Commercial Transportation of Equines to Slaughter, 62798-62802 [E7-21896]
Download as PDF
62798
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 72, No. 215
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
9 CFR Part 88
[Docket No. APHIS–2006–0168]
RIN 0579–AC49
Commercial Transportation of Equines
to Slaughter
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend
the regulations regarding the
commercial transportation of equines to
slaughter to add a definition of equine
for slaughter and make other changes
that will extend the protections afforded
by the regulations to equines bound for
slaughter but delivered first to an
assembly point, feedlot, or stockyard.
This action would further ensure the
humane treatment of such equines by
helping to ensure that the unique and
special needs of equines in commercial
transportation to slaughter are met.
DATES: We will consider all comments
that we receive on or before January 7,
2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov, select
‘‘Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service’’ from the agency drop-down
menu, then click ‘‘Submit.’’ In the
Docket ID column, select APHIS–2006–
0168 to submit or view public
comments and to view supporting and
related materials available
electronically. Information on using
Regulations.gov, including instructions
for accessing documents, submitting
comments, and viewing the docket after
the close of the comment period, is
available through the site’s ‘‘User Tips’’
link.
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:
Please send four copies of your
comment (an original and three copies)
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:58 Nov 06, 2007
Jkt 214001
to Docket No. APHIS–2006–0168,
Regulatory Analysis and Development,
PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700
River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD
20737–1238. Please state that your
comment refers to Docket No. APHIS–
2006–0168.
Reading Room: You may read any
comments that we receive on this
docket in our reading room. The reading
room is located in room 1141 of the
USDA South Building, 14th Street and
Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC. Normal reading room
hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday
through Friday, except holidays. To be
sure someone is there to help you,
please call (202) 690–2817 before
coming.
Other Information: Additional
information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at
https://www.aphis.usda.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Timothy Cordes, Senior Staff
Veterinarian, Equine Programs, National
Center for Animal Health Programs, VS,
APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 46,
Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734–
3279.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 7, 2001, we published
in the Federal Register (66 FR 63588–
63617, Docket No. 98–074–2) a final
rule that established regulations
concerning the commercial
transportation of equines for slaughter.
That rulemaking was initiated under the
provisions of the Federal Agriculture
Improvement and Reform Act of 1996
(the Act), in which Congress,
recognizing that equines being
transported to slaughter have unique
and special needs, authorized the
Secretary of Agriculture to issue
guidelines for the regulation of the
commercial transportation of equines
for slaughter by persons regularly
engaged in that activity in the United
States (see 7 U.S.C. 1901 note).
The regulations in 9 CFR part 88 (the
regulations) contain minimum
standards to ensure the humane
movement of equines for slaughter via
commercial transportation. The
regulations cover, among other things,
the food, water, and rest provided to
such equines prior to their
transportation to slaughter, standards
for conveyances used to transport
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
equines to slaughter, and certain
paperwork required to accompany
equines during such transportation. The
regulations also require the owner/
shipper of the equines to take certain
actions to ensure the safety and humane
treatment of equines during loading and
transportation for slaughter, including
seeking immediate assistance from an
equine veterinarian for any equine in
obvious physical distress. In addition,
the regulations prohibit the commercial
transportation to slaughtering facilities
of equines considered to be unfit for
travel, the use of electric prods on
equines in commercial transportation to
slaughter, and, after December 7, 2006,
the use of double-deck trailers for
commercial transportation of equines to
slaughtering facilities.
The Act defines ‘‘equine for
slaughter’’ as ‘‘any member of the
Equidae family being transferred to a
slaughter facility, including an assembly
point, feedlot, or stockyard.’’ The
regulations in 9 CFR part 88 apply to
equines moved in commercial
transportation to slaughtering
establishments but not to equines bound
for slaughter but moved first to an
assembly point, feedlot or stockyard.
When the regulations were established
in 2001, we believed that equines
transported to slaughtering
establishments were at high risk of
being treated inhumanely, and that
equines transported to assembly points,
feedlots, or stockyards were likely to be
treated well, either to bring more money
at slaughter or to be sold for other
purposes. Five years later, it appears
that equines in commercial
transportation to slaughtering facilities,
specifically, are being treated humanely,
in accordance with the regulations.
As the regulations are written,
equines sold as slaughter horses may be
transported first to an assembly point,
for example, in a double-deck trailer
and without any of the other protections
afforded by the regulations, such as
receiving adequate water and food prior
to loading. We believe that equines may
be delivered to these intermediate
points en route to slaughter for the sole
purpose of avoiding compliance with
the regulations. In particular, since
December 7, 2006, when the regulations
no longer allowed double-deck trailers
to transport equines to slaughtering
facilities, truckers who wish to continue
using double-deck trailers for slaughter
E:\FR\FM\07NOP1.SGM
07NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
horses have an incentive to transport
them to assembly points, feedlots, or
stockyards, where the horses could then
be reloaded onto straight-deck trailers
for the final leg of the trip to the
slaughtering plant. We have received
numerous reports of this situation
occurring. Given these developments, it
now appears that equines that are bound
for slaughter but are delivered first to an
assembly point, feedlot, or stockyard are
at higher risk for inhumane treatment.
To close this loophole, we are
proposing to amend the regulations to
add a definition for the term equine for
slaughter to read ‘‘any member of the
Equidae family being transferred to a
slaughter facility, including an assembly
point, feedlot, or stockyard.’’ We also
propose to amend § 88.2(b), § 88.3(a)
introductory text, § 88.3(b), § 88.4(a)
introductory text, and § 88.4(b)(4), (c),
(d), and (e) by replacing the words
‘‘equines to a slaughtering facility’’,
‘‘equines to slaughtering facilities’’,
‘‘equines in commercial transportation
to slaughtering facilities’’, ‘‘equine to
the slaughtering facility’’, and ‘‘equines
in commercial transportation to a
slaughtering facility’’ with the term
‘‘equines for slaughter’’. Lastly, we are
proposing to amend § 88.4(b)
introductory text by replacing the words
‘‘transit to the slaughtering facility’’
with the words ‘‘commercial
transportation of equines for slaughter’’.
We would consider equines delivered
to an assembly point, feedlot, or
stockyard to be equines for slaughter
and subject to the regulations unless the
owner/shipper presents an official
certificate of veterinary inspection and
the original copy of a negative equine
infectious anemia test chart, or other
documents that indicate the names and
addresses of the consigner, consignee,
owner, and examining veterinarian for
any equine being shipped, as evidence
that the equines are not equines for
slaughter.
