issue-1996-04-04•Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-04
Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-04
issue-1996-04-04Federal Register proposed rules — 1996-04-04Proposed Regulation
Published Federal Register documents, not public-inspection drafts. The GPO XML/text rendition is a research aid; the linked complete official PDF retains the printed layout and all graphics. Graphics are retained in that PDF and are not independently reproduced in this text rendition. Publication does not establish that every provision remains legally in force.
FR Doc. 96-8303 Tuberculosis in Cervids
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 66 (Thursday, April 4, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14982-14999]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8303]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 61, No. 66 / Thursday, April 4, 1996 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 14982]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 77 and 91
[Docket No. 92-076-1]
RIN 0579-AA53
Tuberculosis in Cervids
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We propose to amend the regulations concerning tuberculosis
and the interstate movement of animals by adding provisions regarding
testing, identification, and interstate movement of captive cervids,
such as deer and elk. We also propose to amend the regulations
concerning exportation of animals and animal products to require that,
to be eligible for export, captive cervids be accompanied by a
certificate stating that they have tested negative for tuberculosis
within 90 days prior to export. Captive cervids have been determined to
be a source of tuberculosis infection. The proposed amendments appear
necessary to help prevent the spread of tuberculosis and facilitate the
eradication of tuberculosis in livestock in the United States.
DATES: Consideration will be given only to comments received on or
before June 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Please send an original and three copies of your comments to
Docket No. 92-076-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please
state that your comments refer to Docket No. 92-076-1. 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. Joseph VanTiem, Staff
Veterinarian, Cattle Diseases and Surveillance, VS, APHIS, Suite 3B08,
4700 River Road Unit 36, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231, (301) 734-8715.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Tuberculosis Eradication Program
Bovine tuberculosis is a contagious, infectious, and communicable
disease caused by Mycobacterium bovis. It affects cattle, bison, deer,
elk, and other species, including humans. Bovine tuberculosis in
infected animals and humans manifests itself in lesions of the lung,
bone, and other bodily parts, causes weight loss and general
debilitation, and can be fatal.
At the beginning of this century, bovine tuberculosis was causing
more losses of livestock than all other livestock diseases combined.
This prompted the institution of the National Cooperative State/Federal
Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Program for bovine tuberculosis in
livestock. (For the remainder of this document, bovine tuberculosis
will be referred to as TB).
The eradication program for TB in livestock provides for testing of
cattle and bison for TB and regulates the interstate movement of cattle
and bison. Most of the regulations governing the eradication program
are found in 9 CFR part 77 (referred to below as the regulations),
including provisions for conferring or removing ``accredited-free
State'' status, a key feature of the TB eradication program. To
establish or maintain status as an accredited-free State, a State must
have no findings of TB in any cattle or bison in the State for at least
5 years. The State must also comply with all of the provisions of the
``Uniform Methods and Rules--Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication'' (UMR for
TB) regarding accredited-free States. The UMR for TB is incorporated
into the Code of Federal Regulations by reference at Sec. 77.1.
Detection of TB in any cattle or bison in the State will result in
suspension of accredited-free State status. Detection of TB in two or
more herds of cattle or bison in the State within 48 months will result
in revocation of accredited-free State status.
The advantage of maintaining status as an accredited-free State is
that buyers from other States and countries prefer to buy cattle and
bison, as well as cattle and bison byproducts, from an accredited-free
State. Many States and nations ban cattle imports from regions that are
not certified as accredited-free for TB. Loss of accredited-free State
status can cause losses in interstate and international trade for the
State in question.
Cervid Industry Information and Bovine Tuberculosis
Breeding and production of deer, elk, and other exotic Cervidae
(cervids) has taken place in the United States since at least the
1930's. U.S. production of cervids has increased over the decades and
is expected to continue to grow. Currently, there are more than 1,600
deer and elk owners in the United States, raising about 250,000 head of
captive cervids.
TB affects cervids similarly to the way it affects cattle and
bison. Cervids infected with TB can and have been known to spread the
disease to cattle and bison. In 1984, 24 bison herds were discovered to
be infected with TB in 10 States, 7 of which were accredited-free
States. The source of this outbreak proved to be their association with
TB-infected elk that had been purchased by an elk rancher from an
exotic animal collection in another State. In 1992, New York
slaughtered 2 dairy herds that were found to be infected with TB by
being exposed to a tuberculous cervid herd, and tested and quarantined
18 additional dairy herds because of TB. Also in 1992, TB was found in
a beef cattle herd in Pennsylvania that had been in contact with a
tuberculous cervid herd. As a result of these outbreaks, New York and
Pennsylvania lost their accredited-free State status. Since January 1,
1991, TB has been confirmed in 29 herds of elk and deer in 15 States.
In addition to concerns over livestock health, another issue of
concern to the United States is the considerable impact TB would have
on the nation's wild cervids and other wildlife if the disease were to
become established. Captive cervids are maintained within fenced areas.
However, captive cervids have been known to escape their enclosures and
mingle with wild cervids. At present, there are two confirmed
[[Page 14983]]
instances of TB in wild cervids (each involving only one animal), and
it has been determined that at least one of those incidences resulted
from contact with a captive cervid herd. We believe that if a
widespread outbreak of TB were to occur in wild cervids or in other
wildlife, it would be very costly to manage, would reduce wildlife
populations, and would pose a serious human health risk.
Proposal
The regulations in 9 CFR part 77 restrict the interstate movement
of cattle and bison to help prevent the interstate spread of TB. We
propose to divide 9 CFR part 77 into two subparts: ``Subpart A--Cattle
and Bison'' and ``Subpart B--Captive Cervids.'' ``Subpart A--Cattle and
Bison'' would contain the regulations currently in part 77 plus a new
Sec. 77.7, ``Cleaning and disinfection of premises, conveyances, and
materials,'' regarding the cleaning and disinfection of premises,
conveyances, and materials used in the interstate movement of
tuberculous cattle or bison. ``Subpart B--Captive Cervids'' would add
provisions concerning testing, identification, and interstate movement
of captive cervids to help prevent the interstate spread of TB and
facilitate the eradication of TB in livestock in the United States.
Cervid industry associations recognize the importance of
controlling TB and endorse participation in a testing and control
program at the Federal level. The North American Elk Breeders
Association (NAEBA), for example, through a unanimous vote of its board
of directors, has set as a major goal the inclusion of members' herds
of elk and deer within the scope of the National Cooperative State/
Federal Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication Program. NAEBA members number
more than 650, and own about 85 percent of the 20,000 captive elk in
North America.
We modeled the proposed subpart B for cervids after the regulations
in part 77 for cattle and bison, and after the UMR for TB for cattle
and bison.
Following is a description of and rationale behind each section of
the proposed regulations:
Proposed Sec. 77.8 Definitions
This section would establish definitions of terms used throughout
the subpart. The definitions of ``Administrator,'' ``Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS),'' and ``USDA'' are consistent with
our use of these terms in other regulations in 9 CFR chapter I. The
definitions of ``Accredited veterinarian,'' ``Approved slaughtering
establishment,'' ``Herd,'' ``Official eartag,'' ``Permit,''
``Suspect,'' ``Tuberculin,'' and ``Tuberculosis'' are consistent with
our use of these terms in either Secs. 77.1 through 77.6 of the
regulations or with our use of these terms in the UMR for TB.
We propose to define additional terms, which are used in these
proposed regulations, in Sec. 77.8 as follows:
Accredited herd. A herd of captive cervids that has tested negative
to at least three consecutive official tuberculosis tests of all
eligible cervids in accordance with Sec. 77.10(f), and that meets the
standards set forth in Sec. 77.12 of this subpart. The tests must be
conducted at 10-14 month intervals.
A herd of cattle and bison is only required to pass two annual
official tuberculin tests in order to be qualified as an accredited
herd. However, livestock industry associations have requested that we
require three official tuberculosis tests to qualify a cervid herd as
an accredited herd, because of a lack of testing history and the
present seriousness of the TB situation concerning cervids.
Classification as an accredited herd would allow cervids from the herd
to move freely interstate. This classification is part of our proposed
regulations for interstate movement of cervids, which will be explained
in detail later in this document.
Affected herd. A herd of captive cervids that contains, or that has
been identified as the source of, one or more cervids infected with
Mycobacterium bovis (determined by bacterial isolation of M. bovis) and
that has not tested negative to the tests prescribed in Sec. 77.16(d)
of this subpart.
This definition is in accordance with the definition of affected
herd that appears in the UMR for TB, with the addition of an
explanation of how infection of cervids with M. bovis is to be
determined.
Captive cervid. All species of deer, elk, and moose raised or
maintained in captivity for the production of meat and other
agricultural products, for sport, or for exhibition. A captive cervid
that escapes will continue to be considered a captive cervid as long as
it bears an official eartag with which to trace the animal back to a
herd of origin.
This definition excludes wild cervids, which we do not propose to
regulate under this proposed rule.
Classified herd. An accredited, qualified, or monitored herd.
See the definitions for these terms, below.
Cooperating State and Federal animal health officials. The State
and Federal animal health officials responsible for overseeing and
implementing the National Cooperative State/Federal Bovine Tuberculosis
Eradication Program.
Depopulate. To destroy all cervids in a herd by slaughter or by
death otherwise.
Designated accredited veterinarian. An accredited veterinarian who
is trained and approved by cooperating State and Federal animal health
officials to conduct the single cervical tuberculin (SCT) test on
cervids.
This definition would differentiate accredited veterinarians who
have been trained to perform the SCT test on cervids from those who
have not.
Exposed cervid. Any cervid that has been exposed to tuberculosis by
reason of associating with tuberculous cervids, cattle, or bison.
This definition is in accordance with the definition of exposed
animals that appears in the UMR for TB.
Monitored herd. A herd on which identification records are
maintained on captive cervids inspected for tuberculosis at an approved
slaughtering establishment or an approved diagnostic laboratory, and
which meets the standards set forth in Sec. 77.14 of this subpart.
Moved directly. Moved without unloading en route if moved in a
means of conveyance, or without stopping if moved in any other manner,
and without stopover or diversion to assembly points of any type.
We will propose to require throughout the subpart that cervids be
``moved directly'' to slaughter, or that cervids be ``moved directly''
from a classified herd, for example. Requiring in these instances that
the cervids be moved directly, as defined above, would minimize the
risk of the cervids spreading tuberculosis to other animals, should any
of them have tuberculosis, and would minimize the risk of healthy
cervids becoming diseased through contact with tuberculous animals en
route to their destination.
Negative. Showing no response to an official tuberculosis test or
classified negative for tuberculosis by the testing veterinarian based
upon history, supplemental tests, examination of the carcass, or
laboratory results.
This definition is consistent with our use of the term ``negative
animals'' as it appears in the UMR for TB.
No gross lesions (NGL). Having no visible lesion or lesions of
bovine tuberculosis detected upon necropsy or slaughter.
Cervids can react to tuberculosis tests, but upon necropsy or
slaughter, show no physical signs (lesions) of tuberculosis. Proposed
Sec. 77.16 would
[[Page 14984]]
require testing of tissue samples from NGL cervids to determine whether
or not the cervids are infected with tuberculosis.
Official tuberculosis test. Any of the following tests for bovine
tuberculosis in cervids, applied and reported in accordance with this
subpart:
(1) The single cervical tuberculin (SCT) test; (2) the comparative
cervical tuberculin (CCT) test; and (3) the blood tuberculosis (BTB)
test.
We call these tests official tuberculosis tests (as opposed to the
official tuberculin tests for cattle and bison) because of the
inclusion of the BTB test, which is not a tuberculin test. The
definitions of the SCT test and the CCT test are consistent with our
use of these terms in the UMR for TB as they relate to cattle and
bison, and would read as follows:
Comparative cervical tuberculin (CCT) test. The intradermal
injection of biologically balanced USDA bovine PPD tuberculin and avian
PPD tuberculin at separate sites in the mid-cervical area to determine
the probable presence of bovine tuberculosis (M. bovis) by comparing
the response of the two tuberculins 72 hours (plus or minus 6 hours)
following injection.
Single cervical tuberculin (SCT) test. The intradermal injection of
0.1 mL (5,000 tuberculin units) of USDA PPD bovis tuberculin in the
mid-cervical area with reading by visual observation and palpation in
72 hours (plus or minus 6 hours) following injection.
The definition of the BTB test would read as follows:
Blood tuberculosis (BTB) test. A supplemental test for tuberculosis
in cervids.
The BTB test is a relatively new TB test and is explained in detail
under the description of proposed Sec. 77.11 later in this document.
Qualified herd. A herd of captive cervids that has tested negative
to at least one official tuberculosis test of all eligible cervids
(described in Sec. 77.10 (f)) within the past 12 months, and that is
not classified as an accredited herd.
Quarantine. A prohibition from any interstate movement, except for
interstate movement to slaughter or necropsy in accordance with
Sec. 77.17.
Proposed Sec. 77.17 concerns necropsy procedures, approved
slaughtering establishments, and permits and identification
requirements for reactor, suspect, and exposed cervids moving
interstate to slaughter or necropsy.
Reactor. Any cervid that shows a response to an official
tuberculosis test and is classified a reactor by the testing
veterinarian; or any suspect cervid that is classified a reactor upon
slaughter or necropsy by the USDA or State veterinarian performing or
supervising the necropsy.
A cervid that shows a response to an official tuberculosis test
would be classified as a reactor in accordance with criteria discussed
later in this document under proposed Sec. 77.11, ``Official
Tuberculosis Tests.'' This definition of a reactor cervid is consistent
with our definition for reactor cattle, bison, or dairy goats in the
UMR for TB, with the clarification that a cervid may be classified as
reactor upon slaughter or necropsy. A cervid that is not classified as
reactor upon testing, but that is classified as reactor upon slaughter
or necropsy would have had a response to an official tuberculosis test,
but would have been classified as suspect by the testing veterinarian.
If evidence of tuberculosis is found upon slaughter or necropsy, the
suspect's response to the official tuberculosis test would be
reclassified as a reactor response, and the owner of the cervid could
then claim reactor indemnity for the slaughter of the animal.
Regular-kill slaughter animal. An animal that is slaughtered for
food or any reason other than because of a disease regulated under 9
CFR chapter I (such as tuberculosis, brucellosis, or any other
livestock disease for which movement of animals is restricted under 9
CFR chapter I).
This term is used in Sec. 77.10(b), concerning approved diagnostic
laboratories.
Tuberculous. Infected with, exposed to, or having lesions
indicative of tuberculosis, or classified as suspect or reactor based
on an official tuberculosis test.
Whole herd test. An official tuberculosis test of all test eligible
animals in the herd.
Whole herd testing would be necessary in herds containing reactors,
in affected herds, and in other situations, as described in the
proposed regulations below.
Proposed Sec. 77.9 General Restrictions
This section would establish general requirements for interstate
movement of cervids that would apply to all captive cervids, regardless
of their classification status.
Under this proposed section, no captive cervid may be moved
interstate unless it has been tested using an official tuberculosis
test, and it is moved in compliance with the regulations of proposed
subpart B. No captive cervid with a response to any official
tuberculosis test would be eligible for interstate movement unless the
cervid subsequently tests negative to an official tuberculosis test or
is moved directly to slaughter or necropsy under permit in accordance
with proposed Sec. 77.17 (which is discussed below). A response to an
official tuberculosis test does not mean that the cervid has TB--a
response means that the cervid is not negative for TB, and may be
infected with TB. For example, a cervid may respond to an official
tuberculosis test because the tuberculin was cross reactive with a
microbacterial disease or immune stimulant present in the animal that
is not M. bovis. Many animals that respond to a tuberculosis test are
not found to be infected with M. bovis upon necropsy and bacterial
culture. Therefore, an animal is not considered to positively have
tuberculosis until M. bovis has been isolated from a bacterial culture.
As discussed later, a cervid in an affected herd that responds to the
SCT will be considered a reactor for several reasons.
Also, this section would require that, except for captive cervids
moving under permit directly to slaughter or necropsy, each cervid or
shipment of cervids to be moved interstate must be accompanied by a
certificate issued by a State or Federal animal health official or an
accredited veterinarian before movement. The certificate would have to
state the official eartag number of each captive cervid to be moved,
the number of cervids covered by the certificate, the purpose of
movement, the origin and destination of the cervids, the consignor, and
the consignee. If a cervid is moving under permit directly to slaughter
or necropsy, it would not need a certificate because the permit would
include virtually the same information as a certificate. The permit and
certificate in this proposal are virtually identical to the permit and
certificate for movement required for cattle and bison under current
part 77.
This section would exempt cervids in zoological parks that are
accredited by the American Association of Zoological Parks and
Aquariums (AAZPA) from these regulations when the cervids are moved
directly interstate between AAZPA member facilities. Any cervids moved
interstate that are not moved directly from an AAZPA member facility to
another AAZPA member facility would have to be moved in accordance with
these proposed regulations. AAZPA facilities monitor their animals for
tuberculosis and other diseases, and interstate movement between the
parks would not involve contact with animals that are not in the
respective parks. Zoos that are not AAZPA members are not required to
conform to a standardized animal health
[[Page 14985]]
system, and would therefore need to comply with these proposed
regulations to ensure that tuberculous animals are not moved
interstate.
Proposed Sec. 77.10 Testing Procedures for Tuberculosis in Cervids
This section would set forth testing procedures to be followed when
using the official tuberculosis tests. Paragraph (a) would require
that, with two exceptions, official tuberculosis tests may only be
given by a veterinarian employed full-time by the State in which the
test is administered or by a veterinarian employed full-time by USDA.
The exceptions are that a designated accredited veterinarian may
conduct the SCT test (except with affected herds, suspected source
herds, and herds that have received cervids from affected herds; see
proposed Secs. 77.11(a)(2) and 77.16 (e) and (f)), and any accredited
veterinarian may conduct the BTB test.
Proposed paragraph (b) concerns approved diagnostic laboratories,
and states that, with one exception, results for all laboratory
diagnoses would only be accepted from the National Veterinary Services
Laboratories (NVSL) in Ames, Iowa. The exception would be
histopathological results from a laboratory of the Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS), USDA, which would be acceptable for tissue
examination of regular-kill slaughter animals in those cases where no
submission was made to NVSL. NVSL and FSIS laboratories are the
official reference laboratories for the U.S. Department of Agriculture.
We also propose to require that BTB test samples must be sent for
diagnosis to the laboratory at Texas A&M University in College Station,
Texas. This is the only laboratory in the United States equipped to
evaluate the BTB test.
Proposed paragraph (c) would require that any captive cervid tested
with an official tuberculosis test be individually identified by an
official eartag at the time of the official tuberculosis test. As
stated in the definitions, an official eartag would provide unique
identification for each cervid by conforming to the alpha-numeric
National Uniform Eartagging System. In the event that a cervid is found
to be infected with tuberculosis, the official eartag identification
would help State and Federal animal health officials to trace the
history of ownership of the animal and find the source of the
infection.
Paragraph (d) would require that the testing veterinarian submit a
report to cooperating State and Federal animal health officials of the
State in which the captive cervid is tested. The report would have to
include the following information for all official tuberculosis tests
administered: the individual eartag number; the age, sex, and breed of
each captive cervid tested; a record of all responses; the size of each
response (if appropriate for that test); and the test interpretation.
Paragraph (e) would provide for interpretation of an SCT test to be
based upon the judgment of the testing veterinarian after observation
and palpation of the injection site, in accordance with the
classification requirements described in proposed Sec. 77.11(a)
(discussed below). The SCT test is subjective by nature. A veterinarian
determines the response to the tuberculin by observing and palpating
the injection site and evaluating the increase (if any) in skin
thickness. Also, the TB history of the herd and the individual cervid,
and the tester's own experience must be factored into the
interpretation. Paragraph (e) would require that interpretation of the
CCT test be in accordance with proposed Sec. 77.11(b), which prescribes
standards for classifying a cervid based on measuring the response to
the tuberculins. Further, paragraph (e) would require that
interpretation of a BTB test be in accordance with patented standards
for the BTB test,1 and the classification requirements described
in proposed Sec. 77.11(c). The laboratory at Texas A&M University in
College Station, Texas, has purchased the right to use the patented
software that interprets the BTB test and is, therefore, equipped to
evaluate the BTB test (see proposed Sec. 77.10(b)(2)).
\1\ The patented standards for the BTB test may be obtained from
the Deer Research Laboratory, Department of Microbiology, University
of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand, or from the Texas
Veterinary Medical Center, College of Veterinary Medicine, Texas A&M
University, College Station, Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (f) would require that testing of herds for
classification include all captive cervids 1 year of age or over and
any captive cervids other than natural additions (cervids born into the
herd) under 1 year of age. Natural additions under 1 year of age would
not need testing since, if we know the TB status of the rest of the
herd, we can surmise that cervids under 1 year of age have the same TB
status. Any cervid under 1 year of age that is not a natural addition
would require testing, since we would not necessarily know the TB
status of the herd from which it came. All natural additions under 1
year of age would have to be individually identified by an official
eartag and recorded in the test report as members of the herd at the
time of the herd test, even though they are not tested.
Proposed Sec. 77.11 Official Tuberculosis Tests
This section describes each of the three official tuberculosis
tests, when each could be used, and the classification the testing
veterinarian would have to confer depending upon a cervid's response to
each test.
Single Cervical Tuberculin (SCT) Test
The SCT test is one of two tuberculin tests that this proposal
designates as official tuberculosis tests. (A tuberculin test requires
the injection of tuberculin into the cervid's skin. A visible reaction
to the tuberculin, such as swelling, may indicate the presence of M.
bovis.) Of the two tuberculin tests, the SCT is the most sensitive.
Under this proposal, the SCT test would be the primary test to be used
in individual captive cervids, and in captive cervid herds of unknown
tuberculous status. Because the SCT test is very sensitive, it is more
likely than other tuberculin tests to detect M. bovis in an animal. It
is also, however, more likely to react to other microbacterial diseases
or immune stimulants present in the animal that are not M. bovis. For
this reason, we would require that each cervid in a herd of unknown
tuberculous status that responds to the SCT test be classified as a
suspect for tuberculosis until it is retested with either the CCT test
or the BTB test and is either found negative for tuberculosis or is
classified as a reactor, unless the testing veterinarian determines
that the cervid should be classified as a reactor based on its response
to the SCT test, the circumstances under which the cervid is being
tested, and any previous association with TB the cervid has had.
However, we would require that a designated accredited veterinarian
could only classify a cervid as a reactor with the concurrence of the
State and/or regional tuberculosis epidemiologist for the State in
which the animal is being tested. Classifying an animal as a reactor
always necessitates further serious regulatory actions, including
quarantine, traceback, and usually, the slaughter of the reactor and
other cervids in the herd. It is for this reason that, as explained
below, we would require that official tuberculosis tests must be
conducted by a State or USDA veterinarian in cases where it is highly
probable that reactor animals will be found (for example, affected
herds and herds containing suspects that are being retested with the
CCT). It is also for this reason that we would require designated
accredited veterinarians to obtain the concurrence of a State and/or
regional
[[Page 14986]]
tuberculosis epidemiologist in those unusual cases where a designated
accredited veterinarian determines that a cervid should be judged a
reactor instead of a suspect.
As explained previously in this document, the testing veterinarian
may interpret the SCT test based upon his or her own professional
judgment, taking into account the circumstances under which the cervid
is being tested, any previous association with TB the cervid or herd
has had, and the veterinarian's own experience with conducting the SCT
test. These factors could cause the testing veterinarian to determine a
cervid is a reactor instead of a suspect. Before conducting an SCT
test, the testing veterinarian would inform the owner of the cervids of
the possibility that cervids responding to the test may be classified
as suspects or reactors. For example, if the testing veterinarian is
using the SCT test for annual routine tuberculosis testing of a herd,
the veterinarian would classify cervids that respond to the test as
suspects. However, if the SCT test is being conducted on a herd
considered to be at a high risk for tuberculosis (such as a herd newly
assembled on premises where a tuberculous herd had been depopulated, a
herd suspected of being a source of a tuberculous animal found at
slaughter, or a herd recently released from quarantine for
tuberculosis) the testing veterinarian may classify cervids that
respond to the SCT test as reactors. This proposed rule would require
that the testing veterinarian classify a cervid that responds to the
SCT test as a reactor if the herd being tested is an affected herd
(discussed below), or if it is a herd that has received cervids from an
affected herd (discussed under proposed Sec. 77.16). In individual
cervids, a testing veterinarian may classify an individual cervid as a
reactor if, for example, the cervid is being tested as part of a
traceback investigation and there is strong evidence that the cervid is
the source of tuberculosis.
This section would also designate the SCT test as the primary test
to be used in affected herds and herds that have received cervids from
affected herds. When used with affected herds or herds that have
received cervids from an affected herd, the SCT test could only be
administered by a veterinarian employed full-time by the State in which
the test is administered or employed full-time by USDA. In affected
herds, each cervid that responds to the SCT test must be classified as
a reactor. In other cases, a cervid that responds to the SCT test would
be classified as a suspect and retested with either the CCT test or the
BTB test. However, in an affected herd, it is known that the cervid has
been exposed to TB. That, combined with the fact that the SCT test is
more sensitive than the CCT test or the BTB test, makes it more likely
that a response to the SCT test indicates an animal with TB. Therefore,
we would require that a cervid that is in an affected herd and that
responds to the SCT be classified as a reactor.
Comparative Cervical Tuberculin (CCT) Test
The CCT test is the second of the two tuberculin tests designated
as official tuberculosis tests under this proposal. As discussed
previously, the CCT test is less sensitive than the SCT test. The CCT
test would not be used as a primary test for cervid herds because the
fact that it is less sensitive makes it more likely that it may not
detect some M. bovis infections in herds of unknown tuberculous status.
However, it is also more likely that a cervid responding to the CCT
test is actually infected with M. bovis. For this reason, we propose to
use the CCT test as a supplemental test that may only be used for
retesting captive cervids classified as suspects. The CCT test may be
used in affected herds only after the herd has tested negative to two
whole herd SCT tests, and only with the prior written consent of
cooperating State or Federal animal health officials. The CCT test may
not be used as a primary test for herds of unknown tuberculous status.
Any cervid with a response to bovine PPD tuberculin that is less than 1
mm would be classified as negative for TB. Any cervid with a response
to the avian PPD tuberculin that is greater than the response to the
bovine PPD tuberculin would be classified as negative for tuberculosis.
Any cervid with a response to the bovine PPD tuberculin which is 2 mm
or greater and that is equal to the response to the avian PPD
tuberculin would be classified as a suspect, unless the testing
veterinarian determines that the cervid should be classified as a
reactor. Any cervid with a response to the bovine PPD tuberculin that
is 2 mm or greater and that is at least 0.5 mm greater than the
response to the avian PPD tuberculin would be classified as a reactor.
Animals classified as suspects on two successive CCT tests would be
classified as reactors. Any exceptions to reactor classification under
the conditions described above would have to be justified by the
testing veterinarian in writing and have the concurrence of cooperating
State or Federal animal health officials.
