issue-1996-09-10•Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-10
Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-10
issue-1996-09-10Federal Register final rules — 1996-09-10Regulation
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. 96-23092 Replacement and Modification Parts: ``Standard'' Parts
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23092]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 21
Replacement and Modification Parts: ``Standard'' Parts
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The FAA has traditionally interpreted the term ``standard
parts,'' as used in regulations concerning the production of
replacement and modification parts for sale for installation of type
certificated (TC) products, to include a basic structural or mechanical
part the specification for which has been published by a standard
setting organization or by the U.S. government. This document solicits
public comment on including other kinds of parts, for example discrete
electrical or electronic component parts.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before November 12, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments must be mailed or delivered in duplicate to:
Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Engineering Division, AIR-100
Rm. 815, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20591. Comments
must be marked Docket No. AIR-100-9601. Comments may be inspected on
weekdays except Federal holidays, between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m. in room
815.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Bruce Kaplan, Aerospace Engineer,
Aircraft Engineering Division, AIR-100, FAA, 800 Independence Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC 20591, (202) 267-9588.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 21.303(a) of Title 14 of the Code of
Federal Regulations (CFR) (Sec. 21.303(a)), Replacement and
Modification Parts, prohibits a person from producing a part for sale
for installation on a type certificated product unless that person
produces the part pursuant to an FAA Parts Manufacturer Approval (PMA).
Section 21.303(b) provides four exceptions to the requirement in
Sec. 21,303(a). One of these exceptions is for ``Standard parts (such
as bolts and nuts) conforming to established industry or U.S.
specifications.'' (14 CFR Sec. 21.303(b)(4).)
``Standard part'' is not otherwise defined in Title 14. Section
21.303(b)(4) has come to be understood by the aviation and
manufacturing public as meaning a part, the specification for which has
been published by a standard setting organization or by the U.S.
government, and the FAA has traditionally regulated parts production
with that understanding. Examples of such ``traditional'' standard part
specifications include National Aerospace Standards (NAS), Air Force-
Navy Aeronautical Standard (AN), Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE),
SAE Aerospace Standard (AS), and Military Standard (MS). The FAA will
continue to consider parts conforming to these specifications as
standard parts.
Traditionally, for any specification to be acceptable it must
include information on the design, materials, manufacture, and uniform
identification requirements. The specification must include all the
information necessary to produce the part and ensure its conformity to
the specification. Furthermore, the specification must be publicly
available, so that any party is capable of manufacturing the part. The
above examples of accepted specifications fulfill those criteria.
In the past the FAA has applied Sec. 21.303(b)(4) to parts that
have specifications where a determination of physical conformity to a
design could be made. This application largely excluded classes of
parts where the parts are conformed not on the basis of their physical
configuration but by meeting the specified performance criteria. These
types of parts are best exemplified by discrete electrical and
electronic parts.
Much of the componentry used in electronic devices are manufactured
under standard industry practices, often to published specifications
developed by standards organizations such as the Society of Automotive
Engineers (SAE), the American Electronics Association, Semitec, Joint
Electron Device Engineering Council, Joint Electron Tube Engineering
Council, and the American National Standards Institute (ANSI). Such
standards development by these bodies is overseen by the Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), the IEEE Standards
Committee, as well as the electrical and electronics industry, at
large, who depends upon characteristic design standards for consistency
in operation and performance.
The FAA is aware of certain kinds of parts that may fit within the
limits of the Sec. 21.303(b)(4) exception; these might include
resistors, capacitors, diodes, transistors, and non-programmable
integrated circuits (e.g. amplifiers, bridges, switches, gates, etc.).
Conversely, large scale, application-specific, or programmable
integrated circuits, hybrids, gate arrays, memories, CPU's, or other
programmable logic devices would not be considered standard parts. Such
components are not ``discretes'' since they require programming that
controls their timing, functionality, performance, and overall
operating parameters.
It is important to remember that 14 CFR Part 21 Sec. 21.303 deals
with the production of parts for sale for installation on type
certificated products. The installation of an owner- or operator-
produced, technical standard order, and standard parts must be shown to
comply with part 43 of Title 14 of the CFR (Part 43). Installation
eligibility for a PMA or a type or production certificated (PC) part is
established at the time of issuing the production approval,
nevertheless, a person may install a PMA, TC, or PC part on another TC
product if that installation is shown to comply with Part 43.
Generally, a standard part may be replaced with an identical standard
part without a further demonstration of compliance with the
airworthiness regulations. Substitution of a standard part with another
would require a demonstration of acceptability in accordance with Part
43.
The FAA invites comments on the ability of producers to conform
discrete electrical and electronic parts, and other kinds of parts, to
specified performance criteria. It also invites comments on the ability
of producers to distinctly identify such parts.
After comments are reviewed, the FAA anticipates taking the
following actions:
(1) Compile a list of standard setting bodies and U.S. government
entities that establish specifications for standard parts, and
(2) Publish these listings in an Advisory Circular which will be
available on the Aircraft Certification Home Page on the World Wide
Web.
Issued in Washington, DC, of August 29, 1996.
Elizabeth Yoest,
Deputy Director, Aircraft Certification Service, AIR-2.
[FR Doc. 96-23092 Filed 9-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23091 Amendment to Class E Airspace; Lebanon, NH
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47672-47673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23091]
[[Page 47672]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 71
[Airspace Docket No. 96-ANE-28]
Amendment to Class E Airspace; Lebanon, NH
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT.
ACTION: Direct final rule; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action modifies the Class E airspace at Lebanon, NH (LEB)
by removing the Class E airspace extending upward from the surface,
effective during the times when the Airport Traffic Control Tower
(ATCT) is not operating. This action results from the elimination of
continuous weather reporting at Lebanon Municipal Airport.
DATES: Effective 0901 UTC, November 7, 1996.
Comments for inclusion in the Rules Docket must be received on or
before October 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Send comments on the proposal to: Manager, Operations
Branch, ANE-530, Federal Aviation Administration, Docket No. 96-ANE-28,
12 New England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone
(617) 238-7530; fax (617) 238-7596. Comments may also be submitted
electronically to the following Internet address: ``neairspace-
[email protected]''. Comments must indicate Docket No. 96-ANE-28
in the subject line.
The official docket file may be examined in the Office of the
Assistant Chief Counsel, New England Region, ANE-7, Room 401, 12 New
England Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone (617) 238-
7050; fax (617) 238-7055.
An informal docket may also be examined during normal business
hours in the Air Traffic Division, Room 408, by contacting the Manager,
Operations Branch at the first address listed above.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Raymond Duda, Operations Branch, ANE-530.3, 12 New England Executive
Park, Burlington, MA 01803-5299; telephone (617) 238-7533; fax (617)
238-7596.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 16, 1994, the FAA published a
modification to the Class D airspace at Lebanon Municipal Airport,
Lebanon, NH (59 FR 25299, effective June 23, 1994) to reflect a change
in the operating hours for the Airport Traffic Control Tower (ATCT) at
Lebanon. Although the ATCT no longer operates continuously, 24-hour
weather reporting remained, thus the FAA also established a Class E
airspace area extending upward from the surface at Lebanon. That Class
E airspace, effective during the hours when the ATCT did not operate,
provides controlled airspace from the surface upward based on the
availability of continuous weather reporting from Lebanon.
The FAA has been advised that continuous surface weather
observations are no longer provided at Lebanon. Recently, officials
from the FAA, the National Weather Service (NWS), and the aviation
industry concluded a comprehensive reassessment of the requirements for
surface weather observations at the nation's airports, from completely
automated to sites with automated equipment augmented by various levels
of observer support. In addition, the FAA has started the process to
assume responsibility for aviation surface weather observations as the
NWS automates field offices and reallocates its observers. Under this
program, the FAA has selected Lebanon, NH as a site for fully automated
weather observations using the Automated Surface Observing System
(ASOS).
The commissioning the Lebanon ASOS is not expected, however, until
late 1997, and continuous observer support has already ended.
Accordingly, the FAA must remove the Class E airspace area that
extended upward from the surface during the times when the ATCT does
not operate. This action does not affect the Class E airspace area that
extends upward from 700 feet above the surface, which remains in place
to provide adequate controlled airspace for those aircraft using the
standard instrument approach procedures at Lebanon when the ATCT is
closed.
Class E airspace designations for airspace areas extending upward
from the surface of the earth are published in paragraph 6002 of FAA
Order 7400.9C, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16, 1995,
which is incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 71.1. The Class E airspace
designation listed in this document will be removed subsequently from
this Order.
The Direct Final Rule Procedures
The FAA anticipates that this regulation will not result in adverse
or negative comment, and, therefore, issues it as a direct final rule.
The FAA has determined that this regulation only involves an
established body of technical regulations for which frequent and
routine amendments are necessary to keep them operationally current.
Unless a written adverse or negative comment, or a written notice of
intent to submit an adverse or negative comment is received within the
comment period, the regulation will become effective on the date
specified above. After the close of the comment period, the FAA will
published a document in the Federal Register indicating that no adverse
or negative comments were received and confirming the date on which the
final rule will become effective. If the FAA does receive, within the
comment period, an adverse or negative comment, or written notice of
intent to submit such a comment, a document withdrawing the direct
final rule will be published in the Federal Register, and a notice of
proposed rulemaking may be published with a new comment period.
Comments Invited
Although this action is in the form of a direct final rule, and was
not preceded by a notice of proposed rulemaking, interested persons are
invited to comment on this rule by submitting such written data, views,
or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the
Rules Docket number and be submitted in triplicate to the address
specified under the caption ADDRESSES. All communications received on
or before the closing date for comments will be considered, and this
rule may be amended or withdrawn in light of the comments received.