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.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA)
requires agencies to evaluate the
potential effects of their rules on small
entities. The analysis that follows
represents an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis in accordance with
the requirements of the RFA. Because
data on the commercial transport of
equines to intermediate points en route
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:58 Nov 06, 2007
Jkt 214001
to slaughter is sparse at best, we were
not able to conduct a comprehensive
analysis of the proposed rule’s potential
economic impact. Accordingly, we
welcome public comment that would
enable us to more fully assess the
proposal’s impact. We are particularly
interested in public comment on the
impact of the ban on double-deck
trailers for use in transporting equines
for slaughter.
APHIS’s regulations in 9 CFR part 88
are designed to help ensure the humane
commercial transport of equines to
slaughter. Specifically, the regulations
require that:
• For a period of not less than 6
consecutive hours immediately prior to
the equines being loaded on the
conveyance for transport, each equine
be provided access to food and water
and the opportunity to rest;
• Any equine that has been on the
conveyance for 28 consecutive hours or
more without food, water, and the
opportunity to rest be offloaded and, for
at least 6 consecutive hours, provided
with food, water, and the opportunity to
rest;
• Each equine be provided with
enough space on the conveyance to
ensure that no animal is crowded in a
way likely to cause injury or discomfort;
• Stallions and other aggressive
equines be segregated from each other
and all other equines on the
conveyance;
• Electric prods be used only in lifethreatening situations; and
• An owner-shipper certificate be
completed for each equine prior to
departing for the slaughtering facility.
Among other things, the certificate must
certify the equine’s fitness to travel and
note any special care and handling
needs during transit.1
At present, the regulations apply only
to equines moved directly to
slaughtering establishments, and not to
equines bound for slaughter but moved
first to an assembly point, feedlot, or
stockyard. This proposed rule would
amend the regulations to make equines
delivered to intermediate points en
route to slaughter subject to the same
regulations as those moved directly to
slaughtering establishments. This
proposed rule is intended to ensure the
humane treatment of equines delivered
to intermediate points en route to
slaughter.
1 An equine is considered fit to travel if it: (1) Can
bear weight on all four limbs; (2) can walk
unassisted; (3) is not blind in both eyes; (4) is older
than 6 months of age; and (5) is not likely to give
birth in transit. The owner or commercial shipper
must sign the certificate, and it must accompany the
equine to the slaughtering facility.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62799
Equines are generally slaughtered for
their meat, which is sold for human
consumption, primarily outside the
United States.2 In 2005, the United
States exported 39.5 million pounds of
horse, ass, and mule meat, with a value
of $61.1 million. Of the total volume
exported in 2005, 35.3 million pounds,
or 89 percent, was shipped to five
countries (Belgium, France, Mexico,
Russia, and Switzerland).3
From 2003 through 2005, an average
of 70,094 equines were slaughtered
annually in federally inspected U.S.
slaughtering facilities.4 During that
period, and at the time this analysis was
prepared, there were three slaughtering
facilities that accepted equines in the
continental United States: Two were
located in Texas and one in Illinois.
However, following a Federal appeals
court ruling, the two facilities in Texas
are now closed. Following an
unsuccessful challenge to a State law to
stay open, the Illinois facility is also
closed.
APHIS estimates that there are no
more than 100 entities in the U.S.
currently involved in the commercial
transportation of equines to slaughter.
As discussed below, the transport of
slaughter equines to intermediate points
is not uncommon. Based on the average
number of equines slaughtered in the
United States each year between 2003
and 2005 (approximately 70,000) and on
the estimated number of potentially
affected shippers (approximately 100),
the average number of equines
transported annually per shipper is 700.
Economic Effects on Owners and
Commercial Shippers
The ‘‘path’’ from source supplier
(farmer, rancher, pet owner, etc.) to
slaughtering facility can vary. However,
the most common scenario and the one
used for the purpose of this analysis is
as follows: The source suppliers
transport their equines to local auction
markets, where the equines are sold to
persons who purchase the equines for
the specific purposes of selling them to
a slaughtering facility. (Hereafter, for the
purposes of this initial regulatory
flexibility analysis, we will refer to
persons who sell equines for slaughter
as ‘‘owners’’; however, in some cases,
the owners use agents to conduct some
aspect of the business of purchasing
equines and transporting and selling
them to slaughtering facilities. We will
use the term ‘‘owner’’ to refer to either
2 Horses account for almost all equines
slaughtered in the United States.
3 Source: World Trade Atlas (U.S. Census
Bureau).
4 Source: USDA (NASS), Livestock Slaughter
Summary (2003, 2004, 2005).
E:\FR\FM\07NOP1.SGM
07NOP1
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
62800
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
the actual owners or their agents.) The
owners consider price lists published by
the slaughtering facilities for equines
(the price varies in relation to the
weight of the equine and the quality of
the meat), transportation costs, and
profit requirements to establish the
maximum prices that they will pay for
equines at local auctions. Because the
owners cannot usually purchase enough
slaughter-quality equines at any one
auction to make it economically feasible
to ship the animals directly from the
auction site to the slaughtering facility,
the owners transport the equines back to
their own farms or feedlots where the
equines are kept until such time as the
owners can accumulate more equines
from other auctions. When enough
equines have been accumulated to
comprise a shipment, the owners
transport the equines to the slaughtering
facility. In an estimated 75 percent of
cases, owners hire commercial shippers
to move the equines to the slaughtering
facilities; in the remaining estimated 25
percent of cases, owners transport the
equines to slaughter in their own
conveyances.
Based on the slaughter scenario
described above, this proposed rule has
the potential to economically affect
owners who purchase equines at local
auction markets and then transport the
animals to their farms, feedlots, or other
assembly points prior to shipping them
on to slaughter. (The owners’ farms and
feedlots are intermediate stops en route
to slaughter.) However, the proposed
rule also has the potential to affect
owners and commercial shippers who
transport equines from the owners’
farms or feedlots to assembly points,
feedlots, and stockyards prior to the
animals’ final delivery to a slaughtering
facility. We are aware that such
transport to intermediate points
between the owner’s farms or feedlots
and the slaughtering facility occurs but
we do not know the extent of that
transport. However, we have no reason
to believe it is significant.
The proposed rule is likely to have
little or no impact on most owners who
transport equines from local auction
markets to their farms or feedlots. There
are several reasons. First, equines sold
for slaughter at auctions usually have
access to food, water, and rest for at
least 6 hours prior to being transported
to the owners’ farms and feedlots.
Sellers at auction markets have an
incentive to provide equines with food
and water because malnourished
equines have a reduced slaughter value.