Blood Tuberculosis (BTB) Test
Unlike the two tuberculin tests described above, the BTB test
requires the laboratory analysis of a blood sample taken from the
cervid. Under this proposal, the BTB test would be a supplemental test
that may be used in place of the CCT test for retesting captive cervids
classified as suspects. Based on a cervid's response to the BTB test, a
cervid is classified by the testing laboratory as either ``M. bovis
positive,'' ``avian,'' ``equivocal,'' or ``negative.'' This proposal
would require that any cervid classified by the testing laboratory as
``equivocal'' be classified as a suspect, and any cervid classified by
the testing laboratory as ``M. bovis positive'' be classified as a
reactor. Any cervid classified by the testing laboratory as ``avian''
or ``negative'' would be considered negative for TB. Copies of the BTB
test results would have to be submitted by the person, firm, or
corporation responsible for the management of the herd to the
cooperating State and Federal animal health officials.
Since this proposal would not require that the BTB test be used for
diagnosis of a cervid or cervid herd, we propose to require that the
cost of the BTB test be born by the owner of the tested animal(s). The
BTB test costs approximately $100 per cervid to perform and evaluate.
We have included the BTB test within the scope of these proposed
regulations because some herd owners prefer to use the BTB test on
their animals. However, APHIS does not have the funds to bear the cost
of this test, and we believe that the SCT and the CCT tuberculin tests
provide results as reliable as the BTB test.
Proposed Secs. 77.12, 77.13, 77.14, and 77.15 Interstate Movement of
Cervids
Unlike the TB eradication program for cattle and bison, we are not
proposing at this time that the TB status of cervids affect the TB
status of a State. There are 15 States that have had TB-infected herds
of deer and elk. Of these, eight are accredited-free States, and would
lose or have suspended their accredited-free State status if we
required that cervids be TB-free in order for States to maintain their
accredited-free status. Further, although we do offer indemnity
payments for cervids under 9 CFR part 50, we do not at this time have
sufficient funds to pay indemnity to all cervid owners so that herd
depopulation would be an affordable option for their infected herds.
Without depopulation of TB-infected cervid herds, it would be difficult
for many States to maintain their accredited-free status. For these
[[Page 14987]]
reasons, we are proposing herd accreditation for cervids which would be
separate from the State herd accreditation for cattle and bison. The
herd accreditation for cervids would help prevent the spread of TB from
cervids without allowing the TB status of an individual cervid herd to
affect the TB status of an entire State. The provisions for herd
accreditation would be found in Secs. 77.12 through 77.15 of proposed
subpart B. After 3 years, the regulations we are proposing here will be
subject to review, and States that have infected cervid herds will have
their State TB status reviewed. If at that time, we determine that the
TB infection rate of cervid herds is at a level which would make it
appropriate for the TB status of cervids to affect the TB status of
States, we will revise the regulations accordingly.
Participation in the herd accreditation plan for cervids would be
voluntary. However, interstate movement of cervids would be easier for
an animal from a classified herd. We propose to create three classes of
herds--accredited, qualified, and monitored. A captive cervid that is
not known to be infected or exposed to TB could be moved interstate
from an unclassified herd--a herd not participating in the herd
accreditation plan or a herd that has not yet been classified as
accredited, qualified, or monitored--only if accompanied by a
certificate stating that: (1) The cervid has tested negative to two
official tuberculosis tests, which were conducted no less than 90 days
apart; (2) the second tuberculosis test was conducted within 90 days
prior to the date of movement; and (3) the cervid was isolated from all
other animals during the testing period (the period beginning at the
time of the first test and ending at the time of interstate movement).
(These provisions are located in proposed Sec. 77.15.)
The herd classifications we propose are described below:
Accredited Herds
These provisions are located in proposed Sec. 77.12. To be
recognized as an accredited herd, all captive cervids in the herd that
are eligible for testing must have tested negative to at least three
consecutive official tuberculosis tests conducted at 10-14 month
intervals. If a herd meets this requirement, the owner of the herd must
obtain a document issued by cooperating State and Federal animal health
officials stating that the herd meets the requirement above and that
the herd is classified as an accredited herd.
A captive cervid from an accredited herd would be allowed to move
interstate without further TB testing, provided it is accompanied by a
certificate, as described in proposed Sec. 77.9, that includes a
statement that the cervid is from an accredited herd. If a group of
captive cervids from an accredited herd is being moved interstate
together to the same destination, all cervids in the group could be
moved under one certificate.
Captive cervids could be added to an accredited herd if: (1) The
cervid to be added is moved directly from an accredited herd; or (2)
the cervid to be added is moved directly from a qualified or monitored
herd and has tested negative to an official tuberculosis test within 90
days prior to movement to the premises of the accredited herd; or (3)
if the cervid to be added is not moved directly from a classified herd,
it must be isolated from all other members of the unclassified herd and
must test negative to two official tuberculosis tests. The isolation
must begin at the time of the first official tuberculosis test. The
tests must be conducted at least 90 days apart and the second test must
be conducted within 90 days prior to movement to the premises of the
new herd.
In addition, a herd addition that is not being moved directly from
an accredited or qualified herd must be kept isolated from all members
of the accredited herd until it tests negative to an official
tuberculosis test conducted at least 90 days following the date of
arrival at the premises of the accredited herd. Such herd additions
would not receive status as members of the accredited herd for purposes
of interstate movement until they have tested negative to an official
tuberculosis test and been released from isolation. A cervid to be
added may not have been exposed for 90 days prior to its movement to a
cervid with a lower classification status than its own.
To maintain accredited herd status, all cervids in the herd that
are eligible for testing must test negative to an official tuberculosis
test within 22-26 months from the anniversary date of the third
consecutive test (that is, the test on which the herd was recognized as
accredited, or the accrediting test). Each time the herd is tested for
reaccreditation, it must be tested 22-26 months from the anniversary
date of the accrediting test, not from the last date of reaccreditation
(for example, if a herd is accredited on January 1 of a given year, the
anniversary date will be January 1 of every second year). Accredited
herd status would be valid for 24 months (730 days) from the
anniversary date of the accrediting test.
The 22-26 month leeway time for retesting would be necessary to
allow for some flexibility to accommodate herds that cannot be tested,
for whatever reason, at exactly 24 month intervals. However, this also
means there may be a lapse in accreditation. For example, if the date
of a herd's accrediting test is January 1, 1996 (making the anniversary
date January 1 of every second year), the status would be valid until
January 1, 1998 (24 months). If the herd is not retested until March 1,
1998 (26 months), its accredited herd status would be suspended for the
2-month interim between the anniversary date and the reaccreditation.
During the suspension period, the herd would be considered
``unclassified'' and cervids moved from the herd would have to comply
with the proposed regulations for unclassified herds (found in proposed
Sec. 77.15).
Qualified Herds
These provisions are located in proposed Sec. 77.13. To be
recognized as a qualified herd, all captive cervids in the herd that
are eligible for testing must have tested negative to one official
tuberculosis test. If a herd meets this requirement, the owner of the
herd must obtain a document from cooperating State and Federal animal
health officials stating that the herd meets the requirement above and
is classified as a qualified herd.
A captive cervid from a qualified herd would be allowed to move
interstate only if the cervid is not known to be infected with or
exposed to TB and the cervid is accompanied by a certificate, as
described in proposed Sec. 77.9(c), that includes a statement that: (1)
The cervid is from a qualified herd; and (2) the cervid has tested
negative to an official tuberculosis test conducted within 90 days
prior to the date of movement. If a group of cervids from a qualified
herd is being moved interstate together to the same destination, all
cervids in the group could be moved under one certificate.
Captive cervids could be added to a qualified herd if: (1) The
cervid to be added is moved directly from an accredited herd; or (2)
the cervid to be added is moved directly from a qualified or monitored
herd and has tested negative to an official tuberculosis test within 90
days prior to movement to the premises of the qualified herd; or (3) if
the cervid to be added is not moved directly from a classified herd,
the cervid must be kept isolated from all other animals and must test
negative to two official tuberculosis tests. The isolation must begin
at the time of the first official tuberculosis test.
[[Page 14988]]
The tests must be conducted at least 90 days apart and the second test
must be conducted within 90 days prior to movement to the premises of
the new herd. The cervid must then be kept isolated from all animals
until it tests negative to an official tuberculosis test conducted at
least 90 days following the date of arrival at the premises of the
qualified herd. Such herd additions would not receive status as members
of the qualified herd for purposes of interstate movement until they
have tested negative to an official tuberculosis test and been released
from isolation. Any cervid to be added may not have been exposed for 90
days prior to its movement to a cervid with a lower classification
status than its own.
To maintain status as a qualified herd, all cervids in the herd
that are eligible for testing must test negative to an official
tuberculosis test within 10-14 months from the anniversary date of the
first test with no evidence of TB disclosed (this is the qualifying
test). Each time the herd is retested for qualified status, it must be
tested 10-14 months from the anniversary date of the qualifying test,
not from the last date of requalification (for example, if a herd is
qualified on January 1 of a given year, the anniversary date will be
January 1 of each consecutive year). Status as a qualified herd would
remain in effect for 12 months (365 days) following the anniversary
date of the qualifying test. As with accredited herds, qualified herd
status would be suspended between the anniversary date and the date of
retest. If the herd owner waits longer than 12 months to retest, the
herd would be considered unclassified during the suspension period.
Monitored Herds
These provisions are found in proposed Sec. 77.14. The provisions
for monitored herds have been included mainly to accommodate very large
cervid herds raised under range conditions. These herds are extremely
difficult to gather at one time for whole herd testing. This section
allows them to be monitored for tuberculosis according to their
slaughter records, as explained below.
To be recognized as a monitored herd, identification records must
be maintained by the person, firm, or corporation responsible for the
management of the herd on all cervids in the herd that are slaughtered,
inspected, and found negative for TB at an approved slaughtering
establishment or necropsied at an approved diagnostic laboratory. A
sufficient number of cervids in the herd must be slaughtered, as
determined by the Administrator, to ensure that TB infection at a
prevalence level of 2 percent or more will be detected with a
confidence level of 95 percent. This would require that a maximum
number of 148 cervids be slaughtered over a 3-year period, no matter
the size of the herd. We would include a footnote in this paragraph to
state that information and a chart concerning how many cervids would
have to be slaughtered depending on the size of a herd would be
available by contacting APHIS.
A captive cervid that is from a monitored herd would be allowed to
move interstate only if the cervid is not known to be infected with or
exposed to TB and the cervid is accompanied by a certificate, as
described in proposed Sec. 77.9, that includes a statement that: (1)
The cervid is from a monitored herd; and (2) the cervid has tested
negative to an official tuberculosis test conducted within 90 days
prior to the date of movement. If a group of cervids from a monitored
herd is being moved interstate together to the same destination, all
cervids in the group could be moved under one certificate.
The requirements for herd additions to a monitored herd would be
the same as the requirements for herd additions to a qualified herd.
To maintain status as a monitored herd, the person, firm, or
corporation responsible for the management of the herd would have to
submit an annual report to cooperating State or Federal animal health
officials prior to the anniversary date of classification to give the
number of captive cervids currently in the herd and the number of
captive cervids over 1 year of age identified, slaughtered, and
inspected at an approved slaughtering establishment or necropsied at an
approved diagnostic laboratory during the preceding year. We would
require the report to include only slaughtered cervids over 1 year of
age because animals younger than 1 year do not develop lesions
adequately to serve as a true indication of the TB infection rate. The
number of slaughter inspections reported in any given year would have
to be at least 25 percent of the total number of slaughter inspections
required over a 3-year period to qualify a herd for monitored herd
status. During each consecutive 3-year period, however, 100 percent of
the qualifying total would have to be reported.
Proposed Sec. 77.16 Other Interstate Movements
This section would regulate the interstate movement of captive
cervids from herds containing reactors, suspects, or exposed cervids,
and from herds that have been identified as the possible source of a
tuberculous cervid. This section would also establish testing to be
administered under those circumstances. In most cases, we would require
that a herd be ``quarantined'' until the results of tests are known.
Quarantine is defined in proposed Sec. 77.8 to mean ``a prohibition
from any interstate movement, except for interstate movement to
slaughter or necropsy in accordance with Sec. 77.17.'' Tuberculous
herds may also be subject to State quarantines, which could prohibit
cervids from being moved intrastate.
Proposed paragraph (a) concerns herds containing a suspect, and
paragraph (a)(1) provides that a suspect on the SCT test would have to
be quarantined until it is retested with the CCT test or the BTB test
and found negative for tuberculosis. If the suspect is retested using
the CCT test, the CCT test would have to be administered within 10 days
following the SCT test, or at least 90 days after the SCT test. If the
CCT test is administered within 10 days of the SCT test, the testing
veterinarian would have to inject the neck on the side opposite the
injection for the SCT test. If the suspect is retested with the BTB
test, the sample for the BTB test would have to be taken at least 12
days after the injection for the SCT test. However, we would also
recommend that the BTB sample be taken within 30 days following the SCT
test. The antibody production stimulated by the SCT reaches its highest
level 12-30 days after the SCT injection. Therefore, the antibody
levels during this period may produce more reliable results for the BTB
test than might be possible after 30 days. However, we would not
require that the sample for the BTB test be drawn within 30 days
following the SCT injection to allow for situations in which it is
impossible to test the animal within that time (this is often the case
with very large herds or herds permitted to graze on very large areas).
Paragraph (a)(1) also provides that a suspect on the CCT test or
the BTB test would be quarantined until the suspect on the CCT test is
retested with the CCT test at least 90 days after the previous test and
found negative for TB, or the suspect on the BTB test is retested with
the BTB test 30-60 days after the previous test and is found negative
for TB.
Paragraph (a)(2) provides that the remainder of the herd containing
a suspect would be quarantined until the suspect is found negative for
TB upon retesting, slaughter, or necropsy. If the suspect is found
negative for
[[Page 14989]]
tuberculosis, the herd would be released from quarantine and would
return to the herd classification status in effect before the herd was
quarantined. If the suspect is classified as a reactor upon retesting,
slaughter, or necropsy, the herd could be released from quarantine only
in accordance with proposed paragraph (b), which concerns herds
containing a reactor.
Proposed paragraph (b)(1) provides that captive cervids classified
as reactors would have to be quarantined. Proposed paragraph (b)(2)
provides that the remainder of the herd containing a reactor would be
quarantined until the reactors are slaughtered or necropsied in
accordance with proposed Sec. 77.17, and in accordance with one of the
following scenarios:
1. If upon slaughter or necropsy any reactors exhibit lesions
compatible with or suggestive of tuberculosis, found by histopathology,
without isolation of M. bovis, the remainder of the herd will be
subject to the provisions of proposed Sec. 77.16(c), which concerns
herds found to have only lesions of tuberculosis (discussed below).
2. If M. bovis is isolated from any reactors, the remainder of the
herd would be considered an affected herd, and would be subject to the
provisions of proposed Sec. 77.16(d), which concerns affected herds
(discussed below).
3. If upon slaughter or necropsy all reactors exhibit no gross
lesions (NGL) of tuberculosis and no evidence of tuberculosis infection
is found by histopathology and culture of M. bovis on selected
specimens from NGL animals, the remainder of the herd would be released
from quarantine, and cervids from the herd could be moved interstate in
accordance with the herd classification status in effect before the
herd was quarantined if one of the following conditions are met: (1)
The remainder of the herd is given a whole herd test and is found
negative for tuberculosis; or (2) The remainder of the herd is given a
whole herd test, and all reactors to the whole herd test exhibit no
gross lesions (NGL) of tuberculosis upon slaughter or necropsy and no
evidence of tuberculosis infection is found by histopathology and
culture of M. bovis on selected specimens from NGL animals.
4. If no evidence of tuberculosis is found in any reactor upon
slaughter or necropsy, but it is not possible to conduct a whole herd
test on the remainder of the herd, the herd would be evaluated, based
on criteria such as the testing history of the herd and the State
history of tuberculosis infection, by the State and/or regional
tuberculosis epidemiologist to determine whether or not the herd may be
released from quarantine.
Proposed paragraph (c) of Sec. 77.16 concerns herds in which
captive cervids with lesions compatible with or suggestive of
tuberculosis are found by histopathology without the isolation of M.
bovis. These herds would already have been quarantined under paragraphs
(a), (b), or (d) for herds containing a reactor, a suspect, or an
exposed cervid, or under paragraph (e) for source herds. Paragraph (c)
would provide that if a herd is found to have only lesions of
tuberculosis, the herd could be released from quarantine and return to
the herd classification status in effect before the herd was
quarantined, with the concurrence of the regional tuberculosis
epidemiologist, if the herd tests negative to tuberculosis on a whole
herd test conducted 90 days following the removal of the lesioned
cervid, provided the herd has not been exposed to M. bovis during the
90 days. In order to maintain its herd classification status, the herd
would have to test negative to two annual whole herd tests beginning
10-12 months after the herd is released from quarantine. If any cervids
in the herd respond to one of the tests, the herd would be subject to
the provisions of Sec. 77.16 (a) or (b). If the herd is not given the
two annual whole herd tests, it would become an unclassified herd.
Proposed paragraph (d) of Sec. 77.16 provides that a herd
determined to be an affected herd would be quarantined until it has
tested negative to three whole herd tests in succession, with the first
test given 90 days or more after the last test yielding a reactor and
the last two tests given at intervals of not less than 180 days. (As
stated earlier in this document, an affected herd would be defined as a
herd of cervids that contains, or that has been identified as the
source of, one or more cervids infected with M. bovis and that has not
tested negative to the required tests prescribed in this paragraph). If
the herd tests negative to the three whole herd tests, it would be
considered an unclassified herd, and cervids could only be moved
interstate from the herd in accordance with the provisions for
unclassified herds in Sec. 77.15, discussed previously in this
document. In addition, the herd would have to be given an additional
five consecutive annual whole herd tests after release from quarantine.
These five tests would count towards qualifying the herd for herd
classification. As an alternative to testing, the herd could be
depopulated.
Proposed paragraph (e) of Sec. 77.16 concerns herds that have
received cervids from an affected herd. It provides that if a herd has
received cervids from an affected herd, the cervids would be considered
exposed, and the exposed cervids and the receiving herd would be
quarantined. The exposed cervids would have to be slaughtered,
necropsied, or tested with the SCT test by a veterinarian employed
full-time by the State in which the test is administered or employed
full-time by USDA. The BTB test could be used simultaneously with the
SCT test as an additional diagnostic test.
Paragraphs (e)(1), (e)(2), (e)(3), and (e)(4) of Sec. 77.16 would
describe the disposition of the receiving herd depending on what
disease status the exposed cervids are determined to have. Paragraph
(e)(1) states that if any exposed cervid tests positive to either the
SCT test or the BTB test, it would be classified as a reactor, and
would be considered as part of the affected herd of origin for purposes
of testing, quarantine, and the five annual whole herd tests required
for affected herds in Sec. 77.16(d). The receiving herd would then be
subject to the provisions of Sec. 77.16(b), for herds containing a
reactor. If bovine tuberculosis is confirmed in any of the exposed
cervids by bacterial isolation of M. bovis, the receiving herd would be
classified as an affected herd and would be subject to Sec. 77.16(d),
for affected herds. If any of the exposed cervids are found to exhibit
lesions compatible with or suggestive of tuberculosis, found by
histopathology, without the isolation of M. bovis, the herd would be
subject to Sec. 77.16(c) for herds found to have only lesions of
tuberculosis. If all of the exposed cervids test negative for
tuberculosis, paragraph (e)(2) provides that the receiving herd could
be released from quarantine, and would return to the herd
classification in effect before the herd was quarantined. In addition,
the herd would have to be given a whole herd test with the SCT test 1
year after release from quarantine in order for cervids from the herd
to continue to be moved interstate. Supplemental diagnostic tests could
be used if any cervids in the herd show a response to the SCT test.
Paragraph (f) of Sec. 77.16 concerns source herds, and would
provide that a herd suspected of being the source of tuberculous
animals based on a slaughter traceback investigation would be
quarantined upon notification (by the person conducting the
investigation) to the USDA Area Veterinarian-in-Charge for the State in
which the herd resides, and a whole herd test would have to be
scheduled. If the herd is suspected of being the source of slaughter
animals having lesions of tuberculosis, the whole herd test would have
to be done
[[Page 14990]]
by a veterinarian employed full-time by the State in which the test is
administered or employed full-time by USDA.
If the herd is positively identified as the source of animals
having lesions of tuberculosis and M. bovis has been confirmed by
bacterial isolation from the slaughter animal, the herd would be
considered affected and would have to be prohibited from interstate
movement and tested in accordance with the provisions for affected
herds in Secs. 77.11(a)(2) and 77.16(d).
If the herd is positively identified as the source of cervids that
exhibit lesions compatible with or suggestive of tuberculosis, found by
histopathology, without the isolation of M. bovis, the herd would be
subject to the provisions for herds found to have only lesions of
tuberculosis in Sec. 77.16(c).
If the herd is not positively identified as the source herd, the
herd would be released from quarantine if the herd is given a whole
herd test and is found negative for tuberculosis. The herd would then
return to the herd classification status in effect before the herd was
quarantined.
Proposed paragraph (g) of Sec. 77.16 concerns herds newly assembled
on premises where a tuberculous herd has been depopulated. Such herds
would have to be given two consecutive annual whole herd tests. The
first test would have to be administered at least 6 months after the
assembly of the new herd. If the whole herd tests are not conducted
within the indicated timeframe, the herd would be quarantined. If the
herd tests negative to the whole herd tests, there would be no further
requirements. If any cervids in the herd respond to one of the whole
herd tests, the herd would be subject to the provisions of Sec. 77.16
(a) or (b). If the premises has been vacant for more than 1 year
preceding the assembly of the new herd on the premises, these
requirements could be waived in accordance with the judgment of
cooperating State and Federal animal health officials.
Proposed Sec. 77.17 Procedures for and Interstate Movement to Necropsy
and Slaughter
Under this proposal, necropsy and slaughter are listed as options
for the disposition of suspects, reactors, and exposed cervids.
Paragraph (a) of this section would set forth required procedures for
necropsy and slaughter. It would require that necropsies be performed
by or under the supervision of a veterinarian who is employed full-time
by USDA or employed full-time by the State in which the cervid was
classified, and who is trained in tuberculosis necropsy procedures.
This requirement would allow for necropsy to be performed anywhere, as
long as the required USDA or State veterinarian is available to perform
or supervise the procedure. If, upon necropsy, a cervid is found
without evidence of M. bovis infection by histopathology or culture
(including specimens from cervids having no gross lesions indicative of
tuberculosis), the cervid would be considered negative for
tuberculosis.
Paragraph (a) would also require that reactors, suspects, and
exposed cervids may only be slaughtered at an approved slaughtering
establishment, as defined in Sec. 77.8. As defined, approved
slaughtering establishments operate under the provisions of the Federal
Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), or have inspection by a
State inspector at the time of slaughter. Most often, owners of
reactors, suspects, and exposed cervids would send their animals to
slaughter in an attempt to recover some value from the animal (meat or
other byproducts). Requiring the animals to be slaughtered only at
approved slaughtering establishments would ensure that carcasses of
tuberculous cervids are properly examined and disposed of in accordance
with Federal Meat Inspection Act requirements to protect public health.
If reactors, suspects, or exposed cervids are not slaughtered, but are
necropsied at a diagnostic laboratory or other location that is not an
approved slaughtering establishment, the disposal of the cervid
carcasses would be subject to State or county laws and regulations.
Paragraph (b) of this section would concern interstate movement to
necropsy or slaughter, and would require that any reactor, suspect, or
exposed cervid to be moved interstate to necropsy or slaughter be
accompanied by a permit issued by a cooperating State or Federal animal
health official or an accredited veterinarian. The cervid would have to
remain on the premises where it was identified as a reactor, suspect,
or exposed cervid until a permit for its interstate movement is
obtained. The permit would have to list: The reactor eartag number (if
applicable) or the official eartag number; the owner's name and
address; the origin and destination of the cervids; the number of
cervids covered by the permit; and the purpose of the movement. No
stopover or diversion from the destination listed on the permit would
be permitted. If a change in destination would become necessary, a new
permit would have to be obtained from a cooperating State or Federal
animal health official or an accredited veterinarian before the
interstate movement begins.
Paragraph (b) would also require specific identification for
reactors and exposed cervids moving interstate to slaughter. The
identification we propose is identical to identification already
required for cervids moving interstate to slaughter under 9 CFR part 50
(see interim rule Docket No. 94-133-1, 60 FR 37804-37810, published
July 24, 1995). Reactors would have to be tagged with an official
eartag attached to the left ear and bearing a serial number and the
inscription ``U.S. Reactor,'' and branded with the letter ``T'' high on
the left hip near the tailhead and at least 5 by 5 centimeters (2 by 2
inches) in size. Reactors could be moved interstate without branding if
they are permanently identified by the letters ``TB'' tattooed legibly
in the left ear, sprayed with yellow paint on the left ear, and either
accompanied directly to necropsy or slaughter by an APHIS or State
representative or moved directly to necropsy or slaughter in a vehicle
closed with official seals. Such official seals would have to be
applied and removed by an APHIS representative, State representative,
accredited veterinarian, or an individual authorized for this purpose
by an APHIS representative.
Exposed cervids would have to be identified by an official eartag
and branded with the letter ``S'' high on the left hip near the
tailhead and at least 5 by 5 centimeters (2 by 2 inches) in size.
Exposed cervids could be moved interstate without branding if they are
either accompanied directly to necropsy or slaughter by an APHIS or
State representative, or moved directly to necropsy or slaughter in a
vehicle closed with official seals. Such official seals would have to
be applied and removed by an APHIS representative, State
representative, accredited veterinarian, or an individual authorized
for this purpose by an APHIS representative.
Proposed Sec. 77.18 Cleaning and Disinfection of Premises,
Conveyances, and Materials
This proposed section would establish requirements for cleaning and
disinfecting premises, conveyances, and materials that may be
contaminated with TB because they were used in handling tuberculous
cervids. These requirements would help prevent cervids or other
livestock (such as cattle, bison, or horses) from becoming infected
with tuberculosis. Similar requirements are contained 9 CFR part 50 for
animals destroyed because of tuberculosis, and in part 76 for swine to
[[Page 14991]]
prevent the spread of hog cholera and other communicable diseases of
swine.
Under this proposed section, all conveyances and associated
equipment, premises, and structures that are used for receiving,
holding, shipping, loading, unloading, and delivering captive cervids
in connection with their interstate movement and that are determined by
cooperating State and Federal animal health officials to be
contaminated because of occupation or use by tuberculous cervids must
be cleaned and disinfected under the supervision of the cooperating
State or Federal animal health officials. Such cleaning and
disinfecting would have to be done in accordance with the procedures
approved by the cooperating State or Federal animal health officials.
These procedures may vary by State, but would include removing all
litter and manure from floors and other surfaces, cleaning interior and
exterior surfaces, emptying all feeding or watering appliances, and
saturating surfaces with a disinfectant. Cleaning and disinfection
would have to be completed before the premises, conveyances, or
materials could again be used to convey, hold, or in any way come in
contact with any livestock.
We are also proposing to add a new Sec. 77.7 to the regulations in
subpart A, ``Cattle and Bison,'' that would contain requirements for
cleaning and disinfecting premises, conveyances, and materials that may
be contaminated with TB because they were used in handling tuberculous
cattle or bison. These requirements would be identical to those
described above for captive cervids. Currently, cleaning and
disinfection requirements concerning TB in cattle and bison are
contained in the UMR for TB. Hence, the requirements we are proposing
to add to part 77 for cattle and bison would not be an addition to the
tuberculosis eradication program for cattle and bison. We are only
adding these requirements to the regulations so that any person reading
the regulations is aware that premises, conveyances, and materials that
may be contaminated with TB because they were used in handling
tuberculous cattle or bison must be cleaned and disinfected. This is
necessary to ensure the effectiveness of the tuberculosis eradication
program.
