[Federal Register Volume 61, Number 212 (Thursday, October 31, 1996)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56155-56165]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 96-27975]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 51, 56, 71, 75, 76, 78, 80, and 85
[Docket No. 96-041-1]
Interstate Movement of Livestock; Approved Livestock Facilities,
Hog Cholera Provisions, and Livestock Identification
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations regarding the
interstate movement of livestock by combining the provisions for the
approval of livestock markets for cattle and bison, horses, and swine
into a single section. These changes are the result of a comprehensive
review of the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service's regulations,
programs, and policies regarding livestock markets and stockyards. We
are also proposing to remove the regulations that restrict the movement
of swine and swine products from areas quarantined for hog cholera and
that provide for the payment of compensation to the owners of swine
destroyed because of hog cholera. We would remove the hog cholera
regulations because the United States has been free of hog cholera
since 1978 and import requirements have proven adequate to prevent the
reintroduction of the disease into this country. These proposed actions
would eliminate unnecessary or duplicative regulations and remove the
implication that hog cholera has not yet been eradicated in the United
States.
DATES: Consideration will be given only to comments received on or
before December 30, 1996.
ADDRESSES: Please send an original and three copies of your comments to
Docket No. 96-041-1, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
Suite 3C03, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please
state that your comments refer to Docket No. 96-041-1. Comments
received may be inspected at USDA, room 1141, South Building, 14th
Street and Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC, between 8 a.m. and
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. Persons wishing to
inspect comments are requested to call ahead on (202) 690-2817 to
facilitate entry into the comment reading room.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Dr. James P. Davis, Senior Staff Veterinarian, Surveillance and Animal
Identification Team, National Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700
River Road Unit 36, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231, (301) 734-5970; or E-
mail: jdavis@aphis.usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in subchapters B and C of chapter I, title 9, of
the Code of Federal Regulations contain provisions designed to prevent
the dissemination of animal diseases in the United States and
facilitate their control and eradication. Subchapter B, ``Cooperative
Control and Eradication of Livestock or Poultry Diseases,'' comprises 9
CFR parts 49 through 56; subchapter C, ``Interstate Transportation of
Animals (Including Poultry) and Animal Products,'' is made up of 9 CFR
parts 70 through 89. In this document, we are proposing to amend or
delete portions of those two subchapters in order to eliminate
duplication, streamline existing provisions, and remove unnecessary
regulations.
Approval of Livestock Facilities
The regulations in subchapter C include provisions for the approval
of livestock markets and stockyards where livestock are gathered for
sale purposes. Those approvals are intended to ensure that the markets
and stockyards are constructed and operated in a manner that will
prevent the transmission of diseases among the livestock assembled for
sales or auctions on the premises. Currently, the regulations in
subchapter C contain five different approvals for livestock markets or
stockyards: One in part 75 for horses, two in part 76 for swine, and
two in part 78 for cattle and bison. Although each approval necessarily
differs in certain aspects from the others due to considerations
related to the specific diseases of concern and the types of animals
involved, there are many elements that are common to all five
approvals. In 1995, we undertook a comprehensive review of the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service's (APHIS') regulations, programs,
and policies regarding livestock markets and stockyards, and one
recommendation that resulted from that review was that the five
livestock market or stockyard agreements be consolidated into a single
agreement. We are, therefore, proposing to remove the stockyard and
market approval provisions from parts 75, 76, and 78 and combine them
into a single section that would be located in part 71, ``General
Provisions.'' We believe that having a single section dealing with the
approval of markets and stockyards
[[Page 56156]]
would be logical, given the large number of common elements shared by
the five existing market approvals. In addition, having a single market
approval agreement would ease the paperwork and recordkeeping burden
for both the operators of those markets and for the APHIS and State
personnel tasked with supervising the markets.
The proposed new livestock facility approval provisions would be
located in a new section, Sec. 71.20. The new section would be divided
into two paragraphs; paragraph (a) would set out the approved livestock
facility agreement, and paragraph (b) would contain the provisions for
the withdrawal or denial of approval for a livestock facility. The
agreement itself would be divided into a section of general provisions
followed by sections specific to cattle and bison, swine, and horses.
When completing the agreement, the operator of the livestock facility
would indicate which animals and classes of animals the facility would
accept by initialing the appropriate paragraphs of the agreement. Most
elements of the existing market approval provisions, which are found in
Sec. 75.4(c) and (d) for horses, Sec. 76.18 for swine, and Sec. 78.44
for cattle and bison, would be incorporated into proposed new
Sec. 71.20. Two new elements would be added to the agreement and some
elements of the existing provisions would be eliminated or modified.
These proposed changes are discussed below.
Currently, the livestock market approvals in parts 75 and 78
require that an APHIS representative, State representative, or
accredited veterinarian must be on the premises on sale days to perform
any duties required by State or Federal regulations. When an APHIS or
State representative is unavailable, the operator of the livestock
market must hire an accredited veterinarian to perform those duties,
which increases the operating expenses for the facility. However, many
livestock facilities do not necessarily need an APHIS or State
representative or accredited veterinarian on the premises every sale
day; depending on the type of animals being sold or the geographic
origin of the animals being sold, there may be no duties to be
performed under the applicable State or Federal regulations. For
example, a livestock market in a tuberculosis accredited-free State may
be handling, on a particular sale day, only steers and spayed heifers.
Given the State's accredited-free status, there would be no
restrictions on the interstate movement of the animals under the
tuberculosis regulations in 9 CFR part 77, and, because the animals are
steers and spayed heifers, there would be no restrictions on their
interstate movement under the brucellosis regulations in 9 CFR part 78.
In this example, there would be no need for a State or APHIS
representative or an accredited veterinarian to be present at the
market to inspect or test the animals prior to their sale or release
from the facility, but the current market approval provisions require
that a State or APHIS representative or an accredited veterinarian be
present nonetheless.
The current market agreements already require that the operator of
the facility furnish a copy of the facility's schedule of sale days to
the area veterinarian in charge and the State animal health official;
the proposed new agreement would retain that requirement. Under the
proposed new agreement, the State animal health official and area
veterinarian in charge would review that schedule, which would have to
indicate the types of animals that will be handled at the facility on
each sale day, to ascertain which upcoming sale days will include
categories of livestock that are regulated under State or Federal
regulations. The State animal health official or area veterinarian in
charge will then inform the operator of the facility which sale days
will require the presence of an APHIS or State representative or
accredited veterinarian. The proposed new agreement, therefore, would
require the presence of an APHIS or State representative or accredited
veterinarian at the livestock facility only on those days designated by
the State animal health official or area veterinarian in charge.
The second element that we would add to the livestock market
agreement is an explicit prohibition on the sale of any livestock that
show signs of being infected with any infectious, contagious, or
communicable disease without the authorization of an APHIS or State
representative or accredited veterinarian. The current market approvals
provide for the sale of reactor or exposed livestock--i.e., animals
known to be infected with or exposed to disease--so there are
mechanisms already in place for such animals to be sold with official
authorization. Paragraph (f) of Sec. 71.3 requires, in part, that
persons offering livestock for interstate movement must exercise
reasonable diligence to ascertain whether those animals are affected
with or have been exposed to any contagious, infectious, or
communicable disease. This proposed addition to the livestock market
agreement would reinforce that requirement by helping to ensure that
livestock that appear to be affected with disease--but that have not
been officially tested and classified as reactor, exposed, or suspect--
are not sold without the knowledge and authorization of an APHIS or
State representative or accredited veterinarian.