Furthermore, most slaughter equines
tend to be in their pens at auction
markets for at least 6 hours, since it
usually takes at least that long for them
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:58 Nov 06, 2007
Jkt 214001
to be sold. Indeed, it is not uncommon
for slaughter horses to be sold at the end
of an auction session, after the saddle
horses are sold. The requirement that
equines have access to food, water, and
rest for at least 6 consecutive hours
immediately prior to the animals being
loaded on the conveyance should not be
a problem for owners who transport
equines from auction sites.
Second, owners typically purchase
equines at auction markets that are in
relatively close proximity to their farms
and feedlots. It is unlikely, therefore,
that equines acquired at auctions will
have to be offloaded for feeding, rest,
etc., while en route to the owners’ farms
or feedlots, since it is unlikely that the
trip will take longer than 28 hours.
Third, the proposed rule would
require that, during transport to
intermediate points, equines be
provided with enough space to ensure
that they are not crowded in a way that
is likely to cause injury or discomfort.
The proposed rule would specifically
ban the use of double-deck trailers for
such transport, as those types of
conveyances are a source of animal
injury and discomfort. However, owners
who transport equines from local
auction markets to their farms or
feedlots generally do not do so using
double-deck trailers. The transport to
owner farms and feedlots almost always
occurs in smaller capacity conveyances,
such as straight-deck and goose-neck
trailers.5 That owners transport the
animals back to their own farms or
feedlots (rather than to slaughtering
facilities directly) only because they
cannot purchase enough slaughterquality equines at any one auction is, in
itself, an indication that they have no
need for the higher capacity doubledeck trailers for such transport.
Although overcrowding can also occur
in single-deck (also called straight-deck)
trailers, there is no evidence to suggest
that it is an issue for owners who pick
up slaughter equines at auction markets.
Fourth, the restriction on the use of
electric prods should not pose a burden
because effective, low-cost substitutes
are available for use in non-lifethreatening situations. For example,
fiberglass poles with flags attached,
which cost no more than about $10
each, are considered to be an effective
alternative to electric prods. (Any
current use of electric prods by
transporters of slaughter equines
probably derives from the traditional
5 Double-deck livestock trailers can carry up to
about 45 equines each; single-deck trailers can carry
up to about 38 equines each. Prior to the ban that
became effective December 8, 2006, double-deck
trailers were most often used for transporting
equines to slaughter facilities.
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
use of these devices to assist in moving
other livestock, such as cattle and
swine.)
Finally, available data suggest that the
segregation of stallions and other
aggressive equines is already a common
transport practice. Owners have an
incentive to make sure that aggressive
equines are segregated because equines
that arrive at the slaughtering facilities
injured as the result of biting and
kicking en route command lower market
values. Furthermore, relatively few
stallions are transported for slaughter.
USDA personnel stationed at two of the
slaughtering facilities have estimated
that no more than about 5 percent of
equines arriving for slaughter are
stallions. Accordingly, the requirement
that stallions and other aggressive
equines be segregated during transport
to slaughter is not likely to have a
significant economic effect on owners
who pick up equines at various auction
markets.
As indicated above, the proposed rule
also has the potential to affect owners
and commercial shippers who transport
equines from the owner’s farms or
feedlots to assembly points, feedlots,
and stockyards prior to the animals’
final delivery to a slaughtering facility.
These entities are more likely to be
affected by the proposed rule than
owners who transport equines from
auction markets to their farms and
feedlots only, because they are more
likely to be using double-deck trailers.
(This is because equines are typically
moved from owners’ farms and feedlots
only when enough equines have been
accumulated to comprise a full
shipment, a situation which is likely to
foster use of the higher-capacity doubledeck trailers.) Nonetheless, we believe
that owners and commercial shippers
who transport equines from owners’
farms or feedlots to intermediate points
prior to the animals’ final delivery to a
slaughtering facility are likely to be in
compliance with most parts of the
proposed rule.
Nor should the ‘‘28-hour’’ rule pose a
problem for the vast majority of owners
and commercial shippers who transport
equines from owners’ farms or feedlots
to intermediate points prior to the
animals’ final shipment to a
slaughtering facility. Even in a worstcase scenario in terms of travel distance
(i.e., equines transported from farms or
feedlots on the east or west coasts to
border crossing points in closest
proximity to the slaughtering facilities
in Mexico, which are all located in the
central part of the United States), the
overwhelming majority of trips should
take less than 28 hours. Assuming an
average highway speed of 55 mph and
E:\FR\FM\07NOP1.SGM
07NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
two different drivers, and allowing 1.5
hours for loading and 2 hours for
refueling and meal stops, even a trip as
long as 1,300 miles would take only
about 27 hours.6
Double-deck trailers can carry more
equines than single-deck trailers, and
owners and shippers who are using the
former will be affected by the reduction
in the number of equines that could be
transported in a single conveyance.
However, for affected owners and
commercial shippers, the ban on
double-deck trailers is likely to be
mitigated by several factors. First,
commercial shippers can use their
double-deck trailers to transport other
livestock and produce. In this regard, it
has been estimated that double-deck
trailers in general carry equines no more
than about 10 percent of the time they
are in use. Second, owners who cannot
find another use for the double-deck
trailers can trade them for single-deck
trailers. Owners should be able to sell
their serviceable trailers at fair market
value to transporters of commodities
other than equines.
In conclusion, we believe that most
transporters to intermediate points are
already in compliance with most or all
of the proposed rule’s requirements.
Those that are not now in compliance
are likely to be owners and commercial
shippers who transport equines from
owners’ farms or feedlots to
intermediate points prior to the animals’
final delivery to a slaughtering facility,
since their load volume fosters the use
of the higher capacity double-deck
trailers. While we know that transport to
intermediate points between the
owners’ farms or feedlots and the
slaughtering facility occurs, we do not
believe it is at a level that this proposed
rule would result in any significant
economic impacts.
Impact on Horse Slaughtering Facilities
The proposed rule also has the
potential to economically affect the
horse slaughtering facilities, to the
extent that it could negatively affect the
supply of slaughter horses. As indicated
above, there are currently no horse
slaughtering facilities operating in the
United States, however, the possibility
exists that such facilities could open in
the future. As a result of the ban on
double-deck trailers, for example, fewer
transporters may be willing to haul
slaughter horses, and those that are
willing will have to do it in smaller
6 It is common transport practice to use two
different drivers on long trips. This practice allows
the equines to be transported virtually nonstop
because one person can drive while the other rests,
thereby avoiding federally mandated rest periods
that apply in a single-driver situation.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:58 Nov 06, 2007
Jkt 214001
capacity single-deck trailers. A decline
in supply has implications for the
slaughtering facility since it may lead to
an increase in the price they pay to
acquire horses. Nevertheless, as
indicated above, we believe that most
transporters to intermediate points are
already in compliance with most or all
of the proposed rule’s requirements,
including the prohibition on doubledeck trailers.