Revisions to Existing Regulations in Part 77
We are proposing to make several nonsubstantive changes to the
regulations in part 77 in order to allow for the creation of a subpart
B and to make it clear that the existing regulations refer only to
cattle and bison. To do this, we propose to title Secs. 77.1-77.7 as
``Subpart A--Cattle and Bison.'' We also propose to add the phrase
``cattle and bison'' to some sentences and to replace the word ``part''
with ``subpart'' in those sentences where the word occurs.
Additionally, we propose to correct a typographical error in the
heading of Sec. 77.5.
We are also proposing to amend the regulations in part 77 to update
the incorporation by reference of the Uniform Methods and Rules--Bovine
Tuberculosis Eradication. This action is necessary because the
regulations refer to the 1985 edition of the Uniform Methods and
Rules--Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication. This edition has been
superseded by the edition (for cattle and bison only) adopted by the
United States Animal Health Association (USAHA) in October, 1988, and
approved by APHIS' Veterinary Services on February 3, 1989. APHIS has
also approved an addendum to this edition that includes the provisions
for interstate movement of cervids that we are proposing in this
document. The addendum was adopted by the USAHA on October 29, 1993,
and approved by APHIS' Veterinary Services on May 15, 1994. Copies of
the new edition of the Uniform Methods and Rules--Bovine Tuberculosis
Eradication and the addendum can be obtained by writing to the person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
International Movement
Finally, we propose to revise the regulations in 9 CFR part 91,
which concern exportation of animals and animal products, by adding a
new Sec. 91.7, Captive cervids, to regulate the exportation of captive
cervids. The new section would require that, to be eligible for export,
a captive cervid be accompanied by an origin health certificate (as
already defined in Sec. 91.1) stating that the captive cervid has
tested negative to an official single cervical tuberculin test for
tuberculosis, as described in part 77, subpart B, of this chapter,
within 90 days prior to export. The origin health certificate would
have to specify the date the test was conducted and the test results.
We would also add ``captive cervids'' to the list of animals included
in the definition of Animals in part 91. This would make the general
export requirements in part 91 (which now apply to horses, cattle,
bison, sheep, swine, and goats) also apply to captive cervids.
These requirements would help ensure that captive cervids exported
from the United States are not infected with tuberculosis.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.
This 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.
Breeding and production of captive deer, elk, and other Cervidae
(cervids) has taken place in the United States since at least the
1930's. The first owners were ranchers who kept these animals as
novelties. While cervids continue to be raised for their aesthetic
value, most herds also earn income for their owners in the venison and
antler markets. U.S. production of cervids has increased over the
decades and is expected to continue to grow. In a 1990 survey of
existing herd owners, over 70 percent of the respondents planned to
expand their operations; only 3 percent intended to decrease or
discontinue production.2 The industry's combined sales probably
exceed $10 million. Most cervid holdings are either small businesses or
are parts of larger agricultural enterprises.
\2\ Mjelde, James. ``Exotic Ungulate Production: Summary of
Survey Results.'' Department of Agricultural Economic
FR Doc. 96-8303 Tuberculosis in Cervids
s, Texas A&M
University.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are more than 1,600 captive cervid (elk and deer) producers
in the United States today, raising about 250,000 head of captive
cervids. Holdings vary in size and degree of commercialization, with
most producers relying on other sources of income, particularly dairy
farming or cattle ranching, for their livelihoods. Elk and deer farming
yield a higher return on investment than do most other types of
livestock enterprises, but also require larger initial investment and
operating costs.
Industry-wide, elk producers are building up their herds, with
almost all newborns sold as breeding stock. A heifer elk is worth about
$3,500. Annual income is also earned from the sale of antlers cut in
the velvet stage of growth. The antlers sell for about $70 per pound. A
bull elk can produce up to 18 pounds each year, for more than 10 years.
Thus, a gross income of $1200-1300 can be earned per year from one bull
elk.
The value per animal for deer is lower than for elk. Currently,
good quality fallow does are sold for about $400 per head, and
slaughter bucks can be sold for $150-200 each. Fallow does will produce
one offspring per year, valued at about $200 per head.
This proposed rule, if adopted, would include captive cervids in
the National
[[Page 14992]]
Cooperative State/Federal Bovine Tuberculosis (TB) Eradication Program.
APHIS considered the alternative of not adding provisions concerning
captive cervids to this program. Under this alternative, the interstate
movement of captive cervids would remain unregulated, increasing the
risk for further spread of TB from captive cervids to cattle, bison,
and other livestock, as well as to wildlife. Therefore, this
alternative was rejected.
Under this proposal, producers of captive cervids would bear
certain costs of testing the animals. Routine testing with the SCT test
would be paid for by the owner of the herd, and would cost about $25-30
per cervid, based on a herd of about 200 cervids over 6 months of age.
Approximately two-fifths of this cost would be for additional labor
needed to assist in the testing (rounding up the herd, holding animals
for injection, etc.), and three-fifths of the cost would be for a
veterinarian's professional services. Owners would not be responsible
for the cost of the CCT test, retesting affected herds with the SCT
test, or any other testing with the SCT test other than routine
testing. Cervid owners would also bear costs of the BTB test
(approximately $100 per cervid) if they desire to use this test.
However, the test would only be an option under this proposed rule, and
would not be required.
Individual owners would benefit from the regulations by having a
way to ensure only TB-free cervids are added to their herds, and in the
long run, by a decrease in the incidence of TB. Also, current TB
testing and transport restrictions for cervids vary by State. National
disease control standards, effective as a result of this rule, would
facilitate interstate trade.
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 section 3507(d) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection or
recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Please send written comments to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington,
DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. 92-076-1.
Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No. 92-076-1,
Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Suite 3C03, 4700 River
Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, and (2) Clearance Officer,
OIRM, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20250. A comment to OMB is best assured of having its
full effect if OMB receives it within 30 days of publication of this
proposed rule.
This rule would require that, to be eligible for export, captive
cervids must be accompanied by a certificate stating that they have
tested negative for tuberculosis within 90 days of export. This rule
would also introduce various information collection requirements to
enable us to accurately monitor the interstate movement of captive
cervids, and to ensure that captive cervids being moved interstate are
properly tested and identified. We are soliciting comments from the
public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our proposed
information collection and recordkeeping requirements. We need this
outside input to help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is
necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected;
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who
are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology, e.g., permitting electronic
submission responses).
Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 2.34 hours per response.
Respondents: Importers and veterinarians.
Estimated number of respondents: 238.
Estimated number of responses per respondent: 5.8.
Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 557 hours.
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from:
Clearance Officer, OIRM, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and Independence
Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250.
List of Subjects
9 CFR Part 77
Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation, Tuberculosis.
9 CFR Part 91
Animal diseases, Animal welfare, Exports, Livestock, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, 9 CFR parts 77 and 91 would be amended as follows:
PART 77--TUBERCULOSIS
1. The authority citation for part 77 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111, 114, 114a, 115-117, 120, 121, 134b,
and 134f; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).
2. In part 77, a subpart heading, ``Subpart A--Cattle and Bison'',
would be added before Sec. 77.1.
3. Section 77.1 would be amended as follows:
a. The introductory sentence would be amended by removing the word
``part'' and adding the word ``subpart'' in its place.
b. The definition of Permit would be amended by removing the word
``animals'' the first time it appears and adding the words ``cattle or
bison'' in its place, and by removing the word ``part'' each time it
appears and adding the word ``subpart'' in its place.
c. The definition of Transportation document would be amended by
adding the phrase ``of cattle or bison'' immediately after ``interstate
movement''.
d. The definition for Uniform Methods and Rules--Bovine
Tuberculosis Eradication would be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 77.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
Uniform Methods and Rules--Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication. Uniform
[[Page 14993]]
methods and rules for eradicating bovine tuberculosis in the United
States, adopted by the United States Animal Health Association (USAHA)
in October, 1988, and approved by APHIS on February 3, 1989, and also
including an addendum adopted by the USAHA on October 29, 1993, and
approved by APHIS on May 15, 1994. The Uniform Methods and Rules--
Bovine Tuberculosis Eradication were approved for incorporation by
reference into the Code of Federal Regulations by the Director of the
Federal Register in accordance with 5 U.S.C. 552(a) and 1 CFR part
51.1
\1\ Copies may be obtained from the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, Veterinary Services, Cattle Diseases and
Surveillance, 4700 River Road Unit 36, Riverdale, Maryland 20737-
1231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* * * * *
Sec. 77.6 [Amended]
4. In Sec. 77.6, in the first sentence, the word ``part'' would be
removed and the word ``subpart'' would be added in its place.
5. A new Sec. 77.7 would be added to read as follows:
Sec. 77.7 Cleaning and disinfection of premises, conveyances, and
materials.
All conveyances and associated equipment, premises, and structures
that are used for receiving, holding, shipping, loading, unloading, and
delivering cattle or bison in connection with their interstate movement
and that are determined by cooperating State and Federal animal health
officials to be contaminated because of occupation or use by
tuberculous cattle and bison must be cleaned and disinfected under the
supervision of the cooperating State or Federal animal health
officials. Such cleaning and disinfecting must be done in accordance
with the procedures approved by the cooperating State or Federal animal
health officials. Cleaning and disinfection must be completed before
the premises, conveyances, or materials may again be used to convey,
hold, or in any way come in contact with any livestock.
6. In part 77, a new subpart B would be added following Sec. 77.7
to read as follows:
Subpart B--Captive Cervids
Sec.
77.8 Definitions.
77.9 General restrictions.
77.10 Testing procedures for tuberculosis in cervids.
77.11 Official tuberculosis tests.
77.12 Interstate movement from accredited herds.
77.13 Interstate movement from qualified herds.
77.14 Interstate movement from monitored herds.
77.15 Interstate movement from unclassified herds.
77.16 Other interstate movements.
77.17 Procedures for and interstate movement to necropsy and
slaughter.
77.18 Cleaning and disinfection of premises, conveyances, and
materials.
Subpart B--Captive Cervids
Sec. 77.8 Definitions.
Accredited herd. A herd of captive cervids that has tested negative
to at least three consecutive official tuberculosis tests of all
eligible cervids in accordance with Sec. 77.10(f), and that meets the
standards set forth in Sec. 77.12 of this subpart. The tests must be
conducted at 10-14 month intervals.
Accredited veterinarian. A veterinarian approved by the
Administrator in accordance with part 161 of this chapter to perform
the functions specified in parts 1, 2, 3, and 11 of subchapter A, and
subchapters B, C, and D of this chapter, and to perform functions
required by cooperative State-Federal disease control and eradication
programs.
Administrator. The Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, or any person authorized to act for the
Administrator.
Affected herd. A herd of captive cervids that contains, or that has
been positively identified as the source of, one or more cervids
infected with Mycobacterium bovis (determined by bacterial isolation of
M. bovis) and that has not tested negative to the required tests
prescribed in Sec. 77.16(d) of this subpart.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). The Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service of the United States Department of
Agriculture.
Approved slaughtering establishment. A slaughtering establishment
operating under the provisions of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21
U.S.C. 601 et seq.) or a slaughtering establishment that has inspection
by a State inspector at the time of slaughter.
Blood tuberculosis (BTB) test. A supplemental test for tuberculosis
in cervids.
Captive cervid. All species of deer, elk, and moose raised or
maintained in captivity for the production of meat and other
agricultural products, for sport, or for exhibition. A captive cervid
that escapes will continue to be considered a captive cervid as long as
it bears an official eartag with which to trace the animal back to a
herd of origin.
Classified herd. An accredited, qualified, or monitored herd.
Comparative cervical tuberculin (CCT) test. The intradermal
injection of biologically balanced USDA bovine PPD tuberculin and avian
PPD tuberculin at separate sites in the mid-cervical area to determine
the probable presence of bovine tuberculosis (M. bovis) by comparing
the response of the two tuberculins 72 hours (plus or minus 6 hours)
following injection.
Cooperating State and Federal animal health officials. The State
and Federal animal health officials responsible for overseeing and
implementing the National Cooperative State/Federal Bovine Tuberculosis
Eradication Program.
Depopulate. To destroy all cervids in a herd by slaughter or by
death otherwise.
Designated accredited veterinarian. An accredited veterinarian who
is trained and approved by cooperating State and Federal animal health
officials to conduct the single cervical tuberculin (SCT) test on
cervids.
Exposed cervid. Any cervid that has been exposed to tuberculosis by
reason of associating with tuberculous cervids, cattle, or bison.
Herd. A group of captive cervids or a group of captive cervids and
other hoof stock maintained on common ground, or two or more groups of
captive cervids or cervids and other hoof stock under common ownership
or supervision that are geographically separated but that have movement
of animals between groups without regard to health status. (A group
means one or more animals.)
Monitored herd. A herd on which identification records are
maintained on captive cervids inspected for tuberculosis at an approved
slaughtering establishment or an approved diagnostic laboratory, and
which meets the standards set forth in Sec. 77.14.
Moved directly. Moved without unloading en route if moved in a
means of conveyance, or without stopping if moved in any other manner,
and without stopover or diversion to assembly points of any type.
Negative. Showing no response to an official tuberculosis test or
classified negative for tuberculosis by the testing veterinarian based
upon history, supplemental tests, examination of the carcass, or
laboratory results.
No gross lesions (NGL). Having no visible lesion or lesions of
bovine tuberculosis detected upon necropsy or slaughter.
Official eartag. An eartag that provides unique identification for
each individual cervid by conforming to the alpha-numeric National
Uniform Eartagging System.
[[Page 14994]]
Official tuberculosis test. Any of the following tests for bovine
tuberculosis in cervids, applied and reported in accordance with this
subpart:
(1) The single cervical tuberculin (SCT) test;
(2) The comparative cervical tuberculin (CCT) test; and
(3) The blood tuberculosis (BTB) test.
Permit. An official document issued by a representative of APHIS, a
State representative, or an accredited veterinarian that must accompany
any reactor, suspect, or exposed cervid moved interstate to slaughter
or necropsy.
Qualified herd. A herd of captive cervids that has tested negative
to at least one official tuberculosis test of all eligible cervids
(described in Sec. 77.10(f)) within the past 12 months, and that is not
classified as an accredited herd.
Quarantine. A prohibition from any interstate movement, except for
interstate movement to slaughter or necropsy in accordance with
Sec. 77.17.
Reactor. Any cervid that shows a response to an official
tuberculosis test and is classified a reactor by the testing
veterinarian; or any suspect cervid that is classified a reactor upon
slaughter or necropsy by the USDA or State veterinarian performing or
supervising the necropsy.
Regular-kill slaughter animal. An animal that is slaughtered for
food or any reason other than because of a disease regulated under 9
CFR chapter I (such as tuberculosis, brucellosis, or any other
livestock disease for which movement of animals is restricted under 9
CFR chapter I).
Single cervical tuberculin (SCT) test. The intradermal injection of
0.1 mL (5,000 tuberculin units) of USDA PPD bovis tuberculin in the
mid-cervical area with reading by visual observation and palpation in
72 hours (plus or minus 6 hours) following injection.
Suspect. Any cervid that is not negative to any official
tuberculosis test and that is not classified as a reactor by the
testing veterinarian.
Tuberculin. A product that is approved by and produced under USDA
license for injection into cervids and other animals for the purpose of
detecting bovine tuberculosis.
Tuberculosis. The contagious, infectious, and communicable disease
caused by Mycobacterium bovis. (Also referred to as bovine
tuberculosis.)
Tuberculous. Infected with, exposed to, or having lesions
indicative of tuberculosis, or identified as a suspect or reactor based
on an official tuberculosis test.
USDA. The United States Department of Agriculture.
Whole herd test. An official tuberculosis test of all test eligible
animals in the herd.
Sec. 77.9 General restrictions.
(a) No captive cervid may be moved interstate unless it has been
tested using an official tuberculosis test, and it is moved in
compliance with this subpart.
(b) No captive cervid with a response to any official tuberculosis
test is eligible for interstate movement unless the cervid subsequently
tests negative to a supplemental official tuberculosis test or is moved
interstate directly to slaughter or necropsy in accordance with
Sec. 77.17.
(c) Except for captive cervids moving interstate under permit
directly to slaughter or necropsy, each cervid or shipment of cervids
to be moved interstate must be accompanied by a certificate issued
before the movement by a State or Federal animal health official or an
accredited veterinarian. The certificate must state the official eartag
number of each captive cervid to be moved, the number of cervids
covered by the certificate, the purpose of movement, the origin and
destination of the cervids, the consignor, and the consignee.
(d) Cervids in zoological parks that have been accredited by the
American Association of Zoological Parks and Aquariums (AAZPA) are
exempt from the regulations in this subpart when the cervids are moved
directly interstate between AAZPA member facilities. Any cervids moved
interstate that are not moved directly from an AAZPA member facility to
another AAZPA member facility must be moved in accordance with the
regulations in this subpart.
Sec. 77.10 Testing procedures for tuberculosis in cervids.
(a) Approved testers. Except as explained in paragraphs (a)(1) and
(a)(2) of this section, official tuberculosis tests may only be given
by a veterinarian employed full-time by the State in which the test is
administered or by a veterinarian employed full-time by USDA.
(1) A designated accredited veterinarian may conduct the SCT test,
except as provided in Sec. 77.11(a)(2) and Sec. 77.16(e) and (f).
(2) Any accredited veterinarian may conduct the BTB test.
(b) Approved diagnostic laboratories. (1) With one exception,
histopathology and culture results for all tuberculosis diagnoses will
be accepted only from the National Veterinary Services Laboratories
(NVSL) in Ames, Iowa. The exception is that results will be accepted
from a laboratory of the Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, for
tissue examination of regular-kill slaughter animals in those cases
where no submission is made to NVSL.
(2) BTB test samples must be sent for diagnosis to the Texas
Veterinary Medical Center laboratory at Texas A&M University in College
Station, Texas.
(c) Identification. Any captive cervid tested with an official
tuberculosis test must be individually identified by an official eartag
at the time of the official tuberculosis test.
(d) Reporting of tests. The testing veterinarian must submit a
report to cooperating State and Federal animal health officials of the
State in which the captive cervid is tested. The report must include
the following information for all official tuberculosis tests
administered: the individual eartag number; the age, sex, and breed of
each captive cervid tested; a record of all responses; the size of each
response (if appropriate for that test); and the test interpretation.
(e) Test interpretation. (1) Interpretation of an SCT test will be
based upon the judgment of the testing veterinarian after observation
and palpation of the injection site, in accordance with the
classification requirements described in Sec. 77.11(a).
(2) Interpretation of a CCT test will be in accordance with the
classification requirements described in Sec. 77.11(b).
(3) Interpretation of a BTB test will be in accordance with the
patented standards for the BTB test 1 and the classification
requirements described in Sec. 77.11(c).
\1\ The patented standards for the BTB test may be obtained
from the Deer Research Laboratory, Department of Microbiology,
University of Otago, P.O. Box 56, Dunedin, New Zealand, or from the
Texas Veterinary Medical Center, College of Veterinary Medicine,
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(f) Captive cervids eligible for testing. Testing of herds for
classification must include all captive cervids 1 year of age or over
and any captive cervids other than natural additions (cervids born into
the herd) under 1 year of age. All natural additions under 1 year of
age must be individually identified by an official eartag and recorded
in the test report as members of the herd at the time of the herd test,
even though they are not tested.
Sec. 77.11 Official tuberculosis tests.
(a) Single cervical tuberculin (SCT) test. (1) The SCT test is the
primary test to be used in individual captive cervids and in herds of
unknown tuberculous status. Each cervid that responds to the SCT test
must be classified as a suspect until it is retested with either the
CCT test or the BTB test and is either found
[[Page 14995]]
negative for tuberculosis or is classified as a reactor, unless the
testing veterinarian judges that the cervid should be classified as a
reactor based on its response to the SCT test. A designated accredited
veterinarian may only classify a cervid as a reactor with the
concurrence of the State and/or regional tuberculosis epidemiologist
for the State in which the animal is being tested.
(2) The SCT test is the primary test to be used in affected herds
and in herds that have received cervids from an affected herd. When
used with affected herds or in herds that have received cervids from an
affected herd, the SCT test may only be administered by a veterinarian
employed full-time by the State in which the test is administered or
employed full-time by USDA. In affected herds or herds that have
received cervids from an affected herd, each cervid that responds to
the SCT test must be classified as a reactor.
(b) Comparative cervical tuberculin (CCT) test. (1) The CCT test is
a supplemental test that may only be used for retesting captive cervids
classified as suspects. The CCT test may be used in affected herds only
after the herd has tested negative to two whole herd SCT tests, and
only with the prior written consent of cooperating State or Federal
animal health officials. The CCT test may not be used as a primary test
for herds of unknown tuberculous status.
(2) A captive cervid tested with the CCT test must be classified as
negative if:
(i) It has a response to the bovine PPD tuberculin that is less
than 1 mm; or
(ii) It has a response to the avian PPD tuberculin that is greater
than the response to the bovine PPD tuberculin.
(3) A captive cervid tested with the CCT test must be classified as
a suspect if it has a response to the bovine PPD tuberculin that is 2
mm or greater and that is equal to the response to the avian PPD
tuberculin, unless the testing veterinarian judges that the cervid
should be classified as a reactor.
(4) A captive cervid tested with the CCT test must be classified as
a reactor if:
(i) It has a response to the bovine PPD tuberculin that is 2 mm or
greater and that is at least 0.5 mm greater than the response to the
avian PPD tuberculin; or
(ii) It has been classified as a suspect on two successive CCT
tests.
(iii) Any exceptions to reactor classification under the conditions
in paragraph (b)(4)(i) and (ii) of this section must be justified by
the testing veterinarian in writing and have the concurrence of
cooperating State or Federal animal health officials.
(c) Blood tuberculosis (BTB) test. (1) The BTB test is a
supplemental test that may be used in place of the CCT test for
retesting captive cervids classified as suspects.
(2) Any captive cervid classified by the testing laboratory as
``equivocal'' must be classified as a suspect.
(3) Any captive cervid classified by the testing laboratory as ``M.
bovis positive'' must be classified as a reactor.
(4) Any captive cervid classified by the testing laboratory as
``avian'' or ``negative'' will be considered negative for TB.
(5) Copies of the BTB test results must be submitted by the testing
laboratory to the person, firm, or corporation responsible for the
management of the herd, cooperating State and Federal animal health
officials, and the testing veterinarian.
(6) The owner of the captive cervid tested is responsible for the
cost of the BTB test.
Sec. 77.12 Interstate movement from accredited herds.
(a) Qualifications. To be recognized as an accredited herd:
(1) All captive cervids in the herd eligible for testing in
accordance with Sec. 77.10(f) must have tested negative to at least
three consecutive official tuberculosis tests, conducted at 10-14 month
intervals.
(2) The owner of the herd must have a document issued by
cooperating State and Federal animal health officials stating that the
herd has met the requirements in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and
is classified as an accredited herd.
(b) Movement allowed. A captive cervid from an accredited herd may
be moved interstate without further tuberculosis testing if it is
accompanied by a certificate, as provided in Sec. 77.9, that includes a
statement that the cervid is from an accredited herd. If a group of
captive cervids from an accredited herd is being moved interstate
together to the same destination, all cervids in the group may be moved
under one certificate.
(c) Herd additions allowed. No captive cervid may be added to an
accredited herd except in accordance with paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(5),
and either paragraph (c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3) of this section, as
follows:
(1) The captive cervid to be added must be moved directly from an
accredited herd;
(2) The captive cervid to be added must be moved directly from a
qualified or monitored herd and must have tested negative to an
official tuberculosis test conducted within 90 days prior to movement
to the premises of the accredited herd; or
(3) If the captive cervid to be added is not being moved directly
from a classified herd, the cervid must be isolated from all other
members of the herd of origin and must test negative to two official
tuberculosis tests. The isolation must begin at the time of the first
official tuberculosis test. The tests must be conducted at least 90
days apart, and the second test must be conducted within 90 days prior
to movement to the premises of the accredited herd.
(4) If the captive cervid to be added is not being moved directly
from an accredited or qualified herd, the cervid must be isolated from
all members of the accredited herd until it tests negative to an
official tuberculosis test conducted at least 90 days following the
date of arrival at the premises of the accredited herd. Such herd
additions will not receive status as members of the accredited herd for
purposes of interstate movement until they have tested negative to an
official tuberculosis test and been released from isolation.
(5) A captive cervid to be added must not have been exposed during
the 90 days prior to its movement to a cervid with a lower
classification status than its own.
(d) Maintenance of accredited herd status. To maintain status as an
accredited herd, the herd must test negative to an official
tuberculosis test within 22-26 months from the anniversary date of the
third consecutive test with no evidence of tuberculosis disclosed (that
is, the test on which the herd was recognized as accredited, or the
accrediting test). Each time the herd is tested for reaccreditation, it
must be tested 22-26 months from the anniversary date of the
accrediting test, not from the last date of reaccreditation (for
example, if a herd is accredited on January 1 of a given year, the
anniversary date will be January 1 of every second year). Accredited
herd status is valid for 24 months (730 days) from the anniversary date
of the accrediting test. If the herd is tested between 24 and 26 months
after the anniversary date, its accredited herd status will be
suspended for the interim between the anniversary date and the
reaccreditation test. During the suspension period, the herd will be
considered ``unclassified'' and cervids may be moved interstate from
the herd only in accordance with Sec. 77.15.
[[Page 14996]]
Sec. 77.13 Interstate movement from qualified herds.
(a) Qualifications. To be recognized as a qualified herd:
(1) All captive cervids in the herd eligible for testing in
accordance with Sec. 77.10(f) must have tested negative to one official
tuberculosis test.
(2) The owner of the herd must have a document issued by
cooperating State and Federal animal health officials stating that the
herd has met the requirement in paragraph (a)(1) of this section and is
classified as a qualified herd.
(b) Movement allowed. A captive cervid from a qualified herd may be
moved interstate only if:
(1) The captive cervid is not known to be infected with or exposed
to tuberculosis; and
(2) The captive cervid is accompanied by a certificate, as provided
in Sec. 77.9(c), that includes a statement that the cervid is from a
qualified herd. The certificate must also state that the cervid has
tested negative to an official tuberculosis test conducted within 90
days prior to the date of movement. If a group of cervids from a
qualified herd is being moved interstate together to the same
destination, all cervids in the group may be moved under one
certificate.
(c) Herd additions allowed. No captive cervid may be added to a
qualified herd except in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) and either
paragraph (c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3) of this section, as follows:
(1) The captive cervid to be added must be moved directly from an
accredited herd;
(2) The captive cervid to be added must be moved directly from a
qualified or monitored herd and must have tested negative to an
official tuberculosis test conducted within 90 days prior to movement
to the premises of the qualified herd; or
(3) If the captive cervid to be added is not being moved directly
from a classified herd, the cervid must be isolated from all other
animals and must test negative to two official tuberculosis tests. The
isolation must begin at the time of the first official tuberculosis
test. The tests must be conducted at least 90 days apart, and the
second test must be conducted within 90 days prior to movement to the
premises of the qualified herd. The cervid must then be kept in
isolation from all animals until it tests negative to an official
tuberculosis test conducted at least 90 days following the date it
arrives at the premises of the qualified herd. Such herd additions will
not receive status as members of the qualified herd for purposes of
interstate movement until they have tested negative to an official
tuberculosis test and been released from isolation.
