[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 155 (Thursday, August 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50081-50110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20281]
[[Page 50081]]
Vol. 76
Thursday,
No. 155
August 11, 2011
Part V
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
9 CFR Parts 71, 77, 78, et al.
Traceability for Livestock Moving Interstate; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 50082]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 71, 77, 78, and 90
[Docket No. APHIS-2009-0091]
RIN 0579-AD24
Traceability for Livestock Moving Interstate
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to establish minimum national official
identification and documentation requirements for the traceability of
livestock moving interstate. Under this proposed rule, unless
specifically exempted, livestock belonging to species covered by this
rulemaking that are moved interstate would have to be officially
identified and accompanied by an interstate certificate of veterinary
inspection or other documentation. The proposed regulations specify
approved forms of official identification for each species but would
allow the livestock covered under this rulemaking to be moved
interstate with another form of identification, as agreed upon by
animal health officials in the shipping and receiving States or Tribes.
The purpose of this rulemaking is to improve our ability to trace
livestock in the event that disease is found.
DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before
November 9, 2011.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2009-0091-0001.
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to
Docket No. APHIS-2009-0091, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD,
APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-
1238.
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may
be viewed at http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2009-
0091 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA
South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington,
DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through
Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you,
please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Neil Hammerschmidt, Program
Manager, Animal Disease Traceability, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit
46, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-5571.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Preventing and controlling animal disease is the cornerstone of
protecting American animal agriculture. While ranchers and farmers work
hard to protect their animals and their livelihoods, there is never a
guarantee that their animals will be spared from disease. To support
their efforts, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has promulgated
regulations to prevent, control, and eradicate disease. Traceability
does not prevent disease, but knowing where diseased and at-risk
animals are, where they have been, and when, is indispensible in
emergency response and in ongoing disease control and eradication
programs.
We do not currently have a comprehensive animal traceability
program. Some of our animal disease program regulations in 9 CFR
subchapter C (``Interstate Transportation of Animals (Including
Poultry) and Animal Products,'' referred to below as ``the existing
regulations''), such as those for tuberculosis and brucellosis, contain
components of a traceability program, e.g., requirements for animals
moving interstate to be officially identified and accompanied by
documents recording, among other things, the animals' official
identification numbers and the locations from and to which they are
being moved. Such requirements, however, do not apply to all livestock
or to all interstate movements. Significant gaps exist that could
impair our ability to trace animals, when necessary, that may be
affected with a disease. Some species, or classes of animals within a
species, are subject to official identification and/or movement
requirements only under the existing animal disease program
regulations.
We are particularly concerned with current inadequacies in disease
tracing capabilities in the cattle industry. Previously, many cattle
received official identification through USDA's vaccination program for
brucellosis, which requires that certain young female cattle and bison
(aged 4 to 12 months) moving into and out of States or areas designated
as Class B or Class C for brucellosis be vaccinated for the disease.
These vaccinated calves must be permanently identified by means of a
tattoo and either an official vaccination eartag or other official
eartag if one is already attached to the animal (9 CFR part 78). Our
eradication efforts have been tremendously successful, and now all 50
States are brucellosis-free. While this is certainly a positive
development, it has resulted in a steep decline in the number of
officially identified cattle. In 1988, when there were only 27 Class
Free States and many more calves were subject to those requirements, 10
million calves were officially identified, but by 2010 that number had
fallen to 3.1 million.
As a result of decreasing levels of official identification in
cattle, the time required to conduct other disease investigations is
increasing. For example, disease investigations for bovine tuberculosis
frequently now exceed 150 days as USDA and State investigative teams
spend substantially more time and money in conducting tracebacks. The
decreased level of official identification has resulted in an expansion
of the scope of investigations to identify suspect and exposed animals,
necessitating the testing of thousands of cattle that would otherwise
not have needed to be tested.
We have clear indications that higher levels of official
identification enhance tracing capability. For example, through the
National Scrapie Eradication Program (NSEP), 92 percent of the cull
breeding sheep are officially identified at slaughter, primarily using
flock identification eartags. This level of official identification
made it possible in fiscal year 2010 to achieve traceback from
slaughter of scrapie-positive sheep to the flock of origin or birth as
part of the scrapie surveillance program 96 percent of the time,
typically in a matter of minutes. Other diseases, in particular
contagious ones, require that we trace to more than the birth premises,
i.e., to other premises where the animal has been after leaving the
birth premises but before going to slaughter, so the scrapie model is
not a complete solution for such diseases.
APHIS believes that we must improve our tracing capabilities now
not only to alleviate current concerns, including the increasing number
of cases of bovine tuberculosis, but also to ensure that we are well
prepared to respond to new or foreign animal diseases in the future.
The traceability framework we are proposing in this rule represents
a departure from our initial attempt to address the problems described
above through implementation of the National Animal Identification
System (NAIS). NAIS was introduced in 2004 with the long-term goal of
achieving 48-hour
[[Page 50083]]
traceability. NAIS was a voluntary system, with registration of all
premises where livestock or poultry were housed or kept as the
foundation of the system. Additional components of NAIS, which were
expected to evolve over time, were animal identification and the
recording of animal movements. In 2009, APHIS launched a series of
efforts to assess the level of acceptance of NAIS, including public
listening sessions in 14 cities and a review of written comments
submitted by the public. Although there was some support for NAIS, the
vast majority of listening session participants and commenters were
highly critical of the program and of USDA's implementation efforts.
Many commenters viewed the NAIS as a Government-imposed, ``one-size-
fits-all'' approach to animal traceability. Producers were concerned
about various issues, including having their data maintained in a
Federal database and the cost of the technology that would be necessary
to achieve the 48-hour traceability goal. Overall, the feedback
revealed that NAIS had become a barrier to achieving meaningful animal
disease traceability in the United States in partnership with America's
producers.
On February 5, 2010, the Secretary announced that the Department
planned to take a new approach to animal disease traceability. This new
approach was developed through input from a State-Tribal-Federal
working group, Tribal consultations, discussions with producers and
industry, and feedback received in seven public meetings held during
the spring and summer of 2010. Our overall goal is to have an adaptable
approach that will help us find animals associated with a disease
quickly, focus our efforts on those animals, and minimize harm to
producers.
Overview of the Proposal
We are proposing to establish minimum national official
identification and documentation requirements for the traceability of
livestock moving interstate. These requirements are intended to improve
our ability to locate animals that may be infected with or exposed to a
disease. Because USDA's regulatory authority applies to interstate
commerce, the requirements would not apply to movements within a State.
They would also not apply to movements onto or from Tribal lands unless
the movement is also an interstate movement. Additionally, in
recognition of Tribal sovereignty, if a Tribe has its own system for
identifying and tracing livestock, separate from those of a State, our
requirements would not apply to movements entirely within that Tribal
jurisdiction even if the movements cross a State line that goes through
the Tribal lands. We also propose to exempt from the regulations
livestock moved to a custom slaughter facility in accordance with
Federal and State regulations for preparation of meat for personal
consumption.
The proposed requirements would apply to cattle and bison, sheep
and goats, swine, horses and other equines, captive cervids (e.g., deer
and elk), and poultry. The greatest gaps in identification and movement
documentation requirements for traceability purposes in our current
program disease regulations are for cattle. As noted above, due to the
near eradication of brucellosis in cattle, the number of vaccinated
heifers, which are required under the brucellosis regulations to be
officially identified, has decreased, and in turn, there has been a
significant decrease in the number of officially identified cattle.
Therefore, our proposed regulations would contain new requirements for
cattle. Because we have very limited program regulations for horses and
other equines, our proposed regulations would also contain new
requirements for equines. On the other hand, the traceability-related
requirements in our existing program regulations for swine, sheep and
goats, captive cervids, and commercial poultry are more comprehensive
and, we believe, largely sufficient at this time. While we are
proposing to cover those animals in this proposal, we have chosen, in
most cases, to refer the reader to the identification and documentation
requirements in those existing program regulations. Our proposal,
however, would establish traceability requirements for poultry moved
interstate to live bird markets.
Our proposed traceability requirements would have two main
elements.
First, animals moved interstate would have to be officially
identified. The methods and devices for identifying animals would vary
by species, and within a species there may be multiple choices. For
certain species, for example cattle and bison and sheep and goats, this
would typically involve attaching an eartag with a unique official
identification number to the animal. In some cases, most commonly with
poultry and swine, animals that move through the production chain are
identified as a group rather than by means of an individual eartag or
other identifier being attached to each animal.
The methods, devices, and numbering systems that we propose to
recognize as official identification are those that would provide for
effective traceability and that can be used nationwide. All States and
Tribal jurisdictions would be required to accept all official
identification methods proposed for each species. An example for cattle
would be an eartag with a national uniform eartagging system (NUES)
number. We recognize, however, that different identification methods
may exist or evolve in specific parts of the country and that there may
be situations where other forms of identification may be effective and
preferred by producers. Therefore, we are proposing to allow such
identification to be used in lieu of official identification for
livestock moved interstate when both the shipping and receiving States
or Tribes agree to its use. Additionally, because we recognize that
there will be logistical challenges associated with officially
identifying a significantly higher number of cattle for interstate
movement, we plan to phase in the requirements for identification of
cattle and bison over time.
Second, animals moved interstate must be accompanied by an
interstate certificate of veterinary inspection, also referred to as an
ICVI. The ICVI would be issued by an accredited veterinarian (one
authorized to perform work on behalf of the APHIS) or a Federal, State,
or Tribal veterinarian, who would be responsible for ensuring that the
animal meets applicable health requirements. The ICVI would, for
certain classes of animals, show the official identification number of
the animal. It would also contain information about where the animal is
moving from and its destination.
We are proposing some exceptions to the requirements for an ICVI.
For example, for cattle moving interstate directly to slaughter, we
propose to allow use of an owner-shipper statement, rather than an
ICVI. Additionally, we are proposing to allow alternatives to the ICVI
for livestock moved interstate when both the shipping and receiving
States or Tribes agree. We are also proposing some exceptions to the
requirement for recording animal identification numbers on ICVIs (e.g.,
for steers and spayed heifers).
These proposed identification and movement documentation
requirements are the foundation for a successful traceability program.
We are also proposing some associated recordkeeping requirements.
All of the specific requirements and exceptions we are proposing are
explained in detail below in a section-by-section discussion of the
proposed rule.
[[Page 50084]]
The purpose of the requirements we are proposing is to improve our
ability to trace livestock in the event that disease is found. It is
important to point out, though, that we do not prescribe methods or
systems that States and Tribes must use in order to trace animals that
have moved interstate. We expect that States (and interested Tribes)
will set up systems to allow effective tracing of animals that have
moved into or from their jurisdictions.
To enable us to evaluate the effectiveness of those systems, we
anticipate that we will eventually establish traceability performance
standards against which we could measure a State or Tribe's ability to
trace covered livestock moved interstate. Later in this preamble, under
the respective headings ``Performance Standards for Traceability'' and
``Traceability Evaluations of States and Tribes,'' we discuss our
current thinking regarding performance standards for measuring a
State's or Tribe's ability to trace covered livestock moved interstate
and the potential actions that could be taken when a State or Tribe
fails to meet the standards for a particular species. We are not
proposing any regulatory requirements pertaining to those issues at
this time; any such requirements would be established through a future,
separate rulemaking. At this time, however, we would welcome public
comment on our current thinking regarding the traceability performance
standards.
To facilitate the implementation of our new animal traceability
approach, APHIS intends to consult with an advisory group featuring
representation from APHIS, States, Tribes, and industry before we make
a decision. The advisory group could offer advice and recommendations
on our phase-in of official identification requirements for cattle and
bison (discussed in more detail below) before we make a decision, as
well as provide feedback on the effectiveness of various elements of
the traceability program.
Definitions (Sec. 90.1)
Our proposed animal traceability requirements would be contained in
a new 9 CFR part 90. The proposed regulations would include a number of
new definitions pertaining to animal traceability. In addition, some
definitions from the existing regulations would be incorporated into
proposed part 90, in some cases as they are and in others, in modified
form. Most of these proposed definitions are discussed below, by
category (identification, documentation, movement, and miscellaneous).
In a few cases, however, proposed definitions are discussed later in
this preamble as the terms are used, in order to provide needed
context.
Definitions Pertaining to Official Identification
Official eartags are used for official identification of a number
of species under the existing regulations and would continue to be
under these proposed traceability regulations. The existing interstate
movement and animal disease program regulations define official eartag
in a number of places. We propose to define official eartag in part 90
as an identification tag approved by APHIS that bears an official
identification number for individual animals. The proposed definition
further states that, beginning 1 year after the effective date of the
final rule for this proposed rule, all official eartags applied to
animals must bear the U.S. shield. The design, size, shape, color, and
other characteristics of the official eartag would depend on the needs
of the users, subject to the approval of the Administrator. The
official eartag would have to be tamper-resistant and have a high
retention rate in the animal. This proposed definition of official
eartag is similar to the one used in Sec. 71.1 and elsewhere in the
existing regulations. The current definition in Sec. 71.1, however,
requires that the U.S. shield be used only on eartags bearing an animal
identification number (AIN) with an 840 prefix. We are proposing to
broaden the U.S. shield requirement to all official eartags to achieve
greater standardization of this type of official identification device.
The delay in the effective date of the U.S. shield requirement is
intended to ease the transition and allow producers time to run through
existing stocks of eartags.
We propose to define officially identified as identified by means
of an official identification device or method approved by the
Administrator. The proposed definition is similar to the definition of
officially identified in 9 CFR 77.2 but is intended to provide a more
uniform definition that could eventually be applied throughout the
existing regulations as well.
Further, we propose to define official identification device or
method as a means approved by the Administrator of applying an official
identification number to an animal of a specific species or associating
an official identification number with an animal or group of animals of
a specific species. This proposed definition is adapted from the
existing one in Sec. 71.1, where official identification device or
method is defined as a means of officially identifying an animal or
group of animals using devices or methods approved by the
Administrator, including, but not limited to, official tags, tattoos,
and registered brands when accompanied by a certificate of inspection
from a recognized brand inspection authority. Our proposed definition
of official identification device or method is intended to establish
minimum, uniform national requirements and does not include a list of
examples, since not all the devices or methods listed under the
existing definition in Sec. 71.1 would be accepted as official for all
species under these proposed regulations. (Official identification
devices and methods would be listed by species under proposed Sec.
90.4 of these regulations.) For cattle and bison, for example, for
reasons discussed in greater detail below, the only identification
device we would recognize as official would be official eartags.
However, these proposed regulations would allow brands and other
methods that are not included in the proposed definition of official
identification device or method to be used in lieu of official
identification when agreed to by the shipping and receiving States and
Tribes. The use of brands and other identification methods in lieu of
official identification is discussed in more detail later in this
document. Finally, for the sake of consistency, i.e., to eliminate any
possible conflict between our proposed traceability regulations and the
existing ones, we would also amend the definition of official
identification device or method in Sec. 71.1 and in the tuberculosis
and brucellosis regulations, as discussed below, to match the one we
are proposing here.
As stated above, the intended use of an official identification
device or method is to apply an official identification number to an
individual animal or to associate such a number with a group of
animals. We propose to define official identification number as a
nationally unique number permanently associated with an animal or group
of animals. The official identification number would have to adhere to
one of the following systems, most of which are already in use:
National Uniform Eartagging System (NUES).
Animal identification number (AIN).
Location-based number system.
Flock-based number system.
Any other numbering system approved by the Administrator
for the official identification of animals.
We further propose in these regulations to provide definitions of
[[Page 50085]]
these numbering systems. Those definitions are discussed below.
NUES
The existing interstate movement regulations in 9 CFR part 71 and
the animal disease regulations in parts 77, 78, 79, and 80 allow for
the use of the NUES as a means of identifying individual animals in
commerce. The system has been in use for many years, but the existing
regulations do not define the term or specify a particular format. To
allow for the use of this numbering system under these proposed animal
traceability regulations and to ensure greater standardization and
uniformity of the NUES, we are proposing to add a definition of the
term to the new animal traceability part. We would define National
Uniform Eartagging System (NUES) as a numbering system for the official
identification of individual animals in the United States that provides
a nationally unique identification number for each animal. Formatting
requirements for the NUES (and other numbering systems) would be set
out in our Animal Disease Traceability General Standards Document,
which we would make available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability.
AIN
We propose to include in part 90 a definition of animal
identification number (AIN), which we would adapt from the existing
definition of the term in 9 CFR 71.1. We propose to define the AIN, as
we do in Sec. 71.1, as a numbering system for the official
identification of individual animals in the United States that provides
a nationally unique identification number for each animal. Under the
proposed definition, the AIN would consist of 15 digits, with the first
3 being the country code (840 for the United States), except that the
alpha characters USA or the numeric code assigned to the manufacturer
of the identification device by the International Committee on Animal
Recording could be used as alternatives to the 840 prefix until 1 year
after the effective date of the final rule for this proposal. The
existing definition lists the same formatting requirements but does not
specify a sunset date for the use of AINs beginning with the characters
USA or the manufacturer's code. We are proposing to phase out those two
AIN formats in order to achieve greater standardization of this
numbering system, while providing producers with adequate notice of the
change and so they can work through existing inventories of eartags.
This proposed requirement would apply only to animals tagged 1 year or
more after the effective date of the final rule for this proposal;
producers would not have to retag animals that had been officially
identified using the USA or manufacturer's code AIN prior to that date.
As is now the case, the AIN beginning with the 840 prefix would be
recognized for use only on animals born in the United States. Also,
like the existing definition of the AIN, the proposed definition does
not require producers to use the AIN; we would continue to recognize
other numbering systems as official for the identification of
individual animals.
Location Identifiers
The existing regulations, e.g., in parts 77 and 78, allow for the
use of premises-based numbering systems on official eartags. Such
numbering systems combine an official premises identification number
(PIN), discussed below, with a producer's livestock production
numbering system to provide a unique identification number. Numbering
systems using a PIN and a producer's production numbering system would
continue to be allowed under this proposed rule, but we would expand
the range of allowable location identifiers. In keeping with our goal
of letting States and Tribes develop traceability systems that work
best for them, we would allow them to determine, according to their
needs, the location to which animals moving from their jurisdictions
would have to be associated. The proposed traceability regulations,
therefore, do not refer to premises-based numbering systems but instead
include a definition of location-based numbering system. Under this
proposed definition, a location-based numbering system could combine
either a State- or Tribal-issued location identification number (LID
number) or a PIN with a producer's unique livestock production
numbering system to provide a nationally and herd-unique identification
number for an animal.