As noted above, some elements of the existing market approval
provisions would be eliminated or modified. Those proposed changes are
as follows:
Section 75.4. Paragraphs (c) and (d) of Sec. 75.4 pertain not only
to the approval of stockyards, but to the approval of laboratories and
diagnostic or research facilities as well. Therefore, Sec. 75.4(c)(1)
(laboratories) and Sec. 75.4(c)(2) (diagnostic or research facilities)
would remain the same; Sec. 75.4(c)(3) (stockyards) would be removed in
its entirety and its provisions incorporated into proposed new
Sec. 71.20 with one modification: Paragraph (8) of the current
agreement calls for the stockyard to retain for 1 year any documents
relating to animals that have been in the stockyard. We would increase
the length of the record retention period to 2 years in order to make
it consistent with that of the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards
Administration (GIPSA). The GIPSA regulations in 9 CFR 203.4 require,
among other things, that stockyards maintain for 2 years any
``accounts, records, and memoranda that contain, explain, or modify its
business,'' and many of the documents maintained to meet APHIS'
requirements are also maintained to meet the GIPSA requirements.
Paragraph (d) of Sec. 75.4 addresses the denial or withdrawal of
approval for laboratories, diagnostic or research facilities, and
stockyards. Because proposed new Sec. 71.20 would address denial and
withdrawal of approval for stockyards, we would simply delete all the
references to stockyards from Sec. 75.4(d) and leave in place the
provisions for the denial or withdrawal of approval for laboratories
and diagnostic or research facilities.
Section 76.18. The provisions found in Sec. 76.18, ``Approval of
Livestock Markets,'' would be incorporated into proposed new
Sec. 71.20, with four exceptions. First, paragraph (a) of Sec. 76.18
states that lists of livestock markets approved for the purposes of the
regulations in part 76 will be published in the Federal Register. As
explained below, we are proposing in this document to remove all of
part 76 from subchapter C, which would remove the requirement to
publish the names of approved stockyards in the Federal Register.
Therefore, the provisions of Sec. 76.18(a) would not be incorporated
into proposed new Sec. 71.20. Second, paragraph 10 of the agreement in
Sec. 76.18(b)(1) and paragraph 4 of the
[[Page 56157]]
agreement in Sec. 76.18(b)(2) prohibit the inoculation of swine at the
livestock market with hog cholera vaccine or virulent hog cholera
virus. Because hog cholera has been eradicated in the United States,
such inoculations have been discontinued throughout the country and
that prohibition is no longer necessary. Third, paragraph 11 of the
agreement in Sec. 76.18(b)(1) and paragraph 5 of the agreement in
Sec. 76.18(b)(2) call for records to be maintained for 1 year. We would
increase that period to 2 years to make it consistent with GIPSA
requirements, as discussed in the previous paragraph, and with the
swine identification retention requirements of Sec. 71.19(d)(2).
Finally, we would eliminate the provisions of Sec. 76.18(c), ``Approval
of livestock markets in a quarantined area,'' because there are no
longer any areas quarantined for hog cholera.
Section 78.44. The provisions found in Sec. 78.44, ``Specifically
approved stockyards,'' would be incorporated into proposed new
Sec. 71.20, with two exceptions. First, paragraph 7 of the agreement in
Sec. 78.44(c) and paragraph 6 of the agreement in Sec. 78.44(d)(7)
state, in part, that brucellosis reactors must be identified with a
``B'' brand on the left jaw. However, the regulations in part 78--
specifically, the definition of ``B'' brand in Sec. 78.1--no longer
require that brucellosis reactors be branded on the jaw; that
requirement was removed in a final rule published in the Federal
Register on September 19, 1995 (60 FR 48362-48369, Docket No. 95-006-
2), but the agreements in Sec. 78.44 were not amended to reflect that
change. To ensure that brucellosis reactor cattle and bison are
properly identified in accordance with the applicable regulations, the
agreement in proposed Sec. 71.20 would simply state that brucellosis
reactors must be identified in accordance with 9 CFR part 78. Second,
paragraph 20 of the agreement in Sec. 78.44(c) and paragraph 19 of the
agreement in Sec. 78.44(d) call for records to be maintained for 1
year. Again, as discussed previously, we would increase the
recordkeeping period to 2 years to make it consistent with GIPSA
requirements.
Our proposed consolidation of the market approval provisions into a
single new section would make it necessary for us to amend several
parts in subchapters B and C to update the references those parts
contain to market or stockyard approvals in Secs. 75.4, 76.18, or
78.44. Such references are found in Secs. 51.1, 71.18(a)(5), 75.4(a),
78.1, 80.1, and 85.1; in each of those sections, we would amend the
reference to read ``Sec. 71.20.'' Similarly, because we would move all
the stockyard provisions into part 71, we would remove the references
to stockyards that are found in the titles of Sec. 75.4 (currently
``Interstate movement of equine infections anemia reactors and approval
of laboratories, diagnostic facilities, research facilities, and
stockyards''), Sec. 75.4(c) (currently ``Approval of laboratories,
diagnostic or research facilities, and stockyards''), and subpart E of
part 78 (currently ``Designation of Brucellosis Areas, and Specifically
Approved Stockyards'').
Related Changes
The proposed consolidation of livestock market approvals in part 71
would make it necessary for us to add several definitions to Sec. 71.1
to describe several terms used in the proposed new livestock facility
agreement.
First, we would add the term approved livestock facility, which we
would define as ``A stockyard, livestock market, buying station,
concentration point, or any other premises under State or Federal
veterinary supervision where livestock are assembled and that has been
approved under Sec. 71.20.'' We would also amend the existing
definition in Sec. 71.1 of livestock market, which is currently
defined, in part, as a premises ``where swine are assembled'' to
broaden its applicability to include cattle, bison, and horses by
replacing the word ``swine'' with the word ``livestock.'' We would add
the term livestock to the definitions in Sec. 71.1 as well, defining it
as ``Horses, cattle, bison, and swine.'' Horses would be defined as
``Horses, asses, mules, ponies, and zebras.'' All these terms that
would be added are used in the proposed new consolidated livestock
facility agreement, and their proposed definitions are all similar to
the definitions used for the same terms elsewhere in APHIS' regulations
in title 9.
We are also proposing to add definitions for the terms breeder
swine, feeder swine, and slaughter swine, which are used in the swine-
specific provisions of the agreement.
Breeder swine would be defined as ``Sexually intact swine over 6
months of age.'' The designation ``breeder swine'' is used in the
proposed new livestock facility agreement to differentiate these swine,
which in most cases would be sold to a herd owner for herd increase
purposes, from feeder swine and slaughter swine. The interstate
movement of swine in this category is subject to the general provisions
of part 71, the brucellosis regulations in part 78, and the
pseudorabies regulations in part 85. Under the proposed livestock
facility agreement, breeder swine and feeder swine could not be
released from the facility until they had been officially identified in
accordance with applicable Federal or State regulations and inspected
by an APHIS representative, State representative, or accredited
veterinarian, and certified in accordance with applicable Federal or
State regulations. Because breeder and feeder swine are not intended to
be moved to slaughter upon their sale at the facility, the
identification, inspection, and certification would serve to ensure
that the swine are in good health and, therefore, not likely to present
any significant risk of transmitting disease to other swine.
