Cattle for Export; Removal of Certain Testing Requirements, 40064-40066 [E7-14177]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
40064
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 140 / Monday, July 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
Paperwork Reduction Act
This interim rule contains no
information collection or recordkeeping
requirements under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 78
Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Hogs,
Quarantine, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR
part 78 as follows:
PART 78—BRUCELLOSIS
1. The authority citation for part 78
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR 2.22,
2.80, and 371.4.
§ 78.41
[Amended]
2. Section 78.41 is amended as
follows:
I a. In paragraph (a), by adding the
word ‘‘Idaho,’’ immediately after the
word ‘‘Hawaii,’’.
I b. In paragraph (b), by removing the
words ‘‘Idaho and’’.
I
Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of
July 2007.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E7–14175 Filed 7–20–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
9 CFR Part 91
[Docket No. APHIS–2006–0147]
RIN 0579Z–AC26
Cattle for Export; Removal of Certain
Testing Requirements
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We are amending the
livestock exportation regulations to
eliminate the requirement for pre-export
tuberculosis and brucellosis testing of
certain cattle being exported to
countries that do not require such
testing. This action will facilitate the
exportation of certain cattle by
eliminating the need to conduct preexport tuberculosis and brucellosis
testing when the receiving country does
not require such testing.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 22, 2007.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:09 Jul 20, 2007
Dr.
Antonio Ramirez, Senior Staff
Veterinarian, Technical Trade Services,
National Center for Import and Export,
VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 40,
Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734–
8364.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Jkt 211001
Background
The regulations in 9 CFR part 91,
‘‘Inspection and Handling of Livestock
for Exportation’’ (referred to below as
the regulations), prescribe conditions for
exporting animals from the United
States. Section 91.5 requires, among
other things, that cattle intended for
exportation be tested for tuberculosis
and brucellosis prior to export.
On January 10, 2007, we published in
the Federal Register (72 FR 1192–1195,
Docket No. APHIS–2006–0147) a
proposal 1 to amend the regulations by
eliminating the requirement for preexport tuberculosis and brucellosis
testing of certain cattle being exported
to countries that do not require such
testing. Under its Restricted Feeder
Cattle Program, Canada allows the
importation of certain U.S. cattle
without testing for tuberculosis and
brucellosis, but our regulations required
that these cattle be tested for these
diseases. Thus, the proposal was
intended both to relieve restrictions on
U.S. cattle that are exported to Canada
under this program and to ensure that,
if other countries receiving exports of
U.S. cattle suspend or remove their
requirements that U.S. cattle be tested
for tuberculosis or brucellosis, U.S.
exporters of cattle would receive the full
benefits of no longer being required to
perform such tests.
We solicited comments concerning
our proposal for 60 days ending March
12, 2007. We received 8 comments by
that date. They were from producers,
exporters, and other private citizens.
Two of the comments were entirely
supportive. The remaining comments
are discussed below.
One commenter stated that it is the
United States’ responsibility to protect
the health and welfare of the people of
foreign nations and that testing cattle
exported from the United States would
help to accomplish this goal.
We proposed to remove the testing
requirement for exported cattle only
when testing is not required by the
receiving country. Thus, a country
receiving U.S. cattle would have to
determine that waiving any tuberculosis
1 To view the proposed rule and the comments
we received, go to https://www.regulations.gov/
fdmspublic/component/
main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2006-0147.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
and brucellosis testing requirements for
U.S. cattle would not be detrimental to
its citizens’ health and welfare before
we would allow any cattle to be
exported to that country without testing.
One commenter opposed the proposal
on the grounds that the existing
exemptions to the testing requirements
in the regulations are adequate.
