Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

§
Marginalia
Code · REGISTER · 2007-01-05 · Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA · Rules and Regulations

Rules and Regulations. Proposed rule

17,173 words·~78 min read·/register/2007/01/05/06-9988

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

BILLING CODE 3510-22-S 72 3 Friday, January 5, 2007 Proposed Rules DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 94 [Docket No. APHIS-2006-0186] RIN 0579-AC24 Importation of Uncooked Pork and Pork Products AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations for importing animal products to allow the importation of uncooked pork and pork products from regions where classical swine fever
(CSF)is considered to exist if the uncooked pork and pork products originate in a region free of CSF and meet certain other conditions with respect to processing and shipping. This action would remove some restrictions on the importation of uncooked pork and pork products from regions where CSF is considered to exist while continuing to protect against an incursion of CSF into the United States. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov* , select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2006-0186 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-2006-0186, 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-2006-0186. *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. Masoud A. Malik, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Technical Trade Services, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 40, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231,
(301)734-3277. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Background The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 prohibit or restrict the importation of certain animals and animal and poultry products into the United States to prevent the introduction of communicable diseases of livestock and poultry. Section 94.9 contains requirements that apply to the importation of pork and pork products from regions where classical swine fever
(CSF)exists. Currently, the regulations provide that pork and pork products may be imported into the United States from regions where CSF exists only if they have been cooked or cured in the affected region as specified in our regulations. This is the case even if the pork or pork products originated in a region free of CSF but were imported through a region where CSF exists. We are proposing to allow the importation, under certain conditions, of uncooked pork and pork products from regions where CSF is considered to exist if the pork and pork products originate in a region free of CSF. The primary purpose of this proposed change is to allow uncooked pork and pork products that originate in the United States to be shipped for processing to Mexico, which contains areas where CSF is considered to exist, and then be returned to the United States. 1 The proposal would, however, also allow uncooked pork and pork products that originate in another CSF-free region to be processed in a region where CSF is considered to exist and then be shipped to the United States. If the region of origin is free of CSF but affected with another serious livestock disease such as African swine fever (ASF), swine vesicular disease (SVD), foot-and-mouth disease (FMD), or rinderpest, the existing regulations for the importation of products from regions affected with those diseases would continue to govern imports from that region. This action would remove some restrictions on the importation of uncooked pork and pork products from regions where CSF is considered to exist while continuing to provide appropriate safeguards against an incursion of CSF into the United States. Shipment To Approved Establishments 1 This rule covers only the processing of uncooked pork and pork products. Any pork or pork products that are cooked or cured must meet the requirements of § 94.9(c). Under this proposed rule, uncooked pork or pork products that originate in a region free of CSF would have to be shipped for processing to the region where CSF is considered to exist in closed containers sealed with serially numbered seals applied by an official of the national government of the region of origin. The shipments would have to be accompanied by a certificate that was signed by an official of the national government of the region of origin and that specifies the products' region of origin, the slaughtering establishment where the animal was slaughtered and from which the products were shipped, the processing establishment to which the products are consigned, and the numbers of the seals applied to the shipping containers. Upon arrival at the processing establishment, the uncooked pork or pork products could only be removed from the containers after an official of the national government of the region where the processing establishment is located had determined that the seals were intact and free of any evidence of tampering and the shipment is accompanied by the certificate described above. Handling at Approved Establishments Under this proposed rule, the uncooked pork or pork products would be eligible for importation to the United States only if they were handled and processed in accordance with the following criteria: 1. The processing establishment in a region where CSF is considered to exist would have to meet requirements of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 *et seq.* ) and the regulations of the Food Safety and Inspection Service
(FSIS)of the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA)in 9 CFR, chapter III, part 327. FSIS periodically audits foreign country inspection systems, including a sample of establishments, to make sure that all FSIS requirements are met. If there is indication that any FSIS requirements are not being met by a particular establishment, FSIS can terminate the eligibility of the foreign establishment to import its products into the United States as well as refuse entry of shipments that fail to meet their requirements. FSIS can issue a hold order to inspect shipments of pork and pork products coming from that establishment until they are certain that all FSIS requirements are being met. 2. The processing establishment that processes the uncooked pork and pork products for export to the United States could not receive or process any live swine, since CSF is easily spread in environments where swine are held or slaughtered. 3. The processing establishment would have to be dedicated to processing uncooked pork and pork products from CSF-free regions. No pork or pork products that originate in regions where CSF is considered to exist could be processed at the same facility as pork or pork products from CSF-free regions. 4. Operators of processing establishments would have to sign a compliance agreement with the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS), stating that all meat processed for importation to the United States would be processed in accordance with our requirements, that a full-time, salaried meat inspection official of the national government of the region where the processing facility is located would supervise the processing and examination of the product and certify that it has been processed in accordance with our requirements, and that APHIS personnel or other persons authorized by the Administrator may enter the establishment, unannounced, to inspect the establishment and its records. 5. The establishment operator or a party acting on its behalf would have to enter into a cooperative service agreement with APHIS to ensure that all expenses incurred by APHIS in inspecting the establishment would be paid by the operators of the processing establishment. APHIS anticipates that an initial evaluation would be conducted and that subsequent inspections would occur approximately once a year. The cooperative service account would be required to contain a balance at least equal to the cost of one inspection. APHIS would charge the cooperative service account for travel, salary, and subsistence of APHIS employees, as well as administrative overhead and other incidental expenses (including excess baggage charges up to 150 pounds). In addition, the signed certificate which accompanied the shipment would have to be kept on file at the processing establishment for at least 2 years after the export of the processed products to the United States, and would have to be made available to USDA inspectors to demonstrate compliance with our regulations, when requested, during announced or unannounced inspections. Shipment to the United States Uncooked pork and pork products to be imported into the United States would have to be shipped from the region where they were processed in closed containers sealed with serially numbered seals applied by an official of the national government of that region. The shipments would have to be accompanied by a certificate signed by an official of the national government of the region where the uncooked pork and pork products were processed. The certificate would have to list the numbers of the seals applied; state that all of the conditions listed above have been met; and state that when the uncooked pork or pork products arrived at the processing establishment, the seals on the containers were intact and free of any evidence of tampering. A copy of this certificate would also have to be kept on file at the processing establishment for at least 2 years after the products were shipped to the United States. We believe the conditions described above would ensure that the uncooked pork and pork products present a minimal risk of introducing CSF into the United States. Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866. The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget. We are proposing to amend the regulations for importing animal products to allow the importation of uncooked pork and pork products from regions where CSF is considered to exist if the uncooked pork and pork products originate in a region free of CSF and meet certain other conditions with respect to processing and shipping. This action would remove some restrictions on the importation of uncooked pork and pork products from regions where CSF is considered to exist while continuing to protect against an incursion of CSF into the United States. We expect the benefits of this rule to exceed costs, although neither benefits nor costs are likely to be significant. The United States is a major producer as well as trader of swine and swine products. Total cash receipts from hogs and pigs were $15 billion in 2003, about 11 percent over the previous year. Marketing totaled 27.2 billion pounds in 2005. 2 The United States exported a total of 1,811 million pounds valued at $2,068 million in 2005. Although exports are widely distributed, a few regions represent major markets. The major destinations include Japan (51.28 percent), Mexico (14.54 percent), Canada (13.06 percent), South Korea (6.47 percent), Russia (2.58 percent), Australia (2.38 percent), Romania (2.29 percent), and Taiwan (1.55 percent). These regions accounted for 94.15 percent of U.S. fresh or frozen pork exports in 2005. The most recent data (January-September 2006) also show the same pattern, with the above-named regions accounting for 93.96 percent of U.S. total fresh or frozen pork exports during that period. 