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

21119

Vol. 65, No. 77

Thursday, April 20, 2000

OFFICE OF PERSONNEL

MANAGEMENT

5 CFR Part 841

RIN 3206–AI83

Retirement and Insurance—

Automation and Simplification of FERS

Employee Record Keeping During an

Intra-Agency Transfer

AGENCY: Office of Personnel

Management.

ACTION: Interim rule.

SUMMARY: The Office of Personnel

Management (OPM) is issuing interim

regulations to allow the automated

transfer of Federal Employees’

Retirement System (FERS) employee

payroll account information from one

payroll office to another, within the

same agency, eliminating the

requirement of creating and forwarding

a hard copy Individual Retirement

Record (IRR) to OPM for each intraagency transfer. When an employee is

no longer employed by the agency or is

no longer covered under FERS, a

comprehensive IRR will then be

forwarded to OPM.

DATES: Interim rules effective April 20,

2000; comments must be received on or

before July 19, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Send comments to Mary

Ellen Wilson, Retirement Policy

Division, Office of Personnel

Management, P.O. Box 57, Washington,

DC 20044; or deliver to OPM, Room

4351, 1900 E Street, NW., Washington

DC. Comments may also be submitted

by electronic mail to combox@opm.gov.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For

Part 841: John Panagakos, (202) 606–

0299.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 5 CFR

841.504(d) directs an agency payroll

office to close a FERS employee’s IRR

and forward it to OPM when the

employee separates, transfers to another

agency or to a position serviced by

another payroll office, or transfers to a

position in which he or she is not

covered by FERS. This means that even

when an employee transfers within an

agency, but is subject to a different

payroll office, a hard copy IRR must be

created from the payroll information

and forwarded to OPM. There are

compelling reasons to retain the

requirement to create a hard copy IRR

each time an employee (1) moves from

one agency to another; (2) separates

from Federal service; or (3) changes

retirement coverage. However, recent

automated advances obviate the need to

immediately create and forward an IRR

to OPM for every intra-agency transfer

that only involves different payroll

offices under the same system of

automated records.

As a result of modernization efforts in

automated record keeping software,

early in the year 2000 the Defense

Finance and Accounting Service (DFAS)

plans to implement the automated

transfer of large numbers of payroll

accounts from one payroll office to

another within their agency. This

software also has the capability to

electronically transfer retirement

information as well as payroll

information, thus securing an accurate

record of retirement information for

hard copy certification and transmittal

to OPM when the employee falls into

one of the three retained categories

listed above (e.g., separates from Federal

service).

For these reasons, the Office of

Personnel Management is proposing to

amend 5 CFR 841.504(d) to allow

agencies this flexibility in intra-agency

record keeping. OPM’s authority to

make this amendment is in section

8461(g) of title 5, United States Code.

Waiver of General Notice of Proposed

Rulemaking

Under section 553(b)(3)(B) and (d)(3)

of title 5, United States Code, I find that

good cause exists for waiving the

general notice of proposed rulemaking

and for making these rules effective in

less than 30 days. These regulations will

affect the operation of all Federal

payroll offices on and after May 1, 2000.

Publication of a general notice of

proposed rulemaking would be contrary

to the public interest because it would

delay the implementation of cost saving

automated record keeping measures that

are non-controversial in nature.

Regulatory Flexibility Act

I certify that this amendment to the

regulation will not have a significant

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities because the

amendment provides a cost-saving

option previously unavailable to those

agencies but does not require that they

obtain the necessary software to

implement that option.

Executive Order 12866, Regulatory

Review

This rule has been reviewed by the

Office of Management and Budget in

accordance with Executive Order 12866.

List of Subjects in 5 CFR Part 841

Administrative practice and

procedure, Air traffic controllers,

Claims, Disability benefits, Firefighters,

Government employees, Income taxes,

Intergovernmental relations, Law

enforcement officers, Pensions.

Office of Personnel Management

Janice R. Lachance,

Director.

Accordingly, OPM amends part 841 of

title 5 of the Code of Federal

Regulations as follows:

PART 841—FEDERAL EMPLOYEES

RETIREMENT SYSTEM—GENERAL

ADMINISTRATION

1. The authority citation for part 841

is revised to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 8461; § 841.108 also

issued under 5 U.S.C. 552a; subpart D also

issued under 5 U.S.C. 8423; § 841.504 also

issued under 5 U.S.C. 8422; § 841.507 also

issued under section 505 of Pub. L. 99–335,

100 Stat. 514; subpart J also issued under 5

U.S.C. 8469; § 841.506 also issued under 5

U.S.C. 7701(b)(2); § 841.508 also issued

under section 505 of Pub. L. 99–335, 100

Stat. 514.

Subpart E—Employee Deductions and

Government Contributions

2. In § 841.504 paragraph (d) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 841.504 Agency responsibilities.

* * * * *

(d) When an employee separates from

Federal service or transfers to another

agency, or transfers to a position in

which he or she is not covered by FERS,

the agency must close the employee’s

21120 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 77 / Thursday, April 20, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

Individual Retirement Record (IRR) and

forward it to OPM within the time

standards prescribed by OPM. However,

if an employee transfers to another

position covered under FERS—

(1) Within the same agency, and

(2) To a position serviced by another

payroll office, the agency may, in lieu of

forwarding an IRR to OPM at the time

of the intra-agency transfer, record the

transfer for future IRR certification in an

internal automated system of records.