(4) During the 90 days prior to its movement, a captive cervid to
be added may not have been exposed to a cervid with a lower
classification status than its own.
(d) Maintenance of qualified herd status. To maintain status as a
qualified herd, the herd must test negative to an official tuberculosis
test within 10-14 months from the anniversary date of the first test
with no evidence of tuberculosis disclosed (this is the qualifying
test). Each time the herd is retested for qualified status, it must be
tested 10-14 months from the anniversary date of the qualifying test,
not from the last date of requalification (for example, if a herd is
qualified on January 1 of a given year, the anniversary date will be
January 1 of each consecutive year). Qualified herd status remains in
effect for 12 months (365 days) following the anniversary date of the
qualifying test. Qualified herd status will be suspended between the
anniversary date and the requalifying test, if the herd is not tested
within 12 months. During the suspension period, the herd will be
considered ``unclassified'' and cervids may be moved interstate from
the herd only in accordance with Sec. 77.15.
Sec. 77.14 Interstate movement from monitored herds.
(a) Qualifications. To be recognized as a monitored herd:
(1) Identification records must be maintained by the person, firm,
or corporation responsible for the management of the herd on all
captive cervids in the herd that are slaughtered, inspected, and found
negative for tuberculosis at an approved slaughtering establishment or
necropsied at an approved diagnostic laboratory; and
(2) A sufficient number of cervids in the herd must be slaughtered,
as determined by the Administrator, to ensure that tuberculosis
infection at a prevalence level of 2 percent or more will be detected
with a confidence level of 95 percent. This requires a maximum number
of 148 cervids slaughtered over a 3-year period, no matter the size of
the herd.\2\
\2\ Information and a chart concerning how many cervids would
need to be slaughtered depending on the size of a herd to meet this
requirement may be obtained from the Cattle Diseases and
Surveillance staff, Veterinary Services, APHIS, Suite 3B03, 4700
River Road Unit 36, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(b) Movement allowed. A captive cervid from a monitored herd may be
moved interstate only if:
(1) The captive cervid is not known to be infected with or exposed
to tuberculosis; and
(2) The captive cervid is accompanied by a certificate, as provided
in Sec. 77.9(c), that includes a statement that the cervid is from a
monitored herd. The certificate must also state that the cervid has
tested negative to an official tuberculosis test conducted within 90
days prior to the date of movement. If a group of cervids from a
monitored herd is being moved interstate together to the same
destination, all cervids in the group may be moved under one
certificate.
(c) Herd additions allowed. No captive cervid may be added to a
monitored herd except in accordance with paragraph (c)(4) and either
paragraph (c)(1), (c)(2), or (c)(3) of this section, as follows:
(1) The captive cervid to be added must be moved directly from an
accredited herd;
(2) The captive cervid to be added must be moved directly from a
qualified or monitored herd and must have tested negative to an
official tuberculosis test conducted within 90 days prior to movement
to the premises of the monitored herd; or
(3) If the captive cervid to be added is not being moved directly
from a classified herd, the cervid must be isolated from all other
animals and must test negative to two official tuberculosis tests. The
isolation must begin at the time of the first official tuberculosis
test. The tests must be conducted at least 90 days apart, and the
second test must be conducted within 90 days prior to movement to the
premises of the monitored herd. The cervid must then be kept in
isolation from all animals until it tests negative to an official
tuberculosis test conducted at least 90 days following the date it
arrives at the premises of the monitored herd. Such herd additions will
not receive status as members of the monitored herd for purposes of
interstate movement until they have tested negative to an official
tuberculosis test and been released from isolation.
(4) During the 90 days prior to its movement, a captive cervid to
be added may not have been exposed to a cervid with a lower
classification status than its own.
(d) Maintenance of monitored herd status. The person, firm, or
corporation responsible for the management of the herd must submit an
annual report to cooperating State or Federal animal health officials
prior to the anniversary date of classification to give the number of
captive cervids currently in the herd and the number of captive cervids
from the herd over 1 year of age identified,
[[Page 14997]]
slaughtered, and inspected at an approved slaughtering establishment or
necropsied at an approved diagnostic laboratory during the preceding
year. The number of slaughter inspections reported in any given year
must be at least 25 percent of the total number of slaughter
inspections required over a 3-year period to qualify a herd for
monitored herd status. During each consecutive 3-year period, 100
percent of the qualifying total must be reported.
Sec. 77.15 Interstate movement from unclassified herds.
A captive cervid that is not known to be infected with or exposed
to tuberculosis and that is from a herd not classified as accredited,
qualified, or monitored, may be moved interstate if the cervid is
accompanied by a certificate that states that:
(a) The cervid has tested negative to two official tuberculosis
tests conducted no less than 90 days apart;
(b) The second tuberculosis test was conducted within 90 days prior
to the date of movement; and
(c) The cervid was isolated from all other animals during the
testing period (the period beginning at the time of the first test and
ending at the time of interstate movement).
Sec. 77.16 Other interstate movements.
(a) Herds containing a suspect.--(1) The suspect. (i) A captive
cervid classified as a suspect on the SCT test must be quarantined
until it is retested by the CCT test or the BTB test and found negative
for tuberculosis. Retesting must be as follows:
(A) The CCT test must be administered within 10 days following the
SCT test or at least 90 days after the SCT test. If the CCT test is
administered within 10 days of the SCT test, the injection must be on
the side of the neck opposite the injection for the SCT test.
(B) The sample for the BTB test may not be taken until at least 12
days after the injection for the SCT test. It is recommended that the
sample be taken within 30 days following the SCT test.
(ii) A captive cervid classified as a suspect on the CCT test or
the BTB test must be quarantined until the following has occurred:
(A) A suspect on the CCT test is retested with the CCT test at
least 90 days after the previous test and is found negative for
tuberculosis; or
(B) A suspect on the BTB test is retested with the BTB test 30-60
days after the previous test and is found negative for tuberculosis.
(2) The remainder of the herd. Any herd containing a suspect to an
official tuberculosis test must be quarantined until the suspect is
retested by the CCT test or the BTB test and found negative for
tuberculosis, or the suspect is slaughtered and found negative for
tuberculosis, or the suspect is necropsied and found negative for
tuberculosis. If the suspect is found negative for tuberculosis upon
testing, slaughter, or necropsy, the herd may be released from
quarantine and will return to the herd classification status in effect
before the herd was quarantined. If the suspect is classified as a
reactor upon testing, slaughter, or necropsy, the herd may be released
from quarantine only in accordance with Sec. 77.16(b) for herds
containing a reactor.
(b) Herds containing a reactor--(1) The reactor. Captive cervids
classified as reactors must be quarantined.
(2) The remainder of the herd. Any herd containing reactors must be
quarantined until the reactors are slaughtered or necropsied in
accordance with Sec. 77.17 and:
(i) If upon slaughter or necropsy any reactors exhibit lesions
compatible with or suggestive of tuberculosis, found by histopathology,
without the isolation of M. bovis, the remainder of the herd will be
subject to the provisions of Sec. 77.16(c).
(ii) If M. bovis is isolated from any reactors, the remainder of
the herd will be considered an affected herd, and will be subject to
the provisions of Sec. 77.16(d).
(iii) If upon slaughter or necropsy all reactors exhibit no gross
lesions (NGL) of tuberculosis and no evidence of tuberculosis infection
is found by histopathology and culture of M. bovis on selected
specimens from NGL animals, the remainder of the herd may be released
from quarantine, and cervids from the herd may be moved interstate in
accordance with the herd classification status in effect before the
herd was quarantined if one of the following conditions is met:
(A) The remainder of the herd is given a whole herd test and is
found negative for tuberculosis.
(B) The remainder of the herd is given a whole herd test, and all
reactors to the whole herd test exhibit no gross lesions (NGL) of
tuberculosis upon slaughter or necropsy and no evidence of tuberculosis
infection is found by histopathology and culture of M. bovis on
selected specimens from NGL animals.
(iv) If no evidence of tuberculosis is found in any reactor upon
slaughter or necropsy, but it is not possible to conduct a whole herd
test on the remainder of the herd, the herd will be evaluated, based on
criteria such as the testing history of the herd and the State history
of tuberculosis infection, by the State and/or regional tuberculosis
epidemiologist to determine whether or not the herd may be released
from quarantine.
(c) Herds found to have only lesions of tuberculosis. A herd in
which captive cervids with lesions compatible with or suggestive of
tuberculosis are found by histopathology without the isolation of M.
bovis may be released from quarantine and return to the herd
classification status in effect before the herd was quarantined, with
the concurrence of the regional tuberculosis epidemiologist, if the
herd tests negative to tuberculosis on a whole herd test conducted 90
days following the removal of the lesioned cervid, provided the herd
has not been exposed to M. bovis during the 90 days. To maintain its
herd classification status, the herd must test negative to two annual
whole herd tests beginning 10-12 months after the herd is released from
quarantine. If any cervids in the herd respond to one of the tests, the
herd will be subject to the provisions of Sec. 77.16 (a) or (b). If the
herd is not given the two annual whole herd tests, it will become an
unclassified herd.
(d) Affected herds. A herd determined to be an affected herd must
be quarantined until the herd has tested negative to three whole herd
tests in succession, with the first test given 90 days or more after
the last test yielding a reactor and the last two tests given at
intervals of not less than 180 days. If the herd tests negative to the
three whole herd tests, it will be released from quarantine, but will
be considered an unclassified herd, and cervids may only be moved
interstate from the herd in accordance with Sec. 77.15. In addition,
the herd must be given five consecutive annual whole herd tests after
release from quarantine. (These five tests will count towards
qualifying the herd for herd classification.) As an alternative to
testing, the herd may be depopulated.
(e) Herd that have received cervids from an affected herd. If a
herd has received cervids from an affected herd, the cervids from the
affected herd of origin will be considered exposed. The exposed cervids
and the receiving herd must be quarantined. The exposed cervids must be
slaughtered, necropsied, or tested with the SCT test by a veterinarian
employed full-time by the State in which the test is administered or
employed full-time by USDA. The BTB test may be used simultaneously
with the SCT test as an additional diagnostic test.
(1) If any exposed cervid tests positive to either the SCT test or
the BTB test, it must be classified as a reactor, and will be
considered as part of the affected
[[Page 14998]]
herd of origin for purposes of testing, quarantine, and the five annual
whole herd tests required for affected herds in Sec. 77.16(d). The
receiving herd will be subject to the provisions of Sec. 77.16(b).
(i) If bovine tuberculosis is confirmed in any of the exposed
cervids by bacterial isolation of M. bovis, the receiving herd will be
classified as an affected herd and will be subject to the provisions
for affected herds in Sec. 77.16(d).
(ii) If any of the exposed cervids are found to exhibit lesions
compatible with or suggestive of tuberculosis, found by histopathology,
without the isolation of M. bovis, the receiving herd will be subject
to the provisions of Sec. 77.16(c).
(2) If all of the exposed cervids test negative for tuberculosis,
the exposed cervids and the receiving herd may be released from
quarantine, and will return to the herd classification in effect before
the herd was quarantined. In addition, the receiving herd must be given
a whole herd test with the SCT test 1 year after release from
quarantine in order for cervids from the herd to continue to be moved
interstate. Supplemental diagnostic tests may be used if any cervids in
the herd show a response to the SCT test.
(f) Source herds. A herd suspected of being the source of
tuberculous animals based on a slaughter traceback investigation must
be quarantined upon notification (by the person conducting the
investigation) to the USDA Area Veterinarian-in-Charge for the State in
which the herd resides, and a whole herd test must be scheduled. If the
herd is suspected of being the source of slaughter animals having
lesions of tuberculosis, the whole herd test must be done by a
veterinarian employed full-time by the State in which the test is
administered or employed full-time by USDA.
(1) If the herd is positively identified as the source of animals
having lesions of tuberculosis and M. bovis has been confirmed by
bacterial isolation from the slaughter animal, the herd will be
considered affected and will be subject to the provisions of
Sec. 77.11(a)(2) and Sec. 77.16(d).
(2) If the herd is positively identified as the source of cervids
that exhibit lesions compatible with or suggestive of tuberculosis,
found by histopathology, without the isolation of M. bovis, the herd
will be subject to the provisions of Sec. 77.16(c).
(3) If the herd is not positively identified as the source herd,
the herd will be released from quarantine if the herd is given a whole
herd test and is found negative for tuberculosis. The herd will then
return to the herd classification status in effect before the herd was
quarantined.
(g) Newly assembled herds. A herd newly assembled on premises where
a tuberculosis herd has been depopulated must be given two consecutive
annual whole herd tests. The first test must be administered at least 6
months after the assembly of the new herd. If the whole herd tests are
not conducted within the indicated timeframe, the herd will be
quarantined. If the herd tests negative to the two whole herd tests,
there are no further requirements. If any cervid in the herd responds
to one of the whole herd tests, the herd will be subject to the
provisions of Sec. 77.16 (a) or (b). If the premises has been vacant
for more than 1 year preceding the assembly of the new herd on the
premises, these requirements may be waived in accordance with the
judgment of cooperating State and Federal animal health officials.
Sec. 77.17 Procedures for and interstate movement to necropsy and
slaughter.
(a) Procedures for necropsy and slaughter. (1) A necropsy must be
performed by or under the supervision of a veterinarian who is employed
full-time by USDA or employed full-time by the State in which the
cervid was classified, and who is trained in tuberculosis necropsy
procedures.
(2) If, upon necropsy, a cervid is found without evidence of M.
bovis infection by histopathology or culture, the cervid will be
considered negative for tuberculosis.
(3) Reactors, suspects, and exposed cervids may only be slaughtered
at an approved slaughtering establishment, as defined in Sec. 77.8.
(b) Interstate movement to necropsy or slaughter.--(1) Permit. Any
reactor, suspect, or exposed cervid to be moved interstate to necropsy
or slaughter must be accompanied by a permit issued by a representative
of APHIS, a State representative, or an accredited veterinarian. The
cervid must remain on the premises where it was identified as a
reactor, suspect, or exposed cervid until a permit for its movement is
obtained. No stopover or diversion from the destination listed on the
permit is allowed. If a change in destination becomes necessary, a new
permit must be obtained from a cooperating State or Federal animal
health official or an accredited veterinarian before the interstate
movement begins. The permit must list:
(i) The reactor eartag number, or, for suspects and exposed
cervids, the official eartag number;
(ii) The owner's name and address;
(iii) The origin and destination of the cervids;
(iv) The number of cervids covered by the permit; and
(v) The purpose of the movement.
(2) Identification of reactors. Reactors must be tagged with an
official eartag attached to the left ear and bearing a serial number
and the inscription ``U.S. Reactor,'' and either:
(i) Branded with the letter ``T'' high on the left hip near the
tailhead and at least 5 by 5 centimeters (2 by 2 inches) in size; or
(ii) Permanently identified by the letters ``TB'' tattooed legibly
in the left ear, sprayed on the left ear with yellow paint, and either
accompanied directly to necropsy or slaughter by an APHIS or State
representative or moved directly to necropsy or slaughter in a vehicle
closed with official seals.
Such official seals must be applied and removed by an APHIS
representative, State representative, accredited veterinarian, or an
individual authorized for this purpose by an APHIS representative.
(3) Identification of exposed cervids. Exposed cervids must be
identified by an official eartag and either:
(i) Branded with the letter ``S'' high on the left hip near the
tailhead and at least 5 by 5 centimeters (2 by 2 inches) in size; or
(ii) Either accompanied directly to necropsy or slaughter by an
APHIS or State representative, or moved directly to necropsy or
slaughter in a vehicle closed with official seals. Such official seals
must be applied and removed by an APHIS representative, State
representative, accredited veterinarian, or an individual authorized
for this purpose by an APHIS representative.
Sec. 77.18 Cleaning and disinfection of premises, conveyances, and
materials.
All conveyances and associated equipment, premises, and structures
that are used for receiving, holding, shipping, loading, unloading, and
delivering captive cervids in connection with their interstate movement
and that are determined by cooperating State and Federal animal health
officials to be contaminated because of occupation or use by
tuberculosis cervids must be cleaned and disinfected under the
supervision of the cooperating State or Federal animal health
officials. Such cleaning and disinfecting must be done in accordance
with the procedures approved by the cooperating State or Federal animal
health officials. Cleaning and disinfection must be completed before
the premises, conveyances, or materials may again be used to convey,
[[Page 14999]]
hold, or in any way come in contact with any livestock.
PART 91--INSPECTION AND HANDLING OF LIVESTOCK FOR EXPORTATION
7. The authority citation for part 91 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 105, 112, 113, 114a, 120, 121, 134b, 134f,
136, 136a, 612, 613, 614, and 618; 46 U.S.C. 466a, 466b; 49 U.S.C.
1509(d); 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).
Sec. 91.1 [Amended]
8. In Sec. 91.1, the definition of Animals would be amended by
adding ``captive cervids,'' immediately after ``cattle (including
American bison),''.
9. Section 91.7 would be added to read as follows:
Sec. 91.7 Captive cervids.
To be eligible for export, a captive cervid must be accompanied by
an origin health certificate stating that the cervid has tested
negative to an official single cervical tuberculin test for
tuberculosis, as described in part 77, subpart B, of this chapter,
within 90 days prior to export. The origin health certificate must
specify the date the test was conducted and the test results.
Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of March 1996.
Lonnie J. King,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 96-8303 Filed 4-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8302 Change in Disease Status of The Netherlands Because of Hog Cholera and Swine Vesicular Disease
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 66 (Thursday, April 4, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 14999-15000]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8302]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
9 CFR Part 94
[Docket No. 96-014-1]
Change in Disease Status of The Netherlands Because of Hog
Cholera and Swine Vesicular Disease
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to declare The Netherlands free of hog
cholera and swine vesicular disease. As part of this proposed action,
we would add The Netherlands to the list of countries that, although
declared free of hog cholera and swine vesicular disease, are subject
to restrictions on pork and pork products offered for importation into
the United States. Declaring The Netherlands free of hog cholera and
swine vesicular disease appears to be appropriate because there have
been no confirmed outbreaks of hog cholera and swine vesicular disease
in The Netherlands since 1992 and 1994, respectively. This proposed
rule would relieve certain restrictions on the importation of pork and
pork products into the United States from The Netherlands. However,
because The Netherlands shares common land borders with countries
affected by swine vesicular disease, the importation into the United
States of pork and pork products from The Netherlands would continue to
be restricted.
DATES: Consideration will be given only to comments received on or
before June 3, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Please send an original and three copies of your comments to
Docket No. 96-014-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
suite 3C03, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please
state that your comments refer to Docket No. 96-014-1. 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. John Cougill, Staff Veterinarian,
Products Program, National Center for Import and Export, VS, APHIS,
4700 River Road Unit 40, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231, (301) 734-8688; or
e-mail: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in 9 CFR part 94 (referred to below as the
regulations) govern the importation into the United States of specified
animals and animal products in order to prevent the introduction of
various animal diseases, including rinderpest, foot-and-mouth disease,
African swine fever, hog cholera, and swine vesicular disease (SVD).
These are dangerous and destructive communicable diseases of ruminants
and swine.
Sections 94.9(a) and 94.10(a) of the regulations provide that hog
cholera exists in all countries of the world except those listed in
Secs. 94.9(a) and 94.10(a), which are declared to be free of hog
cholera.
Section 94.12(a) of the regulations provides that SVD is considered
to exist in all countries of the world except those listed in
Sec. 94.12(a), which are declared to be free of SVD.
The last outbreaks of hog cholera and SVD in The Netherlands
occurred in 1992 and 1994, respectively. This information has been
confirmed by the Government of The Netherlands.
The Netherlands has applied to the U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) to be recognized as free of hog cholera and SVD. The Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has reviewed the documentation
submitted by the Government of The Netherlands in support of its
request. A team of APHIS officials recently conducted an on-site
evaluation of the animal health program in The Netherlands in regard to
the hog cholera and SVD situation in that country. The evaluation
consisted of a review of the capability of The Netherlands veterinary
services, laboratory and diagnostic procedures, disease reporting and
surveillance procedures, vaccination practices, and the administration
of laws and regulations to prevent the introduction into The
Netherlands of hog cholera and SVD through the importation of animals,
meat, and other animal products.
Based on our review and on-site evaluation, we are proposing to add
The Netherlands to the lists of countries in Secs. 94.9(a), 94.10(a),
and 94.12(a) of the regulations that have been declared free of hog
cholera and SVD. This action would relieve certain restrictions on the
importation of pork and pork products into the United States from The
Netherlands.
At the same time, we are proposing to add The Netherlands to the
list of countries in Sec. 94.13 that have been declared free of SVD,
but from which the importation of pork and pork products is restricted.
The countries listed in Sec. 94.13 are subject to these
restrictions because at least one of the following conditions applies:
(1) They supplement their national meat supply by importing fresh,
chilled, or frozen pork from countries where SVD is considered to
exist; (2) They have a common land border with countries where SVD is
considered to exist; or (3) They have certain trade practices that are
less restrictive than are acceptable to the United States.
The Netherlands has common land borders with Belgium, which is
designated in Sec. 94.12(a) as a country in which SVD is considered to
exist, and it supplements its meat supply by importing fresh, chilled,
or frozen pork from countries where SVD is considered to exist. As a
result, even though we propose to designate The Netherlands free of hog
cholera and SVD, the pork and pork products produced in The Netherlands
may be commingled with fresh, chilled, or frozen meat of animals from a
country in which SVD is
[[Page 15000]]
considered to exist, resulting in some risk of contamination.
Therefore, we are proposing that pork and pork products, as well as
any ship's stores, airplane meals, and baggage containing such pork,
offered for importation into the United States from The Netherlands be
subject to the restrictions specified in Sec. 94.13 of the regulations
and to the applicable requirements contained in the regulations of the
USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service at 9 CFR chapter III. Section
94.13 requires, in part, that pork and pork products be: (1) Prepared
in an inspected establishment that is eligible to have its products
imported into the United States under the Federal Meat Inspection Act;
and (2) accompanied by a foreign meat inspection certificate as well as
a certification issued by a full-time salaried veterinary official of
the national government of the exporting country, stating that certain
precautions have been satisfied so that the pork or pork product has
not been commingled with or exposed to animals, pork, or pork products
originating in, or transported through, a country in which SVD is
considered to exist.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed 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 proposed rule would amend the regulations in part 94 by adding
The Netherlands to the lists of countries that have been declared free
of hog cholera and SVD. This action would relieve certain restrictions
on the importation of pork and pork products into the United States
from The Netherlands. However, the importation of pork and pork
products into the United States from The Netherlands would continue to
be restricted because The Netherlands shares a common land border with
Belgium, where SVD is considered to exist. While there are inspection
and certification procedures for ensuring that commingling of pork and
pork products from the two countries does not take place, these
procedures are not without cost. Therefore, recognition of The
Netherlands as free of hog cholera and SVD is not expected to
significantly affect pork exports to the United States. The total value
of pork exported to the United States from The Netherlands in 1994 was
$13.2 million (less than two percent of the value of all U.S. pork
imports). There were no live swine exported from The Netherlands to the
U.S. in 1994.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would
not have a significant impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
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 inconsistent 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
This proposed rule contains no new information collection or
recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 94
Animal diseases, Imports, Livestock, Meat and meat products, Milk,
Poultry and poultry products, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, 9 CFR part 94 would be amended as follows:
PART 94--RINDERPEST, FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE, FOWL PEST (FOWL
PLAGUE), VELOGENIC VISCEROTROPIC NEWCASTLE DISEASE, AFRICAN SWINE
FEVER, HOG CHOLERA, AND BOVINE SPONGIFORM ENCEPHALOPATHY:
PROHIBITED AND RESTRICTED IMPORTATIONS
1. The authority citation for part 94 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 147a, 150ee, 161, 162, and 450; 19 U.S. C.
1306; 21 U.S.C. 111, 114a, 134a, 134b, 134c, 134f, 136, and 136a; 31
U.S.C. 9701; 42 U.S.C. 4331 and 4332; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and
371.2(d).
Sec. 94.9 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 94.9, paragraph (a) would be amended by adding ``The
Netherlands,'' immediately after ``Iceland,''.
Sec. 94.10 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 94.10, paragraph (a) would be amended by adding ``The
Netherlands,'' immediately after ``Iceland,''.
Sec. 94.12 [Amended]
4. In Sec. 94.12, paragraph (a) would be amended by adding ``The
Netherlands,'' immediately after ``Mexico,''.
Sec. 94.13 [Amended]
5. In Sec. 94.13, the introductory text, the first sentence would
be amended by adding ``The Netherlands,'' immediately after
``Luxembourg''.
Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of April 1996.
Lonnie J. King,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 96-8302 Filed 4-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8296 Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 66 (Thursday, April 4, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15002-15003]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8296]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-152-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Fokker Model F28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000,
and 4000 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to all Fokker Model F28 Mark 1000,
2000, 3000, and 4000 series airplanes. This proposal would require
modification of the passenger door lock warning system. This proposal
is prompted by reports that the passenger door opened during flight due
to an improperly locked door; additionally, the door warning signal was
not sufficiently visible to alert the flight crew of this condition.
The actions specified by the proposed AD are intended to ensure that
the flight crew is aware of an unlocked passenger door prior to takeoff
of the airplane. This condition, if not corrected, could result in
inadvertent opening of the passenger door while the airplane is in
flight.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 10, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-152-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location
between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Fokker Aircraft USA, Inc., 1199 North Fairfax Street,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314. This information may be examined at the
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton,
Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Tim Dulin, Aerospace Engineer,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-2141; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-152-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-152-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
The Rijksluchtvaartdienst (RLD), which is the airworthiness
authority for the Netherlands, recently notified the FAA that an unsafe
condition may exist on all Fokker Model F28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and
4000 series airplanes. The RLD advises that it has received reports
indicating that the passenger door of the airplane opened during flight
on several occasions. Investigation revealed that the door had been
improperly locked, and a door warning signal was not sufficiently
visible to alert the flight crew that the door was unsecured. This
condition, if not corrected, could result in inadvertent opening of the
passenger door while the airplane is in flight.
Fokker has issued Service Bulletins F28/52-112, dated February 1,
1995, and F28/52-101, Revision 1, dated August 24, 1992, which describe
procedures for modification of the passenger door lock warning system.
The modification specified in Fokker Service Bulletin F28/52-112 (for
airplanes on which the passenger door lock warning system is in a pre-
SBF28/
[[Page 15003]]
52-72 configuration) entails modifying the electrical wiring, replacing
the switch operating cam in the pedestal, and modifying the warning
annunciator panels on the central warning panels. The modification
described in Fokker Service Bulletin F28/52-101 (for airplanes on which
the passenger door lock warning system is in a post-SBF28/52-72
configuration) involves installing an additional signal from the door
lock circuit to the central warning system. Accomplishment of the
modification described in these service bulletins will enhance the door
lock warning system by ensuring that the master warning is activated
when the airplane is about to take off with an unlocked passenger door.
The RLD classified these service bulletins as mandatory and issued
Dutch airworthiness directive BLA 1992-117/3 (A), dated Febuary 28,
1995, in order to assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes
in the Netherlands.
