This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains regulatory documents having general

applicability and legal effect, most of which

are keyed to and codified in the Code of

Federal Regulations, which is published under

50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.

The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by

the Superintendent of Documents. Prices of

new books are listed in the first FEDERAL

REGISTER issue of each week.

Rules and Regulations Federal Register

67501

Vol. 69, No. 222

Thursday, November 18, 2004

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Part 78

[Docket No. 04–103–1] 

Brucellosis in Swine; Add Arkansas, 

Louisiana, and Michigan to List of 

Validated Brucellosis-Free States

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Interim rule and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the 

brucellosis regulations concerning the 

interstate movement of swine by adding 

Arkansas, Louisiana, and Michigan to 

the list of validated brucellosis-free 

States. We have determined that 

Louisiana and Arkansas meet the 

criteria for classification as validated 

brucellosis-free States. We are also 

adding Michigan to the list of validated 

brucellosis-free States as it is currently 

considered a validated brucellosis-free 

State, but was inadvertently omitted 

from the list. This action relieves certain 

restrictions on the interstate movement 

of breeding swine from Arkansas and 

Louisiana and confirms Michigan’s 

current status as a validated brucellosisfree State.

DATES: This interim rule is effective on 

November 18, 2004. We will consider 

all comments that we receive on or 

before January 18, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• EDOCKET: Go to http://

www.epa.gov/feddocket to submit or 

view public comments, access the index 

listing of the contents of the official 

public docket, and to access those 

documents in the public docket that are 

available electronically. Once you have 

entered EDOCKET, click on the ‘‘View 

Open APHIS Dockets’’ link to locate this 

document. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Please send four copies of your 

comment (an original and three copies) 

to Docket No. 04–103–1, Regulatory 

Analysis and Development, PPD, 

APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road 

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. 

Please state that your comment refers to 

Docket No. 04–103–1. 

• E-mail: Address your comment to 

regulations@aphis.usda.gov. Your 

comment must be contained in the body 

of your message; do not send attached 

files. Please include your name and 

address in your message and ‘‘Docket 

No. 04–103–1’’ on the subject line. 

• Agency Web site: Go to http://

www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/

cominst.html for a form you can use to 

submit an e-mail comment through the 

APHIS Web site. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the instructions for locating this docket 

and submitting comments. 

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: You may view 

APHIS documents published in the 

Federal Register and related 

information, including the names of 

groups and individuals who have 

commented on APHIS dockets, on the 

Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/

ppd/rad/webrepor.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

John Korslund, Staff Veterinarian 

(Swine Health), Eradication and 

Surveillance Team, National Center for 

Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 

4700 River Road Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 

20737–1231; (301) 734–5914.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Brucellosis is a contagious disease 

caused by bacteria of the genus Brucella.

The disease mainly affects cattle, bison, 

and swine, but goats, sheep, horses, and 

even humans are susceptible. In its 

principal animal hosts, it causes loss of 

young through spontaneous abortion or 

birth of weak offspring, reduced milk 

production, and infertility. There is no 

economically feasible treatment for 

brucellosis in livestock. In humans, 

brucellosis initially causes flu-like 

symptoms, but the disease may develop 

into a variety of chronic conditions, 

including arthritis. Humans can be 

treated for brucellosis with antibiotics. 

The brucellosis regulations in 9 CFR 

part 78 (referred to below as the 

regulations) contain specific provisions 

for cattle, bison, and swine. Under the 

regulations, States, herds, and 

individual animals are classified 

according to their brucellosis status. 

Interstate movement requirements for 

animals are based upon the disease 

status of the individual animals or the 

herd or State from which the animal 

originates. 

We are amending § 78.43 of the 

regulations, which lists validated swine 

brucellosis-free States, to include 

Arkansas, Louisiana, and Michigan. A 

State may apply for validated 

brucellosis-free status when: (1) Any 

herd found to have swine brucellosis 

during the 2-year qualification period 

preceding the application has been 

depopulated. More than one finding of 

a swine brucellosis-infected herd during 

the qualification period disqualifies the 

State from validation as brucellosis-free; 

and (2) during the 2-year qualification 

period, the State has completed 

surveillance, annually, by either 

complete herd testing, market swine 

testing, or statistical analysis. 

