Unknown. Interim final rule with request for comments
45,404 words·~206 min read·
/register/2006/06/15/06-5440·A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.
--- schema: federal-register doc_type: fedreg source_file: FR-2006-06-15.xml --- 71 115 Thursday, June 15, 2006 Contents Agricultural Agricultural Marketing Service RULES Onions (Vidalia) grown in Georgia, 34507-34510 E6-9235 Agricultural Agricultural Research Service NOTICES Patent licenses; non-exclusive, exclusive, or partially exclusive: Becton Dickinson, 34589-34590 E6-9351 Agriculture Agriculture Department See Agricultural Marketing Service See Agricultural Research Service See Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 34589 E6-9333 Alcohol Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau RULES Alcohol; viticultural area designations:
Livermore Valley, CA, 34527-34532 E6-9366 San Francisco Bay and Central Coast, CA, 34522-34525 E6-9364 Santa Lucia Highlands and Arroyo Seco, CA, 34525-34527 E6-9365 Animal Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service RULES Exportation and importation of animals and animal products: Contagious equine metritis— States approved to receive stallions and mares from affected regions; Indiana, 34517 E6-9350 PROPOSED RULES Exportation and importation of animals and animal products: Foot-and-mouth disease and rinderpest; disease status change— Namibia, 34537-34549 06-5440 Antitrust Antitrust Division NOTICES National cooperative research notifications:
ASTM International, 34644-34645 06-5413 Open DeviceNet Vendor Association, Inc., 34645 06-5414 Antitrust Antitrust Modernization Commission NOTICES Antitrust issues appropriate for study: Civil remedies, 34590-34591 E6-9363 Census Census Bureau NOTICES Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.: Census Information Center Program, 34591-34593 E6-9262 Centers Centers for Disease Control and Prevention NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 34621-34622 E6-9337 Centers Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services See Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department Children Children and Families Administration NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 06-5436 34622-34623 06-5437 Commerce Commerce Department See Census Bureau See Industry and Security Bureau See International Trade Administration See National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration See Patent and Trademark Office Customs Customs and Border Protection Bureau NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 34635 E6-9159 Education Education Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 34603-34604 E6-9193 EPA Environmental Protection Agency NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 34604-34606 E6-9316 Grants and cooperative agreements; availability, etc.:
Gulf of Mexico Alliance Regional Partnership Projects, 34606-34615 E6-9362 Pollution Prevention Information Network, 34615-34616 E6-9361 Export Export-Import Bank NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 34616-34617 06-5376 Farm Farm Credit Administration PROPOSED RULES Farm credit system: Regulatory burden reduction, 34549-34550 E6-9355 NOTICES Privacy Act; systems of records, 34617-34618 E6-9356 FAA Federal Aviation Administration RULES Airworthiness standards:
Special conditions— Societe de Motorisation Aeronautiques Engines, Inc.; Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes, 34517-34519 E6-9241 PROPOSED RULES Airworthiness directives: Airbus, 34563-34566 E6-9342 Federal Election Federal Election Commission NOTICES Meetings; Sunshine Act, 34618 06-5462 FMC Federal Maritime Commission NOTICES Agreements filed, etc., 34618 E6-9360 Federal Reserve Federal Reserve System NOTICES Banks and bank holding companies: Formations, acquisitions, and mergers, 34618 E6-9357 Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.:
Consumer Advisory Council, 34619-34620 E6-9336 FTC Federal Trade Commission NOTICES Prohibited trade practices: Take-Two Interactive Software, Inc. and Rockstar Games, Inc., 34620-34621 E6-9359 Fish Fish and Wildlife Service PROPOSED RULES Endangered and threatened species: Critical habitat designations— Fender's blue butterfly, Kincaid's lupine, and Willamette daisy, 34566-34570 E6-9323 Food Food and Drug Administration RULES Animal drugs, feeds, and related products: Lasalocid Correction, 34519 E6-9321 NOTICES Food additive petitions:
Georgia-Pacific Resins, Inc., 34623 E6-9319 Reports and guidance documents; availability, etc.: Veterinary Medicinal Products, International Cooperation on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration— New biotechnological/biological veterinary medicinal products; test procedures and acceptance criteria, 34623-34624 E6-9324 New veterinary drug substances and medicinal products (chemical substances); test procedures and acceptance criteria, 34625-34626 E6-9327 Health Health and Human Services Department See Centers for Disease Control and Prevention See Children and Families Administration See Food and Drug Administration See Indian Health Service See Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department See Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration Homeland Homeland Security Department See Customs and Border Protection Bureau See Immigration and Customs Enforcement Bureau See Secret Service See U.S.
Citizenship and Immigration Services Housing Housing and Urban Development Department NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 34641-34643 E6-9320 E6-9322 Low income housing: Housing assistance payments (Section 8)— Housing Choice Voucher Program and Moderate Rehabilitation Single Room Occupancy Program (2007 FY); fair market rents, 34726-34786 06-5411 Immigration Immigration and Customs Enforcement Bureau RULES Immigration regulations:
Employment Eligibility Verification (Form I-9); electronic signature and storage, 34510-34517 E6-9283 Indian Indian Health Service NOTICES Privacy Act; systems of records, 34626-34630 06-5410 Industry Industry and Security Bureau NOTICES Export privileges, actions affecting: Muttreja, Kailash, 34593-34596 06-5434 Teepad Electronic General Trading, 34596-34599 06-5435 Inspector Inspector General Office, Health and Human Services Department NOTICES Program exclusions; list, 34630-34634 E6-9339 Interior Interior Department See Fish and Wildlife Service See Land Management Bureau See Reclamation Bureau IRS Internal Revenue Service NOTICES Meetings:
Taxpayer Advocacy Panels, 34674-34675 E6-9329 E6-9330 E6-9331 E6-9332 International International Trade Administration NOTICES Antidumping: Stainless steel angle from— Various countries, 34599 E6-9367 Stainless steel bar from— Germany, 34599-34600 E6-9368 Foreign air carriers; exemption from excise taxes; discontinuance: Bolivia, 34600 E6-9335 International International Trade Commission NOTICES Import investigations: Pharmaceutical products and chemical intermediates; advice concerning addition to Pharmaceutical Appendix to Harmonized Tariff Schedule of U.S., 34643-34644 E6-9455 Justice Justice Department See Antitrust Division Land Land Management Bureau NOTICES Meetings:
Resource Advisory Councils— Central Montana, 34643 E6-9340 NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration RULES Fishery conservation and management: Caribbean, Gulf, and South Atlantic fisheries— Gulf of Mexico reef fish, 34534-34536 E6-9312 PROPOSED RULES Endangered and threatened species: Critical habitat designations— Southern Resident killer whale, 34571-34588 06-5439 NOTICES Committees; establishment, renewal, termination, etc.: Gulf of the Farallones National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council, 34600-34601 06-5422 Monitor National Marine Sanctuary Advisory Council, 34601 06-5421 Overseas Overseas Private Investment Corporation NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 34645 06-5433 Patent Patent and Trademark Office NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 34601-34603 E6-9343 Pension Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation RULES Single-employer plans:
Allocation of assets— Interest assumptions for valuing and paying benefits, 34532-34534 E6-9345 NOTICES Single-employer and multiemployer plans: Interest rates and assumptions, 34645-34646 E6-9346 Reclamation Reclamation Bureau NOTICES Meetings: California Bay-Delta Public Advisory Committee, 34643 06-5431 Secret Secret Service NOTICES Agency information collection activities; proposals, submissions, and approvals, 34635-34636 E6-9325 E6-9326 SEC Securities and Exchange Commission NOTICES Self-regulatory organizations; proposed rule changes:
American Stock Exchange LLC, 34646-34648 06-5418 Chicago Stock Exchange, Inc., 34648-34651 06-5417 International Securities Exchange, Inc., 34651-34652 06-5420 Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, 34652-34656 E6-9347 E6-9352 E6-9353 06-5416 NASDAQ Stock Market LLC, 34656-34658 E6-9349 National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., 34658-34660 06-5419 National Stock Exchange, 34660-34672 E6-9354 New York Stock Exchange LLC, 34672-34674 E6-9348 SBA Small Business Administration PROPOSED RULES Government contracting programs:
Women-Owned Small Business Federal Contract Assistance Program, 34550-34563 06-5354 NOTICES Loan programs: Lender risk rating system, 34674 E6-9344 State State Department RULES Homeland Security Department creation; visas: nomenclature changes, 34519-34522 E6-8165 NOTICES Gifts to Federal employees from foreign governments; list (2004 CY), 34678-34724 06-5132 Meetings: Shipping Coordinating Committee, 34674 E6-9358 Trade Act of 1974: Vietnam; waiver authority continuation, 34674 E6-9310 Substance Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration NOTICES Meetings:
SAMHSA National Advisory Council, 34634-34635 E6-9341 Transportation Transportation Department See Federal Aviation Administration Treasury Treasury Department See Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau See Internal Revenue Service MISSING FOR: U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services NOTICES Temporary protected status program designations; terminations, extensions, etc.: El Salvador, 34637-34641 06-5443 Separate Parts In This Issue Part II State Department, 34678-34724 06-5132 Part III Housing and Urban Development Department, 34726-34786 06-5411 Reader Aids Consult the Reader Aids section at the end of this issue for phone numbers, online resources, finding aids, reminders, and notice of recently enacted public laws.
To subscribe to the Federal Register Table of Contents LISTSERV electronic mailing list, go to http://listserv.access.gpo.gov and select Online mailing list archives, FEDREGTOC-L, Join or leave the list (or change settings); then follow the instructions. 71 115 Thursday, June 15, 2006 Rules and Regulations DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Agricultural Marketing Service 7 CFR Part 955 [Docket No. FV06-955-1 IFR] Vidalia Onions Grown in Georgia; Revision of Reporting and Assessment Requirements AGENCY:
Agricultural Marketing Service, USDA. ACTION: Interim final rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: This rule revises the reporting and assessment requirements under the marketing order for Vidalia onions grown in Georgia (order). The order regulates the handling of Vidalia onions grown in Georgia and is administered locally by the Vidalia Onion Committee (Committee). This rule changes the reporting requirements for handlers from filing weekly shipment reports to monthly reporting.
It also changes when assessments are due and how delinquent assessments are handled. This change is expected to benefit handlers without negatively affecting program compliance. DATES: Effective June 16, 2006; comments received by August 14, 2006 will be considered prior to issuance of a final rule. ADDRESSES: Interested persons are invited to submit written comments concerning this rule. Comments must be sent to the Docket Clerk, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237;
Fax:
(202)720-8938; E-mail: *moab.docketclerk@usda.gov* ; or Internet: *http://www.regulations.gov* . All comments should reference the docket number and the date and page number of this issue of the **Federal Register** and will be made available for public inspection in the Office of the Docket Clerk during regular business hours, or can be viewed at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Doris Jamieson, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; telephone:
(863)324-3378, Fax:
(863)325-8793; or Christian Nissen, Regional Manager, Southeast Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA; telephone:
(863)324-3378, Fax:
(863)325-8793. Small businesses may request information on complying with this regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order Administration Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, DC 20250-0237; telephone:
(202)720-2491, Fax:
(202)720-8938, or E-mail: *Jay.Guerber@usda.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule is issued under Marketing Agreement and Order No. 955, both as amended (7 CFR part 955), regulating the handling of Vidalia onions grown in Georgia, hereinafter referred to as the “order.” The order is effective under the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 U.S.C. 601-674), hereinafter referred to as the “Act.” The Department of Agriculture
(USDA)is issuing this rule in conformance with Executive Order 12866. This rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect. This rule will not preempt any State or local laws, regulations, or policies, unless they present an irreconcilable conflict with this rule. The Act provides that administrative proceedings must be exhausted before parties may file suit in court. Under section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any handler subject to an order may file with USDA a petition stating that the order, any provision of the order, or any obligation imposed in connection with the order is not in accordance with law and request a modification of the order or to be exempted therefrom. A handler is afforded the opportunity for a hearing on the petition. After the hearing USDA would rule on the petition. The Act provides that the district court of the United States in any district in which the handler is an inhabitant, or has his or her principal place of business, has jurisdiction to review USDA's ruling on the petition, provided an action is filed not later than 20 days after the date of the entry of the ruling. This rule revises the reporting and assessment requirements prescribed under the order. This rule changes the reporting requirements for handlers from filing weekly shipment reports to monthly reporting. It also changes when assessments are due and how delinquent assessments are handled. This change is expected to benefit handlers without negatively affecting program compliance. The Committee unanimously recommended these changes at a meeting on January 19, 2006. Section 955.60 of the order provides authority for the Committee to require handlers to file reports and provide other information as may be necessary for the Committee to perform its duties. Section 955.101 of the regulations provides the requisite reporting requirements. Prior to this action, handlers were required to file weekly reports that included, among other things, the name and address of the handler, the period covered in the report, the total volume of Vidalia onions received by the handler, and the handler's total fresh market shipments. Section 955.42 provides the authority for the formulation of an annual budget of expenses and the collection of assessments from handlers to administer the order. Section 955.42(f) provides the authority to impose a late payment charge or an interest charge or both, on any handler who fails to pay assessments in a timely manner and the authority to establish the time and rate of such charges. Section 955.142 of the rules and regulations outlines the procedures for applying interest charges to delinquent assessments. This rule amends § 955.101 to require handlers to file shipping reports on a monthly basis rather than weekly. This rule also revises § 955.142 to specify when assessments are due and to adjust the way interest is applied to delinquent assessments. Prior to this rule, § 955.101 required handlers to provide the Committee with information regarding the volume of Vidalia onions they received and shipped during each week of the shipping season. The shipping reports were to be filed no later than 4 p.m. on the Tuesday immediately following the shipping week. The Committee provided a form to assist handlers with supplying the required shipping information. Fresh Vidalia onions are primarily shipped from April through June with some limited shipments through December with the use of Controlled Atmosphere storage. Handler reports are used by the Committee to calculate the assessments owed by each handler. When handler reports are not received in a timely manner, it delays the receipt of assessment payments and in turn, the collection process the Committee uses to pursue late payments. Thus, timely receipt of handler reports is important. In 2002, the Committee changed from monthly reporting and assessment collection to weekly (67 FR 58511). This change was made to address the problems the Committee staff was experiencing in receiving monthly reports and assessment payments in a timely manner. The change was made in an effort to provide an earlier indication to Committee staff of potential problems with handlers not reporting or paying their assessments so these potential problems could be addressed before the amounts involved grew to significant levels. After several seasons of weekly reporting, the Committee has been receiving requests from the industry to return to monthly reporting. It was reported that several handlers considered weekly reporting too cumbersome and unnecessary. In discussing this issue, Committee members stated that during harvest, handlers utilize all their resources to get the onions harvested and to market. They stated that weekly reporting is very time consuming and puts an additional burden on their staff to ensure weekly reports are submitted on time to avoid penalties and interest. In addition, many handlers do not ship onions every week of the season. Nevertheless, under current reporting requirements, handlers had to file a report each week. Committee members recognized that monthly reporting would reduce Committee expenditures. The Committee also recognized that several adjustments have been made in the compliance and assessment collection process which have helped address some of the problems relating to late reporting and assessment collection. The Committee has implemented an electronic tracking system to ensure all reports and assessment payments are received from each handler. A data base has been created with each handler's name and the date reports are due. As reports are received from each handler, the data is entered into the computer. A detailed report listing all handlers, the date reports are due, and if all handlers have submitted reports for each due date can be generated to assist with compliance efforts. If a handler fails to file a report for a specific reporting date, the tracking report will reflect that information. The handler can then be notified a report is due. The Committee has also hired a part-time compliance officer. The compliance officer will visit handlers on a routine basis throughout the season to ensure compliance with the order, including the timely submission of reports and payment of assessments. Further, the Committee's compliance plan has been modified to better address late reports and assessment payments. Consequently, the Committee follows up more rapidly on late reports and assessments. These efforts will help prevent an accumulation of a large assessment debt from handlers. The Committee believes the adjustments to its compliance and assessment collection process and the addition of a compliance officer will better address the problems with late payment and reporting that were experienced previously during monthly reporting. Therefore, the Committee voted unanimously to return to monthly reporting. This rule also revises the rules and regulations specifying when reports and assessments are to be received by the Committee office. Prior to this change, handler reports and assessments were both due at 4 p.m. the Tuesday immediately following the week in which the shipments were made. This action changes §§ 955.101 and 955.142 to require that reports and assessments must be submitted to the Committee office by 5 p.m. on the fifth day of each month following a month of active shipping. Should the fifth day of the month fall on a weekend or holiday, payments and reports are due by the first business day prior to the fifth day of the month. This rule also makes changes to the way delinquent assessments are handled to reflect the change to monthly reporting. Previously, § 955.142 specified that handlers must pay interest charges of 1 percent per week on any unpaid assessments and on any accrued unpaid interest beginning the day immediately after the date the weekly assessments were due, until the delinquent handler's assessments, plus applicable interest, had been paid in full. This rule revises § 955.142 by adjusting the way interest charges are applied so interest accrues at 1 percent per month on any unpaid assessments and on any accrued unpaid interest beginning the day immediately after the date the monthly assessments are due until the delinquent handler's assessments plus applicable interest has been paid in full. Initial Regulatory Flexibility Analysis Pursuant to requirements set forth in the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the Agricultural Marketing Service
(AMS)has considered the economic impact of this action on small entities. Accordingly, AMS has prepared this initial regulatory flexibility analysis. The purpose of the RFA is to fit regulatory actions to the scale of business subject to such actions in order that small businesses will not be unduly or disproportionately burdened. Marketing orders issued pursuant to the Act, and the rules issued thereunder, are unique in that they are brought about through group action of essentially small entities acting on their own behalf. Thus, both statutes have small entity orientation and compatibility. There are approximately 100 producers of Vidalia onions in the production area and approximately 100 handlers of Vidalia onions who are subject to regulation under the marketing order. Small agricultural producers are defined by the Small Business Administration
(SBA)as those having annual receipts of less than $750,000, and small agricultural service firms, which include handlers, are defined as those whose annual receipts are less than $6,500,000 (13 CFR 121.201). Based on the Georgia Agricultural Statistical Service and Committee data, the average annual grower price for fresh Vidalia onions during the 2005 season was around $12 per 40-pound bag. Total Vidalia onion shipments for the 2005 season were around 3,571,500 40-pound bags. Using available data, more than 90 percent of Vidalia onion handlers could be considered small businesses under the SBA definition. In addition, based on acreage, production, grower prices as reported by the National Agricultural Statistics Service, and the total number of Vidalia onion growers, the average annual grower revenue is below $750,000. Thus, the majority of handlers and producers of Vidalia onions may be classified as small entities. This rule revises the reporting and assessment requirements prescribed under the order. This rule changes the reporting requirements for handlers from filing weekly shipment reports to monthly reporting. It also changes when assessments are due and how delinquent assessments are handled. This change reduces the number of reports a handler must submit annually and is expected to benefit handlers without negatively affecting program compliance. This rule revises §§ 955.101 and 955.142. Authority for this action is provided for in §§ 955.42 and 955.60 of the order. This change was unanimously recommended by the Committee at a meeting held on January 19, 2006. Requiring handlers to file shipping reports on a monthly basis rather than weekly reduces the reporting burden on both small and large handlers. Fresh Vidalia onions are primarily shipped from April through June with some limited shipments through December. Therefore, total reporting requirements per handler for weekly reporting totaled around 60 minutes per handler annually (5 minutes per response times approximately 12 responses). This resulted in a total annual industry burden of about 100 hours (60 minutes per handler times 100 handlers). Requiring handlers to report monthly, decreases the annual burden on a handler to around 15 minutes annually (5 minutes per response times approximately 3 responses), for a total annual industry burden of approximately 25 hours (15 minutes times 100 handlers). Thus, the total annual burden for handlers is decreased by around 75 hours, which is expected to benefit all handlers. This rule is not expected to result in any additional costs for handlers. This rule reduces the number of reports and assessment payments handlers are required to submit annually, which reduces the amount of time necessary for handlers to file reports and assessments. It also reduces the amount of time required by the Committee staff to monitor shipping reports and assessment payments by reducing the number of submissions. Thus, this rule offers the potential for cost savings. The potential reduction in Committee costs would benefit all handlers regardless of their size. Consequently, the benefits of this rule are expected to be equally available to all. The Committee did consider the alternative of making no change in the current regulation. However, the change to monthly reporting would reduce the number of reports a handler must submit annually and the Committee believes it would benefit handlers without negatively affecting program compliance. Therefore, this alternative was rejected and the Committee unanimously agreed to return to monthly reporting and assessment collection requirements. In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35), the information collection requirements contained in this rule have been previously approved by the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)and assigned OMB No. 0581-0178, Vegetable and Specialty Crops. As with all Federal marketing order programs, reports and forms are periodically reviewed to reduce information requirements and duplication by industry and public sectors. AMS is committed to compliance with the Government Paperwork Elimination Act (GPEA), which requires Government agencies in general to provide the public the option of submitting information or transacting business electronically to the maximum extent possible. In addition, USDA has not identified any relevant Federal rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict with this rule. Further, the Committee's meeting was widely publicized throughout the Vidalia onion industry and all interested persons were invited to attend the meeting and participate in Committee deliberations. Like all Committee meetings, the January 19, 2006, meeting was a public meeting and all entities, both large and small, were able to express their views on this issue. Finally, interested persons are invited to submit information on the regulatory and informational impacts of this action on small businesses. A small business guide on complying with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop marketing agreements and orders may be viewed at: *http://www.ams.usda.gov/fv/moab.html* . Any questions about the compliance guide should be sent to Jay Guerber at the previously mentioned address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. This rule revises the provisions requiring handlers to file shipment reports from weekly reporting to monthly reporting. It also changes when assessments are due and how delinquent assessments are handled. Any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule. After consideration of all relevant material presented, including the Committee's recommendation, and other information, it is found that this interim final rule, as hereinafter set forth, will tend to effectuate the declared policy of the Act. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 553, it is also found and determined upon good cause that it is impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to the public interest to give preliminary notice prior to putting this rule into effect and that good cause exists for not postponing the effective date of this rule until 30 days after publication in the **Federal Register** because:
(1)Vidalia onion handlers began shipping onions April 17;
(2)this issue has been widely discussed at industry meetings, and the Committee has kept the industry well informed;
(3)the Committee unanimously recommended these changes at a public meeting and interested parties had an opportunity to provide input; and
(4)this rule provides a 60-day comment period and any comments received will be considered prior to finalization of this rule. List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 955 Onions, Marketing agreements, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. For the reasons set forth in the preamble, 7 CFR part 955 is amended as follows: PART 955—VIDALIA ONIONS GROWN IN GEORGIA 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR part 955 continues to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601-674. 2. Amend § 955.101 by replacing the word “weekly” with the word “monthly” both times it appears in paragraph
(a)and by revising paragraph
(b)to read as follows: § 955.101 Vidalia Onion Handler Report.