3 2 NASS/USDA, Meat Animals Production, Disposition, and Income: 2005 Summary, April 2006. 3 *Source:* The World Trade Atlas: Global Trade Information Services, Inc., U.S. Edition, September 2006. The United States imported 793 million pounds of fresh or frozen pork valued at $945 million in 2005. Most of the imports were from Canada (78.93 percent) and Denmark (16.40 percent). Other regions that supplied pork include Ireland (1.29 percent), United Kingdom (1.14 percent), Netherlands (0.99 percent), Finland (0.51 percent), Sweden (0.25 percent), Australia (0.01 percent), Mexico (0.45 percent), and Germany (0.03 percent). The 2006 (January-September) imports also show the same pattern. The United States imported 566 million pounds of fresh or frozen pork valued at $655 million for this partial year. (See table 1.) Table 1.—U.S. Imports of Fresh or Frozen Pork, 2002-2006 Source 2002 Million dollars Million lbs 2003 Million dollars Million lbs 2004 Million dollars Million lbs 2005 Million dollars Million lbs 2006 (Jan.-Sept.) Million dollars Million lbs Canada 571.936 717.653 644.806 770.337 760.886 706.22 745.496 694.75 507.718 485.886 Denmark 132.211 82.126 156.324 100.829 182.794 102.95 154.933 76.01 114.042 63.095 Ireland 7.511 5.076 9.998 6.406 128.38 6.37 12.192 5.711 7.246 3.251 Finland 3.673 2.344 2.115 1.813 6.792 4.82 4.797 2.99 4.311 2.401 Netherlands 0.054 0.042 0 0 8.511 4.24 9.373 4.96 9.627 5.110 United Kingdom 2.205 1.464 4.281 3.282 4.184 2.25 10.787 4.82 5.48 2.347 Mexico 0 0 0.949 0.864 2.498 1.60 4.212 2.29 3.669 2.349 Sweden 0 0 0.098 0.090 2.950 1.61 2.400 1.230 1.635 0.757 Germany 9.437 0.362 9.353 0.303 0 0 0.319 0.26 0.381 0.201 Australia 0.121 0.066 0.038 0.027 0.05 0.020 0.056 0.053 0 0 New Zealand 0 0 0.037 0.032 0 0 0 0 0 0 Chile 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.336 0.293 Iceland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.161 0.053 Belgium 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.058 0.051 World total 718.241 809.333 819.000 883.983 928.504 823.45 944.565 793.08 654.662 565.792 The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that agencies consider the economic impact of their rules on small entities. We expect the impact of this rule for businesses large and small to be insignificant, but note here that the main industries that could be affected—meat processing (NAICS 311612) and meat and meat product merchant wholesalers (NAICS 424470)—are primarily composed of small entities. Under Small Business Administration
(SBA)standards, meat processing establishments with no more than 500 employees and meat and meat product wholesalers with no more than 100 employees are considered small. In 2002, there were 1,335 companies in the United States that processed and sold meat. More than 97 percent of these establishments are considered to be small entities and had average sales of $15.4 million, while large meat processors had average sales of $188 million. In 2002, there were 2,535 meat and meat product wholesalers in the United States. Of these establishments, 2,456 (97 percent) employed not more than 100 employees and are, thus, considered small by SBA standards. Small wholesalers had average sales of $9.3 million, while large entities had average sales of $131 million. 4 4 U.S. Census Bureau, 2002 Economics Census: Manufacturing—Industries Series and Wholesale Trade-Subject, August 2006. Additionally, entities that produce hogs and pigs (NAICS 112210) could also be affected. 5 There were 82,028 such farms with sales of hogs. About 94 percent of these farms are considered to be small. The majority of entities that could be affected by the proposed changes would be small entities. The magnitude of impact would depend on the extent of an increase in U.S. trade with regions affected with CSF, especially with Mexico. 5 SBA, Small Business Size Standards matched to North American Industry Classification System, Effective July 31, 2006. As indicated above, the rule would allow uncooked pork and pork products that originate in the United States to be shipped for processing to Mexico, which contains areas where CSF is considered to exist, and then be returned to the United States. As the Mexican Government and U.S. pork producers are the entities that have requested this proposed rule, this trade may increase under the proposed rule, but we are unable to predict the size of the increase. Pork imports from Mexico accounted only for 0.45 percent (in terms of value and only 0.29 percent in terms of volume) of total imports in 2005. To illustrate the very small impact that the rule is expected to have on the U.S. economy, we estimate that a doubling of pork imports from Mexico in 2005 (including products that originate in the United States), that is, an increase from 2.29 million pounds to 4.58 million pounds, would result in our domestic production of pork declining by only 0.013 percent and the quantity demanded increasing by only 0.011 percent. The estimated quantity changes, as well as the insignificant price effect and the welfare impacts, are shown in Table 2. We estimate in this example that the annual net welfare gain of this outcome of the rule for the United States would equal about $92,000. Table 2.—The Estimated Impact on the U.S. Economy of Pork Imports From Mexico Doubling From Their 2005 Level of 2.29 Million Pounds Assumed pork imports, million pounds 4.58 Change in U.S. consumption, million pounds 2.183 Change in U.S. production, million pounds −2.397 Change in wholesale price of pork, dollars per pound $0.000086 Change in consumer welfare $1,650,000 Change in producer welfare −$1,558,000 Annual net welfare gain $92,000 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 In accordance with section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the information collection or recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Please send written comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0186. Please send a copy of your comments to:
(1)Docket No. APHIS-2006-0186, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, and
(2)Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. A comment to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this proposed rule. This proposed rule would allow the importation of uncooked pork and pork products from regions where CSF is considered to exist provided the uncooked pork and pork products originate in a region free of CSF and meet certain other conditions with respect to processing and shipping. Allowing such importations will necessitate the use of several information collection activities, including certificates, compliance agreements, cooperative service agreements, and recordkeeping requirements. These information collection activities would aid in our efforts to ensure that uncooked pork and pork products processed in regions where CSF exists do not pose a disease incursion threat when imported into the United States. We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments will help us:
(1)Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2)Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the proposed information collection, including the validity of the methodology and assumptions used;
(3)Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(4)Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated, electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of responses). *Estimate of burden:* Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 0.5 hour per response. *Respondents:* Federal animal health authorities in Mexico. *Estimated annual number of respondents:* 5. *Estimated annual number of responses per respondent:* 50. *Estimated annual number of responses:* 250. *Estimated total annual burden on respondents:* 30 hours. (Due to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per response.) Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. E-Government Act Compliance The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities for citizen access to Government information and services, and for other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301)734-7477. 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. 2. In 94.9, a new paragraph
(e)would be added to read as follows: § 94.9 Pork and pork products from regions where classical swine fever exists.
(e)Uncooked pork or pork products that originated in a region considered to be free of classical swine fever
(CSF)and are processed in a region where CSF exists may be imported into the United States under the following conditions:
(1)*Shipment to approved establishments.*
(i)The uncooked pork or pork products must be shipped from the CSF-free region of origin in closed containers sealed with serially numbered seals applied by an official of the national government of that region. They must be accompanied by a certificate that is signed by an official of that region's national government and that specifies the product's region of origin, the name and number of the establishment of origin, and the processing establishment to which the uncooked pork or pork products are consigned, and the numbers of the seals applied to the shipping containers.
(ii)The uncooked pork or pork products may be removed from containers at the processing establishment in the region where CSF is considered to exist only after an official of that region's national government has determined that the seals are intact and free of any evidence of tampering.
(2)*Handling of uncooked pork and pork products.* Establishments 12 in regions where CSF is considered to exist that process uncooked pork or pork products for export to the United States: 12 See footnote 9 in § 94.8.
(i)May not receive or handle any live swine;
(ii)May not receive, handle, or process uncooked pork or pork products that originate in regions affected with CSF;
(iii)Must keep the certificate required by paragraph (e)(1)(i) of this section on file at the facility for a period of at least 2 years after export of processed products to the United States, and must make those records available to USDA inspectors during inspections; and
(iv)Must be evaluated and approved by APHIS through a site inspection.
(3)*Compliance agreement.* The operators of the processing establishment must sign a compliance agreement with APHIS, stating that:
(i)All meat processed for importation to the United States will be processed in accordance with the requirements of this part; and
(ii)A full-time, salaried meat inspection official of the national government of the region in which the processing facility is located will supervise the processing and examination of the product, and certify that it has been processed in accordance with this section; and
(iii)APHIS personnel or other persons authorized by the Administrator may enter the establishment, unannounced, to inspect the establishment and its records.