Feeder swine would be defined as ``Swine under 6 months of age that
are not slaughter swine.'' Such swine would, in most cases, be brought
to an approved livestock facility for sale to a feedlot for additional
feeding and then moved to slaughter. The interstate movement of swine
in this category is subject to the general provisions of part 71 and to
the pseudorabies regulations in part 85. The proposed agreement would
require that feeder swine be kept separate and apart from other swine
while in the livestock facility to prevent any transmission of disease
between feeder swine and other swine.
Slaughter swine would be defined as ``Swine being sold or moved for
slaughter purposes only.'' The applicability of this term is related to
the regulations in parts 78 and 85, which provide for the interstate
movement of certain swine through livestock markets for sale for
slaughter. Swine infected with or exposed to brucellosis or
pseudorabies, certain pseudorabies vaccinates, and even swine not known
to be infected with or exposed to disease could, therefore, be
characterized as slaughter swine for the purposes of the proposed new
livestock facility agreement.
In Sec. 71.1, the terms APHIS inspector and State representative
are among the terms defined. In several places in part 71, however,
reference is made to activities that are the responsibility of ``a
State inspector'' or ``an APHIS or State inspector.'' For the purposes
of consistency within part 71 and consistency with parts 75 and 78, we
are proposing to remove the term APHIS inspector from Sec. 71.1 and
replace it with the term APHIS representative, which is the term used
in parts 75 and 78. We would then amend the remainder of part 71 by
replacing references to ``inspectors''--APHIS or State--with references
to APHIS or State ``representatives.'' The definition we would use in
part 71 for APHIS representative would be the same
[[Page 56158]]
definition used in parts 75 and 78, i.e., ``An individual employed by
APHIS who is authorized to perform the function involved.''
The introductory text preceding the definitions in Sec. 71.1 states
``As used in this part, the following terms shall have the meanings set
forth in this section.'' However, Sec. 71.1 includes the terms
accredited herd, designated dipping station, recognized slaughtering
center, and stockers and feeders, terms that are not used anywhere in
part 71. We are, therefore, proposing to remove those terms from
Sec. 71.1.
Removal of Hog Cholera Provisions
The regulations in 9 CFR part 76, ``Hog Cholera and Other
Communicable Swine Diseases,'' prohibit or restrict the interstate
movement of swine and swine products to suppress and eradicate hog
cholera and other contagious, infectious, and communicable diseases of
swine. The regulations in 9 CFR part 56, ``Swine Destroyed Because of
Hog Cholera,'' provide for the payment of compensation to the owners of
swine destroyed due to hog cholera.
The regulations in parts 76 and 56 were established to promote the
eradication of hog cholera within the United States by preventing its
spread through restrictions on the interstate movement of swine and
swine products from quarantined areas and by providing indemnity for
the destruction of infected swine. In that the United States has been
free of hog cholera since 1978, the objectives of those regulations
have been met. The quarantine requirements contained in ``Subpart E--
Swine'' of 9 CFR part 92 (Secs. 92.500 through 92.523) contain testing
and quarantine provisions that help ensure that hog cholera and other
contagious, infectious, and communicable diseases of swine are not
introduced into the United States.
We are, therefore, proposing to remove, in their entirety, the hog
cholera regulations in 9 CFR parts 56 and 76. Further, we would remove
hog cholera from the list in Sec. 71.3(a) of diseases considered to be
endemic to the United States and add it to the list in Sec. 71.3(b) of
diseases not known to exist in the United States. These proposed
actions would remove the implication that hog cholera has not yet been
eradicated in the United States and would eliminate unnecessary
regulations.
The proposed removal of part 76 would also make it necessary for us
to amend two references found in part 85, ``Pseudorabies.'' The first
reference, found in Sec. 85.12, directs the reader to Sec. 76.30 for
provisions regarding the cleaning and disinfection of means of
conveyance; the second reference, found in Sec. 85.13, directs the
reader to Sec. 76.31 for provisions regarding the cleaning and
disinfection of livestock markets and other facilities. In both
instances, we would remove the existing reference and replace it with a
reference to Sec. 71.7, ``Means of conveyance, facilities and premises;
methods of cleaning and disinfecting,'' which, like the provisions in
Secs. 76.30 and 76.31, contains the information needed to properly
carry out the necessary cleaning and disinfection.
Another change we are proposing in this document is related to the
previous two paragraphs. Specifically, we are proposing to add
pseudorabies to the list in Sec. 71.3(a) of diseases considered to be
endemic to the United States (the same list from which we are proposing
to remove hog cholera).
Livestock Identification
We are also proposing four changes in the area of livestock
identification. First, we are proposing to amend the definitions of
official eartag that appear in Secs. 71.1 and 78.1. Each definition
refers, in part, to a nine-character alphanumeric identification
system. However, the eartags used for identifying feeder swine utilize
an eight-character alphanumeric identification system that, like the
nine-character system, provides individual identification for each
animal. Other eartagging systems that are being considered or that are
already in use have more or fewer characters. The use of any eartag
numbering system would have to be approved by APHIS prior to its
employment and would have to provide the level of identification for
each eartaged animal required by the particular disease control or
surveillance program in which it is being used. For that reason, we do
not believe it is necessary to specify the number of characters to be
used in an eartag numbering system. Therefore, we are proposing to
amend the definitions of official eartag in Secs. 71.1 and 78.1 to
remove the requirement that an official eartag must utilize a nine-
character identification system.
Second, we are proposing to amend Sec. 71.19(b) to allow the use of
premises identification numbers as a means of identifying swine. The
regulations in Sec. 71.19(b) currently list official eartags, USDA
backtags, official swine tattoos, tattoos of at least four characters
(for certain swine moving to slaughter), ear notches, or ear tattoos as
means of swine identification approved by the Administrator. The
premises identification number concept has been developed to provide a
means of reliably and accurately tracing swine moved in interstate
commerce and to slaughter.
Currently, the primary method of identifying swine moved to
slaughter is with a USDA backtag; however, the retention rate for those
backtags is low and misidentification of herds is widespread when swine
from different herds are commingled and backtags are missing. When
traceback and testing of swine in a herd of origin are necessary, the
lack of premises identification often leads to tracebacks to the wrong
herd and unnecessary testing, which increases costs for producers and
State or Federal epidemiologists. A premises identification number,
which would be applied to swine either on an eartag or as a tattoo,
would greatly simplify the traceback process.
The premises identification number would be assigned and tracked by
the State animal health official of the State in which a producer's
premises is located. A premises would be defined as a livestock
production unit that is, in the judgment of the State animal health
official or the area veterinarian in charge, epidemiologically distinct
from other livestock production units and that could be quarantined in
the event of a disease outbreak. The premises identification number
would consist of the State's two-letter postal abbreviation, followed
by a space, followed by the premises' assigned number. By way of
example, a swine producer in Minnesota might receive the premises
identification number ``MN 1234.'' Further, a premises identification
number could be used in conjunction with a producer's own livestock
production numbering system to provide a unique identification number
for each animal if the producer wished to do so.
