29686 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

pay the prescribed fee. The person

seeking a fee waiver must file his or her

affidavit, or unsworn declaration made

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1746, asking for

permission to prosecute without

payment of fee of the application,

petition, appeal, motion, or request, and

stating his or her belief that he or she

is entitled to or deserving of the benefit

requested and the reasons for his or her

inability to pay. The officer of the

Service having jurisdiction to render a

decision on the application, petition,

appeal, motion, or request may, in his

discretion, grant the waiver of fee. Fees

for ‘‘Passenger Travel Reports via Sea

and Air’’ and for special statistical

tabulations may not be waived. The

payment of the additional sum

prescribed by section 245(i) of the Act

when applying for adjustment of status

under section 245 of the Act may not be

waived. The payment of the additional

$500 fee prescribed by section 214(c)(9)

of the Act when applying for petition for

nonimmigrant worker under section

101(a)(15)(H)(i)(b) of the Act may not be

waived. The fee for Form I–907, Request

for Premium Processing Services, may

not be waived.

* * * * *

PART 299—IMMIGRATION FORMS

4. The authority citation for part 299

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1101, 1103; 8 CFR part

2.

5. Section 299.1 is amended in the

table by adding the entry for Form I–

907, in proper alpha-numerical

sequence, to read as follows:

§ 299.1 Prescribed forms.

* * * * *

Form No. Edition date Title

*******

I–907 ............................................................................................................... 05–16–01 Request for Premium Processing Services.

*******

6. Section 299.5 is amended in the table by adding the entry for Form ‘‘I–907’’, in proper alpha-numerical sequences,

to read as follows:

§ 299.5 Display of control numbers.

* * * * *

INS form No. INS form title

Currently assigned OMB

control No.

*******

I–907 ............................................................................................ Request for Premium Processing Services ............................... 1115–0241

*******

Dated: May 24, 2001.

Kevin D. Rooney,

Acting Commissioner, Immigration and

Naturalization Service.

[FR Doc. 01–13566 Filed 5–31–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–10–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Part 94

[Docket No. 01–031–1]

Change in Disease Status of France,

Ireland, and The Netherlands Because

of Foot-and-Mouth Disease

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Interim rule and request for

comments.

SUMMARY: We are amending the

regulations governing the importation of

certain animals, meat, and other animal

products by removing France, Ireland,

and The Netherlands from the list of

regions considered to be free of

rinderpest and foot-and-mouth disease.

We recently removed Great Britain and

Northern Ireland from the list of regions

considered free of rinderpest and footand-mouth disease because of the

confirmed outbreak of foot-and-mouth

disease in those regions. The outbreak

in the United Kingdom has since spread

elsewhere in the European Union. We

are taking this additional action with

respect to France, Ireland, and The

Netherlands because the existence of

foot-and-mouth disease has been

confirmed there and these Member

States do not yet meet the Office

International des Epizooties criterion for

freedom of foot-and-mouth disease (i.e.,

a 3-month waiting period after the last

case in a region previously recognized

as free of the disease). The effect of this

action is to prohibit or restrict the

importation of any ruminant or swine

and any fresh (chilled or frozen) meat

and other products of ruminants or

swine into the United States from

France, Ireland, and The Netherlands.

DATES: This interim rule was effective

on February 19, 2001. We invite you to

comment on this docket. We will

consider all comments that we receive

by July 31, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Please send four copies of

your comment (an original and three

copies) to: Docket No. 01–031–1,

Regulatory Analysis and Development,

PPD, APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River

Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–

1238. Please state that your comment

refers to Docket No. 01–031–1.

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.

APHIS documents published in the

Federal Register, and related

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 29687

information, including the names of

organizations and individuals who have

commented on APHIS dockets, are

available on the Internet at http://

www.aphis.usda.gov/ppd/rad/

webrepor.html.