Factual information that supports the commenter's ideas and suggestions
is extremely helpful in evaluating the effectiveness of this action and
determining whether additional rulemaking action would be needed.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the rule that might
suggest a need to modify the rule. All comments submitted will be
available, both before and after the closing date for comments, in the
Rules Docket for examination by interested persons. A report that
summarizes each FAA-public contact concerned with the substance of this
action will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this rule must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket No. 96-ANE-28.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Agency Findings
The regulations adopted herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
[[Page 47673]]
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this final
rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
The FAA has determined that this regulation is noncontroversial and
unlikely to result in adverse or negative comments. For the reasons
discussed in the preamble, I certify that this regulation (1) is not a
``significant regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866; (2) is
not a ``significant rule'' under Department of Transportation (DOT)
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) does not warrant preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation as
these routine matters will only affect air traffic procedures and air
navigation. It is certified that these proposed rules will not have
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities
under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 71
Airspace, Incorporation by reference, Navigation (air).
Adoption of the Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me, the Federal
Aviation Administration amends part 71 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations (14 CFR part 71) as follows:
PART 71--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40103, 40113, 40120; E.O. 10854, 24
FR 9565, 3 CFR, 1959-1963 Comp., p. 389.
2. The incorporation by reference in 14 CFR 71.1 of Federal
Aviation Administration Order 7400.9C, Airspace Designations and
Reporting Points, dated August 17, 1995, and effective September 16,
1995, is amended as follows:
Paragraph 6002 Class E Airspace Areas Designated as a Surface Area
for an Airport
* * * * *
ANE ME E2 Lebannon, NH [Removed]
* * * * *
Issued in Burlington, MA, on August 26, 1996.
David J. Hurley,
Manager, Air Traffic Division, New England Region.
[FR Doc. 96-23091 Filed 9-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23061 Cooperation With User Organizations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47673]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23061]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
36 CFR Part 211
Cooperation With User Organizations
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule; technical amendment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On June 22, 1951, the Forest Service published rules
authorizing organizations that use National Forest System lands to form
permittee associations or advisory boards for cooperating with the
Forest Service. In subsequent years, these rules have been superceded
by other laws and procedures that have been established to address how
the agency works cooperatively with user organizations. The agency
identified the need to remove this obsolete regulation during a review
of regulations undertaken as part of the President's Regulatory
Reinvention Initiative.
EFFECTIVE DATE: This rule is effective September 10, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Elizabeth Anderson, Directives and Regulations, telephone: (703) 235-
2994.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Under the authority of the Organic
Administrative Act of June 4, 1897 (16 U.S.C. 551), the Secretary of
Agriculture promulgated regulations at 36 CFR 211.1 on June 22, 1951
(16 FR 5952), establishing procedures for user organizations to work
with the Forest Service in the ``systematic betterment of conditions
and facilities controlling their use of the national forest lands.'' In
subsequent years, new laws have been passed which govern how the agency
works with user organizations, such as the Federal Advisory Committee
Act of 1972 (5 U.S.C. App. 2) and the National Forest Management Act of
1976 (16 U.S.C. 1604).
Following a review of Forest Service regulations under the
President's Regulatory Reinvention Initiative, the agency identified
this regulation as no longer needed, and accordingly, by this
amendment, is removing the rule from the Code of Federal Regulations.
Because of the narrow scope and limited effect of this action, the
agency has determined that this amendment is a technical amendment for
which notice and comment pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act
(5 U.S.C. 553) is not necessary.
Regulatory Impact
This rule is a technical amendment to remove an obsolete regulation
and, as such, has no substantive effect nor is it subject to review
under USDA procedures or Executive Order 12866 on Regulatory Planning
and Review. This rule also does not meet the definition of a rule
subject to Congressional notice and review pursuant to 5 U.S.C.,
sections 801-804.
Moreover, because good cause exists to exempt this rule from notice
and comment pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, this rule is exempt from further
analysis under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act at 1995; Executive
Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform; Executive Order 12630, Takings
Implications; and the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
List of Subjects in 36 CFR Part 211
Administrative practice and procedure, Intergovernmental relations
(Federal/State cooperation), and National forest.
Therefore, for the reasons set forth in the preamble, part 211 of
Title 36 of the Code of Federal Regulations is hereby amended as
follows:
PART 211--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 211 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 16 U.S.C. 551, 472.
Sec. 211.1 [Removed]
2. Remove Sec. 211.1.
Dated: September 4, 1996.
Joan M. Comanor,
Acting Chief.
[FR Doc. 96-23061 Filed 9-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23053 Scrapie Indemnification Program
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23053]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 54
[Docket No. 96-042-1]
Scrapie Indemnification Program
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending the scrapie regulations by removing provisions
describing the scrapie indemnification program. The scrapie
indemnification program provided financial compensation to flock owners
for certain animals destroyed because of scrapie. As provided in the
regulations, this indemnity program was available for only a limited
time, and has now been discontinued. This action will remove provisions
that are no longer in effect from the regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 10, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Daniel Harpster, Senior Staff
Veterinarian, National Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River
Road Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231, (301) 734-4913; or e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in 9 CFR part 54 (referred to below as the
regulations) include provisions for the payment of Federal indemnity to
owners of certain sheep and goats destroyed because of scrapie. The
scrapie indemnification program was established in a final rule
published on December 9, 1992 (57 FR 58130-58133) and effective on
January 8, 1993. As explained in the regulations, the program was
offered for a limited time only; applications were required to be
received on or before July 7, 1993.
Because this program has ended, we are amending the regulations to
remove the provisions concerning the scrapie indemnification program.
These provisions are contained in subpart A, Secs. 54.2 through 54.6.
This action is not a substantive change to the regulations. It
simply removes provisions related to a program that has been
terminated. Therefore, pursuant to the administrative provisions in 5
U.S.C. 553, we find upon good cause that prior notice and other public
procedure with respect to this rule are unnecessary; we also find good
cause for making this rule effective less than 30 days after
publication of this document in the Federal Register. Further, this
action is not a rule or regulatory action as defined by either
Executive Order 12866 or the Regulatory Flexibility Act, and is,
therefore, exempt from those provisions. This action contains no
information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Regulatory Reform
This action is part of the President's Regulatory Reform
Initiative, which, among other things, directs agencies to remove
obsolete and unnecessary regulations and to find less burdensome ways
to achieve regulatory goals.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 54
Animal diseases, Goats, Indemnity payments, Scrapie, Sheep.
Accordingly, 9 CFR part 54 is amended as follows:
PART 54--CONTROL OF SCRAPIE
1. The authority citation for part 54 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111, 114, 114a, and 134a-134h; 7 CFR 2.22,
2.80, and 371.2(d).
2. Subpart A of part 54, consisting of Secs. 54.2 through 54.6, is
removed and reserved.
Done in Washington, DC, this 4th day of September 1996.
Terry L. Medley,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 96-23053 Filed 9-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23052 CEM; Remove Interstate Movement Regulations
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47669-47671]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23052]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
9 CFR Parts 71 and 75
[Docket No. 96-040-1]
CEM; Remove Interstate Movement Regulations
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Direct final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are removing the regulations governing the interstate
movement of horses affected with or exposed to contagious equine
metritis. The last areas of the United States quarantined for
contagious equine metritis were removed from quarantine in 1987. The
disease has not been known to exist in this country since that time,
and the regulations are no longer in use. We are also adding contagious
equine metritis to a list of diseases not known to exist in the United
States.
DATES: This rule will be effective on November 12, 1996 unless we
receive written adverse comments or written notice of intent to submit
adverse comments on or before October 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Please send an original and three copies of any adverse
comments or notice of intent to submit adverse comments to Docket No.
96-040-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Suite 3C03,
4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that
your submission refers to Docket No. 96-040-1. Submissions received may
be inspected at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th Street and
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to inspect
comments and notices are requested to call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to
facilitate entry into the comment reading room.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Tim Cordes, Senior Staff
Veterinarian,
[[Page 47670]]
National Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 43,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-3279.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in 9 CFR subchapter C (parts 70 through 89) govern
the interstate movement of animals, including poultry, and animal
products. Part 71 includes general provisions related to the interstate
movement of animals and poultry. Part 75 pertains to the interstate
movement of animals affected with communicable diseases of horses,
asses, ponies, mules, and zebras. Sections 75.5 through 75.7 and 75.10
(referred to below as the regulations) pertain to contagious equine
metritis (CEM), a highly contagious acute venereal disease that affects
breeding and fertility.
When first promulgated, the CEM regulations quarantined certain
areas of the United States and restricted the interstate movement of
horses and other Equidae from those areas. However, in an interim rule
of March 11, 1987 (52 FR 7403-7405), we removed the provisions that
quarantined the last areas of the United States because of CEM. The
interim rule was affirmed on July 29, 1987 (52 FR 28239-28240). CEM has
not been known to exist in the United States since that time, and the
regulations are no longer in use. Because the quarantine and
accompanying restrictions on interstate movement are no longer
necessary, we are removing the regulations in Secs. 75.5 through 75.7
and Sec. 75.10.
We are also adding a reference to CEM to part 71. Section 71.3
generally prohibits the interstate movement of diseased animals.
Section 71.3(b) lists diseases not known to exist in the United States
and prohibits the interstate movement of animals affected with any of
the listed diseases. Because CEM is not known to exist in the United
States, we are adding this disease to the list in Sec. 71.3(b).
Therefore, in the event CEM is again found to exist in the United
States, spread of the disease could immediately be curtailed because
interstate movement of affected animals would be prohibited.
Effective Dates
We are publishing this rule without a prior proposal because we
view this action as noncontroversial and anticipate no adverse public
comment. This rule will be effective, as published in this document, 60
days after the date of publication in the Federal Register unless we
receive written adverse comments or written notice of intent to submit
adverse comments within 30 days of the date of publication of this rule
in the Federal Register.