We propose to define location identification (LID) number as a
nationally unique number issued by a State, Tribal, and/or Federal
animal health authority to a location, as determined by the State or
Tribe in which it is issued. As proposed, the LID number could be used
in conjunction with a producer's own livestock production numbering
system to provide a nationally unique and herd-unique identification
number for an animal. It could also be used as a component of a group/
lot identification number (GIN), which is described below. Formatting
requirements for the LID would be contained in our Animal Disease
Traceability General Standards Document.
Since the PIN could be used as a component of a location-based
numbering system, we are including a definition of premises
identification number (PIN) in this proposed rule. We propose to define
the PIN as a nationally unique number assigned by a State, Tribal, and/
or Federal animal health authority to a premises that is, in the
judgment of the State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal health authority a
geographically distinct location from other premises. The PIN could be
used in conjunction with a producer's own livestock production
numbering system to provide a nationally and herd-unique identification
number for an animal. It could be used as a component of a group/lot
identification number (GIN), which is discussed below. The proposed
definition of the PIN is similar to that used elsewhere in the existing
regulations but would not include number and letter formatting
requirements (e.g., the State's two-letter postal abbreviation followed
by the premises' assigned number, as is currently the case). The
formatting requirements for the PIN would be contained in the Animal
Disease Traceability General Standards Document.
GIN
The GIN, referred to above, provides a means of identifying groups
of animals when individual animal identification is not required.
Existing regulations allow for the identification of groups of animals
of some species under certain conditions. The regulations in 9 CFR
71.19, which contain identification requirements for swine moving in
interstate commerce, offer one such example. Adapting an existing
definition of the GIN in Sec. 71.1, we propose to define group/lot
identification number (GIN) in this proposed rule as the identification
number used to uniquely identify a ``unit of animals'' of the same
species that is managed together as one group throughout the preharvest
production chain. The proposed definition also specifies that when a
GIN is used, it must be recorded on documents accompanying the animals;
it would not, however, be necessary to have the GIN attached to each
animal. This last provision is a new one, not present in the current
definition in Sec. 71.1, and is in keeping with the purpose of
allowing animals of certain species to be identified by group or lot
rather than individually. Additionally, while the definition of the GIN
in Sec. 71.1 includes detailed formatting requirements, we
[[Page 50086]]
propose to remove them from the regulations and place them in the
Animal Disease Traceability General Standards Document, as we are
proposing to do with the requirements for the PIN.
FIN
At this time, the NSEP furnishes eartags to sheep and goat
producers that bear a number that combines a unique flock
identification number (FIN) with the producer's unique livestock
production number. This flock-based number represents an animal group
that is associated with one or more locations. This flock-based number
system serves the sheep and goat industries well in their disease
control and eradication efforts. The existing regulations in part 79,
however, while allowing for the use of the system on eartags for sheep
and goats in the NSEP, do not define flock-based number system or FIN
and do not specify a particular format to be used. Therefore, to codify
current practices and help ensure uniformity and consistency in the use
of flock identification numbering, we are proposing to define both
these terms. We propose to define flock identification number (FIN) as
a nationally unique number assigned by a State, Tribal, or Federal
animal health authority to a group of animals that are managed as a
unit on one or more premises and are under the same ownership.
Formatting requirements would be listed in the Animal Disease
Traceability General Standards Document. We propose to define flock-
based number system as a numbering system combining a FIN with a
producer's livestock production numbering system to provide a
nationally unique identification number for an animal.
Definitions Pertaining to Documentation
Under our existing interstate movement (9 CFR part 71) and animal
disease program regulations (e.g., 9 CFR parts 77, 78, and 79), animals
that are neither disease reactors nor exposed are generally required to
be accompanied by certificates when moving interstate. The term
certificate is defined in a number of places in those regulations.
Among those definitions, however, there exists some variation according
to species regarding information requirements and the use of the
document. In addition, there is not a uniform requirement that
certificates be issued by veterinarians. The proposed addition of the
ICVI to the regulations, therefore, is intended to provide a
standardized document, issued by a veterinarian, for the interstate
movement of animals. We would add definitions of the ICVI to these
proposed traceability regulations, as well as to part 71 and to the
tuberculosis (9 CFR part 77) and brucellosis (9 CFR part 78)
regulations. Further, we would amend the tuberculosis and brucellosis
regulations, as discussed in detail below, so that the use of ICVIs
would replace the use of certificates in parts 77 and 78. The ICVI
would have to be issued by a veterinarian because, among other things,
it would certify that a veterinary inspection has in fact taken place.
Our requirements for veterinary accreditation are contained in 9 CFR
parts 160 and 161.
We are proposing, then, to define interstate certificate of
veterinary inspection (ICVI) as an official document issued by a
Federal, State, Tribal, or accredited veterinarian at the location from
which animals are shipped interstate. The proposed definition further
lists the information requirements for the ICVI. The ICVI must show the
species of animals covered by the ICVI; the number of animals covered;
the purpose for which the animals are to be moved; the address at which
the animals were loaded for interstate movement; the address to which
the animals are destined; and the names of the consignor and the
consignee and their addresses if different from the address at which
the animals were loaded or the address to which the animals are
destined. Additionally, unless the species-specific requirements for
ICVIs provide an exception, the ICVI must list the official
identification number of each animal or group of animals moved that is
required to be officially identified, or, if an alternative form of
identification has been agreed upon by the sending and receiving States
or Tribes, the ICVI must include a record of that identification. If
animals moving under a GIN also have individual official
identification, only the GIN must be listed on the ICVI. If the animals
are not required by the regulations to be officially identified, the
ICVI must state the exemption that applies (e.g., the cattle and bison
are of a class of cattle and bison exempted during the initial stage of
the phase-in). For those categories of animals required to be
officially identified but whose identification number does not have to
be recorded on the ICVI, the ICVI must state that all animals to be
moved under the ICVI are officially identified. An ICVI may not be
issued for any animal that is not officially identified if official
identification is required.
As an alternative to typing or writing individual animal
identification on an ICVI, another document may be used to provide this
information, but only under the following conditions:
The document must be a State form or APHIS form that
requires individual identification of animals;
A legible copy of the document must be stapled to the
original and each copy of the ICVI;
Each copy of the document must identify each animal to be
moved with the ICVI, but any information pertaining to other animals,
and any unused space on the document for recording animal
identification, must be crossed out in ink; and
The following information must be written in ink in the
identification column on the original and each copy of the ICVI and
must be circled or boxed, also in ink, so that no additional
information can be added:
[cir] The name of the document; and
[cir] Either the unique serial number on the document or, if the
document is not imprinted with a serial number, both the name of the
person who prepared the document and the date the document was signed.
The information requirements for the ICVI are closely modeled upon
requirements for certificates in Sec. 78.1 of the brucellosis
regulations. These proposed requirements are necessary to provide
States, Tribes, and APHIS with adequate information to conduct
successful traceback investigations.
In certain cases, we would allow for the use of an owner-shipper
statement in lieu of an ICVI. We propose to define owner-shipper
statement as a statement signed by the owner or shipper of the
livestock being moved stating the location from which the animals are
moved interstate; the destination of the animals; the number of animals
covered by the statement; the species of animal covered; the name and
address of the owner at the time of the movement; the name and address
of the shipper; and the identification of each animal, as required by
the regulations, unless the regulations specifically provide that the
identification does not have to be recorded. The proposed information
requirements enumerated under this definition are incorporated from
existing regulations pertaining to identification of cattle for
interstate movement in Sec. 71.18.
Definitions Pertaining to Interstate Movement
Because these proposed regulations concern the movement of animals
interstate, it is necessary to include a definition of interstate
movement. We would define interstate movement as a movement from one
State into or through any other State. This proposed
[[Page 50087]]
definition is taken from the definition of interstate currently used in
our tuberculosis and brucellosis regulations in 9 CFR parts 77 and 78,
respectively.
We propose to define the term move as to carry, enter, import,
mail, ship, or transport; to aid, abet, cause, or induce carrying,
entering, importing, mailing, shipping, or transporting; to offer to
carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or transport; to receive in order to
carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or transport; or to allow any of
these activities. This proposed definition is incorporated from the
Animal Health Protection Act, minus a provision concerning release into
the environment that is not applicable to animal traceability.
As will be discussed later in this document, movement and
documentation requirements may differ in some cases, depending on
whether or not an animal is moved directly to a particular destination.
For that reason, it is necessary to include a definition of directly.
We would define directly as without unloading en route if moved in a
means of conveyance and without being commingled with other animals, or
without stopping, except for stops of less than 24 hours that are
needed for food, water, or rest en route if the animals are moved in
any other manner. This proposed definition has been adapted from the
existing one in Sec. 78.1 but modified to allow for stops needed to
care for the animals in the shipment.
Not only the nature of an animal's interstate movement (directly or
otherwise) but also the destination to which it is moved may affect the
requirements governing such movement. Specifically, as discussed in
greater detail later in this document, we would provide exemptions from
the requirement for official identification for cattle and bison moved
interstate directly to an approved livestock facility or recognized
slaughtering establishment. It is necessary, for the sake of clarity,
to include in this proposed rule definitions of such facilities. We
propose to define approved livestock facility as a stockyard, livestock
market, buying station, concentration point, or any other premises
under State or Federal veterinary inspection where livestock are
assembled and that has been approved under Sec. 71.20. This proposed
definition matches the existing one in Sec. 71.1. We propose to define
recognized slaughtering establishment as any slaughtering facility
operating under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), or
State meat or poultry inspection acts. This proposed definition is
based on the definitions of the term used elsewhere in the existing
regulations.
Miscellaneous Definitions
As noted above in our overview section, these proposed regulations
would only apply to certain species of livestock: Cattle and bison,
sheep and goats, swine, horses and other equines, captive cervids, and
poultry. We propose, therefore, to include in this proposed rule a new
definition of covered livestock that would simply list those species.
Some of the proposed definitions discussed above, e.g., approved
livestock facility, refer to livestock more generally. Species that
could be present at such a facility would not necessarily be limited to
those covered under this rulemaking. It is necessary, therefore, to
include a definition of livestock in this proposed rule. We propose to
define livestock as all farm-raised animals. This proposed definition
comes from the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8302).
In the overview section of this preamble, we referred to our plans
to phase in official identification requirements for cattle and bison.
As discussed in greater detail below, cattle and bison associated with
greater risk of contracting and spreading disease would be subject to
the official identification requirements before those associated with
lesser risk. The former category includes sexually intact cattle and
bison 18 months of age or over, dairy cattle, and cattle and bison used
for rodeos, recreational events, shows, or exhibitions. While most of
these designations are self-explanatory, that of dairy cattle is not.
We are therefore including in this proposed rule a definition of dairy
cattle. Under this proposed definition, all cattle, regardless of age
or sex or current use, that are of a breed(s) typically used to produce
milk or other dairy products for human consumption would be considered
dairy cattle. We propose to define dairy cattle in such an inclusive
manner because both male and female calves are often moved from birth
premises and managed at multiple locations. The movement and
commingling of dairy calves and the associated risk of disease exposure
and spread warrant the official identification of all dairy animals.
General Requirements for Traceability (Sec. 90.2)
Under these proposed regulations, no person (a term we propose to
define, using a standard definition employed elsewhere in the
regulations, as any individual, corporation, company, association,
firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company, or other legal
entity) could move covered livestock interstate or receive such
livestock moved interstate unless the livestock meet all applicable
requirements of the traceability regulations. We consider these
proposed requirements, which are discussed in detail later in this
document, to be the minimum necessary for a successful animal
traceability program.
In addition to these proposed traceability requirements, all
covered livestock moving interstate would continue to be subject to
existing disease control and eradication program regulations, e.g., for
tuberculosis, brucellosis, etc., in 9 CFR subchapter C. While this
proposed rule would establish minimum traceability requirements, the
disease program regulations may contain additional, or more specific,
requirements necessary to control or eliminate livestock diseases. It
is not our intention to loosen those disease program requirements;
hence, they would be given precedence if they were to conflict in any
way with the general traceability requirements being proposed here.
There are two circumstances when the traceability requirements
would not apply to interstate movement of covered livestock:
The movement occurs entirely within Tribal land that
straddles a State line, and the Tribe has a separate traceability
system from the States in which its lands are located; or
The movement is to a custom slaughter facility in
accordance with Federal and State regulations for preparation of meat
for personal consumption.
Under this rulemaking, Tribal lands, whether entirely within a
State or straddling State lines, would be covered by the same
traceability system as the State or States within which they are
contained, unless the Tribal representatives choose to have their own
traceability system separate from the State(s). If a Tribal land
straddling a State line does have a separate traceability system from
the States in which it is contained, then, because of Tribal
sovereignty, livestock movements taking place entirely within that
Tribal land, even across State lines, would not be regarded as
interstate movement under our regulations. Therefore, the proposed
traceability requirements for interstate movement would not apply.
We do not deem it necessary to apply our proposed traceability
requirements to interstate movement of covered livestock to a custom
slaughter facility under the conditions described above.
[[Page 50088]]
Such animals are accurately identified so the meat products are
properly provided to the owner or person responsible. Therefore, those
animals are already highly traceable to the farm or other location from
which the animals were moved to the slaughter facility.
Recordkeeping Requirements (Sec. 90.3)
As we have noted, we are proposing in these regulations to require
that, with certain exceptions, covered livestock moving interstate be
officially identified and accompanied by an ICVI or other movement
document. This proposed rule would require that any State, Tribe,
accredited veterinarian, or other person or entity who distributes
official identification devices maintain for a minimum of 5 years a
record of the names and addresses of anyone to whom the devices were
distributed. We would also require that approved livestock facilities
keep for a minimum of 5 years any ICVIs or alternate documentation used
in lieu of an ICVI for covered livestock that enter the facilities. Our
proposed 5-year requirement for maintaining records of official
identification devices and ICVIs or other animal movement documents is
necessary because certain animal diseases, such as tuberculosis and
bovine spongiform encephalopathy, have very long latency or incubation
periods, which can make traceback efforts quite challenging. Such
diseases may not manifest themselves until an animal reaches adulthood,
possibly several years after it was officially identified and/or moved
interstate. The proposed recordkeeping requirements would enhance our
ability to conduct traceback investigations of infected and exposed
animals, even in cases where the disease that the animal has contracted
or been exposed to has a very long latency period. We request comment
on the burden and practical utility of this proposed requirement.
Official Identification (Sec. 90.4)
Official Identification Devices and Methods
We will now discuss how persons moving covered livestock interstate
may comply with the proposed requirement that such livestock bear
official identification. Please note that, in order to provide
flexibility, the Administrator could authorize the use of additional
devices or methods of identification if they would provide for
effective traceability.
In this proposed rule, official identification devices or methods
approved by the Administrator for use on covered livestock moving
interstate are listed by species. (They would also be listed in our
Animal Disease Traceability General Standards Document.) These
requirements are described in detail below. Listing official
identification methods by species provides clarity to livestock owners
so they know what official identification options are accepted for the
movement of their animals anywhere in the United States.
It is our intention that any device or method authorized by the
proposed regulations as official identification for a species be
accepted by any destination State or Tribe. Therefore, only those
identification devices or methods that are available throughout the
United States for a given species would be listed as official under the
proposed regulations, and some identification practices that may be
used regionally would not be listed, though we may allow them to be
used in lieu of official identification.
Branding of cattle and bison is one prominent example of an
identification method that would not be listed as official
identification for cattle and bison under the proposed regulations but
would be allowed to be employed in lieu of official identification. If
we were to list brands as a means of official identification, all
States would have to accept animals identified with brands into their
jurisdictions. At this time, however, 36 States do not have brand
inspection authorities, so brands would not be suitable for listing as
a means of official identification. Yet, recognizing the value of
brands and their prevalence in the western United States, the proposed
rule does provide sufficient flexibility to allow for the use of brands
on covered livestock moving interstate in lieu of official
identification when brands are acceptable to both the shipping and
receiving State or Tribe. This provision for use of alternative means
of identification would apply to all other identification practices,
including tattoos, breed registries, etc., that States and Tribes may
elect to use instead of the official identification methods listed
under these proposed regulations, provided that they are acceptable to
both the shipping and receiving States or Tribes.
Official Identification Devices and Methods for Cattle and Bison
While the existing regulations recognize a number of means of
identification, such as eartags, backtags, tattoos, and brands, as
official for use on cattle and bison moving interstate, we are
proposing to recognize eartags as the only device that may be used for
the official identification of individual cattle and bison. Official
eartags provide a simple means of uniquely identifying the animal.
Eartags are a more permanent means of identification than backtags,
which may come off the animal, and provide greater readability and ease
of recording than do tattoos. In addition to individual identification
of cattle and bison by means of official eartags, we propose to provide
for the use of GINs when cattle and bison are eligible for interstate
movement using group/lot identification. The GIN provides
identification for the entire group of animals. As we have already
noted, the number itself does not need to be attached to each
individual animal.
Official Identification Devices and Methods for Equines
Equines would have to be identified by one of the following
methods:
A description sufficient to identify the individual
equine, as determined by a State or Tribal animal health official in
the State or Tribe of destination, or APHIS representative, including,
but not limited to, name, age, breed, color, gender, distinctive
markings, and unique and permanent forms of identification when present
(e.g., brands, tattoos, scars, cowlicks, or blemishes); or
Electronic identification that complies with ISO 11784/
11785 (ISO 11784 defines the code structure of the number which is
embedded in the transponder's microchip. ISO 11785 defines the
technical specifications of how the transceiver communicates with the
transponder.); or
Digital photographs of the equine sufficient to identify
the individual equine, as determined by a State or Tribal animal health
official in the State or Tribe of destination, or APHIS representative;
or
For equines being commercially transported for slaughter,
a USDA backtag authorized by part 88 of this chapter.
The identification devices and methods listed above are all
currently used on horses and other equine species in the United States
and can provide for adequate traceability when they are moved
interstate.
Official Identification Devices and Methods for Poultry
Poultry would have to be identified either by means of a GIN, or
with sealed and numbered leg bands. These identification methods are
consistent with those required for poultry flocks participating in the
National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) regulations (9
[[Page 50089]]
CFR parts 145 through 147), and thus would not represent a change for
most poultry producers.