Because we would not require that a premises identification number
be combined with a producer's livestock production number to provide
unique identification for each swine, we are proposing to amend
Sec. 71.19(a)(1), which states, in part, that swine moved in interstate
commerce must be individually identified. The goal of that requirement
is for each animal to be identified using one of the approved methods
listed in Sec. 71.19(a)(2); some of those methods provide unique
identification for each animal and others do not. To make it clear that
unique identification for each animal is not required, we would change
the words ``unless they are individually identified'' to ``unless each
swine is identified,'' which better suits the intent of that paragraph
and removes any
[[Page 56159]]
possible confusion as to whether non-unique methods of identification
such as ear notches or the proposed premises identification number may
be used.
The use of premises identification numbers would be voluntary. The
State animal health official in a particular State may decide that
current identification methods are sufficient and elect not to issue
premises identification numbers. Similarly, a producer in a State that
does issue premises identification numbers may elect not to apply for
such a number. However, based on the response that the premises
identification number concept has received from the swine industry,
individual producers, State animal health officials, other Federal
agencies, and the U.S. Animal Health Association, we believe that most
States and swine producers would avail themselves of the opportunity to
use this proposed new system.
Third, we are proposing to amend Sec. 71.19(b)(6), which relates to
one of the means of swine identification approved by the Administrator.
Specifically, that paragraph allows ear tattoos to be used as a means
of identifying swine for interstate movement if the tattoo has been
recorded in the book of record of a purebred registry association.
Owners of potbellied pigs have complained that the identification
requirements of the regulations are not well-suited to their pigs
because eartags are unsightly on animals that are kept as pets and,
despite the fact that there are registry associations for potbellied
pigs that could record tattoo numbers, the ears of potbellied pigs are
too small to accommodate a tattoo. Therefore, at the request of
numerous owners of potbellied pigs, we are proposing to allow
identifying tattoos to be placed either on the ear or on the inside
flank or thigh of swine. The requirement that the tattoo number be
recorded by a registry association would remain, although we would no
longer specify that it be a ``purebred registry association'' because
potbellied pigs are not purebred animals. We believe this proposed
change would answer the requests of certain swine owners for an
alternative method of swine identification while providing a
satisfactory means of identifying swine moved interstate.
Finally, we are proposing to revise Sec. 78.33, ``Sows and boars.''
That section, which deals primarily with the identification of sows and
boars moved in interstate commerce, specifies when sows and boars moved
to slaughter must be identified and sets forth the herd of origin and
health requirements for sows and boars moved for breeding. However, the
methods of identifying sows and boars (e.g., eartags, backtags,
tattoos) that are set out in Sec. 78.33(a) and (b) are not unique to
sows and boars; rather, they are the same methods that are generally
required for swine under Sec. 71.19. Further, there is nothing unique
to sows and boars in the provisions of Sec. 78.33(d) and (e), which
simply repeat the provisions of Sec. 71.19(d) and (e). Therefore, we
are proposing to remove the references to specific identification
methods from Sec. 78.33(a) and (b) and amend those paragraphs to simply
state that sows and boars must be identified in accordance with
Sec. 71.19. We would also remove Sec. 78.33(d) and (e) in their
entirety. These proposed changes would eliminate duplication and help
simplify the regulations.
Miscellaneous
In addition to the proposed amendments discussed above, we would
also make several nonsubstantive changes for the sake of clarity or
accuracy.
First, there is a reference in Sec. 71.3(c)(2) to provisions in
Sec. 77.8 concerning the interstate movement of tuberculin reactors,
but Sec. 77.8 does not exist. The interstate movement provisions
referred to in Sec. 71.3 are actually contained in Sec. 77.5. We would
change the reference to read Sec. 77.5.
Second, we would rectify two incorrect paragraph references in the
introductory text of Sec. 71.18(a). The first reference is to
Sec. 78.9(a)(3)(iv), but there is no such paragraph in Sec. 78.9. We
would correct the reference to read Sec. 78.9(a)(3)(ii), which is the
proper reference. The second reference is to Sec. 78.9(d)(3)(vii),
which was removed by a final rule published in the Federal Register on
January 18, 1989 (54 FR 1923-1926, Docket No. 88-171). When the
paragraph was removed in that final rule, all references to the
paragraph should have been removed as well, but this one was not. We
would remove the reference.
Third, also in Sec. 71.18, we would correct the paragraph
designations used in paragraphs (a)(1)(i), (a)(1)(ii), and (a)(1)(iii).
In each of the three paragraphs, italicized lowercase letters are used
where regular uppercase letters are needed.
Finally, footnote 1 to Sec. 71.18(a)(1)(i) states, in part, that
approved backtags are available from a Veterinary Services
representative and that the term Veterinary Services representative is
defined in Sec. 78.1. However, that definition was removed, and a
definition of APHIS representative added in its place, by a final rule
published in the Federal Register on October 22, 1991 (56 FR 54532-
54534, Docket No. 89-150). We would, therefore, correct the footnote to
use the current term in both instances.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12866.
The rule has been determined to be not significant for the purposes of
Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has not been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget.
This proposed rule would amend the regulations regarding the
interstate movement of livestock by combining the provisions for the
approval of livestock markets for cattle and bison, horses, and swine
into a single section and by removing the regulations that restrict the
movement of swine and swine products from areas quarantined for hog
cholera and that provide for the payment of compensation to the owners
of swine destroyed because of hog cholera. The proposed changes to the
livestock market approval provisions were recommended following a
review of APHIS' regulations, programs, and policies regarding
livestock markets and stockyards; the hog cholera regulations would be
removed because the United States has been free of hog cholera since
1978 and import requirements have proven adequate to prevent the
reintroduction of the disease into this country. These proposed actions
would eliminate unnecessary or duplicative regulations and remove the
implication that hog cholera has not yet been eradicated in the United
States.
We estimate that combining livestock market approval provisions for
horses, swine, cattle, and bison onto one form will reduce the number
of approvals from 4,800 to fewer than 1,800 because each livestock
facility and stockyard will need only one approval. Many livestock
facilities and stockyards now have three approvals. APHIS does not
charge a user fee for inspections or approvals, so livestock facilities
would not experience a reduction in costs. However, this proposed rule
change would reduce the amount of paperwork associated with livestock
facility approvals.
The provisions of the proposed rule that would allow States, with
APHIS concurrence, to determine how frequently State representatives,
APHIS representatives, or accredited veterinarians should be present at
individual stockyards and livestock facilities could potentially reduce
the annual operating expenses of livestock facilities by about $2.3
million annually. Conversely, total annual income for
[[Page 56160]]
accredited veterinarians could potentially be reduced by about $2.3
million.
The proposed removal of the hog cholera regulations in 9 CFR parts
56 and 76 would not have any economic impact on livestock markets or
stockyards or any other entity. Hog cholera has been eradicated in the
United States since 1978 and there are no enforcement measures
currently in place.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act requires that APHIS specifically
consider the potential economic impacts on ``small'' domestic entities
that could result from the implementation of the amendments proposed in
this document. The Small Business Administration (SBA) has established
size criteria by Standard Industrial Classification that were used as a
guide in determining which economic entities meet the definition of a
``small'' business.