Impact on Small Entities
As indicated above, it is estimated
that no more than about 100 entities are
potentially affected by the proposed
rule, most of whom are equine owners
and commercial shippers. Although we
do not have specific information on the
annual receipts of these entities, it is
reasonable to assume that most are
small by U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) standards. This
assumption is based on composite data
for providers of the same and similar
services in the United States. In 2002,
the most recent year for which data is
available, there were 44,933 U.S.
establishments in North American
Industry Classification System (NAICS)
categories 48422 and 48423, which
comprise firms primarily engaged in
specialized freight trucking, including
the transportation of livestock. The perestablishment average gross receipts for
all 44,933 establishments that year was
$0.9 million, well below the SBA’s
small-entity threshold of $23.5 million.
Similarly, in 2002, there were 1,048 U.S.
establishments in NAICS 42459, a
classification category that includes
horse dealers. For all 1,048
establishments, the per-establishment
average number of employees that year
was 7, well below the SBA’s smallentity threshold of 100 employees for
those firms.7
APHIS has not identified any
duplication, overlap, or conflict of this
proposed rule with other Federal rules.
Alternatives
In developing the current regulations,
APHIS opted for a number of
alternatives designed to lessen the
economic effects of the regulations on
affected small entities, including a
deferral, for 5 years, of the effective date
for the prohibition on double-deck
trailers.8 The ban on double-deck
7 Source: SBA and U.S. Census Bureau (2002
Economic Census).
8 The final rule published in 2001 noted that a 5year deferral allows slaughter facilities time to
respond to the expected decline in the number of
transporters willing to haul horses to slaughter,
including time to budget and to arrange for
financing of equipment they may need to acquire
if they must haul horses on their own because
commercial shippers and owners will not.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
62801
trailers under the current regulations
took effect December 8, 2006, which
means that owner-shippers that
currently use double-deck trailers to
transport equines to intermediate points
would face a ban on the use of those
trailers under the proposed rule.
Public comment on the proposed
rule’s economic impact is invited,
especially comment on any impact for
small entities stemming from
prohibition on the use of double-deck
trailers to move equines to intermediate
points, such as stockyards and feedlots,
before moving them to a slaughter
facility.
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
In accordance with section 3507(j) of
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information
collection and recordkeeping
requirements included in this proposed
rule have been submitted for approval to
the Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). Please send written comments
to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention:
Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC
20503. Please state that your comments
refer to Docket No. APHIS–2006–0168.
Please send a copy of your comments to:
(1) Docket No. APHIS–2006–0168,
Regulatory Analysis and Development,
PPD, APHIS, Station 3A–03.8, 4700
River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD
20737–1238, and (2) Clearance Officer,
OCIO, USDA, room 404–W, 14th Street
and Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC 20250. A comment to
OMB is best assured of having its full
effect if OMB receives it within 30 days
of publication of this proposed rule.
This proposed rule would amend the
regulations in 9 CFR part 88 to provide
for the humane treatment of equines en
route to slaughter facilities through
intermediate points. We are soliciting
E:\FR\FM\07NOP1.SGM
07NOP1
62802
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 / Proposed Rules
pwalker on PROD1PC71 with PROPOSALS
comments from the public (as well as
affected agencies) concerning our
information collection and
recordkeeping requirements. These
comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the information
collection is necessary for the proper
performance of our agency’s functions,
including whether the information will
have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our
estimate of the burden of the
information collection, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the
information collection on those who are
to respond (such as through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses).
Estimate of burden: Public reporting
burden for this collection of information
is estimated to average 0.834960937
hours per response.
Respondents: Owners and shippers of
slaughter horses and drivers of vehicles
of equines for slaughter.
Estimated annual number of
respondents: 130.
Estimated annual number of
responses per respondent: 39.38461538.
Estimated annual number of
responses: 5,120.
Estimated total annual burden on
respondents: 4,275 hours. (Due to
averaging, the total annual burden hours
may not equal the product of the annual
number of responses multiplied by the
reporting burden per response.)
Copies of this information collection
can be obtained from Mrs. Celeste
Sickles, APHIS’ Information Collection
Coordinator, at (301) 734–7477.
E-Government Act Compliance
The Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service is committed to
compliance with the E-Government Act
to promote the use of the Internet and
other information technologies, to
provide increased opportunities for
citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other
purposes. For information pertinent to
E-Government Act compliance related
to this proposed rule, please contact
Mrs. Celeste Sickles, APHIS’
Information Collection Coordinator, at
(301) 734–7477.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 88
Animal welfare, Horses, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
15:58 Nov 06, 2007
Jkt 214001
Accordingly, we are proposing to
amend 9 CFR part 88 as follows:
PART 88—COMMERCIAL
TRANSPORTATION OF EQUINES FOR
SLAUGHTER
1. The authority citation for part 88
continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1901, 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80,
371.4.
2. Section 88.1 is amended by adding,
in alphabetical order, a new definition
for equine for slaughter to read as
follows:
§ 88.1
Definitions.
words ‘‘equines for slaughter’’ in their
place.
f. In paragraphs (d) and (e), by
removing the words ‘‘equines to a
slaughtering facility’’ and adding the
words ‘‘equines for slaughter’’ in their
place.
Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of
November 2007.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E7–21896 Filed 11–6–07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
*
*
*
*
Equine for slaughter. Any member of
the Equidae family being transferred to
a slaughter facility, including an
assembly point, feedlot, or stockyard.
*
*
*
*
*
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
§ 88.2
RIN 2120–AA64
*
[Amended]
3. In § 88.2, paragraph (b) is amended
by removing the words ‘‘equines to a
slaughtering facility’’ and adding the
words ‘‘equines for slaughter’’ in their
place.
§ 88.3
[Amended]
4. Section 88.3 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (a), introductory text,
by removing the words ‘‘equines to
slaughtering facilities’’ and adding the
words ‘‘equines for slaughter’’ in their
place.
b. In paragraph (b), by removing the
words ‘‘Equines in commercial
transportation to slaughtering facilities’’
and adding the words ‘‘Equines for
slaughter’’ in their place.
