[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