[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 6 (Wednesday, January 9, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 2039-2075]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-31114]
[[Page 2039]]
Vol. 78
Wednesday,
No. 6
January 9, 2013
Part IV
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
9 CFR Parts 71, 77, 78, et al.
Traceability for Livestock Moving Interstate; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 78 , No. 6 / Wednesday, January 9, 2013 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 2040]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 71, 77, 78, and 86
[Docket No. APHIS-2009-0091]
RIN 0579-AD24
Traceability for Livestock Moving Interstate
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending the regulations to establish minimum national
official identification and documentation requirements for the
traceability of livestock moving interstate. Under this rulemaking,
unless specifically exempted, livestock belonging to species covered by
the regulations that are moved interstate must be officially identified
and accompanied by an interstate certificate of veterinary inspection
or other documentation. These regulations specify approved forms of
official identification for each species but 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: Effective Date: March 11, 2013.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Neil Hammerschmidt, Program
Manager, Animal Disease Traceability, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit
46, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 851-3539.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
I. Purpose of the Regulatory Action
a. Need for the Regulatory Action
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 indispensable in
emergency response and in ongoing disease control and eradication
programs.
We have clear indications that higher levels of official
identification enhance tracing capability. For example, through the
National Scrapie Eradication Program, 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, particularly 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 address 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.
On August 11, 2011, we published in the Federal Register (76 FR
50082-50110, Docket No. APHIS-2009-0091) a proposal \1\ to amend the
regulations by establishing minimum national official identification
and documentation requirements for the traceability of livestock moving
interstate. Under the proposed regulations, unless specifically
exempted, livestock belonging to species covered by the rulemaking that
are moved interstate would have to be officially identified and
accompanied by an interstate certificate of veterinary inspection
(ICVI) or comparable appropriate documentation. The proposed rule
specified approved forms of official identification for each species
but allowed the livestock covered under the 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 the proposed rule was to improve our ability to trace
livestock in the event that disease is found.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the proposed rule, supporting documents, and the
comments we received, go to http://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2009-0091.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Legal Authority for the Regulatory Action
Under the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA, 7 U.S.C. 8301 et
seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to issue orders
and promulgate regulations to prevent the introduction into the United
States and the dissemination within the United States of any pest or
disease of livestock. APHIS' regulations in 9 CFR subchapter B govern
cooperative programs to control and eradicate communicable diseases of
livestock. The regulations in 9 CFR subchapter C establish requirements
for the interstate movement of livestock to prevent the dissemination
of diseases of livestock within the United States.
II. Summary of the Major Provisions of the Regulatory Action
a. New or Revised Provisions
This section provides a brief summary of the more significant
changes we are making to this final rule in response to comments on the
August 2011 proposed rule. Both the comments and the changes will be
discussed in greater detail later in this document. The changes are
listed below in the order they are discussed later in this document.
We are extending the phase-out period for manufacturer-
coded AINs from 12 months to 24 months to make the transition less
burdensome for producers.
We are revising the definition of official eartag and
adding a new definition of official eartag shield. These changes will
allow the use of State or Tribal postal abbreviation or codes within
the U.S. Route Shield in lieu of ``U.S.''
We are revising the language of the exemption from the
traceability requirements for animals moved interstate to custom
slaughter to indicate clearly that the exemption applies to all
interstate movement to a custom slaughter facility. The proposed rule
contained language that implied that the meat must be consumed by the
person moving the animal to custom slaughter. This was not the intent
of the proposed rule. A significant number of backyard poultry growers
commented and expressed concerns about the official identification
requirement for movement of poultry to a custom slaughter facility.
We are reducing the requirement for the maintenance of
interstate movement records for poultry and swine from 5 years to 2
because, as noted by numerous commenters representing those industries,
poultry and swine have shorter lifespans than do the other livestock
species covered by this rulemaking. The requirement will
[[Page 2041]]
remain 5 years for cattle and bison, sheep and goats, cervids, and
equines.
In addition to eartags, in this final rule, we are
recognizing brands, when accompanied by an official brand inspection
certificate as means of official identification for cattle when the
shipping and receiving States or Tribes are in agreement. We are making
this change in response to the many comments we received on this issue
advocating that we retain brands as a means of official identification
for cattle. Additionally, we are allowing similar provisions for
tattoos and breed registry certificates.
In response to many commenters from the cattle industry,
we will make feeder cattle (cattle under 18 months of age) subject to
our official identification requirements in a separate rulemaking
rather than in this one.
We will continue to allow backtags to be used in lieu of
official identification on direct-to-slaughter cattle rather than
eventually requiring official identification, as we had originally
proposed to do. We are stipulating, however, that for backtags to be
used on such animals, the animals will have to be slaughtered within 3
days of their movement to the slaughter plant.
We are no longer requiring that cattle and bison moved
interstate to an approved tagging site be officially identified at the
site prior to commingling with cattle or bison from other premises.
Under this final rule, commingling can occur prior to official
identification provided that other practices are used that will ensure
that the identity of the animal's consignor is accurately maintained
until the animal is tagged with an official eartag. We are making this
change in response to numerous comments expressing concerns that
operations at approved tagging sites could be slowed during busy
periods.
We are clarifying the circumstances under which multiple
official identification methods, including official eartags, may be
used on the same animal.
We are exempting poultry growers that are not
participating in the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) and that
receive chicks from a hatchery or redistributor from the official
identification requirements, with the stipulation that the producers
maintain certain records, e.g., of the supplier of the birds. Many
backyard poultry growers noted that group/lot identification of these
birds was not applicable and that individual identification of these
chicks was impractical.
We are allowing the use of other interstate movement
documentation, in lieu of an ICVI, as agreed to by the shipping and
receiving States or Tribes, for cattle and bison of all ages. The
proposed rule only allowed such an exemption for cattle and bison under
18 month of age.
We are providing additional exemptions from the ICVI
requirement for equines moving interstate under certain conditions.
b. New Part Number
In the August 2011 proposed rule, the new traceability regulations
were contained in a new 9 CFR part 90. In this final rule, we are
placing them in a new part 86 instead. The discussion below of the
comments and our responses to them will reflect this change in
numbering. When citing specific changes we are making in this final
rule to the regulatory text, we refer to part 86.
III. Costs and Benefits
While this rulemaking applies to cattle and bison, horses and other
equine species, poultry, sheep and goats, swine, and captive cervids,
the focus of this analysis is on expected economic effects for the beef
and dairy cattle industries. These enterprises are likely to be most
affected operationally by the rule. For the other species, APHIS will
largely maintain and build on the identification requirements of
existing disease program regulations.
There are two main cost components for this rule: Using eartags to
identify cattle and having ICVIs for cattle moved interstate. The
combined annual costs of the rule for cattle operations of official
identification and movement documentation will range between $14.5
million and $34.3 million, assuming official identification will be
undertaken separately from other routine management practices; or
between $10.9 million and $23.5 million, assuming that tagging will be
combined with other routine management practices that require working
cattle through a chute.
Direct benefits of improved traceability include the public and
private cost savings expected to be gained under the rule. Case studies
for bovine tuberculosis, bovine brucellosis, and 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 rule.
The benefits of this rulemaking are expected to exceed the costs
overall.
IV. Discussion of Comments
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 90 days ending
November 9, 2011. We reopened and extended the deadline for comments
until December 9, 2011, in a document published in the Federal Register
on October 7, 2011 (Docket No. APHIS-2009-0091, 76 FR 62313). We
received 1,618 comments by that date. They were from cattle and other
livestock producers and producers' associations, livestock marketers
and marketing associations, representatives of State and Tribal
governments, and individuals. They are discussed below by topic.
Rationale for and Scope of the Rulemaking
Some commenters viewed our proposed animal traceability regulations
as a one-size-fits-all approach to animal disease management. It was
suggested that a risk-based approach focusing on specific animal
diseases would be more effective than an overarching animal
traceability program.
Traceability is a common epidemiological need, regardless of the
disease. If APHIS relied only on the traceability provided by disease
control and eradication programs, there would be a void when the
programs were concluded. That, in fact, is the case today with our
progress toward successful eradication of many diseases. For example,
as we noted in the preamble to the August 2011 proposed rule, the
success of our brucellosis eradication program, while certainly a
positive development, has resulted in a steep decline in the number of
cattle required to be officially identified. As a result of decreasing
levels of official identification in cattle, the time required to
conduct other disease investigations has been increasing. An improved
traceability system would help address the risk of new, emerging,
foreign, or reoccurring diseases. Our new approach to animal disease
traceability provides a flexible solution that is endorsed by the
animal health officials who conduct disease control programs.
Other commenters offered criticisms of our approach from the
opposite perspective. A commenter stated that to ensure adequate
traceability, the rule should apply to all livestock sold commercially,
and not just livestock moving interstate. The commenter further stated
that covering all commercial livestock under our regulations can be
justified under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution. A
commenter representing
[[Page 2042]]
a foreign government stated that our proposed traceability system was
not sufficiently comprehensive in that it would cover only animals
moving interstate, would exempt animals being slaughtered for personal
consumption from the requirements, and would allow different States to
have their own traceability systems. Another commenter emphasized the
latter point, stating that an overarching national system would be more
beneficial for traceability purposes than would allowing States to
enact their own requirements.
We are not making any changes to the final rule in response to
these comments. Our statutory authority to regulate livestock movement
derives from the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8305), which
authorizes the Secretary ``to prohibit or restrict the movement in
interstate commerce of any animal, article, or means of conveyance, if
the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is
necessary to prevent the introduction of dissemination of any pest or
disease of livestock.'' Interstate commerce is defined in the Act as
``trade, traffic, or commerce between a place in a State and a place in
another State.'' The question of when or where that trade or traffic
begins is subject to interpretation, and it is possible that some
intrastate livestock movements may be regulated under the authority of
the Act. Regulating the intrastate movement of livestock, however,
would be contrary to the Secretary's vision, laid out on February 5,
2010, for the animal disease traceability system. The Secretary's
approach, which called for the establishment of minimum uniform
national traceability standards, was nevertheless intended to be
sufficiently flexible to allow State and Tribal animal health officials
to implement, with the cooperation of industry, the traceability
systems that worked best for them; it was not intended to be a top-down
system under Federal control. Additionally, it was not the intent
behind the proposed rule to provide for a full-scale farm-to-plate
traceability system, which would be beyond the scope of our statutory
authority. Regarding the comments on the need for greater
standardization, as we have noted, the proposed rule did provide for a
uniform set of minimum national standards for States and Tribes to
follow. This rulemaking allows States and tribes to adapt their
individual traceability systems to meet local needs, but those systems
will need to comply with these traceability regulations and will need
to satisfy the traceability performance standards that will be set
forth in future rulemaking.
Many commenters expressed concern about the possible impact on
small producers of the proposed regulations, suggesting that the
traceability requirements could be more burdensome to small entities
than to large ones. It was recommended by some commenters that we
exempt small producers. Specific recommendations included exempting
producers with less than 300 or 500 mature livestock and producers who
are sole proprietors of their operations.
We note that the size of the herd or flock is not the only factor
contributing to the risk of the spread of animal diseases. Much more
important is the degree to which the animals are moved interstate and
commingled with other animals. Herds with no movement across State
lines are exempt from these traceability requirements, regardless of
the size of the operation, though the States and Tribes may have their
own requirements. Additionally, we do exempt certain interstate
movements where the risk of disease spread is minimal or where tracing
such animals is easily achieved without additional requirements, e.g.,
movement of livestock to a custom slaughter facility.
A commenter recommended that we exempt registered heritage
livestock from the proposed traceability requirements. The commenter
stated that there already are adequate identification standards in
place for such animals.
We agree in part with this comment. Specifically, we do agree that
the identification provided by purebred registries may be adequate for
disease traceability of heritage livestock. Nothing in these
regulations would preclude the use of means of identification commonly
employed on such animals. Our definition of official identification
device or method is broad enough to allow for the use of tattoos and
identification methods acceptable to a breed association for
registration purposes when accompanied by a breed registration
certificate, provided that those methods are determined to be official
by the receiving State or Tribal animal health authorities. We do not
believe, however, that heritage livestock moving interstate should be
categorically exempt from all Federal identification and movement
documentation requirements.
A commenter recommended that we exempt horses from the proposed
traceability regulations and stated that interstate movements of
equines should not have to be reported. According to the commenter, an
adequate traceability and notification system, which includes brand
inspections, certificates of veterinary inspection, and permits,
already exists for equines, rendering additional Federal requirements
unnecessary.
We do not agree that horses or other equines should be
categorically exempt from traceability requirements; however, we
believe that most horse owners are already in compliance with these
provisions and need take no further action. A considerable amount of
time in the last few years has been related to equine diseases, e.g.,
contagious equine metritis, equine herpes virus, equine infectious
anemia, and equine piroplasmosis. Additionally, we do not view our
traceability requirements as excessively onerous for equine owners,
since, under these regulations, methods of identification and movement
documentation that are already employed in the equine industry, e.g.,
written descriptions, digital photographs, and electronic
identification methods, and are approved by State and Tribal animal
health officials will be recognized as official.
It was recommended by commenters that APHIS recognize existing
export verification programs as satisfying the requirements of the
proposed rule and that livestock in such programs should not be subject
to the animal traceability requirements.
While APHIS does support the use of official animal identification
methods for various programs, including age and source verification
programs used for export purposes, not all systems that verify age,
source, or management processes for marketing animal products are
necessarily designed to address the needs of animal disease
traceability. Official identification methods used in these programs
now can be used on animals moving interstate under these regulations if
those methods meet our requirements for officially identifying such
animals. Options to ensure that export verification programs cover
disease traceability requirements more uniformly in the future will be
developed in collaboration between APHIS and the USDA's Agricultural
Marketing Service (AMS). States and Tribes currently have the
flexibility under these traceability regulations to accept the
identification and documentation such programs provide in lieu of
official identification and ICVIs for animals moving into their
jurisdictions.
Our overall justification for the proposed regulations was
questioned by some commenters. It was stated that we did not explain or
document how the
[[Page 2043]]
proposed rule would correct problems that have occurred in previous
traceback investigations. It was further stated that the lack of
identification on individual animals was not the sole source of our
problems in conducting tuberculosis traceback investigations in the
past.
The Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) accompanying the proposed rule
provided several actual scenarios where the lack of traceability
resulted in significant costs to producers and the public in general.
We agree that the lack of identification on individual animals is not
the only issue related to tuberculosis traceback investigations, but it
is an ongoing and significant issue. There is general consensus among
animal health officials that insufficient traceability has helped to
prevent the successful completion of the tuberculosis eradication
program, which began in 1917.
A commenter representing a Tribal Government, while generally
supportive of the proposed rule, cautioned that the proposed
regulations should not contain language diminishing or implying a
waiver of Tribal sovereignty. Tribal lands have defined borders that
cannot be bisected by State borders.
We agree with this comment, but on further review, we were unable
to identify any language in the proposed rule implying a waiver of
Tribal sovereignty, nor did the commenter cite any specific problem
areas. Therefore, we are not making any changes to the final rule in
response to this comment.
Definitions
In the August 2011 proposed rule, definitions were contained in
Sec. 90.1; in this final rule, they are contained in Sec. 86.1.
The August 2011 proposed rule included a new definition of animal
identification number (AIN) that was similar to the one being used
elsewhere in the regulations at the time, albeit with one important
difference. The proposed definition stated that the AIN consists 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 may be used as alternatives
to the 840 prefix until 1 year after the effective date of the final
rule for this proposal. Existing definitions of animal identification
number (AIN) in the regulations contained the same formatting
requirements but did not specify a sunset date for the use of AINs
beginning with the characters USA or the manufacturer's code. We
proposed 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 to enable them to work through
existing inventories of eartags.
Some commenters suggested that phasing out AINs with manufacturers'
codes would economically harm many producers and that we should instead
continue to recognize such AINs as official under certain
circumstances. Specifically, it was suggested that manufacturer-coded
AIN tags should be recognized as official if the cattle bearing them
have been enrolled in a process verified program (PVP) or a Quality
System Assessment (QSA) program recognized by the AMS; if producers
provide listings of the AINs to their State or Tribal animal health
official; or if a system were developed whereby private organizations
or marketing entities, in cooperation with State and Tribal animal
health officials, could coordinate the application, recording, and/or
management of the manufacturer-coded AIN tags.
APHIS does support the use of official identification devices for
management and marketing purposes and is sensitive to the concerns
about additional cost if such systems are not compatible with our
traceability regulations. While the commenters did not specifically
state what additional cost would result from the transition to 840
AINs, as provided for in the proposed rule, we have evaluated factors
that could potentially increase costs. Low frequency radio frequency
identification (RFID) AIN tags are based on ISO 11784 and 11785; thus,
the manufacturing of tags in regards to technology would be unchanged.
Likewise, electronic reading infrastructure currently in place would
not need to be replaced. We acknowledge that retagging animals that
already have been tagged with AIN tags using manufacturers' codes would
increase costs to producers. The phasing out of such tags over time was
intended to allow producers to avoid the need to retag animals. AIN
tags with manufacturers' codes that are applied to animals before the
840 requirement becomes effective will be recognized as official for
the remainder of the animal's life. Cattle enrolled in PVP and QSA
programs are primarily feeder cattle, and these animals will be exempt
from official identification requirements under this rulemaking;
therefore, the need for producers of such cattle to transition to 840
AINs and possibly incur additional costs is further minimized. Future
official identification options for feeder cattle, including options
used in PVP and QSA programs, can be evaluated prior to initiating
rulemaking to subject feeder cattle to the official identification
requirements.