Official Identification Devices and Methods for Sheep and Goats
Currently, official identification devices or methods approved by
the Administrator for sheep and goats required to be officially
identified for interstate movement are listed in the scrapie
regulations in 9 CFR 79.2.(a). These include electronic implants,
official eartags, USDA backtags, official registry tattoos, premises
identification eartags, and any other device or method approved by the
Administrator. The process for approving official identification tags
and new identification types for sheep or goats is described in Sec.
79.2(f) and (g), respectively. This proposed rule would not change any
of those requirements. We would simply refer the reader to part 79.
Official Identification Devices and Methods for Swine
Currently, official identification devices or methods approved by
the Administrator for swine needing to be officially identified for
interstate movement are listed in Sec. 71.19. These include official
eartags, USDA backtags, official swine tattoos and other tattoos, ear
notching, and any other device or method approved by the Administrator.
As is the case for sheep and goats, this proposed rule would not change
those requirements, since, in our view, they already provide for
adequate traceability. We would refer the reader to Sec. 71.19.
Official Identification Devices and Methods for Captive Cervids
Interstate movement requirements for captive cervids are currently
included in the tuberculosis regulations in part 77. Except for captive
cervids from accredited-free States or zones, all captive cervids
moving interstate are required under part 77 to be officially
identified. As discussed in detail below, we are proposing in this
document to amend part 77 to align the requirements in that part with
our proposed traceability requirements. To avoid redundancy, this
proposed rule would simply state that captive cervids that are required
to be officially identified under these proposed regulations for
interstate movement must be identified by a device or method authorized
by part 77. It should be noted that captive cervids moved interstate
from an accredited-free State or zone would not be exempted from
official identification requirements under the traceability
regulations. As discussed further below, we would also amend part 77 to
indicate that such captive cervids would be subject to the traceability
requirements and thus not exempted from the requirement that they be
officially identified in order to move interstate.
Official Identification Requirements for Interstate Movement
In the paragraphs that follow, we discuss proposed requirements for
each species of covered livestock pertaining to aspects of official
identification other than the devices or methods themselves. Included
in this section are requirements for when covered livestock must be
officially identified for interstate movement and, in some cases, other
administrative requirements pertaining to official identification.
When Cattle and Bison Must Be Officially Identified
With certain exceptions, cattle and bison moved interstate would
have to be officially identified prior to the interstate movement using
one of the official identification devices or methods previously
discussed. These exceptions, which include the use, in lieu of official
identification, of devices or methods agreed to by the shipping and
receiving States or Tribes, are discussed in detail in the paragraphs
that follow.
An exception would be made for cattle and bison moving interstate
as part of a commuter herd with a copy of the commuter herd agreement.
In this proposed rule, we define commuter herd as a herd of cattle or
bison moved interstate during the course of normal livestock management
operations and without change of ownership directly between two
premises, as provided in a commuter herd agreement. We propose to
define commuter herd agreement as a written agreement between the
owner(s) of a herd of cattle or bison and the animal health officials
for the States and/or Tribes of origin and destination specifying the
conditions required for the interstate movement from one premises to
another in the course of normal livestock management operations and
specifying the time period, up to 1 year, that the agreement is
effective. A commuter herd agreement would be subject to annual
renewal. Meeting commuter-herd requirements in lieu of official
identification requirements would still provide adequate traceability
in our view.
We would also provide an exception from the requirement for
official identification prior to interstate movement for cattle and
bison moved directly from one State through another State and back to
the original State. This exception would allow for movement without
official identification in cases where State borders are configured
such that a truck containing cattle or bison would pass through a
second State when moving the animals to a second location within the
State of origin. An example of this type of movement would be a
shipment of cattle originating at a location in Texas and passing
through Oklahoma territory en route to a second location in Texas.
Because the animals would not exit the truck en route and therefore
would not be commingled with other animals, we do not view official
identification of the individual animals in the shipment as necessary.
Cattle and bison would also be allowed to move interstate without
being officially identified prior to the movement if the interstate
movement is directly to an approved tagging site, provided that the
cattle and bison are officially identified there before they are
commingled with cattle and bison from other premises. In this proposed
rule, we define approved tagging site as a premises, authorized by
APHIS or State or Tribal animal health officials, where livestock can
be officially identified on behalf of their owner or the person in
possession, care, or control of the animals when they are brought to
the premises. Such sites would afford producers a safe and convenient
alternative, not provided for in the existing regulations, to
identifying their animals themselves. This proposed exception is
intended to allow producers to take advantage of this alternative when
they are unable to tag animals at their farm or ranch.
As discussed earlier, we would also allow cattle and bison to move
interstate without using one of the types of official identification
specifically approved for that purpose under these proposed regulations
by the Administrator if the cattle and bison are moved between shipping
and receiving States or Tribes with another form of identification,
including but not limited to brands, tattoos, and breed registry
certificates, as agreed upon by animal health officials in the shipping
and receiving States or Tribes. In such situations, the shipping and
receiving States or Tribes would determine whether that other form of
identification is sufficient to enable the States or Tribes to meet
their own traceability needs. This exemption is in keeping with our
goal of allowing sufficient flexibility for States and Tribes to employ
the traceability options that work best for them. If Tribal land
straddles a State line and the Tribe does not have a separate
traceability system
[[Page 50090]]
from the States in which it is contained, animal movements within the
Tribal land that cross the State border would be considered interstate
movements under this proposed rule. In such cases, the cattle and bison
could still be moved across the State border using a form of
identification agreed upon by animal health officials in the States of
origin and destination.
As described in greater detail below, we plan to phase in our
official identification requirements for cattle and bison, applying
them immediately upon the effective date of the final rule for this
proposed rule to certain classes of cattle and bison and over time to
other classes of cattle and bison. Until the date on which the official
identification requirements apply to all cattle and bison, cattle and
bison would also be eligible for interstate movement without official
identification if they are moved directly to a recognized slaughtering
establishment or directly to no more than one approved livestock
facility approved to handle ``for slaughter only'' animals (cattle or
bison that, when marketed, are presented/sold for slaughter only) and
then directly to a recognized slaughtering establishment; and
They are moved interstate with a USDA-approved backtag; or
A USDA-approved backtag is applied to the cattle or bison
at the recognized slaughtering establishment or federally approved
livestock facility approved to handle ``for slaughter only'' animals.
Because backtags are not considered to be a permanent form of
identification, we are proposing to discontinue allowing the use of
USDA backtags as official identification for cattle and bison. We
would, however, allow their use in lieu of official identification for
animals going to slaughter. We therefore propose to define United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved backtag as a backtag
issued by APHIS that provides a temporary unique identification for
each animal. The inclusion of the word temporary is what distinguishes
this proposed definition from the otherwise identical definition of
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) backtag in Sec. 71.1.
The phase-in of the proposed official identification requirements
for cattle and bison would proceed as described in the paragraphs that
follow. Beginning on the effective date of the final rule for this
proposed rule, the official identification requirements would apply to
all sexually intact cattle and bison 18 months of age or over, dairy
cattle of any age, cattle and bison of any age used for rodeo or
recreational events, and cattle and bison used for shows or
exhibitions. Because cattle and bison belonging to these categories
tend to have longer lifespans than feeder animals and move around more,
they have more opportunities for commingling and thus present a greater
risk of spreading disease via interstate movement. It is therefore
necessary to prioritize traceability of these animals over feeder
animals. APHIS requests comment on this determination and the decision
to implement the requirements for this subgroup first.
APHIS recognizes that the second stage of the phase-in process, the
expansion of the official identification requirements to all remaining
classes of cattle and bison, estimated to be approximately 20 million
animals annually, could disrupt the management and marketing of cattle
if not implemented properly. Critical to successful implementation is
to ensure that our proposed official identification requirements are
being implemented effectively throughout the production chain for all
cattle required to be officially identified in the initial phase.
Therefore, we are proposing to conduct an assessment of the workability
of the requirements for cattle in the initial phase before expanding
the official identification requirements to cover all remaining classes
of cattle and bison. When we are ready to begin that assessment, we
will publish a notice in the Federal Register. The notice will describe
the procedures we will use in our assessment, as well as its
objectives.
The assessment will involve an advisory group with industry
representation from sectors most affected by the official
identification requirements. The advisory group will provide feedback
on the effectiveness of various elements of the initial phase of
identifying cattle and offer recommendations regarding the application
of the official identification requirements to beef cattle under 18
months of age.
APHIS requests comment on our proposal to apply the official
identification requirements discussed above to all remaining classes of
cattle, in particular, on the costs and benefits of doing so and on any
practical difficulties or unintended consequences that may result.
Further, we request comment on how APHIS should conduct the assessment
process described above. We are particularly interested in comments on
what information APHIS should collect and the methods by which it
should be collected.
We are proposing to delay implementing official identification
requirements for beef cattle under 18 months of age until 70 percent of
all cattle initially required to be officially identified are found to
be in compliance with official identification requirements. We would
evaluate a representative cross-section of the cattle population to
determine whether the 70-percent compliance rate has been attained.
While higher rates of compliance are ultimately expected and necessary,
the 70-percent figure would represent a significant increase in the use
of official eartags on adult cattle, indicating that effective tagging
practices are in place. We will ask the advisory group, as part of
their review of the initial phase, to consider and comment on our data
and the evaluation methodology we used for determining that the 70-
percent rate of compliance has been attained. As indicated above, the
advisory group would also provide feedback that would aid us in making
our determination that the official identification requirements were
being effectively implemented during the initial phase.
Additionally, we welcome comments and suggestions from the public
on factors other than compliance rate that APHIS should consider when
assessing the effectiveness of the initial official identification
requirements for cattle in enhancing traceability.
APHIS will consider the advisory report and all feedback from the
public regarding the official identification of beef cattle under 18
months of age. When we have completed our assessment and determined
that expansion of the official identification requirements for cattle
is viable, APHIS will publish a notice of the availability of the
assessment in the Federal Register and take comments from the public.
If after reviewing the comments, APHIS decides to move forward with the
implementation of the second stage of the phase-in process, APHIS will
publish an additional notice in the Federal Register discussing the
comments and announcing the date (1 year after the date of publication
of the notice) upon which the official identification requirements will
become effective for all cattle and bison.
When Sheep and Goats Must Be Officially Identified
Under this proposed rule, sheep and goats moving interstate would
have to be officially identified prior to the interstate movement
unless they are exempted under the scrapie regulations in part 79 from
official identification requirements or are officially identified after
the interstate movement, as provided in part 79.
[[Page 50091]]
When Swine Must Be Officially Identified
Swine moving interstate would have to be officially identified in
accordance with Sec. 71.19 of the existing regulations. Included in
that section are requirements for the handling and administration of
official identification devices or methods.
When Equines Must Be Officially Identified
Horses and other equines moving interstate would have to be
officially identified prior to interstate movement in accordance with
these proposed regulations or identified as agreed upon by State or
Tribal officials in the jurisdictions involved in the movement, or, if
the horses are being commercially transported to slaughter, in
accordance with part 88.
When Poultry Must Be Officially Identified
The proposed requirements for poultry are similar to those for
equines. Poultry moving interstate would have to be officially
identified prior to interstate movement or identified as agreed upon by
State or Tribal officials in the shipping and receiving jurisdictions.
When Captive Cervids Must Be Officially Identified
Captive cervids moving interstate would have to be officially
identified prior to interstate movement in accordance with the
tuberculosis regulations in part 77.
Use of Multiple Official Identification Devices
The use of multiple official identification devices or methods with
multiple official identification numbers for a single animal has the
potential to cause confusion and impede efforts to track the movements
of that animal. We propose, therefore, to prohibit the use of more than
one official identification device or method on an animal, beginning on
the effective date of the final rule for this proposed rule, with some
exceptions. Exceptions to the prohibition would be granted under the
following circumstances when the use of more than one official
identification device or method may be appropriate or necessary:
A State or Tribal animal health official or an area
veterinarian in charge could approve the application of a second
official identification device in specific cases when the need to
maintain the identity of an animal is intensified, such as for export
shipments, quarantined herds, field trials, experiments, or disease
surveys, but not merely for convenience in identifying animals. The
person applying the second official identification device would have to
record the date on which the second official identification device was
added, the official number of the device already applied to the animal,
and the reason for the additional official identification device or
method. Those records would have to be maintained for a minimum of 5
years.
An eartag with an animal identification number (AIN)
beginning with the 840 prefix (either radio frequency identification or
visual-only tag) may be applied to an animal that is already officially
identified with an eartag with a NUES number, as AIN devices are
commonly used for herd management purposes. The animal's official
identification number on the existing official identification eartag
must be recorded and reported in accordance with the AIN device
distribution policies, which can be found in our Animal Disease
Traceability General Standards Document.
A brucellosis vaccination eartag with a NUES number could
be applied for management purposes in accordance with the existing
brucellosis regulations to an animal that is already officially
identified under the traceability regulations.
Removal or Loss of Official Identification Devices
We propose to modify certain existing requirements pertaining to
the removal or loss of official identification devices. The existing
regulations in Sec. 71.22 state that official identification devices
are intended to provide permanent identification of livestock and to
ensure the ability to find the source of animal disease outbreaks.
Section 71.22 also prohibits the intentional removal of such devices
except at the time of slaughter. We would incorporate that prohibition
into our proposed regulations in part 90 in modified form, allowing for
removal of official identification devices not only at slaughter, but
also at any other location where the animal may be upon its death or as
otherwise approved by the State animal health official or an area
veterinarian in charge when a device needs to be replaced. This
proposed change would codify existing practices.
We would provide that all man-made identification devices affixed
to covered livestock moved interstate must be removed at slaughter and
correlated with the carcasses through final inspection by means
approved by the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). If
diagnostic samples are taken, the identification devices must be
packaged with the samples and be correlated with the carcasses through
final inspection by means approved by FSIS. Devices collected at
slaughter must be made available to APHIS and FSIS. This proposed
requirement is consistent with FSIS's requirements and would enhance
our ability to conduct traceback investigations in the event of a
positive post-mortem diagnosis.
We would further propose that all official identification devices
affixed to covered livestock carcasses moved interstate for rendering
must be removed at the rendering facility and made available to APHIS.
This is a new requirement that would also enhance our traceback
capabilities. APHIS requests comment on the costs and benefits of this
proposed requirement.
The proposed rule would not require that producers keep records of
animals that are tagged on their farms, moved onto or from their farms,
or die on their farms. The percentage of animals that die on farms is
so small in comparison with those that are slaughtered or rendered,
that the overall access to terminated animal records would not be
significantly impacted negatively if those records were not made
available to APHIS. Producers are encouraged to record such
information, however, for general herd-management recordkeeping and, if
needed, to support disease investigation activities that may include
their operations,
Under this proposed rule, if an animal were to lose an official
identification device and need a new one, the person applying the new
one would have to record the following information about the event and
maintain the record for 5 years: The date the new official
identification device was added; the official identification number on
the device; and the official identification number on the old device,
if known. This proposed recordkeeping requirement, which is a new one,
would aid State, Tribal, and Federal officials when it is necessary to
trace such animals.
Replacement of Official Identification Devices
We are also proposing some new requirements pertaining to the
replacement of official identification devices for reasons other than
loss. Though in practice there are circumstances that might necessitate
the replacement of such devices, the existing regulations are silent on
the matter. To prevent any confusion regarding when official
identification devices may be replaced in accordance
[[Page 50092]]
with the regulations, it is necessary to specify those circumstances to
the extent possible. We are therefore proposing to provide that a State
or Tribal animal health official or an area veterinarian in charge
could authorize the replacement of an official identification device
under circumstances that include, but are not limited to, the
following:
Deterioration of the device such that loss of the device
appears likely or the number can no longer be read;
Infection at the site where the device is attached,
necessitating application of a device at another location (e.g., a
slightly different location of an eartag in the ear);
Malfunction of the electronic component of a radio
frequency identification (RFID) device; or
Incompatibility or inoperability of the electronic
component of an RFID device with the management system or unacceptable
functionality of the management system due to use of an RFID device.
In order to facilitate traceback, we also propose to require that
records be kept when official identification devices are replaced under
such circumstances. The person replacing the device would have to
record the following information about the event and maintain the
record for 5 years:
The date on which the device was removed;
Contact information for the location where the device was
removed;
The official identification number (to the extent
possible) on the device removed;
The type of device removed (e.g., metal eartag, RFID
eartag);
The reason for the removal of the device;
The new official identification number on the replacement
device; and
The type of replacement device applied.
Sale of Transfer of Official Identification Devices
The sale or transfer of official identification devices between
producers may complicate efforts to trace animals. We therefore provide
that official identification devices may not be sold or otherwise
transferred from the premises to which they were originally issued to
another premises without the authorization of the Administrator or a
State or Tribal animal health official.
Documentation Requirements for Interstate Movement (Sec. 90.5)
Generally, under these proposed regulations, covered livestock
moving interstate would have to be accompanied by an ICVI, unless the
regulations allow a specific movement without an ICVI, or alternative
documentation is agreed upon by the shipping and receiving States or
Tribes, or another form of documentation is required for a particular
species under the existing disease program regulations in 9 CFR
subchapter C.
Information requirements for ICVIs have already been discussed
above. We are also proposing to add new requirements for the issuance
and use of ICVIs and other documents used for interstate movement of
animals. The person directly responsible for animals leaving a premises
would be responsible for ensuring that the animals are accompanied by
the ICVI or other interstate movement document. The APHIS
representative, State, or Tribal representative, or accredited
veterinarian who issues an ICVI or other document required for the
interstate movement of animals would have to forward a copy of the ICVI
or other document to the State animal health official of the State of
origin within 5 working days. The State or Tribal animal health
official in the State or Tribe of origin, in turn, would have to
forward a copy of the document to the State of destination within 5
working days. These proposed requirements would ensure that such
documents would be issued only by qualified personnel, would accompany
the animals being moved, and would be made available in a timely manner
for use by APHIS and State animal health officials in traceback
investigations. The proposed 5-day limit for forwarding is intended to
facilitate a traceback and/or trace forward investigation if an animal
moved interstate in accordance with the regulations were found to be
infected. Requiring the person issuing the ICVI or other document only
to forward it to the State of origin rather than the State of
destination as well would lessen his or her paperwork burden.
