National Veterinary Accreditation Program, 64998-65013 [E9-29253]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 235 (Wednesday, December 9, 2009)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 64998-65013]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-29253]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Parts 149, 160, 161, and 162

[Docket No. APHIS-2006-0093]
RIN 0579-AC04


National Veterinary Accreditation Program

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations regarding the National 
Veterinary Accreditation Program to establish two accreditation 
categories in place of the former single category, to add requirements 
for supplemental training and renewal of accreditation, and to offer 
program certifications. We are making these changes in order to support 
the Agency's animal health safeguarding initiatives, to involve 
accredited veterinarians in integrated surveillance activities, and to 
make the provisions governing our National Veterinary Accreditation 
Program more uniform and consistent. These changes will increase the 
level of training and skill of accredited veterinarians in the areas of 
disease prevention and preparedness for animal health emergencies in 
the United States.

EFFECTIVE DATE: February 1, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Todd Behre, National Veterinary 
Accreditation Program, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 200, Riverdale, 
MD 20737; (301) 734-0853.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    The regulations in 9 CFR chapter I, subchapter J (parts 160 through 
162, referred to below as the regulations), govern the accreditation of 
veterinarians and the suspension and revocation of such accreditation. 
These regulations are the foundation for the National Veterinary 
Accreditation Program (NVAP). Accredited veterinarians are approved by 
the Administrator of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service 
(APHIS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), to perform 
certain regulatory tasks to control and prevent the spread of animal 
diseases throughout the United States and internationally.
    We published a proposal to amend the regulations in the Federal 
Register on June 1, 2006 (71 FR 31109-31121, Docket No. APHIS-2006-
0093). We proposed to establish two accreditation categories (Category 
I and Category II) in place of the current single category, to add 
requirements for supplemental training and renewal of accreditation 
every 3 years, and to provide for accreditation specializations.
    We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending 
July 31, 2006. We received 23 comments by that date. They were from 
State departments of agriculture, veterinary medical associations, 
universities, and individual veterinarians.
    In the process of considering the comments we received, we 
identified four changes that we believed would improve the June 2006 
proposed rule. On February 27, 2007, we published a supplemental 
proposed rule \1\ in order to take public comment on these four changes 
(72 FR 8634-8639). We amended the June 2006 proposal by changing the 
scope of Category I and Category II accreditation; requiring initial 
accreditation training for all veterinarians seeking accreditation; 
requiring newly accredited veterinarians to renew their accreditation 
within 3 years of the initial accreditation training; and reducing the 
amount of training required for renewal of accreditation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ To view the June 2006 proposed rule, the February 2007 
supplemental proposal, and the comments we received on both rules, 
go to (https://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2006-0093).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We solicited comments concerning the supplemental proposal for 60 
days ending April 30, 2007. We received 15 comments by that date. They 
were from a State department of agriculture, a veterinary medical 
association, and individual veterinarians.
    The comments on both the June 2006 proposal and the February 2007 
supplemental proposal are discussed below by topic.

General Comments

    One commenter stated that safeguarding the health of animals would 
best be done through owner education and training, not through 
regulations. Another commenter stated that education of veterinarians 
should be performed by the Department of Education, rather than APHIS.
    APHIS has been given the authority to establish the NVAP under the 
Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.). The NVAP is 
necessary to ensure that tasks associated with the health of livestock, 
such as participating in disease surveillance, issuing animal health 
certificates, and conducting APHIS-Veterinary Services program 
activities, are performed by qualified individuals. Owner education and 
training, while important to overall veterinary health, cannot provide 
assurance that qualified individuals perform such tasks.
    One commenter asked us to include specific language in the 
regulations stating that the accreditation program will be implemented, 
maintained, and amended in cooperation with State animal health 
officials.
    The regulations provide for consultation with State animal health 
officials in developing orientation materials and reviewing 
applications for accreditation. We did not propose to change those 
provisions; they are included in paragraphs (e)(4) and (d), 
respectively, of Sec.  161.1 in this final rule. We consult with State 
animal health officials routinely on matters affecting the NVAP; it 
would be impossible to administer the program without their 
cooperation. We do not believe it is necessary to add a specific 
statement about that cooperation to the regulations.
    One commenter stated that accreditation should be a national 
program; once a veterinarian is authorized to perform accredited duties 
in one State, that veterinarian should be authorized in every State in 
which the veterinarian is eligible to practice veterinary medicine.
    Every State has a different orientation program that addresses 
animal disease issues unique to that State; as mentioned earlier, State 
animal health officials are invited to contribute to the development of 
this orientation program. We consider providing State-specific 
information in the orientation to be important to the success of the 
NVAP. We are making no changes in response to this comment.
    One commenter recommended that we consider streamlining the process 
for authorizing the performance of accredited duties in a new State in 
a disease emergency situation, assuming the veterinarians are licensed 
to practice veterinary medicine in the new State.
    We agree with the commenter that it is important to ensure the 
availability of accredited veterinarians to respond to disease 
emergencies. The new

[[Page 64999]]

accreditation process we are developing will allow for rapid 
accreditation of veterinarians to perform accredited duties in new 
States when necessary. In addition, when veterinarians are hired on a 
full-time, temporary basis by APHIS or by a State to participate in 
disease response efforts, those veterinarians may perform accredited 
duties in any State without being accredited in that State, as full-
time Federal and State veterinarians may perform accredited duties 
without being accredited under 9 CFR part 161.