We do recognize that some producers may have larger inventories of
manufacturer-coded tags that may not be used by the date previously
proposed for the phase-out to be completed. To address the possible
economic burden on these producers resulting from the transition, we
are amending the definition of animal identification number (AIN) in
this final rule to extend by 12 additional months the phase-out period
for manufacturer-coded AINs. The amended definition states that the
provision under which the 840 AIN will be the only one recognized as
official will become effective on March 11, 2015. Tamper-evident AIN
tags with a manufacturer code or USA prefix that are applied to animals
before that date will be recognized as official identification for the
life of the animals. In that the date of tagging cannot always be known
or documented, we will continue to be flexible through the transition
period, realizing that breeding animals with manufacturer-coded tags
may be in the population for several years.
APHIS does not oppose the other options suggested by the commenters
of having producers provide listings of the manufacturer-coded AINs to
their State or Tribal animal health official or having private
organizations or marketing entities, in cooperation with State and
Tribal animal health officials, coordinate the application, recording,
and/or management of the manufacturer-coded AIN tags. These
alternatives are best implemented at the local level between the State
and Tribal animal health officials and the producers in their area. If
the shipping State continues to allow the use of manufacturer-coded AIN
tags after APHIS no longer recognizes them as official, the receiving
State can refuse shipments of animals identified with such tags.
We are also making a change to the AIN definition in this final
rule based on another comment we received. A comment from an
association representing Puerto Rican cattle producers noted that
Puerto Rico has a unique country code under ISO (PR, PRI, or 630). The
commenter requested that we amend the definition of AIN in the final
rule to allow producers in Puerto Rico to use the 630 code on RFID
tags. We support this recommendation and are amending the definition of
the AIN in this final rule to allow Puerto Rico and other U.S.
territories to use their country codes instead of the 840
[[Page 2044]]
code issued to the United States. However, the territories may continue
to use 840 AIN tags if they prefer. We are also updating the Animal
Disease Traceability General Standards document to reference these
country codes.
Finally, we are making a minor change to the wording of the
requirement, contained in the proposed definition of the AIN, that 840
AIN tags be used only on animals born in the United States. The amended
provision states that 840 AIN tags may not be applied to animals known
to have been born in another country. This change reflects our view
that we cannot reasonably expect that the person responsible for
tagging an animal, or having it tagged, will, in every instance,
possess documentation that verifies a U.S. birth location for the
animal. In many cases, our import requirements for live animals in 9
CFR part 93 lessen the need for such documentation. For example, the
overwhelming majority of cattle imported into the United States come
from Canada or Mexico and are required to have a brand denoting their
country of origin. This requirement ensures that almost all cattle of
non-U.S. origin, i.e., cattle ineligible for identification with 840
AIN tags, are clearly identified as such.
Some commenters suggested that we should expand the proposed
definition of approved tagging site to include any location in the
receiving State where tagging can be completed prior to commingling, as
verified by the State animal health official.
The definition contained in the August 2011 proposed rule provides
for locations to become tagging sites when authorized by APHIS, State,
or Tribal animal health officials. It is important that such locations
are approved by animal health officials to ensure that the exemption
from official identification requirements at time of movement
interstate to an approved tagging site is properly administered. While
livestock markets are frequently referenced as being potential approved
tagging sites, other locations, such as feedlots, could become approved
tagging sites under our definition. Therefore, it is not necessary to
make any changes to the definition of approved tagging site in this
final rule for the commenters' suggestion to be adopted.
In the August 2011 proposed rule, we defined 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. Under the proposed rule, cattle or bison moving interstate
as part of a commuter herd were to be exempted from both official
identification and ICVI requirements.
One commenter recommended that we amend the definition so that
shipments of feeder cattle that are infrequently consigned or leased as
rodeo stock could be moved interstate as commuter herds. The commenter
stated that the commuter herd exemptions could be justified for such
feeder cattle because they are not associated with the same level of
disease risk as are cattle regularly used for rodeos or exhibitions.
We do not agree with this comment. Cattle that move interstate,
commingle with animals from other locations, and then return to the
original location pose a risk for disease transmission. We recently
experienced an outbreak of a disease of horses that was disseminated
from a regional rodeo to several States. Cattle diseases can also be
spread in a similar manner.
Some commenters viewed our proposed definition of 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) as vague and overly broad, stating that they thought it
would create significant problems for small-scale and diversified dairy
operations. In particular, commenters stated that the definition lacked
clarity regarding dual-purpose breeds, potentially creating confusion
about which cattle are subject to the more stringent dairy cattle
requirements.
After considering these comments, we determined that greater
precision in the definition of dairy cattle would be desirable. In this
final rule, therefore, we are adding to the definition of dairy cattle
a list of some common dairy breeds to serve as examples. Specifically,
we define dairy cattle as all cattle, regardless of age or sex or
current use, that are of a breed(s) used to produce milk or other dairy
products for human consumption, including, but not limited to,
Ayrshire, Brown Swiss, Holstein, Jersey, Guernsey, Milking Shorthorn,
and Red and Whites. The list of representative dairy breeds we are
incorporating into this definition comes from the Purebred Dairy Cattle
Association. As noted in the definition, however, the category of dairy
cattle is not limited to the listed breeds. While we believe that this
new definition of dairy cattle is clearer than the original one we
proposed, State, Tribal, or Federal animal health officials may still
be called upon at times to exercise their judgments as to whether the
cattle in a shipment are indeed dairy cattle, taking into account such
factors as the intended use of the animals.
It was also suggested that we should amend the definition of dairy
cattle to exclude dairy steers and spayed heifers, as such animals will
not be in the U.S. herd for an extended period and therefore do not
pose a major disease risk.
We disagree with this comment. Dairy steers and spayed heifers are
part of an industry that has been identified as posing a high risk for
disease transmission. Many dairy heifers and bull calves are moved from
the dairy to calf-raising facilities, while some calves, mostly bull
calves, are marketed privately or through livestock markets. This
degree of movement and commingling at young ages and as yearlings makes
them ``animals of interest'' regardless of whether they become herd
replacements or feeder cattle. Furthermore, dairy steers typically are
in feeding channels longer than beef cattle due to the length of time
required for the former to reach finishing weight. Dairy steers and
heifers may also undergo more changes of ownership and movements where
commingling occurs than beef calves that typically stay with their dams
until they are weaned.
Some commenters took issue with our proposed definition of 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.'' A
commenter representing the pork industry stated that while these
restrictions were acceptable for swine moving for other purposes, swine
considered to be in slaughter market channels should be exempted.
Another commenter, noting that the proposed definition did not allow
the animals to be unloaded from a conveyance even if they aren't
commingled, recommended modifying the definition to address ``the real
risk factor'' of commingling.
After reviewing these comments, we have decided to revise the
definition of directly in this final rule to clarify that it will allow
for necessary stops while addressing the risk factor of commingling. We
are defining directly as ``moved in a means of conveyance, without
stopping to unload while en route, except for stops of less than 24
hours to feed, water, or rest the animals being moved, and with no
commingling of animals at such stops.''
A commenter representing an egg producers' association stated that
we should clarify the definition of group/lot
[[Page 2045]]
identification number (GIN) to allow for its use on poultry managed
together as a group throughout the production system even if initial
placement of birds may occur over a more extended period than a single
day. The proposed definition stated that a GIN may be applied to a
group of animals managed together as one group throughout the
preharvest production chain. The commenter stated that the proposed
definition could be interpreted to mean that a group of birds must be
assembled in one day in order to be eligible for official
identification by means of a GIN. The commenter viewed such a
requirement as being problematic for the commercial egg industry
because it is a common practice at commercial egg farms to place hens
in a laying house over a period of days.
The GIN formatting requirements contained in the Animal Disease
Traceability General Standards document do lend some support to the
commenter's concerns over the proposed definition. Those formatting
standards specify that the GIN must include a six-digit representation
of the date on which the group or lot was assembled (MM/DD/YY).
We agree with the commenter on the need to recognize current
practices in the commercial egg industry. While we do not judge it to
be necessary to amend the definition of group/lot identification number
(GIN) in the regulations, we are amending the GIN formatting standards
in the Animal Disease Traceability General Standards document to
specify that the six-digit date component of the GIN may represent
either the date on which the group or lot of animals was assembled or
the date when the assembly of the group was initiated.
Another commenter suggested that we modify the definition of group/
lot identification number (GIN) as it applies to cattle to recognize
that a GIN may be effectively used for some classes of livestock that
may move from one location to another but are not managed as a group
throughout the production system.
We do not agree with this comment. The GIN is intended to provide a
method of livestock identification that is cost effective without
sacrificing traceability. Due to the current gaps in animal disease
traceability in the cattle sector, allowing the formation of marketing
``groups'' using a GIN, meaning that a GIN could, for example, be used
when a group of animals is moved from or assembled at one premises but
then split and/or commingled in subsequent movements, would be unwise
from an epidemiological perspective.
In the August 2011 proposed rule, we defined 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 also
listed information requirements for the ICVI. A commenter representing
a pork industry association expressed concern that the proposed
definition could be misconstrued to require the ICVI to be physically
issued by the veterinarian at the shipping location. The commenter
stated that it is common in the industry for livestock to be inspected
at veterinary offices and an ICVI issued while the animals are in
transport from origin to destination, a practice that provides a
savings to the producer by supporting timely movement and clear
identification of animals involved in interstate transportation.
The proposed definition of the ICVI did not prohibit the issuance
of an ICVI at a veterinary clinic. The interstate movement could very
well begin at a veterinary clinic, with prior movements to the clinic
considered to be ``intrastate'' and not covered by these regulations.
In order to clarify that ICVIs may be issued at veterinary clinics,
however, as well as the premises at which they originated and other
locations, we are amending the definition of interstate certificate of
veterinary inspection (ICVI) in this final rule. The amended definition
states that the ICVI is an official document issued by a Federal,
State, Tribal, or accredited veterinarian certifying the inspection of
animals in preparation for interstate movement.
A commenter stated that our definition of livestock as ``all farm-
raised animals'' is vague and open to problems of interpretation. It
was stated that, rather than tying our definition to a farm, we should
define livestock by species.
As we noted in the preamble to the August 2011 proposed rule, our
definition of livestock was incorporated directly from the Animal
Health Protection Act. As we also noted then, the definition is a broad
one covering species that are not included in this rulemaking but that
could be commingled at venues, such as approved livestock facilities,
with those species that are. Along with the definition of livestock, we
included in the proposed rule a separate definition of covered
livestock that listed the species subject to the requirements of the
proposed new CFR traceability part. We included the latter definition
in the proposed rule to remove any possible ambiguity regarding which
species were covered under the rulemaking. Therefore, we are not making
any changes to the final rule in response to this comment.
In the August 2011 proposed rule, we defined official eartag as an
identification tag approved by APHIS that bears an official
identification number for individual animals. The proposed definition
further stated that beginning 1 year after the effective date of the
final rule, all official eartags applied to animals would have to bear
the U.S. shield. Previously, the definition of official eartag used
elsewhere in the regulations, e.g., in Sec. 71.1, required that the
U.S. shield be used only on official eartags bearing an 840 AIN. We
proposed to broaden the U.S. shield requirement to all official eartags
in order to achieve greater standardization of this type of official
identification device.
Some commenters objected to the proposed U.S. shield requirement
for all official eartags. It was stated that the proposed requirement
effectively mandated that private property be identified with a U.S.
shield. Some commenters recommended that we allow official eartags to
bear a State seal rather than the U.S. shield or that we allow States
and Tribes to issue their own official identification tags without the
U.S. shield, as long as combining the tag number and State identifier
resulted in a unique number. It was claimed that a State code on an
eartag actually provides the most important information enabling
traceback.
After considering these comments, we have decided to amend the
definition of official eartag in this final rule in a way that will
allow the imprinting of a State postal abbreviation or Tribal alpha
code within the shield in lieu of ``US.'' Instead of a U.S. shield,
official eartags will have to bear an official eartag shield. This
final rule includes a new definition of official eartag shield in Sec.
86.1, as well as in Sec. Sec. 71.1, 77.2, and 78.1. We define official
eartag shield as the shield-shaped graphic of the U.S. Route Shield,
with ``US'' or the State postal abbreviation or a Tribal alpha code
imprinted within the shield. The alpha codes for Tribes, published in
the Animal Disease Traceability General Standards document, may be used
by Tribes that administer their own traceability systems. The States or
Tribes will have the discretion to request that their postal
abbreviations or alpha codes be imprinted on tags they obtain from
approved manufacturers. Additionally, to ease the transition for
producers, the revised definition will state that beginning on March
11, 2013,
[[Page 2046]]
all official eartags manufactured will have to bear the official eartag
shield, but all official eartags applied to animals will not have to
bear that official eartag shield until March 11, 2015.
We believe that these changes are responsive to the issues raised
by the commenters, while still achieving greater standardization of
official eartags without lessening traceability or increasing costs.
A commenter representing a cattle producers' association favored
altering the proposed definition of official identification device or
method, which stated that such devices or methods were means of
applying an official identification number to an animal or group of
animals or otherwise officially identifying an animal or group of
animals. The commenter wanted the definition to be broadened so that it
would not preclude the use of other, non-numerical means of
identification, such as brands.
The proposed definition allowed for the use of brands or tattoos or
other methods in lieu of official identification devices when agreed to
by the States or Tribes involved in the movement. Nevertheless, as
discussed in greater detail below, we are making changes in this final
rule to recognize brands, tattoos, and other methods as means of
official identification for cattle and bison.
The same commenter also suggested that we add a definition to the
final rule of official identification as ``any means of identification
agreed upon by animal health officials in the shipping and receiving
States or Tribes.'' Other commenters took a similar view, though they
did not recommend adding that specific definition.
It is our view that recognizing any identification method agreed to
by the shipping and receiving States or Tribes as official would expand
the range of identification methods that would be so recognized to an
unacceptable degree, thereby hindering traceability. However, in
keeping with our goal of having a flexible traceability system, we will
allow for the use of other options deemed adequate at the local level
by retaining in this final rule the provision that the shipping and
receiving States or Tribes may agree to accept any other form of
identification in lieu of official identification.
We are making a change to the definition of recognized slaughtering
establishment in 9 CFR parts 77, 78, and 86 of this final rule. In the
proposed rule, recognized slaughtering establishment was defined 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. Under the
existing regulations in 9 CFR 71.21, slaughtering establishments may
receive animals moved in interstate commerce only if they have been
approved for that purpose by the Administrator. The amended definition
of recognized slaughtering establishment in this final rule states
that, in addition to meeting the requirements listed above, the
establishment must be approved in accordance with Sec. 71.21.
Finally, while we are issuing a revised version of the Animal
Disease Traceability Standards document concurrently with this final
rule, we are removing the definition of that document from the
definitions section because it is not used elsewhere in the regulatory
text.
Recordkeeping Requirements
Recordkeeping requirements, which were contained in Sec. 90.3 of
the August 2011 proposed rule, are contained in Sec. 86.3 of this
final rule.
Many commenters expressed the view that the requirements in the
proposed rule for maintaining official identification device
distribution records and interstate movement records would be
burdensome for veterinarians, sale barns, livestock markets and/or
small producers. Under the proposed rule, any State, Tribe, accredited
veterinarian, or other person or entity who distributes official
identification devices was required to maintain for 5 years a record of
the names and addresses of anyone to whom the devices were distributed.
Approved livestock facilities were required to keep for at least 5
years any ICVIs or alternate documentation that is required under the
regulations for the interstate movement of any covered livestock
entering the facility. It was stated that the proposed requirements
were excessive for traceability needs in the poultry industry, since
most broilers are slaughtered by about 8 weeks of age. A commenter
representing a poultry association recommended that the requirement be
for 2 years for poultry. The 5-year requirement was also deemed by some
commenters to be excessive for feeder cattle, given their relatively
short life spans. It was also suggested that the requirement should be
2 years for swine.
We agree with the commenters who stated that the requirements for
maintaining movement records should reflect animal life cycles and
industry practices. The lifespans of poultry and swine are relatively
short compared with those of other species of covered livestock. We are
therefore reducing the requirement for maintaining movement records to
2 years for poultry and swine.
In this final rule, however, we are retaining the 5-year
requirement for the maintenance of official identification device
distribution records. This requirement is warranted, as many of the
species typically identified with eartags are those with the longer
lifespans, with the exception of swine. Also, many official eartag
distribution records do not include a species indicator; thus, having
tag distribution records maintained specifically by species would often
not be practical. Increasingly, these records will be maintained in
electronic information systems, rather than on paper, making the
recordkeeping requirement less burdensome.
It was also stated that the records that would be required under
the proposed rule are maintained by States already, making our proposed
requirements duplicative and burdening States unnecessarily.