This airplane model is manufactured in the Netherlands and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, the RLD has kept the FAA informed of
the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the
RLD, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action
is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for
operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, the
proposed AD would require modification of the passenger door lock
warning system. The actions would be required to be accomplished in
accordance with the service bulletins described previously.
The FAA estimates that 37 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 22 work
hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the
average labor rate is $60 per work hour. Required parts would cost
approximately $865 per airplane. Based on these figures, the cost
impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be $80,845,
or $2,185 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of
this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in
the future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Fokker: Docket 95-NM-152-AD.
Applicability: All Model F28 Mark 1000, 2000, 3000, and 4000
series airplanes; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent inadvertent opening of the passenger door while the
airplane is in flight, accomplish the following:
(a) Modify the passenger door lock warning system at the time
specified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this AD, as applicable.
(1) For airplanes in post-Fokker Service Bulletin F28/52-72
configuration: Accomplish the modification within 9 months after the
effective date of this AD, in accordance with Fokker Service
Bulletin F28/52-101, Revision 1, dated August 24, 1992.
(2) For airplanes in pre-Fokker Service Bulletin F28/52-72
configuration: Accomplish the modification within 1,500 landings
after the effective date of this AD, in accordance with Fokker
Service Bulletin F28/52-112, dated February 1, 1995.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 29, 1996.
Bill R. Boxwell,
Acting Manager Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-8296 Filed 4-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8294 Airworthiness Directives; Dornier Model 328-100 Series Airplanes
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 66 (Thursday, April 4, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15000-15002]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8294]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. 95-NM-231-AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Dornier Model 328-100 Series Airplanes
AGENCY: Federal Aviation Administration, DOT.
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document proposes the adoption of a new airworthiness
directive (AD) that is applicable to certain Dornier Model 328-100
series airplanes. This proposal would require replacement of a bus
power control unit (BPCU) and two generator control units (GCU) with
new improved units. This proposal is prompted by results of the
manufacturer's re-certification and laboratory testing of a BPCU, which
revealed abnormal functions of the BPCU and the GCU. The actions
specified by the proposed AD are intended to prevent such abnormal
functions, which could result in electrical short circuits in the
electrical power distribution systems and a subsequent fire.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 15, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Submit comments in triplicate to the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103,
Attention: Rules Docket No. 95-NM-231-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton,
Washington 98055-4056. Comments may be inspected at this location
between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, except Federal
holidays.
The service information referenced in the proposed rule may be
obtained from Dornier Luftfahrt GmbH, P.O. Box 1103, D-82230 Wessling,
Germany. This information may be examined at the FAA, Transport
Airplane Directorate, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Gary Lium, Aerospace Engineer,
[[Page 15001]]
Standardization Branch, ANM-113, FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate,
1601 Lind Avenue, SW., Renton, Washington 98055-4056; telephone (206)
227-1112; fax (206) 227-1149.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Comments Invited
Interested persons are invited to participate in the making of the
proposed rule by submitting such written data, views, or arguments as
they may desire. Communications shall identify the Rules Docket number
and be submitted in triplicate to the address specified above. All
communications received on or before the closing date for comments,
specified above, will be considered before taking action on the
proposed rule. The proposals contained in this notice may be changed in
light of the comments received.
Comments are specifically invited on the overall regulatory,
economic, environmental, and energy aspects of the proposed rule. All
comments submitted will be available, both before and after the closing
date for comments, in the Rules Docket for examination by interested
persons. A report summarizing each FAA-public contact concerned with
the substance of this proposal will be filed in the Rules Docket.
Commenters wishing the FAA to acknowledge receipt of their comments
submitted in response to this notice must submit a self-addressed,
stamped postcard on which the following statement is made: ``Comments
to Docket Number 95-NM-231-AD.'' The postcard will be date stamped and
returned to the commenter.
Availability of NPRMs
Any person may obtain a copy of this NPRM by submitting a request
to the FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate, ANM-103, Attention: Rules
Docket No. 95-NM-231-AD, 1601 Lind Avenue SW., Renton, Washington
98055-4056.
Discussion
The Luftfahrt-Bundesamt (LBA), which is the airworthiness authority
for Germany, recently notified the FAA that an unsafe condition may
exist on certain Dornier Model 328-100 series airplanes. The LBA
advises that results of the manufacturer's re-certification and
laboratory testing of an upgraded/modified bus powered control unit
(BPCU) revealed certain abnormal functions. These abnormalities include
extended duration of the transfer of the essential bus (ESS BUS),
chattering of contacts, and various problems that occurred during a
cold cross start. Subsequent observations also revealed abnormal
functions of two generator control units (GCU); these abnormalities
included unsatisfactory engine starting with reduced battery voltage,
and improper separation of the DC generator. Such abnormal functioning,
if not corrected, could cause electrical short circuits in the
electrical power distribution systems, and a subsequent fire.
Dornier has issued Service Bulletin SB-328-24-061, Revision 1,
dated November 3, 1994, which describes procedures for replacement of
GCU's 2PC and 12PC with new improved units having part number 118-000-
1. The service bulletin also describes procedures for replacement of
BPCU 20PC with a new improved unit having part number 106-000-3. The
LBA classified this service bulletin as mandatory and issued German
airworthiness directive 94-349, dated November 14, 1994, in order to
assure the continued airworthiness of these airplanes in Germany.
This airplane model is manufactured in Germany and is type
certificated for operation in the United States under the provisions of
section 21.29 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR 21.29) and
the applicable bilateral airworthiness agreement. Pursuant to this
bilateral airworthiness agreement, the LBA has kept the FAA informed of
the situation described above. The FAA has examined the findings of the
LBA, reviewed all available information, and determined that AD action
is necessary for products of this type design that are certificated for
operation in the United States.
Since an unsafe condition has been identified that is likely to
exist or develop on other airplanes of the same type design, the
proposed AD would require replacement of the GCU's 2PC and 12PC with
new improved units having part number 118-000-1. The proposed AD would
also require replacement of the BPCU 20PC with a new improved unit
having part number 106-000-3. The actions would be required to be
accomplished in accordance with the service bulletin described
previously.
The FAA estimates that 12 airplanes of U.S. registry would be
affected by this proposed AD, that it would take approximately 1 work
hours per airplane to accomplish the proposed actions, and that the
average labor rate is $60 per work hour. The manufacturer would provide
required parts at no cost to the operators. Based on these figures, the
cost impact of the proposed AD on U.S. operators is estimated to be
$720, or $60 per airplane.
The cost impact figure discussed above is based on assumptions that
no operator has yet accomplished any of the proposed requirements of
this AD action, and that no operator would accomplish those actions in
the future if this AD were not adopted.
The regulations proposed herein would not have substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government. Therefore, in
accordance with Executive Order 12612, it is determined that this
proposal would not have sufficient federalism implications to warrant
the preparation of a Federalism Assessment.
For the reasons discussed above, I certify that this proposed
regulation (1) is not a ``significant regulatory action'' under
Executive Order 12866; (2) is not a ``significant rule'' under the DOT
Regulatory Policies and Procedures (44 FR 11034, February 26, 1979);
and (3) if promulgated, will not have a significant economic impact,
positive or negative, on a substantial number of small entities under
the criteria of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A copy of the draft
regulatory evaluation prepared for this action is contained in the
Rules Docket. A copy of it may be obtained by contacting the Rules
Docket at the location provided under the caption ADDRESSES.
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Part 39
Air transportation, Aircraft, Aviation safety, Safety.
The Proposed Amendment
Accordingly, pursuant to the authority delegated to me by the
Administrator, the Federal Aviation Administration proposes to amend
part 39 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14 CFR part 39) as
follows:
PART 39--AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES
1. The authority citation for part 39 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 49 USC 106(g), 40113, 44701.
Sec. 39.13 [Amended]
2. Section 39.13 is amended by adding the following new
airworthiness directive:
Dornier: Docket 95-NM-231-AD.
Applicability: Model 328-100 series airplanes having serial
numbers 3005 through 3024 inclusive; certificated in any category.
Note 1: This AD applies to each airplane identified in the
preceding applicability provision, regardless of whether it has been
[[Page 15002]]
modified, altered, or repaired in the area subject to the
requirements of this AD. For airplanes that have been modified,
altered, or repaired so that the performance of the requirements of
this AD is affected, the owner/operator must request approval for an
alternative method of compliance in accordance with paragraph (b) of
this AD. The request should include an assessment of the effect of
the modification, alteration, or repair on the unsafe condition
addressed by this AD; and, if the unsafe condition has not been
eliminated, the request should include specific proposed actions to
address it.
Compliance: Required as indicated, unless accomplished
previously.
To prevent abnormal functions of the bus power control units and
the generator control units, which could result in electrical short
circuits in the electrical power distribution systems and a
subsequent fire; accomplish the following:
(a) Within 3 months after the effective date of this AD, perform
the requirements of paragraph (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this AD, in
accordance with Dornier Service Bulletin SB-328-24-061, Revision 1,
dated November 3, 1994.
(1) Remove the generator control units 2PC and 12PC and replace
them with new improved units having part number 118-000-1. And,
(2) Remove bus power control unit 20PC and replace it with a new
improved unit having part number 106-000-3.
(b) An alternative method of compliance or adjustment of the
compliance time that provides an acceptable level of safety may be
used if approved by the Manager, Standardization Branch, ANM-113,
FAA, Transport Airplane Directorate. Operators shall submit their
requests through an appropriate FAA Principal Maintenance Inspector,
who may add comments and then send it to the Manager,
Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
Note 2: Information concerning the existence of approved
alternative methods of compliance with this AD, if any, may be
obtained from the Standardization Branch, ANM-113.
(c) Special flight permits may be issued in accordance with
sections 21.197 and 21.199 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (14
CFR 21.197 and 21.199) to operate the airplane to a location where
the requirements of this AD can be accomplished.
Issued in Renton, Washington, on March 29, 1996.
Bill R. Boxwell,
Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate, Aircraft Certification
Service.
[FR Doc. 96-8294 Filed 4-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4910-13-U
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8247 Labeling of Drugs for Use in Milk-Producing Animals
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 66 (Thursday, April 4, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15003-15005]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8247]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES
Food and Drug Administration
21 CFR Part 510
[Docket No. 96N-0007]
Labeling of Drugs for Use in Milk-Producing Animals
AGENCY: Food and Drug Administration, HHS.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15004]]
SUMMARY: The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is proposing to revise
two animal drug regulations to allow greater flexibility in the
labeling of drugs for use in milk-producing animals. The 96-hour
withdrawal time limitation would be removed from the regulations. The
animal drug regulations would be further modified so that the
withdrawal time is based only on hours after last treatment, not on a
12-hour milking schedule. This proposal is aligned with the goals
stated by the National Performance Review.
DATES: Written comments by June 18, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments to the Dockets Managements Branch (HFA-
305), Food and Drug Administration, 12420 Parklawn Dr., rm. 1-23,
Rockville, MD 20857. Comments should be identified with the docket
number found in brackets in the heading of this document. Received
comments may be seen at the Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m.
and 4 p.m., Monday through Friday.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Steven D. Vaughn, Center for
Veterinary Medicine (HFV-130), Food and Drug Administration, 7500
Standish Pl., Rockville, MD 20855, 301-594-1642.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
Under Sec. 510.105(c)(2) (21 CFR 510.105(c)(2)), information is
provided regarding the labeling of drugs used in milk-producing
animals. Specifically, the regulation states that: ``The label should
bear the warning, `Milk that has been taken from animals during
treatment and within -- hours (---- milkings) after the latest
treatment must not be used for food,' the blanks to be filled in with
the number of hours (not to exceed 96) * * *. '' Under Sec. 510.106,
information is provided regarding the labeling of antibiotic and
antibiotic-containing drugs intended for use in milk-producing animals.
The regulation states that:
* * * the label of such drugs shall bear * * * the statement
``Warning: Milk that has been taken from animals during treatment
and for -- hours (---- milkings) after the latest treatment must not
be used for food'', the first blank being filled in with the figure,
which shall not be greater than 96, that the Commissioner has
authorized the manufacturer of the drug to use, and the second
figure shall be the first number divided by 12.
II. Proposed Actions
The maximum 96-hour limitation was based on FDA's perception of a
practical withdrawal time for the dairy industry. However, FDA now
recognizes that a withdrawal time longer than 96 hours may be desirable
and practical in certain circumstances. FDA is proposing to remove the
96-hour limitation to allow the possibility of longer withdrawal times
to be considered for milk-producing animals. Withdrawal periods longer
than 96 hours may be considered on a case-by-case basis depending on
the use and safety of the drug.
In addition, a 12-hour milking schedule is used in Sec. 510.106 to
calculate the number of milkings that occur during the withdrawal
period. While a 12-hour milking interval was reflective of dairy
practice when this regulation was written, an 8-hour milking schedule
also is in common use in the dairy industry today. FDA is proposing to
revise the regulation so that the length of the milking cycle is not
specified. This revision would allow any reasonable milking interval to
be used as long as milk is discarded for the assigned number of hours
after the latest drug treatment.
This proposal is aligned with the goals stated by the National
Performance Review. This proposed rule is a result of the President's
directive to conduct a comprehensive review of all rules to identify
those that are obsolete and burdensome and to delete or revise them.
The agency has determined that this rule is in need of revision as
described herein.
III. Environmental Impact
The agency has determined under 21 CFR 25.24(a)(11) that this
action is of a type that does not individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the human environment. Therefore, neither an
environmental assessment nor an environmental impact statement is
required.
IV. Analysis of Impacts
FDA has examined the impacts of the proposed rule under Executive
Order 12866 and the Regulatory Flexibility Act (Pub. L. 96-354).
Executive Order 12866 directs agencies to assess all costs and benefits
of available regulatory alternatives and, when regulation is necessary,
to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits (including
potential economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity). The agency believes that
this proposed rule is consistent with the regulatory philosophy and
principles identified in the Executive Order. In addition, the proposed
rule is not a significant regulatory action as defined by the Executive
Order and so is not subject to review under the Executive Order.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires agencies to analyze
regulatory options that would minimize any significant impact of a rule
on small entities. Because the proposed rule clarifies FDA policy and
simplifies the process for submitting certain applications, the agency
certifies that the proposed rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities. Therefore, under the
Regulatory Flexibility Act, no further analysis is required.
V. Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
FDA tentatively concludes that the labeling requirements proposed
in this document are not subject to review by the Office of Management
and Budget because they do not constitute a ``collection of
information'' under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.). Rather, the proposed warning statements are ``public
disclosure of information originally supplied by the Federal Government
to the recipient for the purpose of disclosure to the public'' (5 CFR
1320.3(c)(2)).
VI. Federalism
FDA has analyzed this proposal in accordance with the principles
and criteria set forth in Executive Order 12612 and has determined that
this proposal does not warrant the preparation of a Federalism
Assessment.
VII. Request for Comments
Interested persons may, on or before June 18, 1996, submit to the
Dockets Management Branch (address above) written comments regarding
this proposal. Two copies of any comments are to be submitted, except
that individuals may submit one copy. Comments are to be identified
with the docket number found in brackets in the heading of this
document. Received comments are available for public examination in the
Dockets Management Branch between 9 a.m. and 4 p.m., Monday through
Friday.
List of Subjects in 21 CFR Part 510
Administrative practice and procedure, Animal drugs, Labeling,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Therefore, under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and under
authority delegated to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, it is
proposed that 21 CFR part 510 be amended as follows:
PART 510--NEW ANIMAL DRUGS
1. The authority citation for 21 CFR part 510 continues to read as
follows:
[[Page 15005]]
Authority: Secs. 201, 301, 501, 502, 503, 512, 701, 721 of the
Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 U.S.C. 321, 331, 351, 352,
353, 360b, 371, 379e).
2. Section 510.105 Labeling of drugs for use in milk-producing
animals is amended in the first sentence of paragraph (c)(2) by
removing the phrase, ``(not to exceed 96)''.
3. Section 510.106 is amended by revising the first sentence to
read as follows:
Sec. 510.106 Labeling of antibiotic and antibiotic-containing drugs
intended for use in milk-producing animals.
Whenever the labeling of an antibiotic drug included in the
regulations in this chapter suggests or recommends its use in milk-
producing animals, the label of such drugs shall bear either the
statement ``Warning: Not for use in animals producing milk, since this
use will result in contamination of the milk'' or the statement
``Warning: Milk that has been taken from animals during treatment and
for -- hours after the latest treatment must not be used for food'',
the blank being filled in with the figure that the Commissioner has
authorized the manufacturer of the drug to use. * * *
Dated: March 28, 1996.
William K. Hubbard,
Associate Commissioner for Policy Coordination.
[FR Doc. 96-8247 Filed 4-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4160-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8224 Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans; Rhode Island; Marine Vessel Rule
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 66 (Thursday, April 4, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15019-15020]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8224]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[RI-17-1-6968b; A-1-FRL-5405-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Air Quality Implementation Plans;
Rhode Island; Marine Vessel Rule
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve a State Implementation Plan (SIP)
revision submitted by the State of Rhode Island. This revision contains
a regulation to control volatile organic compound (VOC) emissions from
marine vessel loading operations. In the Final Rules Section of this
Federal Register, EPA is approving the State's SIP revision as a direct
final rule without prior proposal because the Agency views this as a
noncontroversial revision and anticipates no adverse comments. A
detailed rationale for the approval is set forth in the direct final
[[Page 15020]]
rule. If no adverse comments are received in response to that direct
final rule, no further activity is contemplated in relation to this
proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments, the direct final rule
will be withdrawn and all public comments received will be addressed in
a subsequent final rule based on this proposed rule. EPA will not
institute a second comment period on this proposal. Any parties
interested in commenting on this proposal should do so at this time.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before May 6, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to Susan Studlien, Deputy Director,
Office of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region I, JFK Federal Bldg., Boston, MA 02203. Copies of the State
submittal and EPA's technical support document are available for public
inspection during normal business hours, by appointment at the Office
of Ecosystem Protection, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region
I, One Congress Street, 11th floor, Boston, MA and Division of Air and
Hazardous Materials, Department of Environmental Management, 291
Promenade Street, Providence, RI 02908-5767.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Anne E. Arnold, (617) 565-3166.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the direct
final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal
Register.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: January 12, 1996.
John P. DeVillars,
Regional Administrator, Region I.
[FR Doc. 96-8224 Filed 4-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8222 Arizona Visibility Federal Implementation Plan Corrective Revision
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 66 (Thursday, April 4, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8222]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[FRL-5446-6]
Arizona Visibility Federal Implementation Plan Corrective
Revision
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA).
ACTION: Proposed Rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to revise the visibility Federal
implementation plan (FIP) for the State of Arizona to correct errors in
internal cross-references within the existing regulations addressing
control requirements at the Navajo Generating Station, adopted to
protect visibility at the Grand Canyon National Park. The rules being
corrected were published in the Federal Register on October 3, 1991 at
56 FR 50172-50187. The internal cross-reference errors occur in the
compliance determination procedures at 40 CFR 52.145(d)(3).
In the Final Rules Section of this Federal Register, the EPA is
promulgating the corrective revisions as a direct final rule without
prior proposal because the Agency views this as a noncontroversial
action and anticipates no adverse comments. Further explanation of the
corrective regulatory revisions is set forth in the direct final rule
and the reader is referred to that notice. If no adverse comments are
received in response to this proposed rule, no further activity is
contemplated in relation to this rule. If EPA receives adverse
comments, the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public
comments received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on
this proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period
on this notice. Any parties interested in commenting on this notice
must do so at this time. The public comments should address only the
accuracy of EPA's proposed corrections to the cross-referencing errors.
The EPA is not requesting public comment on the underlying merits or
substance of the final rules which are unaffected by the technical
corrections.
DATES: Comments on this proposed rule must be received in writing by
May 6, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments must be submitted, in duplicate, to: Docket
No. A-96-12, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center, Room M-1500 (6102), 401 M Street SW.,
Washington, DC 20460.
The public docket for the rules issued on October 3, 1991 is A-89-
02A and the public docket for this corrective revision to the October
3, 1991 rules is A-96-12. The dockets are available for public
inspection and copying between 8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., Monday through
Friday, at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Air and Radiation
Docket and Information Center listed above. A reasonable fee may be
charged for copies.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Richard Damberg, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Air Quality Planning and
Standards (MD-15), Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, (919)
541-5592.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: See the information provided in the Direct
Final rule which is located in the Rules Section of this Federal
Register.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Nitrogen dioxide,
Particulate matter, Carbon monoxide, Ozone, Lead, Sulfur oxides,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Dated: March 18, 1996.
Mary Nichols,
Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation.
[FR Doc. 96-8222 Filed 4-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8199 Operator Service Providers and Call Aggregators
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 66 (Thursday, April 4, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15020-15022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8199]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 64
[CC Docket No. 94-158; FCC 96-75]
Operator Service Providers and Call Aggregators
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Commission adopted a combined Report and Order and Further
Notice of Proposed Rule Making which amends the Commission's rules and
policies governing operator service providers (OSPs) 1 and call
aggregators.2 In the Further Notice the Commission seeks comment
on a proposal to amend the Commission's rules to prescribe a thirty-day
time limit, after the presubscribed OSP has changed, for aggregators to
update the posted consumer information. The proposed modification is
intended to provide updated OSP information to consumers and enable
consumers to make informed choices when placing operator service calls.
\1\ ``Provider of operator services means any common carrier
that provides operator services or any other person determined by
the Commission to be providing operator services.'' 47 C.F.R.
Sec. 64.708(i).
\2\ An ``aggregator'' is ``any person that, in the ordinary
course of its operations, makes telephones available to the public
or to transient users of its premises, for interstate telephone
calls using a provider of operator services.'' Id. Sec. 64.708(b).
DATES: Written comments by the public on the Further Notice of Proposed
Rule Making and the proposed and/or modified information collections
are due March 26, 1996. Reply comments are due on April 5, 1996.
Written comments by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on the
proposed and/or modified information collections on or before June 3,
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996.
ADDRESSES: In addition to filing comments with the Secretary, a copy of
any comments on the information collections contained herein should be
submitted to Dorothy Conway, Federal Communications Commission, Room
234, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20554, or via the Internet to
[email protected] and to Timothy Fain, OMB Desk Officer, 10236 NEOB,
725--17th Street, N.W., Washington, DC 20503 or via the Internet to
[email protected].
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Cathy Seidel, Enforcement Division,
Common Carrier Bureau, (202) 418-0960. For additional information
concerning the information collections contained in this Further Notice
of Proposed Rule Making contact Dorothy Conway at 202-418-0217, or via
the Internet at [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a summary of the Commission's
Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in CC Docket No. 94-158 [FCC 96-
75], adopted on February 28, 1996 and released March 5, 1996. The full
text of the Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making is available for
inspection and copying during normal business hours in the FCC
Reference Center, Room 239, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. The
complete text of this decision may also be purchased from the
Commission's duplicating contractor, International Transcription
Services, 2100 M Street, N.W., Suite 140, Washington, D.C. 20037 (202)
857-3800. This Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making contains proposed
or modified information collections subject to the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 (PRA), Pub. L. No. 104-13. It has been submitted to the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for review under Section 3507(d)
of the PRA. OMB, the general public, and other Federal agencies are
invited to comment on the proposed or modified information collections
contained in this proceeding.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This FNPRM contains either a proposed or modified information
collection. The Commission, as part of its continuing effort to reduce
paperwork burdens, invites the general public and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) to comment on the information collections
contained in this FNPRM, as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995, Pub. L. No. 104-13. Public and agency comments are due at the
same time as other comments on this NPRM; OMB comments are due June 3,
1996. Comments should address: (a) whether the proposed collection of
information is necessary for the proper performance of the functions of
the Commission, including whether the information shall have practical
utility; (b) the accuracy of the Commission's burden estimates; (c)
ways to enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information
collected; and (d) ways to minimize the burden of the collection of
information on the respondents, including the use of automated
collection techniques or other forms of information technology.
OMB Control Number: 3060-0653.
Title: Section 64.703(b)--Consumer Information--Posting by
Aggregators.
Type of Review: Revision of existing collection.
Respondents: Business or other for-profit, including small
business.
Number of Respondents: 56,200.
Estimated Time Per Response: 3.67 hours.
Total Annual Burden: 206,566.
Estimated Cost Per Respondent: $0.
Needs and Uses: As required by 47 U.S.C. Sec. 226(c)(1)(A), 47
C.F.R. section 64.703(b) provides that aggregators (providers of
telephones to the public or transient users) must post in writing, on
or near such phones, information about presubscribed operator services,
rates, carrier access, and the FCC address to which consumers may
direct complaints. The Commission proposes to modify section 64.703 to
establish a
[[Page 15021]]
30-day time limit for updating consumer information posting on
aggregator telephones. This information will be used to provide updated
OSP information to consumers at aggregator telephones.
Summary of Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making
I. Background
1. On February 28, 1996, the Commission adopted a combined Report
and Order and Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making in Docket 94-158
(released March 5, 1996, FCC 96-75). The Commission adopted the Further
Notice of Proposed Rule Making in order to seek comment on a proposal
to establish a 30-day time limit for updating the consumer information
posting on aggregator telephones.
2. Section 226(c)(1)(A) of the Communications Act, 47 U.S.C.
Sec. 226(c)(1)(A), and section 64.703(b) of the Commission's rules, 47
CFR Sec. 64.703(b), require that each aggregator post on or near the
telephone instrument in plain view of consumers: (1) the name, address,
and toll-free telephone number of the provider of operator services;
(2) a written disclosure that the rates for all operator-assisted calls
are available on request, and that consumers have a right to obtain
access to the interstate common carrier of their choice and may contact
their preferred interstate common carriers for information on accessing
that carrier's service using that telephone; and (3) the name and
address of the Enforcement Division of the Common Carrier Bureau of the
Commission, to which the consumer may direct complaints regarding
operator services. Neither the statute nor the Commission's rules
specifies when this notice must be changed to reflect a change in the
presubscribed OSP at the telephone location.
II. Discussion
3. In the NOI in CC Docket No. 94-158, 60 FR 08217 (February 13,
1995), the Commission solicited comment on whether the Commission's
rules should be amended to prescribe a time limit for updating the
consumer information posted on or near aggregator telephones in the
event the presubscribed OSP has changed. Specifically, the Commission
sought comment on the extent of the problem caused by delays in
updating the posted consumer information, on whether a specific time
limit for updating the consumer information is necessary or desirable
and, if so, what a reasonable limit might be.
4. The Commission found that the comments support the conclusion
that a delay exists in updating consumer information and that a Further
Notice of Proposed Rule Making to establish specific time limits is
necessary. The Commission noted that the majority of the commenters
favor a 30-day posting requirement, and that 30 days seems to offer
payphone owners enough time to make updates during regularly scheduled
maintenance visits, while providing reasonably current information to
users.
5. The Commission stated that the proposed rule was tailored to
meet the public's need for updated information and the aggregator's
need to avoid unnecessary service calls to aggregator locations. The
Commission was not persuaded that an allegation of unauthorized
conversion of the presubscribed carrier should be an automatic defense
to a violation of the proposed requirement, but stated that it would
consider such arguments on a case-by-case basis if the proposed time
limit was adopted. The Commission, therefore, seeks comment on a rule
requiring consumer information be updated within 30 days after a
payphone owner is notified that a PIC change has occurred.