These proposed requirements are similar to those in Sec. 78.2 for
the handling of certificates, but have been streamlined for clarity and
adapted in such a way as to ensure to the greatest extent possible that
the documents are received by all personnel that may need them for
conducting traceback investigations. As discussed later in this
document, we would amend Sec. 78.2 so that the document handling
requirements there and in these proposed traceability regulations would
be consistent.
It should be noted that the proposed timeframes and forwarding
requirements are based on the handling of paper documents. As is now
the practice generally when APHIS or State veterinarians issue
veterinary certificates, if ICVIs or other documents were to be issued
electronically, they would be transmitted simultaneously to both the
State of origin and the State of destination.
We are proposing certain exemptions to the requirement that cattle
and bison moving interstate must be accompanied by an ICVI. Such cattle
and bison would be exempt from the requirement under the following
circumstances:
They are moved directly to a recognized slaughtering
establishment, or directly to an approved livestock facility approved
to handle ``for slaughter only'' animals and then directly to a
recognized slaughtering establishment, and they are accompanied by an
owner-shipper statement.
They are moved directly to an approved livestock facility
with an owner-shipper statement and do not move interstate from the
facility unless accompanied by an ICVI.
They are moved from the farm of origin for veterinary
medical examination or treatment and returned to the farm of origin
without change in ownership.
They are moved directly from one State through another
State and back to the original State.
They are moved as a commuter herd with a copy of the
commuter herd agreement.
Additionally, cattle and bison under 18 months of age may
be moved between shipping and receiving States or Tribes with
documentation other than an ICVI, e.g., a brand inspection certificate
when a brand is used for identification, as agreed upon by animal
health officials in the shipping and receiving States or Tribes.
A number of these exceptions, such as those for movement of
commuter herds, transit through a second State and return to the
original State, and movement to slaughter, dovetail with the exemptions
allowed from official identification requirements. Because of the other
safeguards associated with such interstate movements, an ICVI is not
considered to be necessary. The exemption for movement between States
or Tribes that have agreed upon an alternative form of documentation
would not be allowed for sexually intact cattle or bison 18 months of
age or older. Adult breeding cattle moving interstate warrant
inspection, which must be documented on the ICVI, because their
longevity and contacts with other livestock make them a higher
[[Page 50093]]
risk for exposure to and transmission of disease.
Official identification numbers of cattle or bison moving
interstate would have to be recorded on the ICVI or other documentation
accompanying them, except under the following circumstances:
If the cattle or bison are moved from an approved
livestock facility directly to a recognized slaughtering establishment;
or
If the cattle and bison are sexually intact cattle or
bison under 18 months of age, or are steers or spayed heifers of any
age. This exception would not apply, however, to sexually intact dairy
cattle of any age or to cattle or bison used for rodeo, exhibition, or
recreational purposes.
We recognize that recording identification of feeder cattle and
bison in ICVIs and other documentation would significantly slow
commerce in those animals, which are often moved in large numbers. The
other requirements proposed for these animals will nevertheless improve
their traceability. Requiring official identification numbers for other
cattle and bison to be recorded on ICVIs is a priority given their
longer lifespans and increased opportunity for commingling with animals
at different locations.
Horses and other equine species moving interstate would have to be
accompanied by an ICVI or other interstate movement document as agreed
to by the States or Tribes involved in the movement. Equines being
commercially shipped to slaughter would have to be accompanied by
documentation in accordance with part 88. Equine infectious anemia
(EIA) reactors would have to be accompanied by documentation as
required by 9 CFR part 75. Under the existing regulations, equines
other than slaughter equines or EIA reactors generally are not required
to be accompanied by documentation for interstate movement. The more
comprehensive documentation requirements we are proposing here would
improve traceability by closing a major gap in the regulations.
Poultry moving interstate would have to be accompanied by an ICVI,
with some exceptions similar to those allowed for cattle and bison when
other safeguards are in place. Specifically, the proposed exceptions to
the ICVI requirements for poultry are as follows:
The poultry are from a flock participating in the NPIP and
are accompanied by the documentation required under the NPIP
regulations for participation in that program;
The poultry are moved directly to a recognized
slaughtering establishment;
The poultry are moved from the farm of origin for
veterinary medical examination, treatment, or diagnostic purposes and
either returned to the farm of origin without change in ownership or
euthanized and disposed of at the veterinary facility;
The poultry are moved directly from one State through
another State and back to the original State;
The poultry are moved between the shipping and receiving
States or Tribes with a VS Form 9-3 or documentation other than an
ICVI, as agreed upon by animal health officials in the shipping and
receiving States or Tribes; or
The poultry are moved under permit in accordance with 9
CFR part 82.
As we have noted previously, in the overview section of this
preamble, traceability-related requirements in our existing regulations
for some species of covered livestock, e.g., sheep and goats, swine,
and captive cervids, are already sufficiently comprehensive and
rigorous at this time. For that reason, this proposed rule would not
alter existing documentation requirements for sheep and goats, swine,
and captive cervids moving interstate. Sheep and goats moved interstate
would have to be accompanied by documentation as required by the
scrapie regulations in part 79. Swine moved interstate would have to be
accompanied by documentation in accordance with Sec. 71.19. Captive
cervids moving interstate would have to be accompanied by documentation
as required under part 77. Captive cervids moving interstate from an
accredited-free State would be subject to the proposed traceability
requirements and, therefore, would have to have an ICVI or other
movement document.
APHIS requests comment on the proposed requirement that covered
livestock being moved interstate be accompanied by an ICVI or other
movement documentation. In particular, we request comment on the
benefits of veterinary inspection in the cases described above when
ICVIs would be used. Will veterinary inspection, especially inspection
of large herds, yield substantial benefits? We request comment on
whether the proposal for veterinary inspection will impose costs on
businesses, particularly on small or very small businesses.
Performance Standards for Traceability
When livestock are found to be infected with or exposed to a
disease, we take action to prevent that animal from spreading it via
interstate movement. Because the infected or exposed animal may already
have had contact with other animals, however, we need to determine
which other animals have had contact with the sick or exposed
livestock, find them, and take appropriate actions to be sure they do
not spread the disease. To do this, we need to trace the prior
movements of the livestock found to be infected or exposed and then
trace the forward movements of animals with which they may have come
into contact. Our ability to monitor, control, and eradicate livestock
diseases is contingent upon our being able to trace livestock movements
forward and backward. Our focus in this rulemaking is on tracing
interstate animal movements.
Though we do not now have the data necessary to establish
performance standards for States and Tribes and are not proposing to
add any to the regulations at this time, in the paragraphs that follow,
we discuss our current thinking on the issue. Additional information
regarding performance standards is available on our traceability Web
site at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/. We welcome comments
from the public on all aspects of this issue. We propose to reserve a
section in the regulations for the performance standards that we plan
to establish through a future rulemaking.
To evaluate a State's or Tribe's ability to meet the traceability
performance standards, APHIS would make use of animals it selects as
``reference animals.'' APHIS could randomly select reference animals
for a test exercise or could select animals that were included in an
actual disease traceback investigation as reference animals. However,
animals would be eligible to be used as reference animals only if they
were moved interstate on or after the date they are required to be
officially identified and only if they are identified with an official
identification number issued on or after the effective date of the
final rule for this proposed rule. These eligibility criteria would
ensure that animals moved interstate prior to this rulemaking would not
be included in the pool of reference animals. States and Tribes would
be evaluated on their ability to trace animals moved in accordance with
the new regulations only.
As we currently envision the performance standards, States and
Tribes would have to be able to accomplish the four activities listed
below, which are necessary components of a trace investigation, within
a specified timeframe for any species covered under the traceability
[[Page 50094]]
regulations. These activities would measure a State's or Tribe's
ability to trace the movement of reference animals backwards or
forwards as necessary, depending on whether it is a shipping or
receiving State or Tribe.
The receiving State or Tribe of a reference animal
determines the State or Tribe in which the animal was officially
identified and notifies that State or Tribe of the reference animal's
official identification number.
The State or Tribe where a reference animal was officially
identified confirms that it has documentation that the official
identification number was issued within its jurisdiction and that it
has contact information for the person who received that identification
number.
The receiving State or Tribe of a reference animal
determines the State or Tribe from which the animal was moved
interstate into its jurisdiction and notifies that State or Tribe of
the reference animal's official identification number.
The State or Tribe that receives notification that a
reference animal moved interstate from its jurisdiction determines the
address or location from which the reference animal was shipped.
We intend to conduct baseline studies by collecting information on
States' and Tribes' abilities to carry out those four activities for
each species covered by these regulations. The data we collect will
enable us to establish firm measurements by which we could evaluate the
performance of States and Tribes.
Traceability Evaluations of States and Tribes
Because we have not yet finalized the performance standards, we are
not proposing at this time to add to the regulations a description of
the process we will use to evaluate States' and Tribes' performance or
requirements for conducting such evaluations. In the paragraphs that
follow, however, we discuss our current thinking on those issues. We
welcome comments from the public regarding the evaluation process. We
are reserving an additional section in the regulations for evaluation
requirements that we plan to establish through future rulemaking.
Regardless of the final form the evaluation requirements take, we
anticipate that Tribal lands within a State's boundaries would be
included in the evaluation of that State unless the Tribe has a
separate traceability system. To ensure equal treatment for Tribes, any
Tribe wishing to have a separate traceability system and be evaluated
separately from the State(s) in which its lands are located could
request separate consideration at any time.
As we currently envision the evaluation process, if a State or
Tribe did not meet all traceability performance standards for a
particular species but performed within what we determined to be an
acceptable range, the State or Tribe would have opportunity to take
corrective action without penalty. APHIS would reevaluate the State or
Tribe upon request of State or Tribal animal health officials. If the
State or Tribe did not request reevaluation or failed to meet all
traceability performance standards for the species after 3 years,
additional traceability requirements, which are described below, could
be applied to the interstate movement of the applicable species from
the State or Tribe. Animal movements from States or Tribes that fail to
meet performance standards may be associated with a greater risk of
spreading disease than animal movements from compliant States or
Tribes. For that reason, the need to trace animal movements from the
former category of States and Tribes may be more acute, necessitating
more stringent traceability requirements.
If an evaluation were to show that a State or Tribe's performance
was not within a defined acceptable range for a species, the
Administrator would notify the State or Tribe in writing that
additional traceability requirements would apply to the interstate
movement of the applicable species from the State or Tribe beginning 60
days from the date of notification. The State or Tribe could appeal the
decision in writing within 15 days of receiving notification. The
appeal would have to provide all of the facts and reasons the State or
Tribe believes that the Administrator should consider in rejecting the
results of the evaluation and ordering a new one. The Administrator
would grant or deny the appeal in writing, as promptly as circumstances
allow, stating the reasons for the decision.
Any additional traceability requirements for States or Tribes not
performing within an acceptable range would be established by the
Administrator in each case, taking into consideration the results of
the traceability evaluation, in order to enhance traceability of the
species for which the performance standards are not being met. The
additional requirements could include, but would not be limited to,
requirements to apply or record official identification that would
otherwise not be required under the regulations, or requirements for
supplemental documentation, such as movement permits. APHIS would
reevaluate the State or Tribe at the request of State or Tribal animal
health officials. So that the public would be informed, APHIS would
announce the imposition or removal of any additional traceability
requirements through documents published in the Federal Register.
Preemption (Sec. 90.8)
Our proposed traceability regulations would preempt State, Tribal,
and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with them, with
certain exceptions. In keeping with our objective of allowing States
and Tribes to develop the traceability systems that work best for them,
we would allow them the latitude to impose some additional requirements
for the movement of animals into their jurisdictions, so long as those
additional requirements are consistent with our traceability goals and
do not interfere with the right of another State or Tribe to determine
what kind of traceability system to employ. Specifically, we would
allow States and Tribes to require that covered livestock moving into
their jurisdictions be officially identified even if those covered
livestock are exempt from official identification requirements under
these proposed regulations. The State or Tribe of destination could
not, however, specify an official identification device or method, such
as an RFID tag, that would have to be used by the shipping State or
Tribe. Nor could the State or Tribe of destination compel the shipping
State or Tribe to develop a particular kind of traceability system or
change its existing system in order to meet the requirements of the
State or Tribe of destination.
Changes to 9 CFR Part 71
The addition of the new traceability part would necessitate some
changes to part 71, which contains general provisions pertaining to the
interstate movement of livestock. In Sec. 71.1, we would revise the
definitions of animal identification number (AIN), group/lot
identification number (GIN), livestock, official eartag, official
identification device or method, and premises identification number
(PIN) so that they would match the definitions we are proposing in our
traceability regulations. We would also replace the existing
definitions of moved (movement) in interstate commerce and United
States Department of Agriculture backtag, respectively, with our
proposed definitions of move and United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) approved backtag and add to Sec. 71.1 the
definitions of flock-based
[[Page 50095]]
number system, flock identification number (FIN), National Uniform
Eartagging System (NUES), and official identification number that we
are proposing to include in part 90. We would remove and reserve Sec.
71.18, which pertains to the identification of cattle aged 2 years and
over for interstate movement, and Sec. 71.22, which addresses the
removal and loss of official identification devices. Both sets of
requirements are addressed in the proposed new traceability part.
Finally, we would make some minor editorial changes to Sec. 71.19, so
that the terminology used therein would be consistent with that of
proposed part 90.
Changes to 9 CFR Parts 77 and 78
Adding the proposed traceability requirements to the regulations
also necessitates some changes to the existing regulations pertaining
to tuberculosis, in part 77, and brucellosis, in part 78. For species
other than cattle and bison, the proposed traceability regulations, in
most cases, refer the reader to the appropriate existing regulations
for those species; for cattle and bison, however, the proposed
traceability regulations will impose additional and, in some cases,
slightly different requirements. To avoid potential conflicts with the
traceability requirements, we are therefore proposing some amendments
to the tuberculosis and brucellosis regulations. In both parts 77 and
78, we are proposing to amend certain definitions. We are also
proposing to amend the regulatory text in parts 77 and 78 to
incorporate the new and amended definitions and to ensure that the
requirements in those parts pertaining to official identification of
animals moving interstate and documentation of such movements are
consistent with, when not more stringent than, the requirements in the
proposed traceability part.
We are proposing to amend Sec. 77.2, which contains definitions
applicable to all of part 77, to revise the definitions of animal
identification number (AIN), livestock, official eartag, officially
identified, and premises identification number (PIN), remove the
definitions of certificate, moved, moved directly, and premises of
origin identification, and add definitions of directly, interstate
certificate of veterinary inspection (ICVI), location-based numbering
system, location identification (LID) number, move, National Uniform
Eartagging System (NUES), official identification number, recognized
slaughtering establishment, and United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) approved backtag as discussed above. In Sec. 77.5, which
contains definitions applicable to cattle and bison, we are proposing
to remove the definition of approved slaughtering establishment and add
a definition of recognized slaughtering establishment in its place.
The existing definition of officially identified in Sec. 77.2,
referred to earlier under our discussion of official identification
devices and methods for captive cervids, allows for the use of official
eartags, tattoos and hot brands as means of official identification. We
propose to define officially identified in Sec. 77.2 as identified by
means of an official eartag. As noted previously, eliminating tattoos
and hot brands as means of official identification in part 77 would
avoid a potential conflict between our tuberculosis regulations and our
proposed traceability requirements.
Many of the amendments we are proposing to the remainder of part 77
are intended to incorporate the revised or new definitions into the
regulatory text. Throughout part 77, sections listing interstate
movement requirements (for cattle and bison, Sec. Sec. 77.10, 77.12,
77.14, and 77.16; for captive cervids, Sec. Sec. 77.25, 77.27, 77.29,
77.31, 77.32, 77.35, 77.36, 77.37, and 77.40) contain references to
certificates and/or approved slaughtering establishments. Wherever
those terms occur, the text would be amended to refer to ICVIs and
recognized slaughtering establishments instead.
We are proposing some additional changes to make the regulations
clearer. Current Sec. 77.8 states that cattle and bison originating in
an accredited-free State or zone may be moved interstate without
restriction. Even under the existing regulations, that provision is not
entirely accurate, since cattle over 2 years of age must meet the
requirements of Sec. 71.18 to move interstate. We therefore are
proposing to amend Sec. 77.8 to state that cattle and bison from an
accredited free State or zone may be moved interstate in accordance
with proposed part 90 (as noted earlier, proposed traceability
requirements for cattle and bison would replace the existing ones in
Sec. 71.18) and without further restriction under the tuberculosis
regulations.
Other proposed changes to part 77 are intended to eliminate
possible conflicts with the proposed traceability regulations while
also streamlining the existing ones. Under current Sec. 77.23, captive
cervids from an accredited-free State or zone may be moved interstate
without restriction. We are proposing to amend that section to state
that captive cervids may move interstate from an accredited-free State
or zone in accordance with the traceability regulations, (i.e., as
noted previously, they would no longer be exempted from official
identification and documentation requirements) and without further
restriction under the tuberculosis regulations. In a number of places
the tuberculosis regulations allow for interstate movement of cattle
and bison to slaughter (Sec. Sec. 77.10, 77.12, 77.14) without the
USDA approved backtags required under the proposed traceability
regulations or for interstate movement of captive cervids (Sec. Sec.
77.25, 77.27, 77.29, 77.32, 77.35, 77.36, and 77.37) either to
slaughter without backtags or to other destinations without the
official identification required under the proposed traceability
regulations. We are proposing to amend these various sections to
indicate that animals moving interstate under the tuberculosis
regulations must, at a minimum, meet the traceability requirements of
proposed part 90, e.g., have backtags if being moved to slaughter, and
meet any additional conditions that apply under the tuberculosis
regulations. Where the existing regulations allow premises of origin
identification in lieu of official identification, e.g., in Sec. Sec.
77.10, 77.12, and 77.14, we would eliminate the premises-of-origin
alternative to bring our tuberculosis requirements into line with our
proposed traceability requirements. In some cases, the sections being
amended in part 77 would undergo some limited reorganization, in order
to avoid unnecessary repetition. For example, we would remove some
paragraphs that focus specifically on identification of animals moving
to slaughter and instead refer to those requirements in amended
introductory text. The changes we are proposing to part 77 would ensure
that in all cases, the identification requirements in the tuberculosis
regulations would, at a minimum, be equivalent to our proposed
traceability requirements.