Many States and Tribes do already have recordkeeping requirements
at the local level. For States and Tribes with requirements that meet
or exceed those included in this rule, there would be no additional
burden. For States and Tribes that do not meet the minimum
requirements, additional administrative processes may be needed or new
rules may need to be promulgated at the State or Tribal level. States
and Tribes receive Federal assistance through cooperative agreements
for data processing and recordkeeping for animal disease traceability,
lessening their financial burdens. We have the endorsement of the
United States Animal Health Association, which has representation from
all State animal health officials, for our recordkeeping requirements
and for this rulemaking overall.
Contrary to the sentiments voiced by many of the commenters, a few
questioned whether a 5-year recordkeeping requirement was adequate,
given the long incubation period of such animal diseases as bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE). One commenter stated that movement
records should be kept for the entire life span of an individual
animal.
We will not be making any changes to this final rule as a result of
these comments. As States and Tribes convert from paper-based to
electronic recordkeeping systems, the length of time that records need
to be stored becomes less of an issue. We believe, in fact, that those
electronic records will be
[[Page 2047]]
maintained well beyond the minimum requirements. At the present time,
we believe that the requirements we include in this rulemaking achieve
a good balance between what is needed and what is cost effective to
achieve.
Official Identification Requirements
Official identification requirements for covered livestock, which
were contained in Sec. 90.4 of the August 2011 proposed rule, are
contained in Sec. 86.4 of this final rule.
Cattle and Bison
The August 2011 proposed rule included a schedule for the phasing
in of official identification requirements for cattle and bison. We
proposed that, beginning on the effective date of this final rule, the
requirements would cover all sexually intact cattle and bison aged 18
months and over; dairy cattle of any age; and cattle and bison of any
age used for rodeos, recreational events, shows, or exhibitions. We
deemed it essential to apply the official identification requirements
immediately to those categories because they tend to live longer than
feeder cattle, move around more, and have more opportunities for
commingling, thus presenting a great risk of spreading disease via
interstate movement. We further proposed to initiate a second
implementation phase, in which we would extend the requirements to
cover all other classes of cattle and bison, including feeders, after
conducting an assessment and determining that the requirements were
being implemented effectively throughout the production chain for the
cattle and bison covered under the initial phase.
Many commenters objected to our plans to include feeder cattle
(cattle under 18 months of age) in the second phase of our
implementation of these traceability regulations. It was stated that it
was unnecessary to include feeder cattle because most of them are
destined for slaughter before the age of 2 years and hence do not pose
much risk of spreading disease. Other commenters stated that the sheer
number of animals that will be required to be identified and tracked
under these regulations will make including feeder cattle very costly
for producers, veterinarians, sale barns, and State agencies and that
the volume of information that will need to be generated may swamp the
whole system, for no significant benefit. The eartagging requirement
for feeder cattle was viewed by some commenters as particularly
burdensome for producers and others, and it was stated that identifying
feeder cattle will not help in disease control.
We view the inclusion of feeder cattle in the traceability
regulations as an essential component of an effective traceability
system in the long term. Typical cattle management systems do not
isolate feeder cattle from exposure to diseases. The epidemiological
factors that support a complete, overarching traceability system in the
United States require that all ages and classes of cattle be included
in the animal disease traceability framework.
Many other commenters, including several representing cattle
producers' organizations, recognized the necessity of adding feeder
cattle to the traceability system but stated that such cattle should be
added in a separate rulemaking for maximum transparency. Some of these
commenters stated that they could not support the proposed rule as
written if feeder cattle were not added in a separate rulemaking rather
than under the notice-based process that we proposed.
After reviewing these comments, we have concluded that the
inclusion of feeder cattle within the traceability framework can best
be achieved through a separate future rulemaking, as the commenters
recommended.
As noted above, we indicated in the August 2011 proposed rule that
we would apply the official identification requirements to feeder
cattle only after conducting an assessment and determining that the
requirements were being implemented effectively throughout the
production chain for those classes of cattle and bison covered under
the initial implementation phase. Many industry commenters offered
suggestions for an alternative assessment model to the one we described
in the proposed rule. While feeder cattle will be subject to the
official identification requirements in a future rulemaking rather than
the current one, APHIS still recognizes the merits of conducting such
an assessment as that future rulemaking is being considered. APHIS
plans to consult closely with representatives from States, Tribes, and
industry, including individuals from stocker/feeder sectors most
affected by applying the official identification requirements to feeder
cattle and most knowledgeable about the practical issues and concerns
that can arise as a result.
One commenter expressed the concern that by requiring individual
identification for sexually intact cattle over 18 months in the current
rulemaking, we will inadvertently be including feeder heifers that were
never intended to go into a breeding herd but that are being shipped to
feedlots out of State.
When this final rule becomes effective, sexually intact beef
heifers less than 18 months of age will be exempt from the official
identification requirements, thus avoiding potential conflicts in
determining if the animal is in feeder channels or being used for
breeding purposes.
Some commenters, including the one who wrote to express concerns
about including feeder heifers in this rulemaking, advocated increasing
the age for the category of feeder cattle. It was stated that the
identification requirements should apply to sexually intact cattle 24
months and older rather than 18 months and older. Another commenter
from the same State indicated that 24 months would better represent the
age of feeder cattle in that State, as under common operating
conditions, calves after weaning may remain on pasture or grass until 2
years of age before being sold as feeder cattle.
We recognize the management and marketing challenges the 18-month
age limit may cause, but emphasize the importance of retaining it based
on the need to identify cattle and bison for disease control purposes.
The 18-month age threshold has been used successfully in the
brucellosis eradication program to define test-eligible cattle. Age,
when not documented, can more accurately be determined for cattle at 18
months of age, as they would have lost their first pair of temporary
incisors, than it can at 24 months. The need to officially identify
this class and age category is further demonstrated when we note that
since 1995, the number of heifers vaccinated for brucellosis has
declined by approximately 50 percent, and the trend continues. Today,
fewer than 20 percent of heifers are vaccinated for brucellosis. This
low level of official identification is concerning, in particular for a
class of animals of which many will be part of the breeding herd. For
those heifers that were vaccinated for brucellosis, the official eartag
applied to meet the identification requirements for vaccinates would
meet the need for official identification required by this rule. We
have noted several times that the States and Tribes have the option to
recognize alternative forms of identification when both the shipping
and receiving animal health officials agree. This flexibility allows
unique and/or regional issues to be considered at the local level. In
the scenario provided by the commenters, we believe that the
alternatives to the official identification requirement for interstate
movement of feeder heifers
[[Page 2048]]
over 18 months of age to feedlots can best be administered by the
shipping and receiving State and Tribe. Exempting all heifers over 18
months of age would hinder traceability nationwide; thus, in these
regulations, we are maintaining the 18-month age cut-off for the
official identification requirement. Under these regulations, however,
calves that remain after weaning on pasture or grass until 2 years of
age before being sold as feeder cattle will not have to be officially
identified before 24 months because they are not moving interstate
until then.
Use of Brands as Official Identification for Cattle
One aspect of the August 2011 proposed rule that generated many
comments was our decision to recognize only official eartags as a means
of officially identifying individual cattle. Many commenters expressed
the view that brands should continue to be recognized as an official
method of identification for cattle and bison when the shipping and
receiving States and Tribes agreed. Many of these commenters also
maintained that we should continue to recognize tattoos as official.
Commenters pointed out that brands have worked effectively in brand
States for many years and that they provide a permanent method of
identification, whereas eartags can be removed or lost. It was further
stated by one commenter that electronic brand inspection certificates
are a great aid to traceability, as they can provide traceback to the
premises of origin for individual animals in less than 30 minutes. It
was also claimed that the delisting of brands as a means of official
identification would strip from States and Tribes the option of
continuing to rely upon the brand accompanied by a brand certificate. A
commenter further claimed that removing brands from the regulations as
a means of official identification for cattle would discriminate
against producers in States that require brand inspection as a
condition of leaving a brand inspection area because such producers
would have to pay for both the brand inspection and for other
identification as well, as required by the proposed rule.
APHIS recognizes that brands and brand-certificate information can
provide timely information that may enhance disease traceback
investigations. The original intent of the proposed official
identification requirements was to define as official identification
devices and methods those that could easily be administered by all
States and Tribes, since all States and Tribes would be required to
accept all official identification devices and methods listed in the
regulations for each species. As we noted in the preamble to the
proposed rule, we did not view brands as suitable for listing as a
means of official identification for cattle because 36 States currently
do not have brand inspection authorities. The option for States and
Tribes to accept other identification methods, such as brands, in lieu
of official identification was provided for in the proposed rule.
Some commenters provided recommendations for alternative text that
would maintain the initial intent of the proposed requirements, while
achieving the recognition of brands as an official identification
method under specific conditions. Several commenters suggested that
brands be accepted as official identification via bilateral or
multilateral agreements or memorandum(s) of understanding between or
among agreeing shipping and receiving States or Tribes.
APHIS appreciates and supports the suggested text revisions, and in
this final rule, we are modifying Sec. 86.4(a)(1) to add to the list
of official identification devices and methods for cattle brands
registered with a recognized brand inspection authority and accompanied
by an official brand inspection certificate if the shipping and
receiving State or Tribal animal health authorities agree to recognize
them as such. We are also amending the paragraph to recognize as
official identification tattoos and other identification methods
acceptable to a breed association for registration purposes, provided
that the animals are accompanied by a breed registration certificate
and that the shipping and receiving States or Tribes agree to recognize
them as such.
Some commenters cited as a concern the possible effects of the
proposed official identification requirements for cattle on our import
requirements. A commenter stated that in the in an earlier rulemaking
(70 FR 459-553, Docket No. 03-080-3) in which we established
requirements for the importation of animals and animal products from
minimal-risk regions for BSE, we cited brands as a permanent form of
identification and acknowledged that eartags may be lost. Under that
rulemaking, imported bovines had to be identified with both brands and
eartags. Another commenter stated that since cattle imported from
Canada and Mexico are currently required to have a hot-iron brand, if
we were to stop recognizing hot-iron brands as official identification
for domestic cattle, those nations could claim that the United States
is imposing a higher standard on their producers than on domestic
producers. The commenter stated that we may not be able to keep the
branding requirement in effect for imported cattle.
This rulemaking does not affect our import/export requirements.
While brands may be used as official identification for cattle moving
interstate in accordance with the provisions of this final rule, the
branding of imported cattle from Canada and Mexico is not intended to
provide official individual identification, but is rather a permanent
mark used to designate the country that exported the animal.
One commenter stated that brands, accompanied by a certificate from
a recognized brand inspection authority, should be allowed as a group/
lot identifier. It was claimed that brands are more effective than any
other means of group/lot identification provided for in the proposed
rule and are the only means that would enable a traceback of a group/
lot that inadvertently becomes separated from a herd and for which the
paperwork is lost or destroyed.
The GIN provides a uniform standard for identifying groups of
animals that are managed together throughout the preharvest production
chain. In such a situation, the group is identified in its entirety as
it moves from location to location with the GIN. The Animal Disease
Traceability General Standards document provides the format
specifications for the GIN. This standard number format is needed to
establish and maintain compatibility of information systems.
Animals that are not maintained with the group will need to be
identified with an official eartag or as otherwise agreed to by the
animal health officials of the shipping and receiving State or Tribe.
The revised definition of official identification device or method
recognizes brand certificates as official when agreed to by the
shipping and receiving State and Tribe. While we will be maintaining
the numbering format specification for the GIN, States and Tribes have
the option to accept other methods of identification, including those
of groups of animals.
Finally, in contrast to the general trend of the comments on
branding, one commenter supported the delisting of brands as a means of
individual identification because of the cost to producers of brand
inspections and health papers in brand-inspection States.
We are not making any changes to this final rule in response to
this comment. Health papers and brand inspection are
[[Page 2049]]
two different activities. States that have elected to administer brand
inspections have done so for purposes of determining ownership and
preventing theft. Health papers, such as ICVIs, provide documentation
that an accredited veterinarian has examined the health of the animals.
Identification of Direct-to-Slaughter Cattle
Many commenters favored exempting all direct-to-slaughter cattle
from any identification requirements. It was stated that the risks to
animals and the personnel that would be tasked with tagging them, along
with the costs of tagging and reading tags, outweigh the benefits of
tagging.
We agree that cattle moving directly to slaughter pose less of a
disease risk than do other cattle, and we did allow in the August 2011
proposed rule for the use of backtags in lieu of official
identification for cattle moving directly to slaughter. We view
exempting such animals from any identification requirements as a
hindrance to traceability, however.
In the August 2011 proposed rule, we indicated that our recognition
of backtags in lieu of official identification for direct-to-slaughter
cattle was to be phased out. Many commenters opposed the phase-out of
backtags for identifying slaughter cattle. It was stated that while
backtags have a poor reputation when placed improperly and when not
collected by USDA's Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) or plant
personnel at slaughter, when they are properly placed, carefully
collected, and recorded, backtags are an economically efficient, easily
readable, and recordable form of identification for slaughter cattle.
After reviewing these comments, we have decided to amend Sec.
86.4(b)(1) in this final rule to allow permanently the use of backtags
in lieu of official identification, albeit with some new stipulations.
One commenter who supported the proposed phase-out of the use of
backtags in lieu of official identification for direct-to-slaughter
animals thought the phase-out appropriate because some slaughter
establishments put some cattle on feed after they arrive at the plant
for conditioning purposes. After this extended period of time, the
backtags are unlikely to be on the animals when the animals are
harvested. Therefore, we are stipulating that the exemption from the
requirement for official identification only applies when the animals
going directly to slaughter are harvested within 3 days of their
movement to the slaughter plant. This exemption is intended to apply
only to cattle that are moving directly to a slaughter plant to be
slaughtered shortly after arrival. We agree with the commenter's
concern about the practicality of using backtags for slaughter animals
when the animals are not going to be slaughtered shortly after their
arrival. We believe that the 3-day timeframe adequately address that
concern. Cattle moved to slaughter will typically be slaughtered within
3 days of that movement. If they are not slaughtered within 3 days, the
movement is not considered to be directly to slaughter, and permanent
official identification is required to ensure that proper
identification is maintained until slaughter. If the determination to
hold animals for more than 3 days is made after the animals arrive at
the slaughter establishment, the animals must be officially identified
with an official identification device. Such identification will be
considered a retagging event in accordance with Sec. 86.4(d)(4)(ii).
Another commenter stated that backtags used on slaughter cattle can
sometimes be lost during high-pressure washing prior to slaughter. To
address this issue, we have amended Sec. 86.4(d)(2) in this final rule
to account for the cross referencing of all animals, as well as their
carcasses, with backtags or other identification received by the
slaughter plant. Requiring the cross-referencing of the devices with
the live animals, and not just their carcasses, will help to ensure
that traceback capability is not lost between arrival at the plant and
slaughter.
Approved Tagging Sites
In the August 2011 proposed rule, we provided an exemption to the
requirement that cattle and bison must be officially identified prior
to interstate movement if the cattle or bison were moved directly to an
approved tagging site and officially identified prior to commingling
with cattle and bison from other premises. Some commenters favored
allowing approved tagging sites to tag cattle moved interstate with a
back tag prior to commingling, which then could be correlated with the
official eartag once the cattle are sold and sorted and before further
movement. It was suggested that such an approach would enable markets
that become approved tagging sites to better manage the flow of cattle
in and out of the sites on a sale day, since having to tag cattle and
bison with an eartag prior to commingling could prevent such facilities
from operating at the speed of commerce.
We recognize that applying the official eartag on cattle or bison
received at approved tagging sites before they are commingled can be
problematic in some situations. Therefore, this final rule allows the
use of backtags prior to commingling, as well as other practices that
will enable approved tagging sites to efficiently manage livestock
while ensuring that the identity of each animal is accurately
maintained until tagging so that official eartags may be correlated to
the person responsible for shipping the animals to the tagging site.
Commuter Herds
Another exemption from the official identification requirements was
provided for cattle and bison moving interstate as part of a commuter
herd with a copy of the commuter herd agreement. It was recommended
that we also allow the use of other documentation or forms as agreed to
by the States or Tribes involved in these movements that may not
specifically be labeled or called commuter herd agreements. We agree
with this comment, as it is in keeping with our approach to developing
a traceability system that will allow States and Tribes to use the
methods that work best for them, and we are amending Sec. 86.4(b)(1)
accordingly.
Use of Multiple Eartags
In the August 2011 proposed rule, we prohibited the use of multiple
official identification devices on a single animal with the following
exceptions:
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.
An eartag with an AIN beginning with the 840 prefix
(either RFID 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.
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.
Many commenters opposed the proposed restrictions, with some
questioning our rationale that the use of multiple official
identification devices
[[Page 2050]]
on the same animal can cause confusion and impede efforts to track the
movements of that animal. Some of these commenters stated that,
contrary to our view, using multiple official identification devices on
the same animal can create redundancies and thereby aid traceability.
Other commenters requested clarification of the requirements,
suggesting that if brands or tattoos were to be allowed as official
identification for cattle in the final rule, then the prohibition on
multiple official identification devices would seem to preclude the use
of eartags on branded or tattooed cattle.
