39534 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

letters, admonitions, and agreements in

lieu of discipline, reached prior to the

issuance of a Notice of Intent to

Discipline, will remain confidential.

However, such resolutions may become

part of the public record if the

practitioner becomes subject to a

subsequent Notice of Intent to

Discipline.

(3) Notices of Intent to Discipline and

action subsequent thereto. Notices of

Intent to Discipline and any action that

takes place subsequent to their issuance,

except for the imposition of private

censures, may be disclosed to the

public, except that private censures may

become part of the public record if

introduced as evidence of a prior record

of discipline in any subsequent

disciplinary proceeding. Settlement

agreements reached after the issuance of

a Notice of Intent to Discipline may be

disclosed to the public upon final

approval by the adjudicating official or

the Board. Disciplinary hearings are

open to the public, except as noted in

§ 3.106(a)(v) of this chapter.

(i) Discipline of government attorneys.

Complaints regarding the conduct or

behavior of Department attorneys,

Immigration Judges, or Board Members

shall be directed to the Office of

Professional Responsibility, United

States Department of Justice. If

disciplinary action is warranted, it shall

be administered pursuant to the

Department’s attorney discipline

procedures.

Dated: June 17, 2000.

Janet Reno,

Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 00–16052 Filed 6–26–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–30–U

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Parts 54 and 79

[Docket No. 99–067–2]

Scrapie Pilot Projects

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are amending the

regulations concerning the voluntary

scrapie flock certification program and

the interstate movement of sheep and

goats to exempt flocks from certain

regulatory requirements when the flocks

are participating in scrapie control pilot

projects authorized by the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service. We

believe this action is necessary so that

pilot projects can achieve their goal of

furthering progress toward the

eradication of scrapie. This action will

affect a small number of flock owners

participating in scrapie control pilot

projects.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 27, 2000.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Diane Sutton, Senior Staff Veterinarian,

National Animal Health Programs Staff,

VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 43,

Riverdale, MD 20737–1235; (301) 734–

6954.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Scrapie is a degenerative and

eventually fatal disease affecting the

central nervous systems of sheep and

goats. To control the spread of scrapie

within the United States, the Animal

and Plant Health Inspection Service

(APHIS), U.S. Department of Agriculture

(USDA), administers regulations at 9

CFR part 79, which restrict the interstate

movement of certain sheep and goats.

APHIS also administers the Voluntary

Scrapie Flock Certification Program (the

VSFCP), described in the regulations at

9 CFR part 54.

On December 17, 1999, we published

in the Federal Register (64 FR 70608–

70610, Docket No. 99–067–1) a proposal

to amend 9 CFR parts 54 and 79 to add

a definition of the term scrapie control

pilot project and to allow the

Administrator to waive specified

requirements of parts 54 and 79 for

flocks participating in scrapie control

pilot projects. The purpose of the

proposal was to enhance the ability of

APHIS to work with flock owners to

develop pilot projects for scrapie control

that may involve using techniques and

procedures different from those

contained in the current regulations.

We solicited comments concerning

our proposal for 30 days ending January

18, 2000. We received seven comments

by that date. They were from a State

government, an association representing

veterinarians, two associations

representing the U.S. sheep industry,

and three individual sheep producers.

Six commenters generally supported the

proposed rule, but several suggested

changes to improve it. One commenter

opposed the proposed rule. Several of

the commenters also raised issues

outside the scope of the proposed rule.

All issues raised by the comments

pertinent to the proposed rule are

discussed below by topic.

Pilot Projects will Preserve Infected

Sheep and Delay Eradication of Scrapie

The comment opposed to the

proposed rule stated that pilot projects,

by lessening restrictions, could result in

the movement of sheep that were

potentially infected with scrapie,

spreading the disease and delaying its

eradication. This commenter stated that

sheep allowed movement by the pilot

projects would be quarantined or

destroyed under the previous

regulations. Another commenter urged

APHIS to be conservative in its approval

of pilot projects to guard against projects

that may actually contribute to the

spread of scrapie.

