Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 13083

(d) At least every six years, the

committee shall review committee size,

composition, and representation and

recommend to the Secretary whether

changes should be made, as provided in

§ 945.23.

4. Sections 945.22 through 945.24 are

revised to read as follows:

§ 945.22 Districts.

For the purpose of selecting

committee members and alternate

members, the following districts of the

production area are hereby established:

Provided, That these districts may be

changed as provided in § 945.23.

(a) District No. 1: The counties of

Bonneville, Butte, Clark, Fremont,

Jefferson, Madison, and Teton;

(b) District No. 2: The counties of

Bannock, Bear Lake, Bingham, Caribou,

Franklin, Oneida, and Power; and

(c) District No. 3: Malheur County,

Oregon, and the remaining designated

counties in Idaho included in the

production area, and not included in

District No. 1 or District No. 2.

§ 945.23 Redistricting and

reapportionment.

(a) The Secretary, upon

recommendation of the committee, may

reestablish districts within the

production area, may reapportion

committee membership among the

various districts, may increase the

number of producer and/or handler

members and alternates on the

committee, and may change the

composition of the committee by

changing the ratio between producer

and handler members, including their

alternates. At least every six years, the

committee shall review committee size,

composition and representation and

recommend to the Secretary whether

changes should be made. In

recommending any such changes, the

committee shall give consideration to:

(1) Shifts in potato acreage within

districts and within the production area

during recent years;

(2) the importance of new potato

production in its relation to existing

districts;

(3) the equitable relationship between

committee membership and districts;

(4) economies to result for producers

in promoting efficient administration

due to redistricting or reapportionment

of members within districts; and

(5) other relevant factors.

(b) Membership of the committee

shall be apportioned among the districts

of the production area so as to provide

the following representation or such

other representation as recommended

by the committee and approved by the

Secretary:

(1) Three producer members,

including at least one who

predominately produces seed potatoes,

and one handler member, with their

respective alternates, from District No.

1;

(2) One producer member and one

handler member, with their respective

alternates, from District No. 2; and

(3) One producer member and one

handler member, with their respective

alternates, from District No. 3.

§ 945.24 Selection.

Members and alternates of the

committee shall be selected by the

Secretary on the basis specified in

§ 945.23 (b) from nominations made

pursuant to § 945.25 or from other

eligible persons.

5. In § 945.30, paragraph (a) is revised

to read as follows:

§ 945.30 Procedure.

(a) A simple majority of all members

of the committee, including alternates

acting for members, shall be necessary

to constitute a quorum or to pass any

motion or approve any committee

action, except any motion regarding a

change in committee size shall require

a unanimous vote. At any assembled

meeting, all votes shall be cast in

person.

* * * * *

6. In § 945.42, paragraph (b) is revised

and new paragraphs (d) and (e) are

added to read as follows:

§ 945.42 Assessments.

* * * * *

(b) Assessments shall be levied upon

handlers at a rate per hundredweight of

potatoes or equivalent established by

the Secretary. Such rate may be

established upon the basis of the

committee’s budget recommendations,

and other available information.

* * * * *

(d) The committee may impose a late

payment charge or an interest charge, or

both, on any handler who fails to pay,

on or before the due date established by

the Secretary, the total assessment for

which such handler is liable. Such due

date and the late payment fee and

interest rate shall be recommended by

the committee and approved by the

Secretary.

(e) In order to provide funds to carry

out its function, after the effective date

of this subpart the committee may

accept advance assessments from

handlers. Advance assessments received

from a handler shall be credited toward

assessments levied against that handler

during that fiscal period. In the case of

an extreme emergency, the committee

may also borrow money on a short term

basis to provide funds for the

administration of this part. Any such

borrowed money shall only be used to

meet the committee’s current financial

obligations, and the committee shall

repay all borrowed money by the end of

the next fiscal period from assessment

income.

7. In § 945.52, paragraph (a)(3) is

revised to read as follows:

§ 945.52 Issuance of regulations.

(a) * * *

(3) Fix the size, capacity, weight,

dimensions, pack, labeling or marking

of the container, or containers, which

may be used in the packaging or

handling of potatoes, or both; or

* * * * *

8. Section 945.80 is amended by

designating the existing undesignated

text as paragraph (a) and adding new

paragraphs (b) through (d) to read as

follows:

§ 945.80 Reports.

(a) * * *

(b) All data or other information

constituting a trade secret, or disclosing

a trade position or business condition of

a particular handler shall be treated as

confidential and shall at all times be

received by and kept in the custody and

under the control of one or more

designated employees of the committee.