As we discussed in the proposed rule,
we do not believe that the current
exemptions are adequate. For example,
cattle exported to Canada under the
Restricted Feeder Cattle Program are
still required under our regulations to be
tested for tuberculosis and brucellosis,
even though Canada does not require
such testing. Paragraph (b) of § 91.3
states that the Administrator may, upon
request of the appropriate animal health
official of the country of destination,
waive the tuberculosis and brucellosis
tests referred to in §§ 91.5(a) and (b) of
the regulations when he finds such tests
are not necessary to prevent the
exportation of diseased animals from
the United States. However, this
provision does not allow us to relieve
the testing requirement for cattle
exported under the Restricted Feeder
Cattle Program, as Canadian animal
health officials would have to request
each time cattle are exported that the
brucellosis and tuberculosis tests not be
administered. A more general
exemption from the testing requirement
is necessary to cover all situations in
which U.S. cattle may be exported to
countries that do not require them to be
tested for tuberculosis or brucellosis.
One commenter stated that the testing
of cattle at export for tuberculosis and
brucellosis is done only to increase
agricultural profits. This commenter
also stated that no cattle should be
exported.
APHIS tests cattle upon export to help
prevent the spread of disease and to
facilitate exports in accordance with our
responsibilities under the Animal
Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301 et
seq.). We have no statutory authority to
regulate the movement of livestock
except as it relates to preventing the
introduction or spread of animal
diseases.
One commenter asked that we relieve
testing restrictions for cattle exported to
Mexico as well.
The testing requirement will be
relived for exports of cattle to any
country that does not require testing of
cattle for tuberculosis and brucellosis
when they are exported from the United
States. Negotiations with other countries
to establish export agreements under
which testing for tuberculosis and
brucellosis is not required will be
conducted separately. Once we have
E:\FR\FM\23JYR1.SGM
23JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 140 / Monday, July 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
established such an agreement with a
country, however, any cattle exported
from the United States in compliance
with such an agreement could be
exported without testing for one or both
of these diseases, depending on the
terms of the agreement.
Two commenters asked that we
relieve the testing requirements for
additional types of exported animals
when testing is not required by the
receiving country. One commenter
requested that we apply the exemption
to goats and swine, noting that these
animals typically have lower per-head
values than cattle, which would mean
that the positive economic impact
associated with exempting those
animals from testing would be even
greater for producers and exporters of
those animals. Another commenter
asked that testing requirements be
relieved for sheep as well.
We agree that it would be desirable to
relieve the testing restrictions for
additional types of animals, where
possible. However, removing the testing
requirements for other species involves
different risks that would need to be
considered separately. We will continue
to look for opportunities to further
relieve testing requirements and, if
removing testing requirements for other
animals is warranted, we will issue a
separate proposal to do so.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the
proposed rule and in this document, we
are adopting the proposed rule as a final
rule, without change.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory
Flexibility Act
This 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 final rule removes the
requirement that cattle destined for
export must be tested for brucellosis and
tuberculosis prior to export in any case
in which such testing is not required by
the receiving country for cattle
originating in the United States or any
State therein.
The rule will affect domestic
producers of cattle, specifically those
engaged in the export of animals. In
2005, there were 982,510 cattle
operations in the United States.2 On
January 1, 2005, domestic inventory of
cattle and calves totaled over 95.8
million, with an average per head value
of $916, and a total value of production
2 USDA–NASS, Quick Stats U.S. & All States
Data. Washington, DC: National Agricultural
Statistics Service, 2006.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:09 Jul 20, 2007
Jkt 211001
of over $87.8 billion.3 Under U.S. Small
Business Administration’s (SBA) size
standards, operations engaged in cattle
ranching or production (both beef and
dairy) are considered small if they earn
$750,000 or less in annual receipts.4
According to the USDA’s National
Agricultural Statistics Service,
approximately 953,390, or 97 percent, of
the 982,510 cattle operations in the
United States are holding fewer than
500 head of cattle. As such, we would
assume that the overwhelming majority
of domestic cattle operations would be
considered small by SBA standards.