§ 88.4
[Amended]
5. Section 88.4 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (a), introductory text,
by removing the words ‘‘equines to a
slaughtering facility’’ and adding the
words ‘‘equines for slaughter’’ in their
place.
b. In paragraph (a)(3), by removing the
words ‘‘transit to the slaughtering
facility’’ and adding the words
‘‘throughout transit to slaughter’’ in
their place.
c. In paragraph (b), introductory text,
by removing the words ‘‘transit to the
slaughtering facility’’ and adding the
words ‘‘commercial transportation of
equines for slaughter’’ in their place.
d. In paragraph (b)(4), by removing
the words ‘‘equine to the slaughtering
facility’’ and adding the words ‘‘equines
for slaughter’’ in their place.
e. In paragraph (c), by removing the
words ‘‘equines in commercial
transportation to a slaughtering facility’’
both times they occur and adding the
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Federal Aviation Administration
14 CFR Part 39
[Docket No. FAA–2007–0163; Directorate
Identifier 2007–NM–046–AD]
Airworthiness Directives; Boeing
Model 737–300, –400, –500, –600, –700,
–700C, –800, and –900 Series Airplanes
Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA), Department of
Transportation (DOT).
ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking
(NPRM).
AGENCY:
SUMMARY: The FAA proposes to adopt a
new airworthiness directive (AD) for
certain Boeing Model 737–300, –400,
–500, –600, –700, –700C, –800, and
–900 series airplanes. This proposed AD
would require installing a new circuit
breaker, relays, and wiring to allow the
flightcrew to turn off electrical power to
the in-flight entertainment (IFE) systems
and other non-essential electrical
systems through a switch in the flight
compartment, and doing other specified
actions. This proposed AD results from
an IFE systems review. We are
proposing this AD to ensure that the
flightcrew is able to turn off electrical
power to IFE systems and other nonessential electrical systems through a
switch in the flight compartment. The
flightcrew’s inability to turn off power
to IFE systems and other non-essential
electrical systems during a non-normal
or emergency situation could result in
the inability to control smoke or fumes
in the airplane flight deck or cabin.
DATES: We must receive comments on
this proposed AD by December 24,
2007.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
E:\FR\FM\07NOP1.SGM
07NOP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 215 (Wednesday, November 7, 2007)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 62798-62802]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-21896]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 215 / Wednesday, November 7, 2007 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 62798]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 88
[Docket No. APHIS-2006-0168]
RIN 0579-AC49
Commercial Transportation of Equines to Slaughter
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations regarding the
commercial transportation of equines to slaughter to add a definition
of equine for slaughter and make other changes that will extend the
protections afforded by the regulations to equines bound for slaughter
but delivered first to an assembly point, feedlot, or stockyard. This
action would further ensure the humane treatment of such equines by
helping to ensure that the unique and special needs of equines in
commercial transportation to slaughter are met.
DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before
January 7, 2008.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov,
select ``Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service'' from the agency
drop-down menu, then click ``Submit.'' In the Docket ID column, select
APHIS-2006-0168 to submit or view public comments and to view
supporting and related materials available electronically. Information
on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing
documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket after the close
of the comment period, is available through the site's ``User Tips''
link.
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Please send four copies of your
comment (an original and three copies) to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0168,
Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700
River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238. Please state that your
comment refers to Docket No. APHIS-2006-0168.
Reading Room: You may read any comments that we receive on this
docket in our reading room. The reading room is located in room 1141 of
the USDA South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.
Other Information: Additional information about APHIS and its
programs is available on the Internet at https://www.aphis.usda.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Timothy Cordes, Senior Staff
Veterinarian, Equine Programs, National Center for Animal Health
Programs, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 46, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231;
(301) 734-3279.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
On December 7, 2001, we published in the Federal Register (66 FR
63588-63617, Docket No. 98-074-2) a final rule that established
regulations concerning the commercial transportation of equines for
slaughter. That rulemaking was initiated under the provisions of the
Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (the Act), in
which Congress, recognizing that equines being transported to slaughter
have unique and special needs, authorized the Secretary of Agriculture
to issue guidelines for the regulation of the commercial transportation
of equines for slaughter by persons regularly engaged in that activity
in the United States (see 7 U.S.C. 1901 note).
The regulations in 9 CFR part 88 (the regulations) contain minimum
standards to ensure the humane movement of equines for slaughter via
commercial transportation. The regulations cover, among other things,
the food, water, and rest provided to such equines prior to their
transportation to slaughter, standards for conveyances used to
transport equines to slaughter, and certain paperwork required to
accompany equines during such transportation. The regulations also
require the owner/shipper of the equines to take certain actions to
ensure the safety and humane treatment of equines during loading and
transportation for slaughter, including seeking immediate assistance
from an equine veterinarian for any equine in obvious physical
distress. In addition, the regulations prohibit the commercial
transportation to slaughtering facilities of equines considered to be
unfit for travel, the use of electric prods on equines in commercial
transportation to slaughter, and, after December 7, 2006, the use of
double-deck trailers for commercial transportation of equines to
slaughtering facilities.
The Act defines ``equine for slaughter'' as ``any member of the
Equidae family being transferred to a slaughter facility, including an
assembly point, feedlot, or stockyard.'' The regulations in 9 CFR part
88 apply to equines moved in commercial transportation to slaughtering
establishments but not to equines bound for slaughter but moved first
to an assembly point, feedlot or stockyard. When the regulations were
established in 2001, we believed that equines transported to
slaughtering establishments were at high risk of being treated
inhumanely, and that equines transported to assembly points, feedlots,
or stockyards were likely to be treated well, either to bring more
money at slaughter or to be sold for other purposes. Five years later,
it appears that equines in commercial transportation to slaughtering
facilities, specifically, are being treated humanely, in accordance
with the regulations.
As the regulations are written, equines sold as slaughter horses
may be transported first to an assembly point, for example, in a
double-deck trailer and without any of the other protections afforded
by the regulations, such as receiving adequate water and food prior to
loading. We believe that equines may be delivered to these intermediate
points en route to slaughter for the sole purpose of avoiding
compliance with the regulations. In particular, since December 7, 2006,
when the regulations no longer allowed double-deck trailers to
transport equines to slaughtering facilities, truckers who wish to
continue using double-deck trailers for slaughter
[[Page 62799]]
horses have an incentive to transport them to assembly points,
feedlots, or stockyards, where the horses could then be reloaded onto
straight-deck trailers for the final leg of the trip to the
slaughtering plant. We have received numerous reports of this situation
occurring. Given these developments, it now appears that equines that
are bound for slaughter but are delivered first to an assembly point,
feedlot, or stockyard are at higher risk for inhumane treatment.