Category I and Category II Accreditation

    In the June 2006 proposal, we proposed to establish two categories 
for accreditation: Category I, which was limited in scope to companion 
animals and related activities, and Category II, which encompassed all 
animal species and accredited activities. The addition of Category I 
was intended to allow for the accreditation of veterinarians who can 
complete certificates for the international movement of companion 
animals, diagnose exotic animal diseases in companion animals, and 
perform veterinary tasks during animal disease emergencies.
    We received several comments on our June 2006 proposal that asked 
for clarification regarding various aspects of the scope of duties that 
Category I and Category II accredited veterinarians would be authorized 
to perform, as well as comments on what tasks Category I and Category 
II veterinarians should be able to perform. Two commenters noted that 
the phrase ``commonly kept as pets'' in our proposed definition of 
companion animals appeared to exclude exotic animals and nontraditional 
pets, such as hedgehogs, falcons, or primates, that are sometimes 
brought to veterinarians for health certificates; it was not clear 
which category of veterinarians would have been authorized to perform 
accredited duties on such species. One commenter asked which category 
of accreditation would be appropriate for zoo veterinarians. Regarding 
the tasks Category I and Category II veterinarians would have been 
required to be able to perform, one commenter recommended that Category 
I veterinarians be able to develop flock health plans for bird flocks, 
a task that we had only proposed to require for Category II 
veterinarians.
    These comments led us to reconsider the division between Category I 
and Category II. In the February 2007 supplemental proposal, we amended 
the June 2006 proposal so that Category I veterinarians would be 
authorized to perform accredited duties only on animals other than food 
and fiber animals, horses, farm-raised fish, poultry, all other 
livestock, birds, and zoo animals that could transmit exotic animal 
diseases to livestock. The listed animals are susceptible to animal 
diseases that can infect livestock and that are subject to APHIS 
control or eradication programs. Requiring that veterinarians 
performing accredited duties on those animals be accredited under 
Category II would ensure that the veterinarians have the necessary 
training to recognize symptoms of those diseases and the necessary 
knowledge and skills to take appropriate action.
    The February 2007 supplemental proposal referred to the animals on 
which Category I veterinarians would have been able to perform 
accredited duties as nonregulated animals; that document proposed to 
add a definition of nonregulated animals in Sec.  160.1 and replaced 
all the references to companion animals in the June 2006 proposed rule 
with references to nonregulated animals. Our definition of nonregulated 
animals indicated that dogs and cats were examples of nonregulated 
animals. The February 2007 proposal also indicated that Category II 
accredited veterinarians would be authorized to perform accredited 
duties on all animals, both regulated and nonregulated.
    These changes addressed the comments on the June 2006 proposal. 
Hedgehogs and primates were now clearly classified as Category I 
animals, while falcons, being birds, were classified as Category II 
animals. Zoo veterinarians who work with animals that could transmit 
exotic animal diseases to livestock would have to be accredited under 
Category II; other zoo veterinarians could be accredited under Category 
I. A veterinarian who worked with birds would have to be accredited 
under Category II, and thus would have to be able to develop a flock 
health plan under proposed Sec.  161.1(g)(2)(xi).
    We received several comments on the changes in the February 2007 
supplemental proposal. In response to these comments, we now include 
definitions of ``Category I animals'' and ``Category II animals'' 
rather than regulated animals and nonregulated animals, to avoid any 
confusion about the meaning of the term ``regulated.'' We have replaced 
references to regulated animals and nonregulated animals with 
references to Category I and Category II animals, respectively, in the 
regulatory text.
    We have also further refined the distinction between Category I and 
Category II animals. This final rule includes a definition of Category 
II animals that reads as follows: ``Food and fiber animal species; 
horses; birds; farm-raised aquatic animals; all other livestock 
species; and zoo animals that can transmit exotic animal diseases to 
livestock.'' The definition of Category I animals in this final rule 
reads: ``Any animals other than Category II animals, e.g., cats and 
dogs.''
    This final rule indicates that Category I veterinarians may perform 
accredited duties on Category I animals, while Category II 
veterinarians may perform accredited duties on both Category I and 
Category II animals.
    The comments we received on this issue in response to the 
supplemental proposal are addressed below.
    Two commenters questioned whether nonregulated animals was the most 
appropriate term that could be used to refer to this class of animals. 
One commenter stated that the fact that these animals are not included 
in an APHIS-Veterinary Services regulatory program does not necessarily 
mean that the animals are ``unregulated.'' If these animals were 
imported, the commenter stated, they most likely had to comply with 
regulations in order to get into the country. If they are native, they 
may not be covered by an APHIS program, but they may be included in a 
State animal health or public health program. Using the term 
``nonregulated animals,'' this commenter stated, will result in a 
significant level of confusion and misunderstanding by accredited 
veterinarians, animal owners and producers, and USDA and State animal 
health officials. The commenter suggested using some other term to 
differentiate these animals from livestock or carefully specifying that 
``nonregulated'' applies only to regulation by USDA and that there may 
be regulation on some of these species at the State level and the 
international level.
    The second commenter stated that it will cause confusion if APHIS 
tells veterinarians, animal owners, and the public that APHIS is 
promulgating rules for nonregulated animals. The commenter also stated 
that defining nonregulated animals through exclusion (``other than'') 
and the same time by inclusion (``all other livestock, birds, 
[hellip]'') is confusing.
    We agree with these commenters. Thus, we have changed the terms we 
use in this final rule to Category I animals and Category II animals, 
as described earlier. In addition we agree with the second point made 
by the second commenter, which is why we have added definitions of both 
Category I animals and Category II animals in this final rule and 
defined Category I

[[Page 65000]]

