49128 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

(4) The position carries no fixed time

limitation as to length of appointment;

and

(5) The work schedule (that is, parttime or full-time) of the position is the

same as that of the position held by the

employee at the Panama Canal

Commission.

(c) A Panama Canal Commission

employee who resigns prior to receiving

an official written notice that he or she

will not be offered reasonably

comparable employment shall be

considered to be voluntarily separated.

Section 550.706(a) shall be applied, as

appropriate, to any employee who

resigns after receiving such notice.

(d) Except as otherwise provided by

paragraphs (a) through (c) of this

section, the provisions of this subpart

remain applicable to Panama Canal

Commission employees.

[FR Doc. 97–24885 Filed 9–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service

7 CFR Part 920

[Docket No. FV97–920–2 FR]

Kiwifruit Grown in California;

Relaxation in Pack Requirements

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service,

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This final rule revises pack

requirements for Size 42 and Size 45

kiwifruit under the Federal marketing

order for kiwifruit grown in California.

This rule increases the size variation

tolerance for Size 42 kiwifruit from 5

percent, by count, to 10 percent, by

count, and increases the size variation

tolerance for Size 45 kiwifruit from 10

percent, by count, to 25 percent, by

count. This relaxation was

recommended by the Kiwifruit

Administrative Committee (committee),

the agency responsible for local

administration of the marketing order.

The committee expects this rule to

reduce handler costs, increase grower

returns, and allow the kiwifruit industry

to meet the increased demand for lower

priced kiwifruit.

EFFECTIVE DATE: This final rule becomes

effective September 22, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Rose

Aguayo, Marketing Specialist, California

Marketing Field Office, Marketing Order

Administration Branch, Fruit and

Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, 2202

Monterey St., suite 102B, Fresno,

California 93721; telephone: (209) 487–

5901, Fax: (209) 487–5906 or George

Kelhart, Marketing Order

Administration Branch, Fruit and

Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, room

2525–S, P.O. Box 96456, Washington,

DC 20090–6456; telephone: (202) 720–

2491, Fax: (202) 720–5698. Small

businesses may request information on

compliance with this regulation by

contacting Jay Guerber, Marketing Order

Administration Branch, Fruit and

Vegetable Division, AMS, USDA, P.O.

Box 96456, room 2525–S, Washington,

DC 20090–6456, telephone: (202) 720–

2491, Fax: (202) 720–5698.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final

rule is issued under Marketing Order

No. 920 (7 CFR part 920), as amended,

regulating the handling of kiwifruit

grown in California, hereinafter referred

to as the ‘‘order.’’ The order is effective

under the Agricultural Marketing

Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7

U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to

as the ‘‘Act.’’

The Department of Agriculture

(Department) is issuing this rule in

conformance with Executive Order

12866.

This final rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12988, Civil

Justice Reform. This action is not

intended to have retroactive effect. This

rule will not preempt any State or local

laws, regulations, or policies, unless

they present an irreconcilable conflict

with this rule.

The Act provides that administrative

proceedings must be exhausted before

parties may file suit in court. Under

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any

handler subject to an order may file

with the Secretary a petition stating that

the order, any provision of the order, or

any obligation imposed in connection

with the order is not in accordance with

law and request a modification of the

order or to be exempted therefrom. A

handler is afforded the opportunity for

a hearing on the petition. After the

hearing the Secretary would rule on the

petition. The Act provides that the

district court of the United States in any

district in which the handler is an

inhabitant, or has his or her principle

place of business, has jurisdiction in

equity to review the Secretary’s ruling

on the petition, provided a bill in equity

is filed not later than 20 days after the

date of the entry of the ruling.

This final rule revises pack

requirements for Size 42 and Size 45

kiwifruit under the Federal marketing

order for kiwifruit grown in California.

This rule will increase the size variation

tolerance for Size 42 kiwifruit from 5

percent, by count, to 10 percent, by

count, and will increase the size

variation tolerance for Size 45 kiwifruit

from 10 percent, by count, to 25 percent,

by count.

Section 920.52 authorizes the

establishment of pack requirements.

