Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 42899

agency officials and employees are

advised to consult with their designated

agency ethics officials for guidance

regarding any conflicts of interests that

may arise under 18 U.S.C. 205.

Moreover, the modification to section

205 permitting Federal employees to

represent certain nonprofit

organizations before the Government in

certain circumstances is different in

focus, from the separate, and consistent

requirement in these supplemental

standards regulations that OPM

employees obtain prior approval before

engaging in certain outside activities.

OPM feels both regulations are

consistent with current Governmentwide policy and each other, and it

should not revise the scope of the

approval for teaching, speaking and

writing which relates to official duties

in this part 4501 regulation applicable

to OPM employees. This authority will

be exercised consistent with the

provisions of 18 U.S.C. 205, as

amended, and other applicable conflicts

laws and regulations.

Definitions

The employee asserts that the

regulations are confusing in that they

refer to definitions contained elsewhere

in the Code of Federal Regulations, such

as definitions of ‘‘official duties’’,

‘‘outside activity’’, ‘‘profession’’,

‘‘prohibited source’’, and

‘‘compensation’’, to which, he contends,

most OPM readers do not have access.

The prior approval requirement

regarding teaching, speaking, and

writing, contained at 5 CFR

4501.103(a)(2), supplements the Office

of Government Ethics Standards

contained at 5 CFR 2635.801 and

2635.807. The definition of

‘‘compensation’’ is contained at 5 CFR

2635.807(a)(2)(iii). Section 4501.103(d)

defines the terms ‘‘active participant,’’

‘‘nonpublic information,’’ ‘‘professional

services,’’ ‘‘prohibited source,’’ and

‘‘relates to the employee’s official

duties.’’ It is OPM’s view that the terms

necessary for employees to understand

the regulation are adequately provided

and cross-references are clearly stated.

However, should access to the

regulations pose a problem or should

any other confusion exist, agency ethics

officials are available to answer specific

questions regarding any ethics

provision’s applicability to OPM

employees.

Appearance of OPM Sanctioning an

Outside Activity

The personnel management

association official commented that the

prior approval requirement raises the

question of whether ‘‘approval’’ of an

outside activity would constitute

‘‘sanction’’ of the activity by OPM. The

agency has a legitimate interest in the

teaching, making of a speech or other

presentation by an agency employee on

a matter that relates to the employee’s

official duties and which, by the manner

of its presentation, could create the

appearance of being the official position

of OPM. However, the prior approval

requirement, as previously discussed, is

meant to provide an opportunity to

counsel in order to ensure that the

agency and employee are aware of any

violation of ethics laws or regulations. It

should not in any way indicate that

OPM is sanctioning the activity.

In summary, OPM has determined not

to modify any of the substantive

provisions in adopting the interim

supplemental OPM standards at 5 CFR

part 4501 as final. A typographical error

will be corrected as noted below.

IV. Correction of Typographical Error

OPM is correcting in this final rule a

typographical error that appeared in the

authority citation for part 4501 which

incorrectly cites 5 CFR 2635.802 as

‘‘2635.–802’’.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

As Director of OPM, I certify that this

regulation will not have significant economic

impact on a substantial number of small

entities within the meaning of the Regulatory

Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. chapter 6).

Paperwork Reduction Act

As Director of OPM, I have determined that

the Paperwork Reduction Act (44 U.S.C.

chapter 35) does not apply because this

regulation does not contain any information

collection requirements that require the

approval of the Office of Management and

Budget.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Parts 1001 and

4501

Conflict of interests, Government

employees.

Dated: July 16, 1997.

James B. King,

Director, U.S. Office of Personnel

Management.

Approved: July 29, 1997.

Stephen D. Potts,

Director, Office of Government Ethics.

Accordingly, OPM is adopting the

interim rule, adding 5 CFR part 4501

and amending 5 CFR part 1001, which

was published at 61 FR 36993 on July

16, 1996, as a final rule with the

following change.

