15856 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

designees. (See the Department of State

Rule published elsewhere in this issue

of the Federal Register.)

The Service’s implementation of this

rule as an interim rule, with a 60-day

provision for post-promulgation public

comments, is based upon the ‘‘good

cause’’ exceptions found at 5 U.S.C.

553(b)(B) and (d)(3). The reasons and

the necessity are as follows: this rule

relieves a restriction and is beneficial to

both the traveling public and U.S.

businesses.

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 this rule will

not have a significant economic impact

on a substantial number of small

entities. This rule merely removes a

restriction to both the public and United

States businesses.

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 proposed 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 12606

The Commissioner of the Immigration

and Naturalization Service herein

certifies that she has assessed this rule

in light of the criteria in Executive

Order 12606 and has determined that it

will not have any impact on family well

being.

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 217

Administrative practice and

procedures, Aliens, Passports and visas.

Accordingly, part 217 of chapter I of

title 8 of the Code of Federal

Regulations is amended as follows:

PART 217—VISA WAIVER PILOT

PROGRAM

1. The authority citation for part 217

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 8 U.S.C. 1103, 1187; 8 CFR part

2.

2. Section 217.5 is amended by

redesignating paragraph (a) as paragraph

(a)(1), revising the heading of newly

designated (a)(1) to read ‘‘Visa Waiver

Pilot Program Countries.’’ and adding a

new paragraph (a)(2) to read as follows:

§ 217.5 Designated countries.

(a)(1) * * *

(2) Visa Waiver Pilot Program

Countries with Probationary Status.

Effective April 1, 1995, until September

30, 1998 or the expiration of the Visa

Waiver Pilot Program, whichever comes

first, Ireland has been designated as a

Visa Waiver Pilot Program country with

Probationary Status in accordance with

section 217(g) of the Act.

* * * * *

Dated: March 1, 1995.

Doris Meissner,

Commissioner, Immigration and

Naturalization Service.

[FR Doc. 95–7450 Filed 3–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Part 94

[Docket No. 93–061–2]

Certificate for Importation of Milk and

Milk Products

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are amending the

regulations concerning the importation

of milk and milk products to require

that any milk or milk product imported

into the United States from countries

declared free of rinderpest and foot-andmouth disease be accompanied by a

certificate stating that the milk was

produced and processed in a country

declared free of rinderpest and foot-andmouth disease, or that the milk product

was processed in a country declared free

of rinderpest and foot-and-mouth

disease from milk produced in a country

declared free of rinderpest and foot-andmouth disease. The certificate must

name the country in which the milk was

produced and the country in which the

milk or milk product was processed.

Also, the certificate must state that,

except for certain movement under seal,

the milk or milk product has never been

in any country in which rinderpest or

foot-and-mouth disease exists.

Requiring a certificate will help ensure

that milk or milk products imported

into the United States do not introduce

rinderpest or foot-and-mouth disease

into the United States.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

John Gray, Senior Staff Veterinarian,

Import-Export Products Staff, National

Center for Import-Export, VS, APHIS,

Suite 3B05, 4700 River Road Unit 40,

Riverdale, MD 20737–1228, (301) 734–

4401.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations in 9 CFR part 94

(referred to below as ‘‘the regulations’’)

govern the importation into the United

States of specified animals and animal

products in order to prevent the

introduction into the United States of

various diseases, including rinderpest

and foot-and-mouth disease (FMD).

These are dangerous and destructive

communicable diseases of ruminants

and swine.

The regulations in § 94.1(a)(2) list

countries that are declared free of

rinderpest and FMD. Milk and milk

products have the potential to spread

rinderpest and FMD if they are

produced or processed in or have

transited a country where these diseases

exist. Therefore, under § 94.16, milk and

milk products are restricted entry into

the United States unless they are

imported from countries listed in

§ 94.1(a)(2).

On June 21, 1994, we published in the

Federal Register (59 FR 31957–31959,

Docket No. 93–061–2) a proposal to

amend § 94.16 to require that, except for

milk and milk products imported from

Canada, milk or milk products imported

into the United States from a country

listed in § 94.1(a)(2) as free of rinderpest

and FMD must be accompanied by a

certificate endorsed by a full-time,

salaried veterinarian employed by the

country of export. The certificate was to

state that the milk was produced and

processed in a country listed in

§ 94.1(a)(2), or that the milk product was

processed in a country listed in

§ 94.1(a)(2) from milk produced in a

country listed in § 94.1(a)(2). The

certificate was to name the country in

which the milk was produced and the

country in which the milk or milk

product was processed. Further, the

certificate was to state that, except for

movement under seal as described in
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 15857

§ 94.16(c), the milk or milk product had

never been in any country in which

rinderpest or FMD existed. We stated in

the proposal that this certification

would help ensure that milk and milk

products imported into the United

States do not introduce rinderpest or

FMD into the United States.

