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

70179

Vol. 69, No. 232

Friday, December 3, 2004

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Part 166

[Docket No. 04–109–1] 

Swine Health Protection

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are amending the swine 

health protection regulations by 

removing Kentucky from the list of 

States that permit the feeding of treated 

garbage to swine and adding it to the list 

of States that prohibit garbage feeding. 

This action is necessary to reflect 

changes in the status of Kentucky, and 

thereby facilitate the administration of 

the swine health protection regulations.

DATES: This rule is effective December 3, 

2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Adam Grow, National Surveillance 

Coordinator, National Center for Animal 

Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road, Unit 43, Riverdale, MD 20737–

1231; (301) 734–3752.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The swine health protection 

regulations in 9 CFR part 166 (referred 

to below as the regulations) were 

established under the Swine Health 

Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 3801 et seq., 

referred to below as the Act). The Act 

and the regulations contain provisions 

concerning the treatment of garbage to 

be fed to swine and the feeding of that 

garbage to swine. These provisions 

operate as safeguards against the spread 

of certain swine diseases in the United 

States. 

The regulations in § 166.15 categorize 

States according to the respective status 

of each with regard to the feeding of 

garbage to swine. Some States prohibit 

this activity, while other States permit 

the feeding of garbage to swine; these 

States are listed in § 116.15(a) and (b), 

respectively. 

Under section 9 of the Act (7 U.S.C. 

3808), the Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) is 

authorized to enter into cooperative 

agreements with State agencies, 

including States departments of 

agriculture, to more efficiently regulate 

the feeding of garbage to swine. These 

cooperative agreements may be entered 

into when APHIS determines that a 

State agency has adequate facilities, 

personnel, and procedures to assist the 

Department in the administration and 

enforcement of the regulations; the 

Department, however, retains primary 

enforcement under the Act. States that 

have entered into cooperative 

agreements to issue licenses under the 

regulations are listed in § 166.15(d). 

Prior to this rulemaking, Kentucky 

was listed in § 166.15(b) as a State that 

permitted the feeding of treated garbage 

to swine and in § 166.15(d) as a State in 

a cooperative agreement with APHIS to 

issue licenses. However, Kentucky has 

repealed its laws permitting the feeding 

of treated garbage to swine. We are, 

therefore, removing Kentucky from the 

list in § 166.15(b) of States that permit 

the feeding of treated garbage to swine 

and are adding it to the list in 

§ 166.15(a) of States that prohibit the 

feeding of garbage to swine. We are also 

removing Kentucky from the list in 

§ 166.15(d) of States that issue licenses 

under cooperative agreements with 

APHIS. 

Effective Date 

We are taking this action to update 

our regulations with respect to changes 

that have already occurred in the laws 

of Kentucky regarding the feeding of 

garbage to swine. It does not appear that 

public participation in this rulemaking 

proceeding would make additional 

relevant information available to the 

Department. 

Accordingly, pursuant to the 

administrative procedure provisions in 

5 U.S.C. 553, we find upon good cause 

that prior notice and other public 

procedure with respect to this rule are 

unnecessary. We also find good cause 

for making this rule effective less than 

30 days after publication in the Federal 

Register. 

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. 

The decision regarding whether or not 

a State will permit the feeding of 

garbage to swine is made at the State 

level. Since the State of Kentucky has 

notified APHIS that State law now 

prohibits the feeding of garbage to 

swine, this rule simply amends the 

regulations to reflect the State’s 

decision. 

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 

inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no 

retroactive effect; and (3) does not 

require administrative proceedings 

before parties may file suit in court 

challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

This 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 166

Animal diseases, Hogs, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements.

■ Accordingly, 9 CFR part 166 is 

amended as follows:

PART 166—SWINE HEALTH 

PROTECTION

■ 1. The authority citation for part 166 

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 3801–3813; 7 CFR 2.22, 

2.80, and 371.4.

70180 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 232 / Friday, December 3, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

§ 166.15 [Amended]

■ 2. Section 166.15 is amended as 

follows:

■ a. In paragraph (a), by adding, in 

alphabetical order, the word 

‘‘Kentucky,’’.

■ b. In paragraph (b), by removing the 

word ‘‘Kentucky,’’.

■ c. In paragraph (d), by removing the 

word ‘‘Kentucky,’’.

Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of 

November, 2004. 

Elizabeth E. Gaston, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 04–26613 Filed 12–2–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION

13 CFR Part 121

RIN 3245–AE76

Small Business Size Regulations; 

Small Business Innovation Research 

Program

AGENCY: Small Business Administration 

(SBA).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA or Agency) is 

revising its small business size 

regulations regarding ownership and 

control of Small Business Innovation 

Research (SBIR) Program awardees. The 

final rule provides that an SBIR awardee 

must meet the following requirements: 

It must be a for-profit business concern 

that is at least 51% owned and 

controlled by one or more individuals 

who are citizens of, or permanent 

resident aliens in, the United States (as 

the regulations currently require); or it 

must be a for-profit business concern 

that is at least 51% owned and 

controlled by another for-profit business 

concern that is at least 51% owned and 

controlled by one or more individuals 

who are citizens of, or permanent 

resident aliens in, the United States. 

