17792 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

operator’s hourly salary plus 16 percent. 

When the cost of search (including the 

operator time and the cost of operating 

the computer to process a request) 

equals the equivalent dollar amount of 

two hours of the salary of the person 

performing the search, the Board will 

begin assessing charges for computer 

searches. 

(i) The Board divides FOIA requestors 

into four categories: Commercial use 

requestors; educational and noncommercial scientific institutions; 

representatives of the news media; and 

all other requestors. The specific levels 

of fees for each of these categories are: 

(1) Commercial use requestors. When 

the Board receives a request for 

documents for commercial use, it will 

assess charges that recover the full 

direct costs of searching for, reviewing 

for release, and duplicating the record 

sought. Requestors must reasonably 

describe the records sought. Commercial 

use requestors are entitled neither to 

two hours of free search time nor to 100 

free pages of reproduction of 

documents. The Board may recover the 

cost of searching for and Reviewing 

Records even if there is ultimately no 

disclosure of Records. 

(2) Educational and non-commercial 

scientific institution requestors. The 

Board shall provide documents to 

requestors in this category for the cost 

of reproduction alone, excluding 

charges for the first 100 pages. To be 

eligible for inclusion in this category, 

requestors must show that the request is 

being made as authorized by and under 

the auspices of a qualifying institution 

and that the records are not sought for 

a commercial use, but are sought in 

furtherance of scholarly (if the request is 

from an Educational Institution) or 

scientific (if the request is from a noncommercial scientific institution) 

research. Requestors must reasonably 

describe the records sought. 

(3) Requestors who are representatives 

of the news media. The Board will 

provide documents to requestors in this 

category for the cost of reproduction 

alone, excluding charges for the first 100 

pages. To be eligible for inclusion in 

this category, a requestor must satisfy 

the definition of representatives of the 

news media in § 1000.1, and his or her 

request must not be made for a 

commercial use. In reference to this 

class of requestor, a request for Records 

supporting the news dissemination 

function of the requestor shall not be 

considered to be a request that is for a 

commercial use. Requestors must 

reasonably describe the Records sought. 

(4) All other requestors. The Board 

shall charge requestors who do not fit 

into any of the categories above fees that 

recover the full reasonable Direct Cost of 

Searching for and reproducing Records 

that are responsive to the request, 

except that the first 100 pages of 

reproduction and the first two hours of 

Search time shall be furnished without 

charge. Requestors must reasonably 

describe the Records sought. 

(j) The Board may assess interest 

charges on an unpaid bill starting on the 

31st Calendar Day following the day on 

which the billing was sent. The fact that 

the fee has been received within the 

thirty Calendar Day grace period, even 

if the fee has not been processed, will 

suffice to stay the accrual of interest. 

Interest will be at the rate prescribed in 

section 3717 of title 31 of the United 

States Code and will accrue from the 

date of the billing. 

(k) The Board may assess charges for 

time spent searching, even if it fails to 

locate the Records or if Records located 

are determined to be exempt from 

disclosure. If the Board estimates that 

Search charges are likely to exceed $25, 

it shall notify the requestor of the 

estimated amount of fees, unless the 

requestor has indicated in advance his 

willingness to pay fees as high as those 

anticipated. 

(l) A requestor may not file multiple 

requests, each seeking portions of a 

document or documents, solely in order 

to avoid payment of fees. When the 

Board reasonably believes that a 

requestor, or a group of requestors 

acting in concert, has submitted 

requests that constitute a single request, 

involving clearly related matters, it may 

aggregate those requests and charge 

accordingly. 

(m)(1) The Board may not require a 

requestor to make payment before work 

is commenced or continued on a 

request, unless: 

(i) The Board estimates or determines 

that allowable charges that a requestor 

may be required to pay are likely to 

exceed $250; or 

(ii) A requestor has previously failed 

to pay a fee charged in a timely fashion 

(i.e., within 30 Days of the date of the 

billing). 