We propose to amend Sec. 78.1, which defines terms pertaining to
the regulation of brucellosis, in a manner similar to our proposed
changes to Sec. 77.2. Specifically, we would revise the definitions of
animal identification number (AIN), dairy cattle, directly, market
cattle identification test cattle, official eartag, and recognized
slaughtering establishment, remove the definitions of certificate,
official identification device or method, and rodeo bulls, and add
definitions of commuter herd, commuter herd agreement, interstate
certificate of
[[Page 50096]]
veterinary inspection (ICVI), location-based numbering system, location
identification (LID) number, National Uniform Eartagging System (NUES),
official identification number, officially identified, and rodeo
cattle.
The existing definition of market cattle identification test cattle
in Sec. 78.1 defines such cattle as cows and bulls 2 years of age or
over which have been moved to recognized slaughtering establishments,
and test-eligible cattle which are subjected to an official test for
the purposes of movement at farms, ranches, auction markets,
stockyards, quarantined feedlots, or other assembly points. The
definition further states that such cattle shall be identified by an
official eartag and/or United States Department of Agriculture backtag
prior to or at the first market, stockyard, quarantined feedlot, or
slaughtering establishment they reach.
We are proposing here to define market cattle identification test
cattle as cows and bulls 18 months of age or over which have been moved
to recognized slaughtering establishments, and test-eligible cattle
which are subjected to an official test for the purposes of movement at
farms, ranches, auction markets, stockyards, quarantined feedlots, or
other assembly points. Under the proposed definition, such cattle must
be identified with an official identification device or method as
specified in the proposed traceability requirements prior to or at the
first market, stockyard, quarantined feedlot, or slaughtering
establishment they reach. These proposed changes to the definition
bring it into line with our proposed traceability requirements by
lowering from 2 years to 18 months the age of the cattle to which the
requirements apply. By referring the reader to the traceability
requirements for official identification devices and methods, rather
than specifying the tags to be used, as in the existing definition, we
would eliminate the option of using a backtag as official
identification for such cattle, further aligning our brucellosis
regulations with our proposed traceability requirements.
Our proposed definition of rodeo cattle--cattle used at rodeos or
competitive events--takes the place of the existing definition of rodeo
bulls and reflects current usage. Current Sec. 78.14 contains
requirements for the interstate movement of rodeo bulls. We propose to
amend Sec. 78.14 by replacing the term rodeo bulls wherever it is
used, including in the section heading, with rodeo cattle.
Other proposed changes in part 78 align the terminology used in
that part with that of the proposed traceability regulations.
References to certificates in Sec. Sec. 78.2, 78.9, 78.12, 78.14, and
78.20 would be replaced wherever they occur with references to ICVIs.
Current Sec. 78.9(a)(3)(ii), (b)(3)(iv), and (c)(3)(iv) describe
interstate movements that would be covered under our proposed
definitions of commuter herd and commuter herd agreement but do not use
those terms. To achieve greater consistency in our regulations, we
propose to amend those paragraphs by incorporating into them the
commuter herd language used in the proposed traceability regulations.
As noted above, definitions of commuter herd and commuter herd
agreement would be added to Sec. 78.1.
As in part 77 of the existing regulations, there are a number of
provisions in part 78, e.g., in Sec. Sec. 78.5, 78.6, 78.9, 78.12,
78.20, 78.21, 78.23, and 78.24, that, as currently worded, could give
the reader the mistaken impression that the interstate movements
referred to in those provisions are either not restricted or subject to
restriction only under the brucellosis regulations. In all such
instances, we are proposing to amend the text to indicate that the
interstate movements referred to must also meet our proposed
traceability requirements.
Current Sec. 78.2(b)(1) charges the APHIS representative, State
representative, or accredited veterinarian responsible for issuing a
certificate with the task of forwarding a copy of the certificate to
the State animal health official in either the State of origin or the
State of destination. If the APHIS representative, State
representative, or accredited veterinarian issues a permit, he or she
must forward a copy to the State of destination. We propose to amend
that paragraph to require the APHIS, State, or Tribal representative or
accredited veterinarian issuing an ICVI or other interstate movement
document used in lieu of an ICVI or a permit to forward a copy of the
ICVI, other document used in lieu of an ICVI, or permit to the State
animal health official of the State of origin within 5 working days.
The State animal health official of the State of origin must then
forward a copy of the ICVI, other interstate movement document used in
lieu of an ICVI, or permit to the State animal health official of the
State of destination within 5 working days. As discussed earlier, this
proposed change is intended to aid State officials in conducting both
traceback and trace-forward investigations, should they become
necessary.
Finally, we are proposing to add to Sec. 78.5 a statement that
cattle moved interstate under permit in accordance with the brucellosis
regulations are not required to be accompanied by an ICVI or owner-
shipper statement. This proposed addition will help prevent unnecessary
duplication of documentation or confusion about what documents are
required.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget.
We have prepared an economic analysis for this rule. The economic
analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis, as required by Executive
Orders 12866 and 13653, and an initial regulatory flexibility analysis
that examines the potential economic effects of this proposed rule on
small entities, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The
economic analysis is summarized below. Copies of the full analysis are
available by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT or on the Regulations.gov Web site (see ADDRESSES above for
instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).
Based on the information we have, there is no reason to conclude
that adoption of this proposed rule would result in any significant
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. However, we
do not currently have all of the data necessary for a comprehensive
analysis of the effects of this proposed rule on small entities.
Therefore, we are inviting comments on potential effects. In
particular, we are interested in determining the number and kind of
small entities that may incur benefits or costs from the implementation
of this proposed rule.
We are proposing to establish general traceability regulations for
certain livestock moving interstate. The purpose of this rulemaking is
to improve APHIS' ability to trace such livestock in the event disease
is found. The benefits of this rulemaking are expected to exceed the
costs overall.
While the rule would apply to cattle and bison, horses and other
equine species, poultry, sheep and goats, swine, and captive cervids
(referred to below as covered livestock), the focus of this analysis is
on expected economic effects for the beef and dairy cattle industries.
These enterprises would be most affected operationally by the rule. For
the other species, APHIS would largely maintain and build on the
identification requirements of existing disease program regulations.
[[Page 50097]]
APHIS requests comment on this determination. We invite comment on
whether the proposed rule would have significant effect on the poultry
industry or other affected industries. We particularly welcome any
quantified estimates of impacts that the proposed rule might have.
Costs for cattle producers are estimated in terms of activities
that would need to be conducted for official animal identification and
issuance of an ICVI, or other movement documentation, for covered
livestock moved interstate. Incremental costs incurred are expected to
vary depending upon a number of factors, including whether an
enterprise does or does not already use eartags to identify individual
cattle. For many operators, costs of official animal identification and
ICVIs would be similar, respectively, to costs associated with current
animal identification practices and the inshipment documentation
currently required by individual States. Existing expenditures for
these activities represent cost baselines for the private sector. To
the extent that official animal identification and ICVIs would simply
replace current requirements, the incremental costs of the rule for
private enterprises would be minimal.
Certain animal disease traceability requirements would be
implemented in stages, thereby lowering near-term costs of the program.
For example, beginning on the effective date of the final rule,
official identification requirements would apply only to sexually
intact cattle and bison 18 months of age or over, dairy cattle of any
age, and cattle and bison of any age used for rodeo, exhibition, or
recreational purposes. Beginning 1 year after APHIS has established
that the official identification requirements for those classes of
cattle and bison to which the requirements would apply in the initial
stage are being implemented effectively throughout the production chain
and that there is a 70 percent rate of compliance with those
requirements, initially exempted cattle and bison under 18 months of
age would need to be officially identified as well, but the
identification numbers of these younger animals would not need to be
recorded on the ICVI.
There are two main cost components for the proposed rule, using
eartags to identify cattle and having certificates for cattle moved
interstate. Approximately 20 percent of cattle are not currently
eartagged as part of routine management practices. Annual incremental
costs of official identification for cattle enterprises are estimated
to total from $12.5 million to $30.5 million, assuming producers who
are not already using official identification would tag their cattle as
an activity separate from other routine management practices. More
likely, producers who are not already using official eartags can be
expected to combine tagging with other routine activities such as
vaccination or de-worming, thereby avoiding the costs associated with
working cattle through a chute an additional time. Under this second
scenario, the total incremental cost of official identification would
be about $3.5 million.
All States currently require a certificate of veterinary
inspection, commonly referred to as a health certificate, for the
inshipment from other States of breeder cattle, and 48 States require
one for feeder cattle. Annual incremental costs of the proposed rule
for ICVIs are estimated to range between $2 million and $3.8 million.
If States currently requiring documentation other than ICVIs, such as
owner-shipper statements or brand certificates, continue to accept
these documents in lieu of an ICVI, as permitted by this proposed rule,
the ICVI requirement in this proposed rule would not result in any
additional costs.
The combined annual costs of the rule for cattle operations of
official identification and movement documentation would range between
$14.5 million and $34.3 million, assuming official identification would
be undertaken separately from other routine management practices; or
between $5.5 million and $7.3 million, assuming that tagging would be
combined with other routine management practices that require working
cattle through a chute.
Currently, States and Tribes bear responsibilities for the
collection, maintenance, and retrieval of data on interstate livestock
movements. These responsibilities would be maintained under the
proposed rule, but the way they are administered would likely change.
Based on availability, Federal funding would be allocated to assist
States and Tribes as necessary in automating data collection,
maintenance, and retrieval to advance animal disease traceability.
Direct benefits of improved traceability include the public and
private cost savings expected to be gained under the proposed rule.
Case studies for bovine tuberculosis, bovine brucellosis, and bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) illustrate the inefficiencies currently
often faced in tracing disease occurrences due to inadequate animal
identification and the potential gains in terms of cost savings that
may derive from the proposed rule.
Benefits of the proposed traceability system are for the most part
potential benefits that rest on largely unknown probabilities of
disease occurrence and reactions by domestic and foreign markets. The
primary benefit of the proposed regulations would be the enhanced
ability of the United States to regionalize and compartmentalize animal
health issues more quickly, minimizing losses and enabling
reestablishment of foreign and domestic market access with minimum
delay in the wake of an animal disease event.
Having a traceability system in place would allow the United States
to trace animal disease more quickly and efficiently, thereby
minimizing not only the spread of disease but also the trade impacts an
outbreak may have. The value of U.S. exports of live cattle in 2010 was
$131.8 million, and the value of U.S. beef exports totaled $2.8
billion. The value of U.S. cattle and calf production in 2009 was $31.8
billion. The estimated incremental costs of the proposed rule for
cattle enterprises--between $14.5 million and $34.3 million, assuming
official identification is a separately performed activity, and between
$5.5 million and $7.3 million, assuming official identification is
combined with other routine management practices that require working
cattle through a chute--represent about one-tenth of one percent of the
value of domestic cattle and calf production. If there were an animal
disease outbreak in the United States that affected our domestic and
international beef markets, preservation of a very small proportion of
these markets would need to be attributable to the proposed animal
disease traceability program in order to justify estimated private
sector costs.
Most cattle operations in the United States are small entities.
USDA would ensure the rule's workability and cost effectiveness by
collaborating in its implementation with representatives from States,
Tribes, and affected industries.
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 13175
In accordance with Executive Order 13175, APHIS has consulted with
Tribal Government officials. A tribal summary
[[Page 50098]]
impact statement has been prepared that includes a summary of Tribal
officials' concerns and of how APHIS has attempted to address them.
The tribal summary impact statement may be viewed on the
Regulations.gov Web site or in our reading room. (A link to
Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the
reading room are provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning
of this proposed rule.) In addition, copies may be obtained by calling
or writing to the individual listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
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, except as provided in proposed Sec. 90.8; (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. APHIS-
2009-0091. Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No.
APHIS-2009-0091, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238,
and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO, 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 proposed rule would establish general traceability regulations
for cattle, bison, swine, sheep, goats, equines, captive cervids, and
poultry moving interstate. As a result of this rulemaking, such
livestock that are moved interstate would have to be officially
identified and accompanied by an ICVI or other documentation, unless
specifically exempted from those requirements. The proposed regulations
specify approved forms of official identification for each covered
species but would allow covered livestock to be moved between shipping
and receiving States or Tribes with another form of identification, as
agreed upon by animal health officials in the shipping and receiving
jurisdictions.
The proposed rule would place the greatest information collection
burden on the cattle industry, because that sector has the greatest
gaps in traceability and the greatest need for new traceability
standards. For the other species, APHIS would largely maintain and
build on the identification requirements of existing disease program
regulations, and the burden associated with those disease programs is
contained in information collections related to those programs.
APHIS is asking OMB to approve, for 3 years, its use of this
information collection activity to facilitate animal disease
traceability and support these disease control, eradication, and
surveillance activities.
We are soliciting comments from the public (as well as affected
agencies) concerning our proposed information collection and
recordkeeping requirements. These comments will 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; and
(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 of responses).
Estimate of Burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 0.0855715 hours per response.
Respondents: State, Tribal, and territorial animal health
officials; accredited veterinarians; breed and registry associations;
producers; livestock market operators; and harvest facility employees.
Estimated Annual Number of Respondents: 197,302.
Estimated Annual Number of Responses per Respondent: 42.85397.
Estimated Annual Number of Responses: 8,455,174.
Estimated Total Annual Burden on Respondents: 723,522 hours. (Due
to averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product
of the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden
per response.)
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs.
Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301)
851-2908.
E-Government Act Compliance
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to
compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet
and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities
for citizen access to Government information and services, and for
other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act
compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste
Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851-2908.
List of Subjects
9 CFR Parts 71, 77, and 78
Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Hogs, Livestock, Poultry and
poultry products, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation, Tuberculosis.
9 CFR Part 90
Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Interstate movement, Livestock,
Official identification, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Traceability.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR chapter I as follows:
PART 71--GENERAL PROVISIONS
1. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
2. Section 71.1 is amended by revising the definitions of animal
identification number (AIN), group/lot identification number (GIN),
livestock, official eartag, official identification device or method,
and premises identification number (PIN), removing the definitions of
moved (movement) in interstate commerce and United States Department of
Agriculture Backtag, and adding definitions of flock-based number
system, flock identification number (FIN), move, National Uniform
Eartagging System (NUES), official identification number, and United
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved backtag in
alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 71.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
[[Page 50099]]
Animal identification number (AIN). A numbering system for the
official identification of individual animals in the United States that
provides a nationally unique identification number for each animal. The
AIN consists of 15 digits, with the first 3 being the country code (840
for the United States). The alpha characters USA or the numeric code
assigned to the manufacturer of the identification device by the
International Committee on Animal Recording may be used as an
alternative to the 840 prefix; however, only the AIN beginning with the
840 prefix will be recognized as official for use on AIN tags applied
to animals on or after [Insert date 1 year after effective date of
final rule]. The AIN beginning with the 840 prefix may be used only on
animals born in the United States.
* * * * *
Flock-based number system. The flock-based number system combines a
flock identification number (FIN) with a producer's unique livestock
production numbering system to provide a nationally unique
identification number for an animal.
Flock identification number (FIN). A nationally unique number
assigned by a State, Tribal, or Federal animal health authority to a
group of animals that are managed as a unit on one or more premises and
are under the same ownership.
* * * * *
Group/lot identification number (GIN). The identification number
used to uniquely identify a ``unit of animals'' of the same species
that is managed together as one group throughout the preharvest
production chain. When a GIN is used, it is recorded on documents
accompanying the animals moving interstate; it is not necessary to have
the GIN attached to each animal.
* * * * *
Livestock. All farm-raised animals.
* * * * *
Move. To carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or transport; to aid,
abet, cause, or induce carrying, entering, importing, mailing,
shipping, or transporting; to offer to carry, enter, import, mail,
ship, or transport; to receive in order to carry, enter, import, mail,
ship, or transport; or to allow any of these activities.
National Uniform Eartagging System (NUES). A numbering system for
the official identification of individual animals in the United States
that provides a nationally unique identification number for each
animal.
* * * * *
Official eartag. An identification tag approved by APHIS that bears
an official identification number for individual animals. Beginning
[Insert date 1 year after effective date of final rule] all official
eartags applied to animals must bear the U.S. shield. The design, size,
shape, color, and other characteristics of the official eartag will
depend on the needs of the users, subject to the approval of the
Administrator. The official eartag must be tamper-resistant and have a
high retention rate in the animal.
Official identification device or method. A means approved by the
Administrator of applying an official identification number to an
animal of a specific species or associating an official identification
number with an animal or group of animals of a specific species.
Official identification number. A nationally unique number that is
permanently associated with an animal or group of animals and that
adheres to one of the following systems:
(1) National Uniform Eartagging System (NUES).
(2) Animal identification number (AIN).
(3) Location-based number system.
(4) Flock-based number system.
(5) Any other numbering system approved by the Administrator for
the official identification of animals.
* * * * *
Premises identification number (PIN). A nationally unique number
assigned by a State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal health authority to
a premises that is, in the judgment of the State, Tribal, and/or
Federal animal health authority a geographically distinct location from
other premises. The PIN may be used in conjunction with a producer's
own unique livestock production numbering system to provide a
nationally unique and herd-unique identification number for an animal.
It may be used as a component of a group/lot identification number
(GIN).
* * * * *
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved backtag. A
backtag issued by APHIS that provides a temporary unique identification
for each animal.
Sec. 71.18 [Removed and Reserved]
3. Section 71.18 is removed and reserved.
Sec. 71.19 [Amended]
4. In Sec. 71.19, in paragraphs (b)(2) and (d) introductory text,
by removing the words ``United States Department of Agriculture
backtags'' and adding the words ``United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) approved backtag'' in their place each time they
occur.
Sec. 71.22 [Removed and Reserved]
5. Section 71.22 is removed and reserved.
PART 77--TUBERCULOSIS
6. The authority citation for part 77 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
7. Section 77.2 is amended by revising the definitions of animal
identification number (AIN), livestock, official eartag, officially
identified, and premises identification number (PIN), removing the
definitions of certificate, moved, moved directly, and premises of
origin identification, and adding definitions of directly, interstate
certificate of veterinary inspection (ICVI), location-based numbering
system, location identification (LID) number, move, National Uniform
Eartagging System (NUES), official identification number, recognized
slaughtering establishment, and United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) approved backtag in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 77.2 Definitions.
* * * * *
Animal identification number (AIN). A numbering system for the
official identification of individual animals in the United States that
provides a nationally unique identification number for each animal. The
AIN consists of 15 digits, with the first 3 being the country code (840
for the United States). The alpha characters USA or the numeric code
assigned to the manufacturer of the identification device by the
International Committee on Animal Recording may be used as an
alternative to the 840 prefix; however, only the AIN beginning with the
840 prefix will be recognized as official for use on AIN tags applied
to animals on or after [Insert date 1 year after effective date of
final rule]. The AIN beginning with the 840 prefix may be used only on
animals born in the United States.