animals as animals other than Category II animals.
    One commenter addressed the distinction between livestock and other 
animals. The commenter was concerned that many animals are bred, grown, 
or otherwise ``cultured,'' and thus could conceivably be considered 
``livestock,'' but are not kept for food, feed, or fiber; rather, they 
are used as pet, ornamental, display, or companion animals. The 
commenter recommended that we indicate in the regulations that Category 
I veterinarians would be allowed to perform accredited duties on pet, 
ornamental, display, or companion animals.
    Another commenter noted that the supplemental proposal stated that 
the term ``livestock'' refers to all farm-raised animals. The commenter 
stated that many thousands of producers of various species of native 
and exotic hoofstock and other wildlife species do not consider 
themselves to be farmers and do not consider their animals to be farm-
raised animals. Likewise, these animals are not considered to be zoo 
animals, since they are not raised in zoos or animal parks. The 
commenter stated that while APHIS may have an understanding that all of 
these animals come under the loose definition of ``livestock'' in the 
Animal Health Protection Act, the persons who would have to comply with 
the regulations may not have that understanding. The commenter urged 
that the proposed regulations be amended to clarify the definition of 
nonregulated animals relative to native and non-native hoofstock, other 
wildlife species that are housed on farms, ranches or other facilities, 
and zoo animals that are not housed on zoos or zoological parks.
    The Animal Health Protection Act defines livestock as ``all farm-
raised animals.'' We recognize that it will be difficult to clearly 
define what is and is not a farm in some circumstances. In general, a 
typical farm is one on which food and fiber species are raised for 
agricultural purposes. We would not consider a canine breeding facility 
to be a farm, for example. By emphasizing food and fiber species, we 
believe the definition of Category II animals helps to clarify our 
intent.
    However, it would be inappropriate to revise the definition of 
Category I animals to refer to pet, ornamental, display, or companion 
animals. For example, pet birds are not bred for food or fiber, but 
they can transmit avian diseases such as avian influenza or exotic 
Newcastle disease to poultry. Similarly, pot-bellied pigs are 
susceptible to the same diseases as farm-raised swine, such as 
pseudorabies. Because of this, we believe that veterinarians performing 
accredited duties on pet birds, and livestock species that are raised 
for purposes other than food or fiber, should be required to be 
accredited under Category II.
    In response to the second commenter, wildlife species that are 
raised for food or fiber, such as captive cervids, are included in the 
definition of Category II animals. Similarly, zoo animals that are 
imported under the regulations in 9 CFR 93.404(c) pose a risk of 
transmitting foot-and-mouth disease or rinderpest to U.S. livestock, 
and in fact are only allowed to be exhibited at specific approved zoos. 
We believe the definition of Category II animals is clear on these 
points. We will communicate to accredited veterinarians that the 
definition of Category II animals includes non-traditional food and 
fiber species such as cervids.
    One commenter stated that Category I veterinarians should be able 
to issue certificates of veterinary inspection for pet birds, rabbits, 
pocket pet rodents, and other ``minor species.''
    The February 2007 supplemental proposal specifically indicated that 
veterinarians would need Category II accreditation to perform 
accredited duties on pet birds, because of the potential for avian 
diseases to spread from pet birds to poultry. The commenter did not 
give any reasons why Category I accreditation would be sufficient for 
performing accredited duties on pet birds. Rabbits and pocket pet 
rodents would both be types of animals on which a Category I accredited 
veterinarian could perform accredited duties. We have made no changes 
to the proposed regulations in response to this comment.
    One commenter stated that Category I veterinarians should be able 
to perform accredited duties on horses. The commenter, a companion 
animal veterinarian, stated that she commonly writes health 
certificates for horses as well as dogs and cats, and draws blood 
samples for Coggins tests for horses. The commenter stated that she 
does not inspect exotic animals or food animals. The commenter further 
stated that horses were treated as companion animals in her veterinary 
school education, meaning that many other veterinarians also consider 
horses to be companion animals. Finally, the commenter stated, zoonotic 
disease potential in horses is similar to that in dogs and cats; horses 
are not, under most circumstances, a threat to our food supply.
    It would be inappropriate to categorize horses as Category I 
animals in this final rule because APHIS-Veterinary Services recognizes 
horses as livestock and regulates their importation and interstate 
movement to prevent the introduction and spread of equine diseases. For 
example, the regulations in Sec.  75.4 regulate the interstate movement 
of horses that are reactors to equine infectious anemia. In addition, 
the regulations in 9 CFR part 93, subpart C, set out requirements for 
the importation of horses, and APHIS recently undertook an emergency 
disease response when contagious equine metritis was found in 
Wisconsin. For this reason, we have determined that it is necessary for 
veterinarians who perform accredited duties on horses to be accredited 
under Category II.
    One commenter, responding to the term ``farm-raised fish'' that was 
used in the definition of nonregulated animals in the February 2007 
supplemental proposal, stated that ``aquatic animals'' was a more 
inclusive term and thus more appropriate.
    We agree, and we refer to ``farm-raised aquatic animals'' in the 
definition of Category II animals in this final rule.
    We also received some general comments about our proposal to 
establish two accreditation categories.
    One commenter objected to the proposed accreditation categories, 
stating that no other country in the world has two classes of 
veterinarians. Another commenter, a veterinarian, stated that he only 
writes health certificates for cats and dogs because that is what he 
sees in his practice; the new accreditation category would not be 
necessary to indicate that he cannot do accreditation work for other 
species.
    We have determined that the accreditation structure we proposed 
maximizes our resources and makes the best possible use of the time of 
U.S. accredited veterinarians. The establishment of categories of 
accreditation is related to our separate requirement that accredited 
veterinarians complete training for renewal of accreditation. 
Veterinarians who are not performing accredited duties on livestock do 
not need as much training in livestock disease issues as veterinarians 
who are. Our intent is to allow veterinarians such as the second 
commenter to continue participating in the NVAP while completing less 
training than is required to maintain Category II accreditation.
    The first commenter is incorrect in stating that no other country 
in the world has two classes of veterinarians. For example, Canada has 
two classes for government accreditation.
    One commenter stated that restricting the types of animals a 
veterinarian is

[[Page 65001]]

allowed to treat would be incredibly detrimental to all animals. The 
commenter noted that there are many veterinarians that have a mixed 
practice and treat both small and large animals simply because they are 
the only ones available to perform these services.
    The new accreditation categories do not restrict the animals a 
veterinarian is allowed to treat. Rather, they restrict the animals on 
which a veterinarian can perform accredited duties, such as endorsing 
certificates of veterinary inspection. A veterinarian accredited under 
Category I will be free to perform general veterinary care for any 
animal.
    The June 2006 proposal did not clearly state that veterinarians 
with Category II accreditation would be allowed to perform accredited 
duties on all animals, not just those for which Category II 
accreditation is necessary to perform accredited duties. The February 
2007 supplemental proposal and this final rule have added a statement 
to that effect in Sec.  161.1(b).
    Four commenters requested that the accreditation categories be more 
specific to certain types of animals. One requested a separate 
accreditation category for avian species, and another requested a 
separate category for equines. Two commenters stated that there should 
be separate categories for all types of species, or at the least that 
there should be separate training for different species; the latter 
point was echoed by another commenter.
    We will provide a number of training options from which 
veterinarians can choose in order to fulfill the training requirement 
for renewal of accreditation under Category II. Some training units 
that apply across all species--for example, general training regarding 
the NVAP, or training regarding foreign animal diseases--will be 
required training for all Category II veterinarians. However, there 
will be some species-specific training courses that accredited 
veterinarians can elect to take--for example, training on exotic avian 
diseases or international equine health certificates. We believe that 
this method of organizing the training addresses the commenters' 
concerns and makes establishing separate, species-specific 
accreditation categories unnecessary.
    In the preamble to the June 2006 proposal, we stated that Category 
I veterinarians could be asked to participate in surveillance in 
livestock or poultry during an outbreak of a livestock or poultry 
disease, when finding enough personnel to perform adequate surveillance 
may become a significant issue; for example, Category I veterinarians 
would be capable of drawing blood for testing from poultry or livestock 
in the event of a disease outbreak. One commenter stated that APHIS 
should not assume that a veterinarian accredited under Category I is 
necessarily qualified to draw blood for livestock testing.
    We agree with the commenter. Before allowing Category I 
veterinarians to participate in surveillance during a disease outbreak, 
we would ensure that they had adequate training to perform the tasks 
that we would need them to perform. We continue to believe that 
Category I veterinarians, in general, could serve as a valuable 
resource during disease outbreaks.
    One commenter stated that, while APHIS clearly intends to include 
performing accredited duties on dogs and cats as Category I work, the 
full extent of what would be required of Category I veterinarians is 
unclear.
    We are requiring that Category I veterinarians complete initial 
accreditation training and an initial orientation program before 
becoming accredited; that they be able to perform the tasks listed in 
Sec.  161.1(g)(1) in the February 2007 supplemental proposal and in 
this final rule; that they comply with the standards for accredited 
veterinarian duties, listed in Sec.  161.4 under this final rule; and 
that they complete three supplemental training units every 3 years for 
renewal of their accreditation.