To close this loophole, we are proposing to amend the regulations
to add a definition for the term equine for slaughter to read ``any
member of the Equidae family being transferred to a slaughter facility,
including an assembly point, feedlot, or stockyard.'' We also propose
to amend Sec. 88.2(b), Sec. 88.3(a) introductory text, Sec. 88.3(b),
Sec. 88.4(a) introductory text, and Sec. 88.4(b)(4), (c), (d), and
(e) by replacing the words ``equines to a slaughtering facility'',
``equines to slaughtering facilities'', ``equines in commercial
transportation to slaughtering facilities'', ``equine to the
slaughtering facility'', and ``equines in commercial transportation to
a slaughtering facility'' with the term ``equines for slaughter''.
Lastly, we are proposing to amend Sec. 88.4(b) introductory text by
replacing the words ``transit to the slaughtering facility'' with the
words ``commercial transportation of equines for slaughter''.
We would consider equines delivered to an assembly point, feedlot,
or stockyard to be equines for slaughter and subject to the regulations
unless the owner/shipper presents an official certificate of veterinary
inspection and the original copy of a negative equine infectious anemia
test chart, or other documents that indicate the names and addresses of
the consigner, consignee, owner, and examining veterinarian for any
equine being shipped, as evidence that the equines are not equines for
slaughter.
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.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA) requires agencies to evaluate
the potential effects of their rules on small entities. The analysis
that follows represents an initial regulatory flexibility analysis in
accordance with the requirements of the RFA. Because data on the
commercial transport of equines to intermediate points en route to
slaughter is sparse at best, we were not able to conduct a
comprehensive analysis of the proposed rule's potential economic
impact. Accordingly, we welcome public comment that would enable us to
more fully assess the proposal's impact. We are particularly interested
in public comment on the impact of the ban on double-deck trailers for
use in transporting equines for slaughter.
APHIS's regulations in 9 CFR part 88 are designed to help ensure
the humane commercial transport of equines to slaughter. Specifically,
the regulations require that:
For a period of not less than 6 consecutive hours
immediately prior to the equines being loaded on the conveyance for
transport, each equine be provided access to food and water and the
opportunity to rest;
Any equine that has been on the conveyance for 28
consecutive hours or more without food, water, and the opportunity to
rest be offloaded and, for at least 6 consecutive hours, provided with
food, water, and the opportunity to rest;
Each equine be provided with enough space on the
conveyance to ensure that no animal is crowded in a way likely to cause
injury or discomfort;
Stallions and other aggressive equines be segregated from
each other and all other equines on the conveyance;
Electric prods be used only in life-threatening
situations; and
An owner-shipper certificate be completed for each equine
prior to departing for the slaughtering facility. Among other things,
the certificate must certify the equine's fitness to travel and note
any special care and handling needs during transit.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An equine is considered fit to travel if it: (1) Can bear
weight on all four limbs; (2) can walk unassisted; (3) is not blind
in both eyes; (4) is older than 6 months of age; and (5) is not
likely to give birth in transit. The owner or commercial shipper
must sign the certificate, and it must accompany the equine to the
slaughtering facility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
At present, the regulations apply only to equines moved directly to
slaughtering establishments, and not to equines bound for slaughter but
moved first to an assembly point, feedlot, or stockyard. This proposed
rule would amend the regulations to make equines delivered to
intermediate points en route to slaughter subject to the same
regulations as those moved directly to slaughtering establishments.
This proposed rule is intended to ensure the humane treatment of
equines delivered to intermediate points en route to slaughter.
Equines are generally slaughtered for their meat, which is sold for
human consumption, primarily outside the United States.\2\ In 2005, the
United States exported 39.5 million pounds of horse, ass, and mule
meat, with a value of $61.1 million. Of the total volume exported in
2005, 35.3 million pounds, or 89 percent, was shipped to five countries
(Belgium, France, Mexico, Russia, and Switzerland).\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Horses account for almost all equines slaughtered in the
United States.
\3\ Source: World Trade Atlas (U.S. Census Bureau).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
From 2003 through 2005, an average of 70,094 equines were
slaughtered annually in federally inspected U.S. slaughtering
facilities.\4\ During that period, and at the time this analysis was
prepared, there were three slaughtering facilities that accepted
equines in the continental United States: Two were located in Texas and
one in Illinois. However, following a Federal appeals court ruling, the
two facilities in Texas are now closed. Following an unsuccessful
challenge to a State law to stay open, the Illinois facility is also
closed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Source: USDA (NASS), Livestock Slaughter Summary (2003,
2004, 2005).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS estimates that there are no more than 100 entities in the
U.S. currently involved in the commercial transportation of equines to
slaughter. As discussed below, the transport of slaughter equines to
intermediate points is not uncommon. Based on the average number of
equines slaughtered in the United States each year between 2003 and
2005 (approximately 70,000) and on the estimated number of potentially
affected shippers (approximately 100), the average number of equines
transported annually per shipper is 700.
Economic Effects on Owners and Commercial Shippers
The ``path'' from source supplier (farmer, rancher, pet owner,
etc.) to slaughtering facility can vary. However, the most common
scenario and the one used for the purpose of this analysis is as
follows: The source suppliers transport their equines to local auction
markets, where the equines are sold to persons who purchase the equines
for the specific purposes of selling them to a slaughtering facility.
(Hereafter, for the purposes of this initial regulatory flexibility
analysis, we will refer to persons who sell equines for slaughter as
``owners''; however, in some cases, the owners use agents to conduct
some aspect of the business of purchasing equines and transporting and
selling them to slaughtering facilities. We will use the term ``owner''
to refer to either
[[Page 62800]]
the actual owners or their agents.) The owners consider price lists
published by the slaughtering facilities for equines (the price varies
in relation to the weight of the equine and the quality of the meat),
transportation costs, and profit requirements to establish the maximum
prices that they will pay for equines at local auctions. Because the
owners cannot usually purchase enough slaughter-quality equines at any
one auction to make it economically feasible to ship the animals
directly from the auction site to the slaughtering facility, the owners
transport the equines back to their own farms or feedlots where the
equines are kept until such time as the owners can accumulate more
equines from other auctions. When enough equines have been accumulated
to comprise a shipment, the owners transport the equines to the
slaughtering facility. In an estimated 75 percent of cases, owners hire
commercial shippers to move the equines to the slaughtering facilities;
in the remaining estimated 25 percent of cases, owners transport the
equines to slaughter in their own conveyances.