Furthermore, a risk assessment

documenting the basis for including the

designated Member States in this action

is available for review in our reading

room and on the Internet at http://

www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/regrequest.html, or by contacting the

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Gary Colgrove, Assistant Director,

Sanitary Trade Issues, National Center

for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, 4700

River Road Unit 38, Riverdale, MD

20737–1231; (301) 734–4356.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations in 9 CFR part 94

(referred to below as the regulations)

govern the importation of specified

animals and animal products into the

United States in order to prevent the

introduction of various animal diseases

including rinderpest, foot-and-mouth

disease (FMD), African swine fever, hog

cholera, and swine vesicular disease.

These are dangerous and destructive

communicable diseases of ruminants

and swine. Section 94.1 of the

regulations lists regions of the world

that are declared free of rinderpest or

free of both rinderpest and FMD.

Rinderpest or FMD exists in all other

regions of the world not listed. Section

94.11 of the regulations lists regions of

the world that have been declared free

of rinderpest and FMD, but that are

subject to certain restrictions because of

their proximity to or trading

relationships with rinderpest- or FMDaffected regions.

On March 14, 2001, we published in

the Federal Register (66 FR 14825–

14826, Docket No. 01–018–1) an interim

rule, effective January 15, 2001, that

removed Great Britain (England,

Scotland, Wales, and the Isle of Man)

and Northern Ireland from the list of

regions considered to be free of

rinderpest and FMD because the

existence of FMD had been confirmed in

both regions. Great Britain and Northern

Ireland participate in the European

Union (EU) through the individual

Member State status of the United

Kingdom. Due to the magnitude and rate

of spread of FMD in the United

Kingdom, we felt it necessary to act

immediately to remove Great Britain

and Northern Ireland from the list of

FMD-free regions in order to safeguard

the animal health status of the United

States.

Prior to the effective date of this

interim rule, the EU Member States of

France, Ireland, and The Netherlands

were listed in §§ 94.1 and 94.11 of the

regulations as regions considered to be

free of rinderpest and FMD. However, a

series of FMD outbreaks have occurred

in France, Ireland, and The Netherlands.

Specifically:

• On March 13, 2001, France’s

Ministry of Agriculture and Fisheries

(MAF) clinically confirmed an outbreak

of FMD in the department of Mayenne,

followed by confirmation of a second

outbreak in the department of Seine-etMarne on March 23, 2001;

• On March 22, 2001, Ireland’s

Department of Agriculture, Food and

Rural Development (DAFRD), reported

clinical confirmation of an outbreak of

FMD in County Louth; and

• The Netherlands’ Ministry of

Agriculture, Nature Management and

Fisheries (MANMF) reported clinical

confirmation of FMD outbreaks in the

provinces of Overijssel and Gelderland

on March 21, 2001, and March 24, 2001.

MANMF has since confirmed a number

of additional outbreaks in The

Netherlands.

MAF, DAFRD, and MANMF notified

the Office International des Epizooties

(OIE) and the U.S. Department of

Agriculture at the time of clinical

confirmation of these FMD diagnoses.

Based on preliminary epidemiological

studies, the sources of the outbreaks in

France, Ireland, and The Netherlands

have been traced back to the United

Kingdom.

Because of the close trading

relationships that exist among the EU

Member States, coupled with the speed

with which FMD has spread from the

United Kingdom to other areas of the

EU, we initially believed it necessary to

impose additional trade restrictions

relating to FMD on the 13 EU Member

States listed in our regulations as FMDfree after implementation of the interim

rule for the United Kingdom in order to

safeguard the animal health status of the

United States. Consequently, on March

13, 2001, we imposed temporary import

restrictions applicable to the EU with

respect to swine and ruminants, any

fresh (chilled or frozen) swine or

ruminant meat, and other products of

swine and ruminants. As part of this

process, we also requested information

from the European Commission and the

individual Member States to justify why

individual Member States should

continue to be considered FMD-free,

and therefore remain on our list of FMDfree regions in the regulations. We

intended to use this information to

evaluate the potential risks of further

FMD outbreaks occurring in different

regions of the EU. Any region for which

sufficient data were not available to

make such an evaluation would be

considered to be a high FMD risk until

information became available to support

an alternative determination. We set a

deadline of April 27, 2001, for the

receipt of this information. To assist us

in evaluating a region’s level of risk

relating to FMD, we asked that the

information submitted to us address the

following:

• Outbreak history in the Member

State or region;

• Complete information on European

Community (Community) legislation in

force to control spread of disease among

Member States, including information

on limitations that were identified in

Community legislation in force at the

time of the outbreak, changes made to

address these limitations, enforcement

processes to implement the changes and

enforcement of compliance;

• Information on surveillance or

control measures implemented by

individual Member States in addition to

Community legislation;

• Statistics on trade in live animals

and high-risk animal products within

the Community since January 2001;

• Traceback results for animals

moving from affected areas;

• Information on practices that might

serve to introduce disease (e.g., garbage

feeding of swine), surveillance of those

practices, and recent or planned

legislative changes that might affect

these practices;

• Mechanisms in place to ensure

compliance with Community and

Member State legislation, as well as

mechanisms to identify and correct

failures in the safeguarding system; and

• Vaccination practices and

vaccination records for the regions, as

applicable.

Other issues such as environmental

factors (e.g., prevailing winds) that

might contribute to disease spread may

also be considered.

Based on our evaluation of the

information submitted to us by the

European Commission and the

individual Member States, published

literature, and reports to the OIE, we are

removing France, Ireland, and The

Netherlands from the list of regions

considered to be free of rinderpest and

FMD primarily because the existence of

FMD has been confirmed there and

these Member States do not yet meet the

OIE criterion for freedom of FMD (i.e.,

a 3-month waiting period after the last

case in a region previously recognized

as free of the disease). We have

determined that the other EU Member

29688 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Rules and Regulations

States that APHIS considers to be FMDfree represent a low risk for the

introduction of FMD into the United

States, and therefore will be allowed to

remain on the list of free regions. The

basis for our designation of these

Member States is documented in a risk

assessment that may be viewed on the

Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/

vs/reg-request.html. You may also

request paper copies of the risk

assessment by calling or writing the

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. Please refer to

Docket No. 01–031–1 when requesting

copies. The risk assessment is also

available for review in our reading room

(information on the location and hours

of the reading room is listed under the

heading ADDRESSES at the beginning of

this document).

We believe that this course of action

is consistent with our obligations under

the World Trade Organization in the

Agreement on the Application of

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

and the United States-European Union

Veterinary Equivalency Agreement. We

are imposing these provisional measures

to safeguard the United States from

FMD, but not before taking due account

of the information and other supporting

data provided us by the European

Commission and the individual Member

States of the EU in order to avoid any

unnecessary disruption of trade.

Therefore, we are amending the

regulations in § 94.1 by removing

France, Ireland, and The Netherlands

from the list of regions that have been

declared to be free of rinderpest and

FMD. We are also removing France,

Ireland, and The Netherlands from the

list in § 94.11 of regions that are

declared to be free of these diseases, but

that are subject to certain restrictions

because of their proximity to or trading

relationships with rinderpest-or FMDaffected regions. As a result of this

action, the importation into the United

States of any ruminant or swine and any

fresh (chilled or frozen) meat and other

products of ruminants and swine from

any part of France, Ireland, and The

Netherlands is prohibited or restricted.

We are making these amendments

effective retroactively to February 19,

2001, because the disease may have

been present in the affected areas of

France, Ireland, and The Netherlands

for some time before the initial

outbreaks were clinically confirmed in

each of these regions. The date of

February 19, 2001, takes into account

the potential disease risk prior to

discovery and the incubation period for

FMD.