Adverse comments are comments that suggest the rule should not be
adopted or that suggest the rule should be changed.
If we receive written adverse comments or written notice of intent
to submit adverse comments, we will publish a notice in the Federal
Register withdrawing this rule before the effective date. We will then
publish a proposed rule for public comment. Following the close of that
comment period, the comments will be considered, and a final rule
addressing the comments will be published.
As discussed above, if we receive no written adverse comments nor
written notice of intent to submit adverse comments within 30 days of
publication of this direct final rule, this direct final rule will
become effective 60 days following its publication. We will publish a
notice to this effect in the Federal Register, before the effective
date of this direct final rule, confirming that it is effective on the
date indicated 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 the purposes of Executive
Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget.
This rule removes regulations governing the interstate movement of
horses affected with or exposed to CEM. The last areas of the United
States quarantined because of this disease were removed from quarantine
in 1987, and the disease has not been known to exist in this country
since that time. As a result, none of the regulatory provisions
regarding CEM have been imposed upon any entities large or small for at
least 9 years.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372,
which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local
officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
Executive Order 12988
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws and
regulations that are in conflict 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
This rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
Regulatory Reform
This action is part of the President's Regulatory Reform
Initiative, which, among other things, directs agencies to remove
obsolete and unnecessary regulations and to find less burdensome ways
to achieve regulatory goals.
List of Subjects
9 CFR Part 71
Animal diseases, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products,
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
9 CFR Part 75
Animal diseases, Horses, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, 9 CFR parts 71 and 75 are amended as follows:
PART 71--GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111-113, 114a, 114a-1, 115-117, 120-126,
134b, and 134f; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).
Sec. 71.3 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 71.3, paragraph (b) is amended by adding the words
``contagious equine metritis,'' after the word ``dourine,''.
PART 75--COMMUNICABLE DISEASES IN HORSES, ASSES, PONIES, MULES, AND
ZEBRAS
3. The authority citation for part 75 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111-113, 115, 117, 120, 121, 123-126, and
134-134h; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).
Secs. 75.5, 75.6, 75.7, and 75.10 [Removed and Reserved]
4. Sections 75.5 through 75.7 and 75.10 are removed and reserved.
[[Page 47671]]
Done in Washington, DC, this 4th day of September 1996.
Terry L. Medley,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 96-23052 Filed 9-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23045 Editorial Amendments for Classification and Program Review; Inmate Discipline; Education, Training, and Leisure Time Program Standards; and Release Gratuities
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47794-47795]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23045]
[[Page 47793]]
_______________________________________________________________________
Part III
Department of Justice
_______________________________________________________________________
Bureau of Prisons
_______________________________________________________________________
28 CFR Parts 524, et al.
Editorial Amendments for Classification and Program Review, and
Education Tests; Final Rules
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 176 / Tuesday, September 10, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 47794]]
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Prisons
28 CFR Parts 524, 541, 544, and 571
[BOP-1057-F]
RIN 1120-AA56
Editorial Amendments for Classification and Program Review;
Inmate Discipline; Education, Training, and Leisure Time Program
Standards; and Release Gratuities
AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau of Prisons is amending four of
its regulations to remove obsolete provisions, update cross-references,
or to clarify procedures. More specifically, the regulations for
classification and program review are amended by removing procedures
for the preparation of a now obsolete form (the staff summary report)
and to include a cross reference to regulations for pretrial inmates;
the regulations on inmate discipline are amended by substituting
control unit programs for references to United States Penitentiary,
Marion; the regulations on education, training, and leisure time
program standards are amended to update the reference to the release
preparation program; and the regulations for release gratuities are
amended to minimize confusion regarding statutory limits on maximum
amounts. These amendments are intended to maintain the efficient
operation of the institution and the Bureau.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, HOLC Room 754,
320 First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy Nanovic, Office of General
Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 514-6655.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bureau of Prisons is amending its
regulations on classification and program review; inmate discipline and
special housing units; education, training, and leisure-time program
standards; and on release gratuities, transportation, and clothing. A
final rule on classification and program review (28 CFR part 524,
subpart B) was published in the Federal Register on July 3, 1991 (56 FR
30676) and was amended on August 5, 1992 (57 FR 34662) and on June 27,
1995 (60 FR 33320). A final rule on inmate discipline and special
housing units (28 CFR part 541, subpart B) was published on January 5,
1988 (53 FR 197) and was amended on October 17, 1988 (53 FR 40686),
September 22, 1989 (54 FR 38987 and 39095), February 1, 1991 (56 FR
4159), July 10, 1991 (56 FR 31530), June 2, 1992 (57 FR 23260), and
July 21, 1993 (58 FR 39095). A final rule on education, training, and
leisure time program standards was published on December 16, 1993 (58
FR 65852). A final rule on release gratuities, transportation, and
clothing (28 CFR part 571, subpart C) was published on May 21, 1991 (56
FR 23480).
The regulations on classification and program review
(Sec. 524.12(f)) require Bureau staff to prepare a summary for inmates
applying for a transfer under the treaty transfer program, for study
and observation cases, and for inmates for whom no presentence
investigation is available. This information need no longer be required
under regulations for classification and program review because
equivalent information is obtained either as part of the court-ordered
study and observation, by revised regulations issued for treaty
transfer cases (see 28 CFR 527, subpart E), or is provided by the
Probation Office in lieu of a Presentence Investigation Report. The
Bureau is therefore removing paragraph (f) and that portion of the text
in Sec. 524.16 which had been pertinent to study and observation cases
(``except for the preparation of a staff summary as noted in
Sec. 524.12(f) of this part''). A new Sec. 524.17 has been added to
refer to existing regulations pertinent to pretrial inmates. Additional
editorial changes include the correction of a typographical error in
Sec. 524.12(c) and an updated reference in Sec. 524.15 to the recently
retitled Administrative Remedy Program.
The regulations on inmate discipline and special housing required
that staff ordinarily within 90 days of an inmate's placement in post-
disciplinary detention shall return the inmate (with the exception of
inmates in the United States Penitentiary, Marion, or pretrial inmates)
to the general inmate population or request transfer to a more suitable
institution (Sec. 541.22(a)(6)(i)). Further provisions covered review
of the status of such inmates (Sec. 541.22(a)(6)(ii) and (iii)).
Because of a mission change for the United States Penitentiary, Marion,
(which had served as a control unit) this requirement is no longer
technically correct, and the Bureau is therefore replacing the
reference to that specific institution with a generic reference to
control unit programs. This revision obviates the need to make future
adjustments to these regulations based upon changes in the location of
a control unit program. Regulations for the operation of control unit
programs are contained in 28 CFR part 541, subpart D.
The regulations for education, training, and leisure-time program
standards are amended to update the reference in Sec. 544.81(g) to the
retitled release preparation program.
The regulations for release gratuities had noted that the maximum
for a discretionary gratuity was $500 and referenced 18 U.S.C. 3624(d)
as the authorizing statute (Sec. 571.20). This statute pertains to
offenders sentenced under the provisions of the Sentencing Reform Act
(18 U.S.C. Chapter 227). Inmates sentenced under the former provisions
of that Chapter continue to be subject to the statutory limitation of
$100 authorized by 18 U.S.C. 4281. In order to eliminate false
expectations in those inmates governed by 18 U.S.C. 4281 as to the
amount of a possible gratuity, the Bureau has reworded the provision to
state that a discretionary gratuity may be granted up to the amount
permitted by statute.
Because these amendments are administrative in nature and impose no
additional restrictions on inmates, the Bureau finds good cause for
exempting the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for
public comment, and delay in effective date. Members of the public may
submit comments concerning this rule by writing to the previously cited
address. These comments will be considered but will receive no response
in the Federal Register.
The Bureau of Prisons has determined that this rule is not a
significant regulatory action for the purpose of E.O. 12866, and
accordingly this rule was not reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget. After review of the law and regulations, the Director, Bureau
of Prisons has certified that this rule, for the purpose of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), does not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
within the meaning of the Act. Because this rule pertains to the
correctional management of offenders committed to the custody of the
Attorney General or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, its economic
impact is limited to the Bureau's appropriated funds.
[[Page 47795]]
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Parts 524, 541, 544, 571
Prisoners.
Peter M. Carlson,
Acting Director, Bureau of Prisons.
Accordingly, pursuant to the rulemaking authority vested in the
Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and delegated to the Director,
Bureau of Prisons in 28 CFR 0.96(p), parts 524, 541, 544, and 571 in
subchapters B, C, and D respectively, of 28 CFR, chapter V are amended
as set forth below.
SUBCHAPTER B--INMATE ADMISSION, CLASSIFICATION, AND TRANSFER
PART 524--CLASSIFICATION OF INMATES
1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 524 is revised to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3521-3528, 3621, 3622, 3624,
4001, 4042, 4046, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses
committed on or after November 1, 1987), 5006-5024 (Repealed October
12, 1984 as to offenses committed after that date), 5039; 21 U.S.C.
848; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 28 CFR 0.95-0.99.
Sec. 524.12 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 524.12, paragraph (c) is amended by revising the phrase
``at attend'' in the third sentence to read ``to attend'', and
paragraph (f) is removed.
Sec. 524.15 [Amended]
3. Section 524.15 is amended by revising the phrase
``Administrative Remedy Procedure'' to read ``Administrative Remedy
Program''.
4. Section 524.16 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 524.16 Study and observation cases.
Inmates committed to the custody of the U.S. Attorney General for
purposes of study and observation are excluded from the provisions of
this rule.
5. A new Sec. 524.17 is added to subpart B to read as follows:
Sec. 524.17 Pretrial inmates.
Additional provisions pertinent to pretrial inmates are contained
in Sec. 551.107 of this chapter.