(a)* * *
(b)Handlers shall file reports each fiscal period beginning the first month they make shipments and shall continue filing reports until they submit a final report for the season. Each such report shall be filed with the Committee not later than 5 p.m. on the fifth day of each month following the month in which any shipments were made. Should the fifth day of the month fall on a weekend or holiday, reports are due by the first business day prior to the fifth day of the month. 3. Revise § 955.142 to read as follows: § 955.142 Delinquent assessments. Each handler shall submit assessments to the Vidalia Onion Committee on a monthly basis for each month during the fiscal period in which they made shipments. Each such assessment shall be paid to the Committee not later than 5 p.m. on the fifth day of each month following the month in which any shipments were made. Should the fifth day of the month fall on a weekend or holiday, assessments are due by the first business day prior to the fifth day of the month. Each handler shall pay interest of one percent per month on any unpaid assessments levied pursuant to § 955.42 and on any accrued unpaid interest beginning the day immediately after the date the monthly assessments were due, until the delinquent handler's assessments, plus applicable interest, has been paid in full. Dated: June 8, 2006. Kenneth C. Clayton, Acting Administrator, Agricultural Marketing Service. [FR Doc. E6-9235 Filed 6-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-02-P DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement 8 CFR Part 274a [BICE 2345-05; DHS-2005-0046] RIN 1653-AA47 Electronic Signature and Storage of Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification AGENCY: Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, DHS. ACTION: Interim rule with request for comments. SUMMARY: This interim rule amends Department of Homeland Security regulations to provide that employers and recruiters or referrers for a fee who are required to complete and retain Forms I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification, may sign and retain these forms electronically. This interim rule implements statutory changes to the Form I-9 retention requirements by establishing standards for electronic signatures and the electronic retention of the Form I-9. DATES: *Effective Date:* This interim rule is effective June 15, 2006. *Comment Date:* Written comments must be submitted on or before August 14, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by *docket number,* by *one* of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: *http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. • Mail: Jim Knapp, Associate Legal Advisor, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Room 6100, 425 I. St., NW., Washington, DC 20536. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jim Knapp, Associate Legal Advisor, Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Room 6100, 425 I St., NW., Washington, DC 20536. Telephone
(202)514-8138 (not a toll-free number). SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION I. Background A. Employment Eligibility Verification Requirement Section 274A of the Immigration and Nationality Act (Act), 8 U.S.C. 1324a, requires all United States employers, agricultural associations, agricultural employers, farm labor contractors, or persons or other entities who recruit or refer persons for employment for a fee, to verify the employment eligibility and identity of all employees hired to work in the United States after November 6, 1986. To comply with the law, an employer, or a recruiter or referrer for a fee, is responsible for the completion of an Employment Eligibility Verification form (Form I-9) for all employees, including United States citizens. 8 CFR 274a.2. Completed Forms I-9 are not filed with the Federal Government; instead, the completed I-9 form is retained by the employer. Employers are required to retain Forms I-9 in their own files for three years after the date of hire of the employee or one year after the date that employment is terminated, whichever is later. 8 CFR 274a.2(c)(2). Recruiters or referrers for a fee are required to retain the Forms I-9 for three years after the date of hire. *Id.* at (d)(2). The failure to properly complete and retain the Forms I-9 subjects the employer to civil money penalties. Section 274A of the Act, 8 U.S.C. 1324a(e)(5). B. Format of the Form I-9 Form I-9 has been made available to the public in numerous paper and electronic means since 1986. The Form I-9 is currently available online at the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) Web site at ( *http://www.uscis.gov* ) as a Portable Document Format (.pdf) fillable—printable form *http://uscis.gov/graphics/formsfee/forms/files/i-9.pdf.* In short, an employer or employee can retrieve the form, type the required information into it for a prospective employee, and print it. The form may then be retained in paper, microfilm, or microfiche form. In conjunction with this interim rule, the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS)is upgrading the downloadable PDF version of Form I-9 to enable employers and employees to electronically sign and save the filled Form I-9. This provides employers an additional option for convenience and savings. This PDF version of Form I-9 complies with the electronic form requirements of this rule. However, existing DHS regulations do not permit the form to be completed and stored electronically as an original record. On October 30, 2004, Public Law 108-390, 11 Stat. 2242, authorized employers to retain Forms I-9 in electronic format, effective April 29, 2005, or the effective date of implementing regulations, whichever occurred first. The legislation also allows employers and employees to manifest attestations using electronic signature technology. This interim rule conforms the regulations to the requirements of Public Law 108-390 and permits employers to complete, sign, and store Forms I-9 electronically, as long as certain performance standards set forth in this interim rule for the electronic filing system are met. This interim rule also permits employers to electronically scan and store existing Forms I-9, as long as standards set forth in this interim rule for the electronic storage system are met. The interim rule adopts performance standards that have been proven by other agencies in the past and provides flexibility for employers to choose a method of retention that is the most economically feasible for their specific business. Utilizing the most widely applicable standards, those adopted by the Internal Revenue Service
(IRS)for tax records, provides the widest possible cost savings within the business community because of existing compliance with those standards. C. Electronic Recordkeeping Standards There is no single United States Government-wide electronic recordkeeping standard for recordkeeping by private individuals and entities. However, some United States Government agencies provide electronic recordkeeping standards for use in transactions with that agency. These standards provide a baseline for proven practices. To the extent that these standards are applicable to the electronic storage of Form I-9, DHS attempts to use the requirements and language of existing standards. At the same time, DHS recognizes that systems for electronic recordkeeping develop rapidly with the creation of new storage mechanisms, mediums, and methods. Accordingly, the standards adopted in this rule are “product neutral” and will guide the application of new products to meet minimum performance standards, rather than establishing specific requirements. The Internal Revenue Service's Rev. Proc. 97-22, 1997-1 C.B. 652, 1997-13 I.R.B. 9 (March 31, 1997), and Rev. Proc. 98-25, 1998-1 C.B. 689, 1998-11 I.R.B. 7 (March 16, 1998), specify electronic recordkeeping standards for taxpayers. This regulation closely follows the widely accepted electronic storage standards and requirements set forth in the IRS Rulings previously published. The derivation of the substantive standards of this interim rule is set forth below. Derivation of Substantive Standards for Electronic Retention of Form I-9 Provision of this rule Source of provision Description of provision 8 CFR 274a.2(e)(1) Rev. Proc. 97-22, section 4.01(2) Requirements for the electronic generation or storage system. 8 CFR 274a.2(e)(2) Rev. Proc. 97-22, section 4.01(3) Requires reproduced documents to exhibit a high degree of legibility and readability. 8 CFR 274a.2(e)(3) Rev. Proc. 97-22, section 4.01(7) Requires that any electronic storage system must not be subject to any agreement that would limit or restrict the relevant Government personnel's access or use on the premises. 8 CFR 274a.2(e)(4) Rev. Proc. 97-22, section 4.01(9) Allows use of multiple electronic systems so long as each meets the relevant standards. 8 CFR 274a.2(e)(5) Rev. Proc. 97-22, section 4.01(5) Requires that descriptions of the system, including procedures for use and indexing systems, be maintained and made available upon request. 8 CFR 274a.2(e)(6) Rev. Proc. 97-22, section 4.02(1) Defines indexing system that complies with requirements. 8 CFR 274a.2(e)(7) Rev. Proc. 97-22, section 4.01(10) Permits reasonable data compression and formatting technologies. 8 CFR 274a.2(e)(8) Rev. Proc. 97-22, section 4.01(6) Requirements for inspection. The widespread application of these IRS standards by the business community is the critical reason for adoption of these standards. This adoption of existing standards should reduce any potential burden on the portion of the business community that decides to utilize electronic retention. In 17 CFR 240.17a4, the Securities and Exchange Commission
(SEC)specifies electronic recordkeeping standards for certain exchange members, brokers and dealers. DHS did not incorporate specific language from the SEC provisions; however, it did find them instructive on how to establish electronic systems. In particular, 8 CFR 240.17a4(f) provides instruction on audit and indexing systems that employers could find helpful when complying with the similar provisions set forth in this regulation. Also instructive are the regulations of the National Archives and Records Administration found in 36 CFR part 1234, which set standards for federal agencies to use in order to enhance the trustworthiness of an agency's own electronic records and their admissibility as evidence in court proceedings. Employers utilizing electronic retention and signature technology for Form I-9 may find it helpful to review system requirements placed upon Federal agencies. These standards define terms of art related to the requirements of this regulation and provide information that could help guide businesses establish security and maintenance procedures for electronic records. Using precedents set by 36 CFR part 1234 and other United States Government agencies, this interim rule provides a reasonable set of standards for creating a trustworthy system for Form I-9 completion and storage. The standards are technology neutral, and allow businesses the flexibility to keep records in a manner consistent with other business processes. They also provide DHS investigators with a framework for inspecting the records and assessing their trustworthiness. DHS is working with the IRS to develop audit protocols to minimize requirements on businesses to provide information from Forms I-9 when the DHS Bureau of Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE)determines that audit and review is necessary. D. Development of the Rule After the President signed Public Law 108-390, a working group was established within DHS, consisting of representatives from ICE and USCIS. This regulation was developed, drawing upon work begun under the legacy Immigration and Naturalization Service, as well as relying on standards developed by other Federal agencies utilizing electronic retention and signature methods. On December 10, 2004, at the request of the United States Chamber of Commerce, DHS representatives met with the Electronic I-9 Coalition. This Coalition consisted of representatives from a wide array of business interests. The Chamber of Commerce facilitated the meeting so the Coalition members could express views to DHS regarding the importance of the statute and to offer insight on methods of storage and attestation being contemplated by the business community. DHS representatives listened to the views presented, but could not offer any guidance on specific aspects of the regulation. DHS has carefully considered the views expressed and, to the extent practical and in the public interest, incorporated those suggestions. There are a number of potential advantages that employers may gain through use of electronic Forms I-9. Many employers may experience cost savings by storing Forms I-9 electronically rather than using conventional filing and storage of paper copies or transferring the forms to microfilm or microfiche. Electronic forms may allow employers to better ensure that each Form I-9 is properly completed and retained. Some employers may find that electronic completion and storage renders the process less prone to error. Electronically retained Forms I-9 are more easily searchable, which is important for re-verification, quality assurance and inspection purposes. This will be especially helpful and cost-effective for large employers that have job sites across the country or that have high employee turnover rates. On April 26, 2005, a fact sheet was published on the ICE Web site to provide information on the development of the regulation based on IRS Revenue Procedure 97-22. The fact sheet included suggested standards established by IRS, and advantages for using electronic signature and retention of Form I-9. E. Employer Compliance An employer that is currently complying with the recordkeeping and retention requirements of current 8 CFR 274.2 is not required to take any additional or different action to comply with the revised rules. The revised rules offer an additional option. Businesses will be permitted to adopt one or more of a number of different electronic recordkeeping, attestation, and retention systems that are compliant with the existing IRS standards. For example, a small business may wish to download and retain .pdf versions of the employment verification record. DHS made this system available on the USCIS Web site. Employers who already utilize electronic data recordkeeping as part of their accounting and tax functions may expand those functions to include the employment verification process. As long as the electronic records system remains IRS-compliant, the system will be ICE-compliant. F. Public Participation Interested persons are invited to participate in this rulemaking by submitting written data, views, or arguments on all aspects of the proposed rule. DHS also invites comments that relate to the economic, environmental, or federalism affects that might result from this proposed rule. Comments that will provide the most assistance to DHS in developing these procedures will reference a specific portion of the proposed rule, explain the reason for any recommended change, and include data, information, or authority that support such recommended change. *Instructions:* All submissions received must include the agency name and docket number for this rulemaking. All comments received will be posted without change to *http://www.regulations.gov,* including any personal information provided. *Docket:* For access to the docket to read background documents or comments received, go to *http://www.regulations.gov.* Submitted comments may also be inspected at the street at the address noted above by making an appointment with the individual listed as the individual to contact for further information. II. Regulatory Requirements A. Administrative Procedure Act (Good Cause Exception) Implementation of this rule as an interim rule effective on June 15, 2006, with a request for public comment after the effective date of the rule is based upon the “good cause” exceptions found under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) and (d)(3). DHS has determined that delaying implementation of this rule until after a period for public notice and comment, analysis of the public comments (if any), preparation of a final rule, and providing a delayed post-publication effective date of at least 30 days, are impracticable and contrary to the public interest for the following reasons: This regulation adopts existing, widely-utilized standards for electronic recordkeeping to permit any employer who is required to retain Form I-9, to retain that form in an electronic format. Because of the widespread application of the same rules required to establish taxable income and other matters within the jurisdiction of the IRS in the larger accounting context, it is impractical to adopt differing rules for a specific set of employment forms. Accordingly, providing an opportunity for notice and comment on whether to adopt such widely accepted standards is impractical and unnecessary. Also, the rule provides additional optional methods for complying with an existing requirement. The methods may be utilized or not utilized, in the discretion of the employer. Therefore, a delayed effective date is not necessary. DHS recognizes that the effective date of the underlying statute authorizing electronic retention of Form I-9 was April 28, 2005. DHS will not require that forms created between that date and the effective date of the rule must comply with this rule. If an audit of such records is required, DHS will permit the employer to provide the forms in paper form; this rule does not require that any employer use an electronic record keeping system. Moreover, as far as DHS can determine at this time, “off the shelf” computer programs and commercial automated data processing systems in use comply with the standards required by this rule. DHS is not aware of systems that would not immediately be useable under the regulations. Accordingly, DHS finds that no employer required to retain Form I-9 would be adversely affected by the adoption of this rule without pre-promulgation notice and comment or a delayed effective date. DHS nevertheless invites comments on this interim rule and will consider all timely comments in the preparation of a final rule. In particular, DHS is interested in identifying whether any existing systems for electronic record keeping do not comply with these standards in order to adjust the standards or provide a means to resolving any discrepancies. B. Regulatory Flexibility Act The Regulatory Flexibility Act
(RFA)mandates that DHS conduct an RFA analysis when an agency is “required by section 553, or any other law, to publish general notice of proposed rulemaking for any proposed rule.” 5 U.S.C. 603(a). RFA analysis is not required when a rule is exempt from notice and comment rulemaking under 5 U.S.C. 553(b). DHS has determined that good cause exists under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B) to exempt this rule from the notice and comment requirements of 5 U.S.C. 553(b). Therefore, no RFA analysis under 5 U.S.C. 603 is required for this rule. C. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 This interim rule will not result in an expenditure by state, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 million or more in any one year, and it will not significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Therefore, no actions were deemed necessary under the provisions of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995. D. Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This interim rule is not a major rule as defined by section 804 of the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996. This interim rule will not result in an annual effect of $100 million or more on the economy; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign-based companies in domestic and export markets. Since utilizing electronic signature and storage technologies are optional, DHS expects that small businesses will only choose electronic methods if they will save costs and/or lessen overall burden. Providing this option should, therefore, have a net cost-saving effect to small businesses. E. Executive Order 12866 (Regulatory Planning and Review) This interim rule is considered by DHS to be a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866, section 3(f), Regulatory Planning and Review. Accordingly, the rule has been submitted to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review. DHS has assessed both the cost and benefits of this interim rule as required by Executive Order 12866 section 1(b)(6), and has made a reasoned determination that the benefits of this interim rule justify its costs to the public and Government. In fact, DHS anticipates that both the public and Government will experience a net cost savings as a result of this rule. Whether to store Forms I-9 in an electronic format will be within the discretion of the employer or the recruiter or referrer for a fee—those that are already required under 8 CFR 274a.2 to retain the Forms I-9. The number of Forms I-9 maintained throughout the country is extremely large. Storage of Forms I-9 to meet the statutory retention requirement may require the employer to make a significant investment in personnel and storage space. Currently, storage costs for the paper Form I-9 vary, depending on the storage facility used and the number of Forms I-9 that must be stored. DHS believes that Form I-9 storage costs are highest with large employers or those who have a high employee attrition rate. At an estimated employer total labor cost of $20 per hour, employer burden savings are estimated to be $13,000,000 annually. DHS considers this a conservative estimate, which is based on agency experience since the Form I-9 requirement was implemented. Further, we expect that some employers will have capital costs at the outset, depending on the size and complexity of the system chosen. DHS is unable to estimate possible capital costs as these could vary widely as employers implement a range of electronic options, from simply using a scanner to electronically retain a completed Form I-9 to a complex database that facilitates electronic completion, attestation, retention, production, etc. Employers utilizing electronic Forms I-9 will bear additional costs associated with the documentation that this rule requires to establish the integrity of the electronic Form I-9 process chosen. This is an initial cost to the employer and will vary depending on the sophistication and capacity of each system deployed. The documentation necessary should accompany the software and hardware being used by the employer to implement the electronic Form I-9. For employers responsible for a significant number of Forms I-9, these costs are expected to be lower than the costs associated with retaining Forms I-9 in paper format. For employers who do not have a large number of Forms I-9 to retain, utilizing an electronic Form I-9 may not be economical. However, the benefits of using an electronic Form I-9 extend beyond storage space. DHS believes that employers using electronic Forms I-9 will improve their accuracy rate. By completing and/or storing Forms I-9 electronically, employers will be better able to self-audit Forms I-9 in order to detect and correct errors. Employers could create an electronic process for Form I-9 completion that minimizes the possibility of errors. The process could include prompts that preclude the user from completing the rest of the form until an acceptable response is provided. Employers would also be better able to create a reliable system to re-verify an employee's employment authorization when it is about to expire. The forms could be stored on a computer maintained onsite rather than in boxes off-site or other difficult-to-access locations, which DHS has observed when conducting past Form I-9 audits. Electronically stored forms could be presented for review in a matter of minutes rather than the lengthy period required to access paper or microfiche archives. While employers converting to an electronic Form I-9 format may incur initial costs, DHS anticipates that employers who use an electronic Form I-9 system tailored to their needs will generally achieve a net cost-savings in both the short term and long term. In addition, DHS anticipates that its Form I-9 audits will reveal a lower error rate. This should translate into a more efficient employment eligibility verification process for employers and, therefore, a lower incidence of unauthorized workers in the workplace. In recent years, DHS has received many queries from the employer community regarding the possibility of using electronic Forms I-9, with electronic attestation, and storing the forms electronically. Employers have expressed their frustration with the requirement to keep paper forms or maintain the forms on microfilm or microfiche when all other aspects of their businesses have been automated. For some employers, particularly small employers, retaining the paper Form I-9 may continue to be the most cost-effective and efficient storage method. This rule does not eliminate this option or discourage employers from using it. The paper Form I-9 has the advantage of recording the unique signature of the employee and of the employer representative. This interim rule does not make any change to the current paper Form I-9 process. Additionally, employers can utilize a combination of paper and electronic methods for fulfilling the Form I-9 requirements. For example, an employer can complete the paper Form I-9 and use a scanner to retain electronically. Conversely, an employer can choose to complete the Form I-9 electronically and retain the printed form. For the Government, amending the regulations to permit the electronic signatures and retention of Form I-9 has many advantages, particularly with respect to DHS's enforcement efforts. When conducting audits, DHS will be able to receive Forms I-9 electronically, rather than using staff resources to physically appear at a worksite. Once the Form I-9 data is received electronically, DHS will have increased flexibility in how it reviews and analyzes them. DHS will be able to more easily compare data among multiple audits to locate unauthorized workers, and store audit records for easy access. When investigating the presence of unauthorized workers in the workplace, employers violating the immigration laws, or national security risks, DHS will have this information immediately available and with less risk of human error. Additionally, there are circumstances in which the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice, Office of Special Counsel for Immigration-Related Unfair Employment Practices, access Forms I-9 in order to exercise their responsibilities. DHS anticipates that its own additional costs will be minimal. DHS currently inputs Form I-9 information manually into a database. If an employer chooses to electronically retain Form I-9, then the rule's requirement that Form I-9 information be presented in a particular electronic format will enable the electronic transfer of information from employer to DHS to be nearly instantaneous. Therefore, rather than invest DHS investigator time in data entry, investigators will be free to conduct more-thorough investigations. Once employers begin to utilize electronic Forms I-9 and the various electronic Form I-9 storage options, DHS will be able to better gauge what additional or alternative database and storage options would further increase the efficiency of its investigations. At present, DHS will utilize current systems to implement this rule. This rule does not limit employers to using one system for the storage of Forms I-9 electronically, nor does it identify one method for acceptable electronic signatures. Instead, this rule seeks to set acceptable standards for employers. Electronic signatures can be accomplished using various technologies including, but not limited to, electronic signature pads, Personal Identification Numbers (PIN), biometrics, and “click to accept” dialog boxes. DHS considered specifying acceptable technologies, but rejected this alternative as being too inflexible for employers' needs and economic means. Moreover, to specify a particular technology would require continuous amendments to the regulations reflecting the rapid changes in technology. DHS concluded that this approach would be impractical and detrimental to employers since it would require continuous and potentially costly changes to employers' business practices. F. Executive Order 13132 (Federalism) This interim rule will not have a substantial direct effect 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 section 6 of Executive Order 13132, it is determined that this interim rule does not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant the preparation of a federalism summary impact statement. G. Executive Order 12988 (Civil Justice Reform) This interim rule meets the applicable standards set forth in sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order 12988. H. Paperwork Reduction Act Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq., all Departments are required to submit any reporting or recordkeeping requirements inherent in a rule to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)for review and approval. This interim rule requires employers to complete the Form I-9 which has been approved for use by OMB (OMB Control Number 1615-0047); it also permits the employer to continue to retain the Form I-9 in paper, microfiche, or microfilm, and allows a new option: to retain the Form I-9 electronically. The DHS believes that storing the I-9 electronically will reduce the burden on businesses by 650,000 hours (see discussion below). Accordingly, DHS submitted the required Paperwork Reduction Change Worksheet (OMB-83C) to the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)reflecting the reduction in burden hours for Form I-9, and the OMB has approved the changes. DHS estimates that there will be a total of 78,000,000 respondents annually who will complete the required Form I-9 in either paper or electronic format. DHS has estimated that it takes 9 minutes to gather the required evidence to complete the paper Form I-9 and an additional 4 minutes for employer verification, filing and storage. Because this regulation is technology neutral, it is difficult for DHS to estimate the average time required to complete a Form I-9 electronically, as completion methods may vary widely depending upon the range of systems implemented by employers. However, DHS does not believe the time per respondent will change significantly as the documentation required is unchanged. Many businesses could reduce the time burden by using an electronic Form I-9, as the documentation could be collected from an employee in conjunction with other types of personnel forms ( *i.e.* , tax withholding forms, insurance and other benefit forms) that require similar personal information. For employers who choose electronic retention methods for the Form I-9, DHS does expect a burden reduction. DHS previously estimated that employers spend four minutes per form to verify and file. We project that half of the estimated 78,000,000 Forms I-9 completed annually will involve some method of electronic generation or retention. Employers utilizing at least a partial electronic process for retention of the Form I-9 should save a minimum of one minute of burden time per form based on the previous estimate of 4 minutes per form for verification and filing. Based on 39,000,000 Forms I-9, the total labor hours saved would be 650,000 hours annually. Under 8 CFR 274a.2(e) through (i), any employer who stores Form I-9 electronically or any employer that applies an electronic signature to the Form I-9 must demonstrate that its electronic storage system is properly maintained and protected against tampering, and that any electronic signature can be authenticated. In addition, an employer or entity who chooses to complete and/or retain Forms I-9 electronically must maintain, and make available to the Department upon request, documentation of the business process that:
(1)Creates the retained Forms I-9;
(2)Modifies and maintains the retained Forms I-9; and
(3)Establishes the authenticity and integrity of the Forms I-9, such as audit trails. These additional requirements are considered information collections under the Paperwork Reduction Act. These requirements are reflected in the Paperwork Reduction Change Worksheet (Form OMB 83-C) that has been submitted to OMB and that specifies the estimated net reduction in burden hours that will result from this rule. List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 274a Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Employment, Penalties, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, part 274a of chapter I of title 8 of the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows: PART 274a—CONTROL OF EMPLOYMENT OF ALIENS 1. The authority citation for part 274a continues to read as follows: Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103, 1324a; 8 CFR part 2. 2. Section 274a.2 is amended: a. By revising paragraph (a); b. By revising paragraph (b)(1)(i)(A); c. By revising paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B); d. By revising the last sentence in paragraph (b)(1)(iv); e. By revising the last sentence of paragraph (b)(1)(vii); f. By revising paragraph (b)(2)(i) introductory text; g. By revising paragraph (b)(2)(ii); h. By adding paragraph (b)(2)(iv); i. By revising paragraph (b)(3); j. By adding the term “or electronic images” immediately after “copies” in paragraph (b)(4); and k. By adding new paragraphs (e), (f), (g), (h), and (i). The revisions and additions read as follows: § 274a.2 Verification of employment eligibility.
(a)* General.* This section establishes requirements and procedures for compliance by persons or entities when hiring, or when recruiting or referring for a fee, or when continuing to employ individuals in the United States.
(1)*Recruiters and referrers for a fee.* For purposes of complying with section 274A(b) of the Act and this section, all references to recruiters and referrers for a fee are limited to a person or entity who is either an agricultural association, agricultural employer, or farm labor contractor (as defined in section 3 of the Migrant and Seasonal Agricultural Worker Protection Act, Pub. L. 97-470 (29 U.S.C. 1802)).
(2)*Verification form.* Form I-9, Employment Eligibility Verification Form, is used in complying with the requirements of this 8 CFR 274a.1—274a.11. Form I-9 can be in paper or electronic format. In paper format, the Form I-9 may be obtained in limited quantities at USCIS district offices, or ordered from the Superintendent of Documents, Washington, DC 20402. In electronic format, a fillable electronic Form I-9 may be downloaded from *http://www.uscis.gov* . Alternatively, Form I-9 can be electronically generated or retained, provided that the resulting form is legible; there is no change to the name, content, or sequence of the data elements and instructions; no additional data elements or language are inserted; and the standards specified under 8 CFR 274a.2(e), (f), (g), (h), and (i), as applicable, are met. When copying or printing the paper Form I-9, the text of the two-sided form may be reproduced by making either double-sided or single-sided copies.
(3)*Attestation Under Penalty and Perjury.* In conjunction with completing the Form I-9, an employer or recruiter or referrer for a fee must examine documents that evidence the identity and employment eligibility of the individual. The employer or recruiter or referrer for a fee and the individual must each complete an attestation on the Form I-9 under penalty of perjury.
(b)* * *
(1)* * *
(i)* * *
(A)Completes section 1—“Employee Information and Verification”—on the Form I-9 at the time of hire and signs the attestation with a handwritten or electronic signature in accordance with paragraph
(h)of this section; or if an individual is unable to complete the Form I-9 or needs it translated, someone may assist him or her. The preparer or translator must read the Form I-9 to the individual, assist him or her in completing Section 1—“Employee Information and Verification,” and have the individual sign or mark the Form I-9 by a handwritten signature, or an electronic signature in accordance with paragraph
(h)of this section, in the appropriate place; and
(ii)* * *
(B)Complete section 2—“Employer Review and Verification”—on the Form I-9 within three days of the hire and sign the attestation with a handwritten signature or electronic signature in accordance with paragraph
(i)of this section.
(iv)* * * If a recruiter or referrer designates an employer to complete the employment verification procedures, the employer need only provide the recruiter or referrer with a photocopy or printed electronic image of the Form I-9, electronic Form I-9, or a Form I-9 on microfilm or microfiche.
(vii)* * * The employer or the recruiter or referrer for a fee must review this document, and if it appears to be genuine and relate to the individual, re-verify by noting the document's identification number and expiration date, if any, on the Form I-9 and signing the attestation by a handwritten signature or electronic signature in accordance with paragraph
(i)of this section.
(2)* * *
(i)A paper (with original handwritten signatures), electronic (with acceptable electronic signatures that meet the requirements of paragraphs
(h)and
(i)of this section or original paper scanned into an electronic format that meets the requirements of 8 CFR 274a.2(e), (f), and (g)), or microfilm or microfiche copy of the original signed version of the Form I-9 must be retained by an employer or a recruiter or referrer for a fee for the following time periods:
(ii)Any person or entity required to retain Forms I-9 in accordance with this section shall be provided with at least three days notice prior to an inspection of the Forms I-9 by officers of an authorized agency of the United States. At the time of inspection, Forms I-9 must be made available in their original paper, electronic form, a paper copy of the electronic form, or on microfilm or microfiche at the location where the request for production was made. If Forms I-9 are kept at another location, the person or entity must inform the officer of the authorized agency of the United States of the location where the forms are kept and make arrangements for the inspection. Inspections may be performed at an office of an authorized agency of the United States. A recruiter or referrer for a fee who has designated an employer to complete the employment verification procedures may present a photocopy or printed electronic image of the Form I-9 in lieu of presenting the Form I-9 in its original paper or electronic form or on microfilm or microfiche, as set forth in paragraph (b)(1)(iv) of this section. Any refusal or delay in presentation of the Forms I-9 for inspection is a violation of the retention requirements as set forth in section 274A(b)(3) of the Act. No Subpoena or warrant shall be required for such inspection, but the use of such enforcement tools is not precluded. In addition, if the person or entity has not complied with a request to present the Forms I-9, any officer listed in 8 CFR 287.4 may compel production of the Forms I-9 and any other relevant documents by issuing a subpoena. Nothing in this section is intended to limit the subpoena power under section 235(a) of the Act.
(iv)Paragraphs (e), (f), (g), (h), and
(i)of this section specify the standards for electronic Forms I-9.
(3)*Copying of documentation.* An employer, or a recruiter or referrer for a fee may, but is not required to, copy or make an electronic image of a document presented by an individual solely for the purpose of complying with the verification requirements of this section. If such a copy or electronic image is made, it must be retained with the Form I-9. The copying or electronic imaging of any such document and retention of the copy or electronic image does not relieve the employer from the requirement to fully complete section 2 of the Form I-9. An employer, recruiter or referrer for a fee should not, however, copy or electronically image only the documents of individuals of certain national origins or citizenship statuses. To do so may violate section 274B of the Act.
(4)*Limitation on use of Form I-9* . Any information contained in or appended to the Form I-9, including copies or electronic images of documents listed in paragraph
(c)of this section used to verify an individual's identity or employment eligibility, may be used only for enforcement of the Act and 18 U.S.C. 1001, 1028, 1546, or 1621.
(e)*Standards for electronic retention of Form I-9* .
(1)Any person or entity who is required by this section to complete and retain Forms I-9 may complete or retain electronically Form I-9 in an electronic generation or storage system that includes:
(i)Reasonable controls to ensure the integrity, accuracy and reliability of the electronic generation or storage system;
(ii)Reasonable controls designed to prevent and detect the unauthorized or accidental creation of, addition to, alteration of, deletion of, or deterioration of an electronically completed or stored Form I-9, including the electronic signature if used;
(iii)An inspection and quality assurance program evidenced by regular evaluations of the electronic generation or storage system, including periodic checks of the electronically stored Form I-9, including the electronic signature if used;
(iv)In the case of electronically retained Forms I-9, a retrieval system that includes an indexing system that permits searches by any data element; and
(v)The ability to reproduce legible and readable hardcopies.
(2)All documents reproduced by the electronic retention system must exhibit a high degree of legibility and readability when displayed on a video display terminal or when printed on paper, microfilm, or microfiche. The term “legibility” means the observer must be able to identify all letters and numerals positively and quickly, to the exclusion of all other letters or numerals. The term “readability” means that the observer must be able to recognize any group of letters or numerals that form words or numbers as those words or complete numbers. The employer, or recruiter or referrer for a fee, must ensure that the reproduction process maintains the legibility and readability of the electronically stored document.
(3)An electronic generation or storage system must not be subject, in whole or in part, to any agreement (such as a contract or license) that would limit or restrict access to and use of the electronic generation or storage system by an agency of the United States, on the premises of the employer, recruiter or referrer for a fee (or at any other place where the electronic generation or storage system is maintained), including personnel, hardware, software, files, indexes, and software documentation.
(4)A person or entity who chooses to complete or retain Forms I-9 electronically may use more than one electronic generation or storage system. Each electronic generation or storage system must meet the requirements of this paragraph, and remain available as long as required by the Act and these regulations.
(5)For each electronic generation or storage system used, the person or entity retaining the Form I-9 must maintain, and make available upon request, complete descriptions of:
(i)The electronic generation and storage system, including all procedures relating to its use; and
(ii)The indexing system.