As stated in the preamble of the August 2011 proposed rule, the use
of multiple official eartags with multiple official identification
numbers for a single animal can cause confusion and impede efforts to
track the movements of that animal. This problem has primarily occurred
when the same animal had multiple National Uniform Eartagging System
(NUES) eartags, sometimes as many as three or more. We acknowledge that
having more than one NUES tag may provide additional points of
reference for the animal's location. For example, if the animal with
multiple NUES tags is the index animal that has tested positive for the
disease under investigation, the multiple NUES tag numbers for that
animal are all recorded when the traceback investigation is initiated.
While applying an additional NUES eartag effectively identifies the
cattle in the shipment, however, the animals become difficult to trace
when the official number on the new official eartag is not recorded or
aligned with the initial or existing NUES tag number. An investigating
animal health officer often sees tag numbers on epidemiological reports
of suspect animals that need to be located for testing. Without being
able to cross-reference the multiple official identification numbers,
the animal health official can only assume that each official
identification number that becomes part of the investigation represents
a different animal that must each be traced. This increases the
complexity of the traceback and lengthens the investigation.
After reviewing the comments on this issue, we considered requiring
recording the initial number(s) when applying an additional official
eartag to align the official identification numbers of the new tag and
the tag(s) already attached to the animal and reflect that both the
existing eartag(s) and the new eartag are on the same animal. However
we determined it was more practical to adhere to the general approach
we took in the proposed rule, which was to prohibit the application of
additional official identification devices to a single animal unless
warranted by a specific situation. We are, however, clarifying that the
restriction applies to official eartags only. As noted above, under the
provisions of this final rule, brands, tattoos, and breed registry
certificates may be recognized as official by shipping and receiving
States and Tribes. Because only the use of multiple official eartags
will be restricted, it will be permissible to tag animals already
identified with brands or tattoos.
Adjusting for instances where stakeholders have indicated that
additional official eartags would provide herd management advantages,
we are also clarifying the language of the above-listed exceptions,
including information recording requirements, and adding an exception
that will allow the use of multiple official eartags with the same
official identification number on a single animal. Producers often use
AIN tags to manage herds because the tags are large enough to contain
both management numbers and the AIN. Tag manufacturers, at the request
of producers, have provided sets of two or three tags with the same
AIN. This allows the AIN eartag to be applied in each ear; in some
situations, a smaller button or RFID tag with the same number is
applied to one of the ears. AIN tags with the same number thus may be
applied to the same animal. While metal NUES tags have not been
provided in sets, this option will apply to any official eartag
produced with the same number and attached to the same animal.
Removal or Loss of Official Identification Devices
Some cattle producers stated that traceability considerations are
often ignored by slaughterhouses, and the traceability of an animal is
lost and open to fraud once an animal is dismembered and its tags
separated from the meat. It was suggested that such noncompliance could
continue to hinder traceability even after traceability program is
implemented. Many of these commenters stated that before the proposed
rule is finalized, APHIS must have a defined plan and agreement in
place with FSIS and/or the harvesting establishments relative to the
collection and recording of retired tags at slaughter. Such recording
and retirement is necessary for a bookend system to function.
We recognize that compliance with all the regulations is important
to support traceability and plan to work with FSIS and slaughter plants
to ensure the collection of identification devices. A memorandum of
understanding (MOU) will be established between APHIS and FSIS
regarding the responsibilities of the two agencies for the collection
of identification at the slaughter plants. We are also amending Sec.
86.4(d)(2) to state explicitly that collecting identification devices
at slaughter and providing them to APHIS and FSIS is the responsibility
of the slaughter plant. Additionally, this rulemaking requires that a
cross reference of the carcass and the animal's identification be
maintained through carcass inspection. Maintaining the identity past
that inspection is outside the scope of these regulations, however.
When the carcass passes inspection, the collected identification
devices are to be provided to APHIS, which will be responsible for the
administration of tag and animal termination recording.
Replacement of Official Eartags
Some commenters stated that our proposed process for replacing lost
tags would necessitate additional recordkeeping and place an
unrealistic burden on small producers. It was recommended that
producers be exempted from the 5-year recordkeeping requirement
associated with applying a new device after one has been lost.
The vast majority of the records that support the traceability
regulations will be maintained by individuals other than producers.
Since producers may retag animals that lose their official eartags,
they may be the only ones that have such information. Therefore, these
records must be maintained by the producer. While tag loss is expected,
the percentage of animals that lose their eartags is a small percentage
of all animals tagged. Therefore, the volume of records any producer
will need to maintain for this requirement is expected to be quite low.
Some commenters requested that we amend the final rule to allow
producers to obtain a replacement AIN tag with the same 840 AIN when a
tag has been lost or is no longer a viable tag. It was stated that
because these tags are already used for management purposes in many
dairies and some beef operations, allowing producers to replace AIN/840
tags with duplicates would avoid unnecessary confusion that could be
caused by assigning an animal more than one number and thus help to
maintain the viability and integrity of the national traceability
system.
We agree with this comment. In fact, while the proposed rule did
not include regulatory text allowing for the issuance of such duplicate
tags, it did not expressly prohibit such issuance either. The existing
Animal Identification
[[Page 2051]]
Management System (AIMS) has had a tag reporting option established for
AIN device manufacturers for reporting the distribution of duplicate
AIN eartags. Additionally, ISO 11784, which AIN radio frequency tags
adhere to, provides for the encoding of a portion of the code for the
administration of duplicate replacement tags. Nonetheless, we are
amending Sec. 86.4(d)(4) in this final rule to allow for both the
retagging of animals with tags imprinted with different official
identification numbers from the ones being replaced and retagging of
animals with replacement or duplicate tags that have the same official
identification number as was imprinted on the animal's initial official
eartag. While the commenters referenced the issuance of duplicate
replacement eartags for 840 AIN tags only, the amended text allows for
the use, as well, of other animal numbering systems that can readily be
produced with the animal's original number. The protocol for the
administration of duplicate replacement eartags is provided for in the
Animal Disease Traceability General Standards document, a revised
version of which is being released in conjunction with this final rule.
Other Issues Pertaining to the Use of Official Eartags on Cattle
Some commenters recommended that the final rule should allow the
use of owner-shipper tags, for feeder cattle only, at receiving
locations for cattle owners or shippers who lack tagging facilities and
who sell directly to buyer in another State. A few of these commenters,
while supporting the recommendation, stated that this tagging option
should be allowed only at an approved tagging site.
While markets are likely to be the most common locations that
become approved tagging sites, animal health officials may approve
feedlots to tag animals on behalf of the producer that shipped or sold
the animals. This exemption from the requirement for official
identification prior to interstate movement, however, is limited to
locations that are approved tagging sites. Producers that elect to use
a tagging site may choose to obtain the official eartags and provide
them to the personnel of the tagging site to have those official tags
applied to their animals. We consider the option of officially
identifying animals at any destination to be too broad, potentially
leading to deficiencies in the maintenance of identification records.
The approval process for tagging sites allows for oversight of these
locations to ensure that necessary records are properly maintained and
provides adequate flexibility to allow States and Tribes to determine
the extent to which tagging sites are utilized.
Some commenters suggested that we should require a State code to be
imprinted on official eartags. It was claimed that a State code
provides the most important information needed to enable traceback.
While the numbering system for the NUES utilizes State and Tribal
codes, the 840 AIN does not. States that obtain AIN devices may elect
to have the State abbreviation imprinted on the AIN eartags, and
several States are doing so when they obtain the tags. Unlike NUES
tags, the AIN tags are available in many tag types, currently exceeding
40. The inventorying of multiple tag types by States and Tribes creates
significant logistical challenges, and to minimize the options would
lessen the flexibility currently provided. While States and/or
producers that obtain the tags may have their State or Tribal codes
imprinted on them, we determined that requiring it to be imprinted on
the tag or to be part of the AIN would cause tag distribution
inefficiencies that outweighed the potential advantages. For example,
because the distribution of AIN tags is not limited to direct shipment
from the manufacturer to the producer's farm at the time of
manufacture, the State where the farm receiving the tags is located may
be unknown. Additionally, maintaining distribution records of both NUES
tags and AIN tags in electronic systems is imperative for timely
retrieval of tag distribution data for traceback investigations, as the
State designations alone are typically not specific enough for this
purpose.
Our reliance on eartags for official identification in the proposed
traceability regulations was questioned by some commenters on the
grounds that tagging is not necessarily synonymous with effective
traceability.
We agree that official identification in itself is not sufficient
for an effective traceability system. When combined, however, with the
information obtained from the records of tag distribution and the
availability of management records and movement documents with
nationally unique numbers, eartags have been and will continue to be
invaluable to traceback investigations.
In our earlier discussion of the definition of official eartag, we
noted that some commenters opposed the U.S. shield requirement, and we
amended the definition in response to those comments. Some of those
commenters recommended that we allow States and Tribes to issue their
own official identification tags without the U.S. shield, as long as
combining the tag number and State identifier resulted in a unique
number.
A standardized way of marking all official tags is considered
critical to help clarify the confusion that currently exists relative
to eartags being official. Standardization will support a more user-
friendly system and help increase the level of compliance. We believe
it is important to have a simple and standardized means of determining
if a tag is official. The standardization of numbers also allows for
automated error checking, resulting in greater data integrity in
information systems. The addition of the definition of official eartag
shield, discussed above, to the regulations allows the States and
Tribes to imprint their postal abbreviations or alpha codes instead of
``US'' on the tag. States and Tribes will be able to administer their
own official eartags, provided that those eartags adhere to our
definition of official eartag.
A commenter questioned how a producer or organization would request
printed AIN tags for a location without a national premises
identification number (PIN). The commenter recommended allowing AIN
eartags to be ordered with a State location identifier in lieu of a
national PIN.
In this rulemaking, while continuing to allow for the use of the
PIN, we also provide for the use of a location identification (LID)
number, which we define 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 noted in
Section B of the Animal Disease Traceability General Standards
document, producers may obtain AIN tags provided they have either a PIN
or an LID.
Some commenters recommended that we add language to the final rule
to provide a method for the use of electronic identification of cattle
that are currently located in the United States but that originated in
another country.
APHIS does recognize that limiting the use of 840 AINs to cattle
born in the United States and the transition from accepting
manufacturer-coded AINs as official will cause a void in the
availability of official RFID tags for imported livestock. The use of
the manufacturer-coded RFID AIN tags will provide an option for the
identification of such cattle until the date such tags are no longer
recognized as official at time of application. Consideration of a long-
term solution to this issue is being given, and any resulting changes
will be reflected in future updates of the
[[Page 2052]]
Animal Disease Traceability General Standards document.
A commenter recommended that we require official 840 RFID tags for
all female dairy cattle and those male dairy cattle used for
reproductive purposes and that we require an official 840 ``brite'' or
RFID tag for those male dairy cattle (bull calves) used for meat
purposes, i.e., fed veal or dairy beef steers.
In keeping with the vision for the animal disease traceability
system set out by the Secretary on February 5, 2010, we have elected
not to specify which eartag is required for any sector of the cattle
population, as it is our thinking that this decision is best made by
the producers and animal owners.
A commenter stated that we should not allow exemptions from
official identification requirements for cattle and bison moving to
approved livestock facilities, as he believed we did in the August 2011
proposed rule. The commenter stated that such facilities may be high-
risk facilities due to the possibility of commingling of animals on the
premises.
In the proposed rule, we provided an exemption from the official
identification requirements for cattle and bison moving interstate to
an approved tagging site. This exemption was intended to allow
producers to have their animals tagged at such a site when they were
unable to tag the animals themselves. We did not propose to exempt
cattle and bison moving interstate to an approved livestock facility
from the official identification requirements. The exemption for
movement to an approved livestock facility applies to the ICVI and was
provided because livestock markets are the approved facilities where
accredited veterinarians are typically available on sale days to
conduct the necessary inspections and issue the ICVIs.
Miscellaneous Cattle Identification Issues
Under the August 2011 proposed rule, beef cattle under the age of
18 months did not have to be officially identified prior to interstate
movement during the initial phase of the implementation process, but
dairy cattle, regardless of age or sex or current use, were required to
be officially identified. Some dairy producers stated that the age for
requiring official identification prior to interstate movement should
be the same for dairy and beef cattle.
We do not agree with this comment. Dairy calves are raised much
differently than calves in the beef sector, which typically stay with
their dams until weaning. The significant movement of dairy calves and
yearlings and their commingling with cattle from multiple dairies
increases the risk of disease spread, justifying their inclusion in the
current rulemaking. As we have already noted, we now intend to subject
feeder cattle to the official identification requirements in a separate
future rulemaking.
A commenter requested clarification on whether steers of dairy
origin would be exempted from identification requirements when this
final rule became effective.
Under the proposed rule, all dairy cattle were to be subject to the
official identification requirements beginning on the effective date of
this final rule. Upon further consideration, we have concluded that
there would be minimal value in officially identifying for the first
time older dairy steers that may have already moved interstate before
the effective date of this final rule. While the identification of
animals in the dairy sector is important, in particular at young ages,
we have determined it to be appropriate, at this point, to apply the
official identification requirements only to male dairy animals born
after the effective date of this final rule. We have revised the
provision pertaining to the official identification of dairy cattle for
interstate movement to state that beginning on March 11, 2013, all
dairy females, regardless of age, and all male dairy animals that are
born after that date will be required to be officially identified prior
to interstate movement.
A commenter requested that we include third-party traceability
programs, such as the above-mentioned AMS-recognized programs,
currently used by numerous cattle producers to verify the age and
source of livestock as an official identification method.
The use of the official identification devices or methods allowed
for cattle under these regulations can easily support such programs if
the eartags used in the programs bear numbers that meet our definition
of official identification number. The AMS programs referred to earlier
require a unique number only within their certified programs, however.
Since there are a number of other systems that verify processes,
feeding claims, exports, quality system assessment, or product label
claims, relying only on system-specific or proprietary numbers would
cause problems in traceability systems that require nationally unique
numbers. Therefore, we are not making any changes to the final rule in
response to this comment. However, as noted earlier, APHIS will work
with AMS to establish greater standardization, in particular for animal
numbering systems, to ensure that identification methods meet the
requirements necessary for both programs.
A commenter stated that the cattle industry cannot afford to have
individual tags read and that APHIS should allow tags or brands to be
used to identify groups of cattle.
These traceability regulations do allow for the use of group
identification when the animals move through the preharvest production
chain as one group. In such a situation, the group can be identified in
its entirety. However, when individual animals are moved and commingled
with cattle from other premises, the determination of which animal was
at what location can no longer be achieved with a group identifier;
therefore, we cannot allow for the broad use of group identification
for cattle that the commenter recommends. APHIS does recognize the
complexity of recording official identification numbers on the ICVI and
has limited that requirement in this rulemaking to those cattle and
bison that will be covered by the official identification requirements
on the date when this final rule becomes effective.
A commenter took the position that APHIS should allow one PIN to
apply to all cattle at various ranches owned by a single operation.
Location identifiers are administered by the States and Tribes. The
use of one location identifier is often appropriate when cattle
typically move among those locations. Allowing the use of a single
location identifier to designate multiple premises or locations,
however, can be problematic if there are large distances between the
various locations. For example, consider an operation with a home
location and one or more locations at various distances, one of which
is 20 miles from the home premises. In this example, suppose that a
disease is traced to the home farm and a 10-mile quarantine zone is
placed around it. If at the time of quarantine, the animal health
official is only aware of the location of the home premises (because
all locations are reported as one), the operations outside the 10-mile
zone would initially be left out of the investigation. As the
investigation is further conducted, the quarantine zone will be
extended, but having knowledge of those additional locations early on
helps animal health officials quickly determine the scope of the
disease and reduces the time and expense of the investigation. Since
States and Tribes administer location identifiers, it is their
prerogative to determine how to issue them in such situations.
It was suggested by a commenter that APHIS should require the
approval of
[[Page 2053]]
both the sending and receiving States or Tribes for use of group/lot
identification with cattle. A location-based GIN would appear to be
most useful in identifying calves from the ranch of origin to the
backgrounding feedlot, according to the commenter. A location-based
GIN, particularly when associated with a registered brand, would
provide a level of traceability that is cost-effective for the
producer, and would likely yield the level of granularity that animal
health officials seek when conducting a disease traceback
investigation.
While State and Tribes have the option to agree on other methods of
group/lot identification, for such identification to be recognized
under these regulations as official, the animals in a shipment must
meet our criteria for recognition as a group or lot, i.e., they must be
of the same species and must comprise a ``unit'' that is managed as one
group throughout the preharvest production chain. In such a situation,
the entire group of animals is being traced, and one number for the
entire group is very adequate for traceability. It is the view of APHIS
that these criteria for a group or lot of animals should be uniformly
applied, so that, while States and Tribes may agree on alternative
forms of group/lot identification, if they do not agree, a receiving
State or Tribe will not be required to accept shipments of animals that
do not meet the criteria.
Some commenters stated that what they termed ``event cattle,''
meaning cattle that may be used for a single event, are not a high-risk
group like rodeo cattle and, therefore, should not be grouped with the
classes of cattle and bison subject to the official identification
requirements on that date that this final rule becomes effective. It
was further suggested that event cattle should not have to be
individually identified and, even if they were, that their
identification numbers should not have to be recorded on an ICVI.