* * * * *
Directly. Without unloading en route if moved in a means of
conveyance and without being commingled with other animals, or without
stopping, except for stops of less than 24 hours that are needed for
food, water, or rest in route if the animals are moved in any other
manner.
* * * * *
Interstate certificate of veterinary inspection (ICVI). An official
document issued by a Federal, State, Tribal, or accredited veterinarian
at the location from which animals are shipped interstate.
[[Page 50100]]
(1) The ICVI must show the species of animals covered by the ICVI;
the number of animals covered by the ICVI; the purpose for which the
animals are to be moved; the address at which the animals were loaded
for interstate movement; the address to which the animals are destined;
and the names of the consignor and the consignee and their addresses if
different from the address at which the animals were loaded or the
address to which the animals are destined. Additionally, unless the
species-specific requirements for ICVIs provide an exception, the ICVI
must list the official identification number of each animal, except as
provided in paragraph (2) of this definition, or group of animals moved
that is required to be officially identified, or, if an alternative
form of identification has been agreed upon by the sending and
receiving States, the ICVI must include a record of that
identification. If animals moving under a GIN also have individual
official identification, only the GIN must be listed on the ICVI. If
the animals are not required by the regulations to be officially
identified, the ICVI must state the exemption that applies (e.g., the
cattle and bison belong to one of the classes of cattle and bison
exempted under Sec. 90.4 of this chapter from the official
identification requirements of 9 CFR part 90 during the initial stage
of the phase-in of those requirements). If the animals are required to
be officially identified but the identification number does not have to
be recorded on the ICVI, the ICVI must state that all animals to be
moved under the ICVI are officially identified. An ICVI may not be
issued for any animal that is not officially identified if official
identification is required.
(2) As an alternative to typing or writing individual animal
identification on an ICVI, another document may be used to provide this
information, but only under the following conditions:
(i) The document must be a State form or APHIS form that requires
individual identification of animals;
(ii) A legible copy of the document must be stapled to the original
and each copy of the ICVI;
(iii) Each copy of the document must identify each animal to be
moved with the ICVI, but any information pertaining to other animals,
and any unused space on the document for recording animal
identification, must be crossed out in ink; and
(iv) The following information must be written in ink in the
identification column on the original and each copy of the ICVI and
must be circled or boxed, also in ink, so that no additional
information can be added:
(A) The name of the document; and
(B) Either the unique serial number on the document or, if the
document is not imprinted with a serial number, both the name of the
person who prepared the document and the date the document was signed.
Livestock. All farm-raised animals.
Location-based numbering system. The location-based number system
combines a State or Tribal issued location identification (LID) number
or a premises identification number (PIN) with a producer's unique
livestock production numbering system to provide a nationally unique
and herd-unique identification number for an animal.
Location identification (LID) number. A nationally unique number
issued by a State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal health authority to a
location as determined by the State or Tribe in which it is issued. The
LID number may be used in conjunction with a producer's own unique
livestock production numbering system to provide a nationally unique
and herd-unique identification number for an animal. It may also be
used as a component of a group/lot identification number (GIN).
Move. To carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or transport; to aid,
abet, cause, or induce carrying, entering, importing, mailing,
shipping, or transporting; to offer to carry, enter, import, mail,
ship, or transport; to receive in order to carry, enter, import, mail,
ship, or transport; or to allow any of these activities.
National Uniform Eartagging System (NUES). A numbering system for
the official identification of individual animals in the United States
that provides a nationally unique identification number for each
animal.
Official eartag. An identification tag approved by APHIS that bears
an official identification number for individual animals. Beginning
[Insert date 1 year after effective date of final rule] all official
eartags applied to animals must bear the U.S. shield. The design, size,
shape, color, and other characteristics of the official eartag will
depend on the needs of the users, subject to the approval of the
Administrator. The official eartag must be tamper-resistant and have a
high retention rate in the animal.
Official identification number. A nationally unique number that is
permanently associated with an animal or group of animals and that
adheres to one of the following systems: (1) National Uniform
Eartagging System (NUES).
(2) Animal identification number (AIN).
(3) Flock-based number system.
(4) Location-based number system.
(5) Any other numbering system approved by the Administrator for
the official identification of animals.
* * * * *
Officially identified. Identified by means of an official eartag.
* * * * *
Premises identification number (PIN). A nationally unique number
assigned by a State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal health authority to
a premises that is, in the judgment of the State, Tribal, and/or
Federal animal health authority a geographically distinct location from
other premises. The PIN may be used in conjunction with a producer's
own livestock production numbering system to provide a nationally
unique and herd-unique identification number for an animal. It may be
used as a component of a group/lot identification number (GIN).
Recognized slaughtering establishment. Any slaughtering facility
operating under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), or
State meat or poultry inspection acts.
* * * * *
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved backtag. A
backtag issued by APHIS that provides a temporary unique identification
for each animal.
* * * * *
8. Section 77.5 is amended by removing the definition of approved
slaughtering establishment and adding a definition of recognized
slaughtering establishment in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 77.5 Definitions.
* * * * *
Recognized slaughtering establishment. Any slaughtering facility
operating under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), or
State meat or poultry inspection acts.
* * * * *
9. Section 77.8 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 77.8 Interstate movement from accredited-free States and zones.
Cattle or bison that originate in an accredited-free State or zone
may be moved interstate in accordance with 9 CFR part 90 without
further restriction under this part.
10. Section 77.10 is revised to read as follows:
[[Page 50101]]
Sec. 77.10 Interstate movement from modified accredited advanced
States and zones.
Cattle or bison that originate in a modified accredited advanced
State or zone, and that are not known to be infected with or exposed to
tuberculosis, may be moved interstate only in accordance with 9 CFR
part 90 and, if moved anywhere other than directly to slaughter at a
recognized slaughtering establishment, under one of the following
additional conditions:
(a) The cattle or bison are sexually intact heifers moved to an
approved feedlot, or are steers or spayed heifers, and are officially
identified.
(b) The cattle or bison are from an accredited herd, are officially
identified, and are accompanied by an ICVI stating that the accredited
herd completed the testing necessary for accredited status with
negative results within 1 year prior to the date of movement.
(c) The cattle or bison are sexually intact animals; are not from
an accredited herd; are officially identified; and are accompanied by
an ICVI stating that they were negative to an official tuberculin test
conducted within 60 days prior to the date of movement.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
numbers 0579-0146, 0579-0220, and 0579-0229)
11. Section 77.12 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 77.12 Interstate movement from modified accredited States and
zones.
Cattle or bison that originate in a modified accredited State or
zone, and that are not known to be infected with or exposed to
tuberculosis, may be moved interstate only in accordance with 9 CFR
part 90 and, if moved anywhere other than directly to slaughter at a
recognized slaughtering establishment, under one of the following
additional conditions:
(a) The cattle or bison are sexually intact heifers moved to an
approved feedlot, or are steers or spayed heifers; are officially
identified, and are accompanied by an ICVI stating that they were
classified negative to an official tuberculin test conducted within 60
days prior to the date of movement.
(b) The cattle or bison are from an accredited herd, are officially
identified, and are accompanied by an ICVI stating that the accredited
herd completed the testing necessary for accredited status with
negative results within 1 year prior to the date of movement.
(c) The cattle or bison are sexually intact animals; are not from
an accredited herd; are officially identified; and are accompanied by
an ICVI stating that the herd from which they originated was negative
to a whole herd test conducted within 1 year prior to the date of
movement and that the individual animals to be moved were negative to
an additional official tuberculin test conducted within 60 days prior
to the date of movement, except that the additional test is not
required if the animals are moved interstate within 60 days following
the whole herd test.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0146)
12. Section 77.14 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 77.14 Interstate movement from accreditation preparatory States
and zones.
Cattle or bison that originate in an accreditation preparatory
State or zone, and that are not known to be infected with or exposed to
tuberculosis, may be moved interstate only in accordance with 9 CFR
part 90 and, if moved anywhere other than directly to slaughter at a
recognized slaughtering establishment, under one of the following
additional conditions:
(a) The cattle or bison are sexually intact heifers moved to an
approved feedlot, or are steers or spayed heifers; are officially
identified; and are accompanied by an ICVI stating that the herd from
which they originated was negative to a whole herd test conducted
within 1 year prior to the date of movement and that the individual
animals to be moved were negative to an additional official tuberculin
test conducted within 60 days prior to the date of movement; Except
that: The additional test is not required if the animals are moved
interstate within 6 months following the whole herd test.
(b) The cattle or bison are from an accredited herd; are officially
identified; and are accompanied by an ICVI stating that the accredited
herd completed the testing necessary for accredited status with
negative results within 1 year prior to the date of movement and that
the animals to be moved were negative to an official tuberculin test
conducted within 60 days prior to the date of movement.
(c) The cattle or bison are sexually intact animals; are not from
an accredited herd; are officially identified; and are accompanied by
an ICVI stating that the herd from which they originated was negative
to a whole herd test conducted within 1 year prior to the date of
movement and that the individual animals to be moved were negative to
two additional official tuberculin tests conducted at least 60 days
apart and no more than 6 months apart, with the second test conducted
within 60 days prior to the date of movement; Except that: The second
additional test is not required if the animals are moved interstate
within 60 days following the whole herd test.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0146)
Sec. 77.16 [Amended]
13. Section 77.16 is amended by removing the words ``an approved''
and adding the words ``a recognized'' in their place.
Sec. 77.17 [Amended]
14. Section 77.17 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraphs (a) introductory text and (b) introductory text,
by removing the words ``an approved'' and adding the words ``a
recognized'' in their place.
b. In paragraph (a)(4), by removing the words ``transportation
document'' and adding the words ``VS Form 1-27'' in their place.
c. In paragraph (c), by removing the words ``to an approved
slaughtering establishment'' and adding the words ``to a recognized
slaughtering establishment in accordance with 9 CFR part 90'' in their
place.
15. Section 77.23 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 77.23 Interstate movement from accredited-free States and zones.
Notwithstanding any other provisions of this part, captive cervids
that originate in an accredited-free State or zone may be moved
interstate in accordance with 9 CFR part 90 and without further
restriction under this part.
16. Section 77.25 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 77.25 Interstate movement from modified accredited advanced
States and zones.
Captive cervids that originate in a modified accredited advanced
State or zone, and that are not known to be infected with or exposed to
tuberculosis, may be moved interstate only in accordance with 9 CFR
part 90 and, if moved anywhere other than directly to slaughter at a
recognized slaughtering establishment, under one of the following
additional conditions:
(a) The captive cervids are from an accredited herd, qualified
herd, or monitored herd; are officially identified; and are accompanied
by an ICVI stating that the herd completed the requirements for
accredited herd, qualified herd, or monitored herd status within 24
months prior to the date of movement.
(b) The captive cervids are officially identified and are
accompanied by an ICVI stating that they were negative to
[[Page 50102]]
an official tuberculin test conducted within 90 days prior to the date
of movement.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0146)
17. Section 77.27 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 77.27 Interstate movement from modified accredited States and
zones.
Except for captive cervids from a qualified herd or monitored herd,
as provided in Sec. Sec. 77.36 and 77.37, respectively, captive
cervids that originate in a modified accredited State or zone, and that
are not known to be infected with or exposed to tuberculosis, may be
moved interstate only in accordance with 9 CFR part 90 and, if moved
anywhere other than directly to slaughter at a recognized slaughtering
establishment, under one of the following additional conditions:
(a) The captive cervids are from an accredited herd, are officially
identified, and are accompanied by an ICVI stating that the accredited
herd completed the testing necessary for accredited status with
negative results within 24 months prior to the date of movement.
(b) The captive cervids are sexually intact animals; are not from
an accredited herd; are officially identified; and are accompanied by
an ICVI stating that the herd from which they originated was negative
to a whole herd test conducted within 1 year prior to the date of
movement and that the individual animals to be moved were negative to
an additional official tuberculin test conducted within 90 days prior
to the date of movement; Except that: The additional test is not
required if the animals are moved interstate within 6 months following
the whole herd test.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0146)
18. Section 77.29 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 77.29 Interstate movement from accreditation preparatory States
and zones.
Except for captive cervids from a qualified herd or monitored herd,
as provided in Sec. Sec. 77.36 and 77.37, respectively, captive
cervids that originate in an accreditation preparatory State or zone,
and that are not known to be infected with or exposed to tuberculosis,
may be moved interstate only in accordance with 9 CFR part 90 and, if
moved anywhere other than directly to slaughter at a recognized
slaughtering establishment, under one of the following additional
conditions:
(a) The captive cervids are from an accredited herd; are officially
identified; and are accompanied by an ICVI stating that the accredited
herd completed the testing necessary for accredited status with
negative results within 24 months prior to the date of movement and
that the individual animals to be moved were negative to an official
tuberculin test conducted within 90 days prior to the date of movement.
(b) The captive cervids are sexually intact animals; are not from
an accredited herd; are officially identified; and are accompanied by
an ICVI stating that the herd from which they originated was negative
to a whole herd test conducted within 1 year prior to the date of
movement and that the individual animals to be moved were negative to
two additional official tuberculin tests conducted at least 90 days
apart and no more than 6 months apart, with the second test conducted
within 90 days prior to the date of movement; Except that: The second
additional test is not required if the animals are moved interstate
within 6 months following the whole herd test.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0146)
Sec. 77.31 [Amended]
19. Section 77.31 is amended by removing the words ``an approved''
and adding the words ``a recognized'' in their place.
Sec. 77.32 [Amended]
20. Section 77.32 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (a), by removing the words ``Sec. Sec. 77.25(a),
77.27(a), 77.29(a), and 77.31(d)'' and adding the words ``9 CFR part
90'' in their place.
b. In paragraph (c), by removing the words ``accompanied by a
certificate'' and adding the words ``officially identified and
accompanied by an ICVI'' in their place.
21. In Sec. 77.35, paragraph (b) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 77.35 Interstate movement from accredited herds.
* * * * *
(b) Movement allowed. Except as provided in Sec. 77.23 with regard
to captive cervids that originate in an accredited-free State or zone,
and except as provided in Sec. 77.31 with regard to captive cervids
that originate in a nonaccredited State or zone, a captive cervid from
an accredited herd may be moved interstate without further tuberculosis
testing only if it is officially identified and is accompanied by an
ICVI, as provided in Sec. 77.32(c), that includes a statement that the
captive 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 captive cervids in the group may be moved
under one ICVI.
* * * * *
22. In Sec. 77.36, paragraphs (b)(2), (b)(3), and (b)(4) are
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 77.36 Interstate movement from qualified herds.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) The captive cervid is officially identified and is accompanied
by an ICVI, as provided in Sec. 77.32(c), that includes a statement
that the captive cervid is from a qualified herd. Except as provided in
paragraphs (b)(3) and (b)(4) of this section, the ICVI must also state
that the captive cervid has tested negative to an official tuberculosis
test conducted within 90 days prior to the date of movement. If a group
of captive cervids from a qualified herd is being moved interstate
together to the same destination, all captive cervids in the group may
be moved under one ICVI.
(3) Captive cervids under 1 year of age that are natural additions
to the qualified herd or that were born in and originate from a
classified herd may move without testing, provided that they are
officially identified and that the ICVI accompanying them states that
the captive cervids are natural additions to the qualified herd or were
born in and originated from a classified herd and have not been exposed
to captive cervids from an unclassified herd.
(4) Captive cervids being moved interstate for the purpose of
exhibition only may be moved without testing, provided they are
returned to the premises of origin no more than 90 days after leaving
the premises, have no contact with other livestock during movement and
exhibition, are officially identified, and are accompanied by an ICVI
that includes a statement that the captive cervid is from a qualified
herd and will otherwise meet the requirements of this paragraph.
* * * * *
23. In Sec. 77.37, paragraphs (b)(2) and (b)(3) are revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 77.37 Interstate movement from monitored herds.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(2) The captive cervid is officially identified and is accompanied
by an ICVI, as provided in Sec. 77.32(c), that includes a statement
that the captive cervid is from a monitored herd. Except as provided in
paragraph (b)(3) of this section, the ICVI must also state that the
captive cervid has tested negative to an
[[Page 50103]]
official tuberculosis test conducted within 90 days prior to the date
of movement. If a group of captive cervids from a monitored herd is
being moved interstate together to the same destination, all captive
cervids in the group may be moved under one ICVI.
(3) Captive cervids under 1 year of age that are natural additions
to the monitored herd or that were born in and originate from a
classified herd may move without testing, provided that they are
officially identified and that the ICVI accompanying them states that
the captive cervids are natural additions to the monitored herd or were
born in and originated from a classified herd and have not been exposed
to captive cervids from an unclassified herd.
* * * * *
Sec. 77.40 [Amended]
24. In Sec. 77.40, paragraph (a)(3) is amended by removing the
words ``an approved'' and adding the words ``a recognized'' in their
place.
PART 78--BRUCELLOSIS
25. The authority citation for part 78 continues to read as
follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
26. Section 78.1 is amended by revising the definitions of animal
identification number (AIN), dairy cattle, directly, market cattle
identification test cattle, official eartag, and recognized
slaughtering establishment, removing the definitions of certificate,
official identification device or method, and rodeo bulls, and adding
definitions of commuter herd, commuter herd agreement, interstate
certificate of veterinary inspection (ICVI), location-based numbering
system, location identification (LID) number, National Uniform
Eartagging System (NUES), official identification number, officially
identified, and rodeo cattle in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 78.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
Animal identification number (AIN). A numbering system for the
official identification of individual animals in the United States that
provides a nationally unique identification number for each animal. The
AIN consists of 15 digits, with the first 3 being the country code (840
for the United States). The alpha characters USA or the numeric code
assigned to the manufacturer of the identification device by the
International Committee on Animal Recording may be used as an
alternative to the 840 prefix; however, only the AIN beginning with the
840 prefix will be recognized as official for use on AIN tags applied
to animals on or after [Insert date 1 year after effective date of
final rule]. The AIN beginning with the 840 prefix may be used only on
animals born in the United States.
* * * * *
Commuter herd. A herd of cattle or bison moved interstate during
the course of normal livestock management operations and without change
of ownership directly between two premises, as provided in a commuter
herd agreement.