(6)An “indexing system” for the purposes of paragraphs (e)(1)(iv) and (e)(5) of this section is a system that permits the identification and retrieval for viewing or reproducing of relevant books and records maintained in an electronic storage system. For example, an indexing system might consist of assigning each electronically stored document a unique identification number and maintaining a separate database that contains descriptions of all electronically stored books and records along with their identification numbers. In addition, any system used to maintain, organize, or coordinate multiple electronic storage systems is treated as an indexing system. The requirement to maintain an indexing system will be satisfied if the indexing system is functionally comparable to a reasonable hardcopy filing system. The requirement to maintain an indexing system does not require that a separate electronically stored books and records description database be maintained if comparable results can be achieved without a separate description database.
(7)Any person or entity choosing to retain completed Forms I-9 electronically may use reasonable data compression or formatting technologies as part of the electronic storage system as long as the requirements of 8 CFR 274a.2 are satisfied.
(8)At the time of an inspection, the person or entity required to retain completed Forms I-9 must:
(i)Retrieve and reproduce (including printing copies on paper, if requested) only the Forms I-9 electronically retained in the electronic storage system and supporting documentation specifically requested by an agency of the United States, along with associated audit trails. Generally, an audit trail is a record showing who has accessed a computer system and the actions performed within or on the computer system during a given period of time, and
(ii)Provide a requesting agency of the United States with the resources (e.g., appropriate hardware and software, personnel and documentation) necessary to locate, retrieve, read, and reproduce (including paper copies) any electronically stored Forms I-9, any supporting documents, and their associated audit trails, reports, and other data used to maintain the authenticity, integrity, and reliability of the records.
(iii)Provide, if requested, any reasonably available or obtainable electronic summary file(s), such as a spreadsheet, containing all of the information fields on all of the electronically stored Forms I-9 requested by a requesting agency of the United States.
(f)*Documentation.*
(1)A person or entity who chooses to complete and/or retain Forms I-9 electronically must maintain and make available to an agency of the United States upon request documentation of the business processes that:
(i)Create the retained Forms I-9;
(ii)Modify and maintain the retained Forms I-9; and
(iii)Establish the authenticity and integrity of the Forms I-9, such as audit trails.
(2)Insufficient or incomplete documentation is a violation of section 274A(a)(1)(B) of the Act.
(3)Any officer listed in 8 CFR 287.4 may issue a subpoena to compel production of any documentation required by 8 CFR 274a.2. Nothing in this section is intended to limit the subpoena power of an agency of the United States under section 235(a) of the Act.
(g)*Security.*
(1)Any person or entity who elects to complete or retain Forms I-9 electronically must implement an effective records security program that:
(i)Ensures that only authorized personnel have access to electronic records;
(ii)Provides for backup and recovery of records to protect against information loss, such as power interruptions;
(iii)Ensures that employees are trained to minimize the risk of unauthorized or accidental alteration or erasure of electronic records; and
(iv)Ensure that whenever the electronic record is created, accessed, viewed, updated, or corrected, a secure and permanent record is created that establishes the date of access, the identity of the individual who accessed the electronic record, and the particular action taken.
(2)An action or inaction resulting in the unauthorized alteration, loss, or erasure of electronic records, if it is known, or reasonably should be known, to be likely to have that effect, is a violation of section 274A(b)(3) of the Act.
(h)*Electronic signatures for employee.*
(1)If a Form I-9 is completed electronically, the attestations in Form I-9 must be completed using a system for capturing an electronic signature that meets the standards set forth in this paragraph. The system used to capture the electronic signature must include a method to acknowledge that the attestation to be signed has been read by the signatory. The electronic signature must be attached to, or logically associated with, an electronically completed Form I-9. In addition, the system must:
(i)Affix the electronic signature at the time of the transaction;
(ii)Create and preserve a record verifying the identity of the person producing the signature; and
(iii)Provide a printed confirmation of the transaction, at the time of the transaction, to the person providing the signature.
(2)Any person or entity who is required to ensure proper completion of a Form I-9 and who chooses electronic signature for a required attestation, but who has failed to comply with the standards set forth in this paragraph, is deemed to have not properly completed the Form I-9, in violation of section 274A(a)(1)(B) of the Act and 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(2).
(i)*Electronic signatures for employer, recruiter or referrer, or representative.* If a Form I-9 is completed electronically, the employer, the recruiter or referrer for a fee, or the representative of the employer or the recruiter or referrer, must attest to the required information in Form I-9. The system used to capture the electronic signature should include a method to acknowledge that the attestation to be signed has been read by the signatory. Any person or entity who has failed to comply with the criteria established by this regulation for electronic signatures, if used, and at the time of inspection does not present a properly completed Form I-9 for the employee, is in violation of section 274A(a)(1)(B) of the Act and 8 CFR 274a.2(b)(2). Dated: June 8, 2006. Michael Chertoff, Secretary. [FR Doc. E6-9283 Filed 6-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4410-10-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 93 [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0020] States Approved To Receive Stallions and Mares From CEM-Affected Regions; Indiana AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of effective date. SUMMARY: On April 27, 2006, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service published a direct final rule. (See 71 FR 24806-24808.) The direct final rule notified the public of our intention to amend the animal importation regulations by adding Indiana to the lists of States approved to receive certain stallions and mares imported into the United States from regions affected with contagious equine metritis. We did not receive any written adverse comments regarding the addition of Indiana to those lists or written notice of intent to submit adverse comments in response to the direct final rule. DATES: *Effective Date:* The effective date of the direct final rule is confirmed as June 26, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Freeda E. Isaac, Senior Staff Veterinarian, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 39, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301)734-8364. Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622 and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. Done in Washington, DC, this 9th day of June 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-9350 Filed 6-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 23 [Docket No. CE249; Special Conditions No. 23-189-SC] Special Conditions: Societe de Motorisation Aeronautiques
(SMA)Engines, Cessna Models 182Q and 182R: Installation of Model SR305-230 Aircraft Diesel Engine for Full Authority Digital Engine Control (FADEC) System and the Protection of the System From the Effects of High Intensity Radiated Fields
(HIRF)AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), DOT. ACTION: Final special conditions; request for comments. SUMMARY: This proposes special conditions for the Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes with a Societe de Motorisation Aeronautiques
(SMA)Model SR305-230 aircraft diesel engine (ADE). The supplemental type certificate for these airplanes will have a novel or unusual design feature associated with the installation of an aircraft diesel engine that uses an electronic engine control system instead of a mechanical control system. The applicable airworthiness regulations do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for this design feature. These special conditions contain the additional safety standards that the Administrator considers necessary to establish a level of safety equivalent to that established by the existing airworthiness standards. DATES: The effective date of these special conditions is June 7, 2006. Comments must be received on or before July 17, 2006. ADDRESSES: Comments on the special conditions may be mailed in duplicate to: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Regional Counsel, ACE-7, Attention: Rules Docket, Docket No. CE249, 901 Locust, Room 506, Kansas City, Missouri 64106, or delivered in duplicate to the Regional Counsel at the above address. Comments must be marked: Docket No. CE249. Comments may be inspected in the Rules Docket weekdays, except Federal holidays, between 7:30 a.m. and 4 p.m. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Peter L. Rouse, Federal Aviation Administration, Aircraft Certification Service, Small Airplane Directorate, ACE-111, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone: 816-329-4135, fax: 816-329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The FAA has determined that notice and opportunity for prior public comment hereon are impracticable because these procedures would significantly delay issuance of the design approval and thus delivery of the affected aircraft. In addition, the substance of these special conditions has been subject to the public comment process in several prior instances with no substantive comments received. The FAA, therefore, finds that good cause exists for making these special conditions effective upon issuance. Comments Invited Interested persons are invited to submit such written data, views, or arguments as they may desire. Communications should identify the regulatory docket or special condition number and be submitted in duplicate to the address specified above. All communications received on or before the closing date for comments will be considered by the Administrator. The special conditions may be changed in light of the comments received. All comments received will be available in the Rules Docket for examination by interested persons, both before and after the closing date for comments. A report summarizing each substantive public contact with FAA personnel concerning this rulemaking will be filed in the docket. Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments submitted in response to this notice must include a self-addressed, stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: “Comments to Docket No. CE249.” The postcard will be date stamped and returned to the commenter. Background On March 19, 2004, the Societe de Motorisation Aeronautiques Engines, Inc. applied for Supplemental Type Certification of Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes for the installation of an SMA Model SR305-230. The airplane is powered by a SMA Model SR305-230 that is equipped with an electronic engine control system with full authority capability in these airplanes. Type Certification Basis Under the provisions of 14 CFR 21.101, SMA Engines, Inc., must show that the Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes, with the installation of an SMA Model SR305-230, meets the applicable provisions of part 14 CFR part 23, as amended by Amendments 23-1 through 23-51 and Civil Air Regulations
(CAR)3 thereto. If the Administrator finds that the applicable airworthiness regulations ( *i.e.* , CAR 3; 14 CFR, part 23) do not contain adequate or appropriate safety standards for the Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes because of a novel or unusual design feature, special conditions are prescribed under the provisions of § 21.16. Special conditions, as appropriate, as defined in § 11.19, are issued in accordance with § 11.38, and become part of the certification basis for the supplemental type certification basis in accordance with § 21.101. Special conditions are initially applicable to the model for which they are issued. Should the applicant apply for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other models that are listed on the same type certificate to incorporate the same novel or unusual design features, the special conditions would also apply under the provisions of § 21.101. Novel or Unusual Design Features The SMA Engines, Inc. modified Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes will incorporate a novel or unusual design feature, an engine that includes an electronic control system with Full Authority Digital Engine control (FADEC) capability. Many advanced electronic systems are prone to either upsets or damage, or both, at energy levels lower than analog systems. The increasing use of high power radio frequency emitters mandates requirements for improved High Intensity Radiated Fields
(HIRF)protection for electrical and electronic equipment. Since the electronic engine control system used on the SMA Engines, Inc., modified Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes will perform critical functions, provisions for protection from the effects of HIRF should be considered and, if necessary, incorporated into the airplane design data. The FAA policy contained in Notice 8110.71, dated April 2, 1998, establishes the HIRF energy levels that airplanes will be exposed to in service. The guidelines set forth in this notice are the result of an Aircraft Certification Service review of existing policy on HIRF, in light of the ongoing work of the Aviation Rulemaking Advisory Committee
(ARAC)Electromagnetic Effects Harmonization Working Group (EEHWG). The EEHWG adopted a set of HIRF environment levels in November 1997 that were agreed upon by the FAA, the Joint Aviation Authorities (JAA), and industry participants. As a result, the HIRF environments in this notice reflect the environment levels recommended by this working group. This notice states that a FADEC is an example of a system that should address the HIRF environments. Even though the control system will be certificated as part of the engine, the installation of an engine with an electronic control system requires evaluation due to the possible effects on or by other airplane systems ( *e.g.* , radio interference with other airplane electronic systems, shared engine and airplane power sources). The regulatory requirements in 14 CFR part 23 for evaluating the installation of complex systems, including electronic systems, are contained in § 23.1309. However, when § 23.1309 was developed, the use of electronic control systems for engines was not envisioned; therefore, the § 23.1309 requirements were not applicable to systems certificated as part of the engine (reference § 23.1309(f)(1)). Also, electronic control systems often require inputs from airplane data and power sources and outputs to other airplane systems ( *e.g.* , automated cockpit powerplant controls such as mixture setting). Although the parts of the system that are not certificated with the engine could be evaluated using the criteria of § 23.1309, the integral nature of systems such as these makes it unfeasible to evaluate the airplane portion of the system without including the engine portion of the system. However, § 23.1309(f)(1) again prevents complete evaluation of the installed airplane system since evaluation of the engine system's effects is not required. Therefore, special conditions are proposed for the SMA Engines, Inc., modified Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes to provide HIRF protection and to evaluate the installation of the electronic engine control system for compliance with the requirements of § 23.1309(a) through
(e)at Amendment 23-49. Applicability As discussed above, these special conditions are applicable to the SMA Engines, Inc., modified Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes. Should SMA Engines, Inc., apply at a later date for a supplemental type certificate to modify any other model included on the same type certificate as the SMA Engines, Inc., modified Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes to incorporate the same novel or unusual design features, the special conditions would apply to that model as well under the provisions of § 21.101. Conclusion This action affects only certain novel or unusual design features on SMA Engines, Inc., modified Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes. It is not a rule of general applicability, and it affects only the applicant who applied to the FAA for approval of these features on the airplane. Under standard practice, the effective date of final special conditions would be 30 days after the date of publication in the **Federal Register** . However, as the certification date for the SMA Engines, Inc., modified Cessna Models 182Q and 182R is imminent, the FAA finds that good cause exists to make these special conditions effective upon issuance. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 23 Aircraft, Aviation safety, Signs and symbols. Citation The authority citation for these special conditions is as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113 and 44701; 14 CFR 21.16 and 21.101; and 14 CFR 11.38 and 11.19. The Special Conditions Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the following special conditions are issued as part of the supplemental type certification basis for SMA Engines, Inc., modified Cessna Models 182Q and 182R airplanes. 1. *High Intensity Radiated Fields
(HIRF)Protection.* In showing compliance with 14 CFR part 21 and the airworthiness requirements of 14 CFR part 23, protection against hazards caused by exposure to HIRF fields for the full authority digital engine control system, which performs critical functions, must be considered. To prevent this occurrence, the electronic engine control system must be designed and installed to ensure that the operation and operational capabilities of this critical system are not adversely affected when the airplane is exposed to high energy radio fields. At this time, the FAA and other airworthiness authorities are unable to precisely define or control the HIRF energy level to which the airplane will be exposed in service; therefore, the FAA hereby defines two acceptable interim methods for complying with the requirement for protection of systems that perform critical functions.
(1)The applicant may demonstrate that the operation and operational capability of the installed electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions are not adversely affected when the aircraft is exposed to the external HIRF threat environment defined in the following table: Frequency Field strength (volts per meter) Peak Average 10 kHz-100 kHz 50 50 100 kHz-500 kHz 50 50 500 kHz-2 MHz 50 50 2 MHz-30 MHz 100 100 30 MHz-70 MHz 50 50 70 MHz-100 MHz 50 50 100 MHz-200 MHz 100 100 200 MHz-400 MHz 100 100 400 MHz-700 MHz 700 50 700 MHz-1 GHz 700 100 1 GHz-2 GHz 2000 200 2 GHz-4 GHz 3000 200 4 GHz-6 GHz 3000 200 6 GHz-8 GHz 1000 200 8 GHz-12 GHz 3000 300 12 GHz-18 GHz 2000 200 18 GHz-40 GHz 600 200 The field strengths are expressed in terms of peak root-mean-square
(rms)values. or,
(2)The applicant may demonstrate by a system test and analysis that the electrical and electronic systems that perform critical functions can withstand a minimum threat of 100 volts per meter peak electrical strength, without the benefit of airplane structural shielding, in the frequency range of 10 KHz to 18 GHz. When using this test to show compliance with the HIRF requirements, no credit is given for signal attenuation due to installation. Data used for engine certification may be used, when appropriate, for airplane certification. 2. *Electronic Engine Control System.* The installation of the electronic engine control system must comply with the requirements of § 23.1309(a) through
(e)at Amendment 23-49. The intent of this requirement is not to re-evaluate the inherent hardware reliability of the control itself, but rather determine the effects, including environmental effects addressed in § 23.1309(e), on the airplane systems and engine control system when installing the control on the airplane. When appropriate, engine certification data may be used when showing compliance with this requirement. With respect to compliance with § 23.1309(e), the levels required for compliance shall be at the levels for catastrophic failure conditions. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri on June 7, 2006. David R. Showers, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-9241 Filed 6-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Food and Drug Administration 21 CFR Part 558 New Animal Drugs for Use in Animal Feeds; Lasalocid; Correction AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS. ACTION: Final rule; correcting amendments. SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration
(FDA)is correcting a document amending the animal drug regulations to reflect approval of an original new animal drug application
(NADA)that appeared in the **Federal Register** of April 27, 2006 (71 FR 24814). FDA is correcting a paragraph designation in the table for lasalocid cattle feeds which was drafted in error. This correction is being made to improve the accuracy of the animal drug regulations. DATES: This rule is effective June 15, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George K. Haibel, Center for Veterinary Medicine (HFV-6), Food and Drug Administration, 7519 Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 240-276-9019, e-mail: *george.haibel@fda.hhs.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For the reasons set forth in the preamble, FDA is correcting 21 CFR part 558 to read as follows: List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 558 Animal drugs, Animal feeds. Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs and redelegated to the Center for Veterinary Medicine, 21 CFR part 558 is amended as follows: PART 558—NEW ANIMAL DRUGS FOR USE IN ANIMAL FEEDS 1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 558 continues to read as follows: Authority: 21 U.S.C. 360b, 371. § 558.311 [Amended] 2. Section 558.311 is corrected in the table in the “Lasalocid sodium in grams per ton” column, in the entry for use of lasalocid at 30 to 600 grams per ton in combination with chlortetracycline at 500 to 4000 grams per ton, by removing the second paragraph designation “(xxiii)” and by adding in its place the paragraph designation “(xxviii)”. Dated: June 1, 2006. Stephen F. Sundlof, Director, Center for Veterinary Medicine. [FR Doc. E6-9321 Filed 6-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4160-01-S DEPARTMENT OF STATE 22 CFR Parts 40, 41, and 42 [Public Notice 5362] Nomenclature Changes Reflecting Creation of Department of Homeland Security AGENCY: State Department. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This rule makes technical nomenclature changes to Title 22 Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR)parts 40, 41, and 42 to properly reflect the creation of the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS)and its assumption of the functions of the former Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). This rule also reflects changes to form numbers on various visa-related forms. Because the amendments are entirely technical, the State Department is not providing an opportunity for public comment under the Administrative Procedure Act “good cause” exemption. DATES: *Effective Date:* This rule is effective June 15, 2006. Persons with access to the internet may view this notice by going to the regulations.gov Web site at: * http://www.regulations.gov/index.cfm.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Barbara J. Kennedy, Legislation and Regulations Division, Visa Services, U.S. Department of State, 2401 E Street, NW., Room L-603, Washington, DC 20520-0106; telephone 202-663-1206 or e-mail *KennedyBJ@state.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Why is the Department Promulgating This Rule? On March 1, 2003, the INS's functions were transferred to the newly created Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The reorganization was required by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law No. 107-296 section 1502. This final rule includes the changes that reflect the transfer. How is the Department Amending its Regulations? This rule reflects the transfer of functions made by including these changes in 22 CFR, parts 40, 41, and 42. Regulatory Findings Administrative Procedure Act The Department's implementation of this regulation as a final rule is based upon the “good cause” exceptions found at 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(B). This action is being taken without prior notice and public comment. Section 553(b) of the APA authorizes agencies to dispense with certain notice procedures for rules when they find “good cause” to do so. The requirements of notice and opportunity for comment do not apply when the agency, for good cause, finds that those procedures are “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest.” Because the changes being made are completely technical, the Department has determined that public comment is unnecessary. Regulatory Flexibility Act/Executive Order 13272: Small Business The Department of State, in accordance with the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354, 5 U.S.C. 601-612) and Executive Order 13272, section 3(b), has evaluated the effects of this action of small entities and has determined and hereby certifies that this rule will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 Section 202 of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UFMA), Public Law 104-4, 109 Stat. 48, 2 U.S.C. 1532, generally requires agencies to prepare a statement before proposing any rule that may result in an annual expenditure of $100 million or more by State, local, or tribal governments, or by the private section. This rule will not result in any such expenditure, nor will it significantly or uniquely affect small governments. The Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 This rule is not a major rule as defined by 5 U.S.C. 804, for purposes of congressional review of agency rulemaking under the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996, Public Law 104-121. This rule will not result in an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more; a major increase in costs or prices; or significant adverse effects on competition, employment, investment, productivity, innovation, or on the ability of United States-based companies to compete with foreign based companies in domestic and import markets. Executive Order 12866 The Department of State has reviewed this rule to ensure its consistency with the regulatory philosophy and principles set forth in Executive Order 12866 and has determined that the benefits of the regulation justify its costs. The Department does not consider the rule to be a “significant regulatory action” within the scope of section 3(f)(1) of the Executive Order since it is not likely to have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or to adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities. Executive Orders 12372 and 13132: Federalism This regulation will not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government. Nor will the rule have federalism implications warranting the application of Executive Orders No. 12372 and No. 13132. Executive Order 12988: Civil Justice Reform The Department has reviewed the regulations in light of sections 3(a) and 3(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12988 to eliminate ambiguity, minimize litigation, establish clear legal standards, and reduce burden. Paperwork Reduction Act This rule does not impose any new reporting or recordkeeping requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. chapter 35. List of Subjects in 22 CFR Parts 40, 41, and 42 Aliens, Immigration, Students, Passports and visas. In view of the foregoing, 22 CFR parts 40, 41, and 42 are amended as follows: PART 40—[AMENDED] Regulations pertaining to both nonimmigrants and immigrants under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended. 1. The authority citation for part 40 continues to read as follows: Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104. § 40.1 [Amended] 2. In § 40.1: A. Remove paragraph (k); B. Redesignate existing paragraphs (g), (h), (i), and
(j)as (h), (i), (j), and
(k)respectively; C. Add a new paragraph (g); D. In paragraph (l)(1), remove “Form OF-156” and add “Form DS-156” in its place; E. In paragraph (l)(2), remove “Form OF-230” and add “Form DS-230” in its place; F. In paragraph (p), remove “Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization,” and “INS,” and add “DHS” in its place wherever it appears; The addition reads as follows: § 40.1 Definitions.