Section 920.302(a)(4) of the rules and

regulations outlines the pack

requirements for fresh shipments of

California kiwifruit. Under

§ 920.302(a)(4)(i) of the rules and

regulations, kiwifruit packed in

containers with cell compartments,

cardboard fillers, or molded trays shall

be of proper size and fairly uniform in

size. Section 920.302(a)(4)(ii) outlines

pack requirements for kiwifruit packed

in cell compartments, cardboard fillers

or molded trays and includes a table

that specifies numerical size

designations and the size variation

tolerances. It also outlines pack

requirements for kiwifruit packed in

bags, volume fill or bulk containers, and

includes a separate table that specifies

numerical size designations and size

variation tolerances. This section

provides that not more than 10 percent,

by count of the containers in any lot

may fail to meet pack requirements. It

also provides that not more than 5

percent, by count, of kiwifruit in any

container, (except that for Size 45

kiwifruit, the tolerance, by count, in any

one container, may not be more than 10

percent) may fail to meet pack

requirements. This size variation

tolerance does not apply to other pack

requirements such as how the fruit fills

the cell compartments, cardboard fillers,

or molded trays, or any weight

requirements.

Prior to the 1995–1996 season,

handlers were experiencing difficulty

meeting the size variation tolerance for

Size 45 kiwifruit. Size 45 is the

minimum size. The committee

determined that the best solution was to

increase the size variation tolerance, by

count, in any one container, for Size 45

kiwifruit. Section 920.302 (a)(4) was

revised by a final rule issued June 21,

1995 (60 FR 32257) to include a

provision that increased the size

variation tolerance, by count, in any one

container, from 5 percent to 10 percent

for Size 45 kiwifruit.

This increased size variation tolerance

for Size 45 kiwifruit has been utilized

for two seasons. Handlers are still

experiencing difficulty discerning if size

variation tolerances for smaller fruit are

being met during the packing process.

As the size of the kiwifruit increases,

so does the size of the variation allowed.

In the larger kiwifruit sizes, failure to

meet the required size variation

standards results in packs that are

visibly irregular in size. In Size 42 and
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 49129

Size 45 packs, however, when the

respective 5 and 10 percent tolerances

are exceeded, the variation is difficult to

detect visually. A size variation of 1⁄4-

inch (6.4 mm) difference is allowed

between the widest and narrowest

kiwifruit in any Size 42 container

utilizing cell compartments, cardboard

fillers or molded trays and a 3⁄8-inch (9.5

mm) size variation difference is allowed

between the widest and narrowest

kiwifruit in a Size 42 bag, volume fill or

bulk container. A 1⁄4-inch (6.4 mm) size

variation difference is allowed between

the widest and narrowest kiwifruit in

any Size 45 container.

Packers must separate the round and

flat shaped kiwifruit into two different

containers in order to meet the size

variation requirements. During the

packing operation, a mechanical sizer

routinely sorts the kiwifruit by shape

and size. The kiwifruit which is missed

by the mechanical sizer must be

manually sorted by the handler. If size

variation tolerances are not being met,

packers must slow down the pack line

and increase efforts to separate the

round and flat kiwifruit to ensure that

current size variation requirements are

met. Since it is not economically

feasible for each handler to be equipped

with a caliper to measure size variation,

they rely on their visual judgement.

During inspection, calipers are utilized

by the inspectors to determine if the size

variation is met for Size 42 and Size 45

containers. The industry views this

separation of Size 42 and 45 round and

flat shaped kiwifruit into two different

containers by shape as an added cost,

that is particularly detrimental because

this fruit returns little if any money back

to the grower. The higher costs of sizing

the fruit during the packing operation

may have cost the industry sales as well.

Further, this sizing of kiwifruit may

not be apparent to consumers. Usually

a pallet of Size 42 kiwifruit includes

containers of round fruit and containers

of flat fruit. When a pallet of Size 42

kiwifruit reaches the retailer, a

container of round fruit may be

displayed. As the kiwifruit is sold, a

container of the Size 42 flat fruit may be

commingled with the remaining round

fruit. The consumer will then see this

commingled fruit with slightly different

shapes on display. The size variation

standards that the packer strived so hard

to stay within during the packing

process are erased.