* * * * *

[FR Doc. 00–9853 Filed 4–19–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6325–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

7 CFR Part 319

[Docket No. 96–031–2]

RIN 0579–AA82

Importation of Wood Chips From Chile

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are adopting as a final

rule, with changes, a proposed rule to

allow the importation of Pinus radiata

wood chips from Chile if the surfaces of

the wood chips are treated with a

specified pesticide mixture. This change

to the regulations for importing logs,

lumber, and other unmanufactured

wood articles will provide another

alternative for persons interested in

importing wood chips from Chile while

continuing to protect against the

introduction of dangerous plant pests.

EFFECTIVE DATE: May 22, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Donna L. West, Import Specialist,

Phytosanitary Issues Management Team,

PPQ, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 140,

Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 734–

6799.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Logs, lumber, and other

unmanufactured wood articles imported

into the United States could pose a

significant hazard of introducing plant

pests and pathogens detrimental to

agriculture and to natural, cultivated,

and urban forest resources. The

regulations in 7 CFR 319.40–1 through

319.40–11 (referred to below as the

regulations) contain provisions to

eliminate any significant plant pest risk

presented by the importation of logs,

lumber, and other unmanufactured

wood articles.

On July 28, 1998, the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

published in the Federal Register (63

FR 40193–40200, Docket No. 96–031–1)

a proposed rule to amend the

regulations to allow the importation of

Pinus radiata wood chips from Chile if

the surfaces of the wood chips are

treated with a specified pesticide

mixture.

We solicited comments concerning

our proposed rule for 60 days ending

September 28, 1998. We received 10

comments by that date. The comments

were from four environmental groups

(with overlapping management), three

State governments, two corporations,

and the Government of Chile. Seven of

the commenters supported the proposed

rule, although several stated that there

were deficiencies in the rule that should

be corrected before the rule could win

their full support. The remaining

commenters disagreed with the

proposed rule or suggested alternatives

to it. All of the issues raised by the

commenters are discussed below.

Comment—Control of Stain Fungi:

Several commenters questioned whether

the surface pesticide treatment or other

requirements of the rule would prevent

the introduction of stain fungi,

particularly of the genus Ophiostoma,

that may be associated with wood chips

from Chile.

Response: The surface pesticide

treatment contained in the rule has been

proven effective against stain fungi,

including stain fungi of the genus

Ophiostoma. Research demonstrating

this effectiveness has been published

(see, for example, Morrell, Freitag, and

Silva, ‘‘Protection of Freshly Cut Radiata

Pine Chips From Fungal Attack,’’ Forest

Prod. J. 48(2):57–59).

Comment—Heat Treatment Should

Be Required: Several commenters stated

that the position of most experts, State

regulators, and members of the public is

that heat treatment of imported wood

articles capable of bearing pests is the

only safe and acceptable method of

importation. They stated that fumigation

or surface pesticide treatment are not

economically feasible or effective

alternatives.

Response: ‘‘Safe’’ and ‘‘acceptable’’

are terms whose meanings vary greatly

depending on individual values. We are

assuming that the comments refer to

safety and acceptability in terms of the

effectiveness of systems in preventing

the introduction and dissemination in

the United States of dangerous plant

pests. No commenter submitted data

proving that a heat treatment system is

‘‘safer’’ than the proposed surface

pesticide treatment system. The new

surface pesticide treatment would

reduce the risk associated with any

plant pest introduction to a negligible

level.

Regarding the practicality of heat

treating wood chips, heat treated wood

chips are less useful than wood chips

that have undergone less destructive

treatments. Heat treatment decreases the

quality of wood chips and renders them

useless for many specific manufacturing

purposes. Regarding the economic

feasibility of the proposed surface

pesticide treatment and fumigation,

wood product companies have

requested that they be able to utilize the

surface pesticide alternative and,

therefore, presumably find it

economically feasible. Under normal

business practices, it is not

economically feasible for methyl

bromide to effectively penetrate wood

chips to more than 120 cubic feet. When

penetration is inadequate, the

requirements of the regulations are not

met, and the wood chips cannot be

imported under the fumigation

treatment option. In theory, it is

possible to effectively penetrate large

piles of wood chips by using a

specialized technique to distribute the

fumigant (e.g., a vacuum chamber or

submerged gas tubes); however, the cost

of utilizing such a technique is so

exorbitant that it becomes economically

infeasible. Consequently, no one has

imported large shipments of wood

chips, fumigated as a whole, under the

fumigation treatment option.

Fumigation remains in the regulations

as a treatment option for wood chips

because it is used for small shipments.

One reason for developing the surface

pesticide treatment in the proposal was

to compensate for the unavailability of

fumigation as a treatment method for

large shipments of wood chips.

Comment—Pesticide Application

Protocol and Quality Control: One

commenter cited research by Dr. Jeffrey

J. Morell of Oregon State University that

was used to support the treatment in the

proposed rule. The commenter noted

that the only pathogens tracked for

efficacy in the research were

Trichoderma species and that there was

no efficacy evaluation for insects. The

commenter stated that Morell concluded

the following modifications of the

surface pesticide treatment system may

be needed: An increase in biocide

concentration; improved uniformity of

the spray system; routine assessment of

chip treatment quality; and a system for

regular microbiological assessment of

organisms present in imported wood

chips.