Although we are removing France,

Ireland, and The Netherlands from the

list of regions considered to be free of

rinderpest and FMD, we recognize that

the European Commission and the

regions affected by this action have

responded to the detection of FMD by

imposing restrictions on the movement

of ruminants, swine, and ruminant and

swine products from FMD-affected

areas; by conducting heightened

surveillance activities; and by initiating

measures to eradicate the disease. We

intend to reassess this situation at a

future date in accordance with the

standards of the OIE. As part of that

reassessment process, we will consider

all comments received on this interim

rule, as well as any additional

information or data from the European

Commission or individual Member

States that support changing the disease

status of a given region or regions. In

future reassessments, we will determine

whether it is necessary to continue to

prohibit or restrict the importation of

ruminants or swine and any fresh

(chilled or frozen) meat and other

products of ruminants or swine from

France, Ireland, and The Netherlands, or

whether we can restore some or all of

those countries to the list of regions in

which FMD is not known to exist or

regionalize portions of France, Ireland,

and The Netherlands as FMD-free.

Emergency Action

This rulemaking is necessary on an

emergency basis to prevent the

introduction of FMD into the United

States. Under these circumstances, the

Administrator has determined that prior

notice and opportunity for public

comment are contrary to the public

interest and that there is good cause

under 5 U.S.C. 553 for making this rule

effective less than 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register.

We will consider comments that are

received within 60 days of publication

of this rule in the Federal Register.

After the comment period closes, we

will publish another document in the

Federal Register. The document will

include a discussion of any comments

we receive and any amendments we are

making to the rule as a result of the

comments.

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 process required

by Executive Order 12866.

We are amending the regulations

governing the importation of certain

animals, meat, and other animal

products by removing France, Ireland,

and The Netherlands from the list of

regions considered to be free of

rinderpest and FMD. We are taking this

action because the existence of FMD has

been confirmed there and these Member

States do not yet meet the OIE criterion

for freedom of FMD (i.e., a 3-month

waiting period after the last case in a

region previously recognized as free of

the disease). The effect of this action is

to prohibit or restrict the importation of

any ruminant or swine and any fresh

(chilled or frozen) meat and other

products of ruminants or swine into the

United States from France, Ireland, and

The Netherlands on or after February

19, 2001. This action is necessary to

protect the livestock of the United States

from FMD.

This emergency situation makes

timely compliance with section 604 of

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.

601 et seq.) impracticable. We are

currently assessing the potential

economic effects of this action on small

entities. Based on that assessment, we

will either certify that the rule will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities or

publish a final regulatory flexibility

analysis.

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

retroactive effect to February 19, 2001;

and (3) does not require administrative

proceedings before parties may file suit

in court challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

This rule contains no new

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 94

Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock,

Meat and meat products, Milk, Poultry

and poultry products, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements.

Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR

part 94 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:

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 106 / Friday, June 1, 2001 / Rules and Regulations 29689

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 450, 7711, 7712, 7713,

7714, 7751 and 7754; 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 371.4.

§ 94.1 [Amended]

2. In § 94.1, paragraph (a)(2) is

amended by removing the words

‘‘France,’’, ‘‘Ireland,’’, and ‘‘The

Netherlands,’’.

§ 94.11 [Amended]

3. In § 94.11, paragraph (a) is

amended by removing the words

‘‘France,’’, ‘‘The Netherlands,’’, and

‘‘Republic of Ireland,’’.

Done in Washington, DC, this 25th day of

May 2001.

Craig A. Reed,

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 01–13757 Filed 5–31–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 2001–NE–18–AD; Amendment

39–12246; AD 2001–11–05]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; CFM

International (CFMI) CFM56–2, –2B, –3,

–5B, –5C and –7B Series Turbofan

Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule; request for

comments.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to CFMI CFM56–2, –2B, –3,

–5B, –5C and –7B series turbofan

engines. This action requires limiting

engines with certain No. 4 bearings to

one on each airplane, replacement of

certain No. 4 bearings, and increased

frequency of inspections for magnetic

particles until the suspect bearing is

replaced. This action is prompted by

reports of two bearing failures in the

fleet since December 2000. The actions

specified in this AD are intended to

prevent bearing failures, which could

cause an engine failure.

DATES: Effective June 11, 2001.