(4)*Cooperative service agreement.* The processing establishment, or a party on its behalf, must enter into a cooperative service agreement with APHIS to pay all expenses incurred by APHIS for the initial evaluation of the processing establishment and periodically thereafter, including travel, salary, subsistence, administrative overhead, and other incidental expenses, including excess baggage up to 150 pounds. In accordance with the terms of the cooperative service agreement, before the APHIS representative's site inspection, the operator of the processing establishment or the party acting on their behalf must deposit with the Administrator an amount equal to the approximate cost of one inspection by an APHIS, including travel, salary, subsistence, administrative overhead, and other incidental expenses, including excess baggage up to 150 pounds. As funds from that amount are obligated, a bill for costs incurred based on official accounting records will be issued to restore the deposit to the original level, revised as necessary to allow for inflation or other changes in estimated costs. To be current, bills must be paid within 14 days of receipt.
(5)*Shipment to the United States.* Uncooked pork or pork products to be imported into the United States must be shipped from the region where they were processed in closed containers sealed with serially numbered seals applied by an official of the national government of that region. The shipments must be accompanied by a certificate signed by an official of the national government of the region where the pork or pork products were processed that lists the numbers of the seals applied and states that all of the conditions of this paragraph
(e)have been met. The certificate shall also state that the container seals specified in paragraph (e)(1)(i) and
(ii)of this section were found by an official of the region's national government to be intact and free of any evidence of tampering on arrival at the processing establishment in the CSF-affected region. A copy of this certificate must be kept on file at the processing establishment for at least 2 years. § 94.12 [Amended] 3. In § 94.12, footnotes 12 and 13 would be redesignated as footnotes 13 and 14, respectively. § 94.16 [Amended] 4. In § 94.16, footnote 14 would be redesignated as footnote 15. § 94.17 [Amended] 5. Section 94.17 would be amended as follows: a. Footnotes 15 and 16 would be redesignated as footnotes 16 and 17, respectively. b. In newly redesignated footnote 17, the words “footnote 15” would be removed and the words “footnote 16” added in their place and the words “§ 94.17(e) of this part” would be removed and the words “paragraph
(e)of this section” added in their place. § 94.18 [Amended] 6. In § 94.18, footnotes 17 and 18 would be redesignated as footnotes 18 and 19, respectively. Done in Washington, DC, this 28th day of December 2006. Kevin Shea, Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-22629 Filed 1-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 9 CFR Part 94 [Docket No. APHIS-2005-0096] Change in Disease Status of the Patagonia South Region of Argentina With Regard to Rinderpest and Foot-and-Mouth Disease AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA. ACTION: Proposed rule. SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations to add that portion of the Patagonia region of Argentina located south of latitude 42° south (Patagonia South) to the list of regions considered free of rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease (FMD). We are taking this action because we have determined that Patagonia South is free of rinderpest and FMD. We are also proposing to add that region to the list of regions that are subject to certain import restrictions on meat and meat products because of their proximity to or trading relationships with rinderpest-or FMD-affected countries. These actions would update the disease status of Patagonia South with regard to rinderpest and FMD 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 Patagonia South. DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March 6, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods: • Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to *http://www.regulations.gov,* select “Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service” from the agency drop-down menu, then click “Submit.” In the Docket ID column, select APHIS-2005-0096 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-2005-0096, 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-2005-0096. *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. Silvia Kreindel, Veterinary Medical Officer, Regionalization Evaluation Services, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301)734-8419. 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. We are proposing to amend the regulations in § 94.1 by adding that portion of the Patagonia region of Argentina located south of latitude 42° south (referred to below as Patagonia South) to the list of regions that are considered free of both rinderpest and FMD. We are proposing this because there has been no outbreak of FMD in the Patagonia South region of Argentina since 1976 and there is no evidence that there are any species currently infected with FMD in Patagonia South. In addition, because rinderpest has never been diagnosed in Argentina and is not endemic to that region of the world, we are also proposing to recognize Patagonia South as free of rinderpest. Finally, we are proposing to amend the regulations in § 94.11 by adding Patagonia South to the list of regions that are subject to certain import restrictions on meat and meat products because of their proximity to or trading relationships with rinderpest-or FMD-affected regions. Risk Evaluation Using information submitted to us by the Federal Government of Argentina through the Servicio Nacional de Sanidad y Calidad Agroalimentario (SENASA), as well as information gathered during a site visit by APHIS staff to Argentina in December 2003 and published reports, we have reviewed and analyzed the animal health status of Patagonia South relative to rinderpest and FMD. This review and analysis was conducted in light of the factors identified in our regulations in 9 CFR 92.2, “Application for recognition of the animal health status of a region,” which are used to evaluate the risk associated with importing animals or animal products into the United States from a given region. Based on the information submitted to us, we have concluded the following: Veterinary Infrastructure The veterinary services authorities in Argentina have the legal authority, organization, and infrastructure to detect, control, and eradicate FMD. Argentina's veterinary services are organized under SENASA, which translates in English to the National Health and Agrifood Quality Service. SENASA is divided into several sections, four of which focus on animal health issues:
(1)The National Animal Health Office (DNSA), which is responsible for animal health control and eradication programs;
(2)the National Agrifood Inspection Office (DNFA), which is responsible for enforcing hygiene and health requirements in slaughter establishments, processing plants, and storage facilities for animal and plant products and byproducts;
(3)the Quarantine, Borders and Certification Unit (CCFyC), which oversees animal and plant quarantine and border movements and control; and
(4)the Laboratories and Technical Control Office (DILACOT), which operates the national reference laboratory for food safety and animal and plant health, and manages regional laboratories and laboratories accredited by SENASA. Additional support for the animal health system in Argentina comes from 349 local animal health offices, 10 of which are located in the Patagonia South region. In 2003, SENASA reported a total of 3,479 employees, including personnel who deal with plant issues. Of these, 2,558 were permanent staff members, of which 572 were veterinarians. SENASA has the authority to hire contract personnel, including veterinarians and animal health technicians, and to call on private veterinary practitioners, police, and local authorities to provide support to the Central Veterinary Office in depopulating infected premises, disposing of animal carcasses, and controlling and restricting animal movements. In 2003, SENASA reported a complement of 921 contractors, of which 219 were contract veterinarians. SENASA's permanent staff in Patagonia South includes 12 veterinarians, 20 veterinary inspectors, 19 provincial veterinarians, 202 private veterinarians, 20 technicians, and a number of administrative personnel. SENASA personnel are distributed among 25 regions within Argentina, each of which falls under the supervision of a regional supervisor. In the event of an animal disease emergency, SENASA has the legal authority to implement control measures. Disease History and Surveillance Rinderpest has never been diagnosed in Argentina and is not endemic to that region of the world. The last outbreak of FMD in the Patagonia South region of Argentina occurred in October 1976 and was traced to its origin north of 42° South. There is no evidence that there are any species currently infected with FMD in Patagonia South. Argentina has a structured system of notification and official involvement to investigate any suspected cases of FMD. Argentina maintains an active FMD surveillance program to monitor viral activity in various FMD-susceptible species. Surveillance for FMD in Patagonia South is conducted under the national surveillance program in Argentina and includes both active and passive surveillance for the disease. Argentina's surveillance program is adequate to detect disease and identify and measure FMD activity in the region. Diagnostic Capabilities Argentina has the authority, personnel, and diagnostic capabilities to test herds for, and diagnose, FMD. Currently, there is one diagnostic laboratory in Argentina, located in Buenos Aires, that is authorized to perform FMD diagnostic and surveillance activities. This laboratory meets the biosafety requirements established by SENASA, as well as the biosafety guidelines issued by the World Organization for Animal Health (OIE). The OIE is recognized by the World Trade Organization as the international organization responsible for the development of standards, guidelines, and recommendations with respect to animal health and zoonoses (diseases that are transmissible from animals to humans). Vaccination Status Vaccination against FMD is not practiced and has never been systematically applied in Patagonia South. In the event of a confirmed FMD outbreak in Patagonia South, the primary control measure would be to stamp out affected animals and contacts. Emergency vaccination against FMD may be undertaken