We solicited comments concerning

our proposal for 60 days ending August

22, 1994. We received five comments by

that date. They were from domestic and

foreign manufacturers, importers and

exporters of dairy products, and

domestic and foreign dairy industry

groups. We carefully considered all of

the comments we received. They are

discussed below.

One commenter requested that we

exempt milk and milk products

imported from New Zealand from the

certificate requirement. As stated in the

proposal, we are exempting milk and

milk products imported from Canada

from the certificate requirement because

Canada has a common land border with

only the United States, and Canada

imports milk and milk products from

other countries under conditions as

restrictive as would be acceptable for

importation into the United States. The

commenter stated that because New

Zealand also imports milk and milk

products from other countries under

conditions as restrictive as would be

acceptable for importation into the

United States, and because New

Zealand does not have a common land

border with any country, milk and milk

products imported from New Zealand

should be given the same exemption as

milk and milk products imported from

Canada.

We are making no changes to the rule

based on this comment. Because Canada

does have a common land border with

the United States, products moving from

Canada into the United States move

mostly overland; or, if they are moved

by aircraft, they are flown directly to the

United States. Either way, there is

virtually no risk that the shipment will

pass through or land in another country

en route to the United States. The risk

of this would be greater for a shipment

moving from a country that does not

share a common land border with the

United States, thereby increasing the

risk of introducing rinderpest or FMD

into the United States.

Another commenter supported the

proposal, and asked that we expand the

proposal to require a similar certificate

for meat and meat byproducts of

ruminants and swine imported from

countries declared free of rinderpest and

FMD. The USDA’s Food Safety and

Inspection Service (FSIS) imposes strict

requirements on the importation of meat

and meat byproducts of ruminants and

swine into the United States. Among

them is the requirement that the meat or

meat byproduct be accompanied by a

foreign meat inspection certificate and

that the meat or meat byproduct be

manufactured in a meat establishment

certified by FSIS as eligible to import

meat and meat byproducts into the

United States. We believe the oversight

imposed by FSIS on the importation of

meat and meat byproducts affords a

more than adequate level of protection

against the introduction of rinderpest

and FMD into the United States, and

that it is not necessary to require a

certificate for the importation of meat

and meat byproducts similar to the one

proposed for milk and milk products.

Several commenters who import milk

and milk products into the United

States from countries declared free of

rinderpest and FMD were concerned

that the proposed rule would

completely prohibit them from

importing their products if the products

were processed using milk or milk

products from a country where

rinderpest or FMD exists. Some dairy

product companies in FMD- and

rinderpest-free countries regularly

utilize milk or milk products from

countries where rinderpest or FMD

exists. Currently, such products may be

imported under § 94.16(b)(3) of the

regulations. (Section 94.16(b) governs

the importation of milk and milk

products originating in, or shipped

from, any country designated in

§ 94.1(a) as a country infected with

rinderpest or FMD. Paragraph (b)(3) of

§ 94.16 allows such milk or milk

products to be imported into the United

States if the importer applies to and

receives written permission from the

Administrator of APHIS authorizing the

importation.)

The intention of our proposed

certificate was not to discontinue the

importation, in accordance with

§ 94.16(b)(3), of milk or milk products

from an FMD- and rinderpest-free

country if milk or milk products from

another country were utilized in the

processing. We are, therefore, adding a

sentence to the proposed regulations

based on these comments in order to

make it clear that, if milk or milk

products from a country declared free of

rinderpest and FMD were processed in

whole or in part from milk or milk

products from a country not declared

free of rinderpest or FMD, the milk or

milk products may still be imported, as

they are currently, under § 94.16(b)(3) of

the regulations.

One commenter who supported the

proposed rule was concerned that the

proposal did not specify how the

certification will be monitored and

validated on a routine basis by U.S.

authorities. It is not clear what the

commenter was referring to. However,

we can assure the commenter that each

certificate will be reviewed at the port

of entry by an APHIS inspector. If a

shipment of milk or milk products is not

accompanied by a certificate or other

appropriate paper work, the shipment

will be denied importation into the

United States. We do not believe any

additional specifications are needed to

monitor or validate the proposed

certificate.

The same commenter was concerned

that, because the proposed rule exempts

Canada from the certificate requirement,

milk or milk products originating in a

country where FMD exists could be

shipped through one or more other

countries before entering Canada for

eventual shipment to the United States.

For this reason, the commenter stated

that milk or milk products transhipped

through Canada from another country

should not be exempted from the

certificate requirement. We are making

no changes based on this comment. In

the scenario described by the

commenter, the milk or milk product

would not be imported from Canada

into the United States; therefore, the

shipment would have to be

accompanied by the paperwork

appropriate to the disease status of the

country of origin, and would not be

exempt from the certificate requirement

simply because it had moved through

Canada. As stated in the proposal,

Canada imports milk and milk products

from other countries under conditions

as restrictive as would be acceptable for

importation into the United States,

making it highly unlikely that Canadian

regulations would allow a situation

such as the one posed by the commenter

to occur.