(g)*DHS* means the Department of Homeland Security. § 40.11 [Amended] 3. In § 40.11, in paragraph
(b)remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place wherever it appears, and remove “Attorney General” and add “Secretary of Homeland Security” in its place. § 40.21 [Amended] 4. In § 40.21, in paragraphs (a)(7) and (b)(2), remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place wherever it appears. § 40.22 [Amended] 5. In § 40.22, in paragraph
(e)remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place wherever it appears. § 40.24 [Amended] 6. In § 40.24, in paragraph
(d)remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place wherever it appears. § 40.34 [Amended] 7. In § 40.34, in paragraph
(g)remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place wherever it appears. § 40.41 [Amended] 8. In § 40.41: A. In paragraph
(b)remove “Attorney General” and add “Secretary of Homeland Security” in its place. B. In paragraph
(d)remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place. § 40.51 [Amended] 9. In § 40.51, in paragraph
(b)remove “Attorney General” and add “Secretary of Homeland Security” in its place. § 40.53 [Amended] 10. In § 40.53, in paragraph
(a)remove “Attorney General” and add “Secretary of Homeland Security” in its place. § 40.63 [Amended] 11. In § 40.63, in paragraph
(c)remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place wherever it appears. § 40.65 [Amended] 12. In § 40.65, in paragraph
(b)remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place wherever it appears. § 40.66 [Amended] 13. In § 40.66, in paragraph
(b)remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place wherever it appears. § 40.91 [Amended] 14. In § 40.91, in paragraph
(e)remove “Attorney General” and add “Secretary of Homeland Security” in its place. § 40.92 [Amended] 15. In § 40.92, in paragraph
(c)remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place. § 40.93 [Amended] 16. In § 40.93 remove “Attorney General” and add “Secretary of Homeland Security” in its place. § 40.105 [Amended] 17. In § 40.105 remove “Attorney General” and add “Secretary of Homeland Security” in its place. § 40.202 [Amended] 18. In § 40.202, in paragraph
(b)remove “Attorney General” and add “Secretary of Homeland Security” in its place. § 40.301 [Amended] 19. In § 40.301: A. In paragraph
(a)remove “Attorney General” and add “Secretary of Homeland Security” in its place; B. In paragraph
(b)remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place wherever it appears; C. In paragraph
(c)remove “Attorney General” and add “Secretary of Homeland Security” in its place wherever it appears. PART 41—[AMENDED] Visas: Documentation of nonimmigrants under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended. 20. The authority citation for part 41 continues to read as follows: Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law No. 05-277, 112 Stat. 2681-795 through 2681-801. § 41.2 [Amended] 21. In § 41.2: A. In the heading and in the first sentence, remove “Attorney General” and add “Secretary of Homeland Security” in its place wherever it appears; B. In paragraph
(j)remove “Immigration and Naturalization Service” and add “Department of Homeland Security” in its place, and remove “INS” and add “DHS” wherever it appears; § 41.11 [Amended] 22. In § 41.11, in paragraph (b)(2) remove “Attorney General” and add “Secretary of Homeland Security” in its place. § 41.31 [Amended] 23. In § 41.31, in paragraph (a)(1) remove “Attorney General” and add “Secretary of Homeland Security” in its place. § 41.32 [Amended] 24. In § 41.32: A. In paragraph (a)(2) remove “Form OF-156” and add Form DS-156” in its place; B. In paragraph (d)(2) remove “Attorney General” and add “Secretary of Homeland Security” in its place. § 41.33 [Amended] 25. In § 41.33, in paragraph (c)(2) remove “Attorney General” and add “Secretary of Homeland Security” in its place. § 41.51 [Amended] 26. In § 41.51, in paragraphs (a)(13) and (b)(14) remove “Attorney General” and add “Secretary of Homeland Security” in its place wherever it appears. § 41.53 [Amended] 27. In § 41.53: A. In paragraph (a)(2) remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place wherever it appears. B. In paragraph
(b)remove “Immigration and Naturalization Service” and add “Department of Homeland Security” in its place. C. In paragraph
(d)remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place. § 41.54 [Amended] 28. In § 41.54: A. In paragraphs (a)(2), (a)(3),
(b)and (d), remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place wherever it appears. B. In paragraph
(e)remove “Attorney General” and add “Secretary of Homeland Security” in its place. § 41.55 [Amended] 29. In § 41.55, in paragraphs (a)(2),
(b)and
(d)remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place wherever it appears. § 41.56 [Amended] 30. In § 41.56, in paragraphs (a)(2),
(b)and
(d)remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place wherever it appears. § 41.57 [Amended] 31. In § 41.57, in paragraphs (a)(1)(ii), (a)(2) and (a)(4) remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place wherever it appears. § 41.59 [Amended] 32. In § 41.59: A. In paragraphs (a)(2) and
(b)remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place wherever it appears. B. In paragraph
(d)remove “Attorney General” and add “Secretary of Homeland Security” in its place. § 41.61 [Amended] 33. In § 41.61, in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) and
(c)remove “Attorney General” and add “Secretary of Homeland Security” in its place wherever it appears. § 41.63 [Amended] 34. In § 41.63: A. In paragraph (a)(2) remove “Commissioner of Immigration and Naturalization” and add “Department of Homeland Security” in its place, and remove “Attorney General” and add “Secretary of Homeland Security” in its place wherever it appears; B. In paragraph (a)(3) remove “Attorney General” and add “Secretary of Homeland Security” in its place; C. In paragraph (b)(1) remove “INS Form I-612” and add “DHS Form I-612” in its place, and remove “Immigration and Naturalization Service” and add “Department of Homeland Security” in its place; D. In paragraph (b)(2)(i), remove “the Commissioner of the Immigration and Naturalization Service (“Commissioner”)” and add “DHS” in its place, and remove “the Commissioner” and add “DHS” in its place; E. In paragraph (b)(2)(ii), (b)(2)(iii), (c)(5), (d)(2) and (e)(4) remove “the Commissioner” and add “DHS” in its place wherever it appears; F. In paragraph
(f)remove “the Immigration and Naturalization Service” and add “DHS” in its place; G. In paragraph (g)(8) remove “the Commissioner” and add “DHS” in its place. § 41.71 [Amended] 35. In § 41.71, in paragraph
(b)remove “Attorney General” and add “Secretary of Homeland Security” in its place. § 41.81 [Amended] 36. In § 41.81, in paragraphs (a)(1) and (b)(1) remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place wherever it appears. § 41.83 [Amended] 37. In § 41.83: A. In paragraphs (a)(2)(i)(A) and (a)(2)(i)(B) remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place, and remove “on behalf of the Attorney General;” B. In paragraph
(b)remove “Attorney General” and add “Secretary of Homeland Security” in its place wherever it appears. § 41.84 [Amended] 38. In § 41.84, in paragraph (a)(3) remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place. § 41.86 [Amended] 39. In § 41.86, in paragraph
(c)remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place. § 41.103 [Amended] 40. In § 41.103, in the heading and in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2), (b)(1), (b)(1)(i), (b)(1)(ii), (b)(2), (b)(3) and (b)(4) remove “Form OF-156” and add “Form DS-156” in its place wherever it appears. § 41.106 [Amended] 41. In § 41.106 remove “Form OF-156” and add “Form DS-156” in its place. § 41.108 [Amended] 42. In § 41.108, in paragraph
(b)remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place. § 41.112 [Amended] 43. In § 41.112, in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and (d)(2)(i) remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place wherever appears. § 41.113 [Amended] 44. In § 41.113: A. In paragraph
(b)remove “Form OF-232” and add “Form DS-232” In its place wherever it appears; B. In paragraph (d)(2) remove “Attorney General” and add “Secretary of Homeland Security” in its place; C. In paragraph
(g)remove “Form OF-156” and add “Form DS-156” in its place wherever it appears, and remove “Form OF-232” and add Form DS-232” in its place; D. In paragraph
(h)remove “Form OF-156” and add “Form DS-156” in its place. § 41.122 [Amended] 45. In paragraphs (e), (h)(4), (h)(5) and (h)(6), remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place wherever it appears. PART 42—[AMENDED] Visas: Documentation of immigrants under the Immigration and Nationality Act, as amended. 46. The authority citation for part 42 continues to read as follows: Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1104; Public Law No. 107-56, Section 421. § 42.1 [Amended] 47. In § 42.1, in paragraph
(a)remove “INS” and add “The Department of Homeland Security” in its place. § 42.2 [Amended] 48. In § 42.2, in paragraph (g)(2) remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place, and remove “Attorney General” and add “Secretary of Homeland Security” in its place. § 42.21 [Amended] 49. In § 42.21, in paragraph
(a)and
(b)remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place wherever it appears. § 42.31 [Amended] 50. In § 42.31, in paragraph
(a)remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place. § 42.32 [Amended] 51. In § 42.32, in paragraphs (a)(1), (b)(1), (c)(1), (d)(1)(i)(A), (d)(3)(i), (d)(4), (d)(5)(i), (d)(6), (d)(7)(i), (d)(8)(i), (d)(9)(i)(A) and (e)(1), remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place wherever it appears. § 42.43 [Amended] 52. In § 42.43, in paragraph
(a)and (b)(1) remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place wherever it appears. § 42.51 [Amended] 53. In § 42.51, in paragraph (b), remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place. § 42.63 [Amended] 54. In § 42.63, in paragraphs (a)(1), (a)(2),(b) and
(c)remove “Form OF-230” and add “Form DS-230” in its place wherever it appears. § 42.67 [Amended] 55. In § 42.67, in paragraphs (a)(2) and (c)(1) remove “Form OF-230” and add “Form DS-230” in its place wherever it appears. § 42.71 [Amended] 56. In § 42.71, in paragraph
(a)remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place. § 42.73 [Amended] 57. In § 42.73: A. In paragraphs
(a)and (a)(6), remove “Form OF-155A” and add “Form OF-55B in its place wherever it appears;” B. In paragraph
(b)remove “Form OF-155A” and add “Form OF-155B” in its place, and remove “Form OF-230” and add “Form DS-230” in its place; C. In paragraph
(c)remove “Form OF-155A” and add “Form OF-155B” in its place, and remove “Form OF-230” and add “Form DS-230” in its place, and remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place; D. In paragraph
(d)remove “Form OF-155A” and add “Form OF-155B” in its place. § 42.74 [Amended] 58. In § 42.74, in paragraphs (b)(2) and
(c)remove “Form OF-155A” and add “Form OF-155B” wherever it appears. § 42.81 [Amended] 59. In § 42.81, in paragraph
(b)remove “Form OF-230” and add “Form DS-230” in its place wherever it appears. § 42.82 [Amended] 60. In § 42.82, in paragraph
(e)remove “INS” and add “DHS” in its place. Dated: May 17, 2006. Maura Harty, Assistant Secretary for Consular Affairs, Department of State. [FR Doc. E6-8165 Filed 6-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4710-06-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [T.D. TTB-48; Re: Notice No. 44] RIN 1513-AA55 Expansion of San Francisco Bay and Central Coast Viticultural Areas (2002R-202P) AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury. ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision. SUMMARY: This Treasury decision expands by approximately 20,000 acres the San Francisco Bay viticultural area and the Central Coast viticultural area in California to conform to the expanded boundary of the Livermore Valley viticultural area. We designate viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 17, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N.A. Sutton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St., No. 158, Petaluma, California 94952; telephone 415-271-1254. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (the FAA Act, 27 U.S.C. 201 *et seq.* ) requires that alcohol beverage labels provide consumers with adequate information regarding product identity and prohibits the use of misleading information on those labels. The FAA Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations to carry out its provisions. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB)administers these regulations. Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains the list of approved viticultural areas. Definition Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by geographical features, the boundaries of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its geographical origin. The establishment of viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural area is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area. Requirements Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. Petitioners may use the same procedure to request changes involving existing viticultural areas. Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations requires the petition to include— • Evidence that the proposed viticultural area is locally and/or nationally known by the name specified in the petition; • Historical or current evidence that supports setting the boundary of the proposed viticultural area as the petition specifies; • Evidence relating to the geographical features, such as climate, soils, elevation, and physical features, that distinguish the proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas; • A description of the specific boundary of the proposed viticultural area, based on features found on United States Geological Survey
(USGS)maps; and • A copy of the appropriate USGS map(s) with the proposed viticultural area's boundary prominently marked. San Francisco Bay and Central Coast Viticultural Areas Expansion Petition and Rulemaking Background TTB received a petition from the Livermore Valley Winegrowers Association proposing to expand both the existing San Francisco Bay viticultural area (27 CFR 9.157) and the existing Central Coast viticultural area (27 CFR 9.75). The association made this request in conjunction with, and as a consequence of, its proposed expansion of the Livermore Valley viticultural area (27 CFR 9.46), which is the subject of another final rule document published in this issue of the **Federal Register** . The petitioner represents most of the vineyards and wineries impacted by these expansions. The original Livermore Valley viticultural area is entirely within the San Francisco Bay viticultural area, which is, in turn, entirely within the Central Coast viticultural area. To retain this configuration, expansion of the Livermore Valley viticultural area would require the minor expansions of the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast viticultural areas that are the subject of this document. Below, we summarize the evidence presented in the petition to justify the expansions of the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast viticultural areas. Rationale and Evidence for the Proposed Expansion In the years since the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), TTB's predecessor agency, established the current Livermore Valley viticultural area in 1982, ATF also established the Central Coast and San Francisco Bay viticultural areas. Both of these viticultural areas currently encompass the Livermore Valley viticultural area in its entirety and incorporate some of the Livermore Valley area's eastern boundary line as part of their own boundaries. (See: Livermore Valley Viticultural Area, Treasury Decision [T.D] ATF-112, 47 FR 38520, September 1, 1982; Central Coast Viticultural Area, T.D. ATF-216, 50 FR 43130, October 24, 1985, as amended by T.D. ATF-407 64 FR 3023, January 20, 1999; and San Francisco Bay Viticultural Area, T.D. ATF-407, 64 FR 3015, January 20, 1999.) When ATF established the San Francisco Bay viticultural area and amended the Central Coast viticultural area boundary in 1999, no changes were made to the established boundary line of the Livermore Valley viticultural area. As a result, the Central Coast viticultural area and the San Francisco Bay viticultural area currently share a common boundary line in Alameda County, while the Livermore Valley viticultural area does not share the same boundary line. The central portion of the Livermore Valley viticultural area's eastern boundary line sits to the west of the current San Francisco Bay and Central Coast viticultural areas' eastern boundary line. This portion of the Livermore Valley viticultural area boundary line is west of the Diablo Range foothills, as noted on the USGS Altamont, Byron Hot Springs, and Mendenhall Springs Quadrangle maps. The common eastern boundary line of the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast viticultural areas is east of the Livermore Valley viticultural area boundary line, along the western foothills and mountains of the Diablo Range, as defined on the USGS Midway and Cedar Mtn. Quadrangle maps. The preamble of T.D. ATF-407, which established the San Francisco Bay viticultural area, explains that the Diablo Range elevations block the Pacific Ocean's marine air from continuing eastward and inland. Also, the region east of the Diablo Range and the Livermore Valley has higher temperatures, lower humidity, and decreased rainfall typical of an inland, continental climate. The concurrent petition to expand the Livermore Valley viticultural area provides an opportunity to align the boundaries of all three viticultural areas—Livermore Valley, San Francisco Bay, and Central Coast—into one common boundary line in this region. The proposed expansions of the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast viticultural areas would result in eastern boundaries for these two areas that coincide with the proposed boundary expansion of the Livermore Valley viticultural area. These proposed expansions remain consistent with the essential elements currently recognized by TTB, such as name, regional identity, and distinguishing geographical features, of viticultural areas. Also, they serve consumers by providing clear, unambiguous boundaries that would aid, rather than complicate, their wine buying decisions. Name and Boundary Evidence T.D. ATF-407, which established the San Francisco Bay viticultural area and expanded the Central Coast viticultural area to the north, details evidence for name recognition and regional identity for the San Francisco Bay viticultural area and the Central Coast viticultural area. It explains that the counties of San Francisco, Contra Costa, Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Mateo all border the San Francisco Bay body of water and are consistently considered to be part of the San Francisco Bay region. All, or portions of, the five counties listed above are within the established boundary lines of the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast viticultural areas. To support the expansion of the boundary of the Central Coast viticultural area, the petitioner cited T.D. ATF-407, which maintains that the general marine climate extends north and northwest beyond the originally established boundary of the Central Coast viticultural area. Also, the name recognition of Central Coast, as used by wine writers and in the California State legislature, extends north and west into the five counties surrounding the San Francisco Bay body of water. The names of both the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast viticultural areas are unaffected by the proposed boundary expansions, and therefore the evidence cited in T.D. ATF-407 remains accurate. The proposed alignment of the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast boundaries with the expanded Livermore Valley boundary is limited to Alameda and Contra Costa Counties. These counties encompass the Central Coast's northeastern region and the San Francisco Bay's eastern region, as noted on the USGS maps and by the written boundary descriptions. While the aligned boundaries for both the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast viticultural areas would expand eastward, they would do so in a limited manner, and the boundaries remain true to the 1999 T.D. ATF-407 regional definitions for both viticultural areas. In sum, the name recognition for the affected portions of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties continues as the San Francisco Bay area and the larger Central Coast area, as documented in T.D. ATF-407. Also, the distinguishing boundary and climatic characteristics, as described in T.D. ATF-407, including the cooling marine influences from the Pacific Ocean and San Francisco Bay and the natural boundary of the Diablo Range, apply equally to the proposed expansion area. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking On May 19, 2005, TTB published a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the proposed expansion of the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast viticultural areas in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 28870) as Notice No. 44. In that notice, TTB requested comments by July 18, 2005, from all interested persons. We received no comments in response to that notice. TTB Finding After careful review of the petition, TTB finds that the evidence submitted supports the expansion of the two proposed viticultural areas as requested in the petition. Therefore, under the authority of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act and part 4 of our regulations, we amend our regulations to expand the boundaries of the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast viticultural areas in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California, effective 30 days from the publication date of this document. Boundary Description See the narrative boundary descriptions of the expanded viticultural areas in the amended regulatory texts published at the end of this document. Maps The petitioner provided the required maps, and we list them below in the proposed regulatory text. Impact on Current Wine Labels The expansion of the San Francisco Bay and Central Coast viticultural areas does not affect currently approved wine labels. The expansions may allow additional vintners to use “San Francisco Bay” and “Central Coast” as appellations of origin on their wine labels. Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be eligible to use as an appellation of origin the name of a viticultural area specified in part 9 of the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of the grapes used to make the wine must have been grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a viticultural area name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that these regulations will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. These regulations impose no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name is the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. Executive Order 12866 This rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735. Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment. Drafting Information N.A. Sutton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice. List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 Wine. The Regulatory Amendment For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we amend 27 CFR, chapter 1, part 9, as follows: PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas 2. Section 9.75 is amended by revising the introductory text of paragraph (b), removing the word “and” at the end of paragraph (b)(40), replacing the period with a semicolon at the end of paragraph (b)(41), adding new paragraphs (b)(42) and (b)(43), and revising paragraphs (c)(10) through (c)(16) to read as follows: § 9.75 Central Coast.
(b)*Approved maps.* The approved maps for determining the boundary of the Central Coast viticultural area are the following 43 United States Geological Survey topographic maps:
(42)Midway, California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1953, Photorevised 1980; and
(43)Cedar Mtn., California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1956, Photorevised 1971; minor revision 1994.
(c)* * *
(10)Then proceed southeast in a straight line approximately 1.8 miles to BM 720 in Section 21, Township 2 South, Range 3 East. (Altamont Quadrangle)
(11)Then proceed south-southeast approximately 1 mile to an unnamed 1,147-foot peak in Section 28, Township 2 South, Range 3 East. (Altamont Quadrangle)
(12)Then proceed south-southwest in a straight line approximately 1.1 miles to the intersection of the eastern boundary of Section 32 with Highway 580, Township 2 South, Range 3 East. (Altamont Quadrangle)
(13)Then proceed south-southeast in a straight line approximately 2.7 miles to BM 1602 in Patterson Pass in Section 10, Township 3 South, Range 3 East. (Altamont Quadrangle)
(14)Then proceed south-southeast in a straight line approximately 2.8 miles to BM 1600, adjacent to Tesla Road in Section 26. (Midway Quadrangle)
(15)Then proceed south in a straight line approximately 4.2 miles to BM 1878, 40 feet north of Mines Road, in Section 14, Township 4 South, Range 3 East. (Cedar Mtn. Quadrangle)
(16)Then proceed west-southwest in a straight line approximately 4.2 miles to the southeast corner of Section 19, Township 4 South, Range 3 East. (Mendenhall Springs Quadrangle) 3. Section 9.157 is amended by revising the introductory text of paragraph (b), removing the word “and” at the end of paragraph (b)(41), replacing the period with a semicolon followed by the word “and” at the end of paragraph (b)(42), adding a new paragraph (b)(43), and revising paragraphs (c)(13) through (c)(18) to read as follows: § 9.157 San Francisco Bay.
(b)*Approved maps.* The appropriate maps for determining the boundary of the San Francisco Bay viticultural area are 43 United States Geological Survey topographic maps. They are titled:
(43)Cedar Mtn., California, scale 1:24,000, dated 1956, Photorevised 1971; Minor Revision 1994.
(c)* * *
(13)Then proceed northeast in a straight line approximately 3.2 miles to BM 1878 in Section 14 on the Cedar Mtn. Quadrangle.
(14)Then proceed north in a straight line approximately 4.2 miles to BM 1600 adjacent to Tesla Road in Section 26, Township 3 South, Range 3 East on the Midway Quadrangle.
(15)Then proceed north-northwest in a straight line approximately 2.8 miles to Patterson Pass, BM 1602, in Section 10, Township 3 South, Range 3 East, on the Altamont Quadrangle.
(16)Then proceed north-northwest in a straight line approximately 2.7 miles to the intersection of the eastern boundary of Section 32 with Highway 580 in Township 2 South, Range 3 East.
(17)Then proceed north-northeast in a straight line approximately 1.1 miles to an unnamed peak, elevation 1147, in Section 28, Township 2 South, Range 3 East.
(18)Then proceed north-northwest in a straight line approximately 1 mile to BM 720 in Section 21, Township 2 South, Range 3 East, and proceed northwest in a straight line approximately 1.8 miles to the northeast corner of Section 18 on the Byron Hot Springs Quadrangle, Township 2 South, Range 3 East. Dated: April 25, 2006. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. Approved: May 25, 2006. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy). [FR Doc. E6-9364 Filed 6-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [T.D. TTB-49; Re: Notices No. 29 and 35] RIN 1513-AA72 Realignment of the Santa Lucia Highlands and Arroyo Seco Viticultural Areas (2003R-083P) AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury. ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision. SUMMARY: This Treasury decision realigns a portion of the common boundary line between the established Santa Lucia Highlands and Arroyo Seco viticultural areas in Monterey County, California. This realignment moves approximately 200 acres from the Arroyo Seco viticultural area to the Santa Lucia Highlands area. We designate viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 17, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Sutton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St., No. 158, Petaluma, California 94952; telephone 415-271-1254. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background on Viticultural Areas TTB Authority Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (the FAA Act, 27 U.S.C. 201 *et seq.* ) requires that alcohol beverage labels provide consumers with adequate information regarding a product's identity and prohibits the use of misleading information on those labels. The FAA Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations to carry out its provisions. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB)administers these regulations. Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains the list of approved viticultural areas. Definition Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by geographical features, the boundaries of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its geographical origin. The establishment of viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural area is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area. Requirements Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations requires the petition to include— • Evidence that the proposed viticultural area is locally and/or nationally known by the name specified in the petition; • Historical or current evidence that supports setting the boundary of the proposed viticultural area as the petition specifies; • Evidence relating to the geographical features, such as climate, soils, elevation, and physical features, that distinguish the proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas; • A description of the specific boundary of the proposed viticultural area, based on features found on United States Geological Survey
(USGS)maps; and • A copy of the appropriate USGS map(s) with the proposed viticultural area's boundary prominently marked. A petition requesting the modification of an established viticultural area must include the appropriate evidence and maps described above to support the requested modification. Santa Lucia Highlands and Arroyo Seco Viticultural Areas Realignment Petition and Rulemaking General Background Paul Thorpe, on behalf of E. & J. Gallo Winery, submitted a petition to TTB requesting the realignment of a portion of the common boundary between the established Santa Lucia Highlands viticultural area (27 CFR 9.139) and the established Arroyo Seco viticultural area (27 CFR 9.59). Both viticultural areas are within the Monterey viticultural area (27 CFR 9.98) in Monterey County, California, which is in turn within the larger multi-county Central Coast viticultural area (27 CFR 9.75). A portion of the original common boundary between the Santa Lucia Highlands and Arroyo Seco viticultural areas follows a straight line drawn between the intersection of Paraiso and Clark Roads and the northeast corner of section 5, T19S, R6E, as shown on the USGS Paraiso Springs, California, quadrangle map. The proposed realignment moves this portion of the two viticultural areas' common boundary line approximately 1,000 feet to the east of the Paraiso and Clark Roads intersection and slightly less than 500 feet to the east of the northeast corner of section 5, T19S, R6E. Overall, the proposed realignment transfers approximately 200 acres of land from the Arroyo Seco viticultural area to the Santa Lucia Highlands area. Rationale and Evidence for the Proposed Realignment The proposed realignment of this portion of the common boundary between the Santa Lucia Highlands and Arroyo Seco viticultural areas serves three purposes:
(1)It brings the western boundary of the Arroyo Seco viticultural area into conformity with the western boundary of the historical Arroyo Seco Land Grant, which lends its name to the Arroyo Seco viticultural area;
(2)it conforms the boundary line to land ownership boundaries; and
(3)it ends the current division of the Olsen Ranch vineyards between the two viticultural areas. Currently, a thin strip of land outside of the Arroyo Seco Land Grant lies in the western-most portion of the Arroyo Seco viticultural area. By moving the common Santa Lucia Highlands and Arroyo Seco boundary line to the east, this portion of the Arroyo Seco viticultural area's western boundary will match that of the historic Arroyo Seco Land Grant. The vast majority of the Olsen Ranch lies within the Santa Lucia Highlands viticultural area, while a small portion falls within the Arroyo Seco viticultural area. Thus, the vineyards on the Olson Ranch, which were planted after the establishment of the two viticultural areas, are divided between the Arroyo Seco and Santa Lucia Highlands viticultural areas. The proposed eastward realignment of the portion of the two viticultural areas' common boundary line between Clark Road and section 5, T19S, R6E allows the Olson Ranch vineyards to be totally in the Santa Lucia Highlands viticultural area. The dominant physical feature of the proposed realignment area is the alluvial terracing that differentiates the highlands along the western edge of the Salinas Valley from the lower elevation valley floor. These terraces, which are above 600 feet in elevation, match the terrain found in the Santa Lucia Highlands viticultural area, generally between 600 feet and 1,200 feet, as shown on USGS topographic maps. Also, the terraces and higher elevations of the Santa Lucia Highlands area contrast to the flatter terrain and lower elevation valley floor found in the Arroyo Seco viticultural area. The primary soils of the proposed realignment area are of the Arroyo Seco and Chualar series. These soils are generally loam or gravelly, sandy loam, with underlying very gravelly material, and they coincide with the dominant soils of the Santa Lucia Highlands viticultural area. The climatic conditions of the realignment area are similar to those of the Santa Lucia Highlands viticultural area. The rainfall in the realignment area and the Santa Lucia Highlands area is 10 to 15 inches a year. In contrast, the lower valley floor found in the Arroyo Seco viticultural area averages less rain, totaling approximately 9.5 inches a year. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received On January 24, 2005, TTB published a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the realignment of the Santa Lucia Highlands and Arroyo Seco viticultural area boundaries in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 3333) as Notice No. 29. In that notice, TTB requested comments by March 25, 2005, from all interested persons. In response to a request for more time to study the proposal, on March 8, 2005, we published a notice to extend the comment period in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 11178) as Notice No. 35. In that notice, TTB requested comments by May 25, 2005, from all interested persons. In total, TTB received three comments in response to the two notices. One comment strongly supported the proposed realignment. Kendall-Jackson Wine Estates submitted two comments, the first of which requested the additional time to review and evaluate the petition information. The second Kendall-Jackson comment proposed an additional boundary realignment of the Santa Lucia Highlands and the Arroyo Seco viticultural areas common boundary involving approximately 1,200 acres. This proposed boundary realignment lies north of the originally proposed Gallo boundary realignment. Although TTB believes the Kendall-Jackson proposed boundary realignment may have merit, we did not adopt the proposal in this final rulemaking since it has not been the subject of prior public notice and comment procedures. Kendall-Jackson may at any time submit its proposal as a separate viticultural area rulemaking petition with the required supporting evidence and maps as described above. TTB Finding After careful review of the petition and the comments received, TTB finds that the evidence submitted supports the boundary realignment proposed in Notice No. 29. Therefore, under the authority of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act and part 4 of our regulations, we realign the boundaries of the Santa Lucia Highlands and Arroyo Seco viticultural areas in Monterey County, California, effective 30-days from this document's publication date. Boundary Description See the amendments to the narrative boundary descriptions of the Arroyo Seco and Santa Lucia Highlands viticultural areas in the regulatory text published at the end of this notice. Maps The petitioner provided a copy of the USGS Paraiso Springs quadrangle map to document the proposed boundary realignment. There are no changes to the lists of maps required to document the boundaries of the amended Arroyo Seco and Santa Lucia Highlands viticultural areas. Impact on Current Wine Labels Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. With the realignment of the Santa Lucia Highlands and Arroyo Seco viticultural areas, wine bottlers using “Santa Lucia Highlands” or “Arroyo Seco” in a brand name, including a trademark, or in another label reference as to the origin of the wine, must continue to ensure that the product is eligible to use the relevant viticultural area's name as an appellation of origin. For a wine to be eligible to use as an appellation of origin the name of a viticultural area specified in part 9 of the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of the grapes used to make the wine must have been grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). If the wine is not eligible to use the viticultural area name as an appellation of origin and that name appears in the brand name, then the label is not in compliance and the bottler must change the brand name and obtain approval of a new label. Similarly, if the viticultural area name appears in another reference on the label in a misleading manner, the bottler would have to obtain approval of a new label. Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a viticultural area name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name is the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. Executive Order 12866 This rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735). Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment. Drafting Information Nancy Sutton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this document. List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 Wine. The Regulatory Amendment For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we amend 27 CFR, chapter 1, part 9, as follows: PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. 2. Section 9.59 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(13), redesignating paragraphs (c)(14) through (c)(19) as (c)(16) through (c)(21), and adding new paragraphs (c)(14) and (c)(15) to read as follows: § 9.59 Arroyo Seco.
(c)* * *
(13)Then east-northeasterly along Clark Road for approximately 1,000 feet to its intersection with an unnamed light-duty road to the south.
(14)Then in a straight south-southeasterly line for approximately 1.9 miles to the line's intersection with the southeast corner of section 33, T18S, R6E (this line coincides with the unnamed light duty road for approximately 0.4 miles and then with the eastern boundaries of sections 29, 32 and 33, T18S, R6E, which mark this portion of the western boundary of the historical Arroyo Seco Land Grant).
(15)Then straight west along the southern boundary of section 33, T18S, R6E, to its southwest corner. 3. Section 9.139 is amended by revising paragraphs (c)(9) and (c)(10), redesignating paragraphs (c)(11) through (c)(21) as (c)(12) through (c)(22), and adding a new paragraph (c)(11) to read as follows: § 9.139 Santa Lucia Highlands.
(c)* * *
(9)Then east-northeasterly along Clark Road for approximately 1,000 feet to its intersection with an unnamed light-duty road to the south.
(10)Then in a straight south-southeasterly line for approximately 1.9 miles to the line's intersection with the southeast corner of section 33, T18S, R6E (this line coincides with the unnamed light duty road for about 0.4 miles and then with the eastern boundaries of sections 29, 32 and 33, T18S, R6E, which mark this portion of the western boundary of the historical Arroyo Seco Land Grant).