in the event of a risk of an extensive outbreak of the disease. Emergency vaccination against FMD was last implemented in Patagonia South during the outbreak of FMD in 1976. Disease Status of Adjacent Regions Patagonia South is bordered by the Atlantic Ocean and shares land borders with Chile and the province of Rio Negro, Argentina. The province of Rio Negro, Argentina, is located in “Patagonia North B,” which is an FMD surveillance area situated to the north of Patagonia South. The last outbreak of FMD in Patagonia North B occurred in 1994. Chile is recognized by APHIS as free of FMD. Degree of Separation From Adjacent Regions Patagonia South is sufficiently separated from Patagonia North B by mountains and other natural barriers; however, for the few areas where there are no natural barriers, government control measures compensate. These control measures include mobile patrols and a permanent coordination between national and provincial entities to maintain a constant presence at the region route controls by the National Border Police and other police authorities. Movement Across Borders The movement of animals and animal products into Patagonia South from regions of higher disease risk is strictly controlled. The Government of Argentina has established a sanitary barrier across the entire line of latitude 42° South to preserve the FMD-free status of Patagonia South. Movement of FMD-susceptible animals to Patagonia South is not allowed from any region of Argentina other than Patagonia North B. Imports from Patagonia North B to Patagonia South are allowed, provided that certain import requirements are met. There are 45 animal inspection border posts located in Argentina with SENASA personnel on duty at each to inspect animal products. All live animals and animal products imported into Argentina require an animal health permit issued by SENASA. In addition, all live animals imported into Argentina are placed in quarantine for 15 to 60 days, depending on the length of time it takes to complete required testing procedures, and are observed on the farm of destination for a period of 60 days. Patagonia South shares an international land border with only one country: Chile. There are three animal inspection border posts located along this border. The animal health status of Chile and Patagonia South are equivalent. Breeding stock and commercial meat shipments are traded between these two regions. Livestock Demographics and Marketing Practices Sheep production is the primary livestock production system in Patagonia South. In 2003, Patagonia South had approximately 7.49 million sheep, 265,960 head of cattle, 12,731 pigs, and 141,614 goats. Each province has established standards for identifying and tracking animals. There is no known feature of livestock production in the region that increases the risk of disease spread. Detection and Eradication of Disease FMD is a compulsorily notifiable disease in Argentina. The veterinary services in Argentina possess the authority, diagnostic capability, and personnel to rapidly detect, contain, and eradicate any incursion of FMD that might occur. These findings are described in further detail in a risk analysis that may be obtained by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT . This analysis may also be viewed on the Internet on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for information about accessing documents on Regulations.gov). The risk analysis documents the factors that have led us to conclude that Patagonia South is free of FMD. As noted previously, rinderpest has never occurred in Argentina and is not endemic to the Americas. Therefore, we are proposing to recognize Patagonia South as free of rinderpest and FMD and add the region to the list in § 94.1(a)(2) of regions that are considered free of rinderpest and FMD. These proposed actions would relieve certain restrictions due to FMD and rinderpest on the importation into the United States of certain live animals and animal products from Patagonia South. However, because Patagonia South shares common land borders with a region of Argentina not considered free of rinderpest and FMD under the regulations, the importation of meat and other products from ruminants and swine into the United States from Patagonia South would continue to be subject to certain restrictions. Specifically, we are proposing to add Patagonia South 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. Patagonia South has a common land border with a region (Patagonia North B) not considered free of FMD. As a result, there is some risk that the meat and other animal products produced in Patagonia South could be commingled with the fresh (chilled or frozen) meat of animals from a region in which FMD exists and present an undue risk of introducing FMD into the United States if imported without restriction. 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 USDA'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;
(2)accompanied by a Department-approved meat inspection certificate; and
(3)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. The proposed changes discussed in this document would update the disease status of Patagonia South with regard to rinderpest and FMD 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 Patagonia South. 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 recognize the Patagonia South region of Argentina free of FMD and rinderpest. As such, this proposed rule would allow ruminants and ruminant products to be imported from this region into the United States, provided all other import requirements are satisfied. In the following initial regulatory flexibility analysis, we estimate the welfare effects of the proposed rule, as well as consider potential effects of the proposed rule on small entities, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. While the proposed rule would allow the importation of all ruminants and ruminant products from the Patagonia South region, APHIS expects the rule to result in imports of lamb, mutton, and goat meat, with the overwhelming majority being lamb and mutton. According to information supplied by the government of Argentina, and supported in an APHIS risk assessment and by site visits, bovine production in Patagonia South is consumed locally. In fact, matured and deboned beef is imported to meet the consumption demands of the population in this region. On the other hand, the sheep industry in Patagonia South is the prevailing livestock activity, with this region producing almost 60 percent of the entire sheep population in Argentina. The government of Argentina forecasts that it would export an average of 6,000 metric tons per year (or 13.2 million pounds) of sheep meat to the United States, with a maximum of 9,000 MT per year (or 19.8 million pounds) and a minimum of 4,000 MT per year (or 8.8 million pounds). 1 1 USDA, APHIS-VS. *Risk Analysis: Risk of exporting FMD in FMD-Susceptible Species from Argentina, South of the 42° Parallel (Patagonia South), to the United States.* Riverdale, MD: APHIS-Veterinary Services, National Center for Import and Export, Regionalization Evaluation Services, June 2005. The U.S. sheep and wool industries have been marked by smaller inventories, declining production, shrinking revenues, and fewer operations over the last few decades. In fact, the United States is a net importer of lamb and mutton and relies on imports to meet domestic consumption demands. For example, in 2005, imports of lamb and mutton totaled 177 million pounds, and accounted for 47 percent of total supply, which was 372 million pounds. U.S. exports of lamb and mutton in 2005 totaled only 10 million pounds. Total reported consumption for that same year was 352 million pounds. 2 2 USDA, ERS. *Agricultural Outlook: Statistical Indicators, Table 10—U.S. Meat Supply & Use.* Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, Feb. 2006. We use a non-spatial, partial equilibrium welfare model to quantitatively estimate the economic effects of the proposed rule, referred to as welfare effects. This model measures expected changes in consumer surplus and producer surplus attributable to the rule. Consumer surplus is the difference between what a consumer would be willing to pay for a good or service and what that consumer actually has to pay, and producer surplus is the difference between what a supplier is paid for a good or service and what it cost to supply. Thus, the net expected effects of the proposed rule can be summed up by examining changes in consumer and producer surplus. We estimate the welfare effects of the proposed rule for three import quantity scenarios:
(1)Average imports of 13.2 million pounds annually;
(2)a low-end estimate of 8.8 million pounds annually; and
(3)a high-end estimate of 19.8 million pounds annually. The baseline quantities and price we use are from 2005: U.S. consumption, 352 million pounds; U.S. production, 192 million pounds; U.S. domestic supply, 3 182 million pounds; and a wholesale carcass price of $209.80 per cwt, or $2.09 per pound. 4 In addition, we use a demand elasticity of −0.729 for lamb and mutton, and a supply elasticity of 0.14. 5 Table 1 presents the expected effects of the proposed rule, as measured by changes in consumer and producer surplus, for the three import scenarios. 3 U.S. domestic supply is calculated by subtracting exports from U.S. production [192 million lbs.−10 million pounds]. 4 Source for baseline quantities: “Table 10—U.S. Meat Supply & Use.” Source for baseline price: Red meat Yearbook, “Table 85—Lamb Carcass Price, East Coast, Choice-Prime Wholesale Price, 55-65 lb.” Livestock, Meat, & Wool, AMS, USDA; provided by ERS. [Note: East Coast wholesale prices are reflective of U.S. prices, because although lamb meat is primarily produced in the Southern Plains, Mountain, and Pacific regions, consumption patterns are overwhelmingly located throughout the Northeast.] 5 Source for demand elasticity: USDA, ERS. “Demand for U.S. Lamb and Mutton by Country of Origin: A Two-Stage Differential Approach” by Keithly G. Jones, William F. Hahn, and Christopher G. Davis. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, 2003. Source for supply elasticity: Research conducted at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, the Policy Analyses System (POLYSYS) modeling framework. “The POLYSYS Modeling Framework: A Documentation—Chapter 5: Livestock Module” by Daryll E. Ray, et al., May 1998. [ *http://apacweb.ag.utk.edu/polysys.html* ] Table 1.