Information which would reveal the

circumstances of a single handler shall

be disclosed to no person other than the

Secretary.

(c) Each handler shall maintain for at

least two succeeding fiscal periods such

records of potatoes received and of

potatoes disposed of by such handler as

may be necessary to verify reports

required pursuant to this section. The

committee, with the approval of the

Secretary, may prescribe rules and

regulations issued pursuant to this

section specifying handler records and

reports which the committee may need

to perform its functions.

(d) For the purpose of assuring

compliance and checking and verifying

reports filed by handlers, the Secretary

and the committee, through its duly

authorized agents, shall have access to

any premises where applicable records

are maintained, where potatoes are held,

and, at any time during reasonable

business hours, shall be permitted to

inspect such handlers’ premises and any

and all records of such handlers with

respect to matters within the purview of

this part.

[FR Doc. 95–5671 Filed 3–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
13084 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules

Animal and Plant Health Inspection

Service

9 CFR Parts 160 and 161

[Docket No. 94–027–1]

Standards for Accredited Veterinarian

Duties

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: We are proposing to allow,

under certain conditions, accredited

veterinarians to issue official animal

health documents for animals in herds

or flocks under regular health

maintenance programs for up to 30 days

after inspection. For all other animals,

we are proposing to allow accredited

veterinarians to issue official animal

health documents up to 10 days

following inspection. Last, we are

proposing to require that all official

animal health documents be valid for

only 30 days following inspection,

regardless of the date of issuance. We

would continue to require that

accredited veterinarians issue official

animal health documents only for

animals that they have inspected.

These actions would extend the time

period allowed between inspection and

the issuance of official animal health

documents. We believe these actions

would both alleviate the burden placed

by the current time requirement on

accredited veterinarians and reduce the

costs of health inspection for the

livestock industry, without significantly

increasing animal disease risk.

DATES: Consideration will be given only

to comments received on or before May

9, 1995.

ADDRESSES: Please send an original and

three copies of your comments to Chief,

Regulatory Analysis and Development,

PPD, APHIS, USDA, P.O. Drawer 810,

Riverdale, MD 20738. Please state that

your comments refer to Docket No. 94–

027–1. Comments received may be

inspected at USDA, room 1141, South

Building, 14th Street and Independence

Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between

8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through

Friday, except holidays. Persons

wishing to inspect comments are

requested to call ahead on (202) 690–

2817 to facilitate entry into the

comment reading room.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

J. A. Heamon, Senior Staff Veterinarian,

Sheep, Goat, Equine, and Poultry

Diseases Staff, Veterinary Services,

APHIS, USDA, P.O. Drawer 810,

Riverdale, MD, 20738. The telephone

number for the agency contacts will

change when agency offices in

Hyattsville, MD, move to Riverdale, MD,

during February. Telephone: (301) 436–

6954 (Hyattsville); (301) 734–6954

(Riverdale).

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

In accordance with 9 CFR parts 160,

161, and 162 (referred to below as the

regulations), some veterinarians are

accredited by the Federal Government

to cooperate with the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) in

controlling and preventing the spread of

animal diseases throughout the country

and internationally. Accredited

veterinarians use their professional

training in veterinary medicine to

perform certain regulatory tasks.

Section 161.3 of the regulations

contains the Standards for Accredited

Veterinarian Duties. Currently, under

§ 161.3(a), we require accredited

veterinarians, when issuing or signing a

certificate, form, record, or report

regarding any animal, to have inspected

the animal within 7 days prior to

signing the document. We have received

numerous letters from veterinarians,

veterinary associations, and livestock

producers maintaining that this 7-day

requirement is impractical, burdensome,

and expensive for both veterinarians

and producers. All of the

correspondents request that we allow

accredited veterinarians additional time

to issue official animal health

documents following inspection.

Many of the correspondents argue that

the 7-day requirement makes it difficult

for accredited veterinarians involved in

intensive livestock practices to issue, in

a timely manner, official animal health

documents required for the interstate or

international transport of animals. Large

livestock facilities sell animals

continuously. So, in order to issue the

health documents near the date of an

animal’s shipment, if 7 days have

passed since the animal’s most recent

inspection, the veterinarian must revisit

the facility where it is housed. This time

requirement places a burden on

veterinarians with busy practices; many

of the veterinarians who have written

state that it is impossible for them to

visit their clients frequently enough so

as not to impede livestock sales and

shipments. Furthermore, livestock

facilities also are negatively impacted by

the 7-day requirement, as they must pay

for numerous veterinary inspections if

they wish to sell and ship animals

frequently.