This rule does not change the size 

standard requiring that an SBIR 

awardee, together with its affiliates, 

have no more than 500 employees. 

Because SBA received a large number of 

comments concerning ownership of 

SBIR Program participants by Venture 

Capital Companies, SBA will issue an 

Advanced Notice of Proposed 

Rulemaking seeking additional 

information this issue.

DATES: This rule is effective January 3, 

2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Carl 

Jordan, Office of Size Standards, at (202) 

205–6618, or Edsel Brown, Assistant 

Administrator for Technology, at (202) 

205–6540. You may also e-mail 

questions to sizestandards@SBA.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Introduction 

On June 4, 2003, the SBA published 

in the Federal Register (68 FR 33412) a 

proposed rule to modify the eligibility 

requirements for the SBIR Program. The 

proposed rule provided that small 

business concerns (SBCs), which are 

100% owned and controlled by another 

concern, could receive SBIR awards so 

long as the concern that owned and 

controlled the awardee was at least 51% 

owned and controlled by one or more 

individuals who are citizens of, or 

permanent resident aliens in, the United 

States. In addition, the SBIR awardee, 

including its affiliates (the parent 

company and any other affiliates), 

would have to meet the 500-employee 

size standard. 

The SBA sought comments on its 

proposed rule together with alternatives 

that it considered. Below is a summary 

and discussion of the comments the 

SBA received, as well as a summary of 

the final rule. 

Summary of Comments 

The SBA received 164 comments on 

the proposed rule. Although the 

majority of the comments supported a 

change to the eligibility requirements 

for the SBIR Program, many of them 

recommended additional changes. The 

significant issues raised by the 

comments included: (1) Less than 100% 

ownership and control by one other 

concern; (2) majority ownership and 

control by large businesses; (3) 

ownership and control by more than 

one concern; (4) foreign ownership and 

control; (5) majority ownership and 

control by venture capital companies 

(VCCs); (6) ownership by Small 

Business Investment Companies 

(SBICs), employee stock option plans 

(ESOPs) and trusts; (7) joint ventures 

(JVs) in relation to the proposed rule; 

and (8) the 500-employee size standard. 

Ownership by Other Concerns or 

Entities and Foreign Ownership 

The SBA received several comments 

recommending a rule that would allow 

less than 100% ownership and control 

of an SBIR participant by another 

concern. Some of these comments stated 

that the level of ownership or control is 

not material to the overall success of the 

SBIR Program. Others contended that 

allowing less than 100% ownership or 

control is consistent with the Small 

Business Innovation Development Act 

(SBIDA) of 1982 (which can be found at 

http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d097/

d097laws.html) and its legislative 

history, and in fact furthers the SBIDA’s 

intent. One commenter added that 

requiring 100% ownership would stifle 

investment from others. 

Several commenters recommended a 

regulation that would allow an SBIR 

awardee to be owned and controlled by 

two or more other business concerns, 

which in turn are at least 51% owned 

and controlled by U.S. citizens or 

permanent resident aliens. Four 

commenters supported the idea of 

multiple corporate owners because it 

would permit one concern to ‘‘spin off’’

another, and then add one or more other 

corporate investors in the ‘‘spin off.’’

Other commenters recommended 

variations of the proposed rule, 

including: Allowing indirect ownership 

by U.S. citizens or permanent resident 

aliens, defining the term individuals to 

include U.S. corporations, and 

providing for a net worth test for the 

parent company. 

Three commenters argued that 

allowing foreign ownership and control 

would be consistent with Federal 

procurement regulations. One 

commenter stated that it needed to go 

overseas to raise funds through the 

London Stock Exchange. Several 

commenters believed that rather than 

have a U.S. citizen or permanent 

resident alien ownership requirement, 

SBA should require the SBIR participant 

to have a base of operations in the 

United States, incorporate in the United 

States, employ U.S. citizens and/or pay 

taxes to the United States. 

One commenter recommended 

allowing nonprofits to own and control 

more than 49% of the SBIR participant, 

but require the non-profit to license its 

technology exclusively to the start-up so 

that the non-profit cannot use the 

program to its advantage. Several 

commenters supported ownership and 

control of an SBIR participant by SBICs. 

One commenter stated that it believed 

the statutes and rules governing SBICs, 

as well as the SBA’s regulatory authority 

over them, could provide adequate 

safeguards against abuse of the SBIR 

program by such larger businesses. One 

commenter did not support allowing 

more than 49% ownership by an SBIC. 

Other commenters supported ownership 

and control by trusts for estate/tax 

planning purposes and by Employee 

Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) for 

investment and employee incentive 

purposes. 

Conversely, 50 commenters expressed 

concern that permitting another 

business concern to own an SBIR 

Program participant could permit large 

companies to participate in the SBIR