We are not making any change in

response to these comments.

Historically, scrapie control has not

been successful in part because

producers of sheep with valuable

genetic lines were often left with few

alternatives other than flock

depopulation. This was discouraging

and often influenced producers not to

report scrapie. The pilot projects will

allow us to evaluate methods that may

provide alternatives to flock

depopulation while minimizing the

spread of disease. It is essential to use

pilot projects to evaluate different tests

and control methods. It is our belief that

these projects will assist us in adjusting

our control and eradication programs to

be more effective and acceptable to

producers and will, therefore,

accelerate, not delay, progress toward

the eradication of scrapie. Each pilot

project will have restrictions on the

movement of sheep in the project that

are commensurate with the risk that the

sheep might spread scrapie, and these

movement restrictions and other

precautions in pilot project design

should prevent the spread of scrapie as

a result of the pilot projects.

Definition of Scrapie Control Pilot

Project

The definition proposed for the term

scrapie control pilot project was ‘‘A

pilot project authorized by the

Administrator in writing, designed to

perform research or test or improve

program procedures for scrapie control.

In addition to APHIS, participants may

include State animal health agencies,

flock owners, and other parties as

necessary.’’ Two commenters suggested

that pilot projects could contribute to

the eradication as well as the control of

scrapie, and noted that eventual

eradication of the disease is an

important goal of scrapie programs and

should be stressed. We agree.

One commenter questioned including

‘‘designed to perform research’’ in the

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations 39535

definition, in light of the fact that

research is not a primary APHIS mission

and that other agencies have research as

their primary mission.

While it is not the mission of APHIS

to conduct pure research, APHIS has

historically conducted projects that

have examined the practicality of

implementing new testing techniques

and control strategies. The scrapie pilot

project initiative expands our role in

this effort as a means to enhance scrapie

control with the goal of eventual

eradication. This effort also will allow

flocks and animals to be kept alive for

use by other entities whose sole mission

is to conduct research. However, we

agree that by encouraging pilot projects,

APHIS will not be directly conducting

research, but instead facilitating

research by other parties.

In response to the above comments,

we are changing the definition of

scrapie control pilot project to read ‘‘A

pilot project authorized by the

Administrator in writing, designed to

test or improve program procedures or

to facilitate research, in order to control

and eradicate scrapie. In addition to

APHIS, participants may include State

animal health agencies, flock owners,

and other parties as necessary.’’

Further Restrictions Needed on

Movement of Sheep from Pilot Projects

One commenter stated that animals

from flocks in a pilot project should be

allowed to move intrastate or interstate

only with permission from State animal

health officials, and should be required

to be individually identified with

official identification.

We are not making any change in

response to this comment. As our goal

is to control and eventually eradicate

scrapie, movement of sheep from flocks

participating in the pilot project will be

done in accordance with pilot project

designs that minimize the risk of scrapie

spread and ensure that these animals

will be monitored after movement from

the flock of origin. State animal health

officials will be involved in establishing

and approving pilot projects, including

the terms under which animals from

pilot projects may be moved. Individual

animal identification will be used

whenever it is necessary to allow

continued monitoring of animals after

they have been moved from a pilot

project flock.

Miscellaneous

One commenter noted the statement

in the economic analysis section of the

proposed rule that ‘‘APHIS expects to

engage in scrapie pilot projects over

approximately the next 5 years.’’ He

commented that 5 years is not long

enough to fully evaluate the role of

genetics in scrapie resistance and how

knowledge of genetics can assist control

efforts.

That time estimate was only an

approximation, and we agree that it may

take longer. Also, followup monitoring

of animals involved in pilot projects

may occur for much longer. For

instance, we intend to continue

monitoring high risk animals from pilot

projects throughout their lifetimes and

to conduct necropsies of each high risk

animal and examine it for any evidence

of scrapie.