Only those operations engaged in the
export of their animals will be affected
by this rule. In 2005, the United States
exported 21,155 live cattle, with a total
value of over $7.2 million. Our primary
trading partners historically are Canada
and Mexico, and in 2005 Canada and
Mexico ranked first and second,
respectively, as destinations of U.S. live
cattle exports by value.5 In response to
strong domestic cattle price and trade
barriers related to bovine spongiform
encephalopathy and other diseases, U.S.
cattle exports declined significantly in
2003–2004, but they are now on the
rebound. The number of operations
engaged in the export of cattle is
unknown.
Under the rule, domestic cattle
producers wishing to export their
animals will no longer be required to
test for tuberculosis and brucellosis
prior to export when the importing
countries do not require such testing. As
such, the rule represents a reduction in
compliance costs currently associated
with export requirements for live cattle.
APHIS estimates the average cost of
tuberculosis testing for cattle ranges
from $10 to $12 per head. In addition,
APHIS estimates the cost of an official
herd blood test for brucellosis to be $3
per animal. If a producer located in a
State that is accredited-free for
tuberculosis and Class Free for
brucellosis exports cattle to a country
where pre-export testing requirements
have been removed, the cost savings
that the producer will capture as a result
of the change to the regulations will
depend on the number of animals
exported. Again, the exact number of
domestic producers whose operations
Agricultural Statistics 2005.
of Size Standards based on North
American Industry Classification System (NAICS)
2002. Beef Cattle Ranching and Farming: NAICS
code 112111, Dairy Cattle and Milk Production:
NAICS code 112120. Washington, DC: U.S. Small
Business Administration, effective January 5, 2006.
5 USDA–FAS, U.S. Trade Exports-FATUS
Commodity Aggregations. Washington, DC: Foreign
Agricultural Service. Based on data from the Dept.
of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade
Statistics.
PO 00000
3 USDA–NASS,
4 Table
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
40065
depend on the export of cattle is
unknown. However, given the average
per-head value of $916, the cost saved
by not having to test for tuberculosis
and brucellosis prior to export is not
expected to be economically significant,
as the combined cost of the tests
represents a small percentage of the perhead value of the cattle.
Under these circumstances, the
Administrator of the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service has
determined that this action will 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 final rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts
all State and local laws and regulations
that are in conflict with this rule; (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 no new
information collection or recordkeeping
requirements under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 91
Animal diseases, Animal welfare,
Exports, Livestock, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
I Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR
part 91 as follows:
PART 91—INSPECTION AND
HANDLING OF LIVESTOCK FOR
EXPORTATION
1. The authority citation for part 91
continues to read as follows:
I
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 19 U.S.C.
1644a(c); 21 U.S.C. 136, 136a, and 618; 46
U.S.C. 3901 and 3902; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and
371.4.
I 2. In § 91.1, the definition of official
brucellosis vaccinate is revised to read
as follows:
§ 91.1
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Official brucellosis vaccinate. An
official adult vaccinate or an official
E:\FR\FM\23JYR1.SGM
23JYR1
40066
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 140 / Monday, July 23, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
calfhood vaccinate as defined in § 78.1
of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section 91.5 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing the
word ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph
(a)(1)(i); by removing the citation ‘‘9
CFR 77.1’’ in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) and
adding the citation ‘‘§ 77.7 of this
chapter’’ in its place; by removing the
period at the end of paragraph (a)(1)(ii)
and adding a semicolon in its place; and
by adding new paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and
(a)(1)(iv) to read as set forth below.
I b. In paragraph (b)(1), by removing the
word ‘‘or’’ at the end of paragraph
(b)(1)(iv), by removing the period at the
end of paragraph (b)(1)(v) and adding a
semicolon in its place, and by adding
new paragraphs (b)(1)(vi) and (b)(1)(vii)
to read as set forth below.
NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND
SPACE ADMINISTRATION
with commercial firms-science and
technology.