Commuter herd agreement. A written agreement between the owner(s)
of a herd of cattle or bison and the animal health officials for the
States or Tribes of origin and destination specifying the conditions
required for the interstate movement from one premises to another in
the course of normal livestock management operations and specifying the
time period, up to 1 year, that the agreement is effective. A commuter
herd agreement may be renewed annually.
* * * * *
Dairy cattle. All cattle, regardless of age or sex or current use,
that are of a breed(s) typically used to produce milk or other dairy
products for human consumption.
* * * * *
Directly. Without unloading en route if moved in a means of
conveyance and without being commingled with other animals, or without
stopping, except for stops of less than 24 hours that are needed for
food, water, or rest in route if the animals are moved in any other
manner.
* * * * *
Interstate certificate of veterinary inspection (ICVI). An official
document issued by a Federal, State, Tribal, or accredited veterinarian
at the location from which animals are shipped interstate.
(a) The ICVI must show the species of animals covered by the ICVI;
the number of animals covered by the ICVI; the purpose for which the
animals are to be moved; the address at which the animals were loaded
for interstate movement; the address to which the animals are destined;
and the names of the consignor and the consignee and their addresses if
different from the address at which the animals were loaded or the
address to which the animals are destined. Additionally, unless the
species-specific requirements for ICVIs provide an exception, the ICVI
must list the official identification number of each animal, except as
provided in paragraph (b) of this definition, or group of animals moved
that is required to be officially identified, or, if an alternative
form of identification has been agreed upon by the sending and
receiving States, the ICVI must include a record of that
identification. If animals moving under a GIN also have individual
official identification, only the GIN must be listed on the ICVI. If
the animals are not required by the regulations to be officially
identified, the ICVI must state the exemption that applies (e.g., the
cattle and bison belong to one of the classes of cattle and bison
exempted under Sec. 90.4 of this chapter from the official
identification requirements of 9 CFR part 90 during the initial stage
of the phase-in of those requirements). If the animals are required to
be officially identified but the identification number does not have to
be recorded on the ICVI, the ICVI must state that all animals to be
moved under the ICVI are officially identified. An ICVI may not be
issued for any animal that is not officially identified if official
identification is required.
(b) As an alternative to typing or writing individual animal
identification on an ICVI, another document may be used to provide this
information, but only under the following conditions:
(1) The document must be a State form or APHIS form that requires
individual identification of animals;
(2) A legible copy of the document must be stapled to the original
and each copy of the ICVI;
(3) Each copy of the document must identify each animal to be moved
with the ICVI, but any information pertaining to other animals, and any
unused space on the document for recording animal identification, must
be crossed out in ink; and
(4) The following information must be written in ink in the
identification column on the original and each copy of the ICVI and
must be circled or boxed, also in ink, so that no additional
information can be added:
(i) The name of the document; and
(ii) Either the unique serial number on the document or, if the
document is not imprinted with a serial number, both the name of the
person who prepared the document and the date the document was signed.
Location-based number system. The location-based number system
combines a State or Tribal issued location identification (LID) number
or a premises identification number (PIN) with a producer's unique
livestock production numbering system to provide a nationally unique
and herd-unique identification number for an animal.
[[Page 50104]]
Location identification (LID) number. A nationally unique number
issued by a State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal health authority to a
location as determined by the State or Tribe in which it is issued. The
LID number may be used in conjunction with a producer's own unique
livestock production numbering system to provide a nationally unique
and herd-unique identification number for an animal. It may also be
used as a component of a group/lot identification number (GIN).
Market cattle identification test cattle. Cows and bulls 18 months
of age or over which have been moved to recognized slaughtering
establishments, and test-eligible cattle which are subjected to an
official test for the purposes of movement at farms, ranches, auction
markets, stockyards, quarantined feedlots, or other assembly points.
Such cattle must be identified with an official identification device
as specified in Sec. 90.4(a) of this chapter prior to or at the first
market, stockyard, quarantined feedlot, or slaughtering establishment
they reach.
* * * * *
National Uniform Eartagging System (NUES). A numbering system for
the official identification of individual animals in the United States
that provides a nationally unique identification number for each
animal.
* * * * *
Official eartag. An identification tag approved by APHIS that bears
an official identification number for individual animals. Beginning
[Insert date 1 year after effective date of final rule] all official
eartags applied to animals must bear the U.S. shield. The design, size,
shape, color, and other characteristics of the official eartag will
depend on the needs of the users, subject to the approval of the
Administrator. The official eartag must be tamper-resistant and have a
high retention rate in the animal.
* * * * *
Official identification number. A nationally unique number that is
permanently associated with an animal or group of animals and that
adheres to one of the following systems:
(1) National Uniform Eartagging System.
(2) Animal identification number (AIN).
(3) Location-based number system.
(4) Flock-based number system.
(5) Any other numbering system approved by the Administrator for
the official identification of animals.
Officially identified. Identified by means of an official
identification device or method approved by the Administrator.
* * * * *
Recognized slaughtering establishment. Any slaughtering facility
operating under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), or
State meat or poultry inspection acts.
Rodeo cattle. Cattle used at rodeos or competitive events.
* * * * *
27. Section 78.2 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 78.2 Handling of certificates, permits, and ``S'' brand permits
for interstate movement of animals.
(a) Any ICVI, other interstate movement document used in lieu of an
ICVI, permit, or ``S'' brand permit required by this part for the
interstate movement of animals shall be delivered to the person moving
the animals by the shipper or shipper's agent at the time the animals
are delivered for movement and shall accompany the animals to their
destination and be delivered to the consignee or the person receiving
the animals.
(b) The APHIS representative, State representative, Tribal
representative, or accredited veterinarian issuing an ICVI or other
interstate movement document used in lieu of an ICVI or a permit,
except for permits for entry and ``S'' brand permits, that is required
for the interstate movement of animals under this part shall forward a
copy of the ICVI, other interstate movement document used in lieu of an
ICVI, or permit to the State animal health official of the State of
origin within 5 working days. The State animal health official of the
State of origin shall forward a copy of the ICVI, other interstate
movement document used in lieu of an ICVI, or permit to the State
animal health official of the State of destination within 5 working
days.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0047)
28. Section 78.5 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 78.5 General restrictions.
Cattle may not be moved interstate except in compliance with this
subpart and with 9 CFR part 90. Cattle moved interstate under permit in
accordance with this subpart are not required to be accompanied by an
interstate certificate of veterinary inspection or owner-shipper
statement.
29. Section 78.6 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 78.6 Steers and spayed heifers.
Steers and spayed heifers may be moved interstate in accordance
with 9 CFR part 90 and without further restriction under this subpart.
30. Section 78.9 is amended as follows:
a. In the introductory text, by revising the first sentence to read
as set forth below.
b. By revising paragraphs (a)(3)(ii), (a)(3)(iii), (b)(3)(i),
(b)(3)(ii), (b)(3)(iv), (c)(1)(i), (c)(1)(ii), (c)(1)(iv)(A),
(c)(1)(vi)(A), (c)(2)(ii)(A), (c)(3)(i), (c)(3)(ii), (c)(3)(iv),
(d)(1)(i), (d)(1)(ii), (d)(1)(iv)(A), (d)(1)(vi)(A), (d)(2)(ii)(A), and
(d)(3) to read as set forth below.
Sec. 78.9 Cattle from herds not known to be affected.
Male cattle which are not test eligible and are from herds not
known to be affected may be moved interstate without further
restriction under this subpart. * * *
(a) * * *
(3) * * *
(ii) Such cattle are moved interstate as part of a commuter herd in
accordance with a commuter herd agreement.
(iii) Such cattle are moved interstate accompanied by an ICVI which
states, in addition to the items specified in Sec. 78.1, that the
cattle originated in a Class Free State or area.
(b) * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Such cattle originate in a certified brucellosis-free herd and
are accompanied interstate by an ICVI which states, in addition to the
items specified in Sec. 78.1, that the cattle originated in a
certified brucellosis-free herd; or
(ii) Such cattle are negative to an official test within 30 days
prior to such interstate movement and are accompanied interstate by an
ICVI which states, in addition to the items specified in Sec. 78.1,
the test dates and results of the official tests; or
* * * * *
(iv) Such cattle are moved as part of a commuter herd in accordance
with a commuter herd agreement.
(c) * * *
(1) * * * (i) Such cattle may be moved interstate from a farm of
origin or a nonquarantined feedlot directly to a recognized
slaughtering establishment without further restriction under this
subpart.
(ii) Such cattle may be moved interstate from a farm of origin
directly to an approved intermediate handling facility without further
restriction under this subpart.
* * * * *
[[Page 50105]]
(iv) * * *
(A) They are negative to an official test conducted at the
specifically approved stockyard and are accompanied to slaughter by an
ICVI or ``S'' brand permit which states, in addition to the items
specified in Sec. 78.1, the test dates and results of the official
tests; or
* * * * *
(vi) * * *
(A) They are negative to an official test within 30 days prior to
such interstate movement and are accompanied by an ICVI or ``S'' brand
permit which states, in addition to the items specified in Sec. 78.1,
the test dates and results of the official tests; or
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) They are negative to an official test within 30 days prior to
such movement and are accompanied by an ICVI which states, in addition
to the items specified in Sec. 78.1, the test dates and results of the
official tests; or
* * * * *
(3) * * *
(i) Such cattle originate in a certified brucellosis-free herd and
are accompanied interstate by an ICVI which states, in addition to the
items specified in Sec. 78.1, that the cattle originated in a
certified brucellosis-free herd; or
(ii) Such cattle are negative to an official test within 30 days
prior to interstate movement, have been issued a permit for entry, and
are accompanied interstate by an ICVI which states, in addition to the
items specified in Sec. 78.1, the test dates and results of the
official tests; or
* * * * *
(iv) Such cattle are moved interstate as part of a commuter herd in
accordance with a commuter herd agreement, * * *
* * * * *
(d) * * *
(1) * * * (i) Such cattle may be moved interstate from a farm of
origin or a nonquarantined feedlot directly to a recognized
slaughtering establishment without further restriction under this
subpart.
(ii) Such cattle may be moved interstate from a farm of origin
directly to an approved intermediate handling facility without further
restriction under this subpart.
* * * * *
(iv) * * *
(A) They are negative to an official test conducted at the
specifically approved stockyard and are accompanied by an ICVI or ``S''
brand permit which states, in addition to the items specified in Sec.
78.1, the test dates and results of the official tests; or
* * * * *
(vi) * * *
(A) They are negative to an official test within 30 days prior to
such interstate movement and are accompanied by an ICVI or ``S'' brand
permit which states, in addition to the items specified in Sec. 78.1,
the test dates and results of the official tests; or
* * * * *
(2) * * *
(ii) * * *
(A) They are negative to an official test within 30 days prior to
such movement and are accompanied by an ICVI which states, in addition
to the items specified in Sec. 78.1, the test dates and results of the
official tests; or
* * * * *
(3) Movement other than in accordance with paragraphs (d)(1) or (2)
of this section.
Such cattle may be moved interstate other than in accordance with
paragraphs (d)(1) or (2) of this section only if such cattle originate
in a certified brucellosis-free herd and are accompanied interstate by
an ICVI which states, in addition to the items specified in Sec. 78.1,
that the cattle originated in a certified brucellosis-free herd.
* * * * *
Sec. 78.12 [Amended]
31. Section 78.12 is amended as follows:
a. In the introductory text, by adding the words ``, 9 CFR part
90,'' after the citation ``Sec. 78.10''.
b. In paragraph (a), by adding the word ``further'' after the word
``without''.
c. In paragraphs (d)(1)(i), (d)(2)(i), and (d)(3)(ii), by removing
the words ``a certificate'' and adding the words ``an ICVI'' in their
place each time they occur.
32. Section 78.14 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 78.14 Rodeo cattle.
(a) Rodeo cattle that are test-eligible and that are from a herd
not known to be affected may be moved interstate if:
(1) They are classified as brucellosis negative based upon an
official test conducted less than 365 days before the date of
interstate movement: Provided, however, That: The official test is not
required for rodeo cattle that are moved only between Class Free
States;
(2) The cattle are identified with an official eartag or any other
official identification device or method approved by the Administrator
in accordance with Sec. 78.5;
(3) There is no change of ownership since the date of the last
official test;
(4) An ICVI accompanies each interstate movement of the cattle; and
(5) A permit for entry is issued for each interstate movement of
the cattle.
(b) Cattle that would qualify as rodeo cattle, but that are used
for breeding purposes during the 365 days following the date of being
tested, may be moved interstate only if they meet the requirements for
cattle in this subpart and in 9 CFR part 90.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0047)
Sec. 78.20 [Amended]
33. Section 78.20 is amended by adding the words ``and with 9 CFR
part 90'' after the word ``subpart''.
Sec. 78.21 [Amended]
34. Section 78.21 is amended by adding the word ``further'' after
the word ``without''.
35. Section 78.23, paragraph (c) introductory text, is revised to
read as follows:
Sec. 78.23 Brucellosis exposed bison.
* * * * *
(c) Movement other than in accordance with paragraphs (a) or (b) of
this section. Brucellosis exposed bison which are from herds known to
be affected, but which are not part of a herd being depopulated under
part 51 of this chapter, may move without further restriction under
this subpart if the bison:
* * * * *
Sec. 78.24 [Amended]
36. Section 78.24 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraphs (a) and (b), by adding the word ``further'' after
the word ``without'' each time it occurs.
b. In paragraphs (d)(1), (d)(2), (d)(3), and (d)(4), by removing
the words ``a certificate'' and adding the words ``an ICVI'' in their
place each time they occur.
37. A new part 90 is added to subchapter C to read as follows:
PART 90--ANIMAL DISEASE TRACEABILITY
Sec.
90.1 Definitions.
90.2 General requirements for traceability.
90.3 Recordkeeping requirements.
90.4 Official identification.
90.5 Documentation requirements for interstate movement of covered
livestock.
[[Page 50106]]
90.6 [Reserved]
90.7 [Reserved]
90.8 Preemption.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
Sec. 90.1 Definitions.
As used in this part:
Animal Disease Traceability General Standards Document. A document
providing specific detail on, among other things, numbering systems,
official identification devices, and ICVIs and other animal movement
documents. The Animal Disease Traceability General Standards Document
is available on the Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability.
Animal identification number (AIN). A numbering system for the
official identification of individual animals in the United States that
provides a nationally unique identification number for each animal. The
AIN consists of 15 digits, with the first 3 being the country code (840
for the United States). The alpha characters USA or the numeric code
assigned to the manufacturer of the identification device by the
International Committee on Animal Recording may be used as an
alternative to the 840 prefix; however, only the AIN beginning with the
840 prefix will be recognized as official for use on AIN tags applied
to animals on or after [Insert date 1 year after effective date of
final rule]. The AIN beginning with the 840 prefix may be used only on
animals born in the United States.
Approved livestock facility. A stockyard, livestock market, buying
station, concentration point, or any other premises under State or
Federal veterinary inspection where livestock are assembled and that
has been approved under Sec. 71.20 of this chapter.
Approved tagging site. A premises, authorized by APHIS, State, or
Tribal animal health officials, where livestock may be officially
identified on behalf of their owner or the person in possession, care,
or control of the animals when they are brought to the premises.
Commuter herd. A herd of cattle or bison moved interstate during
the course of normal livestock management operations and without change
of ownership directly between two premises, as provided in a commuter
herd agreement.
Commuter herd agreement. A written agreement between the owner(s)
of a herd of cattle or bison and the animal health officials for the
States or Tribes of origin and destination specifying the conditions
required for the interstate movement from one premises to another in
the course of normal livestock management operations and specifying the
time period, up to 1 year, that the agreement is effective. A commuter
herd agreement may be renewed annually.
Covered livestock. Cattle and bison, horses and other equine
species, poultry, sheep and goats, swine, and captive cervids.
Dairy cattle. All cattle, regardless of age or sex or current use,
that are of a breed(s) typically used to produce milk or other dairy
products for human consumption.
Directly. Without unloading en route if moved in a means of
conveyance and without being commingled with other animals, or without
stopping, except for stops of less than 24 hours that are needed for
food, water, or rest in route if the animals are moved in any other
manner.
Flock-based number system. The flock-based number system combines a
flock identification number (FIN) with a producer's unique livestock
production numbering system to provide a nationally unique
identification number for an animal.
Flock identification number (FIN). A nationally unique number
assigned by a State, Tribal, or Federal animal health authority to a
group of animals that are managed as a unit on one or more premises and
are under the same ownership.
Group/lot identification number (GIN). The identification number
used to uniquely identify a ``unit of animals'' of the same species
that is managed together as one group throughout the preharvest
production chain. When a GIN is used, it is recorded on documents
accompanying the animals moving interstate; it is not necessary to have
the GIN attached to each animal.
Interstate certificate of veterinary inspection (ICVI). An official
document issued by a Federal, State, Tribal, or accredited veterinarian
at the location from which animals are shipped interstate.
(1) The ICVI must show the species of animals covered by the ICVI;
the number of animals covered by the ICVI; the purpose for which the
animals are to be moved; the address at which the animals were loaded
for interstate movement; the address to which the animals are destined;
and the names of the consignor and the consignee and their addresses if
different from the address at which the animals were loaded or the
address to which the animals are destined. Additionally, unless the
species-specific requirements for ICVIs provide an exception, the ICVI
must list the official identification number of each animal, except as
provided in paragraph (b) of this definition, or group of animals moved
that is required to be officially identified, or, if an alternative
form of identification has been agreed upon by the sending and
receiving States, the ICVI must include a record of that
identification. If animals moving under a GIN also have individual
official identification, only the GIN must be listed on the ICVI. If
the animals are not required by the regulations to be officially
identified, the ICVI must state the exemption that applies (e.g., the
cattle and bison belong to one of the classes of cattle and bison
exempted under Sec. 90.4 from the official identification requirements
of this part during the initial stage of the phase-in of those
requirements). If the animals are required to be officially identified
but the identification number does not have to be recorded on the ICVI,
the ICVI must state that all animals to be moved under the ICVI are
officially identified. An ICVI may not be issued for any animal that is
not officially identified if official identification is required.