Other letters cite inspection delays

caused by biosecurity requirements at

large livestock facilities as a reason for

extending the time period allowed for

issuing official animal health

documents. Biosecurity requirements

commonly prohibit veterinarians from

entering a facility within 72 hours of

being in contact with animals of the

same species at other sites. If an

accredited veterinarian is under contract

to several large livestock facilities with

biosecurity requirements, it can be

difficult for him or her to inspect

animals frequently enough so as not to

impede livestock sales and shipments.

Finally, many of the letters remark

that often veterinarians do not receive

laboratory test results soon enough after

inspection to issue official animal

health documents within the 7-day

period. Thus, a veterinarian can be

forced to reinspect an animal shortly

after the previous inspection due to

laboratory delays beyond his or her

control.

Therefore, we are proposing to allow,

under certain conditions, accredited

veterinarians to issue official animal

health documents for animals in herds

or flocks under regular health

maintenance programs for up to 30 days

after inspection. We are proposing to

define regular health maintenance

program in the regulations as ‘‘an

arrangement between an accredited

veterinarian and a livestock producer

whereby the veterinarian inspects every

animal on the premises of the producer

at least once every 30 days.’’ This kind

of arrangement is very common in the

livestock industry. Typically, livestock

facilities contract with a veterinarian for

health inspection of every animal every

30 days as a practical way to protect the

health of animals and to facilitate their

sale and shipment.

Over time, veterinarians who inspect

herds or flocks as part of a regular

health maintenance program become

very familiar with health conditions in

those herds or flocks. They are able to

discover current, and anticipate future,

health problems more accurately than

veterinarians who inspect individual

animals, herds, or flocks sporadically.

We believe that accredited veterinarians

may inspect a herd or flock as part of

a regular health maintenance program

and then issue relevant official animal

health documents for up to 30 days

following inspection, with no

significant increase in disease risk.

Notably, we would continue to require

that accredited veterinarians issue

official animal health documents only

for animals that they have inspected.

Because a veterinarian would have to

inspect a herd or a flock several times

before he or she could become familiar

with the health conditions therein, we

are proposing to allow veterinarians the
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules 13085

30-day issuance period only after the

third inspection of a herd or flock as

part of a regular health maintenance

program. Following the first two

inspections of a herd or flock as part of

a regular health maintenance program,

we are proposing to allow accredited

veterinarians to issue official animal

health documents for only 10 days after

inspection.

For all animals not part of a regular

health maintenance program, we are

proposing to allow accredited

veterinarians to issue official animal

health documents for up to 10 days

following inspection. We believe that

providing accredited veterinarians with

an additional 3 days following

inspection to issue relevant official

animal health documents will give them

greater flexibility without presenting a

significant increase in disease risk.

Finally, we are proposing to require

that all official animal health documents

be valid for only 30 days following the

date of inspection, regardless of the date

of issuance. We would require

accredited veterinarians to indicate both

the date of issuance and the date of

expiration on all official animal health

documents.

Miscellaneous

We are also proposing to revise the

regulations under §§ 160.1 and 161.3 (a),

(b), (c), and (k) for the sake of clarity.

Currently, the regulations in these

sections require that various conditions

be met any time an accredited

veterinarian ‘‘issue[s] or sign[s] any

certificate, form, record or report’’

reflecting the health of an animal.

However, ‘‘issue’’ is not defined in the

regulations. We are proposing to define

‘‘issue’’ as follows: ‘‘The distribution by

an accredited veterinarian of an official

animal health document that he or she

has signed.’’

Also, because under the proposed

definition, ‘‘issuance’’ entails

distributing a signed official animal

health document, to avoid redundancy

we are proposing to delete the word

‘‘sign’’ from § 161.3 (a), (b), (c), and (k).

Moreover, we are proposing to remove

‘‘sign’’ from these sections because the

phrase ‘‘issue or sign’’ implies that

accredited veterinarians could issue an

animal health document without

signing it.

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory

Flexibility Act

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12866. The rule

has been determined to be not

significant for purposes of Executive

Order 12866 and, therefore, has not

been reviewed by the Office of

Management and Budget.

We are proposing to amend the

regulations to allow, under certain

conditions, accredited veterinarians to

issue official animal health documents

for animals in herds or flocks under

regular health maintenance programs for

up to 30 days after inspection. For

inspection of other animals, we are

proposing to allow up to 10 days

between the inspection of animals and

the issuance of official animal health

documents.