III. Ex Parte Requirements
6. This is a non-restricted notice and comment rule making
proceeding. Ex parte presentations are permitted, except during the
Sunshine Agenda period, provided they are disclosed as provided in
Commission rules. See generally 47 CFR Secs. 1.1202, 1.1203, and
1.1206(a).
IV. Conclusion
7. With this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, the Commission
seeks additional comment on a rule requiring that consumer information
on or near aggregator phones be updated within 30 days after a change
in the presubscribed OSP.
V. Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
8. The Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 does not apply to this
rule making proceeding because if the proposed rule amendments are
promulgated, there will not be a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small business entities, as defined by section
601(3) of the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The Secretary shall send a
copy of this Further Notice of Proposed Rule Making, including the
certification, to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of the Small Business
Administration in accordance with paragraph 603(a) of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act. See 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.
VI. Ordering Clauses
9. It is ordered, pursuant to Sections 1, 4(i), 4(j), 201-205, 218,
and 226, of the Communications Act, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 151, 154(i),
154(j), 201-205, 218, 226, that a Further Notice of Proposed Rule
Making is issued proposing amendment of 47 CFR section 64.703(b) of the
Commission's rules as set forth below.
10. Pursuant to Sections 1.415 and 1.419 of the Commission's rules,
47 CFR Secs. 1.415, 1.419, all interested parties may file comments on
the matter discussed in this Further Notice and on the proposed rule
contained below by March 26, 1996. Reply comments are due by April 5,
1996. All relevant and timely comments will be considered by the
Commission before final action is taken in this proceeding. To file
formally in this proceeding, participants must file an original and
four copies of all comments, reply comments, and supporting comments.
If participants wish each Commissioner to have a personal copy of their
comments, an original plus nine copies must be filed. Comments and
reply comments should be sent to the Office of the Secretary, Federal
Communications Commission, Washington, D.C. 20554. Comments and reply
comments will be available for public inspection during regular
business hours in the Dockets Reference Room (Room 230) of the Federal
Communications Commission, 1919 M Street, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20554.
11. It is further ordered that the Chief of the Common Carrier
Bureau is delegated authority to require the submission of additional
information, make further inquiries, and modify the dates and
procedures if necessary to provide for a more complete record and a
more efficient proceeding.
12. It is further ordered that the Secretary shall cause a copy of
this Further Notice, including the Further Initial Regulatory
Flexibility Analysis, to be sent to the Chief Counsel for Advocacy of
the Small Business Administration in accordance with section 603(a) of
the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. 603(a) (1981). The Secretary
shall also cause a summary of this Further Notice to appear in the
Federal Register.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 64
Communication common carriers, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Telephone.
[[Page 15022]]
Federal Communications Commission.
William F. Caton,
Acting Secretary.
Rule Changes
Part 64 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed
to be amended as follows:
PART 64--MISCELLANEOUS RULES RELATING TO COMMON CARRIERS
1. The authority citation for Part 64 continues to read as follows:
Authority: Sec. 4, 48 Stat. 1066, as amended, 47 U.S.C. 154,
unless otherwise noted. Interpret or apply secs. 201-4, 218, 225,
226, 227, 48 Stat. 1070, as amended, 1077; 47 U.S.C. 201, 218, 225,
226, 227, unless otherwise noted.
2. Section 64.703(b(1) is proposed to be revised to read as
follows:
Sec. 64.703 Consumer information.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) The name, address, and toll-free telephone number of the
provider of operator services. This information must be updated within
30 days of a change in the provider of operator services.
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 96-8199 Filed 4-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-P
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8189 State-Federal Cooperative Agreements
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 66 (Thursday, April 4, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15005-15010]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8189]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement
30 CFR Parts 745, 900, 901, 906, 913, 926, 931, 934, 935, 936, 944,
946, 948, and 950
RIN 1029-AB84
State-Federal Cooperative Agreements
AGENCY: Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Interior.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement (OSM)
proposes to amend its regulations by revising the procedures for
approval of State-Federal cooperative agreements, so as to remove from
the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) the entire text of these
agreements. This removal of the full text of the State-Federal
cooperative agreements would reduce the number of unnecessary pages in
the CFR. The CFR would continue, however, to provide notice of the
existence of a cooperative agreement and the date it became effective.
Although the full text of previously approved cooperative agreements
would be removed, the cooperative agreements remain in effect and will
continue to delineate State and Federal responsibilities with regard to
surface coal mining and reclamation operations on Federal lands.
DATES: Written comments: OSM will accept written comments on the
proposed rule until 5:00 p.m. eastern time on June 3, 1996.
Public hearings: Anyone wishing to testify at a public hearing must
submit a request on or before 5:00 p.m. eastern time on April 25, 1996.
Because OSM will hold a public hearing only if one is requested,
hearing arrangements, dates and times, if any, will be announced in a
subsequent Federal Register notice. Any disabled individual who has
need for special accommodation to attend a public hearing should
contact the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
ADDRESSES: Written comments: Mail or hand-deliver to the Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Administrative Record Room
117, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20240. Comments also
may be sent by e-mail via the Internet to: [email protected].
Requests for public hearings: Contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by the time specified under DATES. Because
OSM will hold a public hearing only if one is requested, hearing
locations, if any, will be announced in a subsequent Federal Register
notice.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Andy DeVito, Rules and Legislation, Office of Surface Mining
Reclamation and Enforcement, Room 117, South Interior Building, 1951
Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20240; Telephone (202) 208-
2701. E-Mail/Internet: [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Public Comment Procedures
II. Discussion of the Proposed Rule
Why is the rule being written?
What is a State-Federal cooperative agreement?
What would change?
How would this rule affect coal mining on Federal lands?
How do I get a copy of a State-Federal cooperative agreement?
III. Procedural Matters
I. Public Comment Procedures
Written Comments
Written comments should be specific and confined to issues
pertinent to the proposed rule. They also should include explanations
in support of the commenter's recommendations. OSM appreciates any and
all comments, but those most useful and likely to influence decisions
on the content of a final rule will be those that either involve
personal experience or include citations to and analyses of the Act,
its legislative history, its implementing regulations, case law, and
other pertinent State or Federal laws or regulations.
Where practicable, commenters should submit two copies of their
comments. Comments received after the time indicated under DATES or at
locations other than the OSM office listed under ADDRESSES will not
necessarily be considered in the final decision or included in the
administrative record.
Public Hearing
Persons wishing to testify at a public hearing must contact the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT by the time
indicated under DATES. If no one requests an opportunity to comment at
a public hearing, no hearing will be held.
If a public hearing is held, it will continue until all persons
scheduled to speak have been heard. Persons in the audience who were
not scheduled to speak but who wish to do so will be heard following
the scheduled speakers. The hearing will end after all scheduled
speakers and any other persons present who wish to speak have been
heard.
Filing of a written statement at the time of the hearing will
assist the transcriber and facilitate preparation of an accurate
record. Submission of written statements to OSM in advance of the
hearing will allow OSM officials to prepare appropriate questions.
Public Meeting
If only one person requests an opportunity to comment at a hearing,
public meeting, rather than a public hearing, may be held. Persons
wishing to meet with OSM representatives to discuss the proposed rule
may request a meeting by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT. All meetings will be open to the public and
notices of the meetings will be posted at the location listed under
ADDRESSES. A written summary of each public meeting will be made a part
of the administrative record for this rulemaking.
II. Discussion of the Proposed Rule
Why is This Rule Being Written?
On March 4, 1995, the President announced a government-wide
[[Page 15006]]
Regulatory Reinvention Initiative. The President directed each agency
to conduct a page-by-page review of its regulations for the purpose of
eliminating or revising those that are outdated or otherwise in need of
reform. As part of that effort, OSM is considering several means of
reducing the number of pages in the CFR. This proposed rule would
remove the full text of the State-Federal cooperative agreements from
30 CFR Parts 900, 901, 906, 913, 926, 931, 934, 935, 936, 944, 946,
948, and 950, and would eliminate from Part 745 the requirement to
codify the text of any cooperative agreements approved in the future.
This action would result in a reduction of approximately 65 pages from
the CFR and reduce future printing costs for the government, and
contribute to on-going efforts to make the CFR a more readable
document.
What is a State-Federal Cooperative Agreement?
Section 523(c) of the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of
1977 (``the Act''), 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq., and the implementing
regulations at 30 CFR Part 745, allow a State and the Secretary of the
Interior (Secretary) to enter into a cooperative agreement if the State
has an approved State program for the regulation of surface coal mining
and reclamation operations on non-Federal and non-Indian lands.
Cooperative agreements are authorized by the first sentence of section
523(c), which provides that, ``Any State with an approved State program
may elect to enter into a cooperative agreement with the Secretary to
provide for State regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation
operations on Federal lands within the State, provided the Secretary
determines in writing that such State has necessary personnel and
funding to fully implement such a cooperative agreement in accordance
with the provision of this Act.'' 30 U.S.C. 1273(c). Cooperative
agreements currently exist for the following States: Alabama, Colorado,
Illinois, Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah,
Virginia, West Virginia, and Wyoming.
What Would Change?
Under current approval procedures for cooperative agreements (or
revisions thereof), the full text of a requested cooperative agreement
is published in the Federal Register as a proposed rule and comments
are solicited from the public on the terms of the agreement. After
comments are considered and the terms of the cooperative agreement are
agreed to by the Secretary and the governor of the State requesting the
agreement, the full text is published in the Federal Register as a
final rule and then codified in the CFR. Under the revised procedures
being proposed in Secs. 745.11 (c) and (h), OSM would continue to
publish the full text of a requested cooperative agreement in the
Federal Register and solicit public comments prior to approval by the
Secretary and the governor. However, the full text would be included in
the preamble discussion of the proposed rule, and only a brief
statement giving information about the agreement would be included as a
proposed rule. After the cooperative agreement has been signed by the
Secretary and the governor, OSM would publish the final rule in the
Federal Register indicating the Secretary' approval. Included in the
preamble to the final rule would be the full text of the approved
cooperative agreement and a discussion of any changes made to the text
based on comments received. The Secretary's decision approving the
cooperative agreement would then be codified in 30 CFR under the
appropriate Part for the State. The codified text would consist of a
statement indicating that the Secretary and the governor have entered
into a State-Federal cooperative agreement, the effective date of the
cooperative agreement, and the address where a copy of it may be
obtained.
The proposed changes in the approval procedures for cooperative
agreements would also apply to the amendment and reinstatement of such
agreements. The proposed rule would make conforming changes to
Secs. 745.14 and 745.16(a) which govern amendments and reinstatements,
respectively. Under the proposed rule, when the Secretary approves an
amendment to, or reinstatement of, a cooperative agreement, OSM would
publish the full text in the Federal Register but would only codify in
the CFR a statement indicating that a cooperative agreement is in
effect, the date the amendment or reinstatement went into effect, and
the address where a copy may be obtained.
OSM believes that there is no compelling need to codify the full
text of the cooperative agreements in the CFR. Under the proposed rule,
essentially the same information would be included in the Federal
Register as is presently included except that under the proposed rule
the full text of the cooperative agreement would be included in the
preamble discussion and not as part of the rule language. Further,
there is no statutory requirement in the Act to codify the full text in
the CFR. Although the codified full text may be a convenient reference
for members of the public who might want to review the provisions of a
cooperative agreement, OSM believes that once a cooperative agreement
has been approved, few members of the public, if any, actually refer to
them. If the full text is desired, copies would be readily available
from designated sources.
OSM also proposes to revise the procedures in Sec. 745.11(d) so as
to require that a public hearing be held only if a hearing is requested
by a member of the public. The current regulations require that a
hearing be held even if one is not requested. Since 1988, OSM has
published 4 proposed rules dealing with cooperative agreements and no
one has asked to testify at a public hearing.
OSM is proposing to make conforming changes to 30 CFR 900.2 and
900.15 to delete references to the full text of the cooperative
agreements. OSM also proposes to add the names of the States with
approved cooperative agreements to Sec. 900.15 along with a statement
that the effective dates are included under the applicable State Part.
Finally, OSM is proposing to revise 30 CFR Parts 900, 901, 906,
913, 926, 931, 934, 935, 936, 944, 946, 948, and 950, to remove the
full text of currently approved cooperative agreements and to
substitute a statement indicting that a cooperative agreement is in
effect, the date the agreement went into effect, and the address where
a copy may be obtained.
Although the full text of the cooperative agreements is being
removed from the CFR in favor of the above statement, the signed
agreements remain in effect and will continue to delineate State and
Federal responsibilities with regard to surface coal mining and
reclamation operations on Federal lands.
The following table provides a summary of the proposed changes
contained in the rule.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section Summary of changes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
745.11(c).................... Revised to remove the requirement that
the full text be published in the
Federal Register as a proposed rule.
745.11(d).................... Revised to require a public hearing only
if one is requested. A public hearing is
currently required in all rulemakings.
[[Page 15007]]
745.11(h).................... New paragraph added to require that upon
approval of a State-Federal cooperative
agreement, the regulations in Subchapter
T must be amended to indicate that a
cooperative agreement has been entered
into, the effective date, and the
address where the full text of the
cooperative agreement may be obtained.
745.14....................... Revised to require that amendments to
cooperative agreements be adopted in
accordance with Sec. 745.11.
745.16(a).................... Revised to require that reinstatements of
cooperative agreements be made in
accordance with Sec. 745.11.
900.2........................ Revised to eliminate reference to the
full text of the cooperative agreements.
900.15....................... Revised to eliminate reference to the
full text of the cooperative agreements
and to add that information on the
agreement is available in Subchapter T.
901.30, 906.30, 913.30, Revised to remove the full text of the
926.30, 931.30, 934.20, approved cooperative agreement and to
935.30, 936.30, 944.30, substitute data on the date the
946.30, 948.30, 950.20. cooperative agreement went into effect
and the address where a copy may be
obtained. The proposed revision includes
a reference to Sec. 745.12 which
specifies the general provisions
required in a cooperative agreement, and
to Sec. 745.13 which specifies the
authority which cannot be delegated to a
State.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
How Would This Rule Affect Coal Mining on Federal Lands?
The rule would not change the way coal mining activities are
regulated on Federal lands. Although the full text of the cooperative
agreements are being removed from the CFR, the cooperative agreements
remain in effect and those States with cooperative agreements would
continue to regulate coal mining activities on Federal lands within the
State according to the terms of the cooperative agreement.
How do I Get a Copy of a State-Federal Cooperative Agreement?
A copy of the full text of the cooperative agreement may be
obtained by contacting the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, Administrative Record Room, 1951 Constitution Avenue,
N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240. E-Mail/Internet address:
[email protected]. The full text of the cooperative agreements is also
available on the World Wide Web at: http://www.osmre.gov.
The following table provides a list of those States with approved
cooperative agreements, the date the original agreement was published,
the date of any approved revisions, the effective dates, and the
Federal Register citation.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 CFR part Publication
State No. date Effective date Federal Register Citation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alabama............................ 901 07/30/85 08/28/85 50 FR 30921
Colorado........................... 906 10/06/82 10/06/82 47 FR 44217
Illinois........................... 913 11/27/87 12/28/87 52 FR 45329
Montana............................ 926 04/08/81 05/08/81 46 FR 20993
North Dakota....................... 934 09/15/83 09/15/83 48 FR 41395
04/07/88 05/09/88 53 FR 11501
New Mexico......................... 931 12/20/82 12/20/82 47 FR 58606
05/12/89 06/12/89 54 FR 20568
Ohio............................... 935 04/13/84 04/13/84 54 FR 51743
12/18/89 01/17/90 54 FR 51743
Oklahoma........................... 936 09/11/89 10/11/89 54 FR 37459
Utah............................... 944 04/13/87 04/13/87 52 FR 7850
Virginia........................... 946 04/07/87 05/07/87 52 FR 11049
West Virginia...................... 948 03/09/84 03/09/84 52 FR 11049
Wyoming............................ 950 01/28/81 03/18/91 51 FR 45089
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Procedural Matters
Federal Paperwork Reduction Act
This rule does not contain collections of information which
requires approval by the Office of Management and Budget under 44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Department of the Interior certifies that this proposed
revision would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C.
601 et seq.).
National Environmental Policy Act
This rule has been reviewed by OSM and it has been determined to be
categorically excluded from the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) process in accordance with the Departmental Manual 516 DM 6,
Appendix 8.4.A(4).
Executive Order 12866
This rule is not significant under Executive Order 12866 and does
not require review by the Office of Management and Budget.
Executive Order 12778
This proposed rule has been reviewed under the applicable standards
of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive Order 12778, Civil Justice Reform (56
FR 55195). In general, the requirements of Section 2(b)(2) of Executive
Order 12778 are covered by the preamble discussion of this proposed
rule. Additional remarks follow concerning individual elements of the
Executive Order:
A. What is the preemptive effect, if any, to be given to the
regulation?
The proposed rule would have no preemptive effect.
B. What is the effect on existing Federal law or regulation, if
any, including all provisions repealed or modified.
This rule modifies the implementation of SMCRA as described herein,
and is not intended to modify the implementation of any other Federal
statute. The preceding discussion of this rule specifies the Federal
regulatory provisions that are affected by this rule.
C. Does the rule provide a clear and certain legal standard for
affected conduct rather than a general standard, while promoting
simplification and burden reduction?
[[Page 15008]]
The standards established by this rule are as clear and certain as
practicable, given the complexity of the topics covered and the
mandates of SMCRA.
D. What is the retroactive effect, if any, to be given to the
regulation?
This rule is not intended to have retroactive effect.
E. Are administrative proceedings required before parties may file
suit in court? Which proceedings apply? Is the exhaustion of
administrative remedies required?
No administrative proceedings are required before parties may file
suit in court challenging the provisions of this rule under section
526(a) of SMCRA, 30 U.S.C. 127(a).
Prior to any judicial challenge to the application of the rule,
however, administrative procedure must be exhausted. In situations
involving OSM application of the rule, applicable administrative
procedures may be found at 43 CFR Part 4. In situations involving State
regulatory authority application of provisions equivalent to those
contained in this rule, applicable administrative procedures are set
forth in the particular State program.
F. Does the rule define key terms, either explicitly or by
reference to other regulations or statutes that explicitly define those
items?
Terms which are important to the understanding of this rule are set
forth in 30 CFR 700.5 and 701.5.
G. Does the rule address other important issues affecting clarity
and general draftsmanship of regulations set forth by the Attorney
General, with the concurrence of the Director of the Office of
Management and Budget, that are determined to be in accordance with the
purpose of the Executive Order?
As of the date of publication, the Attorney General and the
Director of the Office of Management and Budget have not issued any
guidance on this requirement.
List of Subjects
30 CFR Part 745
Coal mining, Intergovernmental relations, Public lands, Mineral
resources, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Surface mining,
Underground mining.
30 CFR Parts 900, 901, 906, 913, 926, 931, 934, 935, 936, 944, 946,
948, and 950
Intergovernmental relations, Surface mining, Underground mining.
Dated: March 13, 1996.
Bob Armstrong,
Assistant Secretary, Land and Minerals Management.
For the reasons set out in the preamble, 30 CFR Parts 745, 900,
901, 906, 913, 926, 931, 934, 935, 936, 944, 946, 948, and 950 are
proposed to be amended as follows.
PART 745--STATE-FEDERAL COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
1. The authority citation for Part 745 continues to read:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq. and 30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.
2. Sec. 745.11, is amended by revising paragraph (c) introductory
text, the first sentence of paragraph (d), and adding paragraph (h) to
read as follows:
Sec. 745.11 Application and agreement.
* * * * *
(c) OSM shall publish a notice of the request and the full text of
the terms of the proposed cooperative agreement as submitted or as
subsequently modified by OSM and the State in the Federal Register. A
notice of the request and a summary of the terms of the proposed
agreement shall also be published in a newspaper(s) of general
circulation throughout the State. Both notices shall include:
* * * * *
(d) If requested, a public hearing shall be held within the comment
period in a suitable location in the State requesting the cooperative
agreement. * * *
* * * * *
(h) The Secretary shall amend the regulations in Subchapter T to
indicate that a State-Federal cooperative agreement has been entered
into, the effective date of the cooperative agreement, and the address
where the full text of the cooperative agreement may be obtained.
3. Sec. 745.14 is amended by revising the last sentence to read as
follows:
Sec. 745.14 Amendments.
* * * Amendments shall be adopted in accordance with the procedures
in Sec. 745.11.
4. Sec. 745.16 is amended by revising the last sentence of
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
Sec. 745.16 Reinstatements.
* * * Any reinstatement shall be in accordance with the procedures
in Sec. 745.11.
PART 900--INTRODUCTION
5. The authority citation for Part 900 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: Secs. 102, 201, 405, 503, 504, 505, and 523 of Pub.
L. 95-87 (30 U.S.C. 1202, 1211, 1235, 1253, 1254, and 1273).
6. In Sec. 900.2, the first sentence is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 900.2 Objectives.
The objective of this part is to provide an introduction to the
synopsis of the approved State programs, the Abandoned Mined Lands
Reclamation programs, the cross referencing provisions of Federal
programs, information on the effective date of State-Federal
cooperative agreements for the regulation of mining on Federal lands,
and where a copy may be obtained. * * *
7. Sec. 900.15 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 900.15 Federal lands program cooperative agreements.
The effective date for each State-Federal cooperative agreement for
the State regulation of surface coal mining and reclamation operations
on Federal lands is published below under the applicable part for
States with cooperative agreements. The following states have entered
into cooperative agreements: Alabama, Colorado, Illinois, Montana,
North Dakota, New Mexico, Ohio, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, West
Virginia, and Wyoming.
PART 901--ALABAMA
8. The authority citation for Part 901 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
9. Sec. 901.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 901.30 State-Federal cooperative agreement.
The Governor of the State of Alabama and the Secretary of the
Interior have entered into a cooperative agreement setting forth the
responsibilities of each party for the regulation of surface coal
mining and reclamation operations on Federal lands in the State. The
cooperative agreement became effective on August 28, 1985. The general
provisions required in a cooperative agreement are specified under
Sec. 745.12. The authority reserved for the Secretary which cannot be
delegated to a State is specified under Sec. 745.13. A copy of the full
text of the cooperative agreement may be obtained by contacting the
Office of Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Administrative Record
Room, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20240 The full text
of the cooperative agreement is also available on the World Wide Web
at: http://www.osmre.gov.
[[Page 15009]]
PART 906--COLORADO
10. The authority citation for part 906 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
11. Sec. 906.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 906.30 State-Federal cooperative agreement.
The Governor of the State of Colorado and the Secretary of the
Interior have entered into a cooperative agreement setting forth the
responsibilities of each party for the regulation of surface coal
mining and reclamation operations on Federal lands in the State. The
cooperative agreement became effective on October 6, 1982. The general
provisions required in a cooperative agreement are specified under
Sec. 745.12. The authority reserved for the Secretary which cannot be
delegated to a State is specified under Sec. 745.13. A copy of the full
text of the cooperative agreement may be obtained by contacting the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Administrative
Record Room, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20240. The
full text of the cooperative agreement is also available on the World
Wide Web at: http://www.osmre.gov.
PART 913--ILLINOIS
12. The authority citation for part 913 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
13. Sec. 913.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 913.30 State-Federal cooperative agreement.
The Governor of the State of Illinois and the Secretary of the
Interior have entered into a cooperative agreement setting forth the
responsibilities of each party for the regulation of surface coal
mining and reclamation operations on Federal lands in the State. The
cooperative agreement became effective on December 28, 1987. The
general provisions required in a cooperative agreement are specified
under Sec. 745.12. The authority reserved for the Secretary which
cannot be delegated to a State is specified under Sec. 745.13. A copy
of the full text of the cooperative agreement may be obtained by
contacting the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement,
Administrative Record Room, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington,
DC 20240. The full text of the cooperative agreement is also available
on the World Wide Web at: http://www.osmre.gov.
PART 926--MONTANA
14. The authority citation for part 926 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
15. Sec. 926.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 926.30 State-Federal cooperative agreement.
The Governor of the State of Montana and the Secretary of the
Interior have entered into a cooperative agreement setting forth the
responsibilities of each party for the regulation of surface coal
mining and reclamation operations on Federal lands in the State. The
cooperative agreement became effective on May 8, 1981. The general
provisions required in a cooperative agreement are specified under
Sec. 745.12. The authority reserved for the Secretary which cannot be
delegated to a State is specified under Sec. 745.13. A copy of the full
text of the cooperative agreement may be obtained by contacting the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Administrative
Record Room, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20240. The
full text of the cooperative agreement is also available on the World
Wide Web at: http://www.osmre.gov.
PART 931--NEW MEXICO
16. The authority citation for part 931 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
17. Sec. 931.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 931.30 State-Federal cooperative agreement.
The Governor of the State of New Mexico and the Secretary of the
Interior have entered into a cooperative agreement setting forth the
responsibilities of each party for the regulation of surface coal
mining and reclamation operations on Federal lands in the State. The
cooperative agreement became effective on December 20, 1982. Certain
provisions were revised effective June 12, 1989. The general provisions
required in a cooperative agreement are specified under Sec. 745.12.
The authority reserved for the Secretary which cannot be delegated to a
State is specified under Sec. 745.13. A copy of the full text of the
cooperative agreement may be obtained by contacting the Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Administrative Record Room,
1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20240. The full text of
the cooperative agreement is also available on the World Wide Web at:
http://www.osmre.gov.
PART 934--NORTH DAKOTA
18. The authority citation for part 934 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
19. Sec. 934.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 934.30 State-Federal cooperative agreement.
The Governor of the State of North Dakota and the Secretary of the
Interior have entered into a cooperative agreement setting forth the
responsibilities of each party for the regulation of surface coal
mining and reclamation operations on Federal lands in the State. The
cooperative agreement became effective on September 15, 1983. Certain
provisions were revised effective May 9, 1988. The general provisions
required in a cooperative agreement are specified under Sec. 745.12.
The authority reserved for the Secretary which cannot be delegated to a
State is specified under Sec. 745.13. A copy of the full text of the
cooperative agreement may be obtained by contacting the Office of
Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Administrative Record Room,
1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20240. The full text of
the cooperative agreement is also available on the World Wide Web at:
http://www.osmre.gov.
PART 935--OHIO
20. The authority citation for Part 935 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
21. Sec. 935.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 935.30 State-Federal cooperative agreement.
The Governor of the State of Ohio and the Secretary of the Interior
have entered into a cooperative agreement setting forth the
responsibilities of each party for the regulation of surface coal
mining and reclamation operations on Federal lands in the State. The
cooperative agreement became effective on April 13, 1984. Certain
provisions were revised effective January 17, 1990. The general
provisions required in a cooperative agreement are specified under
Sec. 745.12. The authority reserved for the Secretary which cannot be
delegated to a State is specified under Sec. 745.13. A copy of the full
text of the cooperative agreement may be obtained by contacting the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Administrative
Record Room, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20240. The
full text of the cooperative agreement is also available
[[Page 15010]]
on the World Wide Web at: http://www.osmre.gov.
PART 936--OKLAHOMA
22. The authority citation for Part 936 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
Sec. 936.30 State-Federal cooperative agreement.
The Governor of the State of Oklahoma and the Secretary of the
Interior have entered into a cooperative agreement setting forth the
responsibilities of each party for the regulation of surface coal
mining and reclamation operations on Federal lands in the State. The
cooperative agreement became effective on October 11, 1989. The general
provisions required in a cooperative agreement are specified under
Sec. 745.12. The authority reserved for the Secretary which cannot be
delegated to a State is specified under Sec. 745.13. A copy of the full
text of the cooperative agreement may be obtained by contacting the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Administrative
Record Room, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20240. The
full text of the cooperative agreement is also available on the World
Wide Web at: http://www.osmre.gov.