The changes proposed in this document will likely have a relatively
minor economic impact on the following types of small entities: (1)
Wholesale livestock traders and (2) accredited veterinarians. The SBA's
definition of a ``small'' entity involved in the wholesale trade of
livestock is one that employs no more than 100 employees. Currently,
there are 1,992 domestic entities that trade livestock wholesale. About
1,965 of these entities are classified as ``small'' by the SBA.
Livestock facilities and stockyards comprise about 1,768 (90 percent)
of the ``small'' entities included in this category. We estimate that
about 884 (50 percent) of these ``small'' entities currently hire
accredited veterinarians. The proposed rule change could reduce annual
operating costs for these 884 ``small'' entities by about $2.3 million
or $2,600 per entity. This accounts for less than 1 percent of total
annual receipts for ``small'' wholesale livestock traders according to
SBA data.
The SBA's definition of a ``small'' entity that provides veterinary
services for livestock--the category into which the accredited
veterinarians potentially affected by this proposed rule would fall--is
one that earns less than $5 million in annual receipts. Currently,
there are 1,111 domestic entities that provide veterinary services for
livestock; 1,110 of these entities are classified as ``small'' by the
SBA. The Agency estimates that this proposed rule could reduce total
annual income for livestock veterinarians, including accredited
veterinarians, by about $2.3 million or $2,070 per ``small'' entity.
This accounts for less than 1 percent of total annual receipts for this
industry, according to SBA data.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities.
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372,
which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local
officials. (See 7 CFR part 3015, subpart V.)
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is adopted: (1) All State
and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule will
be preempted; (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule; and
(3) administrative proceedings will not be required before parties may
file suit in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains no new information collection or
recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
Regulatory Reform
This action is part of the President's Regulatory Reform
Initiative, which, among other things, directs agencies to remove
obsolete and unnecessary regulations and to find less burdensome ways
to achieve regulatory goals.
List of Subjects
9 CFR Part 51
Animal diseases, Cattle, Hogs, Indemnity payments, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
9 CFR Part 71
Animal diseases, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products,
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
9 CFR Part 75
Animal diseases, Horses, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
9 CFR Part 76
Animal diseases, Hogs, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
9 CFR Part 78
Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Hogs, Quarantine, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
9 CFR Part 80
Animal diseases, Livestock, Transportation.
9 CFR Part 85
Animal diseases, Livestock, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
Accordingly, we would amend chapter I, title 9, of the Code of
Federal Regulations as follows:
PART 51--ANIMALS DESTROYED BECAUSE OF BRUCELLOSIS
1. The authority citation for part 51 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111-113, 114, 114a, 114a-1, 120, 121, 125,
and 134b; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).
Sec. 51.1 [Amended]
2. In Sec. 51.1, the definition of Specifically approved stockyard
would be amended by removing the reference ``Sec. 78.44'' and adding
the reference ``Sec. 71.20'' in its place.
PART 56--[RESERVED]
3. Part 56 would be removed and reserved.
PART 71--GENERAL PROVISIONS
4. The authority citation for part 71 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111-113, 114a, 114a-1, 115-117, 120-126,
134b, and 134f; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).
Sec. 71.1 [Amended]
5. Section 71.1 would be amended as follows:
a. By removing the definitions of accredited herd, APHIS inspector,
designated dipping station, recognized slaughtering center, and
stockers and feeders.
b. By adding, in alphabetical order, definitions of APHIS
representative, approved livestock facility, breeder swine, horses,
feeder swine, livestock, premises identification number, and slaughter
swine to read as set forth below.
c. In the definition of livestock market, by removing the word
``swine'' and adding the word ``livestock'' in its place.
d. In the definition of official eartag, by removing the words
``nine-character''.
Sec. 71.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
[[Page 56161]]
APHIS representative. An individual employed by APHIS who is
authorized to perform the function involved.
Approved livestock facility. A stockyard, livestock market, buying
station, concentration point, or any other premises under State or
Federal veterinary supervision where livestock are assembled and that
has been approved under Sec. 71.20.
* * * * *
Breeder swine. Sexually intact swine over 6 months of age.
* * * * *
Feeder swine. Swine under 6 months of age that are not slaughter
swine.
* * * * *
Horses. Horses, asses, mules, ponies, and zebras.
* * * * *
Livestock. Horses, cattle, bison, and swine.
* * * * *
Premises identification number. A unique number assigned by the
State animal health official to a livestock production unit that is, in
the judgment of the State animal health official or area veterinarian
in charge, epidemiologically distinct from other livestock production
units. A premises identification number shall consist of the State's
two-letter postal abbreviation, followed by a space, followed by the
premises' assigned number. A premises identification number may be used
in conjunction with a producer's own livestock production numbering
system to provide a unique identification number for an animal.
* * * * *
Slaughter swine. Swine being sold or moved for slaughter purposes
only.
* * * * *
Sec. 71.3 [Amended]
6. Section 71.3 would be amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (a), the words ``hog cholera,'' would be removed
and the word ``pseudorabies,'' would be added in its place.
b. In paragraph (b), the words ``hog cholera,'' would be added
immediately after the words ``African swine fever,''.
c. In paragraph (c)(2), the reference ``Sec. 77.8'' would be
removed and the reference ``Sec. 77.5'' would be added in its place.
d. In paragraph (d), introductory text, in the second proviso, the
word ``inspector'' would be removed and the word ``representative''
would be added in its place.
e. In paragraph (d)(5), first sentence, the word ``inspector''
would be removed and the word ``representative'' would be added in its
place.
Sec. 71.4 [Amended]
7. Section 71.4 would be amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (a), at the end of the first sentence, the word
``inspector'' would be removed and the word ``representative'' would be
added in its place; at the beginning of the second sentence, the words
``such inspector'' would be removed and the words ``an APHIS or State
representative'' would be added in their place; and near the end of the
second sentence, the words ``such an inspector'' would be removed and
the words ``an APHIS or State representative'' would be added in their
place.
b. In paragraph (b), the word ``inspector'' would be removed and
the word ``representative'' would be added in its place.
Sec. 71.5 [Amended]
8. In Sec. 71.5, the undesignated regulatory text would be amended
by removing the word ``inspector'' both times it appears and by adding
the word ``representative'' in its place.
Sec. 71.6 [Amended]
9. In Sec. 71.6, paragraphs (a) and (b) would be amended by
removing the word ``inspector'' both times it appears and by adding the
word ``representative'' in its place.
Sec. 71.13 [Amended]
10. In Sec. 71.13, the section heading and the undesignated
regulatory text would be amended by removing the word ``inspector''
each time it appears and adding the word ``representative'' in its
place.
Sec. 71.16 [Amended]
11. In Sec. 71.16, paragraph (a) would be amended by removing the
word ``inspector'' both times it appears and by adding the word
``representative'' in its place.