(11)Then straight west along the southern boundaries of sections 33, 32, and 31, T18S, R6E, to the southwest corner of section 31. Dated: April 16, 2006. John J. Manfreda, *Administrator* . Approved: May 25, 2006. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy). [FR Doc. E6-9365 Filed 6-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau 27 CFR Part 9 [T.D. TTB-47; Re: Notice No. 43] RIN 1513-AA54 Expansion of the Livermore Valley Viticultural Area (2002R-202P) AGENCY: Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, Treasury. ACTION: Final rule; Treasury decision. SUMMARY: This Treasury decision expands the existing 96,000-acre Livermore Valley viticultural area into northern Alameda County and southern Contra Costa County, California. The expansion adds 163,000 acres to the Livermore Valley viticultural area. We designate viticultural areas to allow vintners to better describe the origin of their wines and to allow consumers to better identify wines they may purchase. DATES: *Effective Date:* July 17, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: N.A. Sutton, Regulations and Rulings Division, Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau, 925 Lakeville St., No. 158, Petaluma, California 94952; telephone 415-271-1254. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background on Viticultural Areas *TTB Authority* Section 105(e) of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act (the FAA Act, 27 U.S.C. 201 *et seq.* ) requires that alcohol beverage labels provide consumers with adequate information regarding product identity and prohibits the use of misleading information on those labels. The FAA Act also authorizes the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations to carry out its provisions. The Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau
(TTB)administers these regulations. Part 4 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 4) allows the establishment of definitive viticultural areas and the use of their names as appellations of origin on wine labels and in wine advertisements. Part 9 of the TTB regulations (27 CFR part 9) contains the list of approved viticultural areas. *Definition* Section 4.25(e)(1)(i) of the TTB regulations (27 CFR 4.25(e)(1)(i)) defines a viticultural area for American wine as a delimited grape-growing region distinguishable by geographical features, the boundaries of which have been recognized and defined in part 9 of the regulations. These designations allow vintners and consumers to attribute a given quality, reputation, or other characteristic of a wine made from grapes grown in an area to its geographical origin. The establishment of viticultural areas allows vintners to describe more accurately the origin of their wines to consumers and helps consumers to identify wines they may purchase. Establishment of a viticultural area is neither an approval nor an endorsement by TTB of the wine produced in that area. *Requirements* Section 4.25(e)(2) of the TTB regulations outlines the procedure for proposing an American viticultural area and provides that any interested party may petition TTB to establish a grape-growing region as a viticultural area. Petitioners may use the same procedure to request changes involving existing viticultural areas. Section 9.3(b) of the TTB regulations requires the petition to include— • Evidence that the proposed viticultural area is locally and/or nationally known by the name specified in the petition; • Historical or current evidence that supports setting the boundary of the proposed viticultural area as the petition specifies; • Evidence relating to the geographical features, such as climate, soils, elevation, and physical features, that distinguish the proposed viticultural area from surrounding areas; • A description of the specific boundary of the proposed viticultural area, based on features found on United States Geological Survey
(USGS)maps; and • A copy of the appropriate USGS map(s) with the proposed viticultural area's boundary prominently marked. Livermore Valley Viticultural Area Expansion Petition and Rulemaking Background TTB received a petition from the Livermore Valley Winegrowers Association proposing to expand the existing Livermore Valley viticultural area (27 CFR 9.46). As currently defined, the area is located in Alameda County and encompasses approximately 96,000 acres, of which 4,235 acres are devoted to vineyards. A total of 20 wineries operate in the viticultural area. TTB also received from the Livermore Valley Winegrowers Association a petition proposing to expand the existing San Francisco Bay (27 CFR 9.157) and Central Coast (27 CFR 9.75) viticultural areas; that petition is addressed in a separate final rule document published in this issue of the **Federal Register** . Those proposed expansions correspond directly to the proposed Livermore Valley viticultural area expansion that is the subject of this document. The petitioner requested an expansion of the Livermore Valley viticultural area to encompass both the valley floor and the flanking hills that define the valley's geography and watershed in Alameda County and in the southern part of Contra Costa County. The proposed expanded Livermore Valley viticultural area would be bounded by the Altamont Hills and Crane Ridge to the east, Cedar Mountain Ridge and Rocky Ridge to the south, Walpert Ridge and Rocky Ridge to the west, and the peak of Mount Diablo (the highest point of the Black Hills) to the north. The expansion of the Livermore Valley viticultural area would result in a viticultural area of 259,000 acres, of which 4,355 acres would be devoted to vineyards. A total of 24 wineries would operate within the proposed boundaries. The expansion, therefore, would add a total of approximately 163,000 acres, 120 acres of vineyards, and 4 wineries to the viticultural area. Below, we summarize the evidence presented in the petition. Name Evidence The original final rule establishing the Livermore Valley viticultural area, Treasury Decision (T.D.) ATF-112, 47 FR 38520, September 1, 1982, details the derivation of the Livermore Valley as a place name and summarizes strong evidence of the Livermore Valley's local and national renown as a vineyard region. As noted in “A Companion to California Wine” by Charles L. Sullivan and “The Wine Atlas of California” by James Halliday, the Livermore Valley continues to be well known as one of California's most historic wine regions. The original viticultural area boundary was established by TTB's predecessor, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF), and encompasses land historically and geographically identified as the Livermore Valley growing region. Establishment of that boundary was based upon the boundary presented to ATF in the original petition. In the current petition, however, the petitioner has presented additional evidence to TTB to support the conclusion that lands immediately outside of and adjacent to the original Livermore Valley viticultural area boundary to the north, east, south, and west could be properly included in the viticultural area, based upon both shared name identification and shared geographical features. In addition, the proposed Livermore Valley viticultural area expansion areas contrast sharply with lands beyond these boundaries. Wines & Vines of California” by Frona Eunice Wait, “American Wines” by Frank Schoonmaker, “Gorman on Premium California Wines” by Robert Gorman, and “The Winewright's Register” by Bruce Cass all document the Livermore Valley as a much larger area that encompasses the entire valley basin and surrounding hills. All four references recognize the Livermore Valley as reaching north to Mount Diablo, and all mention the hills that surround the Livermore Valley basin to the east, south, and west. As indicated in the discussion of *Boundary Evidence* below, the evidence defining the Livermore Valley in this broader context covers the region's viticultural history, from the 1880s to present. Boundary Evidence The Livermore Valley has a long grape-growing history and a strong regional identity. However, precise viticulture boundaries for the region were not defined until 1982, when ATF established the Livermore Valley viticultural area. The proposed boundary expansion includes those lands that, based on name identity and natural features, could have been included in the original viticultural area petition. Also, the proposed expansion boundaries maintain the historic and geographical integrity of viticulture within Livermore Valley. Historical and current evidence documents that what is known as the Livermore Valley includes the entire valley basin and its encircling hills, rather than the relatively limited portion of the valley floor encompassed in the original petition. In “Early Days in the Livermore-Amador Valley” by Merilyn Calhoun, published in 1973, the Livermore-Amador Valley is shown as reaching from Niles Canyon and Vallecitos in the south to Tassajara in the north and from the hills west of Pleasanton to the Altamont Pass and the eastern limits of Arroyo Seco to the east. Bulletin No. 118-2 from the California Department of Water Resources “Evaluation of Ground Water Resources: Livermore and Sunol Valley” features maps on land use and mean annual precipitation. These two publications show that the Livermore Valley stretches from Niles Canyon in the south, beyond the Alameda County-Contra Costa County line to the north, and from hills west of Pleasanton in the west to the Altamont Pass and the hills east of Livermore in the east. “Valley Profiles: A Photographic Essay on the Livermore Valley of California” by Hans Benhard, published in 1977, includes a map of the Livermore Valley that encompasses virtually the same area as that described in the other publications, that is, south to beyond Sunol, north to beyond Danville, west into the hills east of Pleasanton and Dublin, and east to Altamont Pass. The Livermore Valley Winegrowers Association, which states that it represents the interests of the Livermore Valley growers and vintners, likewise substantiates a broader definition for the geographical region. The association's membership includes wineries and vineyards located in Palomares Canyon and Sunol along the western edge of the proposed expansion. The association's promotional brochure, “Livermore Valley Wine Country,” features a map that shows this broader regional definition. Wente Vineyards, one of the original Livermore Valley viticultural area petitioners in the early 1980s, also supports the expansion. What is known as the Livermore Valley is considerably larger than the limited portion of the valley floor and southern hills included in the Livermore Valley viticultural area originally established in 1982. Natural topographic features, that is, mountain ranges and river drainages, primarily define the geography of the Livermore Valley. These natural topographic features and their influences distinguish the Livermore Valley and support expansion of the viticultural area to include the entire Livermore Valley and its encircling hills. Distinguishing Features The expanded Livermore Valley viticultural area would encompass land with the same geographical features as the current viticultural area. The uniformity of the distinguishing elements (climate, topography, and soils) is detailed below. Climate and Topography As stated in T.D. ATF-112, which established the Livermore Valley viticultural area, the valley has a moderate coastal climate that results from its proximity to San Francisco Bay and the Pacific Ocean. That final rule also cited cool marine winds and morning fog as important factors in moderating temperatures during the growing season and in keeping the area's vineyards relatively frost free in early spring. The majority of vineyard acreage in the Livermore Valley viticultural area, as explained in T.D. ATF-112, is classified as Region III (3,001-3,500 degree days) under the University of California at Davis system of heat summation by degree days. A small portion of the area within the Livermore Valley is classified as Region II (2,501-3,000 degree days). Each degree that a day's mean temperature is above 50 degrees Fahrenheit, which is the minimum temperature required for grapevine growth, is counted as 1 degree day; see “General Viticulture,” Albert J. Winkler, University of California Press, 1975. Cumulative climatic data from the National Weather Service shows an average annual degree-day total of 3,425 in the town of Livermore (elevation 486 feet), the heart of the current Livermore Valley viticultural area. The only equivalent weather station in the proposed expanded viticultural area is located at Mount Diablo Junction on the 2,100-foot elevation line, just south of the proposed expanded northern boundary. Cumulative climatic data from this weather station shows an average total for the growing season of 3,359 degree days, which is in the same Region III range as most of the current Livermore Valley viticultural area. The cool marine winds and morning fog enter the Livermore Valley from San Francisco Bay through gaps in the western hills of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, specifically through Niles Canyon and Hayward Pass (at the top of Dublin Canyon), as detailed in the San Jose Astronomical Association material ( *http://ephemeris.sjaa.net/0107/b.html* , search dated 10/01/01), and through Crow Canyon. Such cooling influences are not limited to a specific section of the valley. As seen from the degree-day data above, they provide a relatively uniform climate throughout the Livermore Valley basin. Developed by Waldimir Koppen in the early 20th century and based on temperature, precipitation, and vegetation, the Koppen (or “Koeppen”) climate classification system also offers evidence of the uniform Livermore Valley climate. The “Koeppen Classification for California” map, developed by the University of Idaho, and the “Koppen Climate Chart” classify the Livermore Valley as “Csb” (Mediterranean: mild with dry, warm summer). The region is differentiated from the “Csa” (Mediterranean: mild with dry, hot summer) and “BSk” (Midlatitude steppe, midlatitude dry) classifications found to the east. Significantly, the boundary line between these climate classifications almost exactly duplicates the proposed eastern boundary of the expanded Livermore Valley viticultural area. With the entire Livermore Valley basin sharing the same climate, it is logical that the entire basin should be included in the Livermore Valley viticultural area. The Livermore Valley basin's climate during the growing season represents a transition zone between the very cool, temperate, marine-influenced climate directly west and adjacent to San Francisco Bay and the hot, dry, diurnally (day versus night) differentiated climate to the east of the upper San Joaquin Valley. A clear indicator of the unique character of the Livermore Valley basin climate can be seen by comparing the average growing season degree-day totals at climate stations within the region to those that are east and west of the proposed expansion of the existing Livermore viticultural area at the same, or approximately same, latitude. The average degree-day total within the proposed expanded Livermore Valley viticultural area is fairly consistent—3,425 at Livermore and 3,359 at Diablo Junction. In contrast, the total at the Upper San Leandro Filtration Plant, directly west of the proposed expansion area, near San Francisco Bay, averages 2,461 degree days; the total at Tracy Carbona, directly east of the proposed expansion area in the San Joaquin Valley, averages 2,465 degree days. The Livermore Valley basin, bounded by hills to the west and east, enjoys a climate distinct from the adjacent areas. The unique climate of the valley supports expansion of the viticultural area to its natural geographical boundaries. Soils Soils are a distinguishing feature that supports the proposed expansion of the Livermore Valley viticultural area. The proposed expansion area encompasses a geographical area significantly larger than the current Livermore Valley viticultural area; for both areas, the underlying geologic formations and the geological factors in soil formation are the same. Thus, the soils in the proposed expansion area are consistent with those of the original viticultural area. As shown on the Geologic Map of California, the current Livermore Valley viticultural area and the proposed expansion area developed on the same geologic formations. Those formations include Pleistocene, alluvial, mostly nonmarine terrace deposits on the basin floor; Pleistocene, Pliocene, Miocene, and Cretaceous sandstone, shale, gravel, and conglomerate in the northern, eastern, and western hills; and Franciscan Complex fragmented and sheared sandstone in the southern hills. The geological forces that formed the topography and soils in the proposed expansion of the Livermore Valley viticultural area are the same as those that formed the topography and soils of the original Livermore Valley viticultural area. Uplift and subsidence along several earthquake faults (among them, the Calaveras and Pleasanton faults to the west, the Greenwood fault to the east, and the Livermore and Tesla faults in the center of the valley) have shaped the region's topography. Erosion and weathering of base material on the slopes and deposition of sediment carried in runoff onto the valley floor have, over long periods of time, formed the soils of the region. T.D. ATF-112 stated, “the main soil type is the Yolo-Pleasanton association with the Livermore gravelly and very gravelly series being prominent in the southern portion of the valley.” This description represents a highly simplified review of the soils within the original viticultural area boundaries. According to the “Soil Survey of Alameda Area, California” by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, published in 1966, the portion of the Livermore Valley floor within the current viticultural area also includes the Positas-Perkins association (shallow gravelly loam on terraces) and the Clear Lake-Sunnyvale association (shallow clay in basins and on terraces). Soils on the slopes of the current viticultural area and recorded in the survey include the Millsholm-Los Gatos-Los Osos association (well drained to excessively drained soils that have low fertility, on moderately sloping to very steep slopes), the Altamont-Diablo association (well drained to excessively drained, clayey soils that have moderate or high fertility, on rolling to steep slopes), and the Vallecitos-Parris association (well drained to excessively drained, shallow loam and gravelly loam on steep or very steep slopes). The “Soil Survey of Alameda Area, California” and the “Soil Survey of Contra Costa County, California,” by the United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, published in 1977, both record that the same soils were mapped in the proposed expansion area and in the current viticultural area. Although the Altamont-Diablo and Clearlake-Sunnyvale associations in Alameda County and the Altamont-Diablo-Fontana and Clearlake-Cropley associations in Contra Costa County were mapped along the boundary of the two soil survey areas, the soils are virtually identical. The differences in soil names are the result of improvements in the classification of the soils, particularly modifications or refinements in soil series concepts. Regarding vineyards, the soils in the proposed expanded Livermore Valley viticultural area are different from those in surrounding areas to the north and east; they are on the only sites where vineyards are suited in the immediate vicinity because of steep terrain, population density, and other limiting factors. To the north and east of the proposed boundary, the soils transition into the Brentwood-Rincon-Zamora association (level, well drained clay and silty clay loam on alluvial fans) and the Marcuse-Solan-Pescadero association (nearly level, poorly drained clay, loam, and clay loam on basin rims). Although suited to vineyards, these soils differ from those in the current Livermore Valley viticultural area and the proposed expansion area. Evidence Summary The entire Livermore Valley basin has the same moderate coastal climate as that of the existing Livermore Valley viticultural area and the same average degree-day totals. Also, the climatic data and supporting evidence show the Livermore Valley basin experiences the same cooling marine influences of wind and morning fog through the gaps in the western hills of Alameda and Contra Costa Counties as does the current viticultural area. Hence, both the existing Livermore Valley viticultural area and the broader Livermore Valley basin experience the same unique climate. Topographic and soil evidence indicates the same geologic formations are in the two areas. Clearly, the proposed expansion area and the current viticultural area have experienced the same geological forces. Allowing for differences in soil names resulting from improvements in the classification of the soils, the same soils are in both the proposed expansion area and the existing viticultural area. Unlike the climate, the soils in the proposed expansion area are not unique to the region. However, areas beyond the boundaries to the west and north—the only adjacent areas suited to grape growing—transition into soil associations unlike those in the current viticultural area or the proposed expansion area. The distinguishing features of the original Livermore Valley viticultural area, including the climate and soils, are present in the proposed expansion area and provide sufficient evidence to meet the requirements of 27 CFR 9.3. Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and Comments Received On May 19, 2005, TTB published a notice of proposed rulemaking regarding the expansion of the Livermore Valley viticultural area in the **Federal Register** (70 FR 28873) as Notice No. 43. In that notice, TTB requested comments by July 18, 2005, from all interested persons. TTB received one comment in response to the notice. The comment supported the expansion of the Livermore Valley viticultural area and noted geographical and climatic similarities of the existing viticultural area and the proposed expansion area. TTB Finding After careful review of the petition and the submitted comment, TTB finds that the evidence submitted supports the expansion of the Livermore Valley viticultural area as requested in the petition. Therefore, under the authority of the Federal Alcohol Administration Act and part 4 of our regulations, we amend our regulations to expand the boundary of the Livermore Valley viticultural area in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties, California, effective 30 days from the publication date of this document. Boundary Description See the narrative boundary description of the expanded Livermore Valley viticultural area in the amended regulatory text published at the end of this document. Maps The petitioner provided the required maps, and we list them in the regulatory text. Impact on Current Wine Labels The expansion of the Livermore Valley viticultural area does not affect currently approved wine labels. The expansion may allow additional vintners to use “Livermore Valley” as an appellation of origin on their wine labels. Part 4 of the TTB regulations prohibits any label reference on a wine that indicates or implies an origin other than the wine's true place of origin. For a wine to be eligible to use as an appellation of origin the name of a viticultural area specified in part 9 of the TTB regulations, at least 85 percent of the grapes used to make the wine must have been grown within the area represented by that name, and the wine must meet the other conditions listed in 27 CFR 4.25(e)(3). Different rules apply if a wine has a brand name containing a viticultural area name that was used as a brand name on a label approved before July 7, 1986. See 27 CFR 4.39(i)(2) for details. Regulatory Flexibility Act We certify that this regulation will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. This regulation imposes no new reporting, recordkeeping, or other administrative requirement. Any benefit derived from the use of a viticultural area name is the result of a proprietor's efforts and consumer acceptance of wines from that area. Therefore, no regulatory flexibility analysis is required. Executive Order 12866 This rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by Executive Order 12866, 58 FR 51735. Therefore, it requires no regulatory assessment. Drafting Information N.A. Sutton of the Regulations and Rulings Division drafted this notice. List of Subjects in 27 CFR Part 9 Wine. The Regulatory Amendment For the reasons discussed in the preamble, we are amending title 27 CFR, chapter 1, part 9, as follows: PART 9—AMERICAN VITICULTURAL AREAS 1. The authority citation for part 9 continues to read as follows: Authority: 27 U.S.C. 205. Subpart C—Approved American Viticultural Areas 2. Section 9.46 is amended by revising paragraphs
(b)and
(c)to read as follows: § 9.46 Livermore Valley.
(b)*Approved maps.* The appropriate maps for determining the boundary of the Livermore Valley viticultural area are 13 United States Geological Survey 1:24,000 scale topographic maps. They are titled:
(1)Clayton, CA (1953; Photorevised 1980; Minor Revision 1994);
(2)Diablo, Calif. (1953; Photorevised 1980);
(3)Tassajara, CA (1996);
(4)Byron Hot Springs, Calif., (1953, Photorevised 1968);
(5)Altamont, Calif., (1953, Photorevised 1981);
(6)Midway, Calif., (1953, Photorevised 1980);
(7)Cedar Mtn., CA, (1956, Photorevised 1971, Minor Revision 1994);
(8)Mendenhall Springs, CA (1996);
(9)La Costa Valley, CA (1996);
(10)Niles, Calif., (1961, Photorevised 1980);
(11)Dublin, Calif., (1961, Photorevised 1980);
(12)Hayward, CA (1993); and
(13)Las Trampas Ridge, CA (1995).
(c)*Boundary.* The Livermore Valley viticultural area is located in the State of California in Contra Costa and Alameda Counties. The Livermore Valley viticultural area's boundary is defined as follows:
(1)The beginning point is on the Clayton map at the peak of Mount Diablo (VABM 3849) where the Mount Diablo Base Line and Mount Diablo Meridian Line intersect, T1S, R1E;
(2)From the beginning point proceed southeast in a straight line for approximately 14 miles, crossing the Diablo and Tassajara maps, and pass onto the Byron Hot Springs map to the summit of Brushy Peak (elevation 1,702 feet), T1S, R2E; then
(3)Continue due south in a straight line approximately 400 feet to the northern boundary of section 13, T2S, R2E; then
(4)Proceed due east along the section 13 and section 18 northern boundary lines to the northeast corner of section 18, T2S, R3E; then
(5)Continue southeast in a straight line approximately 1.8 miles to BM 720 in section 21, T2S, R3E, on the Altamont map; then
(6)Continue south-southeast in a straight line approximately 1 mile to an unnamed, 1,147-foot peak in section 28, T2S, R3E; then
(7)Continue south-southwest in a straight line approximately 1.1 miles to the intersection of the eastern boundary of section 32, T2S, R3E, with Interstate 580; then
(8)Continue southeast in a straight line approximately 2.7 miles to BM 1602 in Patterson Pass in section 10, T3S, R3E; then
(9)Continue south-southeast in a straight line approximately 2.8 miles to BM 1600, adjacent to Tesla Road in section 26, T3S, R3E, on the Midway map; then
(10)Continue south in a straight line approximately 4.2 miles, passing onto the Cedar Mtn. map, to BM 1878, 40 feet north of Mines Road, in section 14, T4S, R3E; then
(11)Proceed west-southwest in a straight line approximately 4.2 miles, passing onto the Mendenhall Springs map, to the southeast corner of section 19, T4S, R3E; then
(12)Continue west along the southern boundaries of section 19, T4S, R3E, and section 24, T4S, R2E, to the southwest corner of section 24; then
(13)Proceed north along the western boundary of section 24, T4S, R2E, to the southeast corner of section 14, T4S, R2E; then
(14)Continue west along the southern boundary of section 14, T4S, R2E, to its southwest corner and then proceed north along the western boundary of section 14 to its intersection with the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct, T4S, R2E; then
(15)Follow the Hetch Hetchy Aqueduct west-southwest approximately 4.2 miles to the Aqueduct's intersection with the R1E/R2E range line on the La Costa Valley map, T4S; then
(16)Continue southwest in a straight line approximately 3.9 miles, crossing Apperson, Welsh, and Alameda Creeks, to BM 533 in section 10, T5S, R1E; then
(17)Proceed due west-northwest in a straight line approximately 1.9 miles, passing onto the Niles map, to the line's intersection with the eastern boundary of section 5 and the Fremont Boundary Line, T5S, R1E; then
(18)Continue northwest in a straight line approximately 1.1 miles to an unnamed, 1,291-foot peak in section 32, T4S, R1E; then
(19)Continue northwest in a straight line approximately 1.1 miles to an unnamed, 1,058-foot peak in section 30, T4S, R1E; then
(20)Continue northwest in a straight line approximately 3.8 miles, passing through BM 161 in section 11, T4S, R1W, until the line intersects Palomares Road, a medium duty road, in section 11; then
(21)Follow Palomares Road in a northerly direction for approximately 0.7 miles to the road's intersection with the power transmission line shown in section 11, T4S, R1W; then
(22)Proceed northwest along the power transmission line for approximately 6.4 miles, passing through the Dublin map near Walpert Ridge, onto the Hayward map to the point where the power transmission line turns nearly west, approximately 500 feet south of an unnamed, 891-foot, peak, T3S, R2W; then
(23)Continue north-northwest in a straight line approximately 1.4 miles to an unnamed, 840-foot peak, T3S, R2W; then
(24)Proceed north-northeast in a straight line approximately 3.4 miles, returning to the Dublin map, to the point where the Contra Costa County-Alameda County line turns to the northwest, about 0.4 mile west of Wiedemann Hill (elevation 1,854 feet), section 20, T2S, R1W; then
(25)Proceed in a northwesterly direction along the meandering Contra Costa County-Alameda County line for approximately 6.0 miles, passing briefly onto the Hayward, Las Trampas Ridge, and Diablo maps, before returning to the Las Trampas Ridge map and continuing to the point where the Contra Costa County-Alameda County line turns to the west-northwest, section 35, T1S, R2W; then
(26)Continue north-northwest in a straight line approximately 2.7 miles to the summit of Las Trampas Peak (elevation 1,827 feet) in section 22, T1S, R2W; then
(27)Proceed east-northeast in a straight line approximately 8.8 miles, passing through the Diablo map, and return to the beginning point. Dated: April 25, 2006. John J. Manfreda, Administrator. Approved: May 25, 2006. Timothy E. Skud, Deputy Assistant Secretary (Tax, Trade, and Tariff Policy). [FR Doc. E6-9366 Filed 6-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4810-31-P PENSION BENEFIT GUARANTY CORPORATION 29 CFR Parts 4022 and 4044 Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans; Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans; Interest Assumptions for Valuing and Paying Benefits AGENCY: Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation's regulations on Benefits Payable in Terminated Single-Employer Plans and Allocation of Assets in Single-Employer Plans prescribe interest assumptions for valuing and paying benefits under terminating single-employer plans. This final rule amends the regulations to adopt interest assumptions for plans with valuation dates in July 2006. Interest assumptions are also published on the PBGC's Web site ( *http://www.pbgc.gov* ). DATES: Effective July 1, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Catherine B. Klion, Attorney, Legislative and Regulatory Department, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, 1200 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20005, 202-326-4024. (TTY/TDD users may call the Federal relay service toll-free at 1-800-877-8339 and ask to be connected to 202-326-4024.) SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The PBGC's regulations prescribe actuarial assumptions—including interest assumptions—for valuing and paying plan benefits of terminating single-employer plans covered by title IV of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The interest assumptions are intended to reflect current conditions in the financial and annuity markets. Three sets of interest assumptions are prescribed:
(1)A set for the valuation of benefits for allocation purposes under section 4044 (found in Appendix B to part 4044),
(2)a set for the PBGC to use to determine whether a benefit is payable as a lump sum and to determine lump-sum amounts to be paid by the PBGC (found in Appendix B to part 4022), and
(3)a set for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using the PBGC's historical methodology (found in Appendix C to part 4022). This amendment
(1)adds to Appendix B to part 4044 the interest assumptions for valuing benefits for allocation purposes in plans with valuation dates during July 2006,
(2)adds to Appendix B to part 4022 the interest assumptions for the PBGC to use for its own lump-sum payments in plans with valuation dates during July 2006, and
(3)adds to Appendix C to part 4022 the interest assumptions for private-sector pension practitioners to refer to if they wish to use lump-sum interest rates determined using the PBGC's historical methodology for valuation dates during July 2006. For valuation of benefits for allocation purposes, the interest assumptions that the PBGC will use (set forth in Appendix B to part 4044) will be 6.30 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and 4.75 percent thereafter. These interest assumptions represent an increase (from those in effect for June 2006) of 0.10 percent for the first 20 years following the valuation date and are otherwise unchanged. These interest assumptions reflect the PBGC's recently updated mortality assumptions, which are effective for terminations on or after January 1, 2006. See the PBGC's final rule published December 2, 2005 (70 FR 72205), which is available at *http://www.pbgc.gov/docs/05-23554.pdf* . Because the updated mortality assumptions reflect improvements in mortality, these interest assumptions are higher than they would have been using the old mortality assumptions. The interest assumptions that the PBGC will use for its own lump-sum payments (set forth in Appendix B to part 4022) will be 3.50 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and 4.00 percent during any years preceding the benefit's placement in pay status. These interest assumptions represent an increase (from those in effect for June 2006) of 0.25 percent for the period during which a benefit is in pay status and are otherwise unchanged. For private-sector payments, the interest assumptions (set forth in Appendix C to part 4022) will be the same as those used by the PBGC for determining and paying lump sums (set forth in Appendix B to part 4022). The PBGC has determined that notice and public comment on this amendment are impracticable and contrary to the public interest. This finding is based on the need to determine and issue new interest assumptions promptly so that the assumptions can reflect current market conditions as accurately as possible. Because of the need to provide immediate guidance for the valuation and payment of benefits in plans with valuation dates during July 2006, the PBGC finds that good cause exists for making the assumptions set forth in this amendment effective less than 30 days after publication. The PBGC has determined that this action is not a “significant regulatory action” under the criteria set forth in Executive Order 12866. Because no general notice of proposed rulemaking is required for this amendment, the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply. See 5 U.S.C. 601(2). List of Subjects 29 CFR Part 4022 Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. 29 CFR Part 4044 Employee benefit plans, Pension insurance, Pensions. In consideration of the foregoing, 29 CFR parts 4022 and 4044 are amended as follows: PART 4022—BENEFITS PAYABLE IN TERMINATED SINGLE-EMPLOYER PLANS 1. The authority citation for part 4022 continues to read as follows: Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1302, 1322, 1322b, 1341(c)(3)(D), and 1344. 2. In appendix B to part 4022, Rate Set 153, as set forth below, is added to the table. Appendix B to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates For PBGC Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation date On or after Before Immediate annuity rate (percent) Deferred annuities (percent) *i* 1 *i* 2 *i* 3 *n* 1 *n* 2 * * * * * * * 153 7-1-06 8-1-06 3.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8 3. In appendix C to part 4022, Rate Set 153, as set forth below, is added to the table. Appendix C to Part 4022—Lump Sum Interest Rates For Private-Sector Payments Rate set For plans with a valuation date On or after Before Immediate annuity rate (percent) Deferred annuities (percent) *i* 1 *i* 2 *i* 3 *n* 1 *n* 2 * * * * * * * 153 7-1-06 8-1-06 3.50 4.00 4.00 4.00 7 8 PART 4044—ALLOCATION OF ASSETS IN SINGLE-EMPLOYER PLANS 4. The authority citation for part 4044 continues to read as follows: Authority: 29 U.S.C. 1301(a), 1302(b)(3), 1341, 1344, 1362. 5. In appendix B to part 4044, a new entry for July 2006, as set forth below, is added to the table. Appendix B to Part 4044—Interest Rates Used to Value Benefits For valuation dates occurring in the month— the values of *i* t are: *i* t for t = *i* t for t = *i* t for t = * * * * * * * July 2006 .0630 1-20 .0475 >20 N/A N/A Issued in Washington, DC, on this 8th day of June 2006. Vincent K. Snowbarger, Acting Executive Director, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation. [FR Doc. E6-9345 Filed 6-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7709-01-P DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 50 CFR Part 622 [Docket No. 060322083-6147-02; I.D. 032006C] RIN 0648-AU04 Fisheries of the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, and South Atlantic; Gulf of Mexico Recreational Grouper Fishery Management Measures AGENCY: National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Commerce. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: NMFS issues this final rule to implement the bag limit provisions of a regulatory amendment to the Fishery Management Plan for the Reef Fish Resources of the Gulf of Mexico