We do not agree with these comments. The commingling of cattle with
rodeo stock, even for a short period of time, increases the risk of
disease exposure. Additionally, due to the frequent movement of such
animals, the documentation of individual animal numbers is important.
It was suggested that when commuter herds are approved for movement
of animals between States or Tribes without meeting the requirements of
the proposed regulations, language should be added indicating that if
any of these animals are shipped to a different State not included in
the commuter herd agreement, then these animals must be officially
identified and documented to the original State of origin.
We agree with this comment and are incorporating it into Sec.
86.4(b)(1)(i)(A) in this final rule.
Official Identification Requirements for Poultry
Many commenters opposed our proposed poultry identification
requirements. It was stated that the proposed regulations would allow
vertically integrated operations to use group identification for
thousands of birds, while mandating individually numbered leg bands for
any bird that crosses State lines and is not kept in an isolated group
``throughout the preharvest chain.'' Such leg bands are impractical,
according to the commenters, and requiring them could be devastating
for many pastured poultry and backyard poultry owners. It was also
maintained that since many pastured poultry operations and backyard
poultry owners order day-old chicks from hatcheries scattered around
the country, the proposed regulations would apply to many people who
never take their birds across State lines after that first shipment.
We have reviewed these comments and are revising this final rule to
take into account the situation of poultry growers that are not part of
the National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) but that receive chicks
from a hatchery and/or re[hyphen]distributor (feed store, etc.).
Poultry belonging to such growers will be exempted from the official
identification requirements under this final rule, but we will require
that the persons responsible for the animals received from the hatchery
and/or redistributor maintain a record of where they obtained the
birds. Redistributors will be required to maintain a record of where
they received chicks and which growers received the birds. Most growers
already retain these records, so the recordkeeping requirement should
not cause an additional burden.
It was suggested by some commenters that we substitute for the
proposed poultry identification provisions a statement that interstate
movement of poultry would be governed by the NPIP. The existing NPIP
program has worked well, according to the commenters, and there is no
reason to add new, onerous tagging requirements.
While the voluntary NPIP meets our traceability requirements and
has worked well for those States that require it, we acknowledge that
not all poultry growers and sectors of the industry participate in
NPIP. We believe it is important to maintain poultry, a major commodity
group, as a covered species in these regulations and have done so. We
continue to maintain reference to NPIP, but as noted above, we are
amending this final rule to address the primary concerns raised by the
``backyard'' poultry growers.
Some commenters also stated that existing poultry numbering systems
have been working well and should be recognized in this rulemaking as
group or flock identifiers.
This final rule establishes a standard for identifying groups or
flocks of poultry by means of the GIN. Shipping and receiving States or
Tribes may also agree, however, to recognize alternate methods of
identification in lieu of official identification for animals moved
from the shipping State or Tribe into the receiving one, thus allowing
for the use of other numbering systems that have been working
effectively as group or flock identifiers.
Commenters representing the poultry industry also stated that
requiring identification of chickens moved to a custom slaughter
facility would cause a significant and unwarranted economic burden for
producers.
In the proposed rule, we did exempt from the requirements of these
regulations any covered livestock moving interstate to a custom
slaughter facility in accordance with Federal and State regulations for
preparation of meat for personal consumption. To alleviate concerns
expressed by the commenters, we are clarifying the intent of the
exemption in this final rule by removing the phrase ``for personal
consumption.'' Therefore, under Sec. 86.2(e)(2) of this final rule,
all livestock moved to a custom slaughter facility will be exempted
from the traceability regulations.
Some commenters suggested that commuter herd provisions, which
exempt cattle and bison meeting the commuter herd requirements from
official identification requirements, should be extended to include
commercial poultry flocks as well. One of the commenters stated that
the commercial broiler industry should be allowed to form agreements
with States to ensure traceability.
Our commuter herd provisions were intended to address a specific
need in the cattle industry, where cattle move across State lines under
retained ownership for grazing purposes.
What the commenter is asking for more closely resembles the
provisions in 9 CFR 71.19 that provide for the movement of swine within
a production system. We do not believe that changes are necessary in
this final rule in regards to expanding the concept of commuter herds
to the commercial poultry industry, as the NPIP guidelines, which
[[Page 2054]]
are well-established in the commercial poultry industry, have provided
very good traceability solutions. Additionally, the proposed rule did
provide for States and Tribes to use other methods of identification
and movement documentation for poultry. That is still the case under
this final rule; thus, States and Tribes may enter into agreements with
the commercial broiler industry, as suggested by the commenter.
Official Identification Requirements for Equines
Many commenters stated that a physical description of the animal
should qualify as official identification for equines without that
description having to be approved by an official of the receiving State
or Tribe, as provided for in the proposed rule.
That proposed requirement was intended to apply only to those
situations where the person examining the equine's identity had
questions regarding the description provided. Where such uncertainty
existed, an animal health official in the receiving State or Tribe was
to determine if the description was sufficient or not. In this final
rule, Sec. 86.4(a)(2) has been revised to provide, as an option, that
the animal health official at the destination may make the
determination when called upon, but the use of the animal health
official is not required. For example, the accredited veterinarian or
authority at an equine exhibition may elect to make the determination
of the equine's identity without review by the animal health official.
A commenter suggested that we should provide for additional
identification methods for equines, such as existing microchips and
biometric measurements.
These traceability regulations do provide for various methods of
identification, including physical descriptions, electronic
identification, digital photographs or other methods agreed to by the
shipping and receiving States or Tribes. Most of these methods are
already in use, though biometrics is relatively new. Adding a second
microchip that is ISO compliant to an equine that already has an
existing non-ISO injectable transponder is not practical. We are,
however, amending Sec. 86.4(a)(2) of this final rule to add an option
to recognize the non-ISO transponders as official for those applied to
the equine on or prior to March 11, 2014. We are also adding a
reference to biometric measurements as official identification.
Additionally, in response to other commenters who viewed our
proposed equine official identification requirements as burdensome, we
are adding some exemptions from the official identification
requirements. Most of these parallel the exemptions allowed for cattle
and bison. One, however, reflects the unique nature of equines. Equines
moving interstate would be exempted from the official identification
requirements if used as a mode of transportation, e.g., for riding or
to pull a buggy, provided they then return to the original location.
These exemptions will also be added to the ICVI requirements for
equines in Sec. 86.5(f).
A commenter questioned the need for imposing additional
identification and veterinary inspection requirements for equines when
current requirements for Coggins tests are being met.
Horse owners who are meeting vaccination and Coggins-test
requirements would likely satisfy the requirements for official
identification and documentation of equines under these regulations.
Documentation completed in accordance with the equine infectious anemia
(EIA) requirements in 9 CFR part 75 may be used in lieu of ICVIs.
Identification previously used on EIA test reports may be accepted by
the animal health official in the receiving State or Tribe.
Official Identification Requirements for Swine
Some commenters representing the swine industry expressed concern
that allowing for the use of LIDs in lieu of PINs defeats the purpose
of a single nationally standardized number and may lead to unnecessary
confusion and difficulties in implementation. The commenters state that
the PIN has become the preferred location identifier for the pork
industry, with more than 95 percent of swine premises having registered
with the standard PIN to date. Members of the industry strongly
supported our maintaining the National Premises Allocator, National
Premises Information Repository, and the data elements that are
currently included in the repository. One comment from a pork producer
stated that the use of the PIN should be mandatory on tags applied to
sows going to cull markets.
This rulemaking does not disallow the use of a PIN, nor does it
prohibit an industry from adopting it as a standard. We are simply
providing additional flexibility for States or Tribes that offer an
acceptable alternative means of identifying locations where livestock
are raised.
Commenters representing the pork industry also expressed concern
about our modifying some current definitions in the CFR by removing the
data standards for GINs and PINs and defining them in the Animal
Disease Traceability General Standards document. The commenters stated
that while the proposed changes would allow for flexibility in defining
various location identifiers and for the use of the LID as a component
of a GIN, they will lead to unnecessary confusion. To avoid that
confusion, these industry commenters requested that APHIS recognize the
data standards defined in Sec. 71.1 for the PIN and GIN as the
official data standards for the pork industry.
We do not agree that it is the role of APHIS to establish industry
standards; rather, it is to set minimum standards for States and Tribes
that provide flexibility at the local level. If an industry chooses to
adopt a specific standard, that is its prerogative as long as the
standard meets the minimum guidelines of these regulations or is agreed
to by animal health officials involved in the interstate movement.
Pork industry commenters further stated that, to avoid any possible
conflicts that might arise between the requirements set out in this
rulemaking and the currently applicable sections of the regulations
that deal with the identification of swine in interstate commerce,
veterinary inspection, and issuance of ICVI's, APHIS should clearly
indicate in this final rule that the requirements of Sec. 71.19 are
the ones that govern the interstate movement of swine.
We agree with this comment. The August 2011 proposed rule did, in
fact, state that swine moving interstate were subject to the
requirements of Sec. 71.19, and this final rule does so as well.
Official Identification Requirements for Captive Cervids
A commenter stressed the importance of flexibility in
identification requirements for cervids. It was stated that such
identification methods as brands, tattoos, and microchips, may be more
appropriate than eartags for some markets within the cervid industry.
This rulemaking does not change the requirements for official
identification of captive cervids, which are currently contained in 9
CFR part 77. Those existing regulations provide for various official
identification methods, including tattoos and electronic implants.
Official Identification Requirements for Sheep and Goats
A commenter representing sheep and goat producers stated that, if
in the future, APHIS should determine that identification for sheep is
needed
[[Page 2055]]
beyond what is currently required for the scrapie program, then group
identification should be allowed.
Group/lot identification is allowed under this rulemaking. Group/
lot identification is not species-specific and will be available as an
option for sheep and goat producers, as well as other livestock
producers.
Miscellaneous Identification Issues
A commenter questioned how the LID is different from the PIN and
stated that having two different numbering systems for the
identification or premises may be unnecessarily complex and expensive.
The option of allowing a State or Tribe to issue a location
identifier resulted from the strong negative feedback we received from
livestock owners opposed to the premises registration component of the
NAIS. While having location information on where livestock are raised
is critical to traceability, it is recognized that States may have
their own systems to maintain information on such locations. The LID
option was established to provide that flexibility. Data standards for
both LIDs and PINs are contained in the Animal Disease Traceability
General Standards document.
A commenter questioned why the proposed regulations allowed the use
of other identification methods and devices, if agreed to by the
shipping and receiving States or Tribes, in lieu of the official
identification devices for the various species of covered livestock. In
the commenter's view, allowing the use of other identification devices
would result in a lack of standardization of official identification
devices and would be detrimental to traceability.
These traceability regulations list official identification devices
and methods for each species of covered livestock. The diversification
of animal agriculture across the United States is tremendous, and,
taking into account all the feedback we received over the last few
years, we recognized that ``one size does not fit all.'' Thus we
designed these regulations to support the efforts of States and Tribes
to work with producers at the local level to implement traceability
solutions that work best for all concerned.
A commenter stated that allowing group/lot identification of
animals managed together as one group through the production chain
would give a competitive advantage to vertically integrated operations
over smaller producers.
The group/lot identification option is based on the need to have
adequate information available to State, Tribal, and Federal animal
health officials to conduct traceback investigations. Requiring there
to be individual identification on each animal that moved through the
preharvest production chain would not improve the traceability of those
animals. Thus, group/lot identification is a justified option in those
situations, regardless of the size of the group.
A commenter stated that there should be a uniform requirement, with
no exemptions, that all livestock in interstate commerce be
individually officially identified before moving interstate, as is now
the case with horses, according to the commenter.
We do not agree with this comment. We recognize that there are
circumstances where official identification and/or ICVIs for interstate
movement of animals are not warranted from a disease-risk perspective
or that the traceability of animals moving interstate may be possible
without requiring official identification of individual animals. For
example, livestock moved interstate to a custom slaughter facility are
already identified to the person responsible for bringing the animal to
the facility. An official eartag would not make the animal more
traceable; thus, we exempted such livestock from the traceability
requirements.
It was the view of some commenters that we should allow States and
Tribes to choose the identification methods that work best for them and
to select the level of traceability that works best for them, based on
their needs and infrastructure constraints.
State and Tribes may use the forms of identification they prefer in
lieu of official identification when the receiving States or Tribes
agree to accept that method of identification for animals moving into
its jurisdiction. Likewise, the level of traceability States or Tribes
establish within their jurisdictions is at their discretion.
Documentation Requirements
Documentation requirements, which were contained in Sec. 90.5 of
the August 2011 proposed rule, are contained in Sec. 86.5 of this
final rule.
Many cattle organizations recommended that a fully electronic ICVI
system be in place in all the States and Tribes as a prerequisite to
expanding the official identification requirements to include cattle
and bison exempted in this rulemaking.
The conditions for initiating a second rulemaking to cover those
additional classes of cattle and bison have yet to be determined. The
merits of electronic ICVIs are fully recognized by APHIS, and we
believe their adoption is important to increase administrative
efficiencies and to support timely traceability. APHIS provides an
electronic ICVI system that all States and Tribes may utilize and
supports options for third-party developed and supported systems. We
have established data standards that third-party system providers need
to incorporate so that their systems and ours will be compatible.
Some commenters took the argument further, stating that paper
copies of ICVIs are not needed at all and that electronic copies are
not only sufficient for traceability needs but should be required. It
was also stated that the regulations need to allow for the use of
electronic ICVI addenda.
We agree that electronic ICVIs have inherent benefits in terms of
data retrieval, readability, and ease of execution, but disagree that
paper ICVIs have no place in our traceability program. Although all
States currently have the electronic ICVIs available for use, full
implementation by the majority of accredited veterinarians will take
time. We have areas of the country where electronic issuance of
certificates that are Web-based is not possible at the locations where
they are needed. While moving to increased use of electronic ICVIs is
important, paper-based ICVIs will have a role in the foreseeable
future. Additionally, even as the use of electronic ICVI systems become
more widespread, it will still be necessary for enforcement purposes
for the printouts of such certificates to accompany the livestock in
transit.
Some commenters stated that the proposed ICVI requirements would be
burdensome for producers. Because there are not enough veterinarians
available in all States to conduct the necessary inspections on animals
preparing to move interstate, having to obtain an ICVI would require
some producers to pen their calves longer to arrange for those
inspections. The result would be greater stress on the animals and
reduced profits for the producers.
We acknowledge that there may be situations where the issuance of
an ICVI is an economic burden. For that reason, we allow States or
Tribes to issue alternative movement documentation in lieu of ICVIs
when agreed to by the States or Tribes involved in the interstate
movement. In this final rule, we are extending this exemption to
include breeding cattle over 18 months of age, which would have been
required to be accompanied by an ICVI under the proposed rule.
A number of commenters viewed the proposed requirement for the
recording of individual identification numbers on
[[Page 2056]]
the ICVI as burdensome to producers and market operators, stating that
the benefits of such recording would not outweigh the costs. It was
suggested that State officials should be allowed to waive the recording
of individual identification numbers on ICVIs.
An ICVI is a certification that a veterinarian has inspected
specific animals. The requirement for recording the animals'
identification numbers on the ICVI ensures that the inspections have
actually taken place for those specific animals. State and Tribal
animal health officials use the ICVIs to help in animal disease
investigations. If the animals' identification numbers are not listed
on the ICVI, it is more difficult to determine which animals were
moved. To limit any possible burdens resulting from the recording
requirements, the only animals we require to be listed on the ICVI are
those we have determined to be associated with a higher risk of disease
spread.
Some commenters stated that we should allow for the stapling of a
printed list of RFID tag numbers to a paper ICVI rather than requiring
the writing down of the numbers on the ICVI itself.
We agree with this comment and are amending the ICVI definition in
this final rule to allow for State-approved addenda that would include
an option for an attached printout of official identification numbers
generated by computer or other means. The amended definition will also
note, however, that such addenda or attachments may only be used if
agreed to by the receiving State or Tribe.
Some commenters took the opposite view, stating that when official
identification is required, the identification numbers should always be
recorded on the ICVI. Attaching another sheet of paper to the ICVI was
not seen as adequate because that other sheet seldom accompanies the
ICVI to the State of destination.
While this final rule will allow for the use of attachments to the
ICVI, as noted above, States and Tribes are not required to accept them
if they do not view that method of recording official identification
numbers as sufficient to meet their traceability needs.
Some commenters stated that we should allow for greater flexibility
than we originally proposed in the use of alternative, State-approved
methods of ICVI addenda. It was stated that we should allow for the
listing of a series or range of numbers included in a shipment rather
than the exact identification tag numbers for each animal in the
shipment.
The ability to find individual animals quickly and determine what
other animals they had contact with is key to effective epidemiological
investigations. If ICVIs did not have individual identification numbers
listed for the animals in a shipment, the ability of State, Tribal, and
Federal animal health officials to conduct traceback investigations on
those animals would be hampered. Alternative methods can only be used
if States or Tribes involved in the interstate movement have agreed to
them.
Some commenters stated that to avoid placing undue burdens on small
entities, there should be a farm, business, or herd size threshold for
exemption from the ICVI requirement. Traceability is more related to
the number of animals that move interstate than it is to herd size.