Based on the slaughter scenario described above, this proposed rule
has the potential to economically affect owners who purchase equines at
local auction markets and then transport the animals to their farms,
feedlots, or other assembly points prior to shipping them on to
slaughter. (The owners' farms and feedlots are intermediate stops en
route to slaughter.) However, the proposed rule also has the potential
to affect owners and commercial shippers who transport equines from the
owners' farms or feedlots to assembly points, feedlots, and stockyards
prior to the animals' final delivery to a slaughtering facility. We are
aware that such transport to intermediate points between the owner's
farms or feedlots and the slaughtering facility occurs but we do not
know the extent of that transport. However, we have no reason to
believe it is significant.
The proposed rule is likely to have little or no impact on most
owners who transport equines from local auction markets to their farms
or feedlots. There are several reasons. First, equines sold for
slaughter at auctions usually have access to food, water, and rest for
at least 6 hours prior to being transported to the owners' farms and
feedlots. Sellers at auction markets have an incentive to provide
equines with food and water because malnourished equines have a reduced
slaughter value. Furthermore, most slaughter equines tend to be in
their pens at auction markets for at least 6 hours, since it usually
takes at least that long for them to be sold. Indeed, it is not
uncommon for slaughter horses to be sold at the end of an auction
session, after the saddle horses are sold. The requirement that equines
have access to food, water, and rest for at least 6 consecutive hours
immediately prior to the animals being loaded on the conveyance should
not be a problem for owners who transport equines from auction sites.
Second, owners typically purchase equines at auction markets that
are in relatively close proximity to their farms and feedlots. It is
unlikely, therefore, that equines acquired at auctions will have to be
offloaded for feeding, rest, etc., while en route to the owners' farms
or feedlots, since it is unlikely that the trip will take longer than
28 hours.
Third, the proposed rule would require that, during transport to
intermediate points, equines be provided with enough space to ensure
that they are not crowded in a way that is likely to cause injury or
discomfort. The proposed rule would specifically ban the use of double-
deck trailers for such transport, as those types of conveyances are a
source of animal injury and discomfort. However, owners who transport
equines from local auction markets to their farms or feedlots generally
do not do so using double-deck trailers. The transport to owner farms
and feedlots almost always occurs in smaller capacity conveyances, such
as straight-deck and goose-neck trailers.\5\ That owners transport the
animals back to their own farms or feedlots (rather than to
slaughtering facilities directly) only because they cannot purchase
enough slaughter-quality equines at any one auction is, in itself, an
indication that they have no need for the higher capacity double-deck
trailers for such transport. Although overcrowding can also occur in
single-deck (also called straight-deck) trailers, there is no evidence
to suggest that it is an issue for owners who pick up slaughter equines
at auction markets.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Double-deck livestock trailers can carry up to about 45
equines each; single-deck trailers can carry up to about 38 equines
each. Prior to the ban that became effective December 8, 2006,
double-deck trailers were most often used for transporting equines
to slaughter facilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fourth, the restriction on the use of electric prods should not
pose a burden because effective, low-cost substitutes are available for
use in non-life-threatening situations. For example, fiberglass poles
with flags attached, which cost no more than about $10 each, are
considered to be an effective alternative to electric prods. (Any
current use of electric prods by transporters of slaughter equines
probably derives from the traditional use of these devices to assist in
moving other livestock, such as cattle and swine.)
Finally, available data suggest that the segregation of stallions
and other aggressive equines is already a common transport practice.
Owners have an incentive to make sure that aggressive equines are
segregated because equines that arrive at the slaughtering facilities
injured as the result of biting and kicking en route command lower
market values. Furthermore, relatively few stallions are transported
for slaughter. USDA personnel stationed at two of the slaughtering
facilities have estimated that no more than about 5 percent of equines
arriving for slaughter are stallions. Accordingly, the requirement that
stallions and other aggressive equines be segregated during transport
to slaughter is not likely to have a significant economic effect on
owners who pick up equines at various auction markets.
As indicated above, the proposed rule also has the potential to
affect owners and commercial shippers who transport equines from the
owner's farms or feedlots to assembly points, feedlots, and stockyards
prior to the animals' final delivery to a slaughtering facility. These
entities are more likely to be affected by the proposed rule than
owners who transport equines from auction markets to their farms and
feedlots only, because they are more likely to be using double-deck
trailers. (This is because equines are typically moved from owners'
farms and feedlots only when enough equines have been accumulated to
comprise a full shipment, a situation which is likely to foster use of
the higher-capacity double-deck trailers.) Nonetheless, we believe that
owners and commercial shippers who transport equines from owners' farms
or feedlots to intermediate points prior to the animals' final delivery
to a slaughtering facility are likely to be in compliance with most
parts of the proposed rule.
Nor should the ``28-hour'' rule pose a problem for the vast
majority of owners and commercial shippers who transport equines from
owners' farms or feedlots to intermediate points prior to the animals'
final shipment to a slaughtering facility. Even in a worst-case
scenario in terms of travel distance (i.e., equines transported from
farms or feedlots on the east or west coasts to border crossing points
in closest proximity to the slaughtering facilities in Mexico, which
are all located in the central part of the United States), the
overwhelming majority of trips should take less than 28 hours. Assuming
an average highway speed of 55 mph and
[[Page 62801]]
two different drivers, and allowing 1.5 hours for loading and 2 hours
for refueling and meal stops, even a trip as long as 1,300 miles would
take only about 27 hours.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ It is common transport practice to use two different drivers
on long trips. This practice allows the equines to be transported
virtually nonstop because one person can drive while the other
rests, thereby avoiding federally mandated rest periods that apply
in a single-driver situation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Double-deck trailers can carry more equines than single-deck
trailers, and owners and shippers who are using the former will be
affected by the reduction in the number of equines that could be
transported in a single conveyance. However, for affected owners and
commercial shippers, the ban on double-deck trailers is likely to be
mitigated by several factors. First, commercial shippers can use their
double-deck trailers to transport other livestock and produce. In this
regard, it has been estimated that double-deck trailers in general
carry equines no more than about 10 percent of the time they are in
use. Second, owners who cannot find another use for the double-deck
trailers can trade them for single-deck trailers. Owners should be able
to sell their serviceable trailers at fair market value to transporters
of commodities other than equines.
In conclusion, we believe that most transporters to intermediate
points are already in compliance with most or all of the proposed
rule's requirements. Those that are not now in compliance are likely to
be owners and commercial shippers who transport equines from owners'
farms or feedlots to intermediate points prior to the animals' final
delivery to a slaughtering facility, since their load volume fosters
the use of the higher capacity double-deck trailers. While we know that
transport to intermediate points between the owners' farms or feedlots
and the slaughtering facility occurs, we do not believe it is at a
level that this proposed rule would result in any significant economic
impacts.