Requirements and Application Processes for Accreditation

    In the June 2006 proposal, we proposed to revise Sec.  161.1 to set 
out requirements and application processes for initial accreditation. 
In the February 2007 supplemental proposal, we amended some of these 
requirements and moved other requirements to new paragraphs. Because we 
are using the organization in the February 2007 supplemental proposal 
in this final rule, we will refer to the paragraph citations in the 
February 2007 supplemental proposal in the discussion below.
    The regulations at Sec.  161.1(a)(2)(iii) have required that 
veterinarians seeking initial accreditation complete an orientation 
program approved by the Veterinarian-in-Charge for the State in which 
the veterinarian wishes to practice. We proposed to move this 
requirement to Sec.  161.1(e)(4) and add two new topics to the list of 
topics the orientation program must address: Foreign animal disease 
awareness and animal health emergency management.
    One commenter stated that core and State-modified orientation 
programs should be continued to ensure that State-specific regulations, 
requirements, and animal-related issues are adequately presented and 
updated for veterinary accreditation.
    We agree with the commenter; we did not propose to change the 
orientation program, other than by adding the two topics mentioned 
earlier.
    The June 2006 proposal contained a list of tasks that applicants 
for accredited status would have to be able to perform. The February 
2007 supplemental proposal moved these tasks to Sec.  161.1(g), but 
otherwise did not amend the June 2006 proposal. We received some 
comments on these tasks.
    Proposed paragraph (g)(1)(i) of Sec.  161.1 indicated that Category 
I veterinarians would be required to be able to perform physical 
examinations of individual nonregulated animals to determine whether 
they are free from any clinical signs suggestive of communicable 
disease. Paragraph (g)(2)(i) indicated that Category II veterinarians 
would be required to be able to perform physical examinations of 
individual animals and visually inspect herds or flocks for clinical 
signs suggestive of communicable disease.
    One commenter recommended that we change ``disease'' to 
``condition,'' on the basis that there is some disagreement regarding 
whether things like mange, coccidiosis, and ringworm are diseases, 
although they are certainly communicable. Changing ``disease'' to 
``condition,'' the commenter suggested, would preclude any arguments 
over the matter.
    Our regulations in 9 CFR chapter I commonly refer to communicable 
diseases of livestock or poultry. For example, the regulations in 9 CFR 
71.2 provide that the Secretary of Agriculture may determine that 
animals are affected with any contagious, infectious, or communicable 
disease for which a quarantine should be established. To ensure that 
the regulations are consistent, we continue to refer to ``disease'' in 
this final rule.
    Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(vi) indicated that Category II 
veterinarians would be required to be able to develop a herd or flock 
health plan. One commenter stated that a Category I veterinarian should 
be able to develop a disease control plan which addresses situations 
where nonregulated animal species aggregate or congregate.
    We understand this comment as suggesting that Category I 
veterinarians should be able to develop a plan to control diseases 
among Category I animal species, such as a plan to control kennel cough 
or distemper at a dog breeding premises. The Animal Health Protection 
Act does not give us the authority to require Category I veterinarians 
to be able to address

[[Page 65002]]