(FMP)prepared by the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (Council). This final rule will establish a recreational bag limit for Gulf red grouper of one fish per person per day and prohibit the captain and crew of a vessel operating as a charter vessel or headboat from retaining any Gulf grouper, i.e., establish a zero bag limit for captain and crew. The intended effect of this final rule is to help maintain recreational landings at levels consistent with the red grouper rebuilding plan. DATES: This final rule is effective July 17, 2006. ADDRESSES: Copies of the Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis (FRFA), are available from Andy Strelcheck, NMFS, Southeast Regional Office, 263 13 th Avenue South, St. Petersburg, FL 33701; telephone 727-824-5305; fax 727-824-5308; e-mail *Andy.Strelcheck@noaa.gov* . FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andy Strelcheck, telephone 727-824-5305; fax 727-824-5308; e-mail *Andy.Strelcheck@noaa.gov* . SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The reef fish fishery of the Gulf of Mexico is managed under the FMP. The FMP was prepared by the Council and is implemented under the authority of the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (Magnuson-Stevens Act) by regulations at 50 CFR part 622. In accordance with the FMP's framework procedure, the Council recommended and NMFS published a proposed rule to implement the regulatory amendment and requested public comment on the proposed rule through May 1, 2006 (71 FR 16275, March 31, 2006). In addition to the measures contained in this final rule, the proposed rule included a February 15 to March 15 recreational closure for red grouper, gag, and black grouper. NMFS expects a new stock assessment for gag to be completed in July 2006 that might contain new information pertinent to evaluating the need for the seasonal closure. Also, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission expressed concerns about implementation of the seasonal closure. Therefore, NMFS is implementing the bag limit and captain and crew provisions in this final rule but will defer possible implementation of the seasonal closure until the new gag assessment is completed. If the seasonal closure is warranted based on the results of the gag stock assessment, another final rule will be published for that action. The seasonal closure provision has been removed from this final rule. The rationale for the measures in the regulatory amendment is provided in the preamble to the proposed rule and is not repeated here. A summary of the public comments received by NMFS on the proposed rule and NMFS' responses are provided below. Comments and Responses NMFS received a total of 8 different comments from 12 commenters. Following is a summary of the comments received on the proposed rule and NMFS' responses. *Comment 1:* Eight commenters opposed the February 15 to March 15 recreational seasonal closure and believed the closure period would severely impact the livelihood of charter boat captains, crew, and their families. *Response:* NMFS expects a new stock assessment for gag to be completed in July 2006 that might contain new information pertinent to evaluating the need for the seasonal closure for red grouper, gag, and black grouper. Therefore, NMFS intends to defer possible implementation of the seasonal closure until the new gag assessment is completed. If the seasonal closure is warranted based on the results of the gag stock assessment, the closure may be implemented via appropriate rulemaking. *Comment 2:* Two commenters opposed prohibiting for-hire captain and crew from retaining bag limits of grouper while under charter. Two commenters were in favor of prohibiting for-hire captain and crew from retaining bag limits of grouper. *Response:* With a reduction in the red grouper bag limit to one fish per person per day, there is a greater incentive for captain and crew on for-hire vessels to retain fish and supplement the landings of their clients, negating some of the benefit of the lower red grouper bag limit. Although past regulations allowed captains and crew to socially and economically benefit from the enjoyment of fishing and supplying their families with fresh fish, continuing to allow captain and crew to retain bag limits reduces the effectiveness of the red grouper bag limit. Implementing this measure increases the likelihood that red grouper landings reduction targets are reached, as specified in the rebuilding plan for red grouper. Not implementing this measure may result in more severe management reductions with accompanying increased adverse economic impacts to captains and crew. Additionally, prohibiting for-hire captains and crew from retaining bag limits of grouper while under charter is considered equitable because commercial fishermen would be prohibited from retaining bag limits of reef fish while commercially fishing if Amendment 18A to the FMP is implemented. *Comment 3:* Two commenters were in favor of reducing the bag limit from two to one red grouper per person per day. *Response:* The reduction in red grouper bag limit is part of management measures to return recreational red grouper landings to levels specified in the rebuilding plan. Reducing the red grouper bag limit to one is estimated to reduce landings of red grouper by 29.7 percent. *Comment 4:* One commenter suggested creating a closed season of September 15 to October 15 instead of February 15 to March 15. *Response:* The seasonal closure was proposed for February 15 to March 15 because the commercial seasonal closure occurs at this time and includes important spawning seasons for red, black, and gag grouper. The Council also considered seasonal closures during April-May and August and was presented with analyses for seasonal closures in September and October. A September 15 to October 15 seasonal closure would result in similar, although slightly greater, reductions in harvest than the preferred February 15 to March 15 seasonal closure. However, a closure during fall would not provide the added benefits of protecting red, gag, and black grouper during spawning or closing the recreational fishery at the same time as the commercial fishery. NMFS intends to defer possible implementation of the recreational seasonal closure until the new gag assessment is completed in summer 2006. *Comment 5:* Three commenters each suggested one of the following topics:
(1)Better enforcement of charter boats that fish in Federal waters without permits;
(2)purchase of all charter boat businesses by the government to relieve the economic strain of regulations on fishermen; and
(3)prevention of supposed toxic material dumping by phosphate plants as a measure to prevent fish mortality. *Response:* The regulatory amendment only considered reducing the bag limit from two to one red grouper per person per day, prohibiting for-hire captain and crew from retaining bag limits of grouper while under charter, and creating a seasonal closure from February 15 to March 15. The regulatory amendment did not consider the topics listed in the above comment because other measures were considered to be more appropriate. Therefore, this comment is beyond the scope of the regulatory amendment and this rule. Classification The Administrator, Southeast Region, NMFS, determined the regulatory amendment is necessary for the conservation and management of the Gulf reef fish fishery and is consistent with the Magnuson-Stevens Act and other applicable laws. This final rule has been determined to be not significant for purposes of Executive Order 12866. A FRFA was prepared. The FRFA incorporates the initial regulatory flexibility analysis (IRFA), a summary of the significant issues raised by public comments in response to the IRFA, and NMFS responses to those comments, and a summary of the analyses completed to support the action. A summary of the analyses follows. This rule will reduce the daily recreational red grouper bag limit and eliminate the captain and crew daily grouper bag limit. The purpose for this regulatory amendment is to implement management measures for the Gulf of Mexico grouper fishery that will restrict recreational red grouper landings to levels specified in the red grouper rebuilding plan. The Magnuson-Stevens Act provides the statutory basis for this final rule. The proposed rule contained a February 15 to March 15 recreational seasonal closure for red grouper, gag, and black grouper. In response to public comment and to allow for evaluation of the results of a new stock assessment for gag expected to be completed in July 2006, consideration of implementation of the seasonal closure will be deferred until the new assessment is completed. No duplicative, overlapping, or conflicting Federal rules have been identified. A moratorium on the issuance of new charter vessel/headboat (for-hire) permits for reef fish has been in effect since June 16, 2003, and, currently, approximately 1,625 unique vessels are permitted to operate in this fishery. The for-hire fishery is comprised of charter vessels, which charge fees on a per-vessel basis, and headboats, which charge fees on an individual angler basis. The average charter vessel is estimated to generate $76,960 in annual revenue and $36,758 in annual “profit” (computed as gross revenue minus costs; costs exclude depreciation, fixed costs, and returns to owner/operators). The comparable figures for an average headboat are $404,172 in annual gross revenue and $338,209 in annual profits. Some vessels in the for-hire fleet also participate in the commercial fisheries. However, information on the average revenues generated from operation as a commercial vessel and the impacts of these revenues on the overall economic performance of the business operation are unknown. Although the rule will not directly affect support industries, potential reductions in fishing effort and associated expenditures may have indirect impacts on hotels, restaurants, gear and bait shops, and other associated businesses. It is not possible to enumerate or characterize these businesses. The rule will not change current reporting, recordkeeping and other compliance requirements under the FMP. These requirements include permit qualification criteria and participation in data collection programs if selected by NMFS. All of the information elements required for these processes are standard elements essential to the successful operation of a fishing business and should, therefore, already be collected and maintained as standard operating practice by the business. The requirements do not require professional skills, and, therefore, are deemed not to be onerous. The Small Business Administration defines a small business in the for-hire fishery sector as a firm that is independently owned and operated, is not dominant in its field of operation, and has annual receipts up to $6.5 million. Given the economic profile of the for-hire fleet presented above, NMFS determined that all for-hire fishing entities that could be affected by this final rule are small business entities. Because all of these entities could be affected, NMFS determined that the final rule will affect a substantial number of small entities. The determination of “significant economic impact” can be ascertained by examining two issues: disproportionality and profitability. The disproportionality question is whether the regulations place a substantial number of small entities at a significant competitive disadvantage to large entities. All for-hire entities affected by the rule are considered small entities, so the issue of disproportionality does not arise in the present case. The profitability question is whether the regulations significantly reduce profit for a substantial number of small entities. For-hire operations, specifically charter boats, will bear the primary burden of the rule, although spill-over impacts are expected in associated industries such as hotels, marinas, and bait and tackle shops. For-hire operations may experience a reduction in bookings, resulting in reduced receipts from for-hire fees, tips, gear rental, food or beverages, and fish-cleaning. No trip cancellations were projected due to the reduced red grouper bag limit because most grouper trips have not historically landed either the former red grouper or aggregate grouper daily bag limit. Approximately 13,000 trips per year, on average, are expected to be affected by the reduced red grouper bag limit. Although few of these trips are expected to be cancelled due to the reduced bag limit, they represent approximately $1.57 million in for-hire fees (approximately $1,000 per vessel), or approximately 1 percent of average gross revenues and 3 percent of average net revenues per vessel. No financial impacts would accrue to trips that are not cancelled as a result of the reduced bag limit. The impact of the rule on associated industries cannot be determined. Six alternatives, including the status quo, were considered to the proposed red grouper bag limit and seasonal closure. The status quo would have allowed continued landing overages in the recreational sector and would, therefore, not meet the Council's objectives because continued overages would not allow the fishery to meet rebuilding goals. Additionally, for the reasons stated above, the rule does not include the proposed seasonal closure. The second alternative would have reduced the red grouper daily bag limit to one fish per angler or three fish per vessel, whichever is less. This alternative is more restrictive than the bag limit in the final rule and, therefore, would result in greater adverse economic impacts due to greater loss of consumer surplus and greater likelihood of trip cancellation. The third alternative would have increased the red grouper recreational minimum size limit to 22 inches (55.9 cm). An increase in the minimum size limit, however, would be expected to increase bycatch and discard mortality, which is inconsistent with the Council's objective of minimizing bycatch and discard mortality. Thus, this alternative would not meet the Council's objectives. The fourth alternative would have reduced the red grouper recreational bag limit within the aggregate grouper limit to one per person per day and closed the season for all grouper during August. This alternative would have resulted in greater reductions in consumer surplus and potential foregone expenditures, therefore increasing the adverse economic impacts relative to the final rule. The fifth alternative would have reduced the red grouper recreational bag limit within the aggregate limit to one per person per day and closed the season for all grouper during April through May. This alternative would also have resulted in greater reductions in consumer surplus and potential foregone expenditures than the final rule. The sixth alternative would have reduced the red grouper bag limit within the aggregate limit to one per person per day and increased the minimum recreational size limit to 21 inches (53.3 cm). Similar to an increase of the minimum size limit to 22 inches (55.9 cm), excessive bycatch mortality was expected to accrue to this alternative. The final alternative to the red grouper bag limit would have reduced the red grouper bag limit within the aggregate grouper limit to one fish per angler or three fish per vessel per day, whichever is less, except for reef fish-permitted for-hire vessels with a U.S. Coast Guard Certificate of Inspection. For these vessels, the resultant vessel limit would be one red grouper per two paying passengers. This alternative is more restrictive than the rule and would result in greater adverse economic impacts than the rule. One alternative, the status quo, was considered for the 0-fish captain and crew grouper bag limit. The status quo, which would allow captain and crew a bag limit equal to that of the recreational angler, in combination with the other actions, would not achieve the necessary red grouper harvest reductions and would not, therefore, meet the Council's objectives. The 0-fish captain and crew bag limit constrains the potential harvest capacity aboard for-hire vessels, limits allowable bag limits to paying clients who are fishing recreationally, and contributes additional reduction in fishing mortality. Copies of the FRFA are available from NMFS (see ADDRESSES ). List of Subjects in 50 CFR Part 622 Fisheries, Fishing, Puerto Rico, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Virgin Islands. Dated: June 8, 2006, James W. Balsiger, Acting Deputy Assistant Administrator for Regulatory Programs, National Marine Fisheries Service. For the reasons set out in the preamble, 50 CFR part 622 is amended as follows: PART 622—FISHERIES OF THE CARIBBEAN, GULF, AND SOUTH ATLANTIC 1. The authority citation for part 622 continues to read as follows: Authority: 16 U.S.C. 1801 *et seq.* 2. In § 622.39, the suspensions of paragraphs (b)(1)(ii) and (b)(1)(v) are lifted; paragraphs (b)(1)(viii) and (b)(1)(ix) are removed; and paragraph (b)(1)(ii) is revised to read as follows: § 622.39 Bag and possession limits.
(b)* * *
(1)* * *
(ii)Groupers, combined, excluding goliath grouper and Nassau grouper -5 per person per day, but not to exceed 1 speckled hind or 1 warsaw grouper per vessel per day or 1 red grouper per person per day. However, no grouper may be retained by the captain or crew of a vessel operating as a charter vessel or headboat—their bag limit is zero. [FR Doc. E6-9312 Filed 6-14-06; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 71 115 Thursday, June 15, 2006 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 94 [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0037] Change in Disease Status of Namibia With Regard to Foot-and-Mouth Disease and Rinderpest AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations to add Namibia, except the portion of the country north of the Veterinary Cordon Fence (VCF), to the list of regions that are considered free of foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), and to add the entire country to the list of regions that are considered free of rinderpest. We are taking this action because we have determined that the region in Namibia south of the VCF is now free of FMD and the entire country is free of rinderpest. We are also proposing to add Namibia, except the region north of the VCF, to the list of FMD- and rinderpest-free regions that are subject to certain import restrictions on meat and other animal products because of their proximity to or trading relationships with rinderpest- or FMD-affected regions. This proposed action would relieve certain restrictions due to FMD and rinderpest on the importation into the United States of certain live animals and animal products from all regions of Namibia except the region north of the VCF. However, because we consider Namibia to be affected with African swine fever, classical swine fever, and swine vesicular disease, the importation of live swine and pork and pork products would continue to be restricted. In addition, because we consider Namibia to be affected with other animal diseases that are exotic to the United States, the importation of live ruminants and germplasm would also continue to be restricted. These actions would update the disease status of Namibia with regard to FMD and rinderpest while continuing to protect the United States from an introduction of those diseases by providing additional requirements for any meat and meat products imported into the United States from Namibia. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before August 14, 2006. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* and, in the lower “Search Regulations and Federal Actions” box, select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click on “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0037 to submit or view public comments and to view supporting and related materials available electronically. Information on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close of the comment period, is available through the site's “User Tips” link. • Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0037, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0037. *Reading Room:* You may read any comments that we receive on this docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, please call
(202)690-2817 before coming. *Other Information:* Additional information about APHIS and its programs is available on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Javier Vargas, Animal Scientist, Regionalization Evaluation Services Staff, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301)734-0756. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the regulations) govern the importation of certain animals and animal products into the United States in order to prevent the introduction of various diseases, including rinderpest, foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), African swine fever, classical swine fever, and swine vesicular disease. These are dangerous and destructive communicable diseases of ruminants and swine. Section 94.1 of the regulations lists regions of the world that are declared free of rinderpest or free of both rinderpest and FMD. Rinderpest or FMD exists in all other parts of the world not listed. Section 94.11 of the regulations lists regions of the world that have been determined to be free of rinderpest and FMD, but that are subject to certain restrictions because of their proximity to or trading relationships with rinderpest- or FMD-affected regions. In February 2001, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) received a request from Namibia's Government to recognize Namibia as free from rinderpest. Because rinderpest has not been diagnosed in Namibia since 1907, we are proposing to recognize the entire country of Namibia as free of rinderpest. The Namibian Government also requested that APHIS recognize the region of Namibia south of the Veterinary Cordon Fence (VCF), which is described in more detail in the “Degree of Separation from Adjacent Regions,” as free of FMD. The regulations define the term *region* , in part, as “any defined geographic land area identifiable by geological, political, or surveyed boundaries.” Namibian veterinary officials define four zones for purposes of FMD control in Namibia: Infected, buffer, surveillance, and free. The infected zone is north of the VCF and includes eastern and western Caprivi, where FMD outbreaks have occurred and free-roaming wild buffalo are present. FMD vaccinations are conducted in this zone. The buffer zone, which abuts high-risk areas in neighboring countries, is also located north of the VCF. This area is considered affected with contagious bovine pleuropneumonia
(CBPP)and does not have as stringent animal movement controls as the FMD-free area. FMD vaccinations are conducted in certain areas of this zone. The surveillance zone borders the VCF in the FMD-free area and is at least two farms wide. FMD vaccination does not occur in this area so that the animals can serve as sentinels. Finally, the free zone consists of the commercial farming area and communal areas south of the surveillance zone. In response to the Namibian Government's request, and based on our review of supporting documentation accompanying the request and information obtained during a site visit, we are proposing to recognize the entire country of Namibia as rinderpest-free and all of Namibia except the region north of the VCF as free of FMD. Finally, we are also proposing to add Namibia, except the region north of the VCF, to the list of regions that are subject to certain import restrictions on meat and other animal products because of their proximity to or trading relationships with rinderpest-or FMD-affected regions. Risk Analysis Based on the information submitted to us by the Government of Namibia, as well as information gathered during a site visit by APHIS staff to Namibia in June 2003, we have reviewed and analyzed the animal health status of Namibia relative to FMD. Our review and analysis were conducted in light of the factors identified in 9 CFR 92.2, “Application for recognition of the animal health status of a region,” which are used to determine the level of risk associated with importing animals or animal products into the United States from a given region. Based on the information submitted to us and gathered during the June 2003 site visit, we have concluded the following: Veterinary Infrastructure The authority for veterinary infrastructure and control in Namibia rests with the Directorate of Veterinary Services
(DVS)in the Ministry of Agriculture, Water, and Rural Development. This authority is derived from several laws, including the Undesirable Residue in Meat Act, the Stock Brands Act, the Government Notice on the Prohibition of Certain Farm Feeds, and the Animal Disease and Parasites Act, No. 13, of 1956; this last act is the primary source of authority for Namibia's animal health, disease control, and animal movement control activities. The overall structure of DVS includes a central headquarters and State veterinary offices throughout Namibia, both of which are described below. DVS headquarters is located in Windhoek, where DVS officials develop all polices, laws, and regulations relating to animal health issues. The relationship between DVS headquarters and the State offices is close and information is shared regularly. The State offices are formally audited to review the offices' performance on trade-related issues, such as traceability, bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE)surveillance, and monitoring farm feeds for ruminant protein. During the site visit, APHIS staff found the State office they visited to be structured, effective, and organized. DVS animal health officials participate in training activities on a regular basis, including teaching community members how to recognize disease symptoms. The central office sets criteria for FMD-free countries and assigns disease status to countries. Permits are issued according to a country's disease status and, if a disease outbreak occurs in a previously free country, DVS cancels the permits for affected articles from that country and alerts State veterinarians at the ports of arrival that those permits have been canceled. Support for DVS in Namibian farming and producer groups and local communities is strong. This support is demonstrated by high involvement in programs such as participation and enforcement of vaccination schedules and community participation in education, outreach, and meetings. DVS works with various farming organizations in Namibia, such as the National Agricultural Union, which consists mainly of commercial farmers, and the Namibia National Farmers' Union, which is comprised of mostly communal farmers. DVS also works with the Namibian Meat Board, which is an industry group focusing on developing and improving livestock product markets. The Meat Board administers the Farm Assured Namibian Meat Scheme, a quality assurance program for meat, and operates the Brand Registry, which contains the registration of every meat producer's brand mark. Finally, DVS partners with the Namibian police force to ensure that all vehicles entering the proposed free zone through VCF checkpoints are inspected and that emergency roadblocks can be put into place if necessary. The site visit team visited the Walvis Bay Veterinary Services Office, a State veterinary office located at a port on the central coast of Namibia. The premises included the State veterinarian's office and a quarantine facility used for small animals, such as dogs, birds, and cats. For each animal product entering Namibia, the State veterinarian keeps records of a description of the product, as well as the product's date of entry, permit number, origin, and quantity. The office is also responsible for performing field duties, such as annual farm inspections and inspections of cold storage facilities. The State veterinarians can hold a shipment until paperwork can be completed, but do not open sealed containers until all documents are present. The State office receives faxes from the central office to alert the State veterinarian of any arriving shipments that will need inspection. During an inspection, the State veterinarian checks the expiration and product dates, the endorsement of the permit, and the physical appearance of the shipment. Satisfactory shipments are released to the owner, while unsatisfactory shipments must either be destroyed or returned to the country of origin. If the product is destroyed, the State veterinarian, municipal police, Port Control, and Customs are involved. Although no beef or lamb has been confiscated, a shipment of chicken was destroyed by being mixed with sand and buried in a 5 meter hole at the municipal dump. At the port visited by the APHIS team, the harbor is completely fenced off and guards man the port gate. If a shipment does not have stamped release papers, the guards will stop the shipment so that it cannot leave the harbor. DVS also supplements its workforce through Community Animal Health Workers (CAHWs) who work in the communal areas to assist DVS’ disease surveillance and to provide a more comprehensive and accurate animal disease treatment, surveillance, and reporting system. Although the CAHWs are not government employees or certified, they receive government training in animal husbandry, handling, animal diseases, and health maintenance and are members of the community in which they work. The CAHWs then can establish private businesses that provide very basic veterinary care along with a limited veterinary pharmacy. One concern about DVS raised during the site visit was the mandatory or voluntary retirement for several senior DVS officials in the upcoming year with no apparent plans for overlapping by replacements. This process could create a loss of institutional memory and result in a weakening or failure of the current disease control system, which requires consistent application and reassessment to prevent FMD from entering Namibia. In addition, highly trained personnel are spread very thin over a wide range of duties and qualified recruits are lacking due to either a lack of funding or training. DVS acknowledged these issues during the site visit and stated that field personnel are being moved to headquarters to receive training and become familiar with operations at the headquarters level. In addition, DVS advertised posts to fill vacancies prior to the officials' departure to ensure a smooth transition. Also, DVS stated that the restructuring was designed to strengthen surveillance, reporting, and case follow-up. However, in July 2004, Namibia's Cabinet approved a new structure for DVS, which is designed to strengthen the central competent authority and allow for closer supervision and decentralization of services. The Directorate remains under the supervision of a Chief Veterinary Officer and consists of four divisions: Animal Disease Control (Animal Health); Veterinary Public Health; Epidemiology, Import/Export and Training; and Diagnostic Services and Research. Each of these divisions will be headed by a Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer who oversees a variety of supporting staff. Recruitment to fill positions has begun and progress in filling positions had been made as of January 2006. The effort to fill all positions is ongoing. Under the new restructuring, Namibia is divided into four regions: South, North-east, North-west, and Central. With regard to Animal Health, each of the four regions will have a Chief Veterinarian, who reports directly to the Deputy Chief Veterinary Officer of the Animal Health division at headquarters. Each Chief Veterinarian will operate as a supervisor of a number of State veterinary officers (up to four each) and be responsible for training, control, monitoring, and guiding field veterinarians. Six additional field veterinarian posts will be added in the northern communal areas. In addition, the number of animal health technician
(AHT)posts (agricultural diploma level) will be increased from 79 to 95, with a plan to phase out Stock Inspection Assistants over time. The Veterinary Public Health division will consist of a Chief Veterinarian, a Control Veterinary Hygiene Inspector, chief hygiene inspectors, and a Veterinary Public Health Specialist. Chief Hygiene Inspector positions have been created to enhance supervision on the slaughter floor of abattoirs. The Epidemiology, Import/Export, and Training Division will also have a Chief Veterinarian, who will assist the Deputy with administrative issues, a veterinary specialist in epidemiology, and two additional veterinarians. One of these veterinarians will be responsible for the livestock identification and tracing system. There will also be a veterinarian in charge of import/export control, a chief veterinary technician, and additional technicians. There will also be 20 posts for veterinary officials who will be stationed at the main entry points. These posts have been approved and DVS hopes to fill them soon. The veterinary port officials will oversee compliance with import requirements and notification of arrival of animals and animal products. The results of our evaluation indicate that animal health officials in Namibia have the legal authority to enforce Federal and State regulations pertaining to FMD and the necessary veterinary infrastructure to carry out FMD surveillance and control activities. Disease History and Surveillance The last outbreak of FMD in the surveillance and free zones (i.e., the region under consideration for FMD-free status) was in 1965. In the buffer zone, the last FMD outbreak occurred in 1992. However, in the infected zone, an FMD outbreak occurred on August 18, 2002. In this outbreak, six cattle were found to have FMD lesions that were South African type