(2) When the Board acts under 

paragraph (m)(1)(i) or (ii) of this section, 

the administrative time limits 

prescribed in FOIA, 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6) 

will begin only after the Board has 

received fee payments described in 

paragraphs (m)(1)(i) and (ii) of this 

section. 

(n) Fees otherwise chargeable in 

connection with a request for disclosure 

of a record shall be waived or reduced 

where it is determined that disclosure is 

in the public interest because it is likely 

to contribute significantly to public 

understanding of the operations or 

activities of the Government and is not 

primarily in the commercial interest of 

the requestor. 

§ 1000.11 Annual report. 

The FOIA Officer or the FOIA 

Officer’s designee shall annually, on or 

before February 1, submit a FOIA report 

addressing the preceding fiscal year to 

the Attorney General. The report shall 

include those matters required by 5 

U.S.C. 552(e)(1). The Board will make 

the annual report available to the public 

pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 552(e)(2). 

Mark A. Robbins, 

Executive Director, Privacy and Civil Liberties 

Oversight Board. 

[FR Doc. E7–5812 Filed 4–9–07; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3195–W7–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 946 

[Docket No. AMS–FV–06–0182; FV06–946–

1 FR] 

Irish Potatoes Grown in Washington; 

Modification of Administrative Rules 

Governing Committee Representation 

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: This rule modifies the 

administrative rules governing 

committee representation under the 

Washington potato marketing order. The 

marketing order regulates the handling 

of Irish potatoes grown in Washington, 

and is administered locally by the State 

of Washington Potato Committee 

(Committee). This rule reestablishes 

districts within the production area, 

reestablishes the Committee with fewer 

members, and reapportions members 

among districts. These changes will 

result in more efficient administration 

of the program while providing for more 

effective representation of the 

Washington fresh potato industry on the 

Committee. 

DATES: Effective Date: July 1, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Teresa Hutchinson or Gary Olson, 

Northwest Marketing Field Office, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA; Telephone: (503) 326–

2724, Fax: (503) 326–7440, or e-mail: 

Teresa.Hutchinson@usda.gov or 

GaryD.Olson@usda.gov. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 17793 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue, SW., STOP 0237, Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; Telephone: (202) 720–

2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938, or e-mail: 

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This final 

rule is issued under Marketing Order 

No. 946, as amended (7 CFR part 946), 

regulating the handling of Irish potatoes 

grown in Washington, hereinafter 

referred to as the ‘‘order.’’ The order is 

effective under the Agricultural 

Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, as 

amended (7 U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter 

referred to as the ‘‘Act.’’

The Department of Agriculture 

(USDA) is issuing this rule in 

conformance with Executive Order 

12866. 

This final rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. This rule is not intended 

to have retroactive effect. This proposal 

will not preempt any State or local laws, 

regulations, or policies, unless they 

present an irreconcilable conflict with 

this rule. 

The Act provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 

section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any 

handler subject to an order may file 

with USDA a petition stating that the 

order, any provision of the order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

the order is not in accordance with law 

and request a modification of the order 

or to be exempted therefrom. A handler 

is afforded the opportunity for a hearing 

on the petition. After the hearing USDA 

would rule on the petition. The Act 

provides that the district court of the 

United States in any district in which 

the handler is an inhabitant, or has his 

or her principal place of business, has 

jurisdiction to review USDA’s ruling on 

the petition, provided an action is filed 

not later than 20 days after the date of 

the entry of the ruling. 

This final rule modifies the 

administrative rules governing 

committee representation under the 

Washington potato marketing order. 

This rule reestablishes districts within 

the production area, reestablishes the 

Committee with fewer members, and 

reapportions members among the new 

districts. Specifically, this rule 

reestablishes the order’s five districts as 

three districts; decreases Committee 

membership from fifteen members and 

fifteen alternate members to nine 

members and nine alternate members; 

and reapportions the members such that 

one handler member and alternate 

member, and two producer members 

and their respective alternate members 

are elected from each of the three 

reestablished districts. These changes 

will result in more efficient 

administration of the program while 

providing for more effective 

representation of the fresh potato 

industry on the Committee. The 

Committee unanimously recommended 

these changes at a meeting held on June 

6, 2006, with a request that they be 

made effective by July 1, 2007. 

The order provides in § 946.22 that 

USDA, upon recommendation of the 

Committee, may reestablish districts, 

may reapportion members among 

districts, may change the number of 

members and alternate members, and 

may change the composition by 

changing the ratio of members, 

including their alternates. In 

recommending any such changes, the 

order requires that the Committee 

consider the following: (1) Shifts in 

acreage within districts and within the 

production area during recent years; (2) 

the importance of new production in its 

relation to existing districts; (3) the 

equitable relationship between 

Committee apportionment and districts; 

and (4) other relevant factors. 

Prior to this rule change, the 

Committee had fifteen members, with 

membership apportioned among five 

districts. Sections 946.31 and 946.103 

previously defined the districts as 

follows: District No. 1—The counties of 

Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille, Spokane, 

Whitman, and Lincoln, plus the East 

Irrigation District of the Columbia Basin 

Project, plus the area of Grant County 

not included in either the Quincy or 

South Irrigation Districts which lies east 

of township vertical line R27E, plus the 

area of Adams County not included in 

either of the South or Quincy Irrigation 

Districts. 

District No. 2—The counties of 

Kittitas, Douglas, Chelan, and 

Okanogan, plus the Quincy Irrigation 

District of the Columbia Basin Project, 

plus the area of Grant County not 

included in the East or South Irrigation 

Districts which lies west of township 

line R28E. 

District No. 3—The counties of 

Benton, Klickitat, and Yakima. 

District No. 4—The counties of Walla 

Walla, Columbia, Garfield, and Asotin, 

plus the South Irrigation District of the 

Columbia Basin Project, plus the area of 

Franklin County not included in the 

South District. 

District No. 5—All of the remaining 

counties in the State of Washington not 

included in Districts No. 1, 2, 3, and 4 

of this section. 

Further, §§ 946.25 and 946.104 

currently provide in part that each of 

the five districts are represented as 

follows: 

District No. 1: Three producer 

members and one handler member; 

District No. 2: Two producer members 

and one handler member; District No. 3: 

Two producer members and one 

handler member; District No. 4: Two 

producer members and one handler 

member; District No. 5: One producer 

member and one handler member. 

The Committee’s districts were last 

reestablished on July 1, 1975, largely 

due to changes in the production area 

brought about by the Columbia Basin 

Project (CBP). The CBP is a large scale 

irrigation project administered by the 

Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Department 

of Interior. The CBP is comprised of 

three irrigation districts centered in 

Grant County, Washington. 

The Committee’s districts were 

originally established using county 

boundaries, whereas the 1975 

redistricting process reestablished the 

districts by utilizing existing county and 

township lines, as well as the three 

irrigation districts formed under the 

CBP. As a consequence, the Committee 

utilized the CBP irrigation district 

boundaries in redistricting. At the time, 

the boundaries of the three irrigation 

districts were well known to producers 

in the area. However, as more producers 

installed wells to irrigate their potatoes, 

the CBP irrigation district boundaries 

became less relevant. 

Also, the Committee reports that it is 

having difficulty recruiting members. 

This recruitment issue is largely due to 

a decreasing number of qualified 

individuals willing to take the time 

away from their families and farms to 

serve on the Committee. 

Finally, the Washington State Potato 

Commission (Commission), an agency of 

the State of Washington, has recently 

reestablished its production area into 

three districts. The Committee 

recommended reestablishing the order’s 

districts to align with the Commission’s 

new districts. 

After comparing current acreage and 

production statistics, as well as the 

current number of fresh potato 

producers in each of the order’s five 

districts to statistics for the 

Commission’s three new districts, the 

Committee found that reestablishment 

of its districts from five to three would 

not only be feasible, but could enhance 

the Committee’s administration of the 

order. In considering the trend towards 

less industry participation on the 

Committee, as well as the decreasing 

relative size of the fresh potato producer 

population (the 5 year average fresh 

production is 13% of the total 

Washington potato production), the 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
17794 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 

Committee also determined that it could 

more effectively serve the industry if it 

were to reestablish with as few as nine 

members. 

Prior to this rule, the Committee was 

comprised of ten producer members and 

five handler members and their 

respective alternates. The Committee 

felt that this ratio—two producer 

members to each handler member—

should also be used in reestablishing 

and reapportioning the Committee. 

Based on statistical information 

available from USDA, the Committee 

therefore determined that the 

reestablished Committee should be 

comprised of nine members—six 

producer members and three handler 

members—with two producer members 

and respective alternates, and one 

handler member and respective 

alternate representing each of the three 

new districts. 

In determining how to appropriately 

divide the production area into three 

districts, as well as the correct 

apportionment of nine members in three 

new districts, the Committee reviewed 

the relative differences in fresh 

production and acreage estimates in 

Washington’s various potato producing 

counties. Using data from the USDA’s 

National Agriculture Statistics Service 

(NASS), the Committee’s research 

indicated that the new District No. 1 

will have 41 percent of the fresh potato 

producers, 36 percent of the fresh potato 

production, and 32 percent of the fresh 

potato acreage in the order’s production 

area. The new District No. 2 will have 

31 percent of the producers, 43 percent 

of the production, and 36 percent of the 

acreage. Finally, the new District No. 3 

will have 28 percent of the producers, 

21 percent of the production, and 32 

percent of the acreage. 

Although these statistics show that 

the number of fresh potato farms and 

the related production figures are not 

evenly divided among the new districts, 

acreage figures are nearly equal. 

Additionally, the Committee reports 

that there are widely variable yields 

among the various table-stock potato 

varieties produced in Washington’s 

diverse production areas. In equitably 

apportioning the nine members among 

the three districts, the Committee chose 

not to provide districts that 

predominately produce a lower yielding 

variety of potato with less 

representation on the Committee. As 

previously noted, the Committee’s 

recommendation therefore includes 

provision that two producer members 

and one handler member, as well as 

their respective alternates, represent 

each district. 

The new districts provide consistency 

in the Washington potato industry. All 

of Grant County is located in the 

reestablished District No. 1 instead of 

being divided between Districts No. 1, 2 

and 4, as was previously the case. The 

new District No. 1 consists of the 

counties of Douglas, Chelan, Okanogan, 

Grant, Adams, Ferry, Stevens, Pend 

Oreille, Spokane, Whitman, and 

Lincoln. The new District No. 2 consists 

of the counties of Kittitas, Yakima, 

Klickitat, Benton, Franklin, Walla 

Walla, Columbia, Garfield, and Asotin. 

Finally, the new District No. 3 consists 

of all the remaining counties in the State 

of Washington not included in Districts 

No. 1 and 2 (essentially all of the 

counties west of the Cascade 

Mountains). 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 

has considered the economic impact of 

this action on small entities. 

Accordingly, AMS has prepared this 

final regulatory flexibility analysis. 

The purpose of the RFA is to fit 

regulatory actions to the scale of 

business subject to such actions in order 

that small businesses will not be unduly 

or disproportionately burdened. 

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the 

Act, and rules issued thereunder, are 

unique in that they are brought about 

through group action of essentially 

small entities acting on their own 

behalf. Thus, both statutes have small 

entity orientation and compatibility. 

There are approximately 45 handlers 

of Washington potatoes subject to 

regulation under the order and 

approximately 267 potato producers in 

the regulated area. Small agricultural 

service firms are defined by the Small 

Business Administration (13 CFR 

121.201) as those having annual receipts 

of less than $6,500,000, and small 

agricultural producers are defined as 

those having annual receipts of less than 

$750,000. 

During the 2005–2006 marketing year, 

10,516,095 hundredweight of 

Washington potatoes were inspected 

under the order and sold into the fresh 

market. Based on an estimated average 

f.o.b. price of $7.80 per hundredweight, 

the Committee estimates that 43 

handlers, or about 96 percent, had 

annual receipts of less than $6,500,000. 

In addition, based on information 

provided by NASS, the average 

producer price for Washington potatoes 

for the 2005 marketing year (the most 

recent period that final statistics are 

available) was $5.60 per hundredweight. 

The average annual producer revenue 

for each of the 267 Washington potato 

producers is therefore calculated to be 

approximately $220,562. In view of the 

foregoing, the majority of the handlers 

and producers of Washington potatoes 

may be classified as small entities. 

This final rule modifies §§ 946.103 

and 946.104 of the order’s 

administrative rules and regulations by 

reestablishing the order’s districts from 

the current five districts to three 

districts, reestablishing the Committee 

with nine members rather than fifteen 

members, and reapportioning the 

membership such that each district is 

represented by two producers and one 

handler and their respective alternates. 

This final rule is effective July 1, 2007. 

Authority for reestablishing the 

districts, as well as reestablishing and 

reapportioning the Committee is 

provided in § 946.22 of the order. 

The Committee believes that these 

changes will not negatively impact 

handlers and producers in terms of cost. 

Costs for Committee meetings should 

actually decrease because of the 

reduction in the number of members 

and their respective alternates traveling 

to meetings. Such savings could 

ultimately be passed on to handlers and 

producers in the form of reduced 

assessments. The benefits for this rule 

are not expected to be 

disproportionately greater or less for 

small handlers or producers than for 

larger entities. 

The Committee discussed various 

alternative reductions in Committee size 

and how to reapportion fewer members 

among the districts. Ultimately, the 

Committee determined that reducing its 

size to nine members would best 

mitigate the problems associated with 

recruitment of qualified members. 

Since this final rule modifies the 

administrative rules governing 

committee representation by 

reestablishing districts, reestablishing 

the Committee, and reapportioning 

members among districts, additional 

reporting or recordkeeping requirements 

will not be imposed on either small or 

large potato handlers. The information 

collection requirements contained in 

this rule have been previously approved 

by the Office of Management and 

Budget under OMB No. 0581–0178, 

Vegetable and Specialty Crops. As with 

all Federal marketing order programs, 

reports and forms are periodically 

reviewed to reduce information 

requirements and duplication by 

industry and public sector agencies. 

AMS is committed to complying with 

the E-Government Act, to promote the 

use of the Internet and other 

information technologies to provide 

increased opportunities for citizen 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 68 / Tuesday, April 10, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 17795 

access to Government information and 

services, and for other purposes. 

As noted in the initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, USDA has not 

identified any relevant Federal rules 

that duplicate, overlap or conflict with 

this final rule. 

In addition, the Committee’s meeting 

was widely publicized throughout the 

Washington potato industry and all 

interested persons were invited to 

attend and participate in Committee 

deliberations on all issues. Like all 

Committee meetings, the February 9, 

2006, meeting was a public meeting and 

all entities, both large and small, were 

able to express views on this issue. 

A proposed rule concerning this 

action was published in the Federal 

Register on January 16, 2007 (72 FR 

1685). Copies of the rule were sent to all 

Committee members and were made 

available for all attendees at the 

February 7, 2007, Committee meeting. 

Finally, the rule was made available 

through the Internet by USDA and the 

Office of the Federal Register. A 60-day 

comment period ending March 19, 2007, 

was provided to allow interested 

persons to respond to the proposal. No 

comments were received. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/ 

fv/moab.html. Any questions about the 

compliance guide should be sent to Jay 

Guerber at the previously mentioned 

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

After consideration of all relevant 

matter presented, including the 

information and recommendation 

submitted by the Committee and other 

available information, it is hereby found 

that this rule, as hereinafter set forth, 

will tend to effectuate the declared 

policy of the Act. 

It is further found that good cause 

exists for not postponing the effective 

date of this rule until 30 days after 

publication in the Federal Register (5 

U.S.C. 553) because the Committee 

needs adequate time to conduct 

nominations and a mail vote to elect 

new Committee members and alternates 

prior to the fiscal period beginning on 

July 1, 2007. Further, Committee 

members and alternates are aware of 

this rule, which was recommended at a 

public meeting. Also, a 60-day comment 

period was provided for in the proposed 

rule. 

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 946 

Marketing agreements, Potatoes, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements. 

■ For the reasons set forth in the 

preamble, 7 CFR part 946 is amended as 

follows: 

PART 946—IRISH POTATOES GROWN 

IN WASHINGTON 

■ 1. The authority citation for 7 CFR 

part 946 continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 601–674. 

■ 2. Section 946.103 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 946.103 Reestablishment of districts. 

Pursuant to § 946.22, on and after July 

1, 2007, the following districts are 

reestablished: 

(a) District No. 1—the counties of 

Douglas, Chelan, Okanogan, Grant, 

Adams, Ferry, Stevens, Pend Oreille, 

Spokane, Whitman, and Lincoln. 

(b) District No. 2—the counties of 

Kittitas, Yakima, Klickitat, Benton, 

Franklin, Walla Walla, Columbia, 

Garfield, and Asotin. 

(c) District No. 3—all of the remaining 

counties in the State of Washington, not 

included in Districts No. 1 and No. 2 of 

this paragraph. 

■ 3. Section 946.104 is revised to read 

as follows: 

§ 946.104 Reestablishment and 

reapportionment of committee. 

(a) Pursuant to § 946.22, on and after 

July 1, 2007, the State of Washington 

Potato Committee consisting of nine 

members, of whom six shall be 

producers and three shall be handlers, 

is hereby reestablished. For each 

member of the committee there shall be 

an alternate who shall have the same 

qualifications as the member. 

(b) Pursuant to § 946.22, on and after 

July 1, 2007, membership representation 

of the State of Washington Potato 

Committee shall be reapportioned 

among the districts of the production 

area so as to provide that each of the 

three districts as defined in § 946.103 

are represented by two producer 

members and one handler member and 

their respective alternates. 

Dated: April 5, 2007. 

Lloyd C. Day, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service. 

[FR Doc. 07–1794 Filed 4–6–07; 12:20 pm] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Parts 105 and 115 

[Docket No. 02–107–2] 

RIN 0579–AC29 

Viruses, Serums, Toxins, and 

Analogous Products; Suspension, 

Revocation, or Termination of 

Biological Licenses or Permits; 

Inspections 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Final rule. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the VirusSerum-Toxin Act regulations to specify 

the actions to be taken by veterinary 

biologics licensees and permittees upon 

receipt of notice from the Animal and 

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 

to stop the preparation, distribution, 

sale, barter, exchange, shipment, or 

importation of any worthless, 

contaminated, dangerous, harmful, or 

unsatisfactory veterinary biological 

product. After receiving notice from 

APHIS, licensees and permittees must 

notify each wholesaler, dealer, jobber, 

consignee, or other recipient known to 

have any such product in their 

possession to stop the preparation, 

distribution, sale, barter, exchange, 

shipment, or importation of such 

product. In addition, licensees and 

permittees must provide a complete 

accounting of the remaining inventory 

of affected serials or subserials of such 

product in the current possession of 

known wholesalers, dealers, jobbers, 

consignees, or other known recipients 

and provide written documentation 

concerning the required notification(s) 

as directed by the Administrator of 

APHIS. These changes are necessary in 

order to clarify the regulations, provide 

for the most expeditious means of 

disseminating stop distribution and sale 

notices, and to mitigate the risk that any 

worthless, contaminated, dangerous, 

harmful, or unsatisfactory veterinary 

biological product may cause harm to 

animals, the public health, or to the 

environment. 

DATES: Effective Date: May 10, 2007. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Albert P. Morgan, Chief of Operational 

Support, Center for Veterinary 

Biologics, Licensing and Policy 

Development, VS, APHIS, 4700 River 

Road Unit 148, Riverdale, MD 20737–

1231, (301) 734–8245. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 


cprice-sewell on PROD1PC66 with RULES