—Estimated Welfare Effects of the Proposed Rule for Three Import Scenarios Import scenario Change in domestic price $/lb Change in consumer surplus Change in producer surplus $1,000 Net change in welfare 13,224,000 lbs. −$0.10 $35,033.60 −$17,751.24 $17,282.36 8,816,000 lbs. −0.07 23,224.92 −11,847.13 11,377.79 19,936,000 lbs. −0.15 52,991.88 −26,583.08 26,408.81 Since the Government of Argentina estimates it would export an average of 6,000 MT per year (or 13.2 million lbs) of lamb and mutton to the United States, we focus on the implications of the rule using this scenario. Costs The proposed rule may result in about a 4.7 percent reduction in the domestic wholesale price of lamb and mutton, or a price decline of about 10 cents per pound. The domestic sheep and lamb industry would be directly impacted by this price decline, as indicated by the annual $17.7 million loss in producer surplus. In 2004, there were 2,679,000 sheep and lambs and 582,000 goats slaughtered in the United States. 6 If we assume the same number were slaughtered in 2005, and given that there were 68,280 sheep and goat farms in the United States last year, we approximate that the number of animals sold for slaughter averaged about 50 head per farm. Assuming an average dressed carcass weight of 75 pounds per lamb sold and a price of $209.80 per cwt yields an approximate average annual revenue of $7,868 per farm. 7 Thus, a 4.7 percent reduction in the wholesale price of lamb and mutton, a decline of $7.40 per animal, would result in a decrease in annual revenue of about $370 per farm, assuming average annual sales of 50 head. 6 USDA, NASS. 2005 Agricultural Statistics, Table 7-79. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics, 2005. 7 The average live weight of slaughter lambs, 136 lbs; the conversion rate for dressed carcass weight is 55 percent. Both of these values are based on information provided by ERS livestock specialists. [Carcass weight calculation: 136 lbs multiplied by 55 percent = 74.8 lbs. Note: For the purposes of this discussion, we have rounded that up, to get an average carcass weight of slaughtered animals of 75 lbs.] A price of $209.80 per cwt, multiplied by an average carcass weight of 0.75 cwt [result = value per animal, or $157.35], multiplied by 50 animals per year, yields a potential annual revenue of about $7,868. Other factors may also minimize effects of the proposed rule for producers. First, we assume that Patagonia South would be primarily engaging in the export of lamb meat. In the event that they decide to export large quantities of mutton, which is primarily used in the industrial market, such as for pet food, the potential price impacts of the proposed rule would be much less. The wholesale price of mutton meat is less than half that of the wholesale price of lamb meat. 8 8 Per telephone conversation with Keithly Jones (ERS), March 28, 2006. Secondly, historically, lamb and mutton are viewed as byproducts of wool production for domestic producers. As such, if wool prices are high, producers would keep lambs longer to get additional shearing of wool, which would mean fewer animals would be sent to slaughter and lamb and mutton production would fall. 9 The high correlation between wool prices and lamb and mutton production may serve to explain the inelasticity of supply. As indicated, the farm-level supply of lamb and mutton is highly inelastic, that is, producers are relatively unresponsive to price changes. 10 Thus, this may illustrate that farm-level production decisions are dictated more by changes in the price of wool than by changes in the wholesale price of lamb and mutton. The analysis shows that with the proposed rule there may be a decrease in the price of lamb of 4.7 percent, suggesting a decrease in supply of about 0.66 percent. 11 So, in the case of high wool prices, the potential impacts of the proposed rule may be even smaller than described. 9 USDA-ERS. Briefing Room: Sheep and Wool: Overview. Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, August 23, 2004. 10 The price elasticity of supply is equal to the percentage change in quantity supplied given a certain percentage change in price. A price elasticity of supply for lamb and mutton of 0.14 means, for example, that an increase (decrease) in price of 10 percent would increase (decrease) the supply by 1.4 percent. 11 Assuming a price elasticity of supply of 0.14 and a price decline of 4.7 percent yields a decrease in supply of 0.66 percent (0.14 × 0.047 = 0.0066). Thirdly, the estimated welfare gains and losses assume that none of the lamb and mutton meat imported from the Patagonia South region would substitute for, or displace, U.S. imports from other countries. In the case that such displacement may occur, the estimated price impacts of the proposed rule for sheep and lamb producers and other U.S. entities would be smaller than depicted. Benefits The reduction in price of lamb and mutton would benefit domestic purchasers. As the model demonstrates, the annual change in consumer surplus as a result of the rule would be an increase of about $35 million. This benefit would be realized at the wholesale level, but at least a portion of this gain may be passed on to subsequent retail buyers of lamb and mutton. We estimate the annual net benefit of the proposed rule would be about $17.2 million. Affected Entities The proposed rule would have direct effects on domestic sheep and goat producers, specifically those engaged in lamb and mutton production. In 2005 there were 68,280 sheep, lamb, and goat farms. 12 Inventory and value estimates for 2005 were 6.1 million sheep, with a total value of over $799 million, and 274,000 angora goats, with a total value of over $16 million. 13 Additionally, in 2005 there were 192 million pounds of lamb and mutton produced domestically. 14 12 USDA-NASS, Quick Stats: Sheep & Lambs—Operations: Number by State & US, 2005. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service. 13 USDA-NASS, 2005 Agricultural Statistics, Tables 7-41 and 7-80. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service. 14 USDA-ERS, Agricultural Outlook: Statistical Indicators, “Table 10—U.S. Meat Supply & Use.” Washington, DC: Economic Research Service, Feb. 2006. The U.S. Small Business Administration's
(SBA)size standard for sheep and goat farming is $750,000 or less in annual receipts. 15 The exact number of sheep and goat operations that would be considered small by SBA standards is unknown. However, the 2002 Census of Agriculture estimated there were 150 sheep and lamb farms with inventories of 5,000 or more. The value per head for sheep and lambs in 2002 was $94. 16 From this, we approximate that only 150 farms, or less than 1 percent, had total market values of $470,000 or more annually. This value is well below the small-entity threshold, and moreover, represents the 2002 inventory value of the largest holdings, not their annual receipts. Therefore, it is clear most sheep and goat operations are small. 15 Table of Size Standards based on NAICS 2002 [Sheep farming: NAICS code 112410; Goat farming: NAICS code 112420]. Washington, DC: U.S. Small Business Administration, effective January 5, 2006. 16 USDA, 2005 Agricultural Statistics, Tables 7-41; and Quick Stats: Sheep & Lambs—Operations: Number by State & U.S., 2002 [in 2002 there were 68,150 sheep and goat operations]. Washington, DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service. Other industries that may be affected by the proposed rule, as categorized in the North American Industry Classification System (NAICS), are Meat and Meat Product Merchant Wholesalers (NAICS 424470), Supermarkets and Other Grocery (except Convenience) Stores (NAICS 445110), and Meat Markets (NAICS 445210). All of these industries primarily consist of small entities. 17 The first of these industries includes meat importers, who may directly benefit by the availability of lamb and mutton from the Patagonia South region. Other wholesale buyers of lamb and mutton may also benefit from the expected decline in price of lamb and mutton as a result of the proposed rule. Grocery stores and meat markets may also gain, depending on the extent to which decreases in wholesale prices are passed forward to the retail level. 17 The small entity definition for meat wholesalers is not more than 100 employees; for grocery stores, not more than $25 million in annual receipts; and for meat markets, not more than $6.5 million in annual receipts. Based on information from the SBA, Office of Advocacy, based on data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, Statistics of U.S. Businesses, small operations comprise more than 80 percent of meat wholesalers, more than 60 percent of grocery stores, and more than 90 percent of meat markets. There are no projected reporting, recordkeeping, or other compliance requirements that small entities will be subject to as a result of implementing the proposed rule. (See “Paperwork Reduction Act” below). 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. In § 94.1, paragraph (a)(2) would be amended by adding the words “Argentina (only that region south of 42° S.),” before the word “Australia”. § 94.11 [Amended] 3. In § 94.11, paragraph
(a)would be amended by adding the words “Argentina (only that region south of 42° S.),” before the word “Austria”. Done in Washington, DC, this 28th day of December 2006. W. Ron DeHaven, Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. [FR Doc. E6-22627 Filed 1-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 3410-34-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Parts 50, 72, and 73 RIN 3150-AG63 Power Reactor Security Requirements; Extension of Comment Period AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of comment period. SUMMARY: On October 26, 2006 (71 FR 62664), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)published for public comment a proposed rule that would amend its current security regulations and would add new security requirements pertaining to nuclear power reactors. Additionally, this rulemaking includes new proposed security requirements for Category I strategic special nuclear material