PART 944--UTAH
23. The authority citation for Part 944 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
24. Sec. 944.30 is revised as follows:
Sec. 944.30 State-Federal cooperative agreement.
The Governor of the State of Utah and the Secretary of the Interior
have entered into a cooperative agreement setting forth the
responsibilities of each party for the regulation of surface coal
mining and reclamation operations on Federal lands in the State. The
cooperative agreement became effective on April 13, 1987. The general
provisions required in a cooperative agreement are specified under
Sec. 745.12. The authority reserved for the Secretary which cannot be
delegated to a State is specified under Sec. 745.13. A copy of the full
text of the cooperative agreement may be obtained by contacting the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Administrative
Record Room, 1951 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20240. The
full text of the cooperative agreement is also available on the World
Wide Web at: http://www.osmre.gov.
PART 946--VIRGINIA
25. The authority citation for Part 946 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
26. Sec. 946.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 946.30 State-Federal cooperative agreement.
The Governor of the State of Virginia and the Secretary of the
Interior have entered into a cooperative agreement setting forth the
responsibilities of each party for the regulation of surface coal
mining and reclamation operations on Federal lands in the State. The
cooperative agreement became effective on April 7, 1987. The general
provisions required in a cooperative agreement are specified under
Sec. 745.12. The authority reserved for the Secretary which cannot be
delegated to a State is specified under Sec. 745.13. A copy of the full
text of the cooperative agreement may be obtained by contacting the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Administrative
Record Room, 1951 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240.
The full text of the cooperative agreement is also available on the
World Wide Web at: http://www.osmre.gov.
PART 948--WEST VIRGINIA
27. The authority citation for Part 949 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
28. Sec. 948.30 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 948.30 State-Federal cooperative agreement.
The Governor of the State of West Virginia and the Secretary of the
Interior have entered into a cooperative agreement setting forth the
responsibilities of each party for the regulation of surface coal
mining and reclamation operations on Federal lands in the State. The
cooperative agreement became effective on April 7, 1987. The general
provisions required in a cooperative agreement are specified under
Sec. 745.12. The authority reserved for the Secretary which cannot be
delegated to a State is specified under Sec. 745.13. A copy of the full
text of the cooperative agreement may be obtained by contacting the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Administrative
Record Room, 1951 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240.
The full text of the cooperative agreement is also available on the
World Wide Web at: http://www.osmre.gov.
PART 950--WYOMING
29. The authority citation for Part 950 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 30 U.S.C. 1201 et seq.
30. Sec. 950.20 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 950.20 State-Federal cooperative agreement.
The Governor of the State of Wyoming and the Secretary of the
Interior have entered into a cooperative agreement setting forth the
responsibilities of each party for the regulation of surface coal
mining and reclamation operations on Federal lands in the State. The
cooperative agreement became effective on January 15, 1987. The general
provisions required in a cooperative agreement are specified under
Sec. 745.12. The authority reserved for the Secretary which cannot be
delegated to a State is specified under Sec. 745.13. A copy of the full
text of the cooperative agreement may be obtained by contacting the
Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and Enforcement, Administrative
Record Room, 1951 Constitution Avenue, N.W., Washington, D.C. 20240.
The full text of the cooperative agreement is also available on the
World Wide Web at: http://www.osmre.gov.
[FR Doc. 96-8189 Filed 4-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4310-05-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8188 Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, Identification of Waters Subject to Subsistence Priority Regulation and Expansion of the Federal Subsistence Program and the Federal Subsistence Board's Authority
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 66 (Thursday, April 4, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15014-15018]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8188]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
36 CFR Part 242
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Fish and Wildlife Service
50 CFR Part 100
RIN 1018-AD68
Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska,
Identification of Waters Subject to Subsistence Priority Regulation and
Expansion of the Federal Subsistence Program and the Federal
Subsistence Board's Authority
AGENCY: Forest Service, USDA; Fish and Wildlife Service, Interior.
ACTION: Advance notice of proposed rulemaking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Departments of Agriculture and the Interior give notice of
their intention to amend the scope and applicability of the Federal
subsistence program in Alaska to include subsistence activities
occurring on inland navigable waters in which the United States has a
reserved water right and to identify specific Federal land units where
reserved water rights exist. The amendments being considered also would
extend the Federal Subsistence Board's management to all Federal lands
selected under the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act or the Alaska
Statehood Act and situated within the boundaries of a Conservation
System Unit, National Recreation Area, National Conservation Area, or
any new national forest or forest addition, until conveyed to the State
of Alaska or an Alaska Native Corporation, as required by ANILCA. In
addition, the rule amendments being considered would unambiguously
delegate to the Federal Subsistence Board the authority to determine
when hunting, fishing or trapping activities taking place in Alaska off
the public lands interfere with the subsistence priority on the public
lands to such an extent as to result in a failure to provide the
subsistence priority and to take action to restrict or eliminate the
interference. The Departments also are considering whether to provide
the Federal Subsistence Board with authority to investigate and make
recommendations to the Secretaries regarding the possible existence of
additional Federal reservations, Federal reserved water rights or other
Federal interests, including those which attach to lands in which the
United States has less than fee ownership. The regulatory amendments
being considered would conform the Federal subsistence management
regulations to the court decree issued in State of Alaska v. Babbitt,
72 F.3d 698 (9th Cir. 1995). This advance notice of proposed rulemaking
also is in response to the Petitions for Rulemaking submitted by the
Northwest Arctic Regional Council et al. on April 12, 1994, and the
Mentasta Village Council, et al. on July 15, 1993.
DATES: Written public comment is invited and will be considered in the
development of a proposed rule. Comments on this advance notice of
proposed rulemaking and proposals for changes to the preliminary
regulatory text must be received no later than June 14, 1996 to be
considered.
ADDRESSES: Any comments concerning this notice, including sections
regarding conformance with statutory and regulatory authorities and the
preliminary regulatory text included with it may be sent to Mitch
Demientieff, Chairman, Federal Subsistence Board, c/o Thomas H. Boyd,
Office of Subsistence Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 1011
E. Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska, 99503.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Thomas H. Boyd, Office of Subsistence Management, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1011 E. Tudor Road, Anchorage, Alaska, 99503;
telephone (907) 786-3888. For questions specific to National Forest
System lands, contact Ken Thompson, Assistant Director, Subsistence,
Forest Service, Alaska Region, P.O. Box 21638, Juneau, Alaska 99802-
1628; telephone (907) 586-7921.
[[Page 15015]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The Federal Subsistence Board assumed subsistence management
responsibility for public lands in Alaska in 1990, after the Alaska
Supreme Court ruled in McDowell v. State of Alaska, 785 P.2d 1 (Alaska
1989), reh'g. denied (Alaska 1990), that the rural preference contained
in the State's subsistence statute violated the Alaska Constitution.
This ruling put the State's subsistence program out of compliance with
Title VIII of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act
(ANILCA) and resulted in the Secretaries assuming subsistence
management on the public lands in Alaska. The ``Temporary Subsistence
Management Regulations for Public Lands in Alaska, Final Temporary
Rule'' was published in the Federal Register (55 FR 27114-27170) on
June 29, 1990. The ``Subsistence Management Regulations for Public
Lands in Alaska; Final Rule'' was published in the Federal Register (57
FR 22940-22964) on May 29, 1992.
In both cases, the rule ``generally excludes navigable waters''
from Federal subsistence management. 55 FR 27114, 27115 (1990); 57 FR
22940, 22942 (1992). In a lawsuit consolidated with Alaska v. Babbitt,
plaintiff Katie John challenged these rules, arguing that navigable
waters are properly included within the definition of ``public lands''
set out in ANILCA. At oral argument before the United States District
Court for Alaska, the United States took the position that Federal
reserved water rights which encompass the subsistence purpose are
public lands for purposes of ANILCA. The United States Court of Appeals
for the Ninth Circuit subsequently held: ``[T]he definition of public
lands includes those navigable waters in which the United States has an
interest by virtue of the reserved water rights doctrine.'' Alaska
versus Babbitt, 72 F.3d at 703-704. In the course of its decision, the
Ninth Circuit also directed: ``[T]he federal agencies that administer
the subsistence priority are responsible for identifying those
waters.'' Id. at 704.
The amendments being considered in this advance notice of proposed
rulemaking would conform the Federal subsistence management regulations
to the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Circuit's ruling in Alaska v. Babbitt.
As the Ninth Circuit directed, this document identifies Federal land
units in which reserved water rights exist. These are ``public lands''
under the Ninth Circuit's decision in Alaska v. Babbitt and thus are
subject to the Federal subsistence priority in Title VIII of ANILCA.
The preliminary regulatory text being considered here also provides the
Federal Subsistence Board with clear authority to administer the
subsistence priority in these waters.
On July 15, 1993, the Mentasta Village Council, Native Village of
Quinhagak, Native Village of Goodnews Bay, Alaska Federation of
Natives, Alaska Inter-tribal Council, RurAL CAP, Katie John, Doris
Charles, Louie Smith and Annie Cleveland filed a ``Petition for Rule-
Making by the Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture that Navigable
Waters and Federal Reserved Waters are `Public Lands' Subject to Title
VIII of ANILCA's Subsistence Priority.''
On April 12, 1994, the Northwest Arctic Regional Council, Stevens
Village Council, Kawerak, Inc., Copper River Native Assoc., Alaska
Federation of Natives, Alaska Inter-tribal Council, RurAL CAP and
Dinyee Corporation filed a ``Petition for Rule-Making by the
Secretaries of Interior and Agriculture that Selected But Not Conveyed
Lands Are To Be Treated as Public Lands for the Purposes of the
Subsistence Priority in Title VIII of ANILCA and that Uses on Non-
Public Lands in Alaska May Be Restricted to Protect Subsistence Uses on
Public Lands in Alaska.'' A Request for Comments on this Petition was
published at 60 FR 6466 (1995). This advance notice of proposed
rulemaking rule also responds to both these petitions for rulemaking.
Public Review and Comment
Comments on this advance notice of proposed rulemaking and proposed
changes to the preliminary regulatory text included with this notice
may be submitted in writing to the address identified at the beginning
of this rulemaking by June 14, 1996. Comments received by that date
will be considered in the development of the proposed rule. In
addition, the Departments will hold several public hearings in various
locations in Alaska. The specific dates, times, and locations of the
hearings will be announced subsequently.
Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory Councils
Alaska has been divided into ten subsistence resource regions, each
of which is represented by a Federal Subsistence Regional Advisory
Council. The Regional Councils provide a forum for rural residents with
personal knowledge of local conditions to have a meaningful role in the
subsistence management of fish and wildlife on Alaska public lands. The
Councils will have a substantial role in reviewing the proposed rule to
be published subsequently and in making recommendations on the final
rule.
Summary of Changes
This advance notice of proposed rulemaking includes preliminary
regulatory text on the proposed rule amendments being considered. This
level of detail is provided to assist the reviewer in commenting on the
proposals under consideration; the Secretaries may propose these or
other amendments to the subsistence regulations in the proposed rule to
follow this action.
Sec. ____.3 Applicability and scope.
The amendments being considered in this advance notice of proposed
rulemaking would expand the scope of the Federal subsistence program to
include, in addition to the waters already included, all inland
navigable waters within the exterior boundaries of the listed National
Parks, Preserves, Wildlife Refuges, and other specified Federal land
units managed by the Department of the Interior in Alaska. Within the
exterior boundaries of the two national forests in Alaska, the
subsistence program would apply to all inland navigable waters bordered
by lands owned by the United States.
The Department of the Interior agencies, to assure the effective
stewardship of fish and wildlife, adequately protect subsistence uses,
and prevent interference with the effective management of the Federal
subsistence priority, have determined a need to apply the subsistence
program to waters throughout the Federal land units listed in
Sec. ____.3(b)(1) of the preliminary regulatory text which are managed
by the Department, whether or not the United States is the littoral or
riparian owner of any given reach. Land ownership patterns within these
units are complex, most of the land has not been surveyed, and
ownership is still changing as land selections are conveyed to the
State of Alaska and Alaska Native Corporations. The Interior agencies
believe that the substantial complications inherent in ``checkerboard''
subsistence management based upon land ownership bordering specific
portions of water bodies within the exterior boundaries of the listed
Federal land units necessarily would be detrimental to the resources
for which the Department of the Interior is responsible.
Within the exterior boundaries of the two national forests situated
in Alaska which are listed in Sec. ____.3(b)(2) of the preliminary
regulatory text, the Federal subsistence program will be extended
[[Page 15016]]
only to those inland waters bordered by lands owned by the United
States. The Secretary of Agriculture has not identified reserved water
rights, necessary for the purposes for which the two national forests
were established, in reaches of water that are not bordered by
federally owned national forest lands. Accordingly, extending the
Federal subsistence program to these nonadjacent waters is not
considered necessary to assure effective stewardship of fish and
wildlife, adequately protect subsistence uses, prevent interference
with the Federal subsistence management program, or avoid detriment
otherwise to national forest resources. The majority of inland waters
located within the exterior boundaries of the two forests and which are
not bordered by national forest lands are contained within relatively
large and easily identified tracts of land owned by Alaska Native
Corporations or the State of Alaska or its municipalities. In addition,
the Federal Subsistence Board would have authority under Sec. ____.10
of the preliminary regulatory text to restrict where necessary serious
interference with the subsistence priority from hunting, fishing, or
trapping activities that take place in these nonadjacent waters.
The existing regulations for the Federal subsistence management
program specify that the program applies to all non-navigable waters
located on the public lands and to waters specifically listed in
Sec. ____.3(b) (1)-(11), which consist of certain pre-statehood
reserves. In these areas the program extends to public lands and to
waters over land owned by the United States. This includes certain
marine waters within the boundaries of pre-Statehood reserves. This
advance notice of proposed rulemaking would amend Sec. ____.3(b) to add
to the Federal subsistence management program all inland navigable
waters, as specified in Sec. ____.3(b) (1) and (2), within and adjacent
to the boundaries of the specified Federal land units regardless of
ownership of submerged lands. Pre-statehood reservation of marine
waters listed in the present regulations at Sec. ____.3(b) (1)-(11)
would continue to be included in the subsistence management program.
Sec. ____.4 Definitions
The regulatory amendments being considered would change the
definition of ``Federal lands'' to include navigable and non-navigable
inland waters in which the United States has a reserved water right.
This amendment would conform the Federal subsistence management program
with the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Alaska v. Babbitt.
This advance notice of proposed rulemaking also would amend the
definition of ``Public Lands or public land'' to treat as public land
certain Federal lands described in ANILCA Sec. 906(o)(2) which have
been selected by the State of Alaska or an Alaska Native Corporation
but not yet conveyed. This change would be proposed in response to the
April 12, 1994, ``Petition for Rule-Making by the Secretaries of
Interior and Agriculture that Selected But Not Conveyed Lands are To Be
Treated as Public Lands for the Purposes of the Subsistence Priority in
Title VIII of ANILCA and that Uses on Non-Public Lands in Alaska May be
Restricted to Protect Subsistence Uses on Public Lands in Alaska,''
which was filed by the Northwest Arctic Regional Council, et al. After
reviewing the matter, the Secretaries have concluded as a matter of law
that certain selected but not conveyed lands are governed by the terms
of ANILCA Sec. 906(o)(2), 43 U.S.C. Sec. 1616(o)(2), which provides
that: ``Until conveyed, all Federal lands within the boundaries of a
Conservation System Unit, National Recreation Area, National
Conservation Area, new national forest or forest addition, shall be
administered in accordance with the laws applicable to such unit.''
Accordingly, the Secretaries have determined that all Federal lands
within the units specified in ANILCA Sec. 906(o)(2) will be
administered as part of the unit to which they belong and will be
subject to the administrative jurisdiction of the Federal Subsistence
Board until conveyed from Federal ownership. The contemplated change
relating to the definition of public lands contained in the preliminary
regulatory text reflects the Secretaries' conclusions in this regard.
This advance notice of proposed rulemaking also would add new
definitions of ``reserved water rights'' and ``inland waters'' for
clarity. The ``reserved water rights'' definition follows Supreme Court
precedent, specifically Cappaert v. United States, 426 U.S. 128, 138
(1976). The ``inland waters'' definition establishes two standards to
determine whether a given water is inland or marine. A water that
satisfies either (or both) of the two standards for inland waters would
be considered inland for purposes of the Federal subsistence program
under the preliminary regulatory text included here. If a water is
located landward of the mean high tide line, the water is inland.
Similarly, any water is inland if it is located upstream of the line
drawn across the mouth of waters entering the sea. The definition also
contains a nonexclusive list of the kinds of waters which are commonly
found inland.
Sec. ____.10 Federal Subsistence Board
This advance notice of proposed rulemaking would unambiguously
delegate to the Federal Subsistence Board the authority to regulate
hunting, fishing and trapping activities on non-public lands in Alaska
which interfere with subsistence activities on the public lands to such
an extent as to result in a failure to provide the subsistence
priority. The Secretaries expect that the Board would exercise this
authority sparingly. Prior to taking action in any such case, it is
expected that the Board would consult with, and make a significant
effort to resolve the conflict through cooperative action with, the
State of Alaska, the appropriate Regional Council, and the National
Marine Fisheries Service where appropriate. The Board's regulatory
authority under this provision would be limited to the territorial
limits of the State of Alaska and would not extend to offshore
fisheries beyond the territorial waters of Alaska. All international
treaty obligations of the United States with respect to fish and
wildlife and their habitats also must be adhered to.
This advance notice of proposed rulemaking would provide, in
addition, the Federal Subsistence Board with authority to investigate
whether in appropriate instances there exist additional Federal
reservations of public lands, Federal reserved water rights or other
Federal interests, including those in which the United States has a
less than fee ownership interest, which should be included in the
Federal subsistence management program, and to make recommendations to
the Secretaries for the inclusion of those interests within the Federal
subsistence management program. Such interests might include Federal
lands not listed in Sec. ____.3(b) of the preliminary regulatory text,
including military reserves and some or all of hundreds of remote
parcels in Alaska.
Conformance With Statutory and Regulatory Authorities
National Environmental Policy Act Compliance
A Draft Environmental Impact Statement that described four
alternatives for developing a Federal Subsistence Management Program
was distributed for public comment on October 7, 1991. That document
described the major issues associated with Federal subsistence
management of fish and wildlife; draft administrative
[[Page 15017]]
regulations also were included as an appendix. A Final Environmental
Impact Statement for the Federal Subsistence Management Program was
published on February 28, 1992. In accordance with that Impact
Statement, the Subsistence Management Regulations for Public Lands in
Alaska: Final Rule (57 FR 22940-22964), was published on May 29, 1992.
This advance notice of proposed rulemaking considers amendments to the
rule that was adopted as a result of that process.
The scope of the existing Federal subsistence regulations already
includes substantial areas of both navigable and non-navigable waters
in Alaska; accordingly, the Federal Subsistence Board has adopted a
comprehensive set of annual subsistence fishing regulations in Subpart
D. This advance notice of proposed rulemaking identifies additional
waters to which the Subpart D annual subsistence fishing regulations
will apply, as required by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Alaska
v. Babbitt, but would not amend those existing Subpart D regulations.
In addition, in response to a Petition for Rulemaking, this advance
notice of proposed rulemaking would expand the authority of the Federal
Subsistence Board by unambiguously delegating to the Board the
authority to exercise the power of the Secretaries to regulate hunting,
fishing and trapping activities which occur on nonpublic lands and
waters in Alaska when such activities interfere with the Federal
subsistence priority to such an extent as to result in a failure to
provide the subsistence priority. It would also apply the program to
certain selected but not conveyed lands within specified Federal land
units as required by Sec. 906(o)(2) of ANILCA.
All or portions of this advance notice of proposed rulemaking may
be appropriate for issuance as a final interpretive rule or be subject
to a categorical exclusion from the National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA), 42 U.S.C. Sec. 4332(2)(C). Appropriate compliance with NEPA
will be completed before a final rule is issued.
It has been determined that this advance notice of proposed
rulemaking has no environmental justice implications under Executive
Order 12898. In the event it is determined that preparation of an
environmental impact statement is necessary before a final rule can
issue on part or all of this proposal, an assessment under Executive
Order 12898 will be included in that statement.
Compliance With Section 810 of ANILCA
The intent of all Federal subsistence regulations is to accord
subsistence uses of fish and wildlife on public lands a priority over
the taking of fish and wildlife on such lands for other purposes,
unless a restriction is necessary to conserve healthy fish and wildlife
populations. A Section 810 analysis was completed as part of the Final
Environmental Impact Statement on the Federal Subsistence Management
Program in 1992. It has been determined that this advance notice of
proposed rulemaking will not significantly restrict subsistence uses on
the public lands. In the event it is determined that it is necessary to
prepare an environmental impact statement in connection with the
proposed rule, an analysis of effects on subsistence as set forth in
section 810 of ANILCA will be included in that statement.
Paperwork Reduction Act
The Department of the Interior has already received clearance under
the Paperwork Reduction Act for its existing regulations governing
annual subsistence take. The information collection requirements of
those rules have been approved by the Office of Management and Budget
under 44 U.S.C. Sec. 3501 and have been assigned clearance number 1018-
0075. Should any additional clearances be required as a result of the
expansion of the Federal Subsistence Board's jurisdiction described in
this advance notice of proposed rulemaking, the Secretaries will obtain
them before the rule imposing the information collection requirements
become effective.
Executive Order 12866
This advance notice of proposed rulemaking has been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget under Executive Order 12866.
Economic Effects
The Departments have determined that this advance notice of
proposed rulemaking would not have a significant economic effect on a
substantial number of small entities within the meaning of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980, 5 U.S.C. 601 et seq. This advance
notice of proposed rulemaking simply would identify waters which the
Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has determined are subject to Federal
subsistence management, provide the Federal Subsistence Board with the
authority to manage those waters, and consolidate in the Board other
existing regulatory authority of the Secretaries. In the event that
future regulations affect small entities, the Board would be required
to conduct a Regulatory Flexibility Act analysis at that time. This
Notice will impose no direct, indirect, non-quantifiable or enforcement
costs on small entities; no changes in the demography of populations
are anticipated; there will be no significant effect upon existing
information collection and recordkeeping requirements; and no aggregate
effects on small entities are anticipated. The aggregate effect would
be an insignificant economic effect on a number of small entities. The
number of small entities affected is unknown but the fact that the
effects, if any, will be negligible indicates that they will not be
significant within the meaning of the Regulatory Flexibility Act.
Federalism Assessment
This advance notice of proposed rulemaking does not meet the
threshold of ``Federalism Effects'' as set forth in Executive Order
12612 and is consistent with the existing parameters of established
Federal authority as set forth by the Federal courts.
Taking Assessment
In accordance with Executive Order 12630, it has been determined
that this advance notice of proposed rulemaking has no takings of
private property implications.
Unfunded Mandates
The Secretaries have determined and certify pursuant to the
Unfunded Mandates Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this advance notice
of proposed rulemaking will not impose a cost of $100 million or more
in any given year on local or State governments or private entities.
Drafting Information.--The preliminary regulatory text included
with this Notice was drafted by the Office of the Regional
Solicitor, 4230 University Drive, Suite 300, Anchorage, AK, 99508-
4626, with assistance from the Office of the Solicitor, 1849 C
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., 20240.
List of Subjects
36 CFR Part 242
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, National
Forests, Public lands, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Wildlife.
50 CFR Part 100
Administrative practice and procedure, Alaska, Fish, Public lands,
Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Wildlife.
The following preliminary regulatory text is provided to assist the
reviewer in commenting on the changes under
[[Page 15018]]
consideration; the Secretaries may propose these or other amendments to
the subsistence regulations in the proposed rule to follow this action.
PART ______--SUBSISTENCE MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS FOR PUBLIC LANDS IN
ALASKA
1. Subpart A of 36 CFR Part 242 and 50 CFR 100, Sec. ____.3 is
proposed to be amended by replacing the existing Sec. ____.3(b) with
the following language and deleting Sec. ____.3(c).
Sec. ____.3 Applicability and Scope.
(b) The regulations contained in Subpart D apply:
(1)(i) On all public lands including all waters located on these
lands, on all navigable and nonnavigable waters within the exterior
boundaries of the following units, and on inland waters adjacent to the
exterior boundaries of the following units:
(A) Alaska Maritime National Wildlife Refuge;
(B) Alaska Peninsula National Wildlife Refuge;
(C) Aniakchak National Monument and Preserve;
(D) Arctic National Wildlife Refuge;
(E) Becharof National Wildlife Refuge;
(F) Bering Land Bridge National Preserve;
(G) Cape Krusenstern National Monument;
(H) Denali National Preserve and the 1980 additions to Denali
National Park;
(I) Gates of the Arctic National Park and Preserve;
(J) Glacier Bay National Preserve;
(K) Innoko National Wildlife Refuge;
(L) Izembek National Wildlife Refuge;
(M) Katmai National Preserve;
(N) Kanuti National Wildlife Refuge;
(O) Kenai National Wildlife Refuge;
(P) Kobuk Valley National Park;
(Q) Kodiak National Wildlife Refuge;
(R) Koyukuk National Wildlife Refuge;
(S) Lake Clark National Park and Preserve;
(T) National Petroleum Reserve in Alaska;
(U) Noatak National Preserve;
(V) Nowitna National Wildlife Refuge;
(W) Selawik National Wildlife Refuge;
(X) Steese National Conservation Area;
(Y) Tetlin National Wildlife Refuge;
(Z) Togiak National Wildlife Refuge;
(AA) White Mountain National Recreation Area;
(BB) Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve;
(CC) Yukon-Charley Rivers National Preserve;
(DD) Yukon Delta National Wildlife Refuge;
(EE) Yukon Flats National Wildlife Refuge;
(FF) all components of the Wild and Scenic River System located
outside of the boundaries of National Parks, National Preserves or
National Wildlife Refuges, including segments of the Alagnak River,
Beaver Creek, Birch Creek, Delta River, Fortymile River, Gulkana River
and Unalakleet River.
(ii) [Reserved]
(2) The regulations contained in Subpart D apply on all public
lands including all inland waters, located on or bordered by other
public lands, within or adjacent to the exterior boundaries of the
following reservations:
(i) Chugach National Forest
(ii) Tongass National Forest, including Admiralty Island National
Monument and Misty Fjords National Monument.
2. In Subpart A of 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR 100, Sec. __.4, the
Definitions of ``Federal lands'' and ``Public lands or public land''
are proposed to be revised to read as follows:
Federal lands means lands and waters and interests therein the
title to which is in the United States, including navigable and non-
navigable waters in which the United States has reserved water rights.
Public lands or public land means:
(a) Lands situated in Alaska which are Federal lands, except--
(1) Land selections of the State of Alaska which have been
tentatively approved or validly selected under the Alaska Statehood Act
and lands which have been confirmed to, validly selected by, or granted
to the Territory of Alaska or the State under any other provision of
Federal law;
(2) Land selections of a Native Corporation made under the Alaska
Native Claims Settlement Act which have not been conveyed to a Native
Corporation, unless any such selection is determined to be invalid or
is relinquished; and
(3) Lands referred to in section 19(b) of the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act.