Regardless of size, herds that do not move animals interstate are
exempt. Furthermore, APHIS has no intent to monitor the size of herds,
require the reporting of inventory, or conduct any activity along those
lines that would be necessary to establish herd size exemptions.
A commenter stated that there is no need to require an ICVI for
equines moving interstate because the movement documents already
required for equine species are adequate for traceback purposes.
We will not be making any changes to the final rule in response to
this comment. It is true that most States already have movement
requirements for equines. This rulemaking helps to make existing
requirements more uniform throughout the nation. The EIA test chart,
commonly required for interstate movement, certifies that a horse is
not infected with the disease, but does not document the origin and
destination of an interstate movement. The ICVI, issued by a
veterinarian, does provide the ship-from and ship-to locations. These
regulations also provide that States and Tribes may use other methods
of movement documentation, which may include an EIA test chart, when
agreed upon by the animal health officials in the States or Tribes
involved in the interstate movement.
Some commenters stated that an exemption from the ICVI requirements
in the proposed rule for cattle and bison moving interstate to a
veterinary clinic and then returning to their farm of origin without a
change in ownership should be also be allowed for equines and other
species as well.
We acknowledge the support for the exemption, which was included in
the proposed rule for poultry as well as for cattle and bison. In this
final rule, we are adding the same exemption for equines.
Under the proposed rule, individual identification numbers of
cattle and bison moving interstate were required to be recorded on the
ICVI with certain exceptions. Exempted categories were sexually intact
cattle and bison under 18 months of age or steers or spayed heifers,
excluding sexually intact dairy cattle of any age or cattle or bison
used for rodeos, exhibitions, or recreational purposes. Many cattle
organizations strongly supported maintaining those exemptions from the
ICVI recording requirements rather than phasing them out, as they
claimed we proposed to do.
We agree with these comments. The proposed rule did not in fact
contain language suggesting that we intended to phase out these
exemptions.
Many commenters stated that we should allow the use of other
movement documents in lieu of the ICVI for all ages of cattle and bison
when the shipping and receiving States or Tribes agree. The potential
burden to producers of the ICVI requirement, resulting from a decline
in the availability of veterinary coverage around the country, was
cited as a reason for this recommended change from the proposed rule,
which only allowed such an exemption for cattle and bison under 18
months of age.
We agree with the commenters on the need for flexibility and
alternatives in areas of the country where obtaining an ICVI would
impose an economic hardship on producers. We are, therefore, amending
Sec. 86.5(c)(6) in this final rule to allow for the use of alternative
movement documentation for all ages of cattle and bison when agreed to
by the animal health officials in the shipping and receiving States or
Tribes.
It was recommended that the ICVI exemption contained in the
proposed rule for poultry moved directly to a recognized slaughtering
establishment should be expanded to cover poultry moved directly to
rendering establishments as well.
We agree that the exemption is appropriate for poultry moving
directly to either destination and are amending Sec. 86.5(g)(2) of
this final rule accordingly.
While we received many comments recommending exemptions to the ICVI
requirements, we also received one stating that we should allow no
exemptions and no use of alternative forms of documentation. The ICVI,
the commenter stated, should be used for all interstate movements
because standard documentation is necessary for an effective
traceability program.
[[Page 2057]]
We do not agree with this comment. Due to the lack of large-animal
veterinarians in some areas of the country, allowing only the ICVI to
be used for interstate movement could result in significant economic
hardship for some producers. We view a more flexible approach, one
which allows the use of alternative movement documentation when agreed
to by the animal health officials in the shipping and receiving States
or Tribes, as more effective and less burdensome.
Some commenters stated that we should allow an ICVI to be valid for
a period of time, e.g., 30 days, for brief and frequent out-of-State
movements not involving a change of ownership of the livestock. One
commenter recommended issuing an alternative document called an ``event
passport'' for equines for this purpose. It was stated that allowing an
ICVI to be valid for a period of time would alleviate burdens on
livestock owners and veterinarians.
We realize that there are many ways in which livestock move
interstate. These include movements in which animals return to their
original location and, in some cases, move again a few days later to
another location. While a new ICVI for each movement would aid in
traceability, we realize that in some situations, other options are
more practical for both the animal owner and accredited veterinarian.
However, to account specifically for each variable in the regulation
would likely create significant confusion. The rule, as proposed,
provided the local officials with the authority to utilize other
movement documents when agreed to at the local level by the State and
Tribes involved. While not specifically referenced, such documents
could include an event passport. We have maintained these options in
the final rule to support the use of other movement documentation as
agreed to by the involved State or Tribe animal health officials. Yet,
we do believe that a standard and uniform definition for the ICVI and
standard and uniform requirements for its administration are critical,
and we have maintained those as proposed.
It was stated by a commenter representing a swine industry
association that the ICVI requirements contained in the proposed rule
included some data not currently required for swine and could cause
some confusion regarding issuance. Specifically, the commenter
questioned why it was necessary for an accredited veterinarian to
indicate on the ICVI the purpose for which the animals are being moved
interstate.
As we explained in the preamble to the August 2011 proposed rule,
the information requirements for the ICVI were closely modeled on the
requirements for certificates in the brucellosis regulations. The
requirement for the accredited veterinarian to state the purpose of the
interstate movement is to differentiate between temporary movements
(shows, exhibitions, etc.) and permanent movements (sales, retained
ownership, etc.). On many existing State-issued ICVIs, there is a box
that can be checked indicating the purpose of the movement. In any
event, the establishment of these traceability regulations does not
affect the documentation requirements for the interstate movement of
swine, which will continue to be governed by Sec. 71.19.
A commenter representing the swine industry stated that while swine
moved directly to slaughter are not currently required to have an ICVI,
under the proposed rule, the requirements would become more stringent,
since only animals moved to custom slaughter would be exempt. The
commenter requested that, in the final rule, we reference exemptions
for ICVIs for swine going into official slaughter channels.
This rulemaking does not alter the documentation requirements for
swine moving interstate for slaughter or other purposes. Such swine
will continue to be subject to the documentation requirements of Sec.
71.19. Swine that are not moving within a swine production system and
that are covered by the pseudorabies regulations in part 85 will
continue to be subject to the documentation requirements of that part.
It was stated by commenters that we needed to be clearer regarding
the location at which the ICVI must be issued and when the 5-day period
for forwarding the ICVI begins.
The ICVI is required to show the address at which the animals in a
shipment are loaded for interstate movement. As we noted earlier,
however, we are amending this final rule to clarify that veterinary
inspection of the animals and issuance of the ICVI do not have to be
done at that address. The inspection may take place at an alternate
site, such as a veterinary clinic, and the actual completion of the
ICVI may take place at another location, such as the office of the
issuing veterinarian. To clarify the forwarding requirements, we are
also amending Sec. 86.5(b) of this final rule to specify that the ICVI
or other document accompanying the covered livestock must be forwarded
by the person issuing it to the State or Tribal animal health official
in State or Tribe of origin within 7 calendar days from the date of
issuance and that that official must then forward it to the State or
Tribe of destination within 7 calendar days of having received it.
Additionally, to close a potential gap in the movement
recordkeeping requirements, we are adding a new 86.5(b)(2) to this
final rule stating that an animal health official or accredited
veterinarian who issues or receives an ICVI or other interstate
movement document in accordance with the paragraph above must retain a
copy of the ICVI or other document. The timeframes are the same as
those for approved livestock facilities: Such documents must be
retained for 2 years for poultry and swine and 5 years for cattle and
bison, equines, cervids, and sheep and goats.
A commenter expressed concern about the provision in the proposed
rule that stated that 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
commenter indicated that it is common in the pork industry for the
production system veterinarian to be the person responsible for writing
the ICVI or other documents used for interstate movements. It is also
common for movements to be arranged by a designated person in the
production system. In the view of the commenter, we needed to better
define or explain what we meant by ``directly responsible.''
It is not our intention to single out the accredited veterinarian
or any other individual as being the primary responsible party in all
cases. To avoid this, and to eliminate any possible ambiguity, we are
revising the language of this provision slightly. Specifically, we are
inserting, in Sec. 86.5(a) of this final rule, the words ``the persons
responsible'' in place of ``the person directly responsible.''
Some commenters stated that we should include fitness-to-travel
requirements in the ICVI process and should require ICVIs to show the
estimated travel times and stops. It was further stated that the ICVI
should include a certification of intent to comply with the 28-hour
law, which states that animals should not be driven for more than 28
hours without food or rest.
Although these comments may have merit, the suggested requirements
are beyond the scope of this rule, which is designed to improve animal
disease traceability, and of our statutory
[[Page 2058]]
authority under the Animal Health Protection Act.
A few commenters expressed the view, contrary to that of most, that
there is no justification for the exemption from ICVI requirements of
direct-to-slaughter cattle.
We do not agree with this comment. Cattle, upon arrival at a
recognized slaughtering establishment, are inspected ante mortem and
throughout the slaughtering process under the veterinary supervision of
FSIS or State employees. When animals are shipped directly to
slaughter, the location the animals were shipped from is known, and if
there is any disease found at slaughter, it can easily be traced to
that location. A requirement to have a veterinarian come to a farm to
issue an ICVI for animals that are destined for immediate slaughter is
unwarranted.
Finally, a commenter stated that we should allow for greater
flexibility in documentation by allowing inventory verification by a
third party or at a shipment's destination rather than only its origin.
We disagree with this comment. Movement documentation is an
essential part of our animal disease tracing capability. Allowing
animals to move without documentation and relying instead on the
destination to verify the identity of animals, would require a complex
and expensive system of reporting and compliance. Although we are aware
that at certain times of the year, handling of animals can be
difficult, with added risk to animal health, there are management
techniques and procedures that can minimize the time required to
identify animals and reduce the strain of preparing them for interstate
movement.
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Costs
It was claimed by some commenters that the regulatory impact
analysis (RIA) we published in conjunction with the August 2011
proposed rule grossly underestimated the economic cost to be borne by
U.S. cattle producers. Some commenters expressed the view that we did
not properly account for the cost of expanding the official
identification requirements to cover feeder cattle.
In the RIA, we attempted to estimate the new costs that will be
associated with the provisions of the rulemaking. We acknowledged the
significant portion of the cattle industry that already uses some
method of identification, as reported in the National Animal Health
Monitoring System 2007 and 2008 surveys. In the RIA, we noted that two-
thirds of the beef operations and 90 percent of dairy operations use
some method of identification. Additionally, within beef operations,
over 60 percent of the calves had some form of individual
identification. Consideration of these existing practices is important
when estimating new costs that may be attributed to the new
traceability requirements, as we believe that official eartags, in many
cases, will likely be applied at the same time at which cattle are
already being tagged or worked through chutes for other management
purposes. Additionally, with an array of official eartags, producers
may choose a single eartag that meets both management and official
identification needs. This option would make the additional cost of
official eartags quite small. Likewise, we believe that producers will
continue to develop tagging practices that minimize the cost of
applying official eartags. Producers that are not able to tag their own
cattle may find a tagging site to be the most practical option for
meeting the official identification requirements. We believe that the
RIA accurately identified tagging costs that may occur at tagging
sites. We acknowledge that our estimates for the number of animals
moved interstate that would require official identification is based on
several assumptions and that the estimation of costs involves many
variables. The range of $12.5 million to $30.5 million annually for
official identification costs to producers resulting from this
rulemaking is our best estimate at this time.
Regarding ICVI costs, we noted that most States already require
ICVIs for many interstate movements. Thus, we do not believe the
overall volume of ICVIs issued will increase significantly as a result
of this rule. In this final rule, the exemption that allowed other
documentation to be used in lieu of an ICVI, provided that the shipping
and receiving States or Tribes agreed, for cattle and bison under 18
months of age moving interstate has been extended to cover all ages and
classes of cattle and bison. This revision will likely make the
potential increase in the volume of ICVIs issued less than originally
anticipated.
One commenter, citing a study on the cost of tagging, asserted that
the likely cost of the proposed rule to producers would range from $1.2
billion to $1.9 billion.
The commenter cited testimony before the U.S. International Trade
Commission (ITC). We believe that the costs described in that testimony
included activities not associated with the provisions of the proposed
rule. The estimated costs per calf cited in the U.S. ITC testimony
included $5 for tags, data management, and verification; $7 for working
calves, tag placement, and documentation; and $8 for feedlot and
harvest data collection and chute fees. The U.S. ITC testimony cited
estimated losses due to shrinkage as $10 to $20 in lost income
potential per calf. The U.S. ITC testimony was also based on an
electronic animal identification system involving data management and
verification activities at the producer level.
We are not disputing the cost factors for the practices referenced
in the U.S. ITC report. However, we do not believe they reflect
management practices necessary for producers to comply with the
identification requirements of the traceability rule and, therefore, do
not believe those cost factors are applicable in our economic analysis.
Commenters stated that we ignored the cost to distribute official
identification devices and collect and maintain data on people
receiving them and animals moved with them. It was stated that we also
ignored the costs of official tags bearing the required emblem, the
costs of replacing existing tag systems with official tags, the costs
of equipment to read the tags, the costs of configuring corrals and
handling facilities to allow for collection of identification
information, and the costs associated with technology problems when
tags are not read.
We included information in the RIA about the cost of the tags, the
cost of the labor to work the cattle in chutes and apply the tags, and
the cost of the ICVI when the official identification information is
recorded. Since the U.S. Shield has been imprinted on the NUES tags
obtained by APHIS for disease-control programs for many years, we do
not agree that the standardized use of the official eartag shield will
increase the cost of official eartags. This rulemaking is designed to
allow producers to use tags that do not require any electronic or
special equipment to read the official eartags.
As described in the RIA, States and Tribes would bear
responsibility for the collection, maintenance, and retrieval of data
on interstate livestock movements. Federal funding, as available, would
be allocated to assist States and Tribes in meeting program goals.
Additionally, APHIS continues to provide information systems that
States and Tribes may elect to use at no charge.
Some commenters stated that we underestimated the cost to producers
of the rulemaking because we did not factor in the costs of buying
chutes in calculating the costs of tagging.
[[Page 2059]]
As stated previously, in the RIA, we attempted to determine only
the costs and benefits that were associated with the provisions of the
proposed rule. While we included estimated costs for chute operations
for tagging, we did not include the entire costs of buying or renting
chutes because we were only trying to determine the costs associated
with the rule. If an operation does not currently own equipment needed
for tagging, such as chutes, we note that tagging may take place at an
approved tagging site. We do realize that some operations may elect to
purchase a chute that will allow them to tag their own animals.
However, we do not believe the investment in the chute will be made
solely for applying the official eartags to the operation's cattle.
Rather, the chute is likely to be used for many other management
practices. Therefore, we believe that analyzing the cost of tagging
animals at tagging sites provides a more reliable basis for a
reasonable estimate of producer costs for tagging animals than would
including the entire costs of buying or renting chutes in such an
estimate.
Commenters stated that we did not adequately account for the added
costs to producers, sale barns, veterinarians, and veterinary clinics
that would be associated with our proposed ICVI requirements.
As mentioned previously, many States already require ICVIs for
interstate movements of livestock covered in the traceability rule.
Therefore, we do not believe the volume of ICVIs issued is likely to
change significantly. We did, however attempt to account for an
increase in these cost to producers, which was projected to be $2.0
million to $3.8 million. In this final rule, as we have already noted,
the exemption allowing the use of other documentation in lieu of ICVIs
has been extended to all ages and classes of cattle and bison when
agreed to by the receiving and shipping States and Tribes, thus
limiting the increase in the number of ICVIs issued. If sale barns and
veterinarians are providing services associated with the rulemaking, we
anticipate that they would charge an appropriate price for those
services. Costs that could be incurred by producers as a result were
estimated in the RIA.
One commenter stated that our RIA grossly underestimated the costs
of ICVIs for horse owners. Another stated that the increased costs for
the ICVI would place a greater burden on the horse industry than on the
cattle industry because horses move more regularly.
The RIA included information about estimated costs for equines. We
estimated the incremental cost of an ICVI for most horses moved
interstate to range between $4.00 and $7.50, based on the cost of
testing for EIA. We estimated that the total additional cost for the
equine industry could range from $8.8 million to $16.5 million, given
the current number of EIA tests per year.
Many commenters expressed concerns about the potential economic
burdens on small producers and livestock markets, arguing that the
rulemaking favored larger, vertically integrated entities.
While APHIS is sensitive to these concerns, many commenters did not
provide specific information to support these claims or provide
traceability solutions that would be more cost effective. While larger,
vertically integrated entities may realize economic benefits from the
size of their operations, those benefits result from market forces and
are not due to specific provisions of this rulemaking. However, in this
final rule, we did add exemptions in response to comments from small
poultry producers for certain movements, so as not to put such
producers at a disadvantage. In particular, we exempted from the
official identification requirements chicks moving interstate from a
hatchery to a poultry producer or redistributor.
It was stated that the rulemaking would disadvantage U.S. producers
because they would be required to meet our traceability requirements
when moving cattle across State lines, while we would place no such
requirement on foreign producers.
The official identification and documentation requirements for
imported livestock are well established through 9 CFR part 93 and are
not affected by this rulemaking. The requirements in part 93 are at
least equivalent to those specified in this rulemaking, so domestic
producers will not be placed at a competitive disadvantage.
