a new paragraph (d) to read as set forth below.
Sec. 98.14 Health certificate.
(a) Ruminant and swine embryos shall not be imported into the
United States unless they are accompanied by a certificate issued by a
full-time salaried veterinary officer of the national government of the
country of origin, or issued by a veterinarian designated or accredited
by the national government of the country of origin and endorsed by a
full-time salaried veterinary officer of the national government of the
country of origin, representing that the veterinarian issuing the
certificate was authorized to do so.
* * * * *
(d) The health certificate accompanying sheep or goat embryos
intended for importation from any part of the world shall, in addition
to the statements required by paragraph (b) of this section, state
that:
(1) The embryos' sire and dam have not been in any flock or herd
nor had contact with sheep or goats which have been in any flock or
herd where scrapie has been diagnosed or suspected during the 5 years
prior to the date of collection of the embryos;
(2) The embryos' sire and dam showed no evidence of scrapie at the
time the embryos were collected;
(3) Scrapie has not been suspected nor confirmed in any progeny of
the embryos' donor dam; and
(4) The parents of the embryos' sire and dam are not, nor were not,
affected with scrapie.
* * * * *
19. In part 98, subpart B, a new Sec. 98.21 is added to read as
follows:
Sec. 98.21 Embryos from sheep in countries other than Australia,
Canada, and New Zealand.
Except for embryos from sheep in Australia, Canada, or New Zealand,
embryos from sheep may only be imported into the United States if they
comply with all applicable provisions of this subpart and with
Sec. 98.10a.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
numbers 0579-0040 and 0579-0101)
20. In part 98, subpart C, Sec. 98.30 is amended by adding
definitions for flock and herd, in alphabetical order, to read as
follows:
Sec. 98.30 Definitions.
* * * * *
Flock. A herd.
Herd. All animals maintained on any single premises; and all
animals under common ownership or supervision on two or more premises
which are geographically separated, but among which there is an
interchange or movement of animals.
* * * * *
21. Section Sec. 98.35 is amended as follows:
a. By revising paragraph (c) to read as set forth below.
b. By adding a new paragraph (e) to read as set forth below.
c. By adding a parenthetical at the end of the section to read as
set forth below.
Sec. 98.35 Declaration, health certificate, and other documents for
animal semen.
* * * * *
(c) All animal semen intended for importation into the United
States shall be accompanied by a health certificate issued by a full-
time salaried veterinary officer of the national government of the
country of origin, or issued by a veterinarian designated or accredited
by the national government of the country of origin and endorsed by a
full-time salaried veterinary officer of the national government of the
country of origin, representing that the veterinarian issuing the
certificate was authorized to do so.
* * * * *
(e) The certificate accompanying sheep or goat semen intended for
importation from any part of the world shall, in addition to the
statements required by paragraph (d) of this section, state that:
(1) The semen donor has not been in any flock or herd nor had
contact with sheep or goats which have been in any flock or herd where
scrapie has been diagnosed or suspected during the 5 years prior to the
date of collection of the semen;
(2) The semen donor showed no evidence of scrapie at the time the
semen was collected; and
(3) The parents of the semen donor are not, nor were not, affected
with scrapie.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0040)
Sec. 98.36 [Amended]
22. In Sec. 98.36, paragraph (a), introductory text is amended by
adding the words ``is not a sheep or goat and'' immediately before the
colon.
23. A new Sec. 98.37 is added to read as follows:
Sec. 98.37 Semen from sheep in countries other than Australia, Canada,
and New Zealand.
(a) Except for semen from sheep in Australia, Canada, or New
Zealand, semen from sheep may only be imported into the United States
if it complies with all applicable provisions of this subpart and one
of the following conditions:
(1) The semen is transferred to females in a flock in the United
States that participates in the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification
Program (see 9 CFR part 54, subpart B) and qualifies as a ``Certified''
flock; or
(2) The semen is transferred to females in a flock in the United
States that participates in the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification
Program (see 9 CFR part 54, subpart B), and the flock
[[Page 17243]]
owner has agreed, in writing, to maintain the flock, and all first
generation progeny resulting from semen imported in accordance with
this section, in compliance with all requirements of the Voluntary
Scrapie Flock Certification Program until the flock, including all
first generation progeny resulting from semen imported in accordance
with this section, qualifies as a ``Certified'' flock.
(b) Sheep semen may be imported under paragraph (a) of this section
only if the importer provides the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification
Program identification number of the receiving flock as part of the
application for an import permit.
(c) Sheep semen may be imported under paragraph (a)(1) of this
section only if it comes from a donor animal in a flock in the country
of origin that participates in a program determined by the
Administrator to be equivalent to the Voluntary Scrapie Flock
Certification Program, and the flock has been determined by the
Administrator to be at a level equivalent to ``Certified'' in the
Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification Program.
(d) Sheep semen may be imported under paragraph (a)(2) of this
section only if it is transferred to animals in a Certifiable Class C
flock participating in the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification
Program; except, that if the semen comes from a donor animal whose
flock in the country of origin participates in a program determined by
the Administrator to be equivalent to the Voluntary Scrapie Flock
Certification Program, then the semen may be used in a flock in the
United States which would be classified at a level equivalent to or
lower (i.e., at greater risk) than the certification level, as
determined by the Administrator, of the flock of the donor animal.
(e) The flock to which the sheep semen is transferred pursuant to
paragraph (a)(2) of this section must be monitored for scrapie disease
until the flock, and all first generation progeny resulting from the
semen imported in accordance with this section, qualifies as a
``Certified'' flock.
(f) Except for sheep semen being placed in Certifiable Class C
flocks, the certificate accompanying the sheep semen imported under
paragraph (a) of this section must contain the following statement:
``The semen identified on this certificate has been collected from a
sire that has been monitored by a salaried veterinary officer of [name
of country of origin], for [number of months], in the same source flock
which had been determined by the Administrator, APHIS, prior to the
exportation of the semen to the United States, to be equivalent to
[certification level] of the Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification
Program authorized under 9 CFR part 54, subpart B.''
(1) The Administrator will determine, based upon information
supplied by the importer, whether the donor animal's flock participates
in a program in the country of origin that is equivalent to the
Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification Program, and if so, at what level
the source flock would be classified.
(2) In order for the Administrator to make a determination, the
importer must supply the following information with the application for
an import permit, no less than 1 month prior to the anticipated date of
importation:
(i) The name, title, and address of a knowledgeable official in the
veterinary services of the country of origin;
(ii) The details of scrapie control programs in the country of
origin, including information on disease surveillance and border
control activities and the length of time these activities have been in
effect;
(iii) Any available information concerning additions, within the 5
years immediately preceding collection of the semen, to the flock of
the semen donor;
(iv) Any available data concerning disease incidence, within the 5
years immediately preceding collection of the semen in the donor
animal's flock, including, but not limited to, the results of
diagnostic tests, especially histopathology tests, conducted on any
animals in the flock;
(v) Information concerning the health, within the 5 years
immediately preceding collection of the semen, of other ruminants,
flocks, and herds with which the donor animal and the donor animal's
flock might have had physical contact, and a description of the type
and frequency of the physical contact; and
(vi) Any other information requested by the Administrator in
specific cases as needed to make a determination.
(g) All first generation progeny resulting from semen imported
under this section are subject to the requirements of 9 CFR part 54 and
all other applicable regulations.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
numbers 0579-0040 and 0579-0101)
Done in Washington, DC, this 9th day of April 1996.
Terry L. Medley,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 96-9266 Filed 4-18-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.