SUBCHAPTER C--INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT
PART 541--INMATE DISCIPLINE AND SPECIAL HOUSING UNITS
6. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 541 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042,
4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to offenses committed on or after
November 1, 1987), 4161-4166 (Repealed as to offenses committed on
or after November 1, 1987), 5006-5024 (Repealed October 12, 1984 as
to offenses committed after that date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 28
CFR 0.95-0.99.
7. In Sec. 541.22, paragraph (a)(6) (i), (iii), and (iv) are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 541.22 Administrative detention.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(6) * * *
(i) Except for pretrial inmates or inmates in a control unit
program, staff ordinarily within 90 days of an inmate's placement in
post-disciplinary detention shall either return the inmate to the
general inmate population or request regional level assistance to
effect a transfer to a more suitable institution.
* * * * *
(iii) Staff in a control unit will attempt to adhere to the 90-day
limit for an inmate's placement in post-disciplinary detention. Because
security needs required for an inmate in a control unit program may not
be available outside of post-discipline detention, the Warden may
approve an extension of this placement upon determining in writing that
it is not practicable to release the inmate to the general inmate
population or to effect a transfer to a more suitable institution.
(iv) The appropriate Regional Director and the Assistant Director,
Correctional Programs Division, shall review (for purpose of making a
disposition) the case of an inmate in a control unit program not
transferred from post-disciplinary detention within the 90-day time
frame specified in paragraph (a)(6)(iii) of this section. A similar,
subsequent review shall be conducted every 60-90 days if post-
disciplinary detention continues for this extended period.
* * * * *
PART 544--EDUCATION
8. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 544 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042,
4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to conduct occurring on or after
November 1, 1987), 5006-5024 (Repealed October 12, 1984 as to
conduct occurring after that date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 28 CFR
0.95-0.99.
9. In Sec. 544.81, paragraph (g) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 544.81 Program goals.
* * * * *
(g) Participate in a Release Preparation program; and
* * * * *
SUBCHAPTER D--COMMUNITY PROGRAMS AND RELEASE
PART 571--RELEASE FROM CUSTODY
10. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 571 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3565, 3568-3569 (Repealed in
part as to offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), 3582,
3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042, 4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to
offenses committed on or after November 1, 1987), 4161-4166, and
4201-4218 (Repealed as to offenses committed on or after November 1,
1987), 5006-5024 (Repealed October 12, 1984 as to offenses committed
after that date), 5031-5042; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; U.S. Const., Art.
II, Sec. 2; 28 CFR 0.95-0.99, 1.1-1.10.
11. Section 571.20 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 571.20 Purpose and scope.
It is the policy of the Bureau of Prisons that an inmate being
released to the community will have suitable clothing, transportation
to the inmate's release destination, and some funds to use until he or
she begins to receive income. Based on the inmate's need and financial
resources, a discretionary gratuity up to the amount permitted by
statute may be granted.
[FR Doc. 96-23045 Filed 9-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-05-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23044 Education Tests: Minimum Standards for Administration, Interpretation, and Use
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47795-47796]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23044]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Bureau of Prisons
28 CFR Part 544
[BOP-1031-F]
RIN 1129-AA44
Education Tests: Minimum Standards for Administration,
Interpretation, and Use
AGENCY: Bureau of Prisons, Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: In this document, the Bureau of Prisons is rescinding its
regulations on Minimum Standards for Administration, Interpretation,
and Use of Education Tests. Guidelines established by test publishers
are adequate for the administrative processing of education tests.
Because correctional management issues pertinent to specific education
programs are covered by separate Bureau regulations, there is no need
to maintain duplicative regulatory provisions for education test
standards.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Office of General Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, HOLC Room 754,
320
[[Page 47796]]
First Street, NW., Washington, DC 20534.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Roy Nanovic, Office of General
Counsel, Bureau of Prisons, phone (202) 514-6655.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Bureau of Prisons is rescinding its
regulations on minimum standards for the administration,
interpretation, and use of education tests (28 CFR part 544, subpart
B). A final rule on this subject was last published in the Federal
Register February 21, 1990 (55 FR 6178).
In accordance with E.O. 12866, the Bureau is reviewing its
regulations for the purpose of ensuring that it promulgates only such
regulations as are required by law, are necessary to interpret the law,
or are made necessary by compelling public need. The Bureau has
determined that separately stated regulations on minimum standards for
the administration, interpretation, and use of education tests are no
longer necessary. Applicability provisions contained in Sec. 544.11 are
duplicated in the regulations for specific education programs such as
the literacy program (28 CFR part 544, subpart H) or English-as-a-
Second Language program (28 CFR part 544, subpart E). Test procedures
specified in Sec. 544.12 either are covered by guidelines established
by the test providers themselves or may be handled by staff as strictly
administrative matters. Revisions to the regulations for the literacy
program have made obsolete the provisions in Sec. 544.13 on the
consequences of a refusal to take the Adult Basic Level Examination or
other standardized test.
Because this rescission imposes no new restrictions on inmates and
provides the Bureau with the flexibility to implement administrative
procedures related to education tests, the Bureau finds good cause for
exempting the provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C.
553) requiring notice of proposed rulemaking, the opportunity for
public comment, and delay in effective date. Members of the public may
submit comments concerning this rule by writing to the previously cited
address. These comments will be considered but will receive no response
in the Federal Register.
The Bureau of Prisons has determined that this rule is not a
significant regulatory action for the purpose of E.O. 12866, and
accordingly this rule was not reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget. After review of the law and regulations, the Director, Bureau
of Prisons has certified that this rule, for the purpose of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), does not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities,
within the meaning of the Act. Because this rule pertains to the
correctional management of offenders committed to the custody of the
Attorney General or the Director of the Bureau of Prisons, its economic
impact is limited to the Bureau's appropriated funds.
List of Subjects in 28 CFR Part 544
Prisoners.
Kathleen M. Hawk,
Director, Bureau of Prisons.
Accordingly, pursuant to the rulemaking authority vested in the
Attorney General in 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and delegated to the Director,
Bureau of Prisons in 28 CFR 0.96(p), part 544 in subchapter C of 28
CFR, chapter V is amended as set forth below.
SUBCHAPTER C--INSTITUTIONAL MANAGEMENT
PART 544--EDUCATION
1. The authority citation for 28 CFR part 544 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 18 U.S.C. 3621, 3622, 3624, 4001, 4042,
4081, 4082 (Repealed in part as to conduct occurring on or after
November 1, 1987), 5006-5024 (Repealed October 12, 1984 as to
conduct occurring after that date), 5039; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510; 28 CFR
0.95-0.99.
Sec. 544.10--544.13 (Subpart B)--[Removed and Reserved]
2. Subpart B consisting of Secs. 544.10 through 544.13 is removed
and reserved.
[FR Doc. 96-23044 Filed 9-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-05-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23041 Prevailing Rate Systems; Abolishment of Marion, IN, Nonappropriated Fund Wage Area
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47661-47662]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23041]
========================================================================
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. 176 / Tuesday, September 10, 1996 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 47661]]
OFFICE OF PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT
5 CFR Part 532
RIN 3206-AH60
Prevailing Rate Systems; Abolishment of Marion, IN,
Nonappropriated Fund Wage Area
AGENCY: Office of Personnel Management.
ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) is issuing interim
regulations to abolish the Marion, IN, nonappropraited fund (NAF)
Federal Wage System (FWS) wage area and redefine the six counties
having continuing FWS employment as areas of application to nearby NAF
wage areas for pay-setting purposes.
DATES: This interim rule becomes effective on September 10, 1996.
Comments must be received by October 10, 1996. Employees currently paid
rates from the Marion, IN, NAF wage schedule will continue to be paid
from that schedule until their conversion to the schedules of the wage
areas to which their counties of employment are being redefined by this
rule on December 13, 1996, the date that the next Marion, IN, wage
schedule would have been effective.
ADDRESSES: Send or deliver comments to Donald J. Winstead, Assistant
Director for Compensation Policy, Human Resources Systems Service,
Office of Personnel Management, Room 6H31, 1900 E Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20415, or FAX: (202) 606-0824.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Frank Derby, (202) 606-2848.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Department of Defense recommended to OPM
that the Marion, IN, FWS NAF wage area be abolished and that the six
counties having continuing FWS employment be redefined as areas of
application to nearby NAF wage areas. Marion County, Grant County,
Miami County and Allen County, IN, are being redefined to the Greene-
Montgomery, OH, wage area. Martin County, IN, is being redefined to the
Hardin-Jefferson, KY, wage area, and Vermilion County, IL, is being
redefined to the Lake, IL, wage area. This change is necessary because
the pending closure of Ft. Benjamin Harrison leaves the Marion, IN,
wage area without an activity having the capability to conduct a wage
survey.
As required in regulation, 5 CFR 532.219, the following criteria
were considered in redefining these wage areas:
(1) Proximity of largest activity in each county;
(2) Transportation facilities and commuting patterns; and
(3) Similarities of the counties in:
(i) Overall population;
(ii) Private employment in major industry categories; and
(iii) Kinds and sizes of private industrial establishments.
The Federal Prevailing Rate Advisory Committee reviewed this
recommendation and by majority vote recommended approval. The Committee
defeated the labor members' motion that the original management
recommendation be amended to redefine Allen, Grant, and Miami Counties
to the Lake, IL, wage area and thereby avoid placing an estimated two
employees on pay retention. Allen, Grant, and Miami Counties have
greater similarities to the Lake, IL, wage area in an overall
population and employment comparison. However, the degree to which
those factors favor Lake, IL, is not strong enough to be determinative
given the significant distance of Allen and Grant Counties from Lake,
IL, as well as the general homogeneity of the counties in their
relationship to the Greene-Montgomery, OH, wage area.
