Traceability for Livestock Moving Interstate, 50082-50110 [2011-20281]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
• Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 155 (Thursday, August 11, 2011)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 50082-50110]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-20281]



[[Page 50081]]

Vol. 76

Thursday,

No. 155

August 11, 2011

Part V





Department of Agriculture





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service





-----------------------------------------------------------------------





9 CFR Parts 71, 77, 78, et al.





Traceability for Livestock Moving Interstate; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 76 , No. 155 / Thursday, August 11, 2011 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 50082]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service

9 CFR Parts 71, 77, 78, and 90

[Docket No. APHIS-2009-0091]
RIN 0579-AD24


Traceability for Livestock Moving Interstate

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: We are proposing to establish minimum national official 
identification and documentation requirements for the traceability of 
livestock moving interstate. Under this proposed rule, unless 
specifically exempted, livestock belonging to species covered by this 
rulemaking that are moved interstate would have to be officially 
identified and accompanied by an interstate certificate of veterinary 
inspection or other documentation. The proposed regulations specify 
approved forms of official identification for each species but would 
allow the livestock covered under this rulemaking to be moved 
interstate with another form of identification, as agreed upon by 
animal health officials in the shipping and receiving States or Tribes. 
The purpose of this rulemaking is to improve our ability to trace 
livestock in the event that disease is found.

DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before 
November 9, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov/#!documentDetail;D=APHIS-2009-0091-0001.
     Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to 
Docket No. APHIS-2009-0091, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD, 
APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-
1238.
    Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may 
be viewed at https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2009-
0091 or in our reading room, which is located in room 1141 of the USDA 
South Building, 14th Street and Independence Avenue, SW., Washington, 
DC. Normal reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through 
Friday, except holidays. To be sure someone is there to help you, 
please call (202) 690-2817 before coming.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Neil Hammerschmidt, Program 
Manager, Animal Disease Traceability, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 
46, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231; (301) 734-5571.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Background

    Preventing and controlling animal disease is the cornerstone of 
protecting American animal agriculture. While ranchers and farmers work 
hard to protect their animals and their livelihoods, there is never a 
guarantee that their animals will be spared from disease. To support 
their efforts, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) 
of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has promulgated 
regulations to prevent, control, and eradicate disease. Traceability 
does not prevent disease, but knowing where diseased and at-risk 
animals are, where they have been, and when, is indispensible in 
emergency response and in ongoing disease control and eradication 
programs.
    We do not currently have a comprehensive animal traceability 
program. Some of our animal disease program regulations in 9 CFR 
subchapter C (``Interstate Transportation of Animals (Including 
Poultry) and Animal Products,'' referred to below as ``the existing 
regulations''), such as those for tuberculosis and brucellosis, contain 
components of a traceability program, e.g., requirements for animals 
moving interstate to be officially identified and accompanied by 
documents recording, among other things, the animals' official 
identification numbers and the locations from and to which they are 
being moved. Such requirements, however, do not apply to all livestock 
or to all interstate movements. Significant gaps exist that could 
impair our ability to trace animals, when necessary, that may be 
affected with a disease. Some species, or classes of animals within a 
species, are subject to official identification and/or movement 
requirements only under the existing animal disease program 
regulations.
    We are particularly concerned with current inadequacies in disease 
tracing capabilities in the cattle industry. Previously, many cattle 
received official identification through USDA's vaccination program for 
brucellosis, which requires that certain young female cattle and bison 
(aged 4 to 12 months) moving into and out of States or areas designated 
as Class B or Class C for brucellosis be vaccinated for the disease. 
These vaccinated calves must be permanently identified by means of a 
tattoo and either an official vaccination eartag or other official 
eartag if one is already attached to the animal (9 CFR part 78). Our 
eradication efforts have been tremendously successful, and now all 50 
States are brucellosis-free. While this is certainly a positive 
development, it has resulted in a steep decline in the number of 
officially identified cattle. In 1988, when there were only 27 Class 
Free States and many more calves were subject to those requirements, 10 
million calves were officially identified, but by 2010 that number had 
fallen to 3.1 million.
    As a result of decreasing levels of official identification in 
cattle, the time required to conduct other disease investigations is 
increasing. For example, disease investigations for bovine tuberculosis 
frequently now exceed 150 days as USDA and State investigative teams 
spend substantially more time and money in conducting tracebacks. The 
decreased level of official identification has resulted in an expansion 
of the scope of investigations to identify suspect and exposed animals, 
necessitating the testing of thousands of cattle that would otherwise 
not have needed to be tested.
    We have clear indications that higher levels of official 
identification enhance tracing capability. For example, through the 
National Scrapie Eradication Program (NSEP), 92 percent of the cull 
breeding sheep are officially identified at slaughter, primarily using 
flock identification eartags. This level of official identification 
made it possible in fiscal year 2010 to achieve traceback from 
slaughter of scrapie-positive sheep to the flock of origin or birth as 