The committee met on April 16, 1997,

and recommended by a vote of eight in

favor and one opposed to relax the pack

requirements in effect under the order

pertaining to size variation tolerances

for Size 42 and Size 45 kiwifruit. The

committee recommended increasing

size variation tolerances for kiwifruit, in

any one container, from 5 percent, by

count, to 10 percent, by count, for Size

42 kiwifruit and from 10 percent, by

count, to 25 percent, by count, for Size

45 kiwifruit and further recommended

that this rule be effective in September

for the 1997–1998 season. The season

normally begins the end of September or

the first week of October. The increased

size variation tolerances will apply to

any container of kiwifruit.

This final rule will reduce costs for

handlers by allowing them to operate in

a more efficient and cost-effective

manner and will enable the industry to

meet the increased demand in the

marketplace for lower priced, uniform

containers of kiwifruit. Through these

cost savings, growers will be expected to

receive higher returns.

There is support in the industry to

increase these size variation tolerances.

The one committee member who

opposed the recommendation believes it

will lower the quality of California

kiwifruit.

Pursuant to requirements set forth in

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS)

has considered the economic impact of

this rule on small entities. Accordingly,

the AMS has prepared this final

regulatory flexibility analysis.

The purpose of the RFA is to fit

regulatory actions to the scale of

business subject to such actions in order

that small businesses will not be unduly

or disproportionately burdened.

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the

Act, and rules issued thereunder, are

unique in that they are brought about

through group action of essentially

small entities acting on their own

behalf. Thus, both statutes have small

entity orientation and compatibility.

There are approximately 60 handlers

of California kiwifruit subject to

regulation under the order and

approximately 450 kiwifruit producers

in the production area. Small

agricultural service firms are defined by

the Small Business Administration (13

CFR 121.601) as those whose annual

receipts are less than $5,000,000, and

small agricultural producers have been

defined as those having annual receipts

of less than $500,000. One of the 60

handlers subject to regulation has

annual kiwifruit sales of at least

$5,000,000, and the remaining 59

handlers have sales less than

$5,000,000, excluding receipts from any

other sources. Ten of the 450 producers

subject to regulation have annual sales

of at least $500,000, and the remaining

440 producers have sales less than

$500,000, excluding receipts from any

other sources. Therefore, a majority of

handlers and producers of California

kiwifruit may be classified as small

entities.

Section 920.52 authorizes the

establishment of pack requirements.

Section 920.302(a)(4)(ii) outlines pack

requirements for kiwifruit packed in any

container and contains tables that

specify numerical size designations and

size variation tolerances. This rule will

increase the size variation tolerance for

Size 42 kiwifruit from 5 percent, by

count, to 10 percent, by count, and will

increase the size variation tolerance for

Size 45 kiwifruit from 10 percent, by

count, to 25 percent, by count. This

relaxation was recommended by the

committee, the agency responsible for

local administration of the marketing

order.

In the larger kiwifruit sizes, failure to

meet the required size variation

standards results in packs that are

visibly irregular in size. In Size 42 and

Size 45, however, when the respective

5 and 10 percent tolerances are

exceeded, the variation is difficult to

detect visually. However, packers must

separate the round and flat shaped

kiwifruit into two different containers in

order to meet the size variation

requirements within each container for

Size 42 and Size 45 kiwifruit. The

industry views this separation of Size 42

and 45 round and flat shaped kiwifruit

into two different containers by shape as

an added cost, that is particularly

detrimental because this fruit returns

little if any money back to the grower.

The higher costs of sizing the fruit

during the packing operation may have

cost the industry sales as well.

Further, this sizing of kiwifruit may

not be apparent to consumers. Usually

a pallet of Size 42 kiwifruit includes

containers of round fruit and containers

of flat fruit. When a pallet of Size 42

kiwifruit reaches the retailer, a

container of round fruit may be

displayed. As the kiwifruit is sold, a

container of the Size 42 flat fruit may be

commingled with the remaining round

fruit and the current size variation

standards that the packer strived so hard

to stay within during the packing

process are erased.