(b) Notwithstanding the exceptions in paragraphs (a)(1), (2) and
(3), of this section until conveyed, all Federal lands within the
boundaries of a Conservation System Unit, National Recreation Area,
National Conservation Area, new national forest or forest addition
shall be treated as public lands for purposes of the regulations in
this part pursuant to Sec. 906(o)(2) of ANILCA.
3. In Subpart A of 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR 100, Sec. ____.4, new
definitions of ``inland waters'' and ``reserved water rights'' are
proposed to be added in alphabetical order as set forth below:
Inland waters means, for purposes of the regulations in this part,
those waters located landward of the mean high tide line or waters
located upstream of the straight line drawn from headland to headland
across the mouths of rivers or other waters as they flow into the sea.
Inland waters include, but are not limited to, lakes, reservoirs,
ponds, creeks, streams and rivers.
Reserved water right(s) means the Federal right to use the
unappropriated appurtenant water necessary to accomplish the purposes
for which a Federal reservation was established. Reserved water rights
include nonconsumptive and consumptive uses.
4. Subpart B of 36 CFR part 242 and 50 CFR 100, Sec. ____.10 is
proposed to be amended by adding the following
Secs. ____.10(d)(4)(xviii) and ____.10(d)(4)(xix):
Sec. ____.10 Federal Subsistence Board
(d)(4)(xviii) Determine when hunting, fishing or trapping
activities which occur on lands or waters in Alaska other than public
lands interfere with subsistence hunting, fishing or trapping on the
public lands to such an extent as to result in a failure to provide the
subsistence priority, and after appropriate consultation with the State
of Alaska, the regional councils, and other Federal agencies, to
restrict or eliminate said activities;
(d)(4)(xix) Identify, in appropriate specific instances, whether
there exist additional Federal reservations, Federal reserved water
rights or other Federal interests in lands or waters, including those
in which the United States holds less than a fee ownership, to which
the Federal subsistence priority attaches and make appropriate
recommendations to the Secretaries for inclusion of those interests
within the Federal subsistence management program.
Dated: March 29, 1996.
Phil Janik,
Regional Forester, USDA Forest Service.
Dated: March 29, 1996.
Bruce Babbitt,
Secretary of the Interior.
[FR Doc. 96-8188 Filed 4-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-11-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8119 Radio Broadcasting Services; Boulder and Lafayette, CO
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 66 (Thursday, April 4, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Page 15022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8119]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION
47 CFR Part 73
[MM Docket No. 96-64; RM-8747]
Radio Broadcasting Services; Boulder and Lafayette, CO
AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This document requests comments on a petition for rule making
filed on behalf of Salem Media of Colorado, Inc., licensee of Station
KRKS-FM, Channel 234C, Boulder, Colorado, requesting the reallotment of
Channel 234C to Lafayette, Colorado, as that community's first local
transmission service, and modification of the authorization for Station
KRKS-FM to specify Lafayette as its community of license, pursuant to
the provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules.
Coordinates used for Channel 234C at Lafayette are 39-40-35 and 105-29-
09. As the petitioner's modification proposal complies with the
provisions of Section 1.420(i) of the Commission's Rules, we will not
accept competing expressions of interest in the use of Channel 234C at
Lafayette, Colorado, or require the petitioner to demonstrate the
availability of an additional equivalent class channel.
DATES: Comments must be filed on or before May 21, 1996, and reply
comments on or before June 5, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Secretary, Federal Communications Commission, Washington, DC
20554. In addition to filing comments with the FCC, interested parties
should serve the petitioner's counsel, as follows: James P. Riley,
Esq., Fletcher, Heald & Hildreth, P.C., 1300 North 17th Street, 11th
Flr., Rosslyn, VA 22209-3801.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Nancy Joyner, Mass Media Bureau, (202)
418-2180.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This is a synopsis of the Commission's
Notice of Proposed Rule Making, MM Docket No. 96-64, adopted March 8,
1996, and released March 29, 1996. The full text of this Commission
decision is available for inspection and copying during normal business
hours in the FCC's Reference Center (Room 239), 1919 M Street, NW.,
Washington, DC. The complete text of this decision may also be
purchased from the Commission's copy contractors, International
Transcription Service, Inc., (202) 857-3800, 2100 M Street, NW., Suite
140, Washington, DC 20037.
Provisions of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of l980 do not apply
to this proceeding.
Members of the public should note that from the time a Notice of
Proposed Rule Making is issued until the matter is no longer subject to
Commission consideration or court review, all ex parte contacts are
prohibited in Commission proceedings, such as this one, which involve
channel allotments. See 47 CFR 1.1204(b) for rules governing
permissible ex parte contacts.
For information regarding proper filing procedures for comments,
See 47 CFR 1.415 and 1.420.
List of Subjects in 47 CFR Part 73
Radio broadcasting.
Federal Communications Commission.
John A. Karousos,
Chief, Allocations Branch, Policy and Rules Division, Mass Media
Bureau.
[FR Doc. 96-8119 Filed 4-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6712-01-F
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-8094 Program for Qualifying DOD, Air Freight Forwarders
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 66 (Thursday, April 4, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15010-15014]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-8094]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE
Department of the Army
32 CFR Part 619
Program for Qualifying DOD, Air Freight Forwarders
AGENCY: Military Traffic Management Command, DOD.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: This action adds qualifications standards for Air Freight
Forwarders and establishes a change in the basic agreement between the
Military Traffic Management Command and Air Freight Forwarders. The
proposal to amend those qualifications, where appropriate, are
submitted to be consistent with the Surface Freight Forwarders
requirements.
DATES: Comments must be received by May 6, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Headquarters, Military Traffic Management Command, ATTN:
MTOP-QQ, 5611 Columbia Pike, Falls Church, VA 22041-5050.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. Rick Wirtz, telephone: (703) 681-6393.
[[Page 15011]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Basic information on the Carrier
Qualification Program was previously published in the Federal
Register, 53 FR 17970, 54 FR 27667, 55 FR 7361, 55 FR 52976 and 56
FR 45895 and 57 FR 11376.
Executive Order 12291
This proposed rule was reviewed under Executive Order 12291 and the
Secretary of the Army has classified this action as non major. The
effect of the rule on the economy will be less than $100 million.
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been reviewed with regard to the
requirements of the Regulatory Flexibility Act of 1980 and the
Secretary of the Army has certified that this action does not have a
significant impact on a substantial number of small entities. The
objective of the program is to ensure that DOD obtains safe,
dependable, and reliable transportation services. The requirements are
not designed to preclude participation by small businesses. Rather,
they are part of a mechanism designed to ensure that traffic offered to
small businesses does not exceed their capabilities. The program's
reporting and record keeping requirements are essentially
administrative in nature and do not demand significant expenditures of
resources such as personnel, computer equipment, or software. No
professional or technical training is necessary to comply with these
requirements. Alternatives to facilitate entry of small businesses have
been identified and implemented.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule is approved by the Office of Management and
Budget as required under the requirements of the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1980 (44 U.S.C. 3507).
List of Subjects in 32 CFR Part 619
Shipping, Motor vehicles, Safety, Trucks, Common carriers, Freight.
Accordingly, Part 619 of Title 32 of the Code of Federal
Regulations is amended by the following changes:
1. The authority citation for part 619 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 49 U.S.C. 1801-1813, 2503, 2505, and 2509.
2. In Sec. 619.1, the introductory text is amended by revising the
first sentence to read as follows:
Sec. 619.1 Introduction.
Carriers, surface freight forwarders, shipper agents, and air
freight forwarders interested in qualifying or remaining qualified will
submit data described in Secs. 619.2 through 619.6 to the appropriate
area command (Bayonne, NJ or Oakland, CA) based on the location of the
carrier's headquarters. * * *
* * * * *
3. Section 619.4, is amended by revising paragraphs (a), (b)
introductory text and (b)(5) to read as follows:
Sec. 619.4 Insurance--Public liability and cargo.
(a) Public Liability. Motor carriers, surface freight forwarders,
shipper agents and air freight forwarders will submit proof of public
liability insurance to MTMC on a certificate of insurance form issued
by the insurance company. Expiration dates will not be reflected on the
certificate, the policy must be continuous until cancelled. However,
the deductible portion will be shown on the certificate. The insurance
underwriters must be rated in the Best's Insurance Guide, or listed in
the Fiscal Service Treasury Department Circular 570, Listing of Surety
Companies. The certificate holder block of the form will indicate that
HQMTMC, 5611 Columbia Pike, Falls Church, Virginia 22041-5050, Attn:
MT-INFF, will be notified, in writing, 30 days in advanced of any
change or cancellation. The public liability requirements are specified
in 49 CFR 387.9. Surface freight forwarders and shipper agents will
submit proof of $1 million public liability (death and bodily injury,
property damage, and environment restoration).
(b) Cargo. Motor common carriers, surface freight forwarders,
shipper agents and air freight forwarders must have their insurance
company provide a certificate of insurance form. The deductible portion
will be shown on the certificate. The insurance underwriter must have a
policyholder's rating in the Best's Insurance Guide, listed in the
Fiscal Service Treasury Department Circular 570, Listing of Surety
Companies or specifically approved by HQMTMC. DOD's minimum cargo
insurance requirements are listed below.
* * * * *
(5) Surface freight forwarders, shipper agents and air freight
forwarders--$250,000 per shipment.
4. Section 619.6 is amended by revising the introductory text and
paragraph (k) as follows:
Sec. 619.6 Information.
Motor carriers, surface freight forwarders and shipper agents will
provide HQMTMC the following information:
(k) In addition to information contained in (a) through (h) and (o)
above, exempt surface freight forwarders, shipper agents and air
freight forwarders must furnish a listing of carriers which they have a
contract with and intend to use in the movement of government
shipments. Information must include the complete company name, company
officials to include their position and title, home office addresses,
telephone numbers, 24 hour emergency point of contact for shipment
status, and ICC operating authority number of each carrier.
5. Section 619.7 is amended by revising paragraph (d) as follows:
Sec. 619.7 Performance Bond.
* * * * *
(d) Surface Freight Forwarders, Shipper Agents and Air Freight
Forwarders. Due to the volume of traffic handled by these modes and the
area normally serviced the bond amount is set at $100,000.
6. Section 619.8 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 619.8 Basic Agreement.
Motor carriers, surface freight forwarders, shipper agents and air
freight forwarders meeting the qualification requirements of
Secs. 619.1 through 619.7 will be required to sign the appropriate
Basic Agreement in the appendices to this part.
7. A new Appendix G is added to part 619 of the appendices as
follows:
Appendix G to Part 619--Agreement Between the Military Traffic
Management Command and Air Freight Forwarders Governing the
Transportation of General Commodities for and on Behalf of U.S.
Department of Defense
1. The undersigned, who is duly authorized and empowered to act on
behalf of
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Name of Forwarder, Typed or Legibly Printed)
hereinafter referred to as the forwarder, as a prerequisite for
consideration for participation in the transport of general commodities
as an exempt air freight forwarder, for the U.S. Department of Defense
(DOD), agree to comply with all requirements, terms and conditions as
set forth in this Agreement. Noncompliance with any provisions of this
Agreement will be sufficient grounds for immediate revocation of the
forwarder's privilege to participate in the movement of DOD freight.
For the purpose of this Agreement, an air freight forwarder is defined
as a person or company who acts as a common carrier, that is, a carrier
which holds itself out
[[Page 15012]]
to the general public to provide transportation of property for
compensation, assembles and consolidates less-than-truckload freight,
as defined in the Instruction for preparation of Department of Defense
Standard Tender of Freight Services, MT Form 364-4 (and revisions
thereto), Part II, and uses for the whole or any part of the line-haul
transportation the services of regulated motor or air carriers, break
bulk, and delivers the less-than-truckload freight holding out in its
own name and under its own responsibility a through transportation
service from point of receipt to destination.
2. Approval and Revocation.
a. Forwarder understands that its initial approval and retention of
approval are contingent upon establishing and maintaining, to MTMC's
satisfaction, sufficient resources to support its proposed scope of
operations and services. Sufficient resources include personnel,
facilities, carriers with adequate equipment, and finances to handle
the traffic anticipated by DOD/MTMC under the forwarder's proposed
scope of operations in accordance with the service requirements of the
shipper.
b. The forwarder understands that MTMC may revoke approval at any
time upon discovery of grounds for ineligibility or disqualification.
c. In addition to the initial evaluation, the forwarder agrees that
it will cooperate with MTMC follow-up evaluations at any time
subsequent to signing this Agreement to confirm continued eligibility.
d. The forwarder agrees and certifies that neither the owners,
company, corporate officials, nor any affiliation or subsidiary thereof
are currently debarred or suspended, disqualified by a MTMC Carrier
Review Board (CRB), or placed in non-use by MTMC from doing business
with DOD.
3. Transportation Protective Services (TPS).
a. The forwarder agrees and certifies that it will only use
carriers approved through the carrier qualification program to perform
the applicable TPS and will not use any carrier which does not meet all
requirements of this agreement.
b. Exceptions to the provisions of a. above, pertaining to use of
TPS carriers only may be approved by MTMC on a case-by-case basis.
Approval will be based on MTMC review and approval of a detailed plan
by the forwarder detailing their procedures to insure the continuing
in-transit security of TPS freight while in possession of non-TPS
carriers. Carriers used will otherwise be fully approved and
signatories to this agreement.
c. Forwarder will enter into formal, written agreements with
carriers used to transport TPS freight. Agreement will require the
carrier to notify the forwarder and MTMC operations center at (703)
681-6125 within two hours of experiencing any unscheduled landing or
other emergency involving aircraft transporting TPS freight.
4. Lawful Performance.
a. Forwarder agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state,
municipal and other local laws and regulations. No fines, charges, or
assessments for overloaded vehicles or other violations of applicable
laws and regulations will be passed to, or be paid by any agency of the
Federal Government.
b. The forwarder agrees to keep current and on file a list of all
carriers to be used in the transport of DOD freight shipments. This
list will contain, as a minimum, the company's name, president/vice
president's name, operating authority number, corporate office address,
telephone number and a designated 24-hour on call point of contact in
the event of an accident or emergency situation. MTMC can direct
forwarder not to use specific carriers in the movement of DOD freight
shipments.
c. The forwarder further agrees and certifies that it will only use
carriers that are approved through the carrier qualification program to
transport DOD freight, and will not use any carrier that has been
debarred, suspended by the Government or which has been placed on non-
use or disqualified by MTMC from doing business with the DOD for the
movement of any DOD freight shipments.
5. Operations. The forwarder agrees and certifies that it is
operating as a forwarder as defined herein. If incorporated, evidence
of incorporation, bearing the official seal of the state in which
filed, Articles of Incorporation, listing all the officers of the
corporation is attached and certified to be true, correct and current.
6. Insurance.
a. The forwarder agrees to maintain a minimum of $1,000,000 public
liability insurance and $250,000 cargo insurance for loss and damage of
Government freight. A copy of the certificate of insurance must be on
file with MTMC, ATTN: MTOP-QQ, prior to any performance of service by
the forwarder.
b. The insurance, carried in the name of the forwarder, will be in
force at all times while this Agreement is in effect or until such time
as the forwarder cancels all tenders. The forwarder cancels all
tenders. The forwarder agrees to ensure that the policies include a
provision requiring the insurer to notify MTMC prior to any performance
of service by the carrier. The certificate holder block of the form
will indicate that MTMC, 5611 Columbia Pike, Falls Church, Virginia
22041-5050, ATTN: MTOP-QQ, will be notified in writing, 30 days in
advance of any change or cancellation. The deductible portion will be
provided on the certificate.
c. The insurance underwriter must have a policy/holder's rating in
the Best's Insurance Guide, listed in the Fiscal Service Treasury
Department Circular 570, Listing of Surety Companies. Self-Insurance
will not be accepted.
7. Performance Bond.
a. Forwarder agrees to provide MTMC with a Performance Bond. The
bond secures performance and fulfillment of the forwarder's obligation.
It will cover default, abandoned shipments, bankruptcy and
reprocurement costs. The bond will not be utilized for operational
problems such as late pick up or delivery, excessive transit time,
refusals, no shows, improper or inadequate equipment or claims for lost
or damaged cargo. The bond must be issued by a surety company listed in
the Fiscal Service, Treasury Department Circular No. 570. The sum of
the bond shall be no less than $100,000. The bond must be completed on
the form provided by MTMC and will be continuous until canceled. MTMC
will be notified, in writing, 30 days in advance of any change or
cancellation. A letter of intent by the surety company is required with
the initial application. Upon MTMC approval forwarder will submit the
performance bond before the Tender of Service will be accepted.
8. Safety.
a. The forwarder agrees not to use any carrier that has an
``unsatisfactory'' safety rating with the Federal Highway
Administration, Department of Transportation, and if it is an
intrastate motor carrier, with the appropriate state agency.
b. Shipments will be delivered in direct service without delay to
the destination shown on the Government Bills of Lading unless
consignee or consignor directs diversion of the shipment to a new or
different destination. Deliveries will be made during the shipper's
normal business hours.
c. The forwarder agrees to not divulge any information to
unauthorized persons concerning nature and movement of any shipment
tendered to it.
[[Page 15013]]
d. The forwarder agrees to notify within 24-hours, the consignor
and consignee named by the Government Bill of Lading (GBL) or
Commercial Bill or Lading (CBL) of cargo loss, damage, or unusual
delay. Information reported will include origin/destination, GBL/CBL.
number, shipping paper information, time and place of occurrence, and
other pertinent details. Upon request, the forwarder agrees to ensure
MTMC is furnished a coy of accident reports submitted to Department of
Transportation on Form MCS 50-T (Property).
e. The forwarder agrees to have in place a company-wide safety
management program. Forwarder safety program will comply with
applicable Federal, State, and local statutes or requirements. Safety
programs at the company-wide or terminal level may be subject to
evaluation by DOD representatives. The forwarder further agrees to
permit unannounced safety inspections of its facilities, terminals,
equipment, employees, and procedures by DOD civilian, military
personnel, or DOD contract employees.
9. Reserved.
10. Equipment.
a. The forwarder agrees to ensure, equipment is spotted for loading
at the time and place requested. Civil Reserve Air Fleet (CRAF)
carriers will be used whenever possible for the movement of DOD
freight. The Government reserves the right to reject the utilization of
any equipment placed for loading by the forwarder it does not, upon
inspection, meet specifications and requirements for the particular
shipment involved (sizes, cube, cleanliness, mechanical condition,
etc.).
11. Shipment.
a. Further, the forwarder agrees to not divulge any information to
unauthorized persons concerning the nature and movement of any DOD
shipment.
12. Documentation.
a. Forwarder agrees to accept Government Bills of Lading on which
freight charges will be paid by the Government, and will be bound by
the terms and conditions stated thereon.
b. The forwarder agrees to comply with the provisions of
documentation prelodging in effect at Military Terminals which cargo is
consigned for further movement overseas. (Prelodging is the submission
of advance shipment documents that identifies the shipment to the
Military Terminals prior to arrival of the cargo at the terminal to
permit preparation of the terminal documentation.) Instructions will be
provided by the consignees to furnish certain data at least 24 hours in
advance of cargo arrival at the terminal.
13. Loss & Damage.
a. The forwarder agrees to be fully liable for delivery of all
cargo in the same condition as received at origin, except loss or
damage caused by act of God, public enemy act, omission of shipper,
inherent vice or detrimental changes due to nature of commodity, or
natural shrinkage. Forwarder agrees to settle promptly, claims for loss
or damage. The forwarder also agrees to provide the status of any
shipment tendered to them within 24-hours after an inquiry is made.
14. Standard Tender of Service.
a. The forwarder agrees to comply with the preparation and filing
instructions and applicable freight traffic rules publications issued
by MTMC. Forwarder understands that MTMC will reject tenders not in
compliance with these instructions.
b. Forwarder agrees to publish a street address where the company
office is located in lieu of a post office box number. Military Traffic
Management Command must be advised of any change in address. Failure to
do so is grounds to discontinue the use of the forwarder.
c. Forwarder understands that tenders inadvertently accepted and
distributed for use and not in compliance with this agreement, the
provisions contained in the Standard Tender of Freight Services (MT
Form 364-R), or the applicable, MTMC Freight Traffic Rules Publication,
and supplements thereof, will be subject to immediate removal or non-
use until corrections are made. The issuing forwarder will be advised
when tenders are removed under these circumstances.
15. Rates
a. Forwarder agrees to transport Government shipments at its lowest
effective charge named in the tender applicable on the commodity
transported, whether or not the rate tender is referenced on the GBL.
b. The forwarder agrees to publish through rates guaranteed for at
least 30 days. These rates must be filed with TRANSCOM
.---------------------------------------------------------------------
The forwarder must publish all rates, changes, and accessorial services
on a ``Department of Defense Standard Tender of Freight Services'', MT
Form 364-R and must comply with the tender preparation instructions.
(Only services annotated with a charge in the tender will be paid by
the shipper.)
c. The forwarder agrees to promptly refund all uncontested
overcharges to the Government and authorizes the Government to deduct
the amount of overcharges from any amount subsequently found to be due
the forwarder.
d. The Government reserves the right to pursue administrative
claims directly with forwarders under the Interstate Commerce Act or
other authorities.
16. Carrier Performance.
a. Forwarder agrees that its performance, and standards of service
will conform with its obligations under Federal, State and local law
and regulation as well as with the guidelines found in the Defense
Traffic Management Regulation (DTMR) and this Agreement. The forwarder
fully understands its obligation to remain current in its knowledge of
service standards. The forwarder accepts the Government's right to
revoke declare ineligible, non-use, or disqualify the carrier for
unsatisfactory service for any operating deficiency, noncompliance with
terms of this Agreement or terms of any negotiated agreements, tariffs,
tenders, bills of lading or similar arrangements, tariffs, tenders,
bills of lading or similar arrangements determining the relationship of
the parties, or for the publication or assessment of unreasonable
rates, charges, rules, descriptions, classifications, practices, or
other unreasonable provisions of tariffs and tenders. Rules governing
the Carrier Performance Program are found in MTMC Regulation 15-1, and
Army Regualtion5 5-355, DTMR. If a forwarder is removed or disqualified
for 6 months or more, it will have to re-qualify.
b. Failure or nonperformance by the forwarder with any of the terms
or conditions of service will constitute a breach of this Agreement.
Government reserves the right to disqualify the forwarder for
unsatisfactory service until such time as the forwarder establishes to
the satisfaction of DOD that the operating or other deficiency(s) has
been corrected.
17. General Provisions. That the forwarder must have a valid
Standard Carrier Alpha Code (SCAC) and use it on all DOD billing
documents to identify the forwarder. When a company holding the
appropriate authority has operating divisions each with its own unique
SCAC, each such division is required to execute a separate agreement
with MTMC governing the transportation of protected commodities.
18. Terms of the Agreement.
a. The terms of this Agreement will be applicable to each shipment.
b. This Agreement shall be effective the date of acknowledgement by
the Military Traffic Management Command,
[[Page 15014]]
until terminated upon receipt of written notice by either party.
c. Nothing in this Agreement will be construed as a guarantee by
the Government of any particular volume of traffic.
d. The forwarder agrees to immediately notify MTMC of any changes
in ownership, in affiliations, executive officers, and/or board members
and forwarder name. Forwarder understands that failure to notify MTMC
shall be grounds for immediate revocation of the forwarder's approval
and their participation the movement of DOD freight.
19. Additional Specialized Requirements. The terms of this
Agreement will not prevent different or additional requirements with
respect to negotiated agreements or added requirements for other types
of service and/or commodities.
20. Inquiries. Inquiries may be referred to Commander, Military
Traffic Management Command, Attention: MTOP-QQ, 5611 Columbia Pike,
Falls Church, Virginia 22041-5050.
21. Forwarder Acknowledgment and acceptance.
a. The undersigned forwarder official, by affixing signature
hereto, states that he has read and understands the general and
specific terms and condition of service outlined and agrees to provide
service in accordance with such terms or conditions. Any information
found to be falsely represented in the Qualification Form the
attachments or during the qualification procedures, to include
additional requirements of this Agreement, shall be grounds for
automatic revocation of this Agreement and immediate non-use of the
forwarder, the affiliated companies, division and entities.
Forwarder's Acknowledgment/Acceptance:
I, ____________________________________,
(Typed name and title of forwarder official)
verify under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States
of America, that the information contained in the forwarder
qualification application packet and this Agreement is true, correct
and complete. If representing a company or organization, I certify
that I am qualified and authorized to offer this information. I know
that willful misstatements or omissions of material facts constitute
Federal criminal violations punishable under 18 U.S.C. 1001 by up to
5 year's imprisonment and fines up to $10,000 for each offense, or
punishable as perjury under 18 U.S.C. 1621 by fines up to $2,000 or
imprisonment up to 5 years for each offense. Further I understand
the requirements of this Agreement and on behalf of
----------------------------------------------------------------------
(Typed name of forwarder)
comply with the terms and conditions contained herein.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Signature of Forwarder Official and Title
Date:------------------------------------------------------------------
Forwarder Address:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Telephone Number:------------------------------------------------------
24-hr Emergency Number:------------------------------------------------
Military Traffic Management Command Acknowledgment/Acceptance
Signature:-------------------------------------------------------------
Title:-----------------------------------------------------------------
Date Approved:---------------------------------------------------------
Gregory D. Showalter,
Army Federal Register Liaison Officer.
[FR Doc. 96-8094 Filed 4-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3710-08-M
Complete official Federal Register PDF
FR Doc. 96-7916 Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Wisconsin
[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 66 (Thursday, April 4, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 15018-15019]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-7916]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 15019]]
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[WI62-01-7145b; FRL-5450-2]
Approval and Promulgation of Implementation Plan; Wisconsin
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The EPA proposes to approve a revision to the Wisconsin State
Implementation Plan (SIP) for ozone that was submitted on May 12, 1995
and later supplemented on June 14, 1995. This revision consists of a
volatile organic compound (VOC) regulation to control emissions from
wood furniture coating operations in ozone nonattainment areas
classified as moderate or worse. In the final rules of this Federal
Register, the EPA is approving this action as a direct final without
prior proposal because EPA views this as a noncontroversial action and
anticipates no adverse comments. If no adverse comments are received in
response to that direct final rule, no further activity is contemplated
in relation to this proposed rule. If EPA receives adverse comments,
the direct final rule will be withdrawn and all public comments
received will be addressed in a subsequent final rule based on this
proposed rule. The EPA will not institute a second comment period on
this action. Any parties interested in commenting on this document
should do so at this time.
DATES: Comments on this proposed action must be received by May 6,
1996.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should be sent to: Carlton T. Nash, Chief,
Regulation Development Section, Air Programs Branch (AR-18J), EPA,
Region 5, 77 West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Douglas Aburano. (312) 353-6960.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: For additional information, see the Direct
Final rule which is located in the Rules section of this Federal
Register. Copies of the request and the EPA's analysis are available
for inspection at the following address: (Please telephone Douglas
Aburano at (312) 353-6960 before visiting the Region 5 office.) EPA,
Region 5, Air and Radiation Division, 77 West Jackson Boulevard,
Chicago, Illinois 60604-3590.
Authority: 42 U.S. C. 7401-7671q.
Dated: February 2, 1996.
Michelle D. Jordan,
Acting Regional Administrator.
[FR Doc. 96-7916 Filed 4-3-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.