Differences in commuting patterns were found to be insignificant
for all county redefinitions. The remaining factors favored the
redefinition of Vermilion County to the Lake, IL, wage area. Martin
County is far closer to the Hardin-Jefferson, KY, wage area than to the
very distant Lake, IL, wage area, which offsets the greater
similarities to the latter in employment and population. Similarly,
Marion County is significantly closer to the Green-Montgomery, OH, wage
area than to the Hardin-Jefferson, KY, wage area, which, on balance,
offsets the employment and population numbers that favored the latter.
Waiver of Notice of Proposed Rule Making and Delay in Effective
Date
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(3)(B), I find that good cause exists
for waiving the general notice of proposed rulemaking. Also, pursuant
to section 553(d)(3) of title 5, United States Code, I find that good
cause exists for making this rule effective in less than 30 days. The
notice is being waived and the regulation is being made effective in
less than 30 days so that preparations otherwise required for the
October 1996 Marion, IN, NAF wage area survey may be canceled.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
I certify that these regulations will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities because they
affect only Federal agencies and employees.
List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 532
Administrative practice and procedure, Freedom of information,
Government employees, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wages.
Office of Personnel Management.
Lorraine A. Green,
Deputy Director.
Accordingly, OPM is amending 5 CFR part 532 as follows:
PART 532--PREVAILING RATE SYSTEMS
1. The authority citation for part 532 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 5343, 5346; Sec. 532.707 also issued under 5
U.S.C. 552.
Appendix B to Subpart B of Part 532 [Amended]
2. In appendix B to subpart B, the listing for the State of Indiana
is amended by removing the entry for Marion.
Appendix D to Subpart B of Part 532 [Amended]
3. Appendix D to subpart B is amended by removing the wage area
listing for Marion, IN, and by revising the listings for Greene-
Montgomery, OH; Hardin-Jefferson, KY; and Lake, IL, to read as follows:
[[Page 47662]]
Appendix D to Subpart B of Part 532--Nonappropriated Fund Wage and
Survey Areas
* * * * *
Illinois Lake Survey Area
Illinois:
Lake
Area of application. Survey area plus:
Illinois:
Cook
Vermilion (Effective date December 13, 1996)
Michigan:
Dickinson
Marquette
Wisconsin:
Dane
Milwaukee
* * * * *
Kentucky
* * * * *
Hardin-Jefferson Survey Area
Kentucky:
Hardin
Jefferson
Area of application. Survey area plus:
Indiana:
Jefferson
Martin (Effective date December 13, 1996)
Kentucky:
Fayette
Madison
Warren
* * * * *
Ohio
* * * * *
Greene-Montgomery Survey Area
Ohio:
Greene
Montgomery
Area of application. Survey area plus:
Indiana:
Allen (Effective date December 13, 1996)
Grant (Effective date December 13, 1996)
Marion (Effective date December 13, 1996)
Miami (Effective date December 13, 1996)
Ohio:
Clinton
Franklin
Hamilton
Licking
Ross
West Virginia:
Raleigh
Wayne
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-23041 Filed 9-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6325-01-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-23034 Removal of Obsolete Sections of the Regulation Concerning Temporary Protected Status for Salvadorans
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47667-47668]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-23034]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
Immigration and Naturalization Service
8 CFR Part 240
[INS No. 1612-93]
RIN 1115-AE43
Removal of Obsolete Sections of the Regulation Concerning
Temporary Protected Status for Salvadorans
AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization Service, Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This final rule amends the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (Service) regulations by removing those sections relating to
Temporary Protected Status (TPS) for Salvadorans under section 303 of
the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT). Since the TPS program for
Salvadorans expired on June 30, 1992, this action is necessary to
remove obsolete language from the Service's regulations.
EFFECTIVE DATE: September 10, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Ron Chirlin, Adjudications Officer, Residence and Status Services
Branch, Adjudications Division, Immigration and Naturalization Service,
425 I Street, NW., Room 3214, Washington DC, 20536, Telephone: (202)
514-5014.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Section 302 of the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT), Public Law
101-649, dated November 29, 1990, added section 244A of the Immigration
and Nationality Act (Act), establishing Temporary Protected Status
(TPS) relief. Upon designation of a foreign state by the Attorney
General, TPS affords temporary protection and work authorization in the
United States to eligible individuals from a designated foreign state
that is experiencing ongoing armed conflict, environmental disaster, or
other harmful conditions that would prevent such individuals from
returning to that state in safety.
In addition to the general procedures governing TPS under section
244A of the Act, section 303 of IMMACT afforded such protection
specifically to nationals of El Salvador for an 18-month period ending
on June 30, 1992. The special TPS program for Salvadorans included some
special limitations and requirements which were implemented in 8 CFR
240.40 through 240.47. These special procedures for Salvadorans
included additions or exceptions to the general TPS procedures in 8 CFR
240.1 through 240.20. The Service published both the general and the
specific Salvadoran TPS regulations in the Federal Register as an
interim rule on January 7, 1991, at 56 FR 618 and as a final rule on
May 22, 1991, at 56 FR 23491.
Under section 303 of IMMACT, TPS designation for El Salvador was to
expire on June 30, 1992, unless the Attorney General extended the
designation. On June 26, 1992, the Commissioner of the Service
announced in the Federal Register at 57 FR 28700 that Salvadoran TPS
designation would not be extended.
Although Salvadoran TPS expired, many of the Salvadoran TPS
registrants became eligible to apply for a 1-year program of deferred
enforced departure (DED) established by presidential order through the
June 26, 1992, Federal Register notice. By a Federal Register notice
published June 8, 1993, at 58 FR 32157, the Service further extended
DED until December 31, 1994, as directed by President Clinton. The
Service subsequently extended until April 30, 1996, the DED-related
work authorization of Salvadorans whose DED registration expired on
December 31, 1994, by a series of Federal Register notices concluding
on January 30, 1996, at 61 FR 3053.
Under a court-approved settlement in a lawsuit captioned American
Baptist Churches v. Thornburgh, 760 F. Supp. 796 (N.D. Cal. 1991)
(ABC), eligible TPS and DED Salvadorans are entitled to a de novo
asylum adjudication. The Sevice will begin to schedule ABC class
members for asylum interviews on a routine basis.
The Salvadoran TPS program expired on June 30, 1992. The Service
therefore finds it appropriate to remove the obsolete regulations
concerning the expired Temporary Protected Status program for
Salvadorans.
Impact of Removal of Obsolete Sections of the Regulation
The removal of obsolete sections of the regulation will streamline
the regulations and decrease confusion. The Service will continue to
inform all former Salvadoran TPS registrants who inquire that the
program has expired and that they are not eligible for further
registration or work authorization under that program.
Basis for Removal of Obsolete Sections of the Regulation Without
Advance Notice or Provision for Public Comments
The Service's implementation of this rule as a final rule without
advance notice or provision for public comment procedures is based upon
the ``good
[[Page 47668]]
cause'' exception found at 5 U.S.C. 553 (b) and (d). The reasons for
immediate final publication of this rule without provision for public
comment are as follows:
The Service is removing language in the regulations which relates
only to the specific statutory Salvadoran TPS program which expired on
June 30, 1992. As the Salvadoran TPS reregistration period and TPS
program both expired on that date, all such applications have been
adjudicated and any further applications are inappropriate. The
continued presence of this obsolete language serves no function and
advance notice and public comment procedures are therefore unnecessary.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service, in
accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has
reviewed this regulation and, by approving it, certifies that the rule
will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities because it merely removes language which implemented an
expired statutory provision.
Executive Order 12866
This rule is not considered by the Department of Justice,
Immigration and Naturalization Service, to be a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f),
Regulatory Planning and Review, and the Office of Management and Budget
has waived its review process under section 6(a)(3)(A).
Executive Order 12612
This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the National Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Therefore, in accordance with Executive
Order 12612, this rule does not have sufficient Federalism implications
to warrant the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 240
Administrative practice and procedure, Immigration.
Accordingly, part 240 of chapter I of title 8 of the Code of
Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 240--TEMPORARY PROTECTED STATUS FOR NATIONALS OF DESIGNATED
STATES
1. The authority citation for part 240 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1254, 1254a note.
2. Part 240 is amended by removing the heading for Subpart A.
3. Part 240 is amended by removing Subpart B.
Dated: July 11, 1996.
Doris Meissner,
Commissioner, Immigration and Naturalization Service.
[FR Doc. 96-23034 Filed 9-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22964 Addition of Provision for the Registration and Fingerprinting of Nonimmigrants Designated by the Attorney General; Removal of the Requirement for the Registration and Fingerprinting of Certain Nonimmigrants Bearing Iraqi and Kuwaiti Travel Documents
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47668-47669]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22964]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
8 CFR Part 264
[INS No. 1606-94; AG ORDER No. 2053-96]
RIN 1115-AC83
Addition of Provision for the Registration and Fingerprinting of
Nonimmigrants Designated by the Attorney General; Removal of the
Requirement for the Registration and Fingerprinting of Certain
Nonimmigrants Bearing Iraqi and Kuwaiti Travel Documents
AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization Service, Justice.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This rule adopts without change an interim rule published by
the Immigration and Naturalization Service (Service) in the Federal
Register on December 23, 1993, which added the provision for the
registration and fingerprinting of certain nonimmigrants of specific
countries designated by the Attorney General. The interim rule also
removed the requirement for the registration and fingerprinting of
certain nonimmigrants bearing Iraqi and Kuwaiti travel documents who
applied for admission to the United States, which was promulgated in
response to a specific political situation. This action will continue
to afford the Attorney General with the flexibility to facilitate
implementation of the fingerprinting requirement when future political
situations arise which threaten the national security of the United
States.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 10, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jake Achterberg, Assistant Chief
Inspector, Inspections Division, Immigration and Naturalization
Service, 425 I Street NW, Room 7228, Washington, DC, 20536, telephone
(202) 514-3019.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On January 16, 1991, a final rule was
published in the Federal Register, at 56 FR 1566, adding a new
Sec. 264.3 of Title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations, requiring the
registration and fingerprinting of certain nonimmigrants bearing Iraqi
and Kuwaiti travel documents. The requirement was promulgated in
response to the United States condemnation of Iraq's invasion of
Kuwait, United States sanctions against Iraq, and the theft of
thousands of Kuwaiti passports during Iraq's occupation of Kuwait, all
of which heightened the potential for domestic anti-United States
terrorist activities. Due to the withdrawal of Iraqi forces from
Kuwait, and the Government of Kuwait's requirement that all old Kuwaiti
passports be replaced with a new version, this requirement was no
longer necessary and was removed by an interim rule which was published
in the Federal Register on December 23, 1993, at 58 FR 68024.