This final rule should reduce costs for

handlers by allowing them to operate in

a more efficient and cost-effective

manner and to meet the increased

demand in the marketplace for lower

priced, uniform containers of kiwifruit.

Approximately 74 percent of all

kiwifruit shipped during the 1996–1997

season was shipped in bags, volume fill

or bulk containers. The increased

tolerance for Size 42 from 5 percent, by

count, to 10 percent, by count, will

increase the number of kiwifruit that
49130 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations

may exceed the 3⁄8′′ size variation

requirement in bags, volume fill, or bulk

containers. Since the individual fruit

weight of a Size 42 kiwifruit is

approximately 0.160 ounces, a 22-

pound volume fill container of Size 42

kiwifruit will contain approximately

138 fruit. An increased tolerance of 10

percent per container will allow

approximately 14 kiwifruit to exceed

the 3⁄8′′ tolerance versus 7 kiwifruit at

the 5 percent tolerance rate. As a result,

handlers will be able to operate more

efficiently with this increased tolerance.

The increased tolerance for Size 45

from 10 percent, by count, to 25 percent,

by count, will increase the number of

kiwifruit that may exceed the 1⁄4′′ size

variation requirement. Since the

individual fruit weight of a Size 45

kiwifruit is approximately 0.145 ounces,

a 22-pound volume fill container of Size

45 kiwifruit contains approximately 151

kiwifruit. An increased tolerance of 25

percent, by count, per container will

allow 37 kiwifruit out of 151 kiwifruit

to exceed the 1⁄4′′ tolerance versus 15

kiwifruit at the 10 percent tolerance

rate. With this increased tolerance,

handlers expect to be able to pack round

and flat shaped kiwifruit into one

container, thereby reducing costs.

This action is not expected to reduce

the quality of the kiwifruit pack.

Consumers will not see any changes to

the product at retail, because the

produce staff at the stores already

commingle round and flat kiwifruit in

their display bins. Also, the allowed

variation will be at a reasonable level

and retailers will still receive a fairly

uniform box of fruit.

California kiwifruit packing

operations range from very small

operations, employing as few as 2

persons, to large operations employing

as many as 150 people per shift. The

1997–1998 season crop estimate is

projected to be 10 to 12 million tray

equivalents. A tray equivalent is 7

pounds of fruit. Handlers pack from

several hundred to over 25,000 tray

equivalents during the season. Packing

costs for volume fill containers range

from approximately $0.25 to $0.75 per

container. The 60 packing sheds can be

divided into 3 size categories of small,

medium, and large. Small sheds consist

of 25 employees or less, medium sheds

26–75 employees, and large sheds

consist of 76 or more employees. The

committee anticipates that labor

devoted to packout, on average, will be

decreased by 1 to 3 employees per

packing shed. The committee estimates

cost savings of approximately $0.01 per

tray equivalent. Based on a projected

crop estimate of 10 to 12 million tray

equivalents, a savings of $100,000 to

$120,000 could be realized for the 1997–

1998 season.

The committee discussed numerous

alternatives to this change, including

eliminating all pack requirements,

increasing the size variation tolerance to

establish a Size 42–45 container by

blending the packing of Size 42 and Size

45 kiwifruit into one container,

reducing the minimum size from Size

45 to Size 49, eliminating Size 45 and

making Size 42 the minimum size,

making Size 45 requirements more

restrictive, reducing the maximum to 53

kiwifruit in the 8 pound sample,

lowering the minimum maturity to 6.2

percent, and increasing the degree, or

size of the variation allowed, from 1⁄4-

inch to 3⁄8-inch for Size 45 kiwifruit.

After lengthy discussion, all of these

alternatives were deemed unacceptable.

The general consensus was that

eliminating all pack requirements could

adversely affect quality. The committee

wishes to continue utilizing separate

Size 42 and Size 45 containers at this

time because handlers are able to market

each size. Reducing the minimum size

from Size 45 to Size 49 would not have

benefitted the industry because growers

and handlers could not make a profit

growing, packing and selling Size 49.