Breeding swine originating from a 

validated brucellosis-free State or herd 

may be moved interstate without having 

been tested with an official test for 

brucellosis within 30 days prior to 

interstate movement, which would 

otherwise be required. 

After reviewing their brucellosis 

program records, we have concluded 

that Arkansas and Louisiana meet the 

criteria for classification as validated 

brucellosis-free States. Therefore, we are 

adding Arkansas and Louisiana to the 

list of validated brucellosis-free States 

in § 78.43. This action relieves certain 

restrictions on the interstate movement 

of breeding swine from Louisiana and 

Arkansas. 

We are also adding Michigan to the 

list of validated brucellosis-free States. 

In practice, Michigan is already being 

67502 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

treated as a validated brucellosis-free 

State, as that State was previously 

determined to meet the criteria for 

classification as a validated brucellosisfree State. However, following that 

determination, we inadvertently 

neglected to add Michigan to the list in 

§ 78.43. We are therefore correcting this 

omission by adding Michigan to the list 

of validated brucellosis-free States.

Immediate Action 

Immediate action is warranted to 

remove restrictions that are no longer 

necessary on the interstate movement of 

swine from Louisiana and Arkansas, as 

well as to confirm Michigan’s current 

status as a validated brucellosis-free 

State. Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator has determined that prior 

notice and opportunity for public 

comment are contrary to the public 

interest and that there is good cause 

under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this 

action effective less than 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register. 

We will consider comments we 

receive during the comment period for 

this interim rule (see DATES above). 

After the comment period closes, we 

will publish another document in the 

Federal Register. The document will 

include a discussion of any comments 

we receive and any amendments we are 

making to the rule. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12866. For this action, 

the Office of Management and Budget 

has waived its review under Executive 

Order 12866. 

We are amending the brucellosis 

regulations concerning the interstate 

movement of swine by adding Arkansas, 

Louisiana, and Michigan to the list of 

validated brucellosis-free States. As of 

January 1, 2004, 45 States, plus Puerto 

Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands, were 

classified as validated brucellosis-free 

States. The States of Arkansas and 

Louisiana have been classified as Stage 

II States, but now meet the requirements 

for being listed as Stage III (validated 

brucellosis-free) States. Michigan is 

already considered a validated 

brucellosis-free State, but was 

inadvertently omitted from the list of 

validated brucellosis-free States in the 

regulations. 

In 2003, there were approximately 

1,000 hog and pig operations in 

Arkansas, with a total of 310,000 swine. 

The average value per head of swine in 

Arkansas was $64 with a reported cash 

value of approximately $19.8 million. In 

the same year, there were approximately 

580 hog and pig operations in 

Louisiana, with a total of 20,000 swine. 

The average value per head of swine in 

Louisiana was $71 with a reported cash 

value of approximately $1.42 million. 

Arkansas and Louisiana, combined, 

account for less than 1 percent of the 

total value of hogs and pigs produced in 

the United States. The small business 

size standards for hogs and pigs, as 

identified by the Small Business 

Administration using North American 

Industry Classification System codes, is 

$750,000 or less in annual receipts. It is 

estimated that 74 percent of the hog and 

pig operations in Arkansas and nearly 

100 percent of the hog and pig 

operations in Louisiana are small 

businesses. 

This interim rule will grant swine 

producers in Arkansas and Louisiana 

validated brucellosis-free status. The 

rule will benefit breeding stock owners 

who will no longer have to incur the 

cost of brucellosis testing on sows and 

other breeding stock. The estimated cost 

of brucellosis testing ranges from $7.50 

to $15 per animal, which includes 

veterinary and handling fees. Breeding 

stock was estimated at 79,079 swine and 

4,062 swine for Arkansas and Louisiana, 

respectively. It is estimated that the 

proportion of hogs and pigs used or to 

be used for breeding by small entities is 

approximately 57.8 percent and 100 

percent of the total breeding stock in 

Arkansas and Louisiana, respectively. 

The estimated number of hogs and pigs 

used or to be used for breeding purposes 

by small entities in Arkansas is 45,708 

swine; the total cost savings for small 

entities in Arkansas would range from 

$342,810 to $685,620 if all those swine 

were to be moved interstate. The 

estimated number of hogs and pigs used 

or to be used for breeding purposes by 

small entities in Louisiana is 4,062 

swine; the total cost savings for small 

entities in Louisiana would range from 

$30,465 to $60,930 if all those swine 

were to be moved interstate. 

As of October 2004, the national 

average value of a sow was $207 per 

head. Thus, cost savings associated with 

suspending brucellosis testing for 

breeding swine to be moved interstate 

from Arkansas and Louisiana is roughly 

between 3.6 and 7.2 percent of the value 

of the animal. 

Arkansas and Louisiana have been 

classified as Stage II States requiring 

annual testing of the breeding stock in 

its swine operations. However, Arkansas 

and Louisiana have met the 

requirements to be listed as validated 

brucellosis-free States. Michigan, 

currently considered a validated 

brucellosis-free State, is currently not 

listed in the regulations due to an 

oversight. This interim rule reclassifies 

Arkansas, Louisiana, and Michigan as 

validated brucellosis-free States. The 

change in the status of Arkansas and 

Louisiana would lead to cost savings to 

the breeding segment of swine 

production ranging from 3.6 to 7.2 

percent of the value of the breeding herd 

if all breeding swine were to be moved 

interstate. APHIS does not expect cost 

savings of this magnitude to have a 

significant economic impact on affected 

small entity producers. The interim rule 

will have no effect on Michigan, as it 

has already been operating as a 

validated brucellosis-free State. This 

rule will not result in any additional 

costs for affected small entities. 

Under these circumstances, the 

Administrator of the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service has 

determined that this action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12372

This program/activity is listed in the 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

under No. 10.025 and is subject to 

Executive Order 12372, which requires 

intergovernmental consultation with 

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 

3015, subpart V.) 

Executive Order 12988

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State 

and local laws and regulations that are 

in conflict with this rule; (2) has no 

retroactive effect; and (3) does not 

require administrative proceedings 

before parties may file suit in court 

challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This interim 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 78

Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Hogs, 

Quarantine, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation.

■ Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR 

part 78 as follows:

PART 78—BRUCELLOSIS

■ 1. The authority citation for part 78 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 

2.80, and 371.4.

§ 78.43 [Amended]

■ 2. Section 78.43 is amended by adding, 

in alphabetical order, the words, 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 222 / Thursday, November 18, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 67503

1 69 FR 44981.

2The rule proposal indicated that the identical 

sections of applications seeking designation or 

registration as a DCM or DTEF under section 6(a) 

of the CEA would be publicly available.

3Commission Regulations 40.6(a) and 41.24.

4Commission Regulations 40.2 and 41.23.

5Commission Regulations 40.4(a) and 40.5.

6Commission Regulation 40.3.

7Commission Regulation 40.6(c).

‘‘Arkansas,’’ ‘‘Louisiana,’’ and 

‘‘Michigan,’’.

Done in Washington, DC, this 12th day of 

November 2004. 

Elizabeth E. Gaston, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 04–25600 Filed 11–17–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

17 CFR Parts 40, 41, and 145

Confidential Information and 

Commission Records and Information

AGENCY: Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission.

ACTION: Final rules.

SUMMARY: The Commodity Futures 

Trading Commission is amending its 

regulations to specify which portions of 

an application for registration as a 

derivatives transaction execution 

facility (DTEF) or derivatives clearing 

organization (DCO), or for designation 

as a contract market (DCM), will be 

public. The amendments also 

implement a procedure requiring 

registered entities to submit a cover 

sheet for all rule submissions. 

Additionally, the Commission is 

updating its regulations under the 

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to 

implement expedited processing and 

increased time limits; revise the 

schedule of fees for FOIA requests; and 

correct certain provisions concerning 

publicly available records.

DATES: Effective December 20, 2004.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://

www.regulations.gov.

• Mail/Hand Deliver: Jean A. Webb, 

Secretary of the Commission, 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 

1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20581. 