To address future political situations which elevate concern for
United States' security and would require the registration and
fingerprinting of certain nonimmigrants, the interim rule also added a
provision allowing the Attorney General to designate, by public notice
published in the Federal Register, certain nonimmigrants of specific
countries to be registered and fingerprinted upon arrival in the United
States, pursuant to section 263(a)(5) of the Immigration and
Nationality Act, 8 U.S.C. 1303(a)(5).
The provision was necessary to afford the Attorney General with the
flexibility to facilitate implementation of the fingerprinting
requirement when responding to specific political situations that
threatened the security of the United States. Elsewhere in the same
issue of the December 23, 1993, Federal Register, the Service published
a notice requiring certain nonimmigrants from Iraq and the Sudan to be
registered and fingerprinted upon arrival in the United States. This
action was taken in response to increased concern for national security
resulting from terrorist attacks and uncovered plots directed by
nationals of Iraq and Sudan.
The interim rule requested that comments concerning the new
provisions be submitted to the Service by January 24, 1994. The Service
did not receive any comments and is therefore adopting the interim rule
as final without change.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Attorney General, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility
Act (5 U.S.C. 605(b)), has reviewed this regulation and, by approving
it, certifies that the rule will not have a significant economic impact
on a substantial number of small entities. This rule merely affects a
limited number of individuals.
[[Page 47669]]
Executive Order 12866
This rule is not considered by the Department of Justice,
Immigration and Naturalization Service, to be a ``significant
regulatory action'' under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f),
Regulatory Planning and Review, and the Office of Management and Budget
has waived its review process under section 6(a)(3)(A).
Executive Order 12612
The regulations proposed herein will not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the National
Government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this rule
does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the
preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 264
Aliens, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, the interim rule amending 8 CFR part 264, which was
published in the Federal Register on December 23, 1993, at 58 FR 68024-
68025, is adopted as a final rule without change.
Dated: September 3, 1996.
Janet Reno,
Attorney General.
[FR Doc. 96-22964 Filed 9-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4410-10-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22942 Corn Cyst Nematode
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47662-47663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22942]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
7 CFR Part 301
[Docket No. 96-001-2]
Corn Cyst Nematode
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are removing the regulations that quarantine certain areas
of the United States because of the corn cyst nematode and that
restrict the interstate movement of certain articles, such as soil,
from the quarantined areas. This action is warranted because this pest
is present in only five counties in two States and appears to be
adequately contained by the two States affected. This action will
relieve restrictions on the interstate movement of regulated articles.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 10, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Coanne O'Hern, Assistant
Operations Officer, Domestic and Emergency Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700
River Road Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737-1228, (301) 734-8247; or e-
mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Corn cyst nematode (Heterodera zeae) is a cyst-forming nematode
that attacks the roots of host plants such as corn, barley, oats, and
sorghum. The nematode bores into the roots of the plants and feeds on
the plant juices, resulting in poor root development and poor plant
growth and potentially causing severe crop losses. The corn cyst
nematode is spread through the movement of infested soil and equipment
carrying infested soil.
The regulations in 7 CFR 301.90 through 301.90-10 designate areas
that are quarantined because of the presence of corn cyst nematode.
These regulations also restrict the interstate movement of soil and
other articles from the quarantined areas to prevent the spread of corn
cyst nematode.
On July 16, 1996, we published in the Federal Register (61 FR
37018-37019, Docket No. 96-001-1) a proposal to remove the regulations
that quarantine certain areas of the United States because of the corn
cyst nematode and that restrict the interstate movement of certain
articles, such as soil, from the quarantined areas.
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 30 days ending
August 15, 1996. We received one comment by that date. It was from a
State Department of Agriculture. The response was in favor of the
provisions outlined in the proposed rule.
Therefore, based on the rationale set forth in the proposed rule,
we are adopting the provisions of the proposal as a final rule without
change.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. For this
action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its review
process required by Executive Order 12866.
This rule change is not expected to have an effect on any small
entities. This is because the States of Maryland and Virginia have
restrictions in place to prevent the movement of potentially infested
articles from the infested areas in Cecil, Harford, Kent and Queen
Anne's Counties, MD, and Cumberland County, VA.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372,
which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local
officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
Executive Order 12988
This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. With the adoption of this rule: (1) State and local
laws and regulations will not be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect
will be given to this rule; and (3) administrative proceedings will not
be required before parties may file suit in court challenging this
rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
Regulatory Reform
This action is part of the President's Regulatory Reform
Initiative, which, among other things, directs agencies to remove
obsolete and unnecessary regulations and to find less burdensome ways
to achieve regulatory goals.
[[Page 47663]]
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301
Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, 7 CFR part 301 is amended as follows:
PART 301--[AMENDED]
1. The authority citation for part 301 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150bb, 150dd, 150ee, 150ff, 161, 162, and
164-167; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).
Subpart--Corn Cyst Nematode [Removed and Reserved]
2. Subpart--Corn Cyst Nematode, consisting of Secs. 301.90 and
301.90-1 through 301.90-10, is removed and reserved.
Done in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of September 1996.
Terry L. Medley,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 96-22942 Filed 9-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22941 Importation of Fruits and Vegetables
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 47663-47667]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22941]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 319
[Docket No. 95-068-2]
Importation of Fruits and Vegetables
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are allowing, under certain conditions, the cold treatment
of imported fruit upon arrival at the ports of Seattle, WA, Atlanta,
GA, and Gulfport, MS. We have determined that there are biological
barriers at these ports that, along with certain safeguards, prevent
the introduction of fruit flies and other insect pests into the United
States in the unlikely event that they escape from shipments of fruit
before undergoing cold treatment. We are also requiring that cold
treatment facilities at the port of Wilmington, NC, remain locked
during non-working hours. These actions will facilitate the importation
of fruit requiring cold treatment while continuing to provide
protection against the introduction of fruit flies and other insect
pests into the United States.
EFFECTIVE DATE: October 10, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Peter M. Grosser, Senior Operations Officer, Port Operations, PPQ,
APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 139, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236, (301) 734-
8891.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Fruits and Vegetables regulations, contained in 7 CFR 319.56
through 319.56-8 (referred to below as ``the regulations''), prohibit
or restrict the importation of fruits and vegetables to prevent the
introduction and dissemination of injurious insects, including fruit
flies, that are new to or not widely distributed in the United States.
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture administers these regulations.
Under the regulations, APHIS allows certain fruits to be imported
into the United States if they undergo sustained refrigeration (cold
treatment) sufficient to kill certain insect pests. Cold treatment
temperature and time requirements vary according to the type of fruit
and the pests involved. Detailed cold treatment procedures may be found
in the Plant Protection and Quarantine (PPQ) Treatment Manual, which is
incorporated by reference into the regulations at 7 CFR 300.1.
On April 29, 1996, we published in the Federal Register (61 FR
18690-18695, Docket No. 95-068-1) a proposal
[[Page 47664]]
to amend the regulations by allowing cold treatment of imported fruit
upon arrival at the ports of Seattle, WA, Atlanta, GA, and Gulfport,
MS.
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending
June 28, 1996. We received 10 comments by that date. They were from
customs brokers, industry representatives, and representatives of State
governments. Six commenters supported the proposed rule in its
entirety. The remaining four commenters had concerns about portions of
the proposed rule. Their concerns are discussed below by topic.
The Maritime Port of Seattle, WA
Two commenters recommended that, in addition to the special
conditions outlined for the maritime port of Seattle, WA, in the
proposed rule, we also require contingency plans and trap monitoring at
this port, as we proposed to require for the airports of Atlanta, GA,
and Seattle, WA, and for the port of Gulfport, MS, to reduce further
the slight possibility that a fruit fly could escape from the cold
treatment facility and could, particularly during summer months, find a
suitable microhabitat for colonization. We agree that contingency plans
and trap monitoring at the maritime port of Seattle, WA, will help
prevent the introduction and establishment of fruit flies near the
port, as they will at the other ports. Therefore, we are adding the
following special conditions to cold treatment at the maritime port of
Seattle, WA:
1. Blacklight or sticky paper must be used within the cold
treatment facility, and other trapping methods, including Jackson/
methyl eugenol and McPhail traps, must be used within the 4 square
miles surrounding the cold treatment facility.
This condition will act as a general safeguard. We are requiring
this condition as an extra layer of defense that will trap any fruit
flies within the facility or within the facility's environs, in the
unlikely event that a fruit fly manages to survive past the stage of
pupation in the cold treatment facility.
2. The cold treatment facility must have contingency plans,
approved by the Deputy Administrator of Plant Protection and Quarantine
(PPQ), for handling fruit, including the ability to destroy or dispose
of fruit safely.
This condition will ensure that, in the event that a shipment
cannot be cold treated promptly or properly, the contents of the
shipment can be safely treated by alternative means, destroyed, or
disposed of so that fruit flies and other insect pests will not have
the opportunity to escape. Examples of adequate contingency plans
include the ability to incinerate fruit, to bury fruit, or to re-export
fruit.