Currently, under § 161.3(a), we

require accredited veterinarians, when

issuing or signing a certificate, form,

record, or report regarding any animal,

to have inspected the animal within 7

days. This requirement places an

economic burden on large livestock

facilities that sell and ship animals

continuously. That is, large livestock

facilities must have their animals

inspected frequently, in order for

veterinarians to issue, in a timely

manner, the health documents required

for the frequent sale and shipment of

animals. Such frequent visits can be

expensive.

If veterinarians were allowed

additional time to issue official animal

health documents following inspection,

they could inspect animals less

frequently. Therefore, primarily, this

proposal would economically benefit

large livestock facilities.

Under these circumstances, the

Administrator of the Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service has

determined that this action would 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 12778

This proposed rule has been reviewed

under Executive Order 12778, Civil

Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is

adopted: (1) All State and local laws and

regulations that are in conflict with this

rule will be preempted; (2) no

retroactive effect will be given to this

rule; and (3) administrative proceedings

will not be required 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) under OMB control number

0579–0032 and there are no new

requirements.

List of Subjects

9 CFR Part 160

Veterinarians.

9 CFR Part 161

Reporting and recordkeeping

requirements.

Accordingly, 9 CFR parts 160 and 161

would be amended as follows:

PART 160—DEFINITION OF TERMS

1. The authority citation for part 160

would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1828; 21 U.S.C. 105,

111–114, 114a, 114a–1, 115, 116, 120, 121,

125, 134b, 134f, 612, and 613; 7 CFR 2.17,

2.51, and 371.2(d).

2. Section 160.1 would be amended

by adding, in alphabetical order, the

following definitions:

§ 160.1 Definitions.

* * * * *

Issue. The distribution by an

accredited veterinarian of an official

animal health document that he or she

has signed.

* * * * *

Regular health maintenance program.

An arrangement between an accredited

veterinarian and a livestock producer

whereby the veterinarian inspects every

animal on the premises of the producer

at least once every 30 days.

* * * * *

* * * * *

PART 161—REQUIREMENTS AND

STANDARDS FOR ACCREDITED

VETERINARIANS AND SUSPENSION

OR REVOCATION OF SUCH

ACCREDITATION

3. The authority citation for part 161

would continue to read as follows:

Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1828; 21 U.S.C. 105,

111–114, 114a, 114a–1, 115, 116, 120, 121,

125, 134b, 134f, 612, and 613; 7 CFR 2.17,

2.51, and 371.2(d).

4. Section 161.3 would be amended as

follows:

a. By revising paragraphs (a) and (b)

to read as set forth below.

b. In paragraph (c), by removing the

phrase ‘‘or sign’’ in the first sentence.

c. In paragraph (k), by removing the

phrase ‘‘or sign’’ in the first sentence.

§ 161.3 Standards for accredited

veterinarian duties.

* * * * *
13086 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 47 / Friday, March 10, 1995 / Proposed Rules

(a) An accredited veterinarian shall

not issue a certificate, form, record or

report which reflects the results of any

inspection, test, vaccination or

treatment performed by him or her with

respect to any animal, other than those

in regular health maintenance programs,

unless he or she has personally

inspected that animal within 10 days

prior to issuance.

(1) Following the first two inspections

of a herd or flock as part of a regular

health maintenance program, an

accredited veterinarian shall not issue a

certificate, form, record or report which

reflects the results of any inspection,

test, vaccination or treatment performed

by him or her with respect to any

animal in that program, unless he or she

has personally inspected that animal

within 10 days prior to issuance.

(2) Following the third and

subsequent inspections of a herd or

flock in a regular health maintenance

program, an accredited veterinarian

shall not issue a certificate, form, record

or report which reflects the results of

any inspection, test, vaccination or

treatment performed by him or her with

respect to any animal in that program,

unless he or she has personally

inspected that animal within 30 days

prior to issuance.

(b) An accredited veterinarian shall

not issue, or allow to be used, any

certificate, form, record or report, until,

and unless, it has been accurately and

fully completed, clearly identifying the

animals to which it applies, and

showing the dates and results of any

inspection, test, vaccination, or

treatment the accredited veterinarian

has conducted, except as provided in

paragraph (c) of this section, and the

dates of issuance and expiration of the

document. Certificates, forms, records,

and reports shall be valid for 30 days

following the date of inspection of the

animal identified on the document. The

accredited veterinarian shall distribute

copies of certificates, forms, records,

and reports according to instructions

issued to him or her by the Veterinarianin-Charge.