diseases that occur in and affect only Category I animals. (A facility 
covered by the Animal Welfare Act would be required to provide 
veterinary care for the animals in the facility.) Therefore, requiring 
Category I veterinarians to be able to develop disease control plans 
for these animals would be inappropriate.
    Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(xii) indicated that Category II 
veterinarians would be required to be able to vaccinate for USDA 
program diseases and accurately complete the vaccination certificate. 
One commenter recommended that this task be expanded to include a more 
general description of vaccination. Category II accredited 
veterinarians, the commenter stated, are not only involved in 
vaccinating for USDA program diseases, but they are also involved in 
disease control by vaccinating for the general health of livestock, 
equines, and poultry. Vaccinating animals appropriately and being able 
to certify their vaccination status can also be important for 
interstate and international movements.
    We can only require that accredited veterinarians have the skills 
necessary to perform accredited veterinarian duties, which relate to 
diseases for which APHIS has a control or eradication program. We are 
making no changes in response to this comment.
    Proposed paragraph (g)(2)(xiv) indicated that Category II 
veterinarians would be required to be able to properly perform testing 
for tuberculosis (e.g., caudal fold test). One commenter asked whether 
the requirement that a Category II veterinarian be able to perform the 
caudal fold test would include comparative cervical testing as well.
    The only veterinarians authorized to perform comparative cervical 
testing are Federal and State veterinary medical officers. Therefore, 
it is not appropriate to include comparative cervical testing in the 
list of tasks a Category II veterinarian must be able to perform.
    We are making two changes to the list of tasks a Category II 
veterinarian must be able to perform in this final rule. Proposed 
paragraph (g)(2)(vi) indicated that Category II veterinarians would be 
required to be able to certify the health status of a poultry flock 
regarding diseases of domestic or international regulatory concern, and 
evaluate records pertaining to flock testing and participation in 
Federal and State poultry health programs and classifications. Because 
the definition of Category II animals in this final rule indicates that 
all birds, not just poultry, are regulated animals, we are amending 
this task to refer to certifying the health status of an avian flock. 
Ongoing Federal and State programs, however, only address poultry 
diseases, so we have not amended the other references to poultry in 
this paragraph.
    In addition, proposed paragraph (g)(2)(ii) had referred to 
recognizing the common breeds of nonregulated animals and the common 
breeds of poultry and livestock; in this final rule, paragraph 
(g)(2)(ii) instead refers to recognizing the common breeds of Category 
I and Category II animals, including poultry and livestock.
    We proposed to require in Sec.  161.1(h) that an accredited 
veterinarian may not perform accredited duties in a State until after 
receiving written authorization from APHIS. In addition, we proposed to 
require that, if a Category I accredited veterinarian completes the 
necessary training requirements and becomes a Category II accredited 
veterinarian, the veterinarian may not perform Category II accredited 
duties in a State until after receiving written authorization from 
APHIS. One commenter was concerned that APHIS might not be able to 
provide this written authorization in a timely manner. Failure to do 
so, the commenter stated, could have a potentially significant impact 
on the veterinary care at a zoo or aquarium or on an individual 
veterinarian's ability to perform the necessary duties of the 
profession. The commenter strongly encouraged APHIS to employ an 
electronic approval process for this authorization.
    It is important to note that the NVAP does not regulate general 
veterinary practice, but rather the performance of specific accredited 
duties; veterinarians who are not accredited may still provide general 
veterinary care to any animal.
    We plan to employ an electronic approval process for providing 
written authorization. Under this system, accredited veterinarians with 
e-mail access will receive an e-mail authorizing them to perform 
accredited duties. The authorization process for performing accredited 
duties in another State will continue to require the completion of the 
requirements in Sec.  161.2.

Required Training for Renewal of Accreditation

    We proposed to add new requirements for renewal of accreditation. 
Under the June 2006 proposal, accredited veterinarians who wish to 
continue participating in the NVAP would have to renew their 
accreditation every 3 years. Accredited veterinarians who wish to renew 
their accreditation under Category I would have had to complete 4 
supplemental training units approved by APHIS by the end of their 3-
year tenure as an accredited veterinarian. Accredited veterinarians who 
wish to renew their accreditation under Category II would have had to 
complete 9 supplemental training units approved by APHIS by the end of 
their 3-year tenure as an accredited veterinarian.
    Based on comments we received on the amount of supplemental 
training we were requiring, in the February 2007 supplemental proposal, 
we reduced the amount of training required for renewal of Category II 
accreditation from nine supplemental training units to six, and the 
amount of training required for the renewal of Category I accreditation 
from four units to three.
    We received several comments stating that there should be no 
supplemental training required for accredited veterinarians. Some 
commenters stated that their experience provides a sufficient body of 
knowledge and that additional training is unnecessary.
    As we stated in the June 2006 proposal, we are requiring that 
veterinarians complete supplemental training to renew their 
accreditation for several reasons. First, accredited veterinarians need 
to be aware of the most up-to-date information regarding foreign animal 
diseases and the risks associated with them. The diversity of regions 
from which animals and animal products are exported means that the 
international animal disease profile, including emerging diseases that 
may be relevant to accredited veterinary practice within the United 
States, are continually changing. The import and export requirements 
that are placed on the trade of animals and animal products by 
countries also change frequently, and any deficiencies in knowledge of 
these requirements on the part of accredited veterinarians could pose a 
risk to U.S. animal health. The fast pace of change in these areas can 
mean that the personal experience of accredited veterinarians may not 
provide enough knowledge to allow them to best contribute to APHIS 
efforts to deal with emerging issues.
    Other commenters stated that the additional training we provide 
would simply review the regulations for the interstate or international 
movement of animals whose requirements accredited veterinarians 
satisfy, and that such information could be provided without having to 
administer supplemental training. One commenter stated that licensed 
veterinarians are already familiar with their State's laws governing 
the performance of veterinary tasks, whether in an emergency or not.
    The idea that the supplemental training would focus only on 
regulatory requirements is incorrect. For example,

[[Page 65003]]

the training provided for renewal of accreditation will include units 
on ``Foreign Animal Diseases, Program Diseases, and Reportable 
Diseases''; ``Preventing Disease Introduction and Spread''; and 
``Disease Eradication and Lab Diagnosis.'' Accredited veterinarians 
would not be able to learn everything they need to know about these 
topics by simply reading Federal, State, and foreign animal disease 
laws and regulations.
    Several commenters (mostly veterinarians themselves) stated that 
any increase in the amount of work required to be an accredited 
veterinarian will encourage veterinarians to give up their 
accreditation; some of these commenters suggested that, given predicted 
shortages in large-animal veterinarians in general, this could prove 
detrimental to animal health. One of these commenters indicated that 
there was not enough money in performing accredited duties to justify 
continuing to do so with the supplemental training requirement in 
place.
    For the reasons stated earlier, we believe it is crucial to the 
NVAP to ensure that our accredited veterinarians have up-to-date 
disease control and prevention education. Such training ensures that 
our accredited veterinarians serve as an effective disease control 
force in the United States and that certificates signed by them are 
accepted by our trading partners. The February 2007 supplemental 
proposal did reduce the amount of supplemental training required for 
renewal of accreditation, thus making it easier for currently 
accredited veterinarians to continue to participate. With regard to a 
possible shortage of accredited veterinarians, we believe that as long 
as there is a market for services for which accreditation is required, 
an adequate number of veterinarians will maintain accreditation in 
order to provide those services.
    Two commenters stated that APHIS should offer the supplemental 
training on a voluntary basis only.
    As we noted in the June 2006 proposal, duties performed by 
accredited veterinarians in the United States are typically performed 
by government-employed veterinarians in other countries. Some U.S. 
trading partners have expressed concern regarding the fact that our 
veterinary accreditation program does not require supplemental 
training. Requiring training is necessary to increase the rigor of the 
program and thus address this concern.
    Another commenter stated that if there must be a renewal period, it 
should be much longer than 3 years.
    As noted earlier, the international animal disease profile, 
including emerging diseases that may be relevant to accredited 
veterinary practice within the United States, is continually changing, 
and the import and export requirements that are placed on the trade of 
animals and animal products by countries also change frequently. We 
believe 3 years is an appropriate interval that balances the need for 
up-to-date training for accredited veterinarians with other demands on 
their time.
    One commenter asked whether the Government requires medical doctors 
to be tested routinely on their knowledge of infectious or communicable 
diseases.
    We are not aware of any Federal Government programs that require 
testing for knowledge of infectious or communicable diseases, although 
State medical boards often test medical doctors. To address the 
commenter's implied concern, there is no testing requirement associated 
with the supplemental training. APHIS is requiring that veterinarians 
complete the supplemental training, but we will not test them on it.
    One commenter stated that the supplemental training should address 
animal welfare issues.
    Animal welfare issues are handled within APHIS by our Animal Care 
program. Consistent with the statutory authority under which it is 
established, the NVAP focuses on animal disease issues.
    We received several comments that mentioned State continuing 
education requirements in the context of the supplemental training 
requirement. Three commenters stated that 3 supplemental training units 
every 3 years would be sufficient to ensure that Category II accredited 
veterinarians are adequately informed on animal disease issues. One of 
these commenters stated that the six-unit requirement in the February 
2007 supplemental proposal was excessive when compared to continuing 
education requirements in the commenter's State. Six units every 3 
years represented more than 10 percent of that State's total continuing 
education requirement; this commenter stated that most veterinarians 
spend less than 10 percent of their time doing accreditation work, 
meaning that the supplemental training requirement should be reduced.
    One commenter stated that the supplemental training requirement was 
unnecessary due to the State continuing education requirements that are 
already in place.