It was stated that the proposed rule was unfair in that it would
only regulate interstate movement. As a result, producers may choose to
take cattle to in-State markets that are farther away, thus incurring
increased transportation costs, in order to avoid the cost and burden
of the proposed requirements. Producers and markets located in the
interiors of States may be given an unfair competitive advantage by not
having to comply.
We realize there are many factors that producers will consider when
marketing their animals. While the cost of officially identifying
animals moved interstate to a market may be considered, there are many
other economic factors associated with marketing decisions, including,
but not limited to, transportation costs and the availability of local
and out-of-State buyers. Therefore, we cannot conclude that this final
rule favors livestock markets based on their geographic location or
distance from State borders.
Many commenters viewed the proposed traceability program as an
unfunded mandate. For example, it was said that State agencies would
have to build database storage, management, and retrieval systems,
which could strain their budgets. It was suggested that we provide
funds to help States modernize and upgrade their data systems and train
people to use them.
The RIA discussed the estimated Federal funding available to
support animal disease traceability. A significant portion of the
budgeted funds are targeted to field implementation. However, APHIS has
taken the position that it will not fund the development of duplicative
information systems, as such investments cannot be justified. Rather,
APHIS will provide information systems that the States and Tribes may
use at no charge. If a State or Tribe elects to develop its own system,
however, it will have to cover the cost. Federal funds, however, may be
used for the overall administration of the local traceability
activities.
It was stated that our proposed traceability system would enhance
the bargaining power of packers at the expense of producers.
The commenters who expressed this view did not describe how the
proposed rule would alter the relative bargaining power of packers at
the expense of producers, and we are unable to determine how this point
is applicable to the rulemaking.
Many commenters noted that our RIA did not include a cost analysis
for poultry producers.
The RIA noted that there would be no additional costs for poultry
enterprises that participate in the NPIP. As noted earlier, a primary
concern about the cost of identifying individual birds, in particular
chicks shipped from hatcheries, has been accounted for in the exemption
from the official identification requirements for such poultry
shipments. Likewise, it has been clarified that interstate movements to
a custom slaughter facility are exempt from these traceability
regulations. Poultry moved interstate to live bird markets would need
to have an ICVI or other documentation as agreed to by the States.
States have the option of
[[Page 2060]]
maintaining current requirements for movement documentation, in which
case no additional costs will be incurred.
Benefits
It was stated by some commenters that the RIA indicated that the
primary benefits of this rulemaking would be to minimize losses and
enable the reestablishment of foreign and domestic markets. This
rationale was questioned. A commenter requested more detailed
information on tuberculosis traceouts in the last 5 years and how
animal identification has contributed to successful or unsuccessful
traceouts. The commenter also requested data on foreign market access
lost due to tuberculosis and brucellosis. Some other commenters stated
that the discussion of benefits focused too much on the benefits of
exports. It was maintained that, while exporters would likely benefit
from the proposed rule, the costs would mainly be borne by domestic
producers and related businesses.
The ability of U.S. producers to export affects all producers, even
those who do not directly sell to an international market. Trade
restrictions lead to products intended for the export market being
diverted to the domestic market. An increase in the supply of a product
that otherwise may have been exported on the domestic market may lead
to lower prices in the short run. In the event that exports cannot be
re-established, the likely result is a smaller domestic herd.
A commenter stated that since the potential cost-benefit ratio of
the rule could not be determined, the costs should be borne by the
Federal Government.
The RIA provided our estimate of who would bear the costs and the
amount of those costs. In cases where we cannot quantify benefits or
costs, we have described those benefits and costs qualitatively. The
benefits of an efficient system for tracing animal disease occurrences,
as set forth in the proposed rule and in this document, would accrue
directly to the livestock and meat industries and indirectly to other
sectors of the economy.
Performance Standards
Many commenters stated that we should not finalize the proposed
rule until the actual traceability performance standards that States
and Tribes would have to meet are established through rulemaking. In a
system that would be so dependent upon the performance levels achieved
by the States and Tribes, the current lack of performance measures, it
was suggested, could be a barrier to successful implementation.
We do not agree with these comments, as we believe that it would be
premature to enact traceability performance requirements in this
rulemaking. As noted in the preamble to the August 2011 proposed rule,
our current thinking is that we will measure the performance of States
and Tribes by evaluating their ability to carry out, in a timely
manner, certain activities that animal health officials would typically
conduct during a trace investigation of covered livestock that have
moved interstate. The establishment of actual traceability performance
standards, however, can only be done following review and analysis of
actual data compiled from animal movement records after these
regulations have been implemented. Without such information, the
establishment of performance standards would be too subjective.
Therefore, we maintain our initial position: We will establish the
traceability performance standards at a later date to ensure we have
necessary data to objectively define and establish those performance
standards. As the rule is implemented, we will continue to work with
States and Tribes to measure tracing capabilities resulting from these
regulations. Comparing the results obtained earlier on and over time
will help document the progress being made.
One commenter stated that the discussion of the performance
standards in the preamble to the proposed rule did not adequately
address possible consequences for States with traceability systems that
do not meet our goals. Several others stated that it would be
counterproductive to place additional restrictions on producers from
States that do not comply with our traceability standards, as was
discussed in the preamble.
This rulemaking does not contain any traceability performance
standards or provisions for additional restrictions based on non-
compliance. The discussion in the preamble to the August 2011 proposed
rule was presented as our ``current thinking,'' with the understanding
that any performance and compliance measures will be developed with
input from individuals and organizations that would be affected. We
made it clear in that discussion that the performance measures will be
developed in a separate rulemaking process.
One commenter stated that the performance standards we ultimately
implement should be more rigorous than the ones we discussed in the
preamble to the proposed rule. Specifically, the commenter stated that
3 years is too long a time to allow States to come into compliance with
our requirements.
As noted above, the discussion in the preamble to the proposed rule
reflects our current thinking on performance standards. That thinking
is likely to evolve as we accumulate more data after this final rule
becomes effective.
Preemption
Provisions related to preemption of State and local requirements,
which were contained in Sec. 90.8 of the August 2011 proposed rule,
are contained in Sec. 86.8 of this final rule.
Some commenters stated that APHIS should not preempt any State's
identification requirements.
It is our view that the minimal preemption provisions provided in
these regulations are necessary to ensure that no one State or Tribe
can establish certain requirement for having livestock moved into their
State or Tribe. For example, we do not believe a State should be able
to require that all cattle entering its jurisdiction have an RFID
eartag, nor should a receiving State be able to require a method of
identification that is not listed as official in our regulations unless
agreed to by the shipping State.
It was stated that APHIS should preempt States' or Tribes'
identification requirements, except when those requirements are
stricter than ours. States and Tribes should be able to impose more
strict requirements than ours, e.g., requiring the official
identification of feeder cattle during the time they are exempt from
the Federal regulation.
These regulations only preempt the specific items noted in the
preemption clause in Sec. 86.8. A State or Tribe may require official
identification for livestock to enter its jurisdiction when these
regulations do not, so long as that State or Tribe does not specify a
particular official identification device or method to be used if
multiple ones are allowed under these regulations, or to impose
requirements that would otherwise cause the shipping State or Tribe to
have to develop a particular kind of traceability system or modify its
existing one.
A commenter representing a State government expressed concern that
that State's stricter existing official identification requirements,
e.g., requiring official identification of all sexually intact beef
cattle as well as all classes of dairy and rodeo cattle prior to
importation, could be preempted under this rulemaking.
[[Page 2061]]
As noted above, there is no provision in these regulations that
would prevent a State from requiring official identification for cattle
that are exempted under this rulemaking.
While we are not making any substantive changes to the preemption
provisions as a result of the comments we received, we are making some
editorial changes for the sake of clarity.
Miscellaneous Comments
Some commenters stated that the proposed rule did not address the
two main reservoirs of cattle disease in the United States: The
introduction of tuberculosis from imported Mexican cattle and the
spread of brucellosis and tuberculosis from wildlife to livestock. A
number of these commenters further stated that it was unfair for U.S.
cattle producers to be burdened with additional requirements and costs
when a principal cause of the resurgence of cattle diseases is cattle
imported from Mexico.
This rulemaking is not intended to provide methods of disease
prevention or establish policy for international trade or wildlife
issues. Having these traceability regulations in place will help us to
build a uniform infrastructure of animal disease traceability that will
aid us in disease response.
This rulemaking is intended to put the recordkeeping responsibility
and data in the hands of States and Tribes. States and Tribes may
choose to use the data systems already developed by APHIS, but the data
contained in those systems are controlled at the local level.
Maintenance of distribution records of official identification devices
is shared among States/Tribes, APHIS, and the private sector. For
instance, the distribution of official AIN eartags purchased by private
individuals is recorded in an APHIS system by the tag manufacturers and
distributors. Other official eartags purchased with State or Tribe
resources are recorded in databases or logs at the discretion of the
State or Tribe. While APHIS provides NUES tags to States and Tribes,
the States and Tribes also may obtain official identification tags from
approved manufacturers.
Many commenters faulted the proposed rule for not addressing
potential liabilities to producers and associated individuals and
entities under our traceability system. It was stated that under the
bookend system we are attempting to implement, the person applying an
identification tag would be the primary suspect in any disease
traceback investigation, even if the animal was sold by that person
well before detection of the disease.
Our animal disease programs are not designed to find fault or
assign blame for disease, but to find and control disease. With a
bookend system of traceability, the point-of-origin identification
merely provides a starting point for an epidemiological investigation
to trace an animal forward. The identification collected at slaughter
is a starting point for tracing the animal backward. Good
identification and recordkeeping at the farm level can actually reduce
the impact of a disease investigation on producers, livestock markets,
and other entities. For example, if a producer has a record that the
animal of interest in an investigation was tested prior to movement or
that a herd test was conducted, the amount of time Federal, State, or
Tribal officials may be required to spend at the farm could be
minimized, thereby minimizing the effect on the producer's operations.
It was stated by one commenter that our proposed traceability
system would eliminate redundancies built into current systems and
actually degrade, rather than enhance, traceability. The commenter did
not offer any evidence to support that claim, however.
The same commenter also stated that APHIS lacks the constitutional
and statutory authority to establish a traceability system. According
to the commenter, the language of the Animal Health Protection Act does
not confer broad authority to mandate overt action by producers in the
form of an animal traceability system. The commenter claimed that our
assertion of such broad powers is contrary to Article 1, Section 8 of
the U.S. Constitution.
We do not agree with this comment. The Animal Health Protection Act
authorizes the Secretary ``to prohibit or restrict the movement in
interstate commerce of any animal, article, or means of conveyance, if
the Secretary determines that the prohibition or restriction is
necessary to prevent the introduction of dissemination of any pest or
disease of livestock.'' The promulgation of regulations establishing an
animal disease traceability system is clearly within APHIS' statutory
authority.
It was also maintained that the proposed rule represented an
unauthorized attempt by APHIS to implement OIE codes and standards
domestically.
We do not agree with this comment. In this rulemaking, we are
promulgating regulations that improve traceability nationally and yet
allow the flexibility at the local level for States and Tribes to
implement traceability solutions that work best for them.
One commenter noted that horses are not classified as livestock by
the Food and Drug Administration and stated that agencies need to
decide on a single classification before traceability requirements for
horses go into effect.
We will not be making any changes to the final rule in response to
this comment. Horses are classified as livestock under the Animal
Health Protection Act, from which we derive our authority to regulate
to protect animal health.
A commenter pointed out a possible discrepancy in the regulations
regarding cervid herd tuberculosis testing and reaccreditation
intervals. In current and proposed Sec. Sec. 77.25, 77.27, and 77.29,
reference is made to requirements for testing within 24 months of
interstate movement. In Sec. 77.35, however, there is a reference to a
36-month interval for herd testing for reaccreditation.
While we did not propose any changes to the requirements for
testing intervals in these sections, we note that the differing
intervals to which the commenter refers are associated with testing for
different purposes.
A commenter representing a community of Old Order Amish opposed the
proposed rule on religious grounds.
The commenter would only be subject to the traceability regulations
if moving livestock interstate, and the availability of alternate
tagging sites would make it possible for identification practices to
which he might object to be carried out after a change of ownership of
the livestock. While we respect the commenter's religious beliefs, we
do need to be able to trace animals to prevent the spread of livestock
pests and diseases. Congress has authorized the Secretary to regulate
animals moving interstate when necessary to prevent the spread of
disease.
A commenter representing a State Government stated that the
proposed rule did not explain whether an approved livestock facility
would be treated the same as the approved livestock markets in the
existing regulations. The commenter maintained that cattle buying
stations should be considered to be approved livestock facilities.
The regulations in Sec. 71.20 use the term ``approved livestock
facility,'' and we use the term in these regulations to provide
consistency and a source of reference. Cattle buying stations could be
recognized as approved livestock facilities if they are approved under
Sec. 71.20.
A commenter stated that a concern in Pennsylvania about the
proposed rule was that the proposed traceability plan
[[Page 2062]]
would revert to older, more conventional technologies, such as metal
tags and paper. Pennsylvania already uses RFID technology and has a
rather sophisticated electronic database system. The commenter
questioned how APHIS' proposed system would mesh with the electronic
system that currently works very well in the State.
This rulemaking does not prohibit the use of RFID technology and
electronic records. No State can deny entry to animals identified with
electronic eartags and accompanied by electronic records if they met
the standards provided for in these regulations. The regulations do,
however, prohibit a State or Tribe from mandating the use of RFID or
electronic records, or any other specific technology, for animals
moving into their jurisdiction.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, with the
changes discussed in this document.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This final 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 13563, which direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic, environmental, public health and safety
effects, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance
of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The economic analysis
also provides a final regulatory flexibility analysis that examines the
potential economic effects of this rule on small entities, as required
by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. The economic analysis is summarized
below. Copies of the full analysis are available on the Regulations.gov
Web site (see footnote 1 in this document for a link to
Regulations.gov) or by contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
We are establishing 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 applies to cattle and bison, horses and other equine
species, poultry, sheep and goats, swine, and captive cervids, the
focus of this analysis is on expected economic effects for the beef and
dairy cattle industries. These enterprises are likely to be most
affected operationally by the rule. For the other species, APHIS will
largely maintain and build on the identification requirements of
existing disease program regulations.
Costs for cattle producers are estimated in terms of activities
that will need to be conducted for official animal identification and
issuance of an ICVI, or other movement documentation, for 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 will
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 will simply
replace current requirements, the incremental costs of the rule for
private enterprises will be minimal.
There are two main cost components for this rule: Using eartags to
identify cattle and having ICVIs for cattle moved interstate.
Approximately 20 percent of cattle are not currently eartagged as part
of routine management practices, and an estimated 45 percent of cattle
are identified for management purposes other than by using official
identification. 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 will tag their cattle as an activity separate from other
routine management practices. More likely, some 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 will range from $8.9 million to $19.7
million. After considering public comments, we have increased the
estimated cost of this second scenario. We recognize that all producers
may not combine tagging with other management activities and therefore
some will continue to incur higher costs.
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 rule for ICVI's
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 rule, the ICVI
requirement in this rule will not result in any additional costs.
The combined annual costs of the rule for cattle operations of
official identification and movement documentation will range between
$14.5 million and $34.3 million, assuming official identification will
be undertaken separately from other routine management practices; or
between $10.9 million and $23.5 million, assuming that some producers
will combine tagging 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 will be maintained under this
rulemaking, but the way they are administered will likely change. Based
on availability, Federal funding will 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 rule. Case studies
for bovine tuberculosis, bovine brucellosis, and 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 rule.
Benefits of the 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 regulations will 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.
[[Page 2063]]
Having a traceability system in place will 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 rule for cattle
enterprises--between $14.5 million and $34.3 million, assuming official
identification is a separately performed activity, and between $10.9
million and $23.5 million, assuming some official identification is
combined by some operations 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
only a very small proportion of these markets would justify estimated
private sector costs attributable to the animal disease traceability
program.
Most cattle operations in the United States are small entities.
USDA will 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 impact statement,
published concurrently with the August 2011 proposed rule, includes a
summary of Tribal officials' concerns and of how APHIS has attempted to
address them.
Copies of the tribal impact summary statement are available by
contacting the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or
on the Regulations.gov Web site (see footnote 1 in this document for a
link to Regulations.gov).
Executive Order 12988
This final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts State and local laws and
regulations that are in conflict with this rule, as provided in Sec.
86.8; (2) has no retroactive effect; and (3) does not require
administrative proceedings before parties may file suit in court
challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This final rule contains two information collection requirements
that were not included in the proposed rule. Specifically, in response
to comments we received on the proposed rule, this final rule allows
States and Tribes to use eartags with their State or Tribal code
printed inside an official eartag shield. The rule also includes an
ICVI-related recordkeeping requirement for accredited veterinarians
that was not noted in the proposed rule. Notwithstanding these
additional requirements, the total paperwork burden is reduced from
what we determined it to be in the proposed rule because we did not
adequately account for the increasing use by States of electronic
recordkeeping for ICVIs and, as a result, overestimated the ICVI
reporting burden for the States. In accordance with section 3507(d) of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), this
information collection requirement has been submitted for approval to
the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). When OMB notifies us of its
decision, we will publish a document in the Federal Register providing
notice of the assigned OMB control number or, if approval is denied,
providing notice of what action we plan to take.