14 CFR Parts 1260 and 1274
Sheryl Goddard,
Acting Assistant Administrator for
Procurement.
I
I
§ 91.5
Cattle.
*
*
*
*
*
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Cattle exported to a country that
does not require cattle from the United
States to be tested for tuberculosis as
described in this part; or
(iv) Cattle exported from a State
designated as an Accredited-free State
in § 77.7 of this chapter to a country that
does not require cattle from Accreditedfree States to be tested for tuberculosis
as described in this part.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) Cattle exported to a country that
does not require cattle from the United
States to be tested for brucellosis as
described in this part; or
(vii) Cattle exported from a State
designated as a Class Free State in
§ 78.41 of this chapter to a country that
does not require cattle from Class Free
States to be tested for brucellosis as
described in this part.
*
*
*
*
*
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with RULES
Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of
July 2007.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E7–14177 Filed 7–20–07; 8:45 am]
RIN 2700–AD34
NASA Grant and Cooperative
Agreement Handbook—Individual
Procurement Action Reports (NF 507)
National Aeronautics and
Space Administration.
ACTION: Final rule.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: This final rule amends NASA
regulations by removing from NASA
grant officers responsibility for
submitting Individual Procurement
Action Reports (NF 507) for all grant
and cooperative agreement actions. This
rule also removes the ‘‘Individual
Procurement Action Report (NASA
Form 507)’’.
EFFECTIVE DATE: July 23, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
Brundage, NASA Headquarters,
Contract Management Division,
Washington, DC, (202) 358–0481, email: paul.d.brundage@nasa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The NF 507 was rendered obsolete in
2003 and has been eliminated as a
NASA form. Thus, the requirement for
its submission by NASA grant officers
on all grant and cooperative agreement
actions is eliminated.
B. Regulatory Flexibility Act
Accordingly, 14 CFR Parts 1260 and
1274 are amended as follows:
I 1. The authority citation for 14 CFR
Parts 1260 and 1274 continues to read
as follows:
I
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 2473(c)(1), Pub. L. 97–
258, 96 Stat. 1003 (31 U.S.C. 6301, et seq.),
and OMB Circular A–110.
PART 1260—GRANTS AND
COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS
2. Revise paragraph (a) of § 1260.75 to
read as follows:
I
§ 1260.75 Summary of report
requirements.
(a) The Committee on Academic
Science and Engineering (CASE) Report
(NF 1356), for grants and cooperative
agreements awarded to educational
institutions, is submitted by the
program office with the basic award
procurement request and completed by
the grant officer. The grant officer
should initiate an amendment to the NF
1356 whenever the principal
investigator or the technical officer
changes.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 1274–COOPERATIVE
AGREEMENTS WITH COMMERCIAL
FIRMS
Appendix to Part 1274 [Amended]
The Regulatory Flexibility Act does
not apply to this final rule. This final
rule does not constitute a significant
revision within the meaning of Public
Law 98–577, and publication for public
comment is not required. However,
NASA will consider comments from
small entities concerning the affected
coverage in accordance with 5 U.S.C.
610. Interested parties should cite 5
U.S.C. 601, et seq., in correspondence.
C. Paperwork Reduction Act
3. In the appendix to part 1274, under
the section ‘‘Exhibit B to Part 1274—
Reports,’’ remove paragraph 1 and
redesignate paragraphs 2 and 3 as 1 and
2, respectively.
I
[FR Doc. E7–14135 Filed 7–20–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7510–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
Internal Revenue Service
The Paperwork Reduction Act (Pub.
L. 104–13) does not apply because this
rule does not impose any new
recordkeeping or information collection
requirements, or collection of
information from offerors, contractors,
or members of the public that require
the approval of the Office of
Management (OMB) and Budget under
44 U.S.C. 3501, et seq.
26 CFR Part 1
[TD 9343]
RIN 1545–BF30
Agent for a Consolidated Group With
Foreign Common Parent
List of Subjects in 14 CFR Parts 1260
and 1274
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:09 Jul 20, 2007
Jkt 211001
Internal Revenue Service (IRS),
Treasury.
ACTION: Final regulations and removal of
temporary regulations.
Grant programs-science and
technology, Cooperative agreements
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
SUMMARY: This document contains final
regulations under section 1502 that
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
AGENCY:
E:\FR\FM\23JYR1.SGM
23JYR1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 140 (Monday, July 23, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 40064-40066]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-14177]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 91
[Docket No. APHIS-2006-0147]
RIN 0579Z-AC26
Cattle for Export; Removal of Certain Testing Requirements
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are amending the livestock exportation regulations to
eliminate the requirement for pre-export tuberculosis and brucellosis
testing of certain cattle being exported to countries that do not
require such testing. This action will facilitate the exportation of
certain cattle by eliminating the need to conduct pre-export
tuberculosis and brucellosis testing when the receiving country does
not require such testing.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 22, 2007.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Antonio Ramirez, Senior Staff
Veterinarian, Technical Trade Services, National Center for Import and
Export, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 40, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301) 734-8364.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in 9 CFR part 91, ``Inspection and Handling of
Livestock for Exportation'' (referred to below as the regulations),
prescribe conditions for exporting animals from the United States.
Section 91.5 requires, among other things, that cattle intended for
exportation be tested for tuberculosis and brucellosis prior to export.
On January 10, 2007, we published in the Federal Register (72 FR
1192-1195, Docket No. APHIS-2006-0147) a proposal \1\ to amend the
regulations by eliminating the requirement for pre-export tuberculosis
and brucellosis testing of certain cattle being exported to countries
that do not require such testing. Under its Restricted Feeder Cattle
Program, Canada allows the importation of certain U.S. cattle without
testing for tuberculosis and brucellosis, but our regulations required
that these cattle be tested for these diseases. Thus, the proposal was
intended both to relieve restrictions on U.S. cattle that are exported
to Canada under this program and to ensure that, if other countries
receiving exports of U.S. cattle suspend or remove their requirements
that U.S. cattle be tested for tuberculosis or brucellosis, U.S.
exporters of cattle would receive the full benefits of no longer being
required to perform such tests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ To view the proposed rule and the comments we received, go
to https://www.regulations.gov/fdmspublic/component/
main?main=DocketDetail&d=APHIS-2006-0147.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We solicited comments concerning our proposal for 60 days ending
March 12, 2007. We received 8 comments by that date. They were from
producers, exporters, and other private citizens. Two of the comments
were entirely supportive. The remaining comments are discussed below.
One commenter stated that it is the United States' responsibility
to protect the health and welfare of the people of foreign nations and
that testing cattle exported from the United States would help to
accomplish this goal.
We proposed to remove the testing requirement for exported cattle
only when testing is not required by the receiving country. Thus, a
country receiving U.S. cattle would have to determine that waiving any
tuberculosis and brucellosis testing requirements for U.S. cattle would
not be detrimental to its citizens' health and welfare before we would
allow any cattle to be exported to that country without testing.
One commenter opposed the proposal on the grounds that the existing
exemptions to the testing requirements in the regulations are adequate.
As we discussed in the proposed rule, we do not believe that the
current exemptions are adequate. For example, cattle exported to Canada
under the Restricted Feeder Cattle Program are still required under our
regulations to be tested for tuberculosis and brucellosis, even though
Canada does not require such testing. Paragraph (b) of Sec. 91.3
states that the Administrator may, upon request of the appropriate
animal health official of the country of destination, waive the
tuberculosis and brucellosis tests referred to in Sec. Sec. 91.5(a)
and (b) of the regulations when he finds such tests are not necessary
to prevent the exportation of diseased animals from the United States.