(SAT)positive. DVS controlled the outbreak through movement control and vaccination, vaccinating all animals in the immediate vicinity of the outbreak twice and all animals in the remainder of the infected zone once. After 6 months of not detecting another FMD-infected animal, the outbreak was declared over on March 31, 2003. Active Surveillance Most of Namibia's active surveillance occurs through inspections. In the surveillance zone, DVS inspects for FMD every 3 months, while inspections in the area north of the VCF occur biannually. In the free zone, inspections occur on an annual basis. During the inspections, the veterinarians and AHTs conduct census and disease reporting activities. Farmers in the free zone receive 1-month's notice and are required to present at least 80 percent of their stock for inspection. If a farmer does not comply, movement and marketing restrictions are put into place. Surveillance data are also collected from inspections required for movement permits, auctions, and upon arrival at abattoirs. During an inspection, a DVS official walks through a herd of animals rather than conducting individual exams for each animal. However, inspectors will individually check sick or injured animals and will take lick and feed samples from the animals. For each premises, inspectors complete a farm visit form that includes animal health information such as vaccinations used, parasite treatment, mortality, diseases in stock and game, lick supplement status, and farm name, number, and district. The inspection team did note that brand marks were not included on the form; DVS stated the next reprint of forms will include a space for this information. Until that time, animal health technicians have to check for brand marks as part of the inspection protocol. If animals on a farm are not properly branded in accordance with the Stock Brands Act, the farm is closed. DVS also visits premises for reasons other than the scheduled inspections. For example, because there are so few private veterinarians in most areas of Namibia, DVS frequently responds to any disease or sickness reports for livestock. As for wild game, no FMD serological surveys have been conducted in the free zone. However, in 1996, DVS conducted serological surveys of sable antelopes and free-roaming buffalo in the buffer zone. The herd of buffalo tested negative for antibodies to SAT 1, SAT 2, and SAT 3 both in 1996 and when retested in 2002. Any captured wild game are certified clinically free of disease before movement. The Department of Natural Resources within the Ministry of Environment and Tourism is the responsible body for managing game capture and movement. The site visit team visited the Etosha game park, which is north of the VCF, and found a minimal risk for FMD introduction based on the observation of double fences separating wild game from domestic livestock, the lack of Cape Buffalo species, and the low likelihood of visitors with FMD-susceptible animals or animal products. Passive Surveillance FMD surveillance in the buffer and free zones is typically accomplished through more passive surveillance means because of the inaccessibility of diagnostic services in remote locations. DVS and the Meat Board of Namibia have an extensive outreach education program for livestock owners that includes placing pamphlets and posters in community centers, churches, and gathering places. Radio announcements and weekly programs are widely used to disseminate information, especially in areas that are not accessible via telephone, Internet, or television. Veterinarians and AHTs also interact with farmers on a regular basis. In the northern communal area, CAHWs and pharmaceutical retailers participate in 1 to 2 week training sessions endorsed by DVS to learn to detect suspicious signs of foreign animal diseases and have a mandatory responsibility to notify DVS of any suspicion of FMD. Diagnostic Capabilities The Central Veterinary Laboratory
(CVL)is an accredited biosecurity level 2 laboratory located in Windhoek. The CVL is not structured to test for all diseases listed by OIE (Office International des Epizooties, or World Organization for Animal Health), but does perform residue testing of meat destined for export and tests for vesicular diseases including bovine viral disease, infectious bovine rhinotracheitis, bluetongue, and orf. Although the CVL may acquire a diagnostic enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay kit for antibody detection of FMD, FMD testing occurs either at the Botswana Vaccine Institute, which is an OIE reference laboratory for FMD, or the Onderstepoort Veterinary Institute in the Republic of South Africa. The site team visited the latter facility and determined that the Institute was an adequate testing facility that had facilities designated for FMD vaccine production and exotic disease diagnosis. The tests used for FMD at the Institute meet OIE guidelines and the laboratory's records showed that three diagnostic investigations were submitted from Namibia between 2000 and 2003 to rule out FMD. Given the information above, Namibia appears to have adequate disease control authority, programs, and animal health management to diagnose FMD. Vaccination Status The vaccination status in Namibia varies throughout the country. FMD vaccinations are not performed on any animal in either the surveillance or free zones, and only cattle are vaccinated in the infected zone and in certain areas of the buffer zone. The remaining unvaccinated cattle in the buffer zone serve as sentinels of FMD. FMD symptoms in these areas would likely be reported due to community education by DVS, the cultural importance of livestock health, and the frequent interactions of AHTs and CAHWs with local producers. Small stock are not vaccinated for FMD anywhere in Namibia. In the buffer zone, which is FMD free with vaccination, vaccination coverage is 80 percent. FMD vaccinations are free and administered by DVS personnel. Only cattle in the Kavango, the area proximate to the infected area, and the north central area, a strip of land approximately 50 kilometers wide adjacent to Angola, are vaccinated annually. These cattle are vaccinated with an oil adjuvant bivalent (SAT 1 and SAT 2) FMD vaccine combined with a CBPP vaccine. In the infected zone, cattle in the eastern portion of Caprivi are vaccinated twice a year with a trivalent SAT 1, 2, and 3 vaccine, while the cattle in the western portion of Caprivi are vaccinated only once a year. Before vaccination, serological tests for FMD are not performed, which may result in the vaccination masking any FMD already present in the animals. However, due to the open range herd management style of the buffer zone, the vaccinated cattle are exposed to unvaccinated cattle that would likely serve as sentinels should the virus become present. Any cattle entering Namibia from Angola are vaccinated at the border post of entry and branded with an “A” for identification. The cattle are also branded with an arrow that tells DVS officials the year in which the cattle were vaccinated. These cattle are prohibited from moving south of the VCF. Vaccinations performed by DVS are recorded and maintained by State veterinary personnel for each herd owner. In order to facilitate vaccinations, DVS administers vaccinations at specific gathering places so that communal owners from the vicinity can bring their animals to the site. Vaccinated cattle are identified with an arrow brand, which indicates the year of vaccination. At the time of vaccination, the herd owner must present a stock card identifying the animals' vaccinations, census, and movements, which is then updated to reflect the most recent vaccination. These stock cards, which are maintained for both small stock and cattle, are kept by the owner, who must update the cards any time a movement, sale, slaughter, vaccination, or other significant event occurs. If a herd owner does not comply with vaccination requirements, the infraction is reported to the “induna” (chief or head person of the area) who alerts the water committee to deny water to the offending herd owner's livestock. Access is denied until the herd owner contacts the State veterinary office and schedules the cattle's vaccination. FMD vaccine for Namibia is produced at the Botswana Vaccine Institute or the Onderstepoort Veterinary Institute, both of which are discussed in more detail under the “Diagnostic Capabilities” section above. The Onderstepoort Veterinary Institute produces vaccines containing prevalent FMD serotypes found in Africa, including SAT 1, SAT 2, and SAT 3. The Institute is also equipped to make autogenous FMD vaccines upon request. Namibia annually uses about 500,000 doses of bivalent/trivalent vaccines. Disease Status of Adjacent Regions Namibia is bordered to the north by Angola and Zambia, to the east by Botswana, and to the south and east by the Republic of South Africa. Zambia's border with Namibia abuts Namibia's infected zone and therefore is not assessed further in this document. Angola's border abuts Namibia's buffer zone. Angola experienced an FMD outbreak in 2001 and its veterinary disease control situation is unclear. Although Angola may represent a risk for FMD introduction into Namibia, Namibia's veterinary infrastructure and border controls likely would detect it. Botswana experienced FMD outbreaks in 2002 and 2003; however, the southern portion of Botswana, which abuts Namibia's proposed free zone, is recognized by the OIE and Namibia as FMD-free. The border between Botswana and Namibia consists of a game- and stock-proof fence. However, approximately 10 kilometers of the northern part of Botswana lies adjacent to the surveillance zone of Namibia. This portion of the surveillance zone, referred to as the “Gam area,” is separated by four fences (double game- and stock-proof fences). Although the Republic of South Africa has had FMD outbreaks in 2001 and 2003, these outbreaks have mostly occurred in the eastern portion of the country that is not near Namibia. In addition to neighboring countries, the proposed region to be declared FMD-free is bordered by the buffer zone as described in the “Background” section. Information on this zone's FMD status can be found in the “Disease History and Surveillance” section above. Because Namibia shares borders with and trades with countries that have experienced recent FMD outbreaks or that are not recognized as FMD-free by the United States and because FMD exists in some portions of Namibia, APHIS proposes to add Namibia (excluding the region north of the VCF) to the list of regions in § 94.11. The regions in § 94.11, although declared free of FMD and rinderpest, supplement their national meat supply by the importation of fresh (chilled or frozen) meat of ruminants or swine from regions that are designated in § 94.1(a) to be infected with rinderpest or FMD; or have a common land border with regions designated as infected with rinderpest or FMD; or import ruminants or swine from regions designated as infected with rinderpest or FMD under conditions less restrictive than would be acceptable for importation into the United States. Therefore, all meat of ruminants or swine or other animal products would have to meet the certification requirements in § 94.11 to be eligible for importation into the United States. These certification requirements are explained later in this document under the heading “Certification Requirements.” Degree of Separation From Adjacent Regions Borders With Other Countries The border between Namibia and the Republic of South Africa consists of the Kalahari Desert adjacent to the Orange River and a stock-proof fence. Approximately 10 kilometers of the northern part of Botswana lies adjacent to the surveillance zone in Namibia and is separated from Namibia by double game- and stock-proof fences for a total of four fences. The rest of the border between Botswana and Namibia consists of a game- and stock-proof fence, which appeared to be in good shape during the APHIS site visit. However, there was evidence of warthogs digging under the fence on both sides. Namibia's border with Angola did not have an adequate fence present between the two countries. However, a task force is currently in place to reestablish a fence along this border and Namibia has initiated its 10-year plan to erect a complete fence on the border with Angola with specific areas for animal entry. Namibia's long-term goal is to move the VCF to the Angolan border with the intention that the entire country, except the infected zone of eastern Caprivi, would be included in the FMD-free region. DVS feels that disease control in the country is assisted by the sparse human and animal population coupled with the long distances between settlements. The nearest part of the infected zone to the free zone is more than 200 kilometers (124 miles) away. DVS has a permanent fence team that patrols and repairs damage to the fences. The teams are in the field for two weeks every month. Security agents also patrol the border fence and report fence breaches. In addition, every 6 months there is a joint inspection along the entire border by Namibian and Batswana officials. For animals that originate from Angola, there are border entry points. At these entry points DVS examines the animals and cattle re vaccinated for CBPP and FMD prior to entry. The cattle are also branded as originating from Angola. Animals imported from Angola are mainly used for local slaughter or enter Namibia for seasonal grazing and then return to Angola. If the cattle are slaughtered in the buffer zone, the meat must stay in the buffer zone and cannot enter the free zone. In addition, these cattle cannot cross the VCF into the free zone. Borders Within Namibia The surveillance and free zones in Namibia are bounded by natural and man-made borders. The western coast of Namibia consists of Atlantic coastline and a very harsh desert that effectively prevents all animal movement. As discussed above in the “Background” section above, within Namibia the surveillance and free areas are separated from the buffer and infected zones by the Veterinary Cordon Fence (VCF). This fence is designed to prohibit cloven-hoofed domestic and wild animals from moving into the FMD-free zone from the north; this movement restriction also stops any CBPP spread from north to south Namibia. In past years, Namibian officials have moved the VCF progressively northward, leaving old portions of the fence in place to control movements of animals and animal products in the event of an outbreak for a total of about 2,200 kilometers of old and current fence. DVS is aware that APHIS must be notified of any further plans for northward movement of the fence so that APHIS may reevaluate the region's risk. Namibia treats the VCF as if it were an international border for livestock purposes. The only way to pass through the VCF is through gateposts that have a roadblock at which vehicles are inspected. On major roads, the gateposts allow traffic movement, but are monitored 24 hours a day by veterinary and police personnel who perform inspections to ensure that prohibited animals, meat, or meat products are not being brought into the free zone. The VCF consists of a northern fence, which is a 17- to 21-wire game-proof fence 2.4 meters in height, and a southern fence, which is an 8-wire stock-proof fence 1.4 meters in height. These fences are separated by 10 meters of dead space. The site visit team observed many kilometers of the fence and found it in good repair and of adequate structure to stop most animals. The site team did notice that warthogs could burrow under the fence, but this is likely not a major concern, as these animals are likely to be localized to the vicinity of the fence. However, as stated above, the fence is maintained by full-time repair crews that patrol the fence in search of damage from animals or humans. From 2000-2003, DVS recorded a number of breaches to the VCF, which included cuts made to the fence, cuts made for the movement of stolen vehicles, and smuggling of animals and animal products. Each of the cuts reported were repaired by patrol teams. Seven of the breaches involved individuals attempting to smuggle various animals or animal products, such as live cattle, goat meat, and cattle hides, through the fence. In each of these cases, appropriate remedial and enforcement action was taken. Namibia is adequately separated from other countries and regions by maintained game-proof fences, road blocks, and physical barriers such as deserts and rivers. These boundaries appear to be adequate as long as DVS maintains active control of border posts and continues maintenance of the stock- and game-proof fences. Movement Controls and Biological Security In order to control cattle movement, an animal identification system has been put into place to identify and track all cattle in Namibia from farm to processing. Under the Stock Brands Act of 1995, each cattle owner has an individual brand mark and must brand all cattle 6 months of age and older with a registered brand that identifies the cattle's ownership and location. Livestock owners also must brand all purchased cattle within 30 days of procurement. Brands must be legible and are recorded on a movement permit as described below. Permits are required for various types of cattle movement, and any movement or sale of cattle requires rebranding and recording the event on stock cards and in DVS records. Through branding, stock cards, DVS records, and bar codes assigned to meat from slaughter to processing, Namibia can trace back animals. Under the current version of the Stock Brands Act, which was amended on March 29, 2004, and enacted on April 14, 2004, all small stock on all farms in Namibia must be identifiable by means of a readable tattoo and/or metal eartag bearing the registered brand mark of the owner when they reach 3 months of age or earlier if removed from the farm. Import Controls Namibia imports fresh beef, mutton, pork, processed meat, and other animal products from various countries, including the Republic of South Africa. In order to import animals and animal products into Namibia, a veterinary import permit and a health certificate are required. The permits are issued by the Deputy Director of Epidemiology and require that transport trucks or containers importing animal products and certain live animals be sealed. Namibia does not import domestic animals or animal products from FMD-or BSE-affected regions and does not permit animals vaccinated against FMD or certain products from these animals to enter the country. DVS currently has a registry system in place to track all imported animals from arrival to death and plans to add a component to this system that would ensure that each animal's cause of death is recorded. DVS also has plans to identify imported cattle, sheep, goats, and ostriches with unique identification eartags and brands and to institute a plan to ensure that imported cattle are tested for BSE after death. Animals or animal products entering Namibia from Windhoek International Airport without a permit are either destroyed or returned to the country of origin. DVS is currently creating a system to record these entry denials. Export Controls Namibia has abattoirs that prepare and export meat and meat products. These abattoirs are supervised directly by government veterinary officials who are responsible for export certification. After arrival at the abattoir, cattle are examined for clinical signs of illness by veterinary staff. All animals also undergo an antemortem inspection during which they are specifically checked for signs or lesions suggestive of FMD and a postmortem inspection during which the feet and tongues are checked for FMD lesions. DVS receives monthly condemnation statements and summaries from export slaughter abattoirs. For more details on the slaughter process for exportable meat and meat products, see the section entitled “Livestock Demographics and Marketing” below. Within Namibia DVS is authorized to control animal movements between farms, from farm to slaughter, and from farm to auction. If movement controls are not complied with, farmers' market access may be restricted. The State police work with DVS to enforce road blocks, control livestock movement, and, if needed, guard and isolate an infected area after an outbreak. In order to control animal movement, DVS requires the use of a veterinary movement permit when animals are moved between premises. Copies of these movement permits are kept in the veterinary office at the region of origin, with the owner, and with the consignment. A fourth copy is also sent to the veterinary office at the shipment's destination, which alerts the State veterinarian of the shipment. Each State veterinary office keeps movement records for each producer and summary statistics are compiled electronically at DVS headquarters. Also, any animals moved from the surveillance zone must have a “red cross” movement permit in addition to a 3-week quarantine at the destination farm. A red cross permit is a movement permit with a large red watermark to distinguish it from a regular movement permit. These permits are used when DVS needs to alert officials of certain conditions existing in the permit, such as quarantine at the destination farm or a sealed vehicle requirement for transportation. Animals in Namibia can be moved via livehaul conveyances, which are allowed free movement through the VCF gateposts and have no requirement for cleaning or disinfection prior to entry south of the VCF or into quarantine camps. This lack of requirements generally does not pose a risk much of the year because steel truck beds and the extremely hot and dry climate would likely eliminate the FMD virus. However, in the rainy season or in the presence of manure, the trucks could become a mechanical vector for FMD. The site visit team expressed its concern about this possibility, and in November 2004, DVS introduced a system for disinfecting trucks used for the transport of cattle into and out of quarantine camps in the areas north of the VCF. In areas south of the VCF, a system of registration of livestock transports has been introduced. Trucks transporting livestock to export abattoirs must be cleaned and disinfected before animals are loaded. Given this information, APHIS did not identify any significant risk pathways to consider Namibian animals or animal products as a likely source for introducing FMD into the United States. Movement Across Borders Borders With Other Countries Animals moving into Namibia are primarily imported from the Republic of South Africa; most of the imported cloven-hoofed game originates from the portion of the Republic of South Africa identified by the OIE as FMD-free. Namibia and the Republic of South Africa originally had a bilateral agreement allowing the importation of animals into Namibia under a Master Import Permit system, which resulted in DVS having incomplete records of animal and animal products movement from the Republic of South Africa during this time. However, this system was abandoned after the FMD outbreak in the Republic of South Africa in 2000 and all cloven-hoofed animals and their products being imported into Namibia were required to have import permits. After the outbreak was controlled, permits for low-risk products, such as dairy products and processed/cooked meats, were waived. Since the APHIS site team visit, DVS has finalized the system for issuing import permits for animals and animal products from the Republic of South Africa. Currently, for meat originating from the Republic of South Africa, officials may ask for a certificate verifying that the meat is entering the country in accordance with the agreement between Namibia and the Republic of South Africa. This agreement provides that the requirement for a permit varies with the amount of meat being imported. For example, shipments of meat less than 25 kilograms are allowed without a permit or health certificate if it is for home consumption, while shipments over 500 kilograms must have both an import permit and a health certificate. Animals from Angola primarily are brought into Namibia for slaughter, seasonal grazing, or breeding. Namibia's border with Angola has three entry points for individuals importing animals into Namibia: Oshikango, Ruacana, and Mahenene. At these points, DVS examines and vaccinates the cattle for CBPP and FMD before entry. After vaccination, the cattle from Angola are hot branded with an “A” and an arrow that indicates the year of the animal's vaccination. Although animals imported from Angola are not quarantined, they remain in the buffer zone and are not permitted to cross into the free zone; they can be returned to Angola and later reenter Namibia. If cattle are slaughtered in the buffer zone, the meat must remain in that zone. Small stock animals are not identified as originating from Angola and can easily mix with local animals and potentially move from the buffer zone to the areas south of the VCF. However, small stock from the buffer zone not going directly to slaughter would have to undergo two 3-week quarantines, one in the buffer zone and one at their destination, before entering the market in the free zone. In addition, with the placement of sentinels at quarantine stations, APHIS considers that any FMD concerns regarding Angolan small stock animals that may be sent south of the VCF would be addressed. Also, as described in “Movement Controls,” Namibia requires identification for small stock, which will further mitigate the risk of infected small stock from Angola being moved south of the VCF. For imports from other countries, Namibia requires a permit for all animals and animal products. Namibia does not allow the importation of animals or animal products from regions under FMD restriction and cattle vaccinated against FMD are not imported. All imported cattle are permanently branded and not accepted for slaughter at export slaughter facilities. Cattle may be imported under a veterinary permit. At the time of the site visit, the only recent imports of live sheep, goats, and pigs into the free zone were from the area of Botswana that Namibia considers to be FMD-free. These animals once belonged to Namibians who were residing in Botswana before Namibia obtained independence and before the country required import permits and veterinary health certificates. There is also an import permit for game animals from Botswana. The site visit team also observed a vehicle inspection at the Oshivello gatepost, which is staffed 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. At Oshivello, individuals carrying meat products must cook it or dispose of it before entering Namibia. The gatepost personnel keep logbooks of contraband seizures and livestock movement. One land border post, the Transkalahari Customs post in Buitepos on the border of Botswana, was visited by the site team. The officials were aware and knowledgable of DVS requirements for animals and animal products entering Namibia. Permits and health certificates must be presented to officials for meat. Goods are declared voluntarily, but vehicles and luggage are searched if they are suspected of carrying contraband. Also, livestock and animal product conveyances are inspected and drivers are required to show movement permits. Game prizes and trophies must have an import permit. Customs officials stated that meat is confiscated, on average, about once a month and destroyed at a burn pit adjacent to the facility. For live animals, customs officials check the import permit, ensure that the vehicle seals are intact, and attempt to ensure that the animals meet the condition on the permit, although this inspection can be difficult as the animals are in the sealed vehicles. Customs officials are permitted to contact DVS to offload animals, but more often they unload the animals themselves and then replace the DVS seal with a Customs seal, if necessary. The site team also visited the Windhoek International Airport, which has incoming flights from Frankfurt, Munich, Capetown, Angola, Johannesburg, and Botswana. While there, they interviewed a Customs official who was not familiar with the duties of Namibian Customs. Although the official was aware that certain plant products must be confiscated, he lacked knowledge of animal products that should be confiscated or not allowed entry. In addition, the airport did not have signs displaying warning or guidance on animal products that were permitted or prohibited to enter Namibia. There were also no checks on the garbage offloaded from planes. Due to the disparity of knowledge between customs officers, DVS became involved in the training of customs officials on the requirements for the importation of animals and animal products. In addition, to further enhance the awareness of the import of animals and animal products, DVS advised State veterinarians, among other personnel, that attention should be given to departure airstrips from places such as lodges to ensure that people who are departing the area are acquainted with the danger and restrictions of transporting animal and animal products to the FMD-free zone. In addition, DVS received approval to establish 20 posts that will be staffed by veterinary port officials. These posts would be at main entry points. These veterinary port officials will oversee compliance with import requirements and notification of arrival of animals and products. Also, upon verification by DVS, the site visit team found that at the international airport in Windhoek, waste is either burned or dumped in a general dump at the airport complex. Private contractors are responsible for disposing of waste from planes, buses, and trains in Windhoek. Finally, as for sea ports, the site visit team inspected Walvis Bay on the Atlantic Ocean. Customs currently evaluates imports using a guideline called “Consolidated List of Prohibited and Restricted Imports,” which was originally created by Republic of South Africa officials, but hopes to have Namibian-specific guidelines in place soon. Namibian-specific guidelines have been developed and stakeholders are being provided the opportunity to comment prior to their implementation. Customs officials here check the waybills and manifests to ensure that the shipment matches information provided by the documents and to identify which ministry is responsible for the commodity's permit. Customs will also notify State veterinarian offices of any shipments that must be examined and will check before the shipment leaves the office that the State veterinarian has released the item. The port also processes skins received from north of the VCF in sealed containers, which the State veterinarian checks for intact seals and completed paperwork. Passenger ships mainly arrive from November to April; luggage is spot checked for animal and plant materials. International garbage entering Namibia is collected for disposal at various ports, including the Walvis Bay office described above. At Walvis Bay, a private company is contracted to collect the garbage and remove it to municipal dumps. It was not clear how or whether garbage was treated prior to disposal. The site visit team received conflicting reports about the handling of international food garbage and uncertainty existed about whether garbage was taken directly to the dump or if it was diverted to a pig farmer. As a result, the site team asked for a clarification of how international garbage is handled at Walvis Bay because of concerns that FMD could be introduced into the food chain in Namibia by animals scavenging unmonitored garbage dumps. DVS stated that international garbage disposal and removal is completed by an independent contractor who dumps the refuse in the municipal dump and then covers it with soil, which DVS and the Ministry of Health monitor. Due to the information above, a risk of animal disease incursion may exist in Namibia due to a lack of consistency at points of entry into Namibia regarding the entry of animal products. However, in 2003 DVS issued a letter to the Director of Customs and Excise regarding animal and animal product control at international points of entry. DVS advised Customs officials of disparities on how animal products are handled and that a DVS official has been appointed to visit various entry points, evaluate control measures, and discuss relevant issues with all authorities to ensure compliance with Namibia's veterinary import requirements. DVS will also have the State veterinary staff visit entry points in their designated districts and become involved in the training of Customs officials. Also, as a result of the new structure for DVS, 20 veterinary port officials will be stationed at main entry points to enhance oversight of compliance with the importation requirements for animals and animal products. Borders Between Zones Within Namibia As discussed above in the “Background” section, we are proposing to declare a certain region of Namibia, the area south of the VCF, as FMD-free. Cloven-hoofed animals moving from the infected zone to the buffer zone must undergo serological tests for FMD, test negative for the disease, and be quarantined for 3 weeks before entering the buffer zone. Police checkpoints exist throughout Namibia to check permits and papers, including those of livestock trucks, to ensure validity. For animals moving from the buffer zone into the free zone, various requirements are in place to prevent the spread of FMD south of the VCF. Live cattle are not permitted to be moved from the buffer zone to the free zone; game animals are permitted to move only after a 21-day quarantine. Cattle that are slaughtered in the buffer zone are inspected both ante- and post-mortem for FMD lesions. Beef from these animals is matured 24 hours and the pH must be below 6.0; the beef is then hard frozen. Carcasses are deboned and the lymphatics are removed. Meat must be produced at an approved abattoir and remain at the facility for 3 weeks in case of an undetected outbreak in the production area, especially in northern Namibia where no fences exist between Namibia and Angola. Meat products are then moved in sealed vehicles from the buffer zone to the free zone for local consumption or to the Republic of South Africa under permit. Beef sent to the free zone may be further processed, but each box of meat must have bar code identification so that traceback to the slaughterhouse and herd of origin can occur. More than 3,000 small stock, such as sheep and goats, were moved from the buffer zone to the free zone each year from 2000 to 2002. As of June 2003, 1,178 animals had been moved. Small stock animals originate from areas where cattle are not vaccinated for FMD and are quarantined in one of four quarantine stations in the buffer zone for 3 weeks and then examined for signs of FMD. The site visit team visited one of these quarantine stations and found there was adequate isolation for the animals. Upon entry and exit of the station, the animals' mouths are inspected for signs of vesicular disease and observed for other FMD symptoms. However, the station contained much large, brushy vegetation, which may make the observation of mild FMD symptoms more difficult as such signs could be attributed to damage caused by the vegetation or missed. Small stock animals are not vaccinated or tested for FMD prior to movement, which may create a risk in moving an FMD-positive animal into the free zone. However, in December 2003, DVS began using sentinel cattle during quarantine of small stock. Small stock are penned with seronegative cattle that are retested after 21 days. Small stock are only released when test results are negative. Small stock that have completed the minimum 21-day quarantine and that are not destined for immediate slaughter are not released for an additional 90 days. The animals may be held at official quarantine facilities or at approved facilities at the farm of destination for the remainder of the quarantine period. At the farm of destination, a State veterinarian inspects the isolation facilities for the quarantined animals and then breaks the transport seals. For animals being quarantined on the farm of destination, quarantine must take place in a double-fenced quarantine facility or the entire farm is quarantined with the small stock restricted to an inside enclosure. Transport vehicles are cleaned and disinfected at the VCF and after unloading. Game animal products, such as elephant ears and hides, buffalo skulls and horns, hyena skins, and lion capes, are allowed to move south of the VCF under certain conditions. Untreated hides from quarantine abattoirs in Oshakati (buffer zone) and Katima Mulili (infected zone) can be moved into the free zone. However, untreated hides from any other locations must be dried and quarantined under veterinary supervision for 3 months before moving south of the VCF. In order to be transported into the VCF, hides must be accompanied by a permit and a red cross permit, travel in a sealed truck, and be packed in airtight containers sealed under veterinary supervision. After loading, untreated hides must proceed immediately to an approved tannery for supervised unloading and a State veterinary officer must be notified of their arrival. At the tannery, the seals are broken by the State veterinarian, who must ensure that the hides enter the tanning process, which deactivates any FMD. Treated hides must also be accompanied by movement and red cross permits and must be treated through a 3 month quarantine or a sodium carbonate treatment with a 1 month quarantine. Treated hides and skins from Angola may only be taken to approved tanneries in Okapuka (free zone) or Nakara, but treated products from Namibia may move anywhere in the country after crossing into the free zone. The site team visited one of the quarantine facilities, the Bergvlug farm, as a representative quarantine facility. The quarantine manager lives just outside the facility's gate with his family, allowing for close supervision of the facility. Animals entering the facility are recorded by permit number, date of arrival, owner address, species, number of animals, period of quarantine, tariff, amount, and country of origin. Electric fences surround areas that hold small stock to prevent predator entry. The premises also has a laboratory for research animals and postmortem exams, an incinerator, and cleaning and disinfection equipment. Officials in Namibia have the authority, procedures, and infrastructure to enforce effectively the system of permits, inspection, quarantines, and treatments that the country has in place to control animals and animal products. APHIS did not identify any specific limitations in the system that might pose an FMD risk to the United States. Livestock Demographics and Marketing Practices DVS conducts an annual census of all livestock in Namibia. The numbers of FMD-susceptible livestock in 2004 are listed in table 1. Table 1.