Impact on Horse Slaughtering Facilities
The proposed rule also has the potential to economically affect the
horse slaughtering facilities, to the extent that it could negatively
affect the supply of slaughter horses. As indicated above, there are
currently no horse slaughtering facilities operating in the United
States, however, the possibility exists that such facilities could open
in the future. As a result of the ban on double-deck trailers, for
example, fewer transporters may be willing to haul slaughter horses,
and those that are willing will have to do it in smaller capacity
single-deck trailers. A decline in supply has implications for the
slaughtering facility since it may lead to an increase in the price
they pay to acquire horses. Nevertheless, as indicated above, we
believe that most transporters to intermediate points are already in
compliance with most or all of the proposed rule's requirements,
including the prohibition on double-deck trailers.
Impact on Small Entities
As indicated above, it is estimated that no more than about 100
entities are potentially affected by the proposed rule, most of whom
are equine owners and commercial shippers. Although we do not have
specific information on the annual receipts of these entities, it is
reasonable to assume that most are small by U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) standards. This assumption is based on composite
data for providers of the same and similar services in the United
States. In 2002, the most recent year for which data is available,
there were 44,933 U.S. establishments in North American Industry
Classification System (NAICS) categories 48422 and 48423, which
comprise firms primarily engaged in specialized freight trucking,
including the transportation of livestock. The per-establishment
average gross receipts for all 44,933 establishments that year was $0.9
million, well below the SBA's small-entity threshold of $23.5 million.
Similarly, in 2002, there were 1,048 U.S. establishments in NAICS
42459, a classification category that includes horse dealers. For all
1,048 establishments, the per-establishment average number of employees
that year was 7, well below the SBA's small-entity threshold of 100
employees for those firms.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Source: SBA and U.S. Census Bureau (2002 Economic Census).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS has not identified any duplication, overlap, or conflict of
this proposed rule with other Federal rules.
Alternatives
In developing the current regulations, APHIS opted for a number of
alternatives designed to lessen the economic effects of the regulations
on affected small entities, including a deferral, for 5 years, of the
effective date for the prohibition on double-deck trailers.\8\ The ban
on double-deck trailers under the current regulations took effect
December 8, 2006, which means that owner-shippers that currently use
double-deck trailers to transport equines to intermediate points would
face a ban on the use of those trailers under the proposed rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ The final rule published in 2001 noted that a 5-year
deferral allows slaughter facilities time to respond to the expected
decline in the number of transporters willing to haul horses to
slaughter, including time to budget and to arrange for financing of
equipment they may need to acquire if they must haul horses on their
own because commercial shippers and owners will not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public comment on the proposed rule's economic impact is invited,
especially comment on any impact for small entities stemming from
prohibition on the use of double-deck trailers to move equines to
intermediate points, such as stockyards and feedlots, before moving
them to a slaughter facility.
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
In accordance with section 3507(j) of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information collection and
recordkeeping requirements included in this proposed rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
Please send written comments to the Office of Information and
Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington,
DC 20503. Please state that your comments refer to Docket No. APHIS-
2006-0168. Please send a copy of your comments to: (1) Docket No.
APHIS-2006-0168, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, APHIS,
Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-1238,
and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, room 404-W, 14th Street and
Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20250. A comment to OMB is
best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it within 30
days of publication of this proposed rule.
This proposed rule would amend the regulations in 9 CFR part 88 to
provide for the humane treatment of equines en route to slaughter
facilities through intermediate points. We are soliciting
[[Page 62802]]
comments from the public (as well as affected agencies) concerning our
information collection and recordkeeping requirements. These comments
will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the information collection is necessary for
the proper performance of our agency's functions, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the
information collection, including the validity of the methodology and
assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who
are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses).
Estimate of burden: Public reporting burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 0.834960937 hours per response.
Respondents: Owners and shippers of slaughter horses and drivers of
vehicles of equines for slaughter.
Estimated annual number of respondents: 130.
Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 39.38461538.
Estimated annual number of responses: 5,120.
Estimated total annual burden on respondents: 4,275 hours. (Due to
averaging, the total annual burden hours may not equal the product of
the annual number of responses multiplied by the reporting burden per
response.)
Copies of this information collection can be obtained from Mrs.
Celeste Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301)
734-7477.
E-Government Act Compliance
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to
compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the Internet
and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities
for citizen access to Government information and services, and for
other purposes. For information pertinent to E-Government Act
compliance related to this proposed rule, please contact Mrs. Celeste
Sickles, APHIS' Information Collection Coordinator, at (301) 734-7477.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 88
Animal welfare, Horses, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
Accordingly, we are proposing to amend 9 CFR part 88 as follows:
PART 88--COMMERCIAL TRANSPORTATION OF EQUINES FOR SLAUGHTER
1. The authority citation for part 88 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 1901, 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, 371.4.
2. Section 88.1 is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, a new
definition for equine for slaughter to read as follows:
Sec. 88.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
Equine for slaughter. Any member of the Equidae family being
transferred to a slaughter facility, including an assembly point,
feedlot, or stockyard.
* * * * *
Sec. 88.2 [Amended]
3. In Sec. 88.2, paragraph (b) is amended by removing the words
``equines to a slaughtering facility'' and adding the words ``equines
for slaughter'' in their place.
Sec. 88.3 [Amended]
4. Section 88.3 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (a), introductory text, by removing the words
``equines to slaughtering facilities'' and adding the words ``equines
for slaughter'' in their place.
b. In paragraph (b), by removing the words ``Equines in commercial
transportation to slaughtering facilities'' and adding the words
``Equines for slaughter'' in their place.
Sec. 88.4 [Amended]
5. Section 88.4 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (a), introductory text, by removing the words
``equines to a slaughtering facility'' and adding the words ``equines
for slaughter'' in their place.
b. In paragraph (a)(3), by removing the words ``transit to the
slaughtering facility'' and adding the words ``throughout transit to
slaughter'' in their place.
c. In paragraph (b), introductory text, by removing the words
``transit to the slaughtering facility'' and adding the words
``commercial transportation of equines for slaughter'' in their place.
d. In paragraph (b)(4), by removing the words ``equine to the
slaughtering facility'' and adding the words ``equines for slaughter''
in their place.
e. In paragraph (c), by removing the words ``equines in commercial
transportation to a slaughtering facility'' both times they occur and
adding the words ``equines for slaughter'' in their place.
f. In paragraphs (d) and (e), by removing the words ``equines to a
slaughtering facility'' and adding the words ``equines for slaughter''
in their place.
Done in Washington, DC, this 1st day of November 2007.
Kevin Shea,
Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. E7-21896 Filed 11-6-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P