However, this provision does not allow us to relieve the testing
requirement for cattle exported under the Restricted Feeder Cattle
Program, as Canadian animal health officials would have to request each
time cattle are exported that the brucellosis and tuberculosis tests
not be administered. A more general exemption from the testing
requirement is necessary to cover all situations in which U.S. cattle
may be exported to countries that do not require them to be tested for
tuberculosis or brucellosis.
One commenter stated that the testing of cattle at export for
tuberculosis and brucellosis is done only to increase agricultural
profits. This commenter also stated that no cattle should be exported.
APHIS tests cattle upon export to help prevent the spread of
disease and to facilitate exports in accordance with our
responsibilities under the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8301
et seq.). We have no statutory authority to regulate the movement of
livestock except as it relates to preventing the introduction or spread
of animal diseases.
One commenter asked that we relieve testing restrictions for cattle
exported to Mexico as well.
The testing requirement will be relived for exports of cattle to
any country that does not require testing of cattle for tuberculosis
and brucellosis when they are exported from the United States.
Negotiations with other countries to establish export agreements under
which testing for tuberculosis and brucellosis is not required will be
conducted separately. Once we have
[[Page 40065]]
established such an agreement with a country, however, any cattle
exported from the United States in compliance with such an agreement
could be exported without testing for one or both of these diseases,
depending on the terms of the agreement.
Two commenters asked that we relieve the testing requirements for
additional types of exported animals when testing is not required by
the receiving country. One commenter requested that we apply the
exemption to goats and swine, noting that these animals typically have
lower per-head values than cattle, which would mean that the positive
economic impact associated with exempting those animals from testing
would be even greater for producers and exporters of those animals.
Another commenter asked that testing requirements be relieved for sheep
as well.
We agree that it would be desirable to relieve the testing
restrictions for additional types of animals, where possible. However,
removing the testing requirements for other species involves different
risks that would need to be considered separately. We will continue to
look for opportunities to further relieve testing requirements and, if
removing testing requirements for other animals is warranted, we will
issue a separate proposal to do so.
Therefore, for the reasons given in the proposed rule and in this
document, we are adopting the proposed rule as a final rule, without
change.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This 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 final rule removes the requirement that cattle destined for
export must be tested for brucellosis and tuberculosis prior to export
in any case in which such testing is not required by the receiving
country for cattle originating in the United States or any State
therein.
The rule will affect domestic producers of cattle, specifically
those engaged in the export of animals. In 2005, there were 982,510
cattle operations in the United States.\2\ On January 1, 2005, domestic
inventory of cattle and calves totaled over 95.8 million, with an
average per head value of $916, and a total value of production of over
$87.8 billion.\3\ Under U.S. Small Business Administration's (SBA) size
standards, operations engaged in cattle ranching or production (both
beef and dairy) are considered small if they earn $750,000 or less in
annual receipts.\4\ According to the USDA's National Agricultural
Statistics Service, approximately 953,390, or 97 percent, of the
982,510 cattle operations in the United States are holding fewer than
500 head of cattle. As such, we would assume that the overwhelming
majority of domestic cattle operations would be considered small by SBA
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ USDA-NASS, Quick Stats U.S. & All States Data. Washington,
DC: National Agricultural Statistics Service, 2006.
\3\ USDA-NASS, Agricultural Statistics 2005.
\4\ Table of Size Standards based on North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) 2002. Beef Cattle Ranching and
Farming: NAICS code 112111, Dairy Cattle and Milk Production: NAICS
code 112120. Washington, DC: U.S. Small Business Administration,
effective January 5, 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Only those operations engaged in the export of their animals will
be affected by this rule. In 2005, the United States exported 21,155
live cattle, with a total value of over $7.2 million. Our primary
trading partners historically are Canada and Mexico, and in 2005 Canada
and Mexico ranked first and second, respectively, as destinations of
U.S. live cattle exports by value.\5\ In response to strong domestic
cattle price and trade barriers related to bovine spongiform
encephalopathy and other diseases, U.S. cattle exports declined
significantly in 2003-2004, but they are now on the rebound. The number
of operations engaged in the export of cattle is unknown.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ USDA-FAS, U.S. Trade Exports-FATUS Commodity Aggregations.