    Two commenters suggested that APHIS require that State veterinary 
licensing authorities accept the supplemental training units to fulfill 
the States' requirements. Another commenter stated that the commenter 
would support the supplemental training requirement if the training was 
not in addition to the training already required for the commenter's 
State license renewal.
    Given the diversity of topics on which accredited veterinarians 
must be informed in order to perform their duties effectively, we 
believe that it is necessary to require six units of supplemental 
training for the renewal of Category II accreditation. Since each unit 
of training is expected to take 1 hour to complete, this requirement 
works out to 2 hours per year of supplemental training. We do not 
believe this requirement is excessive.
    We could accept State-required continuing education towards the 
supplemental training requirement if the State courses addressed topics 
relevant to the NVAP. We would have to review the State content and 
approve it to be used to fulfill the supplemental training requirement. 
States that believe their content can be used in such a way are welcome 
to discuss it with us.
    In order to reduce the training burden on accredited veterinarians 
and encourage their participation in the NVAP, we are working with 
State veterinary licensing authorities to have our supplemental 
training accepted as fulfilling their continuing education 
requirements. Iowa's veterinary licensing authority has already 
indicated that it will do so. We expect that we will be able to secure 
approval for use of the supplemental training to fulfill continuing 
education requirements in other States as well. However, we have no 
authority to require that States accept our supplemental training.

Costs and Logistics of Supplemental Training

    In the June 2006 proposal, we stated that the majority of the 
supplemental training units would be delivered through the World Wide 
Web and that we would also make the training available by mail for 
those who lack Internet access. In the section of the proposal headed 
``Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act,'' we further 
stated that the Web-based training would be provided at no cost to 
accredited veterinarians.
    We received several comments on the cost and logistics of 
supplemental training. One asked how much the training, tests, and 
accreditation

[[Page 65004]]

certificate would cost. Six commenters stated that training should be 
provided at no charge. Another noted that additional training 
requirements may create an economic hardship for some veterinarians. 
One commenter noted that the June 2006 proposal did not address the 
cost of non-Web-based training and stated that many veterinarians in 
rural practice do not have computer access and could not participate in 
Web-based training.
    We will make the supplemental training available through the Web at 
no charge. For veterinarians without Internet access, we will make the 
training available in other media (e.g., CD-ROM or paper) at a minimal 
cost to cover the costs of production and of any necessary shipping and 
handling. There are no tests associated with the supplemental training. 
The accreditation certificate will continue to be provided at no cost.
    One commenter stated that APHIS should pay veterinarians to 
complete the supplemental training.
    We do not believe this would be an appropriate use of APHIS' 
resources.
    One commenter suspected that the new regulations would be followed 
in a couple of years with a user fee, which the commenter opposed.
    We have no plans to establish a user fee for the supplemental 
training. It is in our interest to encourage widespread participation 
in the supplemental training, which is why we are making the training 
available free through the Web or at minimal cost through other media.
    One commenter stated that Web-based training is subject to problems 
like technical difficulties, lack of resources to keep up the training 
sites, and lack of technical staff to provide assistance. Another 
commenter asked us to make sure that technical support would be 
available.
    We agree with these commenters. We are using a modern Web-based 
training interface through AgLearn ((https://www.aglearn.usda.gov)), and 
we are working to provide the best possible support for it.
    One commenter suggested that we provide the training as a course at 
regional or State veterinary continuing education meetings as well as 
through the Web. Another commenter agreed and added national, regional, 
and State annual meetings of veterinary medical associations as 
possible venues.
    We agree with the commenters. We are planning to offer the training 
through these venues as well.
    One commenter was concerned that the training requirements may 
create extra work in surveillance and monitoring that will not be 
compensated. The commenter stated that APHIS does not pay accredited 
veterinarians enough for the services they render.
    When APHIS pays accredited veterinarians for performing their 
duties, the individual disease control programs decide how much to pay. 
The veterinary accreditation program exists simply to provide a 
structure and requirements for the accreditation of veterinarians and 
to keep track of which veterinarians are accredited. The training 
requirements themselves will not create any surveillance or monitoring 
work for accredited veterinarians.
    One commenter stated that the renewal process should involve 
minimal paperwork and logistics that might deter veterinarians from 
participation in the program. Another commenter was concerned that 
APHIS may not have the financial and human resources to review and 
renew licenses and to develop and administer supplemental training 
units to veterinarians every 3 years.
    We agree with the first commenter. We anticipate that the new NVAP 
Web site, plus the associated database of accredited veterinarians, 
will centralize access to information and training for accredited 
veterinarians, reducing the amount of time necessary to fill out 
paperwork. We also expect that the Web site and the database of 
accredited veterinarians will help us to provide timely service to our 
customers.
    One commenter suggested that we grant eligibility for developing 
supplemental training units to industry organizations. Another 
suggested that we grant the same eligibility to State animal health 
authorities.
    If industry organizations or State animal health authorities are 
willing to work with us to develop training that addresses NVAP issues, 
we would welcome and support their efforts. Final approval of the 
training would rest with APHIS. We are already working with Iowa State 
University to develop the training that will be initially offered to 
accredited veterinarians.
    One commenter stated that, even with the 3-year renewal period, a 
veterinarian could lack appropriate knowledge of emerging diseases. The 
commenter suggested that APHIS develop a method for rapid information 
dissemination to accredited veterinarians regarding emerging diseases 
or disease outbreaks.
    We agree. The updated contact information in the database of 
accredited veterinarians and our Web site will allow us to communicate 
information to accredited veterinarians rapidly when we need to.
    One commenter, the Association of Zoos and Aquariums, asked for 
information regarding waivers from the supplemental training 
requirements for institutions accredited by that association.
    Accreditation by the Association of Zoos and Aquariums does not 
address all the issues that arise in the performance of NVAP accredited 
duties. Therefore, we would not provide waivers for institutions 
accredited by that association. The same would apply to other such 
industry organizations.
    One commenter asked whether the cost of supplemental training units 
or training for accreditation specializations would be tax deductible.
    The supplemental training will be provided free of charge through 
the Web. We recommend that veterinarians consult with their tax 
preparers regarding whether costs associated with training are tax 
deductible.
    One commenter asked whether accredited veterinarians would be 
compensated by APHIS for work performed during a disease emergency.
    APHIS compensates accredited veterinarians for any work they 
perform on behalf of the agency.
    One commenter asked what topics would be addressed in the training.
    Some of the topics have been mentioned earlier in this document. In 
general, the topics are a mix of general disease control and prevention 
topics and species-specific information. Some other topics addressed in 
the training modules include: ``Vesicular Diseases,'' ``Small Ruminant 
Health Certificates and Scrapie,'' and ``Federal Animal Health Laws.'' 
A complete list of topics is available on the NVAP Web site at (https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health/vet_accreditation/).
    One commenter asked how long each supplemental training unit will 
take to complete.
    Each supplemental training unit will take approximately 1 hour to 
complete.
    One commenter asked how effective online veterinary training 
programs are.
    APHIS has experience delivering Web-based training through the 
AgLearn site at (https://www.aglearn.usda.gov). We have found it to be 
effective.