Comments for inclusion in the Rules

Docket must be received on or before

July 31, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Submit comments in

triplicate to the Federal Aviation

Administration (FAA), New England

Region, Office of the Regional Counsel,

Attention: Rules Docket No. 2001–NE–

18–AD, 12 New England Executive Park,

Burlington, MA 01803–5299. Comments

may also be sent via the Internet using

the following address: ‘‘9-aneadcomment@faa.gov’’. Comments sent

via the Internet must contain the docket

number in the subject line.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James Rosa, Aerospace Engineer, Engine

Certification Office, FAA, Engine and

Propeller Directorate, 12 New England

Executive Park, Burlington, MA 01803–

5299; telephone (781) 238–7152, fax

(781) 238–7199.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

proposal is prompted by reports of two

No. 4 bearing failures on CFMI CFM56–

7B series turbofan engines since

December 2000. Inspections of the failed

bearings indicate marginal metallurgical

structure, most likely due to an uneven

heat treatment process. Both failed

bearings are from a manufacturing lot of

47 parts simultaneously heat-treated.

This condition, if not corrected, could

result in bearing failures, which could

cause an engine failure.

FAA’s Determination of an Unsafe

Condition and Proposed Actions

Since an unsafe condition has been

identified that is likely to exist or

develop on other CFMI CFM56–2, –2B,

–3, –5B, –5C and –7B series turbofan

engines of the same type design, this AD

is being issued to prevent bearing

failures which could cause an engine

failure.

This AD requires:

• Limiting the number of engines

with a suspect No. 4 bearing installed to

one on each airplane within 300 hours

time-in-service (TIS) after the effective

date of this AD, but no later than July

1, 2001, whichever occurs earlier. AND

• Increasing the frequency of

inspections for magnetic particles until

the suspect bearing is replaced. AND

• Replacing all suspect No. 4 bearings

within 2,000 hours TIS after the

effective date of this AD, but no later

than December 31, 2001, whichever

occurs earlier.

Immediate Adoption of This AD

Since a situation exists that requires

the immediate adoption of this

regulation, it is found that notice and

opportunity for prior public comment

hereon are impracticable, and that good

cause exists for making this amendment

effective in less than 30 days.

Comments Invited

Although this action is in the form of

a final rule that involves requirements

affecting flight safety and, thus, was not

preceded by notice and an opportunity

for public comment, comments are

invited on this rule. Interested persons

are invited to comment on this rule by

submitting such written data, views, or

arguments as they may desire.

Communications should identify the

Rules Docket number and be submitted

in triplicate to the address specified

under the caption ADDRESSES. All

communications received on or before

the closing date for comments will be

considered, and this rule may be

amended in light of the comments

received. Factual information that

supports the commenter’s ideas and

suggestions is extremely helpful in

evaluating the effectiveness of the AD

action and determining whether

additional rulemaking action would be

needed.

Comments are specifically invited on

the overall regulatory, economic,

environmental, and energy aspects of

the rule that might suggest a need to

modify the rule. All comments

submitted will be available, both before

and after the closing date for comments,

in the Rules Docket for examination by

interested persons. A report that

summarizes each FAA-public contact

concerned with the substance of this AD

will be filed in the Rules Docket.

Commenters wishing the FAA to

acknowledge receipt of their comments

submitted in response to this action

must submit a self-addressed, stamped

postcard on which the following

statement is made: ‘‘Comments to

Docket Number 2001–NE–18–AD.’’ The

postcard will be date stamped and

returned to the commenter.

Regulatory Impact

This final rule does not have

federalism implications, as defined in

Executive Order 13132, because it

would not have a substantial direct

effect 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.

Accordingly, the FAA has not consulted

with state authorities prior to

publication of this final rule.

The FAA has determined that this

regulation is an emergency regulation

that must be issued immediately to

correct an unsafe condition in aircraft,

and is not a ‘‘significant regulatory

action’’ under Executive Order 12866. It

has been determined further that this

action involves an emergency regulation

under DOT Regulatory Policies and

Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26,

1979). If it is determined that this

emergency regulation otherwise would

be significant under DOT Regulatory