Therefore, based on the rationale set

forth in the proposed rule and in this

document, we are adopting the

provisions of the proposal as a final

rule, with the changes discussed in this

document.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12866. The rule has

been determined to be not significant for

the purposes of Executive Order 12866

and, therefore, has not been reviewed by

the Office of Management and Budget.

This rule will require that, except for

milk and milk products imported from

Canada, milk and milk products

imported into the United States from

countries declared free of rinderpest and

FMD be accompanied by a certificate
15858 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 59 / Tuesday, March 28, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

1The GAAP treatment focuses on the transfer of

benefits rather than the retention of risk and, thus,

stating that the milk was produced and

processed in a country declared free of

rinderpest and FMD, or that the milk

product was processed in a country

declared free of rinderpest and FMD

from milk produced in a country

declared free of rinderpest and FMD.

The certificate will have to name the

country in which the milk was

produced and the country in which the

milk or milk product was processed.

The certificate will also have to state

that the milk or milk product has never

been in any country in which rinderpest

or FMD exists.

We do not expect that requiring a

certificate will have any significant

economic impact for U.S. importers of

milk or milk products. The exporter of

the milk or milk products will have to

obtain the required certification through

the national government of the country

of export prior to shipping the milk or

milk products to the United States. We

do not know how many of those

governments will charge a fee for

providing the certificate, but it is

unlikely that any fee will be high

enough to significantly raise the cost of

the milk or milk product should the

exporter choose to pass the cost of the

certificate on to the importer in the

United States.

Under these circumstances, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12778

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice

Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State

and local laws and regulations that are

inconsistent with this rule; (2) has no

retroactive effect; and (3) does not

require administrative proceedings

before parties may file suit in court

challenging this rule.

Paperwork Reduction Act

In accordance with the Paperwork

Reduction Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3501

et seq.), the information collection or

recordkeeping requirements included in

this rule have been submitted for

approval to the Office of Management

and Budget.

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 as follows:

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

PLAGUE), VELOGENIC

VISCEROTROPIC 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

2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(d).

2. In § 94.16, a new paragraph (d) is

added to read as follows:

§ 94.16 Milk and milk products.

* * * * *

(d) Except for milk and milk products

imported from Canada, and except as

provided in this paragraph, milk or milk

products imported from a country listed

in § 94.1(a)(2) as free of rinderpest and

foot-and-mouth disease must be

accompanied by a certificate endorsed

by a full-time, salaried veterinarian

employed by the country of export. The

certificate must state that the milk was

produced and processed in a country

listed in § 94.1(a)(2), or that the milk

product was processed in a country

listed in § 94.1(a)(2) from milk produced

in a country listed in § 94.1(a)(2). The

certificate must name the country in

which the milk was produced and the

country in which the milk or milk

product was processed. Further, the

certificate must state that, except for

movement under seal as described in

§ 94.16(c), the milk or milk product has

never been in any country in which

rinderpest or foot-and-mouth disease

exists. Milk or milk products from a

country listed in § 94.1(a)(2) that were

processed in whole or in part from milk

or milk products from a country not

listed in § 94.1(a)(2) may be imported

into the United States in accordance

with § 94.16(b)(3).

Done in Washington, DC, this 22nd day of

March 1995.

Terry L. Medley,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–7599 Filed 3–27–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

FEDERAL DEPOSIT INSURANCE

CORPORATION

12 CFR Part 325

RIN 3064–AB60

Capital Maintenance

AGENCY: Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation (FDIC).

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The FDIC is amending its

risk-based capital standards for insured

state nonmember banks to implement

section 350 of the Riegle Community

Development and Regulatory

Improvement Act of 1994 (Riegle Act).

Section 350 states that the amount of

risk-based capital required to be

maintained by any insured depository

institution, with respect to assets

transferred with recourse, may not

exceed the maximum amount of

recourse for which the institution is

contractually liable under the recourse

agreement. This rule will have the effect

of correcting the anomaly that currently

exists in the risk-based capital treatment

of recourse transactions under which an

institution could be required to hold

capital in excess of the maximum

amount of loss possible under the

contractual terms of the recourse

obligation.

EFFECTIVE DATE: April 27, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Robert F. Storch, Chief, Accounting

Section, Division of Supervision, (202)

898–8906, or Cristeena G. Naser,

Attorney, Legal Division, (202) 898–

3587, Federal Deposit Insurance

Corporation, 550 17th Street, NW.,

Washington, D.C. 20429.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background

The FDIC’s current regulatory capital

standards are intended to ensure that

FDIC-supervised banks that transfer

assets and retain the credit risk inherent

in the assets maintain adequate capital

to support that risk. This is generally

accomplished by requiring that bank

assets transferred with recourse

continue to be reported on the balance

sheet in the Reports of Condition and

Income (Call Reports). These amounts

are thus included in the calculation of

banks’ risk-based and leverage capital

ratios. The regulatory reporting

treatment for most asset transfers with

recourse differs from the treatment of

such transactions under generally

accepted accounting principles

(GAAP).1