Notification and Procedures for Renewal

    We received several comments regarding the process APHIS will use 
to notify accredited veterinarians that they need to renew their 
accreditation and regarding the procedures for renewal.
    In the June 2006 proposed rule, proposed paragraph (d) of Sec.  
161.3 outlined the process we would use to

[[Page 65005]]

notify accredited veterinarians that they need to renew their 
accreditation. We stated in the Background section of the proposed rule 
that APHIS would contact currently accredited veterinarians, by postal 
mail, fax, or e-mail, to notify them that they must elect to 
participate in the NVAP as Category I or Category II veterinarians. 
Veterinarians would not be required to complete any additional training 
to continue their participation in the NVAP, but they would be required 
to notify APHIS that they elect to participate within 3 months of this 
notification; otherwise, their accreditation would expire. After APHIS 
received notice from a currently accredited veterinarian that he or she 
elects to continue to participate in the program as a Category I or 
Category II veterinarian, APHIS would notify the veterinarian of his or 
her initial renewal date. The accredited veterinarian would then have 
to complete all the training requirements for renewal by the initial 
renewal date.
    One commenter stated that procedures should be implemented to 
ensure and verify that all currently accredited veterinarians have been 
contacted with the information necessary for their continuation of 
accreditation activities and that they have responded to APHIS. The 
elimination of veterinarians from the list of accredited veterinarians 
without verification that they have been contacted and made aware of 
the changes, the commenter stated, could create problems if an 
individual not aware of the changes in the regulations continues to 
issue health certificates.
    Since the publication of the June 2006 proposed rule, we have 
developed a new plan for ensuring that accredited veterinarians are 
aware of the need to elect to continue to participate in the 
accreditation program. We no longer anticipate that we will contact 
veterinarians individually. Instead, we plan to publish announcements 
of the new accreditation regulations and veterinarians' resultant 
obligations in veterinary list serves, veterinary medical association 
newsletters, State regulatory organization publications, and industry 
publications. These media all have high visibility in the veterinary 
medicine community and are effective ways to reach the highest number 
of accredited veterinarians possible. We will also announce the new 
renewal requirements at State veterinary medical association meetings. 
These announcements will include a link to the NVAP Web site, which 
will contain information about the new regulations, along with a phone 
number and an address to contact for more information. We will provide 
notice of the new requirements through these methods for 3 months. 
After the 3-month notification period, accredited veterinarians will 
have 3 months to elect to continue to participate in the veterinary 
accreditation program, the same as the response period we described in 
the June 2006 proposed rule.
    Although contacting each accredited veterinarian individually, as 
we discussed in the June 2006 proposal, would provide the highest level 
of assurance that all accredited veterinarians are aware of the new 
renewal requirements, logistical and cost issues make such individual 
contact unrealistic. In part due to the previous lack of renewal 
requirements for veterinary accreditation, APHIS does not have current 
contact information for many accredited veterinarians; in order to 
obtain such contact information, we would have to place announcements 
in the same media as we are planning to use to notify veterinarians of 
the new requirements. Placing announcements of the new requirements in 
high-visibility media like those listed earlier will also be more cost-
effective than sending individual notifications to approximately 66,000 
accredited veterinarians. Therefore, we are no longer planning to 
contact accredited veterinarians individually. Accordingly, we have 
changed proposed paragraph (d), which stated that APHIS would contact 
currently accredited veterinarians to notify them that they must elect 
to participate in the NVAP as a Category I or Category II veterinarian, 
to state that APHIS will provide notice for 3 months to currently 
accredited veterinarians that they must elect to continue to 
participate in NVAP.
    In response to the commenter's concern, we recognize that despite 
the duration and magnitude of the multimedia notifications that we have 
planned, there may be some accredited veterinarians who fail to receive 
notice of their obligations to renew their accreditation in order to 
continue to participate in the accreditation program. As the 3-month 
response period nears its end, Veterinary Services will notify 
veterinarians who routinely perform accredited veterinarian duties and 
have not yet elected to continue participating as accredited 
veterinarians, to ensure that such veterinarians do not inadvertently 
let their accreditation lapse. However, for the reasons discussed 
above, we will not be able to notify those accredited veterinarians who 
rarely or never perform accredited duties.
    Two commenters stated that APHIS should notify veterinarians before 
the deadline for renewal even after the initial accreditation.
    We agree with these commenters. Once accredited veterinarians have 
completed an initial renewal, we will be able to send out notifications 
to all veterinarians well before their deadline for renewal, reminding 
them of the supplemental training requirements they must fulfill. 
Veterinarians will also be able to access their profile on a Web site 
to review their renewal and training status, as well as their address 
and other aspects of their profile.
    Proposed paragraph Sec.  161.3(a) stated that accredited 
veterinarians who wish to continue participating in the NVAP must 
submit their renewal forms to APHIS. One commenter recommended that 
renewal forms be submitted in duplicate to both APHIS and the Area 
Veterinarians-in-Charge (AVICs) of the States in which the veterinarian 
is accredited, or that a mechanism be established to notify the AVICs 
in question immediately. Two other commenters suggested that we require 
that the form be sent to the AVICs and forwarded to APHIS.
    If we required veterinarians who are accredited in multiple States 
to send their renewal forms to the AVICs of each of the States in which 
they are accredited, the veterinarians would have to send multiple 
copies of forms containing the same information to different addresses. 
We would like to minimize such paperwork burdens. Instead, we are 
requiring that the forms be sent to APHIS.
    The database containing the accredited veterinarians will be 
updated immediately when an accredited veterinarian completes his or 
her renewal. In this way, instant notice of the renewal would be 
provided to the AVICs, since they would have access to the database. We 
are planning to send electronic notifications to the AVICs as well.
    We are making a related change in this final rule to require 
veterinarians who wish to become accredited to submit their 
applications for initial accreditation and applications for changes in 
accreditation category to APHIS, rather than to the AVIC. This will 
reduce confusion by providing one common point of contact for 
veterinary accreditation.
    One commenter recommended that APHIS maintain and publish a single, 
accurate, and up-to-date list of accredited veterinarians by 
accreditation category.
    The new database of accredited veterinarians will allow AVICs and 
State animal health officials to access this information. We would not 
publish