It was the general consensus that

eliminating Size 45 and making Size 42

the minimum size, or making Size 45

requirements more restrictive, by

reducing the maximum to 53 kiwifruit

in the 8 pound sample, would have

imposed more stringent requirements on

California growers and handlers and

eliminate salable fruit from markets.

Committee members deemed lowering

the minimum maturity to 6.2 percent

unacceptable as kiwifruit picked below

the current minimum maturity of 6.5

percent may shrivel in cold storage. The

last alternative considered was to

increase the degree, or size of the

variation allowed, from 1⁄4-inch to 3⁄8-

inch for Size 45 kiwifruit. It was the

consensus of the committee that such an

increase would have allowed undesired

blending of undersize kiwifruit. The end

result would have been a container with

visibly different fruit sizes, including

undersize fruit. This alternative was

deemed not acceptable as the industry

desires to pack a uniform container of

kiwifruit.

This final rule will relax pack

requirements under the kiwifruit

marketing order and these requirements

will be applied uniformly to all

handlers. This action will not impose

any additional reporting or

recordkeeping requirements on either

small or large kiwifruit handlers. As

with all Federal marketing order

programs, reports and forms are

periodically reviewed to reduce

information requirements and

duplication by industry and public

sector agencies.

The Department has not identified

any relevant Federal rules that

duplicate, overlap or conflict with this

final rule.

The committee’s meeting was widely

publicized throughout the kiwifruit

industry and all interested persons were

invited to attend the meeting and

participate in committee deliberations

on all issues. Like all committee

meetings, the April 16, 1997, meeting

was a public meeting and all entities,

both large and small, were able to

express views on this issue.

A proposed rule concerning this

action was issued by the Department on

July 2, 1997, and published in the

Federal Register on Wednesday, July 9,

1997 (62 FR 36743). Copies of the rule

were mailed to all committee members

and kiwifruit handlers. Finally, the rule

was made available through the Internet

by the Office of the Federal Register.

A 30-day comment period was

provided to allow interested persons to

respond to the proposal. No comments

were received.

After consideration of all relevant

matter presented, including the

information and recommendation

submitted by the committee and other

available information, it is hereby found

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth,

will tend to effectuate the declared

policy of the Act.

It is further found that good cause

exists for not postponing the effective

date of this rule until 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register (5

U.S.C. 553) because these changes in

size variation tolerances relieve

restrictions on handlers and should

apply to all Size 42 and Size 45

kiwifruit shipped during the 1997–98

season. Such shipments are expected to

begin at the end of September or early

October. Further, handlers are aware of

this rule, which was recommended at a

public meeting. Also, a 30-day comment

period was provided for in the proposed

rule, and no comments were received.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 920

Kiwifruit, Marketing agreements.

For the reasons set forth in the

preamble, 7 CFR part 920 is amended as

follows:

PART 920—KIWIFRUIT GROWN IN

CALIFORNIA

1. The authority citation for 7 CFR

part 920 continues to read as follows:

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674.
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 182 / Friday, September 19, 1997 / Rules and Regulations 49131

2. In § 920.302, paragraph (a)(4)(ii) is

amended by revising the last sentence to

read as follows:

§ 920.302 Grade, size, pack and container

regulations.

(a) * * *

(4) * * *

(ii) * * * Not more than 10 percent,

by count of the containers in any lot and

not more than 5 percent, by count, of

kiwifruit in any container, (except that

for Size 42 kiwifruit, the tolerance, by

count, in any one container, may not be

more than 10 percent and except that for

Size 45 kiwifruit, the tolerance, by

count, in any one container, may not be

more than 25 percent) may fail to meet

the requirements of this paragraph.

Dated: September 15, 1997.

Robert C. Keeney,

Director, Fruit and Vegetable Division.

[FR Doc. 97–24957 Filed 9–18–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE

Immigration and Naturalization Service

8 CFR Part 316

[INS No. 1861–97]

RIN 1115–AE84

Adding the Missouri Botanical Garden

to the Listing of American Institutions

of Research

AGENCY: Immigration and Naturalization

Service, Justice.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This rule amends the

Immigration and Naturalization Service

(Service) regulations by adding the

Missouri Botanical Garden (research

and educational programs only) to the

list of American institutions of research

recognized by the Attorney General for

the purpose of preserving residence in

the United States for naturalization.