Chapter XXXV Office of Personnel

Management

PART 4501—SUPPLEMENTAL

STANDARDS OF ETHICAL CONDUCT

FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE OFFICE OF

PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT

1. The authority citation for part 4501

is corrected to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 7301; 5 U.S.C. App.

(Ethics in Government Act of 1978), E.O.

12674, 54 FR 15159, 3 CFR, 1989 Comp., p.

215, as modified by E.O. 12731, 55 FR 42547,

3 CFR, 1990 Comp., p. 306; 5 CFR 2635.105,

2635.702, 2635.703, 2635.802, 2635.803,

2635.805.

[FR Doc. 97–21047 Filed 8–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Part 94

[Docket No. 94–106–7]

RIN 0579–AA71

Importation of Beef From Argentina;

Technical Amendment

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule; technical

amendment.

SUMMARY: In a final rule published in

the Federal Register on June 26, 1997,

that will be effective August 25, 1997,

we amended the regulations governing

the importation of meat and meat

products by allowing, under certain

conditions, the importation of fresh,

chilled or frozen, beef from Argentina.

It was our intent that the amended

regulations also allow the importation of

cured or cooked beef that would

otherwise not be allowed importation,

provided it meets the same

requirements as for fresh, chilled or

frozen, beef. In this amendment, we are

clarifying that intent. We are also

correcting the Supplementary

Information of the final rule to include

the date of publication and Federal

Register citation of a document we

referred to.

DATES: This amendment is effective

August 25, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Gary Colgrove, Chief Staff Veterinarian,

National Center for Import and Export,

VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 38,

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231, (301) 734–

8590.
42900 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 154 / Monday, August 11, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Conditions for Importation of Beef

From Argentina

In a final rule published in the

Federal Register on June 26, 1997, that

will be effective August 25, 1997 (62 FR

34385–34394, Docket No. 94–106–5), we

amended the regulations regarding the

importation of meat and meat products

in 9 CFR part 94 by adding a new

§ 94.21 to allow, under certain specified

conditions, the importation of fresh,

chilled or frozen beef from Argentina.

The amended regulations should also

have allowed the importation of cured

or cooked beef from Argentina that

would not otherwise be allowed

importation, provided it meets the same

requirements as for fresh, chilled or

frozen beef.

Until the effective date of the final

rule, the only beef allowed to be

imported into the United States from

Argentina is beef that has been cured or

cooked in accordance with § 94.4 of the

regulations. Because Argentina is not

listed in § 94.1 as a country in which

foot-and-mouth disease (FMD) and

rinderpest are not known to exist, due

to continued vaccination for FMD, the

requirements of § 94.4 have been

considered necessary to assure that any

FMD virus in the beef has been

destroyed. (Rinderpest has never been

known to exist in Argentina.) The

curing requirements include a specific

water-protein ratio that must be met,

and the cooking provisions include very

specific time/temperature requirements.

In our final rule, we added to the

regulations a § 94.21 to allow the

importation into the United States of

fresh, chilled or frozen, beef from

Argentina under certain conditions. We

explained in the final rule that we

consider the unrestricted importation of

such beef from Argentina to present a

low risk of introducing FMD into this

country. This conclusion was based on

the fact that the last outbreak of FMD

occurred in Argentina in 1994, on

review by the Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service (APHIS) of

information submitted by the

government of Argentina, and on the

results of a 1994 on-site APHIS

evaluation of Argentina’s animal health

program and an updated risk assessment

recently prepared by APHIS.

As we explained in our final rule,

because vaccinations for FMD in

Argentina continue, and because

Argentina supplements its national meat

supply by importing fresh, chilled, or

frozen meat of ruminants and swine

from countries in which FMD is known

to exist, it is necessary to impose certain

conditions on the importation of fresh,

chilled, or frozen beef from Argentina to

ensure that the importation of such beef

poses a negligible risk of the

introduction of FMD into the United

States. As set forth in the final rule,

these conditions include certification of

the following: (1) That the beef

originated in Argentina; (2) that the beef

came from bovines that were moved

directly from the premises of origin to

the slaughterhouse without any contact

with other animals; (3) that the beef has

not been in contact with beef from

regions of greater disease risk; (4) that

the beef originated from premises where

FMD and rinderpest have not been

present during the lifetime of any

bovines slaughtered for export; (5) that

the beef originated from premises on

which bovines or swine have not been

vaccinated with modified or attenuated

live viruses for FMD or where bovines

have not been vaccinated for rinderpest

during the lifetime of any of the bovines

slaughtered for export; (6) that the beef

comes from carcasses that have been

allowed to maturate at 40 to 50 °F (4 to

10 °C) for a minimum of 36 hours after

slaughter and have reached a maximum

pH of 5.8 in the loin muscle at the end

of the maturation period; and (7) that all

bone, blood clots, and lymphoid tissue

have been removed from the beef.

Although we specified in the final

rule that the adherence to the above

conditions would reduce to a negligible

level any risk that fresh, chilled or

frozen beef from Argentina would

introduce FMD into the United States,

we did not intend to imply that beef that

is not fresh, chilled or frozen, could not

also be imported into the United States

with negligible risk if the same

conditions were met. It was our intent

that beef that has been cured or cooked

other than in accordance with the

provisions of § 94.4 could be imported

if it meets the import conditions for

fresh, chilled or frozen, beef. Therefore,

we are adding language to § 94.4,

paragraphs (a) and (b), to clarify that

intent.

Correction of Supplementary

Information

In the Supplementary Information

section of the June 26, 1997, final rule

(Docket No. 94–106–5), we

inadvertently neglected to include the

publication date and Federal Register

citation of another final rule we referred

to (Docket No. 94–106–6, ‘‘Importation

of Pork from Sonora, Mexico’’). In FR

Doc. 97–16748 (62 FR 34385–34394),

under Supplementary Information, at

page 34385, third column, third line

from the bottom, the words: ‘‘countries.

On June 26, 1997, we’’ should have

read: ‘‘countries. On May 9, 1997, we’’

and at page 34386, first column, second

and third line, the words: ‘‘State of

Sonora, Mexico (62 FR (INSERT FR

CITE), Docket No. 94–106–6), based’’

should have read: ‘‘State of Sonora,

Mexico (62 FR 25439–25443, Docket No.

94–106–6), based’.

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, 9 CFR part 94 is

amended to read as follows:

PART 94—RINDERPEST, FOOT-ANDMOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL

PLAGUE), EXOTIC NEWCASTLE

DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE FEVER,

HOG CHOLERA, AND BOVINE

SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY:

PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED

IMPORTATIONS

1. The authority citation for part 94

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 147a, 150ee, 161, 162,

and 450; 19 U.S.C. 1306; 21 U.S.C. 111, 114a,

134a, 134b, 134c, 134f, 136, and 136a; 31

U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 4331 and 4332; 7 CFR

2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

2. In § 94.4, in both paragraphs (a) and

(b), the introductory text is revised to

read as follows:

§ 94.4 Cured or cooked meat from

countries where rinderpest or foot-andmouth disease exists.

(a) Except for cured beef from

Argentina that meets the requirements

for the importation of fresh, chilled or

frozen, beef as provided in § 94.21, the

importation of cured meats derived from

ruminants or swine, originating in any

country designated in § 94.1, is

prohibited unless the following

conditions have been fulfilled:

* * * * *

(b) Except for cooked beef from

Argentina that meets the requirements

for the importation of fresh, chilled or

frozen, beef as provided in § 94.21, the

importation of cooked meats from

ruminants or swine originating in any

country where rinderpest or foot-andmouth disease exists, as designated in

§ 94.1, is prohibited, except as provided

in this section.

* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 5th day of

August 1997.

Terry L. Medley,

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 97–21107 Filed 8–8–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P