(SSNM)facilities for access to enhanced weapons and firearms background checks. The proposed rulemaking would: Make generically applicable security requirements imposed by Commission orders issued after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, based upon experience and insights gained by the Commission during implementation; fulfill certain provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005; add several new requirements that resulted from insights from implementation of the security orders, review of site security plans, and implementation of the enhanced baseline inspection program and force-on-force exercises; update the regulatory framework in preparation for receiving license applications for new reactors; and impose requirements to assess and manage site activities that can adversely affect safety and security. A 75-day comment period was provided for the propose rule, set to expire on January 9, 2007. Comments specific to the information collection aspects of the proposed rule were due on November 27, 2006. The proposed rule deadline is extended from the original January 9, 2007, deadline to February 23, 2007, and the information collections analysis deadline is extended from the original November 27, 2006 deadline to January 11, 2007. DATES: The comment period for the proposed rule has been extended and now expires on February 23, 2007. The comment period for the information collection aspects of this proposed rulemaking has been extended and now expires on January 11, 2007. Comments received after this date will be considered if it is practical to do so, but the Commission is able to ensure consideration only for comments received before this date. ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to: Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, ATTN: Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff. Hand delivered comments should also be addressed to the Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, and delivered to 11555 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD, between 7:30 a.m. and 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays. You may also provide comments via the NRC's interactive rulemaking Web site: *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.* This site also provides the availability to upload comments as files (any format), if your web browser supports that function. For information about the interactive rulemaking site, contact Ms. Carol Gallagher,
(301)415-5905; e-mail: *CAG@nrc.gov.* Certain documents relating to this rulemaking, including comments received, may be examined at the NRC Public Document Room, 11555 Rockville Pike, Room O1-F21, Rockville, MD. The same documents may also be viewed and downloaded electronically via the rulemaking Web site: *http://ruleforum.llnl.gov.* Documents created or received at the NRC after November 1, 1999 are also available electronically at the NRC's Public Electronic Reading room on the Internet at *http://www.nrc.gov/NRC/ADAMS/index.html.* From this site, the public can gain entry into the NRC's Agencywide Document Access and Management System (ADAMS), which provides text and image files of NRC's public documents. For more information, contact the NRC Public Document Room
(PDR)Reference staff at 1-800-397-4209, 202-634-3273 or by e-mail to *pdr@nrc.gov.* FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Rasmussen, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone
(301)415-0610; e-mail: *RAR@nrc.gov* or Mr. Timothy Reed, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001; telephone
(301)415-1462; e-mail: *TAR@nrc.gov.* SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: During a public meeting held on November 15, 2006, the State of Pennsylvania and the Nuclear Energy Institute
(NEI)requested that the comment period for the proposed rulemaking be extended by 45 days. Subsequently, on November 17, 2006, the NEI provided a written request to NRC for a 60-day extension to the public comment period for both the proposed rulemaking and the information collection aspects of the rulemaking. NEI stated four reasons to support their request (listed below):
(1)There are two major holidays during the comment period;
(2)This is a major and complex rulemaking as evidenced by the sheer volume of the rulemaking package (SECY-06-0126 exceeds 1000 pages);
(3)Since June 2006, NEI has been engaged in the development of NEI 06-12, “B.5.b Phase 2&3 Submittal Guideline” which licensees will use to respond to the NRC site-specific Phase 3 letters. Licensee responses are due in early January 2007; and,
(4)Comments on the proposed § 73.21 rulemaking are due January 2, 2007. In view of the NRC's desire to receive high quality comments from external stakeholders, and recognizing the extenuating circumstances that adversely impact the capability of external stakeholders to comment on the proposed rulemaking given ongoing activities which are competing for the same industry resources, the comment period, for both the proposed rulemaking and for the information collections analysis, will be extended for an additional 45 days. This partial grant of the request from both NEI and the State of Pennsylvania recognizes that the power reactor security requirements impact new reactor applications, and it is the NRC's objective to not adversely impact new reactor applications which are scheduled to be submitted in late 2007. Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of December 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E6-22581 Filed 1-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION 10 CFR Part 73 [Docket No. PRM-73-11] Petition for Rulemaking Filed by Scott Portzline, Three Mile Island Alert; Consideration of Petition AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ACTION: Petition for rulemaking; consideration of petition. SUMMARY: On November 2, 2001 (66 FR 55603), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission
(NRC)published for public comment a petition for rulemaking
(PRM)filed by Scott Portzline, Three Mile Island Alert. The petitioner requested that the NRC regulations governing physical protection of plants and materials be amended to require NRC licensees to post at least one armed guard at each entrance to the “owner controlled areas”
(OCAs)surrounding all U.S. nuclear power plants. The petitioner states that this should be accomplished by adding armed site protection officers
(SPOs)to the security forces—not by simply moving SPOs from their protected area
(PA)posts to the OCA entrances. The petitioner believes that its proposed amendment would provide an additional layer of security that would complement existing measures against radiological sabotage and would be consistent with the long-standing principle of defense-in-depth. This document informs the public that PRM-73-11 and public comments received in response to the above notice will be considered in a proposed rulemaking, “Power Reactor Security Requirements,” published in the **Federal Register** on October 26, 2006 (71 FR 62664). This rulemaking proposes extensive revisions to the NRC regulations in 10 CFR parts 50, 72, and 73 that address security requirements for nuclear power reactor licensees and certain materials licensees. The comment period on that proposed rule expires on February 23, 2007. Because the public has already had opportunity to comment on PRM-73-11, the NRC is requesting that comments focus on the proposed rule provisions in light of the subject PRM. Refer to the preamble of the proposed rule for instructions on how to provide comments. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: George Tartal, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Telephone: 301-415-0016, or toll-free: 800-368-5642, e-mail *gmt1@nrc.gov,* or Everett Byre, Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC 20555-0001, Telephone: 301-415-7825, or toll free: 800-368-5642, e-mail *exb4@nrc.gov.* Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of December 2006. For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Annette L. Vietti-Cook, Secretary of the Commission. [FR Doc. E6-22582 Filed 1-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 7590-01-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26496; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-81-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Alpha Aviation Design Limited (Type Certificate No. A48EU Previously Held by APEX Aircraft and AVIONS PIERRE ROBIN) Model R2160 Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as a deficiency in compliance with 14 CFR 23.967(d). There have been instances indicating that production aircraft may not have a metal barrier between the cabin and the fuel tank bay. Lack of a barrier could allow flammable fuel vapors to enter the cabin. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone
(816)329-4146; fax
(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. The streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-26496; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-81-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov,* including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand, which is the aviation authority for New Zealand, has issued AD DCA/R2000/38, dated June 29, 2006 (referred to after this as “the MCAI”), to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states that there have been instances indicating that production aircraft may not have a metal barrier between the cabin and the fuel tank bay. Lack of a barrier could allow flammable fuel vapors to enter the cabin. The MCAI requires that, to ensure that the aircraft is in compliance with 14 CFR 23.967(d), inspect the aircraft to determine if a metal barrier is installed behind the seats and, if not installed, to manufacture and install a barrier. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Alpha Aviation Design Limited has issued Alpha Aviation Service Bulletin AA-SB-28-001, dated July 10, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the proposed AD. These requirements, if ultimately adopted, will take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 10 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 3 work-hours per product to comply with the proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $300 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $5,400, or $540 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Alpha Aviation Design Limited (Type Certificate No. A48EU previously held by APEX Aircraft and AVIONS PIERRE ROBIN):** Docket No. FAA-2006-26496; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-81-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by February 5, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Model R2160 airplanes, serial numbers 001 through 378, certificated in any category. Reason
(d)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states that there have been instances indicating that production aircraft may not have a metal barrier between the cabin and the fuel tank bay. Lack of a barrier could allow flammable fuel vapors to enter the cabin. The MCAI requires that, to ensure that the aircraft is in compliance with 14 CFR 23.967(d), inspect the aircraft to determine if a metal barrier is installed behind the seats and, if not installed, to manufacture and install a barrier. Actions and Compliance
(e)Unless already done, do the following actions within the next 100 hours time-in-service or within 6 months of the effective date of this AD, whichever occurs first.
(1)Inspect the aircraft to determine if a metal barrier is installed behind the seats per Alpha Aviation Service Bulletin AA-SB-28-001, dated July 10, 2006.
