Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 32117

agreements and informal de facto

reciprocal arrangements.

(4) Applicability of a formal bilateral

agreement or an informal de facto

arrangement for NATO–1, NATO–2,

NATO–3, NATO–4, NATO–5, or NATO–

6 dependents. The applicability of a

formal bilateral agreement shall be

based on the NATO Member State

which employs the principal alien and

not on the nationality of the principal

alien or dependent. The applicability of

an informal de facto arrangement shall

be based on the NATO Member State

which employs the principal alien, and

the principal alien also must be a

national of the NATO Member State

which employs him or her in the United

States. Dependents of SACLANT

employees receive bilateral agreement

or de facto arrangement employment

privileges as appropriate based upon the

nationality of the SACLANT employee

(principal alien).

(5) Application procedures. The

following procedures are required for

dependent employment applications

under bilateral agreements and de facto

arrangements:

(i) The dependent of a NATO alien

shall submit a complete application for

employment authorization, including

Form I–765 and Form I–566, completed

in accordance with the instructions on,

or attached to, those forms. The

complete application shall be submitted

to SACLANT for certification of the

Form I–566 and forwarding to the

Service.

(ii) In a case where a bilateral

dependent employment agreement

containing a numerical limitation on the

number of dependents authorized to

work is applicable, the certifying officer

of SACLANT shall not forward the

application for employment

authorization to the Service unless,

following consultation with State’s

Office of Protocol, the certifying officer

has confirmed that this numerical

limitation has not been reached. The

countries with such limitations are

indicated on the bilateral/de facto

dependent employment listing issued

by State’s FLO.

(iii) SACLANT shall keep copies of

each application and certified Form I–

566 for 3 years from the date of the

certification.

(iv) A dependent applying under the

terms of a de facto arrangement must

also attach a statement from the

prospective employer which includes

the dependent’s name, a description of

the position offered, the duties to be

performed, the hours to be worked, the

salary offered, and verification that the

dependent possesses the qualifications

for the position.

(v) A dependent applying under

paragraph (s)(2) (iii) or (iv) of this

section must also submit a certified

statement from the post-secondary

educational institution confirming that

he or she is pursuing studies on a fulltime basis.

(vi) A dependent applying under

paragraph (s)(2)(v) of this section must

also submit medical certification

regarding his or her condition. The

certification should identify both the

dependent and the certifying physician,

give the physician’s phone number,

identify the condition, describe the

symptoms, provide a clear prognosis,

and certify that the dependent is unable

to maintain a home of his or her own.

(vii) The Service may require

additional supporting documentation,

but only after consultation with

SACLANT.

(6) Period of time for which

employment may be authorized. If

approved, an application to accept or

continue employment under this

paragraph shall be granted in

increments of not more than 3 years.

(7) Income tax and Social Security

liability. Dependents who are granted

employment authorization under this

paragraph are responsible for payment

of all Federal, state, and local income

taxes, employment and related taxes

and Social Security contributions on

any remuneration received.

(8) No appeal. There shall be no

appeal from a denial of permission to

accept or continue employment under

this paragraph.

(9) Unauthorized employment. An

alien classified as a NATO–1, NATO–2,

NATO–3, NATO–4, NATO–5, NATO–6,

or NATO–7 who is not a NATO

principal alien and who engages in

employment outside the scope of, or in

a manner contrary to, this paragraph

may be considered in violation of status

pursuant to section 237(a)(1)(C)(i) of the

Act. A NATO principal alien in those

classifications who engages in

employment outside the scope of his or

her official position may be considered

in violation of status pursuant to section

237(a)(1)(C)(i) of the Act.

* * * * *

PART 299—IMMIGRATION FORMS

3. The authority citation for Part 299

continues to read as follows:

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

2.

4. Section 299.1 is amended by

revising the entry to the form ‘‘I–566’’ to

read as follows:

§ 299.1 Prescribed forms.

* * * * *

Form no. Edition

date Title

* * * * *

I–566 ....... 10–15–96 Inter-Agency Record

of Individual Requesting Change/

Adjustment to, or

from, A or G status; or Requesting

A, G or NATO Dependent Employment Authorization.

* * * * *

Dated April 15, 1998.

Doris Meissner,

Commissioner, Immigration and

Naturalization Service.

[FR Doc. 98–15689 Filed 6–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–10–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Part 71

[Docket No. 97–099–2]

EIA; Handling Reactors at Livestock

Markets

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are amending the

regulations pertaining to livestock

facilities under State or Federal

veterinary supervision to require that

any livestock facility accepting horses

classified as reactors to equine

infectious anemia must quarantine these

animals at all times at least 200 yards

from all equines that are not reactors to

this disease. Currently, livestock

facilities accepting reactors to equine

infectious anemia are required to

quarantine the reactors that will remain

at the facility for longer than 24 hours

at least 200 yards away from all other

animals. This rule will help to prevent

the interstate spread of equine

infectious anemia, a contagious, vectorborne disease affecting equines.

EFFECTIVE DATE: July 13, 1998.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Tim Cordes, Senior Staff Veterinarian,

National Animal Health Programs, VS,

APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 43,

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231, (301) 734–

3279.
32118 Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 1998 /Rules and Regulations

1 Information regarding research on EIA

transmission may be obtained by contacting the

person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

The regulations in subchapter C,

‘‘Interstate Transportation of Animals

(Including Poultry) and Animal

Products,’’ of chapter I, title 9, of the

Code of Federal Regulations contain

provisions designed by the Animal and

Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)

to prevent the dissemination of animal

diseases in the United States. Part 71 of

subchapter C includes general

provisions. Section 71.20 pertains to

APHIS approval of livestock facilities,

which include stockyards, livestock

markets, buying stations, concentration

points, or any other premises under

State or Federal veterinary supervision

where livestock are assembled. Section

71.20(a) includes an agreement that

livestock facilities must execute to

obtain APHIS approval. According to

the agreement, any approved livestock

facility that elects to accept horses that

are reactors to equine infectious anemia

(EIA) must place EIA reactors in a

quarantine pen at least 200 yards from

any non-EIA-reactor horses and other

animals, unless the EIA reactors will be

moving out of the facility within 24

hours of arrival. (According to the

definitions in § 71.1, ‘‘horses’’ includes

‘‘horses, asses, mules, ponies, and

zebras.’’ Throughout this document, the

same definition applies.)

EIA is a contagious, potentially fatal

disease affecting horses that is spread by

infected blood coming into contact with

the blood in a healthy animal.

Therefore, humans can spread EIA from

horse to horse through unsafe

vaccination or blood-testing practices;

naturally, the disease is spread by insect

vectors. Although, theoretically, EIA

could be spread by any type of bloodconsuming insect, such as mosquitoes

and deer flies, the disease is generally

spread by large horse flies. EIA spreads

when a blood-consuming insect is

interrupted during a feeding on an

infected animal and then resumes

feeding on an uninfected animal while

the infected blood is still on the insect’s

mouthparts. While mosquitoes have

finely structured mouthparts that

directly penetrate small blood vessels,

the mouthparts of horse flies and deer

flies include scissorlike blades that cut

and slash the horse’s skin leaving

relatively large amounts of blood on the

mouthparts. Research has shown that

deer flies and smaller species of horse

flies are not as easily disrupted from

their bloodmeals on horses as are large

horse flies. The large flies cause painful

bites that trigger a physiological

response from the horse. If disrupted by

the horse while feeding, the horse fly

may then move to another horse to

complete the bloodmeal.1

Regulations pertaining to the

interstate movement of animals affected

with EIA are located in 9 CFR part 75.

According to these regulations, EIA

reactors may be moved interstate only

for immediate slaughter, to a diagnostic

or research facility, to the animal’s

home farm, or to an approved stockyard

for sale for immediate slaughter.

Approximately 1,500 horses in the

United States test positive for EIA each

year. Currently, an estimated 40 percent

of these animals move through livestock

markets on their way to slaughter.

On January 27, 1998, we published in

the Federal Register (63 FR 3849–3851,

Docket No. 97–099–1) a proposal to

amend the regulations at § 71.20(a).

Because EIA is transmitted by horse

flies that feed on the blood of horses,

allowing healthy horses to come into

close contact with EIA reactors for any

length of time could allow for infection

of the healthy horses. Therefore, we

proposed to remove the exemption from

the quarantine requirement for EIA

reactors that will be in an approved

livestock facility for fewer than 24

hours. We also proposed to remove the

requirement that EIA reactors be

quarantined at least 200 yards away

from nonequine animals because we no

longer believe this requirement is

necessary to prevent EIA transmission.

We solicited comments concerning

our proposal for 60 days ending March

30, 1998. We received six comments by

that date. They were from

representatives of State departments of

agriculture, organizations representing

the veterinary profession, an equine

industry association, and an

organization that represents livestock

auction markets and livestock dealers.

Five of the comments supported the

proposed rule as written. These

commenters generally stated that the

proposed rule would help to prevent the

interstate spread of EIA and that APHIS

should implement the proposed rule to

help protect healthy horses from this

disease. The concerns expressed by the

one commenter not in favor of the

proposed rule are discussed below.

The commenter stated that perhaps

effective alternatives to the 200-yard

separation requirement exist that were

not considered by APHIS. The

commenter raised questions about other

control measures, such as using covered

facilities to separate reactors and

nonreactors, reducing the 200-yard

separation requirement for horses not

showing clinical signs of EIA, and using

insecticide sprays to control the vector

that transmits EIA. The commenter

requested that the proposed rule be

substantially altered or withdrawn for

further consideration ‘‘because much

more information is needed on effective,

practical control measures in the

movement of EIA reactors through

livestock markets.’’

We disagree that such information is

lacking. Separating EIA reactors from

healthy horses by a distance of 200

yards is a scientifically proven and

time-tested method of preventing EIA

transmission by insect vector. This

prevention measure is absolute; covered

facilities and pesticides are only partial

control measures. In regard to the

suggestion to reduce the 200-yard

separation requirement for horses not

showing clinical signs of EIA, horses

that are asymptomatic reactors are

capable of spreading the disease.

The commenter also expressed

concerns regarding two economic

issues. The first was that markets with

extremely limited land area will not be

able to meet the 200-yard separation

requirement and that this situation

could have two effects: The number of

livestock markets available to owners of

EIA reactors would be limited, and

livestock markets that cannot comply

with the rule and that are near slaughter

facilities will lose trade in EIA reactors

to the slaughter facilities. The second

concern was that this rule would give an

unfair economic advantage to entities

that compete with livestock markets

because this rule would apply only to

livestock markets and not other types of

related businesses, such as independent

buying stations.

In regard to the first concern, we

believe that there are few livestock

facilities that cannot comply with this

rule because of a lack of adequate land

area. Further, the effect of this rule on

all livestock markets will be minimal.

The number of EIA reactors moving

through livestock markets annually is

extremely small compared to the

number of healthy horses and all other

livestock combined that move through

these markets. During the last decade,

an average of 1,500 EIA reactors have

been identified annually. We estimate

that fewer than half of these animals are

sent to slaughter. The business derived

from the sale of EIA reactors to livestock

markets is an extremely small

percentage of the total business derived

from the sale of all other U.S. livestock

to these facilities.

In regard to the issue of this rule not

applying to entities that compete with

livestock markets, APHIS does not
Federal Register / Vol. 63, No. 113 / Friday, June 12, 1998 /Rules and Regulations 32119

regulate intrastate movement of horses

unless an extraordinary emergency is

declared. Therefore, EIA reactors sold

intrastate are normally outside of our

jurisdiction. However, any facility that

deals in EIA reactors sold interstate

must be approved by APHIS and abide

by this rule.

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

without change.

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.

The regulations in 9 CFR part 71

require that any horses classified as EIA

reactors and accepted by a facility for

sale are to be placed in quarantine pens

at least 200 yards from all non-EIAreactor horses or other animals, unless

moving out of the facility within 24

hours of arrival. This rule removes the

‘‘less-than-24-hours’’ exemption:

Quarantine will be required regardless

of the length of time between an EIA

reactor’s arrival and departure from a

facility. This rule also amends the

regulations by requiring that EIA

reactors be quarantined at least 200

yards away from all horses that are not

reactors, rather than at least 200 yards

away from all other animals.

Facilities that buy and sell horses are

included in the Small Business

Administration’s SIC (Standard

Industrial Classification) category

‘‘Livestock Services, Except Veterinary.’’

Firms in this category with annual

receipts of less than $5 million are

considered small entities. It is likely

that most, if not all, of the

approximately 200 facilities that buy

and sell horses are ‘‘small’’ under this

definition.

Most facilities that buy and sell horses

already have quarantine pens, in

accordance with current regulations.

The estimated 20 percent that do not

have quarantine pens could build or

modify existing pens for quarantine use

at a relatively minor cost: APHIS

estimates that, at most, construction of

a quarantine pen would cost about

$1,000.

However, costs of quarantine pen

construction are not attributable to this

rule because quarantine, per se, is not a

new requirement. Only those facilities

that accept EIA reactors and that in the

past have always moved all EIA reactors

within 24 hours of arrival would need

to construct or modify pens for

quarantine purposes as a consequence

of this rule. As no facility can always be

certain of movement of EIA reactors

within 24 hours, no costs should be

incurred strictly because of this rule.

Moreover, by requiring all EIA reactors

at approved livestock facilities to be

quarantined, the horse industry in

general will benefit from a further

reduction in the risk of EIA

transmission.

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 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 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 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 71

Animal diseases, Livestock, Poultry

and poultry products, Quarantine,

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements, Transportation.

Accordingly, 9 CFR part 71 is

amended as follows:

PART 71—GENERAL PROVISIONS

1. The authority citation for part 71

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111–113, 114a, 114a–

1, 115–117, 120–126, 134b, and 134f; 7 CFR

2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).

§ 71.20 [Amended]

2. In § 71.20, paragraph (a), in the

sample agreement, paragraph (16)(ii) is

amended by removing the words ‘‘or

other animals, unless moving out of the

facility within 24 hours of arrival.’’

Done in Washington, DC, this 9th day of

June 1998.

Charles P. Schwalbe,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 98–15749 Filed 6–11–98; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

Federal Aviation Administration

14 CFR Part 39

[Docket No. 97–CE–110–AD; Amendment

39–10577; AD 98–12–23]

RIN 2120–AA64

Airworthiness Directives; British

Aerospace Model H.P. 137 Jetstream

Mk. 1, Jetstream Model 3101,

Jetstream Model 3201, and Jetstream

200 Series Airplanes

AGENCY: Federal Aviation

Administration, DOT.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: This amendment adopts a

new airworthiness directive (AD) that

applies to certain British Aerospace

(BAe) Model H.P. 137 Jetstream Mk. 1,

Jetstream Model 3101, Jetstream Model

3201, and Jetstream 200 series airplanes.

This AD requires replacing the

windshield wiper arm attachment bolts

and windshield wiper arm on all of the

affected airplanes; and measuring the

material thickness of the upper and

lower toggle attachment brackets on the

nose landing gear of the affected

airplanes, and replacing the toggle

attachment bracket lugs. This AD is the

result of mandatory continuing

airworthiness information (MCAI)

issued by the airworthiness authority for

the United Kingdom. The actions

specified by this AD are intended to

prevent the windshield wiper arm from

corroding, detaching from the airplane

during flight, and penetrating the

fuselage, which could result in possible

injury to the pilot and passengers; and

to prevent collapse of the nose landing

gear caused by design deficiency, which

could result in loss of control of the

airplane during landing operations.

DATES: Effective July 28, 1998.

The incorporation by reference of

certain publications listed in the

regulations is approved by the Director

of the Federal Register as of July 28,

1998.

ADDRESSES: Service information that

applies to this AD may be obtained from

British Aerospace Regional Aircraft.,

Prestwick International Airport,

Ayrshire, KA9 2RW, Scotland;