Sec. 71.18 [Amended]
12. Section 71.18 would be amended as follows:
a. In the introductory text of paragraph (a), in the first
sentence, the words ``Secs. 78.9(a)(3)(iv), 78.9(b)(3)(iv),
78.9(c)(3)(iv), and 78.9(d)(3)(vii)'' would be removed and the words
``Secs. 78.9(a)(3)(ii), 78.9(b)(3)(iv), and 78.9(c)(3)(iv)'' would be
added in their place.
b. In paragraph (a)(1)(i), footnote 1, the words ``Veterinary
Services'' would be removed both times they appear and the word
``APHIS'' would be added in their place.
c. Paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(a) through (a)(1)(i)(g) would be
redesignated as paragraphs (a)(1)(i)(A) through (a)(1)(i)(G).
d. Paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(a) through (a)(1)(ii)(f) would be
redesignated as paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(A) through (a)(1)(ii)(F).
e. Paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(a) through (a)(1)(iii)(g) would be
redesignated as paragraphs (a)(1)(iii)(A) through (a)(1)(iii)(G).
f. In paragraph (a)(2), in the second sentence, the word
``inspector'' would be removed and the word ``representative'' would be
added in its place.
g. In paragraph (a)(5), the words ``Sec. 78.44 of this chapter''
would be removed and the reference ``Sec. 71.20'' would be added in its
place.
13. Section 71.19 would be amended as follows:
a. In the introductory text of paragraph (a)(1), the words ``they
are individually'' would be removed and the words ``each swine is''
would be added in their place.
b. In paragraph (b)(5), the word ``and'' at the end of the
paragraph would be removed.
c. Paragraph (b)(6) would be revised and a new paragraph (b)(7)
would be added to read as follows:
Sec. 71.19 Identification of swine in interstate commerce.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(6) Tattoos on the ear or inner flank of any swine, if the tattoos
have been recorded in the book of record of a swine registry
association; and
(7) An eartag or tattoo bearing the premises identification number
assigned by the State animal health official to the premises on which
the swine originated.
* * * * *
14. A new Sec. 71.20 would be added to read as follows:
Sec. 71.20 Approval of livestock facilities.
(a) To qualify for approval by the Administrator as an approved
livestock facility 6 and to retain such designation, the
individual legally responsible for the day-to-day operations of the
livestock facility shall execute the following agreement:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ A list of approved livestock facilities may be obtained by
writing to National Animal Health Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River
Road Unit 36, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AGREEMENT--APPROVED LIVESTOCK FACILITY FOR HANDLING LIVESTOCK PURSUANT
TO TITLE 9 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS
[Name of facility]
[Address and telephone number of facility]
[[Page 56162]]
I, [name of the individual legally responsible for the day-to-
day operations of the livestock facility], operator of [name of
facility], hereby agree to maintain and operate the livestock
facility located at [address of premises] in accordance with the
applicable provisions of this agreement and Chapter I, Title 9, of
the Code of Federal Regulations (9 CFR).
Cooperation
(1) The State animal health official and the area veterinarian
in charge shall be provided with a schedule of the facility's sale
days, which shall indicate the types of animals that will be handled
at the facility on each sale day, and shall be apprised of any
changes to that schedule prior to the implementation of the changes.
The State animal health official and the area veterinarian in charge
will review the schedule and inform the operator as to which sale
days will require the presence of an accredited veterinarian, State
representative, or APHIS representative.
(2) An accredited veterinarian, State representative, or APHIS
representative shall be on the facility premises on those sale days
designated by the State animal health official or area veterinarian
in charge to perform duties in accordance with State and Federal
regulations.
(3) State representatives and APHIS representatives shall be
granted access to the facility during normal business hours to
evaluate whether the facility and its operations are in compliance
with the applicable provisions of this agreement and 9 CFR parts 71,
75, 78, and 85.
(4) An APHIS representative, State representative, or accredited
veterinarian shall be immediately notified of the presence at the
facility of any livestock that are known to be infected, exposed, or
suspect, or that show signs of possibly being infected, with any
infectious, contagious, or communicable disease.
(5) Any reactor, suspect, or exposed livestock shall be held in
quarantined pens apart from all other livestock at the facility.
(6) No reactor, suspect, or exposed livestock, nor any livestock
that show signs of being infected with any infectious, contagious,
or communicable disease, may be sold at the facility, except as
authorized by an APHIS representative, State representative, or
accredited veterinarian.
Records
(7) Documents such as weight tickets, sales slips, and records
of origin, identification, and destination that relate to livestock
that are in, or that have been in, the facility shall be maintained
by the facility for a period of 2 years. APHIS representatives and
State representatives shall be permitted to review and copy those
documents during normal business hours.
Identification
(8) All livestock must be officially identified in accordance
with the applicable regulations in 9 CFR parts 71, 75, 78, and 85 at
the time of, or prior to, entry into the facility.
Cleaning and Disinfection
(9) The facility, including all yards, docks, pens, alleys, sale
rings, chutes, scales, means of conveyance, and their associated
equipment, shall be maintained in a clean and sanitary condition.
The operator of the facility shall be responsible for the cleaning
and disinfection of the facility in accordance with 9 CFR part 71
and for maintaining an adequate supply of disinfectant and
serviceable equipment for cleaning and disinfection.
General Facilities and Equipment Standards
(10) All facilities and equipment shall be maintained in a state
of good repair. The facility shall contain well-constructed and
well-lighted livestock handling chutes, pens, alleys, and sales
rings for the inspection, identification, vaccination, testing, and
branding of livestock.
(11) Quarantined pens shall be clearly labeled with paint or
placarded with the word ``Quarantined'' or the name of the disease
of concern, and shall be cleaned and disinfected in accordance with
9 CFR part 71 before being used to pen livestock that are not
reactor, suspect, or exposed animals.
(12) Quarantined pens shall have adequate drainage, and the
floors and those parts of the walls of the quarantined pens with
which reactor, or suspect, or exposed livestock, their excrement, or
discharges may have contact shall be constructed of materials that
are substantially impervious to moisture and able to withstand
continued cleaning and disinfection.
(13) Electrical outlets shall be provided at the chute area for
branding purposes.
Standards for Handling Different Classes of Livestock
(By his or her initials, the operator of the facility shall signify
the class or classes of livestock that the facility will handle.)
(14) Cattle and bison:
--This facility will handle cattle and bison: [Initials of operator,
date]
--This facility will handle cattle and bison known to be brucellosis
reactors, suspects, or exposed: [Initials of operator, date]
--This facility will not handle cattle and bison known to be
brucellosis reactors, suspects, or exposed and such cattle and bison
will not be permitted to enter the facility: [Initials of operator,
date]
(i) Cattle and bison shall be received, handled, and released by
the facility only in accordance with 9 CFR parts 71 and 78.
(ii) All brucellosis reactor, brucellosis suspect, and
brucellosis exposed cattle or bison arriving at the facility shall
be placed in quarantined pens and consigned from the facility only
in accordance with 9 CFR part 78.
(iii) Any cattle or bison classified as brucellosis reactors at
the facility shall be identified in accordance with 9 CFR part 78,
placed in quarantined pens, and consigned from the facility only to
a recognized slaughtering establishment or an approved intermediate
handling facility in accordance with 9 CFR part 78.
(iv) Any cattle or bison classified as brucellosis exposed at
the facility shall be identified in accordance with 9 CFR part 78,
placed in quarantined pens, and consigned from the facility only to
a recognized slaughtering establishment, approved intermediate
handling facility, quarantined feedlot, or farm of origin in
accordance with 9 CFR part 78.
(v) The identity of cattle from Class Free States or areas and
Class A States or areas shall be maintained.
(vi) The identity of cattle from Class B States or areas shall
be maintained, and test-eligible cattle from Class B States or areas
shall not be placed in pens with cattle from any other area until
they have fulfilled the requirements of 9 CFR part 78 for release
from the facility.