Washington, DC: Foreign Agricultural Service. Based on data from the
Dept. of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau, Foreign Trade Statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the rule, domestic cattle producers wishing to export their
animals will no longer be required to test for tuberculosis and
brucellosis prior to export when the importing countries do not require
such testing. As such, the rule represents a reduction in compliance
costs currently associated with export requirements for live cattle.
APHIS estimates the average cost of tuberculosis testing for cattle
ranges from $10 to $12 per head. In addition, APHIS estimates the cost
of an official herd blood test for brucellosis to be $3 per animal. If
a producer located in a State that is accredited-free for tuberculosis
and Class Free for brucellosis exports cattle to a country where pre-
export testing requirements have been removed, the cost savings that
the producer will capture as a result of the change to the regulations
will depend on the number of animals exported. Again, the exact number
of domestic producers whose operations depend on the export of cattle
is unknown. However, given the average per-head value of $916, the cost
saved by not having to test for tuberculosis and brucellosis prior to
export is not expected to be economically significant, as the combined
cost of the tests represents a small percentage of the per-head value
of the cattle.
Under these circumstances, the Administrator of the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service has determined that this action will
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 final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. This rule: (1) Preempts all State and local laws
and regulations that are in conflict with this rule; (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 no new information collection or
recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 91
Animal diseases, Animal welfare, Exports, Livestock, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
0
Accordingly, we are amending 9 CFR part 91 as follows:
PART 91--INSPECTION AND HANDLING OF LIVESTOCK FOR EXPORTATION
0
1. The authority citation for part 91 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 19 U.S.C. 1644a(c); 21 U.S.C.
136, 136a, and 618; 46 U.S.C. 3901 and 3902; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and
371.4.
0
2. In Sec. 91.1, the definition of official brucellosis vaccinate is
revised to read as follows:
Sec. 91.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
Official brucellosis vaccinate. An official adult vaccinate or an
official
[[Page 40066]]
calfhood vaccinate as defined in Sec. 78.1 of this chapter.
* * * * *
0
3. Section 91.5 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a)(1), by removing the word ``or'' at the end of
paragraph (a)(1)(i); by removing the citation ``9 CFR 77.1'' in
paragraph (a)(1)(ii) and adding the citation ``Sec. 77.7 of this
chapter'' in its place; by removing the period at the end of paragraph
(a)(1)(ii) and adding a semicolon in its place; and by adding new
paragraphs (a)(1)(iii) and (a)(1)(iv) to read as set forth below.
0
b. In paragraph (b)(1), by removing the word ``or'' at the end of
paragraph (b)(1)(iv), by removing the period at the end of paragraph
(b)(1)(v) and adding a semicolon in its place, and by adding new
paragraphs (b)(1)(vi) and (b)(1)(vii) to read as set forth below.
Sec. 91.5 Cattle.
* * * * *
(a) * * *
(1) * * *
(iii) Cattle exported to a country that does not require cattle
from the United States to be tested for tuberculosis as described in
this part; or
(iv) Cattle exported from a State designated as an Accredited-free
State in Sec. 77.7 of this chapter to a country that does not require
cattle from Accredited-free States to be tested for tuberculosis as
described in this part.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(vi) Cattle exported to a country that does not require cattle from
the United States to be tested for brucellosis as described in this
part; or
(vii) Cattle exported from a State designated as a Class Free State
in Sec. 78.41 of this chapter to a country that does not require
cattle from Class Free States to be tested for brucellosis as described
in this part.
* * * * *
Done in Washington, DC, this 18th day of July 2007.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E7-14177 Filed 7-20-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