These additional special conditions, along with the conditions
outlined in the proposed rule for the maritime port of Seattle, WA,
will help prevent the introduction and establishment of fruit flies and
other insect pests in the unlikely event that they escape from
shipments of fruit before undergoing cold treatment at the maritime
port of Seattle, WA.
The Airport of Atlanta, GA, and the Maritime Port of Gulfport, MS
One commenter expressed concern about the temperate climates in
which the airport of Atlanta, GA, and the maritime port of Gulfport,
MS, are located. We recognize that these ports are located in areas
that experience warmer winter temperatures than the other areas where
cold treatment is conducted. However, these ports are not located near
commercial citrus-growing areas or other substantial sources of fruit
fly host material. We believe that the safeguards outlined in the
proposed rule are sufficient to prevent the introduction and
establishment of fruit flies and other insect pests from shipments of
fruit and vegetables intended for cold treatment. Therefore, we are
making no changes to the proposed rule in response to this comment.
Bulk Shipments
One commenter suggested that we prohibit bulk shipments (those
shipments which are stowed and unloaded by the case or bin) of fruit
and vegetables intended for cold treatment into the maritime port of
Seattle, WA, and the airports of Seattle, WA, and Atlanta, GA. The
commenter recommended that we instead require that all shipments
entering these ports for cold treatment be packed in containers in
order to keep the fruit chilled, limit any exposure to the outdoors,
prevent leakage, and serve as a physical barrier to fruit fly escape.
Based on our experience enforcing the regulations, it is extremely
rare, particularly at an airport, for shipments of fruit to wait for
extended periods of time for cold treatment. Shipments normally move
very quickly from the vessel or airplane into the cold treatment
facility for treatment. To help ensure prompt treatment of shipments,
we require that at all ports approved as locations for cold treatment,
advance reservations for cold treatment space be made prior to the
departure of a shipment from its port of origin. This condition ensures
the expeditious cold treatment of the fruit, limits the shipment's
exposure to the outdoors, reduces the likelihood of leakage from a
shipment, and minimizes the risk of fruit flies maturing in
deteriorating fruit. In addition, though we are allowing bulk shipments
of fruit intended for cold treatment to enter the maritime port of
Seattle, WA, and the airports of Seattle, WA, and Atlanta, GA, we are
requiring these bulk shipments to arrive in fruit fly-proof packaging
that prevents the escape of adult, larval, or pupal fruit flies. We
believe that this condition, and the other special conditions for these
ports, are sufficient to ensure that shipments that arrive at these
ports in cases or bins will not be exposed in such a manner as to allow
fruit flies or other insect pests to escape from a shipment. Therefore,
we are making no changes to the proposed rule in response to this
comment.
Security Measures
One commenter recommended that our proposed security measures for
all of the ports be expanded. The commenter suggested that each cold
treatment facility have security cameras, that each shipment of fruit
be accompanied by APHIS personnel, and that each person living within a
4-mile radius of the cold treatment facility be notified that the
facility is holding fruit that may contain exotic plant pests.
We developed special conditions for cold treatment at each port
proposed as an approved location for cold treatment so that there would
be a multi-layered defense against the escape of fruit flies or other
insect pests from shipments of fruit intended for cold treatment. These
special conditions are reinforced by the standard requirements for cold
treatment, located at Sec. 319.56-2d of the regulations, at all ports
that are approved locations for cold treatment. The standard
requirements, among other things, require that shipments of fruit
intended for cold treatment in the United States must arrive in the
United States at a temperature sufficiently low to prevent insect
activity and then must be promptly precooled and refrigerated in the
approved cold storage warehouse where cold treatment will occur. In
addition, the standard requirements provide that fruit intended for
cold treatment in the United States be delivered under the supervision
of an inspector of PPQ, APHIS, to the approved cold storage warehouse
where cold treatment will occur. APHIS officials monitor shipments of
fruit intended for cold treatment in the United States through
inspections of the shipments at the port of entry and through
inspections of the automatic, continuous temperature records
[[Page 47665]]
required for each refrigeration. At ports where special conditions
apply to cold treatment, APHIS officials monitor adherence to required
safeguards as well. Consequently, we feel that we have the necessary
security measures in place to prevent the introduction of exotic plant
pests into the United States. Therefore, we are making no changes to
the proposed rule in response to this comment.
Cold Treatment
One commenter stated that the United States should not allow the
cold treatment of foreign fruits and vegetables within its borders
because of the pest risk to American crops. The same commenter
expressed concern that allowing additional ports to be locations for
cold treatment would require extra APHIS resources that may not be
available. The commenter suggested that we require the costs of cold
treatment, including the staffing and operation of the cold treatment
facility, to be borne by the exporting party.
Based on our experience enforcing the regulations, we believe that
we have the necessary safeguards in place to conduct cold treatment in
the United States without presenting an unnecessary risk of the
introduction or establishment of exotic plant pests.
Further, we have adequate personnel and other resources at the
ports proposed as approved locations for cold treatment to conduct
careful monitoring of cold treatment operations and to ensure that the
provisions of the regulations are upheld. Regarding the costs of cold
treatment, it is routine for importers of fresh fruit to bear the
expense of cold treatment. Therefore, we are making no changes to the
proposed rule in response to these comments.
Therefore, based on the rationale set forth in the proposed rule
and in this document, we are adopting the provisions of the proposal as
a final rule with the changes discussed in this document.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.
For this action, the Office of Management and Budget has waived its
review process required by Executive Order 12866.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 604, we have performed a Final
Regulatory Flexibility Analysis, which is set out below, regarding the
impact of this final rule on small entities.
Under the Plant Quarantine Act and the Federal Plant Pest Act (7
U.S.C. 150dd, 150ee, 150ff, 151-167), the Secretary of Agriculture is
authorized to regulate the importation of fruits and vegetables to
prevent the introduction of injurious plant pests.
This rule amends the regulations governing the importation of
fruits and vegetables by allowing, under certain conditions, the cold
treatment of imported fruits upon arrival at the ports of Gulfport, MS,
Atlanta, GA, and Seattle, WA. Modern cold treatment facilities have
been or are in the process of being constructed at each of these ports.
This action will facilitate the importation of fruit requiring cold
treatment while continuing to provide protection against the
introduction of fruit flies and other insect pests into the United
States.
In our proposal, we solicited comments on the potential effects of
the proposed action on small entities. In particular, we sought data
and other information to determine the number and kind of small
entities that may incur benefits or costs from the implementation of
the proposed rule. We received no comments on the Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis contained in the proposed rule.
Approximately 585.4 million kilograms of fresh fruits and
vegetables were imported into the United States through the ports of
Gulfport, MS, Atlanta, GA, and Seattle, WA, during fiscal year 1994.
The port of Gulfport, MS, handled about 98 percent of the total fresh
fruit and vegetable imports for these ports. The ports of Atlanta, GA,
and Seattle, WA, handled 0.25 and 1.75 percent, respectively, of the
total fresh fruit and vegetable imports for these three ports. During
fiscal year 1994, approximately 550,330 kilograms (less than one-tenth
of one percent) of the total fresh fruit imports for these ports were
cold treated in the country of origin or in transit to the United
States and will be eligible for cold treatment upon arrival in the
United States. We expect that an additional 20 million kilograms of new
and rerouted fresh fruits will be imported through and cold treated at
these ports each year.
According to the Small Business Administration, a ``small'' entity
involved in the wholesale trade of fresh fruits is one that employs no
more than 100 people. Currently, there are 4,388 ``small'' wholesale
importers of fresh fruits in the United States. Use of on-site cold
treatment facilities at the ports of Seattle, WA, Atlanta, GA, and
Gulfport, MS, may slightly reduce transportation costs for foreign
fruit exporters, which, in turn, may slightly reduce transportation
costs for domestic importers and, ultimately, may slightly reduce the
cost of certain fruits for U.S. consumers. We expect, however, that
these reductions in costs will be insignificant.
The alternative to this rule was to make no changes in the
regulations. After consideration, we rejected this alternative because
it appears that, with the safeguards contained in this rule, the cold
treatment of fruit may be conducted at any of the listed ports without
significant risk of introducing fruit flies or other injurious plant
pests.
Executive Order 12988
This rule allows cold treatment of certain imported fruits to be
conducted at the ports of Gulfport, MS, Atlanta, GA, and Seattle, WA.
State and local laws and regulations regarding the importation of
fruits under this rule will be preempted while the fruits are in
foreign commerce. Fresh fruits are generally imported for immediate
distribution and sale to the consuming public, and will remain in
foreign commerce until sold to the ultimate consumer. The question of
when foreign commerce ceases in other cases must be addressed on a
case-by-case basis. No retroactive effect will be given to this rule,
and this rule will not require administrative proceedings before
parties may file suit in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule contains no new information collection or recordkeeping
requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
Regulatory Reform
This action is part of the President's Regulatory Reform
Initiative, which, among other things, directs agencies to remove
obsolete and unnecessary regulations and to find less burdensome ways
to achieve regulatory goals.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 319
Bees, Coffee, Cotton, Fruits, Honey, Imports, Incorporation by
reference, Nursery Stock, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Rice, Vegetables.
Accordingly, 7 CFR part 319 is amended as follows:
PART 319--FOREIGN QUARANTINE NOTICES
1. The authority citation for part 319 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150dd, 150ee, 150ff, 151-167, 450, 2803, and
2809; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).
[[Page 47666]]
2. Section 319.56-2d is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (b)(1), by revising the second sentence to read as
set forth below.
b. By revising paragraph (b)(5)(iv) to read as set forth below.
c. By adding new paragraphs (b)(5)(v), (b)(5)(vi), and (b)(5)(vii)
to read as set forth below.