(vii) The identity of cattle from Class C States or areas shall
be maintained, and test-eligible cattle from Class C States or areas
shall not be placed in pens with cattle from any other area until
they have fulfilled the requirements of 9 CFR part 78 for release
from the facility.
(viii) The identity of cattle from quarantined areas shall be
maintained, and test-eligible cattle from quarantined areas shall
not be placed in pens with cattle from any other area until they
have fulfilled the requirements of 9 CFR part 78 for release from
the facility.
(ix) Test-eligible cattle that are penned with test-eligible
cattle from a lower class State or area, in violation of this
agreement, shall have the status of the State or area of lower class
for any subsequent movement.
(x) Laboratory space shall be furnished and maintained for
conducting diagnostic tests. All test reagents, testing equipment,
and documents relating to the State-Federal cooperative eradication
programs on the facility's premises shall be secured to prevent
misuse and theft. Adequate heat, cooling, electricity, water piped
to a properly drained sink, and sanitation shall be provided for
properly conducting diagnostic tests.
(15) Swine:
--This facility will handle breeding swine: [Initials of operator,
date]
--This facility will handle slaughter swine: [Initials of operator,
date]
--This facility will handle feeder swine: [Initials of operator,
date]
--This facility will handle pseudorabies reactor, suspect, or
exposed swine: [Initials of operator, date].
--This facility will not handle swine known to be pseudorabies
reactor, suspect, or exposed swine and such swine will not be
permitted to enter the facility: [Initials of operator, date].
(i) Swine shall be received, handled, and released by the
livestock facility only in accordance with 9 CFR parts 71, 78, and
85.
(ii) Slaughter swine may be handled only on days when no feeder
swine or breeder swine are present at the facility, unless the
facility has provisions to keep slaughter swine physically separated
from feeder swine and breeder swine or unless those areas of the
facility used by slaughter swine have been cleaned and disinfected
before being used by feeder swine or breeder swine.
(iii) No feeder swine or breeder swine may remain in the
livestock facility for more than 72 hours, and no slaughter swine
may remain
[[Page 56163]]
in the livestock market for more than 120 hours.
(iv) Feeder swine shall be kept separate and apart from other
swine while in the livestock facility.
(v) No release shall be issued for the removal of feeder swine
or breeder swine from the livestock facility until the swine are
officially identified in accordance with applicable Federal or State
regulations and have been inspected by an APHIS representative,
State representative, or accredited veterinarian, and certified in
accordance with applicable Federal or State regulations.
(vi) No release shall be issued for the removal of slaughter
swine from the livestock facility unless the slaughter swine are
officially identified in accordance with applicable Federal or State
regulations, consigned for immediate slaughter or to another
slaughter market, and the consignee is identified on the release
document.
(16) Horses:
--This facility will handle horses: [Initials of operator, date]
--This facility will handle equine infectious anemia (EIA) reactors:
[Initials of operator, date]
--This facility will not handle horses known to be EIA reactors and
will not permit EIA reactors to enter the facility: [Initials of
operator, date]
(i) Horses shall be received, handled, and released by the
livestock facility only in accordance with 9 CFR parts 71 and 75.
(ii) Any horses classified as EIA reactors and accepted by the
facility for sale shall be placed in quarantined pens at least 200
yards from all non-EIA-reactor horses or other animals, unless
moving out of the facility within 24 hours of arrival.
(iii) Any horses classified as EIA reactors and accepted by the
facility for sale shall be consigned from the facility only to a
slaughtering establishment or to the home farm of the reactor in
accordance with 9 CFR part 75.
(iv) Fly Control Program: The livestock facility shall have in
effect a fly control program utilizing at least one of the
following: Baits, fly strips, electric bug killers (``Fly Zappers,''
``Fly Snappers,'' or similar equipment), or the application of a
pesticide effective against flies, applied according to the schedule
and dosage recommended by the manufacturer for fly control.
Approvals
(17) Request for approval:
I hereby request approval for this facility to operate as an
approved livestock facility for the classes of livestock indicated
in paragraphs (14) through (16) of this agreement. I acknowledge
that I have received a copy of 9 CFR parts 71, 75, 78 and 85, and
acknowledge that I have been informed and understand that failure to
abide by the provisions of this agreement and the applicable
provisions of 9 CFR parts 71, 75, 78, and 85 constitutes a basis for
the withdrawal of this approval. [Printed name and signature of
operator, date of signature]
(18) Pre-approval inspection of livestock facility conducted by
[printed name and title of APHIS representative] on [date of
inspection].
(19) Recommend approval:
[Printed name and signature of State animal health official,
date of signature]
[Printed name and signature of area veterinarian in charge, date
of signature]
(20) Approval granted:
[Printed name and signature of the Administrator, Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service, date of signature]
(b) Denial and withdrawal of approval. The Administrator may deny
or withdraw the approval of a livestock facility to receive livestock
moved interstate under this subchapter upon a determination that the
livestock facility is not or has not been maintained and operated in
accordance with the agreement set forth in paragraph (a) of this
section.
(1) In the case of a denial, the operator of the facility will be
informed of the reasons for the denial and may appeal the decision in
writing to the Administrator within 10 days after receiving
notification of the denial. The appeal must include all of the facts
and reasons upon which the person relies to show that the livestock
facility was wrongfully denied approval to receive livestock moved
interstate under this subchapter. The Administrator will grant or deny
the appeal in writing as promptly as circumstances permit, stating the
reason for his or her decision. If there is a conflict as to any
material fact, a hearing will be held to resolve the conflict. Rules of
practice concerning the hearing will be adopted by the Administrator.
(2) In the case of withdrawal, before such action is taken, the
operator of the facility will be informed of the reasons for the
proposed withdrawal. The operator of the facility may appeal the
proposed withdrawal in writing to the Administrator within 10 days
after being informed of the reasons for the proposed withdrawal. The
appeal must include all of the facts and reasons upon which the person
relies to show that the reasons for the proposed withdrawal are
incorrect or do not support the withdrawal of the approval of the
livestock facility to receive livestock moved interstate under this
subchapter. The Administrator will grant or deny the appeal in writing
as promptly as circumstances permit, stating the reason for his or her
decision. If there is a conflict as to any material fact, a hearing
will be held to resolve the conflict. Rules of practice concerning the
hearing will be adopted by the Administrator. However, withdrawal shall
become effective pending final determination in the proceeding when the
Administrator determines that such action is necessary to protect the
public health, interest, or safety. Such withdrawal shall be effective
upon oral or written notification, whichever is earlier, to the
operator of the facility. In the event of oral notification, written
confirmation shall be given as promptly as circumstances allow. This
withdrawal shall continue in effect pending the completion of the
proceeding, and any judicial review thereof, unless otherwise ordered
by the Administrator.
(3) Approval for a livestock facility to handle livestock under
this subchapter will be automatically withdrawn by the Administrator
when:
(i) The operator of the facility notifies the Administrator, in
writing, that the facility no longer handles livestock moved interstate
under this subchapter; or
(ii) The person who signed the agreement executed in accordance
with paragraph (a) of this section is no longer responsible for the
day-to-day operations of the facility.
PART 75--COMMUNICABLE DISEASES IN HORSES, ASSES, PONIES, MULES, AND
ZEBRAS
15. The authority citation for part 75 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111-113, 115, 117, 120, 121, 123-126, and
134-134h; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).
Sec. 75.4 [Amended]
16. Section 75.4 would be amended as follows:
a. The section heading would be revised to read as set forth below.
b. In paragraph (a), the definition of Approved stockyard would be
amended by removing the words ``this part'' and by adding the words
``Sec. 71.20 of this chapter'' in their place.
c. In paragraph (c), the paragraph heading would be amended by
removing the words ``, Diagnostic or Research Facilities, and
Stockyards'' and by adding the words ``and Diagnostic or Research
Facilities'' in their place, and paragraph (c)(3) and the ``Agreement''
following it would be removed.
d. In paragraph (d), the introductory text of the paragraph,
including the paragraph heading, and paragraphs (d)(1) and (d)(2) would
be revised to read as set forth below, and paragraph (d)(5) would be
removed.
Sec. 75.4 Interstate movement of equine infectious anemia reactors and
approval of laboratories, diagnostic facilities, and research
facilities.
* * * * *
(d) Denial and withdrawal of approval of laboratories and
diagnostic or research facilities. The Administrator
[[Page 56164]]
may deny or withdraw approval of any laboratory to conduct the official
test, or of any diagnostic or research facility to receive reactors
moved interstate, upon a determination that the laboratory or
diagnostic or research facility does not meet the criteria for approval
under paragraph (c) of this section.
(1) In the case of a denial, the operator of the laboratory or
facility will be informed of the reasons for denial and may appeal the
decision in writing to the Administrator within 10 days after receiving
notification of the denial. The appeal must include all of the facts
and reasons upon which the person relies to show that the laboratory or
facility was wrongfully denied approval to conduct the official test or
receive reactors moved interstate. The Administrator will grant or deny
the appeal in writing as promptly as circumstances permit, stating the
reason for his or her decision. If there is a conflict as to any
material fact, a hearing will be held to resolve the conflict. Rules of
practice concerning the hearing will be adopted by the Administrator.
(2) In the case of withdrawal, before such action is taken, the
operator of the laboratory or facility will be informed of the reasons
for the proposed withdrawal. The operator of the laboratory or facility
may appeal the proposed withdrawal in writing to the Administrator
within 10 days after being informed of the reasons for the proposed
withdrawal. The appeal must include all of the facts and reasons upon
which the person relies to show that the reasons for the proposed
withdrawal are incorrect or do not support the withdrawal of the
approval of the laboratory or facility to conduct the official test or
receive reactors moved interstate was or would be wrongfully withdrawn.
The Administrator will grant or deny the appeal in writing as promptly
as circumstances permit, stating the reason for his or her decision. If
there is a conflict as to any material fact, a hearing will be held to
resolve the conflict. Rules of practice concerning the hearing will be
adopted by the Administrator. However, the withdrawal shall become
effective pending final determination in the proceeding when the
Administrator determines that such action is necessary to protect the
public health, interest, or safety. Such withdrawal shall be effective
upon oral or written notification, whichever is earlier, to the
operator of the laboratory or facility. In the event of oral
notification, written confirmation shall be given as promptly as
circumstances allow. The withdrawal shall continue in effect pending
the completion of the proceeding, and any judicial review thereof,
unless otherwise ordered by the Administrator.
* * * * *
PART 76--[REMOVED AND RESERVED]
17. Part 76 would be removed and reserved.
PART 78--BRUCELLOSIS
18. The authority citation for part 78 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111-114a-1, 114g, 115, 117, 120, 121, 123-
126, 134b, and 134f; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).
Sec. 78.1 [Amended]
19. Section 78.1 would be amended as follows:
a. In the definition of Approved intermediate handling facility,
the reference ``Sec. 78.44'' would be removed and the words
``Sec. 71.20 of this chapter'' would be added in its place.
b. In the definition of Official eartag, the words ``nine-
character'' would be removed.
c. In the definition of Originate, paragraph (c), the reference
``Sec. 78.44'' would be removed and the words ``Sec. 71.20 of this
chapter'' would be added in its place.
d. In definition of Specifically approved stockyard, the reference
``Sec. 78.44'' would be removed and the words ``Sec. 71.20 of this
chapter'' would be added in its place.
20. Section 78.33 would be revised to read as follows:
Sec. 78.33 Sows and boars.
(a) Sows and boars may be moved in interstate commerce for
slaughter or for sale for slaughter if they are identified in
accordance with Sec. 71.19 of this chapter either:
(1) Before being moved in interstate commerce and before being
mixed with swine from any other source; or
(2) After being moved in interstate commerce but before being mixed
with swine from any other source only if they have been moved directly
from their herd of origin to:
(i) A recognized slaughtering establishment; or
(ii) A stockyard, market agency, or dealer operating under the
Packers and Stockyards Act, as amended (7 U.S.C. 181 et seq.).
(b) Sows and boars may be moved in interstate commerce for breeding
only if they are identified in accordance with Sec. 71.19 of this
chapter before being moved in interstate commerce and before being
mixed with swine from any other source, and the sows and boars either:
(1) Are from a validated brucellosis-free herd or a validated
brucellosis-free State and are accompanied by a certificate that
states, in addition to the items specified in Sec. 78.1, that the swine
originated in a validated brucellosis-free herd or a validated
brucellosis-free State; or
(2) Have tested negative to an official test conducted within 30
days prior to interstate movement and are accompanied by a certificate
that states, in addition to the items specified in Sec. 78.1, the dates
and results of the official tests.
(c) Sows and boars may be moved in interstate commerce for purposes
other than slaughter or breeding without restriction under this subpart
if they are identified in accordance with Sec. 71.19 of this chapter.
21. The title of subpart E would be amended by removing the words
``, and Specifically Approved Stockyards''.
Sec. 78.44 [Removed]
22. Section 78.44 would be removed.
PART 80--PARATUBERCULOSIS IN DOMESTIC ANIMALS
23. The authority citation for part 80 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111-113, 114a-1, 115, 117, 120, 121, and
125; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).
Sec. 80.1 [Amended]
24. In Sec. 80.1, paragraph (j) would be amended by removing the
reference ``Sec. 78.44'' and by adding the words ``Sec. 71.20 of this
chapter'' in its place.
PART 85--PSEUDORABIES
25. The authority citation for part 85 would continue to read as
follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 111, 112, 113, 115, 117, 120, 121, 123-126,
134b, and 134f; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.2(d).
Sec. 85.1 [Amended]
26. In Sec. 85.1, in the definition of Approved livestock market,
the words ``Sec. 76.18 (9 CFR 76.18)'' would be removed and the words
``Sec. 71.20 of this chapter'' would be added in their place.
27. In Sec. 85.1, in the definition of Slaughter market, the words
``Sec. 76.18 (9 CFR 76.18)'' would be removed and the words
``Sec. 71.20 of this chapter'' would be added in their place.
Sec. 85.12 [Amended]
28. Section 85.12 would be amended by removing the reference
``Sec. 76.30'' and by adding the reference ``Sec. 71.7'' in its place.
Sec. 85.13 [Amended]
29. Section 85.13 would be amended by removing the reference
``Sec. 76.31'' and
[[Page 56165]]
by adding the reference ``Sec. 71.7'' in its place.
Done in Washington, DC, this 28th day of October 1996.
A. Strating,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 96-27975 Filed 10-30-96; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