E-mail: secretary@cftc.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Eileen A. Donovan, Assistant Secretary 

to the Commission for FOIA Matters, 

(202) 418–5096, electronic mail: 

edonovan@cftc.gov, or David Steinberg, 

Attorney Advisor, (202) 418–5102, 

electronic mail: dsteinberg@cftc.gov,

Office of the Secretariat, Commodity 

Futures Trading Commission, Three 

Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20581.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Background 

A. Public Availability of Applications 

Submitted by DTEFs, DCOs, and DCMs 

On July 28, 2004, the Commission 

requested comment from the public 

regarding its proposal to specify that the 

following portions of DTEF, DCO, and 

DCM applications are publicly 

available:1 transmittal letter, proposed 

rules, the applicant’s regulatory 

compliance chart, documents 

establishing the applicant’s legal status 

(e.g., corporate charters), and documents 

setting forth the applicant’s governance 

structure.2 The proposed change to 

§ 40.8 addresses the absence in the 

Commission’s regulations of any 

guidance to applicants or the public 

about the availability of the 

applications.

In response to this proposal, the 

Commission received comment letters 

from the Chicago Mercantile Exchange 

(‘‘CME’’) and the Chicago Board of 

Trade (‘‘CBOT’’) (collectively, 

‘‘exchanges’’). Both exchanges noted 

strong support for the rule proposal, but 

requested that the Commission expand 

the proposal to make additional 

information public as a matter of course. 

The Commission has carefully 

considered the comments from the 

exchanges and does not believe the 

proposal should be expanded at this 

time. First, the exchanges contend that 

the Commission should ensure the 

public has the opportunity to comment 

meaningfully on the salient operational 

features of the proposed exchange, as 

well as any proposed plans that could 

adversely impact market integrity, such 

as payment for order flow or 

internalization plans. The CBOT also 

believes that applicant plans to allow or 

encourage trading off the centralized 

market should be public. The 

Commission understands the 

importance of interested parties being 

able to comment meaningfully on this 

information. The Commission notes that 

applicant plans regarding payment for 

order flow or internalization plans are 

either submitted in the rules section of 

the proposed application or may be part 

of the applicant’s future plans filed 

separately from the application. 

Applicant plans for trading off the 

centralized market are also submitted in 

the rules section of the proposal. Rules 

are defined in § 40.1 and are already 

generally considered public 

information. Consequently, the 

Commission does not believe it is 

necessary to separately list this 

information in § 40.8(a). 

Second, both exchanges assert that 

information concerning outsourcing 

arrangements upon which the applicant 

tends to rely should be made public. 

The CME notes that to the extent that an 

applicant proposes to outsource any of 

its operational, self-regulatory, or 

clearing functions, the public cannot 

provide the Commission with useful 

comments regarding the applicant’s 

proposed compliance with the 

Commodity Exchange Act’s core 

principles or designation criteria unless 

the key provisions are made public. 

Again, the Commission recognizes the 

importance of interested parties being 

able to comment on a proposed 

application, but must balance this with 

the intent of the applicant to protect 

commercially sensitive information. 

Outsourcing arrangements often include 

compliance and surveillance techniques 

and the public release of this 

information could cause competitive 

harm to the applicant. The Commission 

notes that § 40.8(a) is not intended to 

limit which applicant information will 

be released, but to specify the portions 

of an application that are automatically 

public and therefore would not be 

granted confidential treatment under 

any circumstances. Therefore, even 

though the Commission does not specify 

outsourcing information in § 40.8(a), 

portions of this material in a redacted 

form could still be made public if 

requested under the Freedom of 

Information Act. The Commission also 

notes that the rule states that any 

portion of the application not covered 

by a request for confidential treatment 

will also be made public. The 

Commission is committed to providing 

transparency in the application process 

and will continue to evaluate whether 

additional information should be 

included in § 40.8(a).

B. Appendix D—Submission Cover 

Sheet and Instructions and Public 

Availability of Rule Submissions 

The Commission proposed to amend 

the part 40 and 41 regulations requiring 

DTEFs, DCOs, and DTEFs to attach a 

Commission-generated submission 

cover sheet with all self-certified rules,3

self-certified products,4 rules submitted 

for Commission approval,5 products 

submitted for Commission approval,6

notifications of rule amendments,7 and