Two commenters questioned the

statement in the economic analysis that

the proposed rule would affect ‘‘no

more than 75 sheep flocks containing

approximately 3,400 sheep that may be

engaged in pilot projects in any given

year.’’ The number 75 was not meant to

be a limit on the total number of pilot

project flocks but was our projection of

the number of flocks that may

participate based on the number of

infected and source flocks known to

exist in the United States. The actual

number will depend upon the amount

of Federal funding available. Additional

participation may be permitted if some

costs are borne by States or producers.

One commenter stated that premises

contamination studies are vitally

needed to gain better understanding of

the degree to which contaminated

premises might spread scrapie and the

effectiveness of decontamination

techniques for premises. We agree, and

APHIS has asked the Agricultural

Research Service, USDA, to conduct

such studies.

One commenter suggested that

animals in pilot projects should be

awarded a flock status under the

Voluntary Scrapie Flock Certification

Program that would allow them to be

eligible for export in order to minimize

adverse financial impacts on their

owners. We did not make any change in

response to this comment. The intent of

the pilot project is to evaluate the

effectiveness of certain tests,

procedures, and alternative methods,

not to certify animals for export.

Animals in pilot projects are not

necessarily in the same category, in

terms of risk of scrapie or demonstrated

freedom from scrapie, with animals in

any of the flock categories established

by the Voluntary Scrapie Flock

Certification Program. The pilot projects

may eventually lead to methods that

enhance our ability to certify animals

for export, but there is no basis at this

stage for certifying animals in pilot

projects for export.

Therefore, for the reasons given in the

proposed rule and in this final rule, we

are adopting the proposed rule as a final

rule, with the changes discussed above.

Effective Date

This is a substantive rule that relieves

restrictions and, pursuant to the

provisions of 5 U.S.C. 553, may be made

effective less than 30 days after

publication in the Federal Register.

Immediate implementation of this

rule is necessary to provide relief to

those persons involved in scrapie pilot

projects who are adversely affected by

restrictions we no longer find

warranted. Making this rule effective

immediately will allow participating

sheep producers and others in the

marketing chain to move and sell

animals during this year’s slaughter

season. Therefore, the Administrator of

the Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service has determined that this rule

should be effective upon publication in

the Federal Register.

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 allow the Administrator

to exempt sheep and goat flocks

participating in scrapie control pilot

projects from certain requirements of

the regulations. Because APHIS

resources will allow us to develop and

administer only a limited number of

pilot projects, this rule is unlikely to

affect more than 75 sheep flocks

containing approximately 3,400 sheep

that may be engaged in pilot projects in

any given year. It could affect

substantially fewer if owners of flocks

eligible for pilot projects decline to

participate. APHIS expects to engage in

scrapie pilot projects over

approximately the next 5 years. Based

on current plans for pilot projects, this

rule will probably affect no more than

20 flocks the first year. The primary

effects on these flock owners should be

beneficial, in that animal testing and

genotyping under the pilot projects

would allow them to keep animals that

would otherwise have to be destroyed

under the regulations. All flock owners

should eventually accrue long-term

benefits from the control or eradication

of scrapie in the form of reduced loss of

animals from the disease and opening of

additional international markets.

Under these circumstances, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that this action will not

39536 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 124 / Tuesday, June 27, 2000 / Rules and Regulations

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

Executive Order 12372

This program/activity is listed in the

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

under No. 10.025 and is subject to

Executive Order 12372, which requires

intergovernmental consultation with

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part

3015, subpart V.)

Executive Order 12988

This final rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12988, Civil

Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts

all State and local laws and regulations

that are in conflict 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

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

9 CFR Part 54

Animal diseases, Goats, Indemnity

payments, Scrapie, Sheep.

9 CFR Part 79

Animal diseases, Quarantine, Sheep,

Transportation.

Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR

parts 54 and 79 as follows:

PART 54—CONTROL OF SCRAPIE

1. The authority citation for part 54

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111, 114, 114a, and

134a–134h; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

2. In § 54.1, the following definition is

added in alphabetical order to read as

follows:

§ 54.1 Definitions.

* * * * *

Scrapie control pilot project. A pilot

project authorized by the Administrator

in writing, designed to test or improve

program procedures or to facilitate

research, in order to control and

eradicate scrapie. In addition to APHIS,

participants may include State animal

health agencies, flock owners, and other

parties as necessary.

* * * * *

3. A new § 54.14 is added to read as

follows:

§ 54.14 Waiver of requirements for scrapie

control pilot projects.

(a) The Administrator may waive the

following requirements of this part for

participants in a scrapie control pilot

project by recording the requirements

waived in the scrapie control pilot

project plan:

(1) The determination that an animal

is a high-risk animal, if the scrapie

control pilot project plan contains

testing or other procedures that indicate

that an animal, despite meeting the

definition of high-risk animal, is

unlikely to spread scrapie; and

(2) The requirement that high-risk

animals must be removed from a flock

if the scrapie control pilot project plan

contains alternative procedures to

prevent the further spread of scrapie

without removing high-risk animals

from the flock.

(b) [Reserved]

PART 79—SCRAPIE IN SHEEP AND

GOATS

1. The authority citation for part 79

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111–113, 115, 117,

120, 121, 123–126, 134b, and 134f; 7 CFR

2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

2. In § 79.1, the following definition is

added in alphabetical order to read as

follows:

§ 79.1 Definitions.

* * * * *

Scrapie control pilot project. A pilot

project authorized by the Administrator

in writing, designed to test or improve

program procedures or to facilitate

research, in order to control and

eradicate scrapie. In addition to APHIS,

participants may include State animal

health agencies, flock owners, and other

parties as necessary.

* * * * *

3. A new § 79.4 is added to read as

follows:

§ 79.4 Waiver of requirements for scrapie

control pilot projects.

(a) The Administrator may waive the

following requirements of this part for

participants in a scrapie control pilot

project by recording the requirements

waived in the scrapie control pilot

project plan:

(1) The determination that an animal

is a high-risk animal, if the scrapie

control pilot project plan contains

testing or other procedures that indicate

that an animal, despite meeting the

definition of high-risk animal, is

unlikely to spread scrapie; and

(2) The requirement that high-risk

animals must be removed from a flock,

if the scrapie control pilot project plan

contains alternative procedures to

prevent the further spread of scrapie

without removing high-risk animals

from the flock.

(b) [Reserved]

Done in Washington, DC, this 21st day of

June 2000.

Bobby R. Acord,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 00–16219 Filed 6–26–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–U

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 99–NE–45–AD; Amendment 39–

11786; AD 2000–12–08]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; General

Electric Company Models CF6–

80C2A1/A2/A3/A5/A5F/A8/D1F

Turbofan Engines

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that is

applicable to General Electric Company

(GE) Models CF6–80C2A1/A2/A3/A5/

A5F/A8/D1F turbofan engines. This AD

requires initial and repetitive visual

inspections of left hand and right hand

aft engine mount link assemblies for

separations, cracks and spherical

bearing race migration. Cracked or

separated parts must be replaced prior

to further flight. If spherical bearing race

migration is discovered, an additional

borescope inspection for cracks is also

required. If no cracks are discovered by

the additional borescope inspection,

assemblies have a 75-cycle grace period

for remaining in service before

replacement. Finally, installation of

improved aft engine mount link

assemblies constitutes terminating

action to the inspections of this AD.

This amendment is prompted by a

report of a fractured left hand aft engine

mount link discovered during a

scheduled removal of an engine of

similar design. The actions specified by

the AD are intended to prevent aft

engine mount link failure, which can

result in adverse redistribution of the aft

engine mount loads and possible aft

engine mount system failure.

DATES: Effective date August 28, 2000.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the rule is