(2) As an alternative to typing or writing individual animal
identification on an ICVI, another document may be used to provide this
information, but only under the following conditions:
(i) The document must be a State form or APHIS form that requires
individual identification of animals;
(ii) A legible copy of the document must be stapled to the original
and each copy of the ICVI;
(iii) Each copy of the document must identify each animal to be
moved with the ICVI, but any information pertaining to other animals,
and any unused space on the document for recording animal
identification, must be crossed out in ink; and
(iv) The following information must be written in ink in the
identification column on the original and each copy of the ICVI and
must be circled or boxed, also in ink, so that no additional
information can be added:
(A) The name of the document; and
(B) Either the unique serial number on the document or, if the
document is not imprinted with a serial number, both the name of the
person who prepared the document and the date the document was signed.
Interstate movement. From one State into or through any other
State.
Livestock. All farm-raised animals.
Location-based numbering system. The location-based number system
combines a State or Tribal issued location identification (LID) number
or a premises identification number (PIN) with a producer's unique
livestock production numbering system to provide a nationally unique
and herd-
[[Page 50107]]
unique identification number for an animal.
Location identification (LID) number. A nationally unique number
issued by a State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal health authority to a
location as determined by the State or Tribe in which it is issued. The
LID number may be used in conjunction with a producer's own unique
livestock production numbering system to provide a nationally unique
and herd-unique identification number for an animal. It may also be
used as a component of a group/lot identification number (GIN).
Move. To carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or transport; to aid,
abet, cause, or induce carrying, entering, importing, mailing,
shipping, or transporting; to offer to carry, enter, import, mail,
ship, or transport; to receive in order to carry, enter, import, mail,
ship, or transport; or to allow any of these activities.
National Uniform Eartagging System (NUES). A numbering system for
the official identification of individual animals in the United States
that provides a nationally unique identification number for each
animal.
Official eartag. An identification tag approved by APHIS that bears
an official identification number for individual animals. Beginning
[Insert date 1 year after effective date of final rule] all official
eartags applied to animals must bear the U.S. shield. The design, size,
shape, color, and other characteristics of the official eartag will
depend on the needs of the users, subject to the approval of the
Administrator. The official eartag must be tamper-resistant and have a
high retention rate in the animal.
Official identification device or method. A means approved by the
Administrator of applying an official identification number to an
animal of a specific species or associating an official identification
number with an animal or group of animals of a specific species or
otherwise officially identifying an animal or group of animals.
Official identification number. A nationally unique number that is
permanently associated with an animal or group of animals and that
adheres to one of the following systems:
(1) National Uniform Eartagging System (NUES).
(2) Animal identification number (AIN).
(3) Location-based number system.
(4) Flock-based number system.
(5) Any other numbering system approved by the Administrator for
the official identification of animals.
Officially identified. Identified by means of an official
identification device or method approved by the Administrator.
Owner-shipper statement. A statement signed by the owner or shipper
of the livestock being moved stating the location from which the
animals are moved interstate; the destination of the animals; the
number of animals covered by the statement; the species of animal
covered; the name and address of the owner at the time of the movement;
the name and address of the shipper; and the identification of each
animal, as required by the regulations, unless the regulations
specifically provide that the identification does not have to be
recorded.
Person. Any individual, corporation, company, association, firm,
partnership, society, or joint stock company, or other legal entity.
Premises identification number (PIN). A nationally unique number
assigned by a State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal health authority to
a premises that is, in the judgment of the State, Tribal, and/or
Federal animal health authority a geographically distinct location from
other premises. The PIN may be used in conjunction with a producer's
own livestock production numbering system to provide a nationally
unique and herd-unique identification number for an animal. It may be
used as a component of a group/lot identification number (GIN).
Recognized slaughtering establishment. Any slaughtering facility
operating under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et
seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), or
State meat or poultry inspection acts.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved backtag. A
backtag issued by APHIS that provides a temporary unique identification
for each animal.
Sec. 90.2 General requirements for traceability.
(a) The regulations in this part apply only to covered livestock,
as defined in Sec. 90.1.
(b) No person may move covered livestock interstate or receive such
livestock moved interstate unless the livestock meet all applicable
requirements of this part.
(c) The regulations in this part will apply to the movement of
covered livestock onto and from Tribal lands only when the movement is
an interstate movement; i.e., when the movement is across a State line.
(d) In addition to meeting all applicable requirements of this
part, all covered livestock moved interstate must be moved in
compliance with all applicable provisions of APHIS program disease
regulations (subchapter C of this chapter).
(e) The interstate movement requirements in this part do not apply
to the movement of covered livestock if:
(1) The movement occurs entirely within Tribal land that straddles
a State line and the Tribe has a separate traceability system from the
States in which its lands are located; or
(2) The movement is to a custom slaughter facility in accordance
with Federal and State regulations for preparation of meat for personal
consumption.
Sec. 90.3 Recordkeeping requirements.
(a) Official identification device distribution records. Any State,
Tribe, accredited veterinarian, or other person or entity who
distributes official identification devices must maintain for 5 years a
record of the names and addresses of anyone to whom the devices were
distributed.
(b) Interstate movement records. Approved livestock facilities must
keep for at least 5 years any ICVIs or alternate documentation that is
required by this part for the interstate movement of any covered
livestock that enter the facility on or after [Insert effective date of
final rule].
Sec. 90.4 Official identification.
(a) Official identification devices and methods. The Administrator
has approved the following official identification devices or methods
for the species listed. The Administrator may authorize the use of
additional devices or methods for a specific species if he or she
determines that such additional devices or methods will provide for
adequate traceability.
(1) Cattle and bison. Cattle and bison that are required to be
officially identified for interstate movement under this part must be
identified by means of:
(i) An official eartag; or
(ii) Group/lot identification when a group/lot identification
number (GIN) may be used.
(2) Horses and other equine species. Horses and other equine
species that are required to be officially identified for interstate
movement under this part must be identified by one of the following
methods:
(i) A description sufficient to identify the individual equine, as
determined by a State or Tribal animal health official in the State or
Tribe of destination or APHIS representative, including, but not
limited to, name, age, breed, color, gender, distinctive markings, and
unique and permanent forms of
[[Page 50108]]
identification when present (e.g., brands, tattoos, scars, cowlicks, or
blemishes); or
(ii) Electronic identification that complies with ISO 11784/11785;
or
(iii) Digital photographs sufficient to identify the individual
equine, as determined by a State or Tribal animal health official in
the State or Tribe of destination or APHIS representative; or
(iv) For equines being commercially transported to slaughter, a
device or method authorized by part 88 of this chapter.
(3) Poultry. Poultry that are required to be officially identified
for interstate movement under this part must be identified by one of
the following methods:
(i) Sealed and numbered leg bands in the manner referenced in the
National Poultry Improvement Plan regulations (parts 145 through 147 of
this chapter); or
(ii) Group/lot identification when a group/lot identification
number (GIN) may be used.
(4) Sheep and goats. Sheep and goats that are required to be
officially identified for interstate movement under this part must be
identified by a device or method authorized by part 79 of this chapter.
(5) Swine. Swine that are required to be officially identified for
interstate movement under this part must be identified by a device or
method authorized by Sec. 71.19 of this chapter.
(6) Captive cervids. Captive cervids that are required to be
officially identified for interstate movement under this part must be
identified by a device or method authorized by part 77 of this chapter.
(b) Official identification requirements for interstate movement.
(1) Cattle and bison. (i) In accordance with the schedule in
paragraph (b)(1)(iii) of this section, cattle and bison moved
interstate must be officially identified prior to the interstate
movement, using an official identification device or method listed in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section unless:
(A) The cattle and bison are moved as a commuter herd with a copy
of the commuter herd agreement.
(B) The cattle and bison are moved directly from a location in one
State through another State to a second location in the original State.
(C) The cattle and bison are moved interstate directly to an
approved tagging site and are officially identified before commingling
with cattle and bison from other premises.
(D) The cattle and bison are moved between shipping and receiving
States or Tribes with another form of identification, including but not
limited to brands, tattoos, and breed registry certificates, as agreed
upon by animal health officials in the shipping and receiving States or
Tribes.
(ii) Until the date on which the official identification
requirements in this section apply to all categories of cattle and
bison not specifically exempted, cattle and bison may also be moved
interstate without official identification if they are moved directly
to a recognized slaughtering establishment or directly to no more than
one approved livestock facility approved to handle ``for slaughter
only'' animals (cattle or bison that, when marketed, are presented/sold
for slaughter only) and then directly to a recognized slaughtering
establishment; and
(A) They are moved interstate with a USDA-approved backtag; or
(B) A USDA-approved backtag is applied to the cattle or bison at
the recognized slaughtering establishment or federally approved
livestock facility approved to handle ``for slaughter only'' animals.
(iii) Official identification requirements for cattle and bison
will be phased in according to the schedule below. APHIS will publish a
document in the Federal Register to announce the date upon which the
requirements become effective for all cattle and bison not otherwise
exempted from official identification requirements.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date when specified cattle and bison
must be officially identified for Classes of cattle and bison
interstate movement
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(A) Beginning on [Insert effective date (1) All sexually intact cattle
of final rule]. and bison 18 months of age or
over.
(2) Dairy cattle of any age.
(3) Cattle and bison of any age
used for rodeo or recreational
events.
(4) Cattle and bison of any age
used for shows or exhibitions.
(B) Beginning 1 year after the date on All cattle and bison.
which APHIS announces its
determination that the official
identification requirements are being
effectively implemented throughout the
production chain and that there is a
70 percent rate of compliance with
those requirements for all classes of
cattle that are subject to official
identification requirements in the
initial phase.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) Sheep and goats. Sheep and goats moved interstate must be
officially identified prior to the interstate movement unless they are
exempt from official identification requirements under 9 CFR part 79 or
are officially identified after the interstate movement, as provided in
9 CFR part 79.
(3) Swine. Swine moving interstate must be officially identified in
accordance with Sec. 71.19 of this chapter.
(4) Horses and other equines. Horses and other equines moving
interstate must be officially identified prior to interstate movement
or identified as agreed upon by the States or Tribes involved in the
movement or, if being commercially transported to slaughter, in
accordance with part 88 of this chapter.
(5) Poultry. Poultry moving interstate must be officially
identified prior to interstate movement or identified as agreed upon by
the States or Tribes involved in the movement.
(6) Captive cervids. Captive cervids moving interstate must be
officially identified prior to interstate movement in accordance with
part 77 of this chapter.
(c) Use of more than one official identification device or method.
Beginning on [Insert effective date of final rule], no more than one
official identification device or method may be applied to an animal;
except that:
(1) A State or Tribal animal health official or an area
veterinarian in charge may approve the application of a second official
identification device in specific cases when the need to maintain the
identity of an animal is intensified (e.g., such as for export
shipments, quarantined herds, field trials, experiments, or disease
surveys). Approval may not be granted merely for convenience in
identifying animals. The person applying the second official
identification device must record the following information about the
event and maintain the record for 5 years: The
[[Page 50109]]
date the second official identification device is added; the reason for
the additional official identification device; and the official
identification numbers of both official identification devices.
(2) An eartag with an animal identification number (AIN) beginning
with the 840 prefix (either radio frequency identification or visual-
only tag) may be applied to an animal that is already officially
identified with an eartag with a National Uniform Eartagging System
number. The animal's official identification number on the existing
official identification eartag must be recorded and reported in
accordance with the AIN device distribution policies, which are
described in the Animal Disease Traceability General Standards
Document.
(3) A brucellosis vaccination eartag with a National Uniform
Eartagging System number may be applied in accordance with part 78 of
this chapter to an animal that is already officially identified.
(d) Removal or loss of official identification devices. (1)
Official identification devices are intended to provide permanent
identification of livestock and to ensure the ability to find the
source of animal disease outbreaks. Removal of these devices, including
devices applied to imported animals in their countries of origin and
recognized by the Administrator as official, is prohibited except at
the time of slaughter, at any other location upon the death of the
animal, or as otherwise approved by the State or Tribal animal health
official or an area veterinarian in charge when a device needs to be
replaced.
(2) All man-made identification devices affixed to covered
livestock moved interstate must be removed at slaughter and correlated
with the carcasses through final inspection by means approved by the
Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS). If diagnostic samples are taken,
the identification devices must be packaged with the samples and be
correlated with the carcasses through final inspection by means
approved by FSIS. Devices collected at slaughter must be made available
to APHIS and FSIS.
(3) All official identification devices affixed to covered
livestock carcasses moved interstate for rendering must be removed at
the rendering facility and made available to APHIS.
(4) If an animal loses an official identification device and needs
a new one, the person applying new official identification device must
record the following information about the event and maintain the
record for 5 years: The date the new official identification device is
added; the official identification number on the device; the official
identification number on the old device if known.
(e) Replacement of official identification devices for reasons
other than loss.
(1) Circumstances under which a State or Tribal animal health
official or an area veterinarian in charge may authorize replacement of
an official identification device include, but are not limited to:
(i) Deterioration of the device such that loss of the device
appears likely or the number can no longer be read;
(ii) Infection at the site where the device is attached,
necessitating application of a device at another location (e.g., a
slightly different location of an eartag in the ear);
(iii) Malfunction of the electronic component of a radio frequency
identification (RFID) device; or
(iv) Incompatibility or inoperability of the electronic component
of an RFID device with the management system or unacceptable
functionality of the management system due to use of an RFID device.
(2) Any time an official identification device is replaced, as
authorized by the State or Tribal animal health official or area
veterinarian in charge, the person replacing the device must record the
following information about the event and maintain the record for 5
years:
(i) The date on which the device was removed;
(ii) Contact information for the location where the device was
removed;
(iii) The official identification number (to the extent possible)
on the device removed;
(iv) The type of device removed (e.g., metal eartag, RFID eartag);
(v) The reason for the removal of the device;
(vi) The new official identification number on the replacement
device; and
(vii) The type of replacement device applied.
(f) Sale or transfer of official identification devices. Official
identification devices are not to be sold or otherwise transferred from
the premises to which they were originally issued to another premises
without authorization by the Administrator or a State or Tribal animal
health official.
Sec. 90.5 Documentation requirements for interstate movement of
covered livestock.
(a) The person directly responsible for animals leaving a premises
for interstate movement must ensure that the animals are accompanied by
an interstate certificate of veterinary inspection (ICVI) or other
document required by this part for the interstate movement of animals.
(b) The APHIS representative, State or Tribal representative, or
accredited veterinarian issuing an ICVI or other document required for
the interstate movement of animals under this part must forward a copy
of the ICVI or other document to the State or Tribal animal health
official of the State or Tribe of origin within 5 working days. The
State or Tribal animal health official in the State or Tribe of origin
must forward a copy of the ICVI or other document to the State or
Tribal animal health official the State or Tribe of destination within
5 working days.
(c) Cattle and bison. Cattle and bison moved interstate must be
accompanied by an ICVI unless:
(1) They are moved directly to a recognized slaughtering
establishment, or directly to an approved livestock facility approved
to handle ``for slaughter only'' animals and then directly to a
recognized slaughtering establishment, and they are accompanied by an
owner-shipper statement.
(2) They are moved directly to an approved livestock facility with
an owner-shipper statement and do not move interstate from the facility
unless accompanied by an ICVI.
(3) They are moved from the farm of origin for veterinary medical
examination or treatment and returned to the farm of origin without
change in ownership.
(4) They are moved directly from one State through another State
and back to the original State.
(5) They are moved as a commuter herd with a copy of the commuter
herd agreement.
(6) Additionally, cattle and bison under 18 months of age may be
moved between shipping and receiving States or Tribes with
documentation other than an ICVI, e.g., a brand inspection certificate,
as agreed upon by animal health officials in the shipping and receiving
States or Tribes.
(7) The official identification number of cattle or bison must be
recorded on the ICVI or alternate documentation unless:
(i) The cattle or bison are moved from an approved livestock
facility directly to a recognized slaughtering establishment; or
(ii) The cattle and bison are sexually intact cattle or bison under
18 months of age or steers or spayed heifers; Except that: This
exception does not apply to sexually intact dairy cattle of any age or
to cattle or bison used for rodeo, exhibition, or recreational
purposes.
[[Page 50110]]
(d) Sheep and goats. Sheep and goats moved interstate must be
accompanied by documentation as required by part 79 of this chapter.
(e) Swine. Swine moved interstate must be accompanied by
documentation in accordance with Sec. 71.19 of this chapter.
(f) Horses and other equines. Horses and other equines moved
interstate must be accompanied by an ICVI or other interstate movement
document, as agreed to by the shipping and receiving States or Tribes
involved in the movement. Equines moving commercially to slaughter must
be accompanied by documentation in accordance with part 88 of this
chapter. Equine infectious anemia reactors moving interstate must be
accompanied by documentation as required by part 75 of this chapter.
(g) Poultry. Poultry moved interstate must be accompanied by an
ICVI unless:
(1) They are from a flock participating in the National Poultry
Improvement Plan (NPIP) and are accompanied by the documentation
required under the NPIP regulations (parts 145 through 147 of this
chapter) for participation in that program.
(2) They are moved directly to a recognized slaughtering
establishment.
(3) They are moved from the farm of origin for veterinary medical
examination, treatment, or diagnostic purposes and either returned to
the farm of origin without change in ownership or euthanized and
disposed of at the veterinary facility.
(4) They are moved directly from one State through another State
and back to the original State.
(5) They are moved between shipping and receiving States or Tribes
with a VS Form 9-3 or documentation other than an ICVI, as agreed upon
by animal health officials in the shipping and receiving States or
Tribes.
(6) They are moved under permit in accordance with part 82 of this
chapter.
(h) Captive cervids. Captive cervids moved interstate must be
accompanied by documentation as required by part 77 of this chapter.
Sec. 90.6 [Reserved]
Sec. 90.7 [Reserved]
Sec. 90.8 Preemption.
The regulations in this part preempt State, Tribal, and local laws
and regulations that are in conflict with them, except as described in
this section. States and Tribes may require covered livestock that are
exempt from official identification requirements under this part to be
officially identified to be eligible for interstate movement into their
jurisdictions; Except that: The State or Tribe of destination may not
specify an official identification device or method that would have to
be used if multiple devices or methods may be used under this part for
a particular species, nor may the State or Tribe of destination impose
requirements that would otherwise cause the State or Tribe from which
the shipments originate to have to develop a particular kind of
traceability system or change its existing system in order to meet the
requirements of the State or Tribe of destination.
Done in Washington, DC, this 5th day of August 2011.
Edward Avalos,
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 2011-20281 Filed 8-9-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P