(2)If a metal barrier is installed per Alpha Aviation Service Bulletin AA-SB-28-001, dated July 10, 2006, and (e)(1) of this AD then no further action is required.
(3)If a metal barrier is not installed, manufacture and install a barrier per Alpha Aviation Service Bulletin AA-SB-28-001, dated July 10, 2006 and Alpha Aviation Drawing No. 60-53-119 (page 3 of 3 of the Service Bulletin). FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: No differences. Other FAA AD Provisions
(f)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Staff, FAA, ATTN: Karl Schletzbaum, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, MO 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4146; fax:
(816)329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(g)Refer to MCAI Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand AD DCA/R2000/38, dated June 29, 2006, and Alpha Aviation Service Bulletin AA-SB-28-001, dated July 10, 2006, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 28, 2006. John R. Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-22577 Filed 1-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26489; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-74-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; SOCATA-Groupe AEROSPATIALE Models M.S. 760, M.S. 760 A, and M.S. 760 B Airplanes AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Following Safety Alert No. SA-006, issued by the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB)on aircraft icing, it was impossible to demonstrate that the aircraft can safely takeoff when contaminated by frost, ice, snow, or slush, and fly into icing conditions. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may send comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Albert J. Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4119; fax:
(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. The streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act, and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-26489; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-74-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to *http://dms.dot.gov* , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued Emergency Airworthiness Directive AD No. 2006-0348-E, dated November 20, 2006, referred to after this as “the MCAI”, to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Following Safety Alert No. SA-006, issued by the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB)on aircraft icing, it was impossible to demonstrate that the aircraft can safely takeoff when contaminated by frost, ice, snow, or slush and fly into icing conditions. The MCAI requires operational limitation on takeoff with contamination and requirement for a pre-takeoff check in ground icing conditions and flight into icing conditions. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information EADS SOCATA has issued MS760 Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB SB 76-053, ATA No. 30, dated October 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the proposed AD. These requirements, if ultimately adopted, will take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 41 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 1 work-hour per product to comply with the proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $3,280, or $80 per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Programs,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **SOCATA-Groupe AEROSPATIALE:** Docket No. FAA-2006-26489; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-74-AD. Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by February 5, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Models M.S. 760, M.S. 760 A, and M.S. 760 B airplanes, all serial numbers, certificated in any category. Reason
(d)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: following Safety Alert No. SA-006, issued by the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB)on aircraft icing, it was impossible to demonstrate that the aircraft can safely takeoff when contaminated by frost, ice, snow, or slush and fly into icing conditions. Actions and Compliance
(e)Do the following unless already done:
(1)Prior to the next flight after the effective date of this AD, insert a copy of this AD into the Limitations Section of the Airplane Flight Manual
(AFM)to incorporate the following.
(i)Takeoff with frost, ice, snow, or slush on the wing, control surfaces, horizontal tail, and air intakes, and flight into icing conditions are prohibited.
(ii)Prior to each flight in which ground icing conditions exist as described in EADS SOCATA MS760 Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 76-053, ATA No. 30, dated October 2006, perform a visual/tactile check. No visible trace of frost is acceptable particularly on stabilizers and wing upper surfaces and leading edges as well as on air intakes.
(2)The owner/operator holding at least a private pilot certificate as authorized by section 43.7 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.7) may do the actions of this AD. Make an entry into the aircraft records showing compliance with this AD in accordance with section 43.9 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 43.9). FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: We added information in paragraph
(e)that allows the owner/operator to insert a copy of this AD into the Limitation Section of the AFM. Without this information, a licensed mechanic would be required to do the AFM insertion. Other FAA AD Provisions
(f)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Staff, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, ATTN: Albert J. Mercado, Aerospace Engineer, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4119; fax:
(816)329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(g)Refer to MCAI European Aviation Safety Agency Emergency Airworthiness Directive AD No. 2006-0348-E, dated November 20, 2006, and EADS SOCATA MS760 Aircraft Mandatory Service Bulletin SB 76-053, ATA No. 30, dated October 2006, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 28, 2006. John Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. E6-22578 Filed 1-4-07; 8:45 am] BILLING CODE 4910-13-P DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Federal Aviation Administration 14 CFR Part 39 [Docket No. FAA-2006-26497; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-82-AD] RIN 2120-AA64 Airworthiness Directives; Przedsiebiorstwo Doswiadczalno-Produkcyjne Szybownictwa “PZL-Bielsko” Model SZD-50-3 “Puchacz” Gliders AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), Department of Transportation (DOT). ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM). SUMMARY: We propose to adopt a new airworthiness directive
(AD)for the products listed above. This proposed AD results from mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)issued by an aviation authority of another country to identify and correct an unsafe condition on an aviation product. The MCAI describes the unsafe condition as: Some cases of turnbuckle adjusting screws fatigue failure have occurred, due to lateral load component applied by pilot's foot. Such events may lead to rudder and pedals disconnection. The proposed AD would require actions that are intended to address the unsafe condition described in the MCAI. DATES: We must receive comments on this proposed AD by February 5, 2007. ADDRESSES: You may sent comments by any of the following methods: • *DOT Docket Web Site:* Go to *http://dms.dot.gov* and follow the instructions for sending your comments electronically. • *Fax:*
(202)493-2251. • *Mail:* Docket Management Facility, U.S. Department of Transportation, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Nassif Building, Room PL-401, Washington, DC 20590-0001. • *Hand Delivery:* Room PL-401 on the plaza level of the Nassif Building, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC, between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. • *Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.* Follow the instructions for submitting comments. Examining the AD Docket You may examine the AD docket on the Internet at *http://dms.dot.gov;* or in person at the Docket Management Facility between 9 a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal holidays. The AD docket contains this proposed AD, the regulatory evaluation, any comments received, and other information. The street address for the Docket Office (telephone
(800)647-5227) is in the ADDRESSES section. Comments will be available in the AD docket shortly after receipt. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gregory Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4130; fax:
(816)329-4090. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Streamlined Issuance of AD The FAA is implementing a new process for streamlining the issuance of ADs related to MCAI. The streamlined process will allow us to adopt MCAI safety requirements in a more efficient manner and will reduce safety risks to the public. This process continues to follow all FAA AD issuance processes to meet legal, economic, Administrative Procedure Act and **Federal Register** requirements. We also continue to meet our technical decision-making responsibilities to identify and correct unsafe conditions on U.S.