Sec. 319.56-2d Administrative instructions for cold treatments of
certain imported fruits.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * * If not so refrigerated, the fruit must be both precooled
and refrigerated after arrival only in cold storage warehouses approved
by the Deputy Administrator and located at the following ports:
Atlantic ports north of, and including, Baltimore, MD; ports on the
Great Lakes and St. Lawrence Seaway; Canadian border ports on the North
Dakota border and east of North Dakota; the maritime ports of
Wilmington, NC, Seattle, WA, and Gulfport, MS; Seattle-Tacoma
International Airport, Seattle, WA; Hartsfield-Atlanta International
Airport, Atlanta, GA; and Baltimore-Washington International and Dulles
International airports, Washington, DC. * * *
* * * * *
(5) * * *
(iv) Special requirements for the maritime port of Wilmington, NC.
Shipments of fruit arriving at the maritime port of Wilmington, NC, for
cold treatment, in addition to meeting all of the requirements in
paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iii) of this section, must meet the
following special conditions:
(A) Bulk shipments (those shipments which are stowed and unloaded
by the case or bin) of fruit must arrive in fruit fly-proof packaging
that prevents the escape of adult, larval, or pupal fruit flies.
(B) Bulk and containerized shipments of fruit must be cold-treated
within the area over which the Bureau of Customs is assigned the
authority to accept entries of merchandise, to collect duties, and to
enforce the various provisions of the customs and navigation laws in
force.
(C) Advance reservations for cold treatment space must be made
prior to the departure of a shipment from its port of origin.
(D) The cold treatment facility must remain locked during non-
working hours.
(v) Special requirements for the maritime port of Seattle, WA.
Shipments of fruit arriving at the maritime port of Seattle, WA, for
cold treatment, in addition to meeting all of the requirements in
paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iii) of this section, must meet the
following special conditions:
(A) Bulk shipments (those shipments which are stowed and unloaded
by the case or bin) of fruit must arrive in fruit fly-proof packaging
that prevents the escape of adult, larval, or pupal fruit flies.
(B) Bulk and containerized shipments of fruit must be cold-treated
within the area over which the Bureau of Customs is assigned the
authority to accept entries of merchandise, to collect duties, and to
enforce the various provisions of the customs and navigation laws in
force.
(C) Advance reservations for cold treatment space must be made
prior to the departure of a shipment from its port of origin.
(D) The cold treatment facility must remain locked during non-
working hours.
(E) Blacklight or sticky paper must be used within the cold
treatment facility, and other trapping methods, including Jackson/
methyl eugenol and McPhail traps, must be used within the 4 square
miles surrounding the cold treatment facility.
(F) The cold treatment facility must have contingency plans,
approved by the Deputy Administrator, for safely destroying or
disposing of fruit.
(vi) Special requirements for the airports of Atlanta, GA, and
Seattle, WA. Shipments of fruit arriving at the airports of Atlanta,
GA, and Seattle, WA, for cold treatment, in addition to meeting all of
the requirements in paragraphs (b)(5)(i) through (b)(5)(iii) of this
section, must meet the following special conditions:
(A) Bulk and containerized shipments of fruit must arrive in fruit
fly-proof packaging that prevents the escape of adult, larval, or pupal
fruit flies.
(B) Bulk and containerized shipments of fruit arriving for cold
treatment must be cold treated within the area over which the Bureau of
Customs is assigned the authority to accept entries of merchandise, to
collect duties, and to enforce the various provisions of the customs
and navigation laws in force.
(C) The cold treatment facility and Plant Protection and Quarantine
must agree in advance on the route by which shipments are allowed to
move between the aircraft on which they arrived at the airport and the
cold treatment facility. The movement of shipments from aircraft to
cold treatment facility will not be allowed until an acceptable route
has been agreed upon.
(D) Advance reservations for cold treatment space must be made
prior to the departure of a shipment from its port of origin.
(E) The cold treatment facility must remain locked during non-
working hours.
(F) Blacklight or sticky paper must be used within the cold
treatment facility, and other trapping methods, including Jackson/
methyl eugenol and McPhail traps, must be used within the 4 square
miles surrounding the cold treatment facility.
(G) The cold treatment facility must have contingency plans,
approved by the Deputy Administrator, for safely destroying or
disposing of fruit.
(vii) Special requirements for the port of Gulfport, MS. Shipments
of fruit arriving at the port of Gulfport, MS, for cold treatment, in
addition to meeting all of the requirements in paragraphs (b)(5)(i)
through (b)(5)(iii) of this section, must meet the following special
conditions:
(A) All fruit entering the port for cold treatment must move in
maritime containers. No bulk shipments (those shipments which are
stowed and unloaded by the case or bin) are permitted at the port of
Gulfport, MS.
(B) Within the container, the fruit intended for cold treatment
must be enclosed in fruit fly-proof packaging that prevents the escape
of adult, larval, or pupal fruit flies.
(C) All shipments of fruit arriving at the port for cold treatment
must be cold treated within the area over which the Bureau of Customs
is assigned the authority to accept entries of merchandise, to collect
duties, and to enforce the various provisions of the customs and
navigation laws in force.
(D) The cold treatment facility and Plant Protection and Quarantine
must agree in advance on the route by which shipments are allowed to
move between the vessel on which they arrived at the port and the cold
treatment facility. The movement of shipments from vessel to cold
treatment facility will not be allowed until an acceptable route has
been agreed upon.
(E) Advance reservations for cold treatment space at the port must
be made prior to the departure of a shipment from its port of origin.
(F) Devanning, the unloading of fruit from containers into the cold
treatment facility, must adhere to the following requirements:
(1) All containers must be unloaded within the cold treatment
facility; and
(2) Untreated fruit may not be exposed to the outdoors under any
circumstances.
[[Page 47667]]
(G) The cold treatment facility must remain locked during non-
working hours.
(H) Blacklight or sticky paper must be used within the cold
treatment facility, and other trapping methods, including Jackson/
methyl eugenol and McPhail traps, must be used within the 4 square
miles surrounding the cold treatment facility.
(I) During cold treatment, a backup system must be available to
cold treat the shipments of fruit should the primary system
malfunction. The facility must also have one or more reefers (cold
holding rooms) and methods of identifying lots of treated and untreated
fruits.
(J) The cold treatment facility must have the ability to conduct
methyl bromide fumigations on-site.
(K) The cold treatment facility must have contingency plans,
approved by the Deputy Administrator, for safely destroying or
disposing of fruit.
* * * * *
3. In Sec. 319.56-2x(b), the first sentence is revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 319.56-2x Administrative instructions; conditions governing the
entry of certain fruits and vegetables for which treatment is required.
* * * * *
(b) If treatment has not been completed before the fruits and
vegetables arrive in the United States, fruits and vegetables listed
above and requiring treatment for fruit flies may arrive in the United
States only at the following ports: Atlantic ports north of, and
including, Baltimore, MD; ports on the Great Lakes and St. Lawrence
Seaway; Canadian border ports on the North Dakota border and east of
North Dakota; the maritime ports of Wilmington, NC, Seattle, WA, and
Gulfport, MS; Seattle-Tacoma International Airport, Seattle, WA;
Hartsfield-Atlanta International Airport, Atlanta, GA; and Baltimore-
Washington International and Dulles International airports, Washington,
DC. * * *
Done in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of September 1996.
A. Strating,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 96-22941 Filed 9-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-22940 Mediterranean Fruit Fly; Removal of Quarantined Areas
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 176 (Tuesday, September 10, 1996)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 47663]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-22940]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
7 CFR Part 301
[Docket No. 91-155-20]
Mediterranean Fruit Fly; Removal of Quarantined Areas
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Affirmation of interim rule as final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final rule, without change, an interim
rule that amended the Mediterranean fruit fly regulations by removing
the quarantined areas in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino
Counties, CA, from the list of quarantined areas. We have determined
that the Mediterranean fruit fly has been eradicated from these areas
and that restrictions on the interstate movement of regulated articles
from these areas are no longer necessary. As a result of the interim
rule, there are no longer any areas in the continental United States
quarantined because of the Mediterranean fruit fly.
EFFECTIVE DATE: Interim rule was effective on June 14, 1996.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Michael B. Stefan, Operations
Officer, Domestic and Emergency Operations, PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road
Unit 134, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236, (301) 734-8247; or e-mail:
[email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
In an interim rule effective June 14, 1996, and published in the
Federal Register on June 19, 1996 (61 FR 31003-31004, Docket No. 91-
155-19), we amended the Mediterranean fruit fly regulations (contained
in 7 CFR 301.78 through 301.78-10) by removing the quarantined areas in
Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino Counties, CA, from the list of
quarantined areas in Sec. 301.78-3(c). That action relieved unnecessary
restrictions on the interstate movement of regulated articles from
these areas. Also, as a result of that action, there are no longer any
areas in the continental United States quarantined because of the
Mediterranean fruit fly.
Comments on the interim rule were required to be received on or
before August 19, 1996. We did not receive any comments by that date.
The facts presented in the interim rule still provide a basis for the
rule.
This action also affirms the information contained in the interim
rule concerning Executive Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, Executive Orders 12372 and 12778, and the Paperwork Reduction Act.
Further, for this action, the Office of Management and Budget has
waived the review process required by Executive Order 12866.
List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 301
Agricultural commodities, Plant diseases and pests, Quarantine,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
PART 301--DOMESTIC QUARANTINE NOTICES
Accordingly, we are adopting as a final rule, without change, the
interim rule that amended 7 CFR 301 and that was published at 61 FR
31003-31004 on June 19, 1996.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 150bb, 150dd, 150ee, 150ff, 161, 162, and
164-167; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(c).
Done in Washington, DC, this 3rd day of September 1996.
A. Strating,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 96-22940 Filed 9-9-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
Continua la tua ricerca in ChatGPT o Claude
Collega Omnilex per cercare nel corpus legale dal tuo assistente IA.