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 86
Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Interstate movement, Livestock,
Official identification, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Traceability.
Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR chapter I as follows:
PART 71--GENERAL PROVISIONS
0
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.
0
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 eartag shield, official
identification number, and United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA) approved backtag in alphabetical order to read as follows:
Sec. 71.1 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 or a unique country code for any U.S. territory
that has such a code and elects to use it in place of the 840 code).
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
or other prefix representing a U.S territory; however, only the AIN
beginning with the 840 or other prefix representing a U.S. territory
will be recognized as official for use on AIN tags applied to animals
on or after March 11, 2015. The AIN beginning with the 840 prefix may
not be applied to animals known to have been born outside 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
[[Page 2064]]
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
March 11, 2014, all official eartags manufactured must bear an official
eartag shield. Beginning March 11, 2015, all official eartags applied
to animals must bear an official eartag 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 eartag shield. The shield[hyphen]shaped graphic of the
U.S. Route Shield with ``U.S.'' or the State postal abbreviation or
Tribal alpha code imprinted within the shield.
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]
0
3. Section 71.18 is removed and reserved.
Sec. 71.19 [Amended]
0
4. In Sec. 71.19, paragraphs (b)(2) and (d) introductory text are
amended 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]
0
5. Section 71.22 is removed and reserved.
PART 77--TUBERCULOSIS
0
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.
0
7. Section 77.2 is amended by revising the definitions of animal
identification number (AIN), livestock, official eartag, 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 eartag shield, 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 or a unique country code for any U.S. territory
that has such a code and elects to use it in place of the 840 code).
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
or other prefix representing a U.S territory; however, only the AIN
beginning with the 840 or other prefix representing a U.S. territory
will be recognized as official for use on AIN tags applied to animals
on or after March 11, 2015. The AIN beginning with the 840 prefix may
not be applied to animals known to have been born outside the United
States.
* * * * *
Directly. Moved in a means of conveyance, without stopping to
unload while en route, except for stops of less than 24 hours to feed,
water, or rest the animals being moved, and with no commingling of
animals at such stops.
* * * * *
Interstate certificate of veterinary inspection (ICVI). An official
document issued by a Federal, State, Tribal, or accredited veterinarian
certifying the inspection of animals in preparation for interstate
movement.
(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. An
ICVI may not be issued for any animal that is not officially identified
if official
[[Page 2065]]
identification is required. 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 do not belong to one
of the classes of cattle and bison to which the official identification
requirements of 9 CFR part 86 apply). 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.
(b) As an alternative to typing or writing individual animal
identification on an ICVI, if agreed to by the receiving State or
Tribe, 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 or a printout of official
identification numbers generated by computer or other means;
(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.
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
March 11, 2014, all official eartags manufactured must bear an official
eartag shield. Beginning March 11, 2015, all official eartags applied
to animals must bear an official eartag 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 eartag shield. The shield[hyphen]shaped graphic of the
U.S. Route Shield with ``U.S.'' or the State postal abbreviation or
Tribal alpha code imprinted within the shield.
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.
* * * * *
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 that is approved in accordance
with 9 CFR 71.21.
* * * * *
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved backtag. A
backtag issued by APHIS that provides a temporary unique identification
for each animal.
* * * * *
0
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 that is approved in accordance
with 9 CFR 71.21.
* * * * *
0
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 86 without
further restriction under this part.
0
10. Section 77.10 is revised to read as follows:
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 86 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
[[Page 2066]]
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)
0
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 86 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)
0
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 86 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]
0
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]
0
14. Section 77.17 is amended as follows:
0
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.
0
b. In paragraph (a)(4), by removing the words ``transportation
document'' and adding the words ``VS Form 1-27'' in their place.
0
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 86'' in their
place.
0
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 86 and without further
restriction under this part.
0
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 86 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 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)
0
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
[[Page 2067]]
infected with or exposed to tuberculosis, may be moved interstate only
in accordance with 9 CFR part 86 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)
0
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 86 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]
0
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]
0
20. Section 77.32 is amended as follows:
0
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
86'' in their place.
0
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.
0
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.
* * * * *
0
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.
* * * * *
0
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 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
[[Page 2068]]
originated from a classified herd and have not been exposed to captive
cervids from an unclassified herd.
* * * * *
Sec. 77.40 [Amended]
0
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
0
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.
0
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, officially identified, 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 eartag shield, official
identification number, 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 or a unique country code for any U.S. territory
that has such a code and elects to use it in place of the 840 code).
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
or other prefix representing a U.S territory; however, only the AIN
beginning with the 840 or other prefix representing a U.S. territory
will be recognized as official for use on AIN tags applied to animals
on or after March 11, 2015. The AIN beginning with the 840 prefix may
not be applied to animals known to have been born outside 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) used to produce milk or other dairy products for
human consumption, including, but not limited to, Ayrshire, Brown
Swiss, Holstein, Jersey, Guernsey, Milking Shorthorn, and Red and
Whites.
* * * * *
Directly. Moved in a means of conveyance, without stopping to
unload while en route, except for stops of less than 24 hours to feed,
water or rest the animals being moved, and with no commingling of
animals at such stops.
* * * * *
Interstate certificate of veterinary inspection (ICVI). An official
document issued by a Federal, State, Tribal, or accredited veterinarian
certifying the inspection of animals in preparation for interstate
movement.
(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. An
ICVI may not be issued for any animal that is not officially identified
if official identification is required. 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 do not belong to one
of the classes of cattle and bison to which the official identification
requirements of 9 CFR part 86 apply). 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.
(2) As an alternative to typing or writing individual animal
identification on an ICVI, if agreed to by the receiving State or
Tribe, 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 or a printout of official
identification numbers generated by computer or other means;
(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.
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.
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
[[Page 2069]]
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. 86.4(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
March 11, 2014, all official eartags manufactured must bear an official
eartag shield. Beginning March 11, 2015, all official eartags applied
to animals must bear an official eartag 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 eartag shield. The shield[hyphen]shaped graphic of the
U.S. Route Shield with ``U.S.'' or the State postal abbreviation or
Tribal alpha code imprinted within the shield.
* * * * *
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 that is approved in accordance
with 9 CFR 71.21.
Rodeo cattle. Cattle used at rodeos or competitive events.
* * * * *
0
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)
0
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 86. 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.
0
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 86 and without further restriction under this subpart.
0
30. Section 78.9 is amended as follows:
0
a. In the introductory text, by revising the first sentence to read as
set forth below.
0
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 or other documents as agreed
to by the shipping and receiving States or Tribes.
(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 or other documents as agreed to by the
shipping and receiving States or Tribes..
(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
[[Page 2070]]
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 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 or other documents as agreed
to by the shipping and receiving States or Tribes, and
(A) The cattle being moved originate from a herd in which:
(1) All the cattle were negative to a herd blood test within 1 year
prior to the interstate movement;
(2) Any cattle added to the herd after such herd blood test were
negative to an official test within 30 days prior to the date the
cattle were added to the herd;
(3) None of the cattle in the herd have come in contact with any
other cattle; and (B) The cattle are accompanied interstate by a
document which states the dates and results of the herd blood test and
the name of the laboratory in which the official tests were conducted
* * * * *
(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]
0
31. Section 78.12 is amended as follows:
0
a. In the introductory text, by adding the words ``, 9 CFR part 86,''
after the citation ``Sec. 78.10''.
0
b. In paragraph (a), by adding the word ``further'' after the word
``without''.
0
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.
0
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 86.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
number 0579-0047)
Sec. 78.20 [Amended]
0
33. Section 78.20 is amended by adding the words ``and with 9 CFR part
86'' after the word ``subpart''.
Sec. 78.21 [Amended]
0
34. Section 78.21 is amended by adding the word ``further'' after the
word ``without''.
0
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]
0
36. Section 78.24 is amended as follows:
[[Page 2071]]
0
a. In paragraphs (a) and (b), by adding the word ``further'' after the
word ``without'' each time it occurs.
0
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.
0
37. A new part 86 is added to subchapter C to read as follows:
PART 86--ANIMAL DISEASE TRACEABILITY
Sec.
86.1 Definitions.
86.2 General requirements for traceability.
86.3 Recordkeeping requirements.
86.4 Official identification.
86.5 Documentation requirements for interstate movement of covered
livestock.
86.6 [Reserved]
86.7 [Reserved]
86.8 Preemption.
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
Sec. 86.1 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 or a unique country code for any U.S. territory
that has such a code and elects to use it in place of the 840 code).
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
or other prefix representing a U.S. territory; however, only the AIN
beginning with the 840 or other prefix representing a U.S. territory
will be recognized as official for use on AIN tags applied to animals
on or after March 11, 2015. The AIN beginning with the 840 prefix may
not be applied to animals known to have been born outside 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) used to produce milk or other dairy products for
human consumption, including, but not limited to, Ayrshire, Brown
Swiss, Holstein, Jersey, Guernsey, Milking Shorthorn, and Red and
Whites.
Directly. Moved in a means of conveyance, without stopping to
unload while en route, except for stops of less than 24 hours to feed,
water, or rest the animals being moved, and with no commingling of
animals at such stops.
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
certifying the inspection of animals in preparation for interstate
movement.
(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. An
ICVI may not be issued for any animal that is not officially identified
if official identification is required. 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 do not belong to one
of the classes of cattle and bison to which the official identification
requirements of this part apply). 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.
(b) As an alternative to typing or writing individual animal
identification on an ICVI, if agreed to by the receiving State or
Tribe, 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 or a printout of official
identification numbers generated by computer or other means;
(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:
[[Page 2072]]
(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.
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-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
March 11, 2014, all official eartags manufactured must bear an official
eartag shield. Beginning March 11, 2015, all official eartags applied
to animals must bear an official eartag 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 eartag shield. The shield[hyphen]shaped graphic of the
U.S. Route Shield with ``U.S.'' or the State postal abbreviation or
Tribal alpha code imprinted within the shield.
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
that is approved in accordance with 9 CFR 71.21.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved backtag. A
backtag issued by APHIS that provides a temporary unique identification
for each animal.
Sec. 86.2 General requirements for traceability.
(a) The regulations in this part apply only to covered livestock,
as defined in Sec. 86.1.
(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.
Sec. 86.3 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 any ICVIs or alternate documentation that is required by this part
for the interstate movement of covered livestock that enter the
facility on or after March 11, 2013. For poultry and swine, such
documents must be kept for at least 2 years, and for cattle and bison,
sheep and goats, cervids, and equines, 5 years.
Sec. 86.4 Official identification.
(a) Official identification devices and methods. The Administrator
has approved the following official
[[Page 2073]]
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) Brands registered with a recognized brand inspection authority
and accompanied by an official brand inspection certificate, when
agreed to by the shipping and receiving State or Tribal animal health
authorities; or
(iii) Tattoos and other identification methods acceptable to a
breed association for registration purposes, accompanied by a breed
registration certificate, when agreed to by the shipping and receiving
State or/Tribal animal health authorities; or
(iv) 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
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, blemishes or
biometric measurements). When the identity of the equine is in question
at the receiving destination, the State or Tribal animal health
official in the State or Tribe of destination or APHIS representative
may determine if the description provided is sufficient; or
(ii) Electronic identification that complies with ISO 11784/11785;
or
(iii) Non-ISO electronic identification injected to the equine on
or before March 11, 2014; or
(iv) Digital photographs sufficient to identify the individual
equine; or
(v) For equines being commercially transported to slaughter, a
device or method authorized by 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) All cattle and bison listed in paragraphs
(b)(1)(iii)(A) through (b)(1)(iii)(D) of this section 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 or other documents as agreed to by the
shipping and receiving States or Tribes. If any of the cattle or bison
are shipped to a State or Tribe not included in the commuter herd
agreement or other documentation, then these cattle or bison must be
officially identified and documented to the original State of origin.
(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 or identified by the use of
backtags or other methods that will ensure that the identity of the
animal is accurately maintained until tagging so that the official
eartag can be correlated to the person responsible for shipping the
animal to the approved tagging site.
(D) The cattle and bison are 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 States or Tribes.
(ii) 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 and then directly to a recognized slaughtering establishment,
where they are harvested within 3 days of arrival; 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.
(C) If a determination to hold the cattle or bison for more than 3
days is made after the animals arrive at the slaughter establishment,
the animals must be officially identified in accordance with Sec.
86.4(d)(4)(ii).
(iii) Beginning on March 11, 2013, all cattle and bison listed
below are subject to the official identification requirements of this
section:
(A) All sexually intact cattle and bison 18 months of age or over;
(B) All female dairy cattle of any age and all dairy males born
after March 11, 2013;
(C) Cattle and bison of any age used for rodeo or recreational
events; and
(D) Cattle and bison of any age used for shows or exhibitions.
(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 moved interstate must be officially identified prior to the
interstate movement, using an official identification device or method
listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section unless:
(i) They are used as the mode of transportation (horseback, horse
and buggy) for travel to another location and then return direct to the
original location.
(ii) They are moved from the farm or stable for veterinary medical
examination or treatment and returned to the same location without
change in ownership.
(iii) They are moved directly from a location in one State through
another State to a second location in the original State.
(iv) They are 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 States or Tribes.
(5) Poultry. Poultry moving interstate must be officially
identified prior to interstate movement unless:
(i) The shipment of poultry is from a hatchery to a redistributor
or poultry
[[Page 2074]]
grower and the person responsible for receiving the shipment maintains
a record of the supplier; or
(ii) The shipment is from a redistributor to a poultry grower and
the person responsible for receiving the chicks maintains a record of
the supplier of the chicks; or
(iii) The poultry are 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 eartag. Beginning on March 13,
2013, no more than one official eartag may be applied to an animal,
except that:
(1) Another official eartag may be applied providing it bears the
same official identification number as an existing one.
(2) 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), a State or
Tribal animal health official or an area veterinarian in charge may
approve the application of an additional official eartag to an animal
that already has one or more. The person applying the additional
official eartag must record the following information about the event
and maintain the record for 5 years: The date the additional official
eartag is added; the reason for the additional official eartag device;
and the official identification numbers of both the new official eartag
and the one(s) already attached to the animal.
(3) 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 one or more National Uniform Eartagging System tags
and/or an official vaccination eartag used for brucellosis. The person
applying the AIN eartag must record the date the AIN tag is added and
the official identification numbers of both official eartags and must
maintain those records for 5 years.
(4) 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 with
one or more official eartags under this part. The person applying the
vaccination eartag must record the date the tag is added and the
official identification numbers of both the existing official eartag(s)
and the vaccination eartag and must maintain those records for 5 years.
(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 unloaded at slaughter plants after moving interstate must be
removed at the slaughter facility by slaughter-facility personnel with
the devices correlated with the animal and its carcass through final
inspection or condemnation 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 or condemnation
by means approved by FSIS. Devices collected at slaughter must be made
available to APHIS and FSIS by the slaughter plant.
(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: (i) A replacement tag with a different official
identification number may be applied. The person applying a new
official identification device with a different official identification
number must 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.
(ii) Replacement of a temporary identification device with a new
official identification device is considered to be a retagging event,
and all applicable information must be maintained in accordance with
paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section.
(iii) A duplicate replacement eartag with the official number of
the lost tag may be applied in accordance with APHIS' protocol for the
administration of such tags.
(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. 86.5 Documentation requirements for interstate movement of
covered livestock.
(a) The persons 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)(1) The APHIS representative, State or Tribal representative, or
accredited
[[Page 2075]]
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 7 calendar days from
the date on which the ICVI or other document is issued. 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 7
calendar days from date on which the ICVI or other document is
received.
(2) The animal health official or accredited veterinarian issuing
or receiving an ICVI or other interstate movement document in
accordance with paragraph (b)(1) of this section must keep a copy of
the ICVI or alternate documentation. For poultry and swine, such
documents must be kept for at least 2 years, and for cattle and bison,
sheep and goats, cervids, and equines, 5 years.
(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 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 or other document as agreed to by the States or Tribes
involved in the movement.
(6) Additionally, cattle and bison 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.
(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 or, if
applicable, with part 85.
(f) Horses and other equines. Horses and other equines moved
interstate must be accompanied by an ICVI unless:
(1) They are used as the mode of transportation (horseback, horse
and buggy) for travel to another location and then return direct to the
original location.
(2) They are moved from the farm or stable for veterinary medical
examination or treatment and returned to the same location without
change in ownership.
(3) They are moved directly from a location in one State through
another State to a second location in the original State.
(4) Additionally, equines may be moved between shipping and
receiving States or Tribes with documentation other than an ICVI, e.g.,
an equine infectious anemia test chart, as agreed to by the shipping
and receiving States or Tribes involved in the movement.
(5) 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; or
(2) They are moved directly to a recognized slaughtering or
rendering establishment; or
(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; or
(4) They are moved directly from one State through another State
and back to the original State; or
(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. 86.6 [Reserved]
Sec. 86.7 [Reserved]
Sec. 86.8 Preemption.
State, Tribal, and local laws and regulations 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 19th day of December 2012.
Edward Avalos,
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 2012-31114 Filed 1-8-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P