Persons and their dependents who

expect to be continuously absent from

the United States for a year or more

because of work at one of the American

institutions of research recognized by

the Attorney General may be given

permission to be absent without

interrupting continuous residence for

naturalization purposes. This change is

necessary because such recognized

institutions are published in the

Service’s regulations. Based on the

findings of the St. Louis Officer-inCharge, the Regional Director of the

Central Region determined and ordered

on May 9, 1997, that the Missouri

Botanical Garden (research and

educational programs only) be

recognized as an American institution of

research recognized by the Attorney

General.

DATES: This final rule is effective

October 20, 1997.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Jane

B. Barker, Senior Adjudications Officer,

Benefits Branch, Immigration and

Naturalization Service, 425 I Street,

NW., Room 3214, Washington, DC

20536, telephone (202) 514–5014.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Pursuant

to Service regulations, after an applicant

has been admitted for permanent

residence, he or she must reside in the

United States continuously for at least 5

years before filing an application for

naturalization. Under certain

circumstances, persons and their

dependents who expect to be

continuously absent from the United

States for a year or more because of

work at one of the American institutions

of research recognized by the Attorney

General may be given permission to be

absent without interrupting continuous

residence for naturalization purposes.

Based on the findings of the St. Louis

Officer-in-Charge, the Regional Director

of the Central Region determined and

ordered on May 9, 1997, that the

Missouri botanical Garden (research and

education programs only) is an

American institution of research for the

purpose of preserving residence in the

United States for naturalization.

Accordingly, § 316.20(a) will be

amended by adding that institution to

the list of American institutions of

research recognized by the Attorney

General.

Good Cause Exception

The Service’s implementation of its

rule as a final rule is based upon the

‘‘good cause’’ exceptions found at 5

U.S.C. 553 (b)(B) and (d)(3). The reason

for immediate implementation of this

final rule is as follows: This rule is

editorial in nature and merely updates

the existing institutional listings

currently contained in Title 8 of the

Code of Federal Regulations.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

The Commissioner of the Immigration

and Naturalization Service, in

accordance with the Regulatory

Flexibility Act 5 U.S.C. 605(b), has

reviewed this regulation and, by

approving it, certifies that the rule will

not have a significant economic effect

on a substantial number of small entities

because of the following factors. This

rule is editorial in nature and merely

updates the existing institutional

listings currently contained in Title 8 of

the Code of Federal Regulations.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of

1995

This rule will not result in the

expenditure by State, local and tribal

governments, in the aggregate, or by the

private sector, of $100 million or more

in any one year, and it will not

significantly or uniquely affect small

governments. Therefore, no actions were

deemed necessary under the provisions

of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

of 1995.

Small Business Regulatory Enforcement

Fairness Act of 1996

This rule is not a major rule as

defined by section 804 of the Small

Business Regulatory Enforcement Act of

1996. This rule will not result in an

annual effect on the economy of $100

million or more; a major increase in

costs or prices; or significant adverse

effects on competition, employment,

investment, productivity, innovation, or

on the ability of United States-based

companies to compete with foreignbased companies in domestic and

export markets.

Executive Order 12866

This rule is not considered by the

Department of Justice, Immigration and

Naturalization Service, to be a

‘‘significant regulatory action’’ under

Executive Order 12866, section 3(f),

Regulatory Planning and Review, and

the Office of Management and Budget

has waived its review process under

section 6(a)(3)(A).

Executive Order 12612

The regulation adopted herein will

not have substantial direct effects on the

States, on the relationship between the

National Government and the States, or

on the distribution of power and

responsibilities among the various

levels of government. Therefore, in

accordance with Executive Order 12612,

it is determined that this rule does not

have sufficient federalism implications

to warrant the preparation of a

Federalism Assessment.

Executive Order 12988

This rule meets the applicable

standards set forth in section 3(a) and

3(b)(2) of E.O. 12988.

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 316

Citizenship and Naturalization.

Accordingly, part 3 of chapter I of title

8 of the Code of Federal Regulations is

amended as follows: