Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 2907 

exemptions may be waived on a case by 

case basis. 

A notice of system of records for 

Facility and Perimeter Access Control 

and Visitor Management is also 

published in this issue of the Federal 

Register. 

List of Subjects in 6 CFR Part 5 

Freedom of information; Privacy. 

For the reasons stated in the 

preamble, DHS proposes to amend 

Chapter I of Title 6, Code of Federal 

Regulations, as follows: 

PART 5—DISCLOSURE OF RECORDS 

AND INFORMATION 

1. The authority citation for Part 5 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 6 U.S.C. 101 et seq.; Pub. L. 

107–296, 116 Stat. 2135; 5 U.S.C. 301. 

Subpart A also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552. 

Subpart B also issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a. 

2. Add at the end of Appendix C to 

Part 5, the following new paragraph 

‘‘14’’: 

Appendix C to Part 5—DHS Systems of 

Records Exempt From the Privacy Act 

* * * * * 

14. The Department of Homeland 

Security—024 Facility and Perimeter Access 

Control and Visitor Management system of 

records consists of electronic and paper 

records and will be used by DHS and its 

components. DHS/All—024 Facility and 

Perimeter Access Control and Visitor 

Management is a repository of information 

held by DHS in connection with its several 

and varied missions and functions, 

including, but not limited to: The 

enforcement of civil and criminal laws; 

investigations, inquiries, and proceedings 

thereunder; and national security and 

intelligence activities. Facility and Perimeter 

Access Control and Visitor Management 

contains information that is collected by, on 

behalf of, in support of, or in cooperation 

with DHS and its components and may 

contain personally identifiable information 

collected by other Federal, State, local, tribal, 

foreign, or international government 

agencies. Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552a(k)(1), (2), 

and (5), this system is exempt from the 

following provisions of the Privacy Act, 

subject to the limitations set forth in those 

subsections: 5 U.S.C. 552a(c)(3), (d), (e)(1), 

(e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), (e)(4)(I), and (f). 

Exemptions from these particular subsections 

are justified, on a case-by-case basis to be 

determined at the time a request is made, for 

the following reasons: 

(a) From subsection (c)(3) (Accounting for 

Disclosures) because release of the 

accounting of disclosures could alert the 

subject of an investigation of an actual or 

potential criminal, civil, or regulatory 

violation to the existence of the investigation, 

and reveal investigative interest on the part 

of DHS as well as the recipient agency. 

Disclosure of the accounting would therefore 

present a serious impediment to law 

enforcement efforts and/or efforts to preserve 

national security. Disclosure of the 

accounting would also permit the individual 

who is the subject of a record to impede the 

investigation, to tamper with witnesses or 

evidence, and to avoid detection or 

apprehension, which would undermine the 

entire investigative process. 

(b) From subsection (d) (Access to Records) 

because access to the records contained in 

this system of records could inform the 

subject of an investigation of an actual or 

potential criminal, civil, or regulatory 

violation, to the existence of the 

investigation, and reveal investigative 

interest on the part of DHS or another agency. 

Access to the records could permit the 

individual who is the subject of a record to 

impede the investigation, to tamper with 

witnesses or evidence, and to avoid detection 

or apprehension. Amendment of the records 

could interfere with ongoing investigations 

and law enforcement activities and would 

impose an impossible administrative burden 

by requiring investigations to be 

continuously reinvestigated. In addition, 

permitting access and amendment to such 

information could disclose security-sensitive 

information that could be detrimental to 

homeland security. 

(c) From subsection (e)(1) (Relevancy and 

Necessity of Information) because in the 

course of investigations into potential 

violations of Federal law, the accuracy of 

information obtained or introduced 

occasionally may be unclear or the 

information may not be strictly relevant or 

necessary to a specific investigation. In the 

interests of effective law enforcement, it is 

appropriate to retain all information that may 

aid in establishing patterns of unlawful 

activity. 

(d) From subsections (e)(4)(G), (e)(4)(H), 

and (e)(4)(I) (Agency Requirements), and (f) 

(Agency Rules) because portions of this 

system are exempt from the individual access 

provisions of subsection (d) for the reasons 

noted above, and therefore DHS is not 

required to establish requirements, rules, or 

procedures with respect to such access. 

Providing notice to individuals with respect 

to existence of records pertaining to them in 

the system of records or otherwise setting up 

procedures pursuant to which individuals 

may access and view records pertaining to 

themselves in the system would undermine 

investigative efforts and reveal the identities 

of witnesses, and potential witnesses, and 

confidential informants. 

Dated: December 22, 2008. 

Hugo Teufel III, 

Chief Privacy Officer, Department of 

Homeland Security. 

[FR Doc. E9–935 Filed 1–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4410–10–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

7 CFR Part 340 

[Docket No. APHIS–2008–0023] 

RIN 0579–AC31 

Importation, Interstate Movement, and 

Release Into the Environment of 

Certain Genetically Engineered 

Organisms 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; reopening of 

comment period. 

SUMMARY: We are reopening the 

comment period for our proposed rule 

that would revise our regulations 

regarding the importation, interstate 

movement, and environmental release 

of certain genetically engineered 

organisms. This action will allow 

interested persons additional time to 

prepare and submit comments. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before March 17, 

2009. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ 

component/ 

main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS2008-0023 to submit or view comments 

and to view supporting and related 

materials available electronically. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Please send two copies of your comment 

to Docket No. APHIS–2008–0023, 

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– 

2008–0023. 

• Public Forum: Written and oral 

comment will be accepted at a public 

forum held during the comment period. 

See Public Forums below. 

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. 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
2908 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 

1To view the proposed rule, supporting 

documents, and any comments we have received, 

go to http://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/ 

component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS2008-0023. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Biotechnology Regulatory Services, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 147, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 734– 

5710. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On 

October 9, 2008, we published in the 

Federal Register (73 FR 60007–60048, 

Docket No. APHIS–2008–0023) a 

proposal 1 to revise our regulations 

regarding the importation, interstate 

movement, and environmental release 

of certain genetically engineered (GE) 

organisms. The proposed revisions 

would bring the regulations into 

alignment with provisions of the Plant 

Protection Act (PPA, 7 U.S.C. 7701 et 

seq.) and update the regulations in 

response to advances in genetic science 

and technology and our accumulated 

experience in implementing the current 

regulations. 

By the time the public comment 

period closed on November 24, 2008, 

we had received over 15,000 comments, 

including requests for APHIS to extend 

the public comment period. We are 

currently evaluating all the comments, 

and it is apparent that additional time 

for public comment is warranted and 

that it would be particularly helpful to 

receive additional comments on a 

variety of specific issues that have been 

raised thus far on the proposed rule. 

Therefore, we are reopening the 

comment period on Docket No. APHIS– 

2008–0023 for an additional 60 days. 

We will also consider all comments 

received between November 25, 2008 

(the date following the close of the 

original comment period), and the date 

of this notice. This action will allow 

interested persons additional time to 

prepare and submit comments. While 

all aspects of the proposal may be 

addressed by the public, we are 

particularly seeking additional 

comments on the issues listed below. In 

some cases commenters identified 

concerns about these issues, but did not 

provide specific suggestions as to how 

the proposed rule could be modified to 

address these concerns. By reopening 

the comment period, we hope to elicit 

more specific information and detailed 

suggestions regarding these issues. 

Issue 1: Scope of the regulation and 

which GE organisms should be 

regulated. Section 340.0 of the proposed 

rule lists a number of criteria or factors 

to consider to identify those GE 

organisms which would be subject to 

the regulations. The proposal stated that 

in many cases a person could correctly 

apply the criteria to determine whether 

a specific GE organism is subject to the 

regulations, and stated that consultation 

with APHIS would be available in cases 

where it was not readily apparent 

whether or not a GE organism is 

regulated. Some commenters questioned 

whether the proposed scope could be 

interpreted with reasonable certainty. 

Some commenters thought the scope 

was effectively too broad and would 

regulate too many harmless GE 

organisms, while others thought it was 

too narrow and would exempt GE 

organisms that should be regulated. 

Some commenters stated that all GE 

plants should be subject to the 

regulations. We welcome additional 

comments on these subjects, including 

suggestions on what the criteria should 

be for determining the scope and 

applicability of the regulations and 

suggestions on which specific GE 

organisms should be included or 

excluded from the regulations based 

upon the potential risks consistent with 

the authorities provided in the PPA. 

Issue 2: Incorporation of the Plant 

Protection Act noxious weed provisions. 

The proposed rule included APHIS 

evaluating certain GE organisms as a 

noxious weed risk pursuant to the PPA 

definition of ‘‘noxious weed’’ including 

consideration of noxious weed 

attributes in the scope of the regulation 

and in the decision making standards 

proposed in the regulations. Some 

comments suggested that this aspect of 

the proposal overestimates the 

likelihood that the use of GE techniques 

will create a noxious weed, whereas 

other comments suggested that the 

proposal did not pay enough attention 

to noxious weed attributes. Other 

comments broadly discussed the utility 

of the noxious weed authority of the 

PPA and how APHIS should apply it in 

these regulations. We welcome 

additional comments on how APHIS 

should include and apply the PPA’s 

noxious weed provisions in the 

regulations in order to provide an 

appropriate level of protection based 

upon the potential risks consistent with 

the authorities provided in the PPA. 

Issue 3: Elimination of notification 

procedure and revision of the permit 

procedure. The proposed rule would 

eliminate the notification procedure for 

authorizing importations, interstate 

movements, and releases into the 

environment, and instead use the 

permitting procedure for these 

activities. The proposal provided 

categories that APHIS would use for 

environmental release permits. 

Commenters raised many questions 

about the consequences of eliminating 

notifications. They also raised questions 

about the clarity of the requirements 

associated with the proposed permit 

categories. Some commenters expressed 

concern that the proposal would remove 

from the regulations firm timeframes for 

APHIS administrative action on 

applications, and that the proposed 

generalized timeframes were much 

longer than the timeframes under the 

current notification procedure. Several 

commenters saw this proposed change 

as detrimental to planning activities, 

especially for conducting field tests. 

Some commenters raised concerns that 

the proposed changes would 

substantially increase the data 

collection and recordkeeping burden on 

all applicants and responsible persons, 

whereas the current recordkeeping 

requirements for notifications are less 

than the requirements for permits. We 

welcome additional comments on these 

issues, including specific suggestions on 

how the regulations could achieve the 

necessary level of protection against the 

introduction and dissemination of plant 

pests or noxious weeds while 

minimizing any additional compliance 

burden for applicants or delay in 

processing applications. 

Issue 4: Environmental release permit 

categories and regulation of GE crops 

that produce pharmaceutical and 

industrial compounds. In the proposal, 

the categories for environmental release 

permits would be an initial 

administrative sorting done by APHIS 

prior to a full evaluation and 

determination of appropriate permit 

conditions for that particular permit. 

Most of the comments focused on the 

four categories APHIS proposed for GE 

plants. The two primary factors APHIS 

identified as most relevant to define its 

initial sorting system for environmental 

release permits were (1) the ability of 

the unmodified recipient plant species 

to persist in the wild and (2) the 

potential of the engineered trait to cause 

harm, injury, or damage, as described in 

the definitions of plant pest and noxious 

weed. The categories in the proposal 

were not based on intended use of the 

GE plant, but rather its properties. Many 

commenters, however, stated that they 

wanted APHIS to act on the intended 

use of the GE plant and ban all 

environmental releases of GE plants that 

are intended to produce compounds to 

be used in pharmaceutical or industrial 

uses, especially if that plant species is 

also used for the production of food or 

feed. We are seeking further comment 

on whether or how an intended use to 

produce pharmaceutical or industrial 

compounds contributes to an increase in 

plant pest or noxious weed risks. We 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 11 / Friday, January 16, 2009 / Proposed Rules 2909 

welcome additional comments on all 

these issues, including specific 

suggestions on how the regulations 

could best provide the appropriate level 

of protection based upon the potential 

risks consistent with the authorities 

provided in the PPA. 

Public Forums 

In order to provide additional 

opportunities for the public to comment 

on the proposed rule, APHIS held 

public forums on the proposal in Davis, 

CA, on October 28, 2008; in Kansas City, 

MO, on October 30, 2008; and 

Riverdale, MD, on November 13, 2008. 

APHIS intends to hold one additional 

public forum on the proposed rule 

during the extended public comment 

period. The time and place of the public 

forum will be announced in the Federal 

Register. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 7701–7772 and 7781– 

7786; 31 U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 

371.3. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 13th day of 

January 2009. 

Cindy J. Smith, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. E9–905 Filed 1–15–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 

Federal Aviation Administration 

14 CFR Part 71 

[Docket No. FAA–2008–1229; Airspace 

Docket No. 08–ASW–26] 

Proposed Amendment of Class E 

Airspace; Natchitoches, LA 

AGENCY: Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), DOT. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking 

(NPRM). 

SUMMARY: This action proposes to 

amend Class E airspace at Natchitoches, 

LA. Additional controlled airspace is 

necessary to accommodate new 

Standard Instrument Approach 

Procedures (SIAPs) at Natchitoches 

Regional Airport, Natchitoches, LA. The 

FAA is taking this action to enhance the 

safety and management of Instrument 

Flight Rules (IFR) aircraft operations at 

Natchitoches Regional Airport. 

DATES: 0901 UTC. Comments must be 

received on or before March 2, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Send comments on this 

proposal to the U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Docket Operations, 1200 

New Jersey Avenue, SE., West Building 

Ground Floor, Room W12–140, 

Washington, DC 20590–0001. You must 

identify the docket number FAA–2008– 

1229/Airspace Docket No. 08–ASW–26, 

at the beginning of your comments. You 

may also submit comments on the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

You may review the public docket 

containing the proposal, any comments 

received, and any final disposition in 

person in the Dockets Office between 9 

a.m. and 5 p.m., Monday through 

Friday, except Federal holidays. The 

Docket Office (telephone 1–800–647– 

5527), is on the ground floor of the 

building at the above address. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Scott Enander, Central Service Center, 

Operations Support Group, Federal 

Aviation Administration, Southwest 

Region, 2601 Meacham Blvd., Fort 

Worth, TX 76193–0530; telephone: (817) 

222–5582. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Comments Invited 

Interested parties are invited to 

participate in this proposed rulemaking 

by submitting such written data, views, 

or arguments, as they may desire. 

Comments that provide the factual basis 

supporting the views and suggestions 

presented are particularly helpful in 

developing reasoned regulatory 

decisions on the proposal. Comments 

are specifically invited on the overall 

regulatory, aeronautical, economic, 

environmental, and energy-related 

aspects of the proposal. 

Communications should identify both 

docket numbers and be submitted in 

triplicate to the address listed above. 

Commenters wishing the FAA to 

acknowledge receipt of their comments 

on this notice must submit with those 

comments a self-addressed, stamped 

postcard on which the following 

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to 

Docket No. FAA–2008–1229/Airspace 

Docket No. 08–ASW–26.’’ The postcard 

will be date/time stamped and returned 

to the commenter. 

Availability of NPRMs 

An electronic copy of this document 

may be downloaded through the 

Internet at http://www.regulations.gov. 

Recently published rulemaking 

documents can also be accessed through 

the FAA’s Web page at http:// 

www.faa.gov/airports_airtraffic/ 

air_traffic/publications/ 

airspace_amendments/. 

Additionally, any person may obtain 

a copy of this notice by submitting a 

request to the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA), Office of Air 

Traffic Airspace Management, ATA– 

400, 800 Independence Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC 20591, or by calling 

(202) 267–8783. Communications must 

identify both docket numbers for this 

notice. Persons interested in being 

placed on a mailing list for future 

NPRMs should contact the FAA’s Office 

of Rulemaking (202) 267–9677, to 

request a copy of Advisory Circular No. 

11–2A, Notice of Proposed Rulemaking 

Distribution System, which describes 

the application procedure. 

The Proposal 

This action proposes to amend Title 

14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 

CFR), Part 71 by adding additional Class 

E airspace for SIAPs operations at 

Natchitoches Regional Airport, 

Natchitoches, LA. The area would be 

depicted on appropriate aeronautical 

charts. 

Class E airspace areas are published 

in Paragraph 6005 of FAA Order 

7400.9S, dated October 3, 2008, and 

effective October 31, 2008, which is 

incorporated by reference in 14 CFR 

71.1. The Class E airspace designation 

listed in this document would be 

published subsequently in the Order. 

The FAA has determined that this 

proposed regulation only involves an 

established body of technical 

regulations for which frequent and 

routine amendments are necessary to 

keep them operationally current. It, 

therefore, (1) Is not a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ under Executive 

Order 12866; (2) is not a ‘‘significant 

rule’’ under DOT Regulatory Policies 

and Procedures (44 FR 11034; February 

26, 1979); and (3) does not warrant 

preparation of a Regulatory Evaluation 

as the anticipated impact is so minimal. 

Since this is a routine matter that will 

only affect air traffic procedures and air 

navigation, it is certified that this rule, 

when promulgated, will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities 

under the criteria of the Regulatory 

Flexibility Act. The FAA’s authority to 

issue rules regarding aviation safety is 

found in Title 49 of the U.S. Code. 

Subtitle 1, Section 106 describes the 

authority of the FAA Administrator. 

Subtitle VII, Aviation Programs, 

describes in more detail the scope of the 

agency’s authority. This rulemaking is 

promulgated under the authority 

described in Subtitle VII, Part A, 

Subpart I, Section 40103. Under that 

section, the FAA is charged with 

prescribing regulations to assign the use 

of airspace necessary to ensure the 

safety of aircraft and the efficient use of 

airspace. This regulation is within the 

scope of that authority as it would add 

additional controlled airspace at 


hsrobinson on PROD1PC76 with PROPOSALS