-certificated products. This proposed AD references the MCAI and related service information that we considered in forming the engineering basis to correct the unsafe condition. The proposed AD contains text copied from the MCAI and for this reason might not follow our plain language principles. Comments Invited We invite you to send any written relevant data, views, or arguments about this proposed AD. Send your comments to an address listed under the ADDRESSES section. Include “Docket No. FAA-2006-26497; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-82-AD” at the beginning of your comments. We specifically invite comments on the overall regulatory, economic, environmental, and energy aspects of this proposed AD. We will consider all comments received by the closing date and may amend this proposed AD because of those comments. We will post all comments we receive, without change, to * http:// dms.dot.gov * , including any personal information you provide. We will also post a report summarizing each substantive verbal contact we receive about this proposed AD. Discussion The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA), which is the Technical Agent for the Member States of the European Community, has issued EASA AD 2006-0317, dated October 16, 2006, referred to after this as “the MCAI”, to correct an unsafe condition for the specified products. The MCAI states: Some cases of turnbuckle adjusting screws fatigue failure have occurred, due to lateral load component applied by pilot's foot. Such events may lead to rudder and pedals disconnection. The MCAI requires: Within the next 3 months after the effective date of this directive, modify the aircraft by introducing the extra pull rod between rear pedals and turnbuckle adjusting screws in accordance with the instructions contained in AllStar PZL Glider Mandatory Bulletin No. BE-057/SZD-50-3/2006 “PUCHACZ”. You may obtain further information by examining the MCAI in the AD docket. Relevant Service Information Allstar PZL Glider Sp. Z o.o. has issued Mandatory Service Bulletin No. BE-057/SZD-50-3/2006 “PUCHACZ”, dated October 16, 2006. The actions described in this service information are intended to correct the unsafe condition identified in the MCAI. FAA's Determination and Requirements of the Proposed AD This product has been approved by the aviation authority of another country, and is approved for operation in the United States. Pursuant to our bilateral agreement with this State of Design Authority, they have notified us of the unsafe condition described in the MCAI and service information referenced above. We are proposing this AD because we evaluated all information and determined the unsafe condition exists and is likely to exist or develop on other products of the same type design. Differences Between This Proposed AD and the MCAI or Service Information We have reviewed the MCAI and related service information and, in general, agree with their substance. But we might have found it necessary to use different words from those in the MCAI to ensure the AD is clear for U.S. operators and is enforceable. In making these changes, we do not intend to differ substantively from the information provided in the MCAI and related service information. We might also have proposed different actions in this AD from those in the MCAI in order to follow FAA policies. Any such differences are described in a separate paragraph of the proposed AD. These requirements, if ultimately adopted, will take precedence over the actions copied from the MCAI. Costs of Compliance Based on the service information, we estimate that this proposed AD would affect about 8 products of U.S. registry. We also estimate that it would take about 2 work-hours per product to comply with the proposed AD. The average labor rate is $80 per work-hour. Required parts would cost about $100 per product. Where the service information lists required parts costs that are covered under warranty, we have assumed that there will be no charge for these costs. As we do not control warranty coverage for affected parties, some parties may incur costs higher than estimated here. Based on these figures, we estimate the cost of the proposed AD on U.S. operators to be $2,080, or $260, per product. Authority for This Rulemaking Title 49 of the United States Code specifies the FAA's authority to issue rules on aviation safety. Subtitle I, section 106, describes the authority of the FAA Administrator. “Subtitle VII: Aviation Program,” describes in more detail the scope of the Agency's authority. We are issuing this rulemaking under the authority described in “Subtitle VII, Part A, Subpart III, Section 44701: General requirements.” Under that section, Congress charges the FAA with promoting safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce by prescribing regulations for practices, methods, and procedures the Administrator finds necessary for safety in air commerce. This regulation is within the scope of that authority because it addresses an unsafe condition that is likely to exist or develop on products identified in this rulemaking action. Regulatory Findings We determined that this proposed AD would not have federalism implications under Executive Order 13132. This proposed AD would 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. For the reasons discussed above, I certify this proposed regulation: 1. Is not a “significant regulatory action” under Executive Order 12866; 2. Is not a “significant rule” under the DOT Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979); and 3. Will not have a significant economic impact, positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. We prepared a regulatory evaluation of the estimated costs to comply with this proposed AD and placed it in the AD docket. List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39 Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety. The Proposed Amendment Accordingly, under the authority delegated to me by the Administrator, the FAA proposes to amend 14 CFR part 39 as follows: PART 39—AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES 1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows: Authority: 49 U.S.C. 106(g), 40113, 44701. § 39.13 [Amended] 2. The FAA amends § 39.13 by adding the following new AD: **Przedsiebiorstwo Doswiadczalno-Produkcyjne Szybownictwa “PZL-Bielsko”:** Docket No. FAA-2006-26497; Directorate Identifier 2006-CE-82-AD Comments Due Date
(a)We must receive comments by February 5, 2007. Affected ADs
(b)None. Applicability
(c)This AD applies to Model SZD-50-3 “Puchacz” Gliders, all serial numbers, certificated in any category. Reason
(d)The mandatory continuing airworthiness information
(MCAI)states: Some cases of turnbuckle adjusting screws fatigue failure have occurred, due to lateral load component applied by pilot's foot. Such events may lead to rudder and pedals disconnection. Actions and Compliance
(e)Unless already done, within the next 3 calendar months after the effective date of this AD, install the extra pull rod between the rear pedals and turnbuckle adjusting screws following Allstar PZL Glider Sp. Z o.o. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. BE-057/SZD-50-3/2006 “PUCHACZ”, dated October 16, 2006, except as specified in paragraphs (e)(1) through (e)(4) of this AD. For owners/ operators that have installed an additional short cable between the rear seat pedal and turnbuckle prior to Allstar PZL's issuance of Mandatory Service Bulletin No. BE-057/SZD-50-3/2006 “PUCHACZ”, dated October 16, 2006, this additional short cable assembly must comply with the requirements of Allstar PZL Glider Sp. Z o.o. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. BE-057/SQD-50-3/2006 “PUCHACZ”, dated October 16, 2006. Upon completion, a logbook entry is required. Reference Allstar PZL Glider Sp. Z o.o. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. BE-054/SZD-050-3/2003. Other FAA AD Provisions:
(1)Paragraph 1 of Allstar PZL Glider Sp. Z o.o. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. BE-057/SZD-50-3/2006 “PUCHACZ”, dated October 16, 2006, describes the dimension length of the extra segment pull rod to be 140 mm. Modify this to read: “140 mm (5.5118 inches)”.
(2)Paragraph 4 of Allstar PZL Glider Sp. Z o.o. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. BE-057/SZD-50-3/2006 “PUCHACZ”, dated October 16, 2006, describes the dimensions of the short pull rod to be 3 mm diameter core and approximately 140 mm. Modify this to read: “3 mm (0.1181 inch) and 140 mm (5.5118 inches)”.
(3)Paragraph 4.4 of Allstar PZL Glider Sp. Z o.o. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. BE-057/SZD-50-3/2006 “PUCHACZ”, dated October 16, 2006, describes a 1 mm diameter cotter pin. Modify this to read: “1 mm (0.03937 inch)”.
(4)Paragraph 5 of Allstar PZL Glider Sp. Z o.o. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. BE-057/SZD-50-3/2006 “PUCHACZ”, dated October 16, 2006, reads, “The parts necessary for modification are available at Allstar PZL Glider, or substitute aircraft parts may be used—capable to withstand a load of 6100N at minimum.” Change this to read: “The parts necessary for modification are available at Allstar PZL Glider, or substitute aircraft parts may be used—capable to withstand a load of 6100N (1,372 lbs) at minimum. If a substitute part is used, the hole diameter specified in Figure 1 of the service bulletin as ‘Ø 6 Hg’ means a 6 mm (0.2362 inch) diameter hole with a dimensional tolerance of +0.03 mm (+0.0012 inch). Contact the manufacturer for further details.” FAA AD Differences Note: This AD differs from the MCAI and/or service information as follows: Paragraphs (e)(1) and (e)(4) of this AD have been added to clarify certain procedures in the service bulletin.
(f)The following provisions also apply to this AD:
(1)*Alternative Methods of Compliance (AMOCs):* The Manager, Standards Staff, FAA, ATTN: Gregory Davison, Aerospace Engineer, FAA, Small Airplane Directorate, 901 Locust, Room 301, Kansas City, Missouri 64106; telephone:
(816)329-4130; fax:
(816)329-4090, has the authority to approve AMOCs for this AD, if requested using the procedures found in 14 CFR 39.19.
(2)*Airworthy Product:* For any requirement in this AD to obtain corrective actions from a manufacturer or other source, use these actions if they are FAA-approved. Corrective actions are considered FAA-approved if they are approved by the State of Design Authority (or their delegated agent). You are required to assure the product is airworthy before it is returned to service.
(3)*Reporting Requirements:* For any reporting requirement in this AD, under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 *et seq.* ), the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB)has approved the information collection requirements and has assigned OMB Control Number 2120-0056. Related Information
(g)Refer to MCAI EASA AD 2006-0317, dated October 16, 2006, and Allstar PZL Glider Sp. Z o.o. Mandatory Service Bulletin No. BE-057/SZD-50-3/2006 “PUCHACZ”, dated October 16, 2006, for related information. Issued in Kansas City, Missouri, on December 27, 2006. John R. Colomy, Acting Manager, Small Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification Service. [FR Doc. 06-9988 Filed 1-4-07; 8:45 am]
Connectionstraces to 12
Traces to 12 documents
6 references not yet in our index
  • 9 CFR 94
  • 7 CFR 2.22
  • 9 CFR 92.2
  • 10 CFR 73
  • 14 CFR 39
  • 14 CFR 23.967(d)
Citation graph
cites case law
Rules and Regulations
Proposed rule
U.S.C.§ 601
Fed. Reg.Notices
Fed. Reg.Notices
U.S.C.§ 3501
U.S.C.§ 450
U.S.C.§ 136
U.S.C.§ 9701
Fed. Reg.Proposed Rules
U.S.C.§ 106
Cite9 CFR 94
Cite7 CFR 2.22
Cite9 CFR 92.2
Cites 18 · showing 12Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.