—FMD-Susceptible Livestock, 2004 Type of livestock Number Cattle 2,349,700 Sheep 2,619,363 Goats 1,997,172 Swine 52,624 Source: Namibian Government. In Northern Namibia, cattle farming is predominant, while in southern Namibia sheep farming is more common. In the free zone, livestock are maintained on privately owned farms except for a communal range area in the western part of the Omaruru State Veterinary district. In the buffer zone, livestock graze on communal land. Communal farming is largely used for sustenance. Swine production in commercial facilities in Namibia is small because feed must be imported from the Republic of South Africa. Due to the presence of African swine fever in Namibia, these facilities must be double fenced to decrease contact with warthogs that may be infected with that disease. These facilities are inspected annually by an animal health inspector. Namibian law prohibits feeding swine-origin material to swine and commercial facilities do not feed swill to pigs. A small number of people purchase fattening pigs for Christmas for their own consumption. Although these individuals do not have to double fence their fattening pigs, they must slaughter the pigs by a certain date and obtain a permit to move the pigs to their premises. Wild game animals are prevalent in all regions of Namibia and are believed to be free of FMD as discussed in the “Disease History and Surveillance” section above. The site visit team observed two farms in Namibia: A cattle/game farm and a sheep/game farm. At the cattle/game farm, the owner maintained monthly records on the number of deaths, births, and animals sent to slaughter as well as a head count. This farm had approximately 1,600 head of cattle. The farm owner receives educational material on FMD from the farmers association and knew the procedure for contacting the State veterinarian and animal health inspectors. As for movement permits, the owner knew to request movement permits for cattle. The farm also holds game hunts in which trophies may be taken and the meat, which is dressed outside of the pasture area, is made into biltong for farm workers, family, and guests. All game for this farm is purchased from an area south of the VCF and any movement of these animals requires capture and movement permits, which are overseen by the Nature Conservancy. The game on this farm was not restocked and the population is controlled with hunting and sicknesses, such as plant poisoning. On the sheep/game farm, the owner had 1,500 Dorper sheep including lambs that are kept in fields year round. Lambs are kept for up to 5 months before being sent to slaughter. The game at this farm included springbuck, oryx, and blue wildebeest. The farm's owner works closely with the Nature Conservancy with regard to the movement of animals, game censuses, culling, and night culling, which the farm uses to depopulate springbuck. Game animals are slaughtered at a mobile facility outside the pasture area where the head, legs, and intestines are removed from each animal. The animal is then stored and shipped in a cooling truck to an abattoir, where the hide is removed and the carcasses are prepared. The owner at this facility also kept detailed records of animal movement permits and all animal deaths of which he was aware; however, he usually finds only skeletal remains. The owner performs autopsies on any animal that dies on his premises. Livestock in Namibia can be sold at livestock auctions. Larger auction facilities are registered with the Animal Health Department. If an auction involves selling animals from more than one source, DVS will attend the auction, inspect the animals, issue movement permits, and collects permits, checking them for endorsements, brand marks, and animals in corrals. If any game animals are present at the auction, the Nature Conservancy must be present to oversee any sales. Auctions in the communal area can take place anywhere in the area as long as DVS is notified ahead of time to be present to inspect animal transactions and issue permits for animal movement. In addition, animal owners must present their stock card to DVS so DVS can record the ownership change and movement. DVS is not present for animal sales from personal property, but most buyers will travel to the State office to obtain a movement permit for the purchased animal. Some slaughterhouses in Namibia have feedlots, which are areas in which cattle can be held before they enter a slaughter line. These feedlots help ensure a steady slaughter line of animals. The APHIS team visited the Okapuka feedlot, which is owned by a Meatco abattoir. The feedlot purchases cattle ranging from 8 to 12 months of age from farmers, communal areas through permittees, and auctions all of which are located south of the VCF. The cattle generally remain on the premises for 3 months with each feedlot operating on an all-in, all-out policy. Upon arriving at the feedlot, all cattle are branded, eartagged, dipped, dewormed, and vaccinated for anthrax, several clostridial diseases, pasteurella, and infectious bovine rhinotracheitis. The cattle are also checked every day for signs of sickness; sick cattle are removed from the herd. Fifteen to twenty percent of the cattle at the lot are female. Cattle are pen fed on a mixed-ration diet that is completely vegetarian with no fish, poultry, or mammalian byproducts. The feedlot maintains records of arrival, departure, disease diagnosis, and death of each cattle. The site visit team also observed two abattoirs: The Farmer's Meat Packers and Meatco. Both of these facilities operate under the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point System. The Farmer's Meat Packers facility slaughters goats, lamb, sheep, and small game with a maximum capacity of 1,500 sheep, 400 game animals, and 250 deboning of lamb and game animals per day. The facility slaughters approximately 1,200 sheep per day and only receives animals from farms that DVS annually inspects. All livestock animals entering the facility are already marked with identification indicating the preceding owners; this information is added to the arrival sheet. Upon entry, the animals are checked by the veterinary health inspector for symptoms or lesions and any difficulties are referred to the State veterinarian. All live animals are tagged with a scan tag, and animals that arrive dead or die after arrival are taken to the dump site, burned, and buried under the veterinary health inspector's supervision. If an animal dies after arrival under suspicious circumstances, tests are performed and the abattoir's veterinarian performs a necropsy, calling the State veterinarian if the cause of death could be contagious. Sheep from the same owner are marked. Paint marks are used if there is no other identifier on animal. After slaughter, tags (colored) are used to mark where new ownership begins and animals are tagged with a scan tag. The person who scans has a list of owners and the number of animals. The facility also has a high incidence form, which is completed when a large shipment has a 5 percent incidence or a small shipment has 10 percent incident of listed conditions. The site visit team noticed that the form did not include vesicular diseases. Livestock animal carcasses are kept in chillers at 4 °C for 24 hours and have a pH of about 5.4 to 5.5, which is only checked if the importing country requires it. A representative from the Namibian Meat Board grades the meat. As for game animals, the facility does not slaughter live animals, but instead deals with carcasses after they have been culled at the ranch in origin. A separate cooler, exam area, and offloading area exist for game and the pH is not measured unless required by the importing country. Trucks leaving the facility are cleaned and washed prior to departure. Sheep and game are dressed separately on the same slaughter line. In between uses of game or sheep, the equipment is cleaned and checked by the VHI to ensure there was no mixed slaughtering. During work hours, individuals working in the clean area are not permitted to mix with the employees responsible for slaughter. These two groups have separate facilities, including during outdoor breaks. The surfaces of the slaughter line are cleaned between every 15 carcasses, and every day 50 samples are sent to the central laboratory for salmonella testing. The knives are changed constantly and sterilized before use. Condemned trimmings are taken to the facility's dump site for burning. Meatco, another abattoir visited by the site visit team, has four abattoirs: Two in the free zone, one in the buffer zone, and one in the infected zone. Meatco slaughters cattle, sheep, goats, and pigs. Ninety-nine percent of source farms, which are located south of the VCF, are on contract procurement from Meatco. Of the ovines slaughtered, 90 percent are lambs and 10 percent are older sheep. When a truck arrives at the facility, the truck is checked for a valid animal movement permit before offloading its animals. Once the animals are offloaded, inspectors examine the animals, collect movement permits, and enter data on the slaughter animal arrival record. For cattle, antemortem inspections take place in specially built pens with adequate room for cattle to be moved for a thorough examination. The running chute leading up to the holding pens also allowed for adequate animal inspection. After unloading, the trucks are washed to remove solid matter, which is verified by a guard who keeps a written record, but are not disinfected. Each month the facility sends four heads to the central laboratory for brain sampling. At the time of the site visit, no neurological conditions have been diagnosed by the abattoir. After beheading each carcass, matching tags are placed on the head and carcass of the animal, which stay in place until the carcass is graded. The tags are then removed and a bar code tag is placed on the carcass by which the bar code tag can be traced from incoming shipment to end-product boxes. A pallet tracing system is used to ensure consignments are shipped correctly and only two people have access to the tracking and loading system to ensure integrity. Carcasses are held in chillers at 7 °C for 48 hours before they are deboned. Random pH tests in compliance with European Union requirements are performed on carcasses with a calibrated pH meter, which is calibrated before testing each carcass. For cattle, the pH is taken in two places, the forequarter and hindquarter, due to a possible 0.2 to 0.4 difference; the average pH is 5.4 to 5.7. Sheep carcasses are also tested for pH levels. A veterinarian verifies the pH and temperature prior to movement out of the chiller and also inspects for any dark meat, which indicates stress, poor bleeding, or fever. If necessary, carcasses are rejected from export and used in the local market instead. In addition to commercial abattoirs, some villages in Namibia have bush abattoirs, some of which slaughter only one to two animals per day. These abattoirs can be sources of surveillance information. DVS was in the process of training personnel at these abattoirs. APHIS did not identify any factors in this category that might pose a risk to the United States if animals or animal products are imported from Namibia. Detection and Eradication of Disease If an FMD outbreak does occur, DVS has an emergency response plan in place that includes notifying a reporting list, which includes trading partners, within 24 hours of an outbreak. The plan stresses early detection and reporting and includes training for both farmers and DVS staff so that an outbreak can be detected in its early phases. The plan also includes protocols for sampling and diagnostic submissions as well as disinfection and biosecurity and a public awareness strategy to quickly communicate restrictions and stoppages of all animals and animal products. Emergency equipment is stored in the Otjiwarango office, which is centrally located, and State veterinarians have instructions to establish animal movement restrictions, disease containment, quarantines, road blocks, and buffer and surveillance zones around the outbreak. In addition, contingency funding plans for the immediate mobilization of 300 military personnel have been approved by the Ministry. Given the geography of the free zone, which includes limited roadways with almost uniform division of the area by game and stock fences, the authority for compulsory vehicle stoppage at roadblocks, the strong public awareness of FMD, mandatory reporting, and routine field inspections, APHIS concluded that an FMD outbreak likely would be detected and responded to quickly. A recent FMD outbreak in the infected zone was quickly controlled by DVS using the system above. Namibia has a well planned, documented, and readily implemented emergency response system to rapidly identify and respond to an FMD outbreak. Based on the above factors, APHIS considers the likelihood of an FMD outbreak occurring in Namibia to be low. Certification Requirements We are proposing to add Namibia, excluding the region north of the VCF, to the list in § 94.11(a) of regions declared free of rinderpest and FMD but that are subject to special restrictions on the importation of their meat and other animal products into the United States. The regions listed in § 94.11(a) are subject to these special restrictions because they:
(1)Supplement their national meat supply by importing fresh (chilled or frozen) meat of ruminants or swine from regions that are designated in § 94.1(a) as regions where rinderpest or FMD exists,
(2)have a common land border with regions where rinderpest or FMD exists, or
(3)import ruminants or swine from regions where rinderpest or FMD exists under conditions less restrictive than would be acceptable for importation into the United States. As previously noted, Namibia shares land borders with Botswana, Angola, and the Republic of South Africa, all of which have experienced recent FMD outbreaks. A portion of Namibia, the infected zone, is also considered affected with FMD. In addition, from 2000-2002, Namibia imported fresh beef, mutton, and pork from several countries the United States considers affected with FMD. Namibia also imported cooked and uncooked processed meat from the Republic of South Africa under the condition that the meat be cooked to a core temperature of 70 °C for 30 minutes, which is not as long as the time required in § 94.4 of the regulations for cooked meat from regions where FMD exists. Namibia also imports unprocessed hides and skins of ungulates or parts thereof, trophies, wool, and hair, all of which must be treated in accordance with the veterinary health certificate requirements. Namibia trades these items with countries the United States considers affected with FMD and some of the treatment requirements are not as restrictive as those of the United States. Finally, Namibia also imports milk and milk-based products from regions the United States does not consider as FMD-free. Thus, even though we are proposing to declare a region of Namibia free of FMD, there is a risk that animals or animal products originating in that region of Namibia may be commingled with animals or animal products originating in an FMD-affected region. This action would relieve certain restrictions due to FMD and rinderpest on the importation of live animals, germplasm, and animal products from the region of Namibia south of the VCF. However, because we consider Namibia to be affected with other animal diseases that are exotic to the United States, the importation of live ruminants and germplasm would continue to be restricted. In addition, because we consider Namibia as affected with African swine fever, classical swine fever, and swine vesicular disease, the importation of live swine and pork and pork products would continue to be restricted. All other meat and meat products imported into the United States from Namibia would be required to meet the requirements of § 94.11. Under § 94.11, meat and other animal products of ruminants and swine, including ship stores, airplane meals, and baggage containing these meat or animal products, may not be imported into the United States except in accordance with § 94.11 and the applicable requirements of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Food Safety and Inspection Service at 9 CFR chapter III. Section 94.11 generally requires that the meat and other animal products of ruminants and swine be:
(1)Prepared in an inspected establishment that is eligible to have its products imported into the United States under the Federal Meat Inspection Act; and
(2)accompanied by an additional certificate, issued by a full-time salaried veterinary official of the national government of the exporting region, assuring that the meat or other animal products have not been commingled with or exposed to meat or other animal products originating in, imported from, transported through, or that have otherwise been in a region where rinderpest or FMD exists. Conclusion We have concluded that the Namibian Government has the laws, policies, and infrastructure to detect, respond to, and eliminate any reoccurrence of FMD. These findings are described in further detail in a risk analysis that may be obtained from the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT and may be viewed on the Internet at *http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ncie/reg-request.html* by following the link for “Information previously submitted by Regions requesting export approval and their supporting documentation.” The objective of the risk analysis is to evaluate the likelihood of introducing FMD virus into the United States through the importation of FMD-susceptible species and products. APHIS could identify no risk factors currently applicable to Namibia that would justify keeping the region of Namibia south of the VCF from the list of regions APHIS considers as FMD free. 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 under Executive Order 12866. This proposed rule would amend the regulations in § 94.1 to list Namibia as a region free of rinderpest and the region of Namibia south of the VCF as a region free of FMD. However, since Namibia borders on and trades with regions that the United States does not recognize as free of FMD and because its importation standards are less stringent than those of the United States, we are also proposing to list the region of Namibia south of the VCF in § 94.11 as a region subject to the additional certification requirements of that section. It should be noted that Namibia is not currently eligible to export ruminant meat products to the United States under the FSIS regulations cited earlier in this document; there would, therefore, be no economic effects on U.S. entities until establishments in Namibia were approved to export ruminant meat and other products to the United States. The following analysis examines the potential economic impacts of the proposed changes in the regulations that could occur if this proposed rule were implemented and establishments in Namibia were approved to export under the FSIS regulations. Namibia produces and internationally trades in beef, sheep, goat, and game meat. Namibia produced 134 million pounds of beef in 2004 and exported an average of 59.2 million pounds of beef and veal per year between 1994 and 2003. The country has established trading relationships with the Republic of South Africa and several western European countries. Namibia also produced 29.6 million pounds of mutton, lamb, and goat meat in 2003 and exported an average of 5.73 million pounds per year between 1994 and 2003, with most exports going to the Republic of South Africa. Namibia produced 8.8 million pounds of game meat in 2003. Namibia's agricultural trade with the United States is small. In 2003, Namibia exported agricultural products worth a total $199,000, of which $21,000 was for hides and skins, and imported $5.443 million worth of agricultural products, of which $40,000 was for beef and veal. (Sources: FAO, FAOSTAT, 2004; UN/FAO, FAOSTAT Data, 2004; Hilda Hampweya, April 2005, personal communication, Namibia Division of Trade and Statistics.) Possible economic effects of imports from Namibia would differ for beef and for sheep and goat meat imports. For beef imports, approximately 22 million pounds of beef may be imported annually from Namibia as a result of the proposed rule, based on data collected from the Central Bureau of Statistics-Trade Statistics Division of Namibia. Based on 10-year average U.S. domestic supply, an import of about 22 million pounds of beef would result in a price decrease of less than $0.002 per pound at the wholesale level. If 50 percent of Namibia's 10-year average beef exports (29.6 million pounds) were diverted to the U.S. market, the result would be a price decline of only $0.0024 per pound (Table 2). As for sheep and goats, the estimated potential exports to the United States of these meats are about 15.43 million pounds per year according to data collected from the Central Bureau of Statistics-Trade Statistics Division of Namibia. If this supply were realized, U.S. sheep and goat meat prices could decline and sheep producers could be negatively affected, as the above figure represents about 4.35 percent of U.S. domestic supply. This could result in a price decline of $0.07 per pound (Table 2). However, it is questionable whether Namibia would have the capacity to export this amount and maintain its trade with its established South African and European markets. Although several markets in the European Union are accessible to Namibia, the Republic of South Africa continues to be its major trading partner. Namibia exported 15.66 million pounds of sheep and goat meat to all countries in 2003, so to meet this goal of 15.43 million pounds exported to the United States, nearly all of the current exports would have to be diverted. Between 1994 and 2003, Namibian exports of sheep and goats have fluctuated, with a negative export growth rate in every year except for four: 1995, 1998, 1999, and 2001. The impact is not as large when based on the 10-year average quantity exported of 5.73 million pounds. Assuming this level of export to the United States, the estimated decline in price is between $0.02 and $0.03 per pound. Table 2.—The Impact of the Importation Of Beef, Sheep, and Goat Meat From Namibia to the United States Percentage diverted to the U.S. market 1 Beef Million pounds Change in price (%) Decline in price (cents/pound) Domestic producer loss (millions of $) Sheep and goat meat Million pounds Change in price (%) Decline in price (cents/pound) Domestic producer loss (millions (%) 10 5.92 −0.0291 −0.0483 −11.902 0.573 −0.231 −0.261 −0.435 20 11.84 −0.0582 −0.0966 −23.795 1.146 −0.461 −0.521 −0.871 40 23.68 −0.1164 −0.1932 −47.586 2.293 −0.922 −1.042 −1.742 50 29.6 −0.1454 −0.2414 −59.479 2.865 −1.153 −1.303 −2.177 Designated 2 22.05 −0.1083 −0.1799 −44.309 2 15.43 −6.209 −7.016 −11.725 1 The percentages are based on the 10-year average exports: 59.2 million pounds for beef and 5.73 million pounds for sheep and goat meat. 2 Denotes the estimated amount indicated by Namibian Agricultural specialists and the industry as being available for export to the United States. The impacts depicted in Table 2 are further considered in terms of effects for large and small entities in Table 3 (beef producers) and Table 4 (sheep and goat producers). In each case, impacts at various import levels are apportioned between large and small establishments by inventory share, according to the 2002 Census of Agriculture. Average effects per establishment are calculated based on numbers of large and small establishments with reported sales (2002 Census of Agriculture). As shown in Table 3, if Namibia were to divert to the United States 22.05 million pounds of beef exports per year, as projected by that country's agricultural specialists, the average annual decline in revenue for U.S. small entities would be about $28. Similarly, if 15.43 million pounds of sheep and goat meat exports per year were diverted to the United States, as projected by Namibia, the average annual decline in revenue for U.S. small entities would be about $108. Table 3.—Potential Effects for Large and Small Beef Cattle Producers Percentage diverted to the U.S. market 1 U.S. producer revenue loss (millions of $) Large 2 Revenue loss (millions of $) Average revenue loss ($) Small 2 Revenue loss (millions of $) Average revenue loss ($) 10 −11.902 −5.571 −860 −6.331 −8 20 −23.795 −11.138 −1,719 −12.657 −15 40 −47.586 −22.275 −3,437 −25.311 −30 50 −59.479 −27.642 −4,265 −31.637 −38 Designated −44.309 −20.741 −3,200 −23.568 −28 1 The percentages are based on the 10-year average exports: 59.2 million pounds for beef and 5.73 million pounds for sheep and goat meat. 2 Revenue losses to large and small establishments are distributed according to inventory share (46.81 percent for large and 53.19 percent for small establishments). Averaged revenue losses are calculated by dividing by the number of establishments (845,490 and 6,481 for small and large establishments, respectively). Table 4.—Potential Effects for Large and Small Sheep and Goat Producers Percentage diverted to the U.S. market 1 U.S. producer revenue loss (millions of $) Large 2 Revenue loss (millions of $) Average revenue loss ($) Small 2 Revenue loss (millions of $) Average revenue loss ($) 10 −0.435 −0.114 −765 −0.321 −4 20 −0.871 −0.229 1,537 −0.642 −8 40 −1.742 −0.458 −3,074 −1.284 −16 50 −2.177 −0.573 −3,846 −1.604 −20 Designated −11.725 −3.084 −20,698 −8.641 −108 1 The percentages are based on the 10-year average exports: 59.2 million pounds for beef and 5.73 million pounds for sheep and goat meat. 2 Revenue losses to large and small establishments are distributed according to inventory share (26.3 percent for large and 73.7 percent for small establishments). Average revenue losses are calculated by dividing by the number of establishments (80,443 and 149 for small and large establishments, respectively). According to the size standards established by the Small Business Administration
(SBA)for livestock and animal specialties, producers of cattle and calves (North American Industry Classification System [NAICS] code 112111), game animal (NAICS 112990), sheep (NAICS 112410) and goat (NAICS 112420) producers with not more than $750,000 annual sales qualify as small entities. Based on data from the 2002 Census of Agriculture, 851,971 operations in the U.S. raised and sold 73 million cattle and calves in 2002. Small operations (over 99 percent of the farms) had an average of 68 cattle and an average income of $24,067, well below the SBA criterion of $750,000 in annual sales for businesses primarily engaged in cattle farming. Large operations had an annual income of $3,821,440. Similarly, over 99 percent of sheep and goat producers (80,443) are small. Small sheep and lamb producers had an average income of $7,520, while large ones had an average income of $1.042 million. Meat packing establishments (NAICS 311611), and meat and meat product wholesale traders (NAICS 422470) might be affected (Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Wholesale Trade-Subject Series, August 2000). Under SBA standards, meat packing establishments with no more than 500 employees and meat and meat product wholesale traders with no more than 100 employees are considered small. In 1997, there were 1,393 companies in the United States that processed and sold meat. More than 95 percent of these establishments are considered to be small entities and had average sales of $9.7 million, while large meat packers had average sales of $603 million. In 1997, there were total of 3,150 meat and meat product wholesale traders in the United States (Source: SBA and 1997 Economic Census). Of these establishments, 3,084 (97.9 percent) employed not more than 100 employees and are, thus, considered small by SBA standards. Small wholesalers had average sales of $8.85 million, while large entities had average sales of $348 million. Thus, predominant numbers of producers, packers and wholesale traders are considered to be small by SBA standards. Average sales of even the smallest packers and wholesalers are large compared to the quantities expected to be imported from Namibia. Furthermore, any impact on these entities would likely be positive since imports would increase the supply. We have only limited information with regard to the production, demand, price, trade of game meat, or the number of small entities involved in these businesses. We welcome any information that the public may offer in this area. The only alternative to the proposed rule would involve not changing the current regulations regarding the importation of beef, sheep, and goat meat and game meat from Namibia. This alternative would not meet the needs of importers who are attempting to establish a new source of supply for red meat and would deny both businesses and consumers the benefits of widened choices. The proposed rule provides the safeguarding measures appropriate to the risk associated with importation of this type of animal product. The proposed rule also enhances a positive trade environment between Namibia and the United States. We note again that Namibia is not currently eligible to export ruminant meat products to the United States under the FSIS regulations cited earlier in this document; there would, therefore, be no economic effects on U.S. entities until establishments in Namibia were approved to export ruminant meat and other products to the United States. Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. Executive Order 12988 This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted:
(1)All State and local laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will 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 proposed rule contains no information collection or recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ). List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94 Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR part 94 as follows: PART 94—RINDERPEST, FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL PLAGUE), EXOTIC NEWCASTLE DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER, CLASSICAL SWINE FEVER, AND BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY: PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS 1. The authority citation for part 94 would continue to read as follows: Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7701-7772, 7781-7786, and 8301-8317; 21 U.S.C. 136 and 136a; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4. § 94.1 [Amended] 2. Section 94.1 would be amended as follows: a. In paragraph (a)(2), by adding the words “Namibia (excluding the region north of the Veterinary Cordon Fence),” after the word “Mexico,”. b. In paragraph (a)(3), by removing the words “The Republic” and adding the words “Namibia and the Republic” in their place. § 94.11 [Amended] 3. In § 94.11, paragraph
(a)would be amended by adding the words “Namibia (excluding the region north of the Veterinary Cordon Fence),” before the words “The Netherlands”. Done in Washington, DC, this 8th day of June 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. 06-5440 Filed 6-13-06; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 40
Traces to 40 documents
register
CFR
- What size standards has SBA identified by North American Industry Classification System codes?§ 121.201
- Designation of applicable regulations.§ 21.101
- Special conditions.§ 21.16
- What public comment procedures does the FAA follow for Special Conditions?§ 11.38
- Appellations of origin.§ 4.25
- San Francisco Bay.§ 9.157
- Central Coast.§ 9.75
- Livermore Valley.§ 9.46
- Prohibited practices.§ 4.39
- Santa Lucia Highlands.§ 9.139
- Arroyo Seco.§ 9.59
- Monterey.§ 9.98
- Delegations of the Administrator.§ 9.3
U.S. Code
- Rule making§ 553
- Unlawful employment of aliens§ 1324a
- Initial regulatory flexibility analysis§ 603
- Purposes§ 3501
- Definitions§ 1101
- Definitions§ 1802
- Statements or entries generally§ 1001
- Duties of Secretary relating to agricultural products§ 1622
- Additional inspection services§ 136
- SHORT TITLE.§ 9701
- Federal Aviation Administration§ 106
- New animal drugs§ 360b
- Statements to accompany significant regulatory actions§ 1532
- EXPEDITED PROCESSING OF REQUESTS FOR JAPANESE IMPERIAL GOVERNMENT RECORDS.§ 804
- Powers and duties of Secretary of State§ 1104
- Short title§ 201
- Unfair competition and unlawful practices§ 205
- Definitions§ 601
- Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation§ 1302
- Definitions§ 1301
- Findings, purposes and policy§ 1801
- Transferred§ 450
public-private-law
34 references not yet in our index
- 7 CFR 955
- 7 USC 601-674
- 8 CFR 274
- Pub. L. 108-390
- 11 Stat. 2242
- Rev. Proc. 97-22
- Rev. Proc. 98-25
- 17 CFR 240.17
- 8 CFR 240.17
- 36 CFR 1234
- 8 CFR 274.2
- 8 CFR 2
- Pub. L. 97-470
- 8 CFR 287.4
- 9 CFR 93
- 7 CFR 2.22
- 14 CFR 23
- 14 CFR 21
- 21 CFR 558
- Pub. L. 107-296
- Pub. L. 96-354
- 5 USC 601-612
- Pub. L. 104-4
- 109 Stat. 48
- Pub. L. 104-121
- Pub. L. 05-277
- Pub. L. 107-56
- 27 CFR 9
- 27 CFR 4
- 29 CFR 4022
- 29 CFR 4044
- 50 CFR 622
- 9 CFR 94
- 9 CFR 92.2
Citation graph
cites case law
Unknown
Interim final rule with request for comments
Cite7 CFR 955
Cite7 USC 601-674
Cite8 CFR 274
Cites 74 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources