Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26353

geographical confines of the Ninth

Circuit currently follow Purba and will

continue to follow the law of that

circuit.

Commenters also raised practical

concerns with telephonic and video

electronic media hearings. Given the

nature of immigration proceedings, they

correctly note that parties are often

unable to communicate proficiently in

the English language. These comments

posit that telephonic and video

electronic media hearings would further

impair communication. The caliber of

today’s technology, the requirement for

party consent in critical telephonic

merit hearings, the prudent use of

Immigration Judge discretion, and the

availability of procedural vehicles for

review of Immigration Judge decisions

sufficiently safeguard non-English

speakers from potential prejudice.

The final rule codifies some of the

current practices of Immigration Judges

holding telephonic hearings at their

discretion and extends these practices to

video electronic media hearings. The

final rule also codifies a limitation on

Immigration Judge discretion to conduct

certain telephonic hearings. The final

rule allows implementation of modern

technology in order to increase

procedural efficiency while protecting

parties’ due process rights. The rule

assists the Agency in carrying out the

country’s immigration policy in an

equitable and productive manner.

The final rule also makes minor

technical changes in paragraph 9a) to

conform with the in absentia provisions

of 8 U.S.C. 1252.

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 605(b),

the Attorney General certifies that this

rule does not have a significant adverse

economic impact on a substantial

number of small entities. The Attorney

General has determined that this rule is

not a significant regulatory action under

Executive Order No. 12866, § 3(f), and

accordingly this rule has not been

reviewed by the Office of Management

and Budget. This rule has no Federalism

implications warranting the preparation

of a Federalism Assessment in

accordance with Executive Order No.

12612. The rule meets the applicable

standards provided in sections 2(a) and

2(b)(2) of Executive Order No. 12778.

List of Subjects in 8 CFR Part 3

Administrative practice and

procedure, Immigration and

Naturalization Service, Organization

and functions (government agencies).

Accordingly, 8 CFR part 3 is amended

as set forth below:

PART 3—EXECUTIVE OFFICE FOR

IMMIGRATION REVIEW

1. The authority citation for part 3

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 5 U.S.C. 301; 8 U.S.C. 1103,

1252 note, 1252b, 1362; 28 U.S.C. 509, 510,

1746; Section 2, Reorganization Plan No. 2 of

1950, 3 CFR, 1949–1953 Comp., p. 1002.

2. Section 3.25 is revised to read as

follows:

§ 3.25 Waiver of presence of the parties.

(a) Good cause shown. The

Immigration Judge may, for good cause,

waive the presence of a respondent/

applicant at the hearing when the alien

is represented or when the alien is a

minor child at least one of whose

parents or whose legal guardian is

present. In addition, in absentia

hearings may be held pursuant to

sections 1252(b) and 1252b(c) of title 8,

United States Code with or without

representation.

(b) Stipulated request for order;

waiver of hearing. Notwithstanding any

other provision of this chapter, upon the

written request of the respondent/

applicant and upon concurrence of the

government, the Immigration Judge may

conduct hearings in the absence of the

parties and enter an order of deportation

or exclusion on the written record if the

Immigration Judge determines, upon a

review of the charging document,

stipulation document, and supporting

documents, if any, that a represented

respondent/applicant voluntarily,

knowingly, and intelligently entered

into a stipulated request for an order of

deportation or exclusion. The

stipulation document shall include:

(1) An admission that all factual

allegations contained in the charging

document are true and correct as

written;

(2) A concession of deportability or

excludability as charged;

(3) A statement that the respondent/

applicant makes no application for relief

from deportation or exclusion,

including, but not limited to, voluntary

departure, asylum, adjustment of status,

registry, de novo review of a termination

of conditional resident status, de novo

review of a denial or revocation of

temporary protected status, relief under

8 U.S.C. 1182(c), suspension of

deportation, or any other possible relief

under the Act;

(4) A designation of a country for

deportation under 8 U.S.C. 1253(a);

(5) A concession to the introduction

of the written statements of the

respondent/applicant as an exhibit to

the record or proceedings;

(6) A statement that the attorney/

representative has explained the

consequences of the stipulated request

to the respondent/applicant and that the

respondent/applicant enters the request

voluntarily, knowingly and

intelligently;

(7) A statement that the respondent/

applicant will accept a written order for

his or her deportation or exclusion as a

final disposition of the proceedings; and

(8) A waiver of appeal of the written

order of deportation or exclusion.

The stipulated request and required

waivers shall be signed on behalf of the

government and by both the

respondent/applicant and his or her

attorney or other representative

qualified under part 292 of this chapter.

The attorney or other representative

shall file a Notice of Appearance in

accordance with § 3.16(b) of this part.

(c) Telephonic or video electronic

media hearing. An Immigration Judge

may conduct hearings via video

electronic media or by telephonic media

in any proceeding under 8 U.S.C. 1226,

1252, or 1256, except that contested full

evidentiary hearings on the merits may

be conducted by telephonic media only

with the consent of the alien.

Dated: May 8, 1995.

Janet Reno,

Attorney General.

[FR Doc. 95–12080 Filed 5–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4410–01–M

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Part 85

[Docket No. 94–064–2]

Official Pseudorabies Tests

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: We are amending the

pseudorabies regulations by adding the

glycoprotein I enzyme-linked

immunosorbent assay approved

differential test to the list of official

pseudorabies tests. This rule will allow,

under certain conditions, the

glycoprotein I enzyme-linked

immunosorbent assay approved

differential test to be used as an official

pseudorabies test to qualify certain

pseudorabies vaccinated swine for

interstate movement to destinations

other than slaughter or a quarantined

herd or quarantined feedlot. Adding the

glycoprotein I enzyme-linked

immunosorbent assay approved

differential test to the list of official
26354 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 1995 / Rules and Regulations

pseudorabies tests will also allow its use

for the testing of nonvaccinated swine.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 16, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Arnold C. Taft, Senior Staff

Veterinarian, National Animal Health

Programs, VS, APHIS, Suite 3A01, 4700

River Road Unit 43, Riverdale, MD

20737–1231; (301) 734–7767.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

Pseudorabies is a contagious,

infectious, and communicable disease of

livestock, primarily swine, and other

animals. The disease, also known as

Aujeszky’s disease, mad itch, and

infectious bulbar paralysis, is caused by

a herpes virus. The Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service’s regulations

in 9 CFR part 85 (referred to below as

the regulations) govern the interstate

movement of swine and other livestock

(cattle, sheep, and goats) in order to

help prevent the spread of pseudorabies.

For the purposes of interstate

movement, the regulations separate

swine into four basic categories: (1)

Swine infected with or exposed to

pseudorabies; (2) pseudorabies

vaccinated swine (except swine from

qualified negative gene-altered

vaccinated herds) not known to be

infected with or exposed to

pseudorabies; (3) swine not vaccinated

for pseudorabies and not known to be

infected with or exposed to

pseudorabies; and (4) swine from

qualified negative gene-altered

vaccinated herds. Provisions governing

the interstate movement of swine from

each category are found in §§ 85.5, 85.6,

85.7, and 85.8, respectively.

On January 31, 1995, we published in

the Federal Register (60 FR 5876–5880,

Docket No. 94–064–1) a proposal to

amend the regulations governing the

interstate movement of certain

pseudorabies vaccinated swine by

adding the glycoprotein I (gpI) enzymelinked immunosorbent assay (ELISA)

approved differential test to the list of

official pseudorabies tests. We also

proposed to amend the definition of

certificate and add provisions to allow,

under certain conditions, the gpI ELISA

approved differential test to be used as

an official test to qualify certain

pseudorabies vaccinated swine for

interstate movement to destinations

other than slaughter, quarantined herds,

or quarantined feedlots.

We solicited comments concerning

our proposal for 60 days ending April 3,

1995. We received three comments by

that date. They were from a State

agriculture agency, a national veterinary

association, and a pharmaceutical

company. Two of the commenters

supported the proposed rule without

reservation. The third commenter,

however, expressed concern regarding

the use of a term in the proposed

regulations. Specifically, the commenter

noted that the proposed rule referred to

gpI-deleted pseudorabies vaccines as

‘‘gene-altered’’ pseudorabies vaccines,

which he felt inferred that only

genetically engineered gpI deletions

would be acceptable, to the exclusion of

natural gpI gene-deleted pseudorabies

vaccines.

We believe that our use of the term

‘‘gene-altered’’ does not exclude natural

gpI gene-deleted pseudorabies vaccines.

The gpI-deleted pseudorabies vaccine is

an official gene-altered pseudorabies

vaccine. The regulations in § 85.1 define

official gene-altered pseudorabies

vaccine as ‘‘[a]ny official pseudorabies

vaccine for which there is an approved

differential pseudorabies test,’’ and

official pseudorabies vaccine is defined

as ‘‘[a]ny pseudorabies virus vaccine

produced under license from the

Secretary of Agriculture under the

Virus, Serum and Toxin Act of March 4,

1913, and any legislation amendatory

thereof (21 U.S.C. 151 et seq.).’’ Neither

definition contains a requirement that

an official gene-altered pseudorabies

vaccine be the product of genetic

engineering, so we have made no

changes in this final rule based on that

comment.

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.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This rule has been reviewed under

Executive Order 12866. For this action,

the Office of Management and Budget

has waived its review process required

by Executive Order 12866.

This final rule amends the

pseudorabies regulations to allow,

under certain conditions, swine

vaccinated with a gpI-deleted genealtered pseudorabies vaccine, but that

are not from a qualified negative genealtered vaccinated herd, to be moved

interstate to destinations other than

slaughter or a quarantined herd or

quarantined feedlot. This final rule also

allows the use of the gpI ELISA test to

determine the pseudorabies status of

nonvaccinated swine.

In December 1993, there were 235,840

swine operations in the United States,

with a total inventory of about 56.8

million head. The value of the total

swine inventory was estimated to be

about $4.3 billion (Agricultural

Statistics Board, National Agricultural

Statistics Service, U.S. Department of

Agriculture, ‘‘Hogs and Pigs,’’ December

29, 1993). We believe that about 99

percent of all domestic swine operations

would be considered small entities.

We estimate that there are

approximately 25,000 domestic swine

herds that contain vaccinated animals.

Of those herds, there are only about 250

qualified negative gene-altered

vaccinated herds. The provisions of this

rule pertaining to individual swine

vaccinated with the gpI-deleted

pseudorabies vaccine (referred to below

as gpI vaccinates) will have an

economic impact only on the owners of

gpI vaccinates that are not part of a

qualified negative gene-altered herd.

Because there have been no provisions

for the interstate movement of gpI

vaccinates that are not part of a

qualified negative gene-altered herd to

destinations other than slaughter,

quarantined herds, or quarantined

feedlots, this rule will have the effect of

opening up new markets for the owners

of such swine. Testing costs will be

incurred only when an owner chooses

to move gpI vaccinates interstate to

destinations other than slaughter or a

quarantined herd or quarantined

feedlot, since pseudorabies vaccinated

swine do not require a test prior to

interstate movement for slaughter or to

a quarantined herd or quarantined

feedlot. We expect that swine owners

will accept the costs of testing with the

gpI ELISA test if they feel the economic

opportunities afforded by the new

markets balance or outweigh the costs

associated with the interstate

movement.

The provisions of this rule that allow

the use of the gpI ELISA test to

determine the pseudorabies status of

nonvaccinated swine will not have a

significant economic impact on the

owners of nonvaccinated swine.

Although the gpI ELISA test costs from

$0.50 to $1.00 more per test than other

official serologic tests used to determine

the pseudorabies status of

nonvaccinated swine, its use to test

nonvaccinated swine will be optional. It

is likely, therefore, that most owners of

nonvaccinated swine will continue

using less expensive official

pseudorabies tests until the cost of the

gpI ELISA test becomes comparable to

that of other official tests.

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.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 95 / Wednesday, May 17, 1995 / Rules and Regulations 26355

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 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

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

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 approved by the

Office of Management and Budget

(OMB), and there are no new

requirements. The assigned OMB

control number is 0579–0070.

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 85

Animal diseases, Livestock,

Quarantine, Reporting and

recordkeeping requirements,

Transportation.

Accordingly, 9 CFR part 85 is

amended to read as follows:

PART 85—PSEUDORABIES

1. The authority citation for part 85

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111, 112, 113, 115,

117, 120, 121, 123–126, 134b, and 134f; 7

CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(d).

§ 85.1 [Amended]

2. In § 85.1, in the definition of

certificate, the first sentence is amended

by adding the words ‘‘vaccinated with a

glycoprotein I (gpI) deleted gene-altered

pseudorabies vaccine or’’ immediately

after the words ‘‘gene-altered

pseudorabies vaccinates’’.

3. In § 85.1, in the definition of

official pseudorabies test, in the second

sentence, item 4 is amended by adding

the words ‘‘other than the glycoprotein

I (gpI) ELISA test’’ immediately after the

word ‘‘tests’’.

4. In § 85.6, a new paragraph (c) is

added to read as follows:

§ 85.6 Interstate movement of

pseudorabies vaccinate swine, except

swine from qualified negative gene-altered

herds, not known to be infected with or

exposed to pseudorabies.

* * * * *

(c) General movements. Swine

vaccinated for pseudorabies with a

glycoprotein I (gpI) deleted gene-altered

pseudorabies vaccine and not known to

be infected with or exposed to

pseudorabies, but that are not from a

qualified negative gene-altered

vaccinated herd, may be moved

interstate to destinations other than

those set forth in paragraphs (a) and (b)

of this section only if:

(1) The swine are accompanied by a

certificate and such certificate is

delivered to the consignee; and

(2) The certificate, in addition to the

information described in § 85.1, states:

(i) The identification required by

§ 71.19 of this chapter;

(ii) That each animal to be moved was

vaccinated for pseudorabies with a gpIdeleted gene-altered pseudorabies

vaccine;

(iii) That each animal to be moved

was subjected to a gpI enzyme-linked

immunosorbent assay (ELISA) approved

differential pseudorabies test no more

than 30 days prior to the interstate

movement and was found negative;

(iv) The date of the gpI ELISA

approved differential pseudorabies test;

and

(v) The name of the laboratory that

conducted the gpI ELISA approved

differential pseudorabies test.

Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of

May 1995.

Lonnie J. King,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–12149 Filed 5–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service, USDA

9 CFR Parts 92 and 98

[Docket No. 94–087–2]

Canadian Border Ports; Baudette, MN

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Direct final rule; confirmation of

effective date.

SUMMARY: On March 29, 1995, the

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service published a direct final rule.

(See 60 FR 16043–16045). The direct

final rule notified the public of our

intention to amend the animal

importation regulations by adding

Baudette, MN, as a Canadian border port

for pet birds, poultry, horses, ruminants,

swine, and germ plasm. We did not

receive any written adverse comments

or written notice of intent to submit

adverse comments in response to the

direct final rule

EFFECTIVE DATE: The effective date of the

direct final rule is confirmed as May 30,

1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

David Vogt, Senior Staff Veterinarian,

Import/Export Animals, National Center

for Import and Export, VS, APHIS, Suite

3B05, 4700 River Road Unit 39,

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734–

8172.

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1622; 19 U.S.C. 1306;

21 U.S.C. 102–105, 111, 114a, 134a, 134b,

134c, 134d, 134f, 135, 136, and 136a; 31

U.S.C. 9701; 7 CFR 2.17, 2.51, and 371.2(d).

Done in Washington, DC, this 11th day of

May 1995.

Lonnie J. King,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–12153 Filed 5–16–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–M

NUCLEAR REGULATORY

COMMISSION

10 CFR Parts 11 and 25

RIN 3150–AF21

NRC Licensee Renewal/

Reinvestigation Program

AGENCY: Nuclear Regulatory

Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Nuclear Regulatory

Commission is amending its regulations

to eliminate the five-year expiration

date for licensee ‘‘U’’ and ‘‘R’’ special

nuclear material access authorizations

and ‘‘Q’’ and ‘‘L’’ access authorizations

and to require the licensee to submit

NRC renewal application paperwork

only for an individual who has not been

reinvestigated by the Department of

Energy (DOE) or another Federal agency

within the five-seven year span

permitted in the regulations. This final

rule is necessary to achieve

administrative efficiencies that reduce

paperwork and cut red tape in a manner

that is consistent with National

Performance Review initiatives.

EFFECTIVE DATE: June 16, 1995.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

James J. Dunleavy, Division of Security,

Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear

Regulatory Commission, Washington,

DC 20555–0001 telephone (301) 415–

7404.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The NRC

currently requires ‘‘U’’ and ‘‘R’’ special

nuclear material access authorizations

and ‘‘Q’’ and ‘‘L’’ access authorizations