[[Page 65006]]

a veterinarian's name for the general public, however, unless the 
veterinarian gave us permission to release it.
    We are making a few changes in this final rule to the renewal 
requirements in the February 2007 supplemental proposal. In that 
document, we proposed to require that newly accredited veterinarians 
renew their accreditation within 3 years of completing the initial 
accreditation training in proposed Sec.  161.1(e)(3), regardless of 
when their accreditation is granted. This training is typically given 
by veterinary schools at some point during the veterinarians' course of 
study; our proposed requirement was intended to ensure that 
veterinarians had up-to-date training based on the last training they 
had received. However, the NVAP presently does not have a means to 
track when veterinarians complete the initial accreditation training. 
In addition, we believe that dating the renewal period from the 
completion of the core orientation program described in Sec.  
161.1(e)(4) is more appropriate and would place less of a burden on 
accredited veterinarians, since the core orientation program covers 
topics essential to accreditation and is typically given after the 
initial accreditation training. Therefore, this final rule requires 
newly accredited veterinarians to renew their accreditation 3 years 
after completion of the core orientation program in Sec.  161.1(e)(4). 
In addition, under Sec.  161.1(e)(4), this final rule requires 
applicants for accreditation to apply within 3 years of completing core 
orientation.
    Proposed paragraph Sec.  161.3(d) set out the conditions under 
which veterinarians who are accredited as of the effective date of this 
final rule would renew their accreditation. This paragraph referred 
both to these veterinarians' ``first renewal'' and their ``initial 
renewal.'' We are amending the paragraph to refer only to the 
veterinarians' ``first renewal'' to avoid ambiguity. Additionally, the 
last sentence of this proposed paragraph indicated that, after their 
first renewal, veterinarians accredited as of the effective date of 
this final rule would be required to renew their accreditation in 
accordance with the provisions of Sec.  161.3. We have removed this 
sentence from this final rule, as we believe it is self-evident.

Program Certifications (Accreditation Specializations)

    We proposed to add a new Sec.  161.5 to the regulations setting out 
the conditions under which accredited veterinarians could earn 
accreditation specializations. Certain APHIS disease programs have 
additional training requirements that accredited veterinarians must 
fulfill in order to perform certain activities, because performing 
these activities requires specialized technical knowledge. These 
training programs have been known as accreditation specialization 
programs.
    We are making one change to proposed Sec.  161.5 in this final 
rule. In the June 2006 proposal, we introduced the term ``accreditation 
specializations.'' We have since decided that this term could create 
confusion given the common meaning of the term ``specialization'' in 
veterinary medicine. In veterinary medicine, ``specialization'' refers 
to a discipline such as oncology or thoracic surgery in which a 
veterinarian has completed extensive training over a period of years 
and achieved a board certification. We believe the term ``program 
certification'' refers more directly to what the training will allow a 
veterinarian to do -- participate in program-specific Veterinary 
Services activities -- and will be less likely to cause confusion. 
Therefore, in the regulatory text in Sec.  161.5, we have replaced all 
references to ``accreditation specializations'' with references to 
``program certifications'' in this final rule.
    Currently, APHIS is developing program certifications for testing 
in the tuberculosis program for cervidae and in the scrapie program for 
ovines.
    In a final rule published in the Federal Register on October 10, 
2008 (73 FR 60463-60488, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0089), and effective on 
November 10, 2008, we established a voluntary swine herd certification 
program for trichinae. To accommodate this program, we added a new 
Sec.  161.5 to the regulations that provides for accreditation 
specializations. This final rule revises Sec.  161.5 as it was 
established in the October 2008 final rule to refer to program 
certifications and to add provisions from the June 2006 proposed rule, 
such as requiring Category II accreditation in order to earn a program 
certification, that are not currently included in Sec.  161.5.
    In addition, the October 2008 final rule added a definition of 
qualified accredited veterinarian to Sec.  160.1 that refers to 
accreditation specializat