* * * * *

Done in Washington, DC, this 6th day of

March 1995.

Terry L. Medley,

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 95–5992 Filed 3–9–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

Office of Surface Mining Reclamation

and Enforcement

30 CFR Part 756

Navajo Abandoned Mine Lands

Reclamation (AMLR) Plan

AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining

Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM),

Interior.

ACTION: Proposed rule; extension of

public comment period on proposed

amendment.

SUMMARY: OSM is announcing receipt of

revisions pertaining to a previously

proposed amendment to the Navajo

AMLR plan (hereinafter referred to as

the ‘‘Navajo plan’’) under the Surface

Mining Control and Reclamation Act of

1977 (SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.).

The revisions for the Navajo Nation’s

proposed statute pertain to the

reclamation of interim program coal

sites. The amendment is intended to

revise the Navajo plan to be consistent

with SMCRA, and to improve

operational efficiency.

DATES: Written comments must be

received by 4 p.m., m.s.t., March 27,

1995.

ADDRESSES: Written comments should

be mailed or hand delivered to Thomas

E. Ehmett at the address listed below.

Copies of the Navajo plan, the

proposed amendment, and all written

comments received in response to this

document will be available for public

review at the addresses listed below

during normal business hours, Monday

through Friday, excluding holidays.

Each requester may receive one free

copy of the proposed amendment by

contacting OSM’s Albuquerque Field

Office.

Thomas E. Ehmett, Acting Director,

Albuquerque Field Office, Office of

Surface Mining Reclamation and

Enforcement, 505 Marquette Avenue

NW., Suite 1200, Albuquerque, New

Mexico 87102

The Navajo Nation, P.O. Box 308,

Window Rock, Arizona 86515,

Telephone: (602) 871–4941.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Thomas E. Ehmett, Telephone: (505)

766–1486.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

I. Background on Title IV of SMCRA

Title IV of SMCRA established an

AMLR program for the purposes of

reclaiming and restoring lands and

waters adversely affected by past

mining. The program is funded by a

reclamation fee levied on the

production of coal. Lands and waters

eligible for reclamation under title IV

are those that were mined or affected by

mining and abandoned or inadequately

reclaimed prior to August 3, 1977, and

for which there is no continuing

reclamation responsibility under State,

Federal, Tribal, or other laws.

Title IV provides for State or Tribal

submittal to OSM of an AMLR plan. The

Secretary of the Interior adopted

regulations at 30 CFR 870 through 888

that implement Title IV of SMCRA.

Under these regulations, the Secretary

reviewed the plans submitted by States

and Tribes and solicited and considered

comments of State and Federal agencies

and the public. Based upon the

comments received, the Secretary

determined whether a State or Tribe had

the ability and necessary legislation to

implement the provisions of Title IV.

After making such a determination, the

Secretary decided whether to approve

the State or Tribe program. Approval

granted the State or Tribe exclusive

authority to administer its plan.

Ordinarily, under section 405 of

SMCRA, a State or Tribe must have an

approved surface mining regulatory

program prior to submittal of an AMLR

plan to OSM. However, on July 11,

1987, the President signed a

supplemental appropriations bill (Pub.

L. 100–71) that authorized the Crow and

Hopi Tribes and Navajo Nation to adopt

AMLR programs without approval of

Tribal surface mining regulatory

programs.

Upon approval of a State’s or Tribe’s

plan by the Secretary, the State or Tribe

may submit to OSM, on an annual basis,

an application for funds to be expended

by that State or Tribe on specific

projects that are necessary to implement

the approved plan. Such annual

requests are reviewed and approved by

OSM in accordance with the

requirements of 30 CFR Part 886.

II. Background on the Navajo Plan

On May 16, 1988, the Secretary of the

Interior approved the Navajo plan.

General background information on the

Navajo plan, including the Secretary’s

findings, the disposition of comments,

and the approval of the Navajo plan can

be found in the May 16, 1988, Federal

Register (53 FR 17186). Approval of the

Navajo plan is codified at 30 CFR

756.13. Subsequent actions concerning

the Navajo plan and plan amendments

can be found at 30 CFR 756.14.

III. Proposed Amendment

By letter dated January 12, 1995, the

Navajo Nation submitted a proposed

amendment to its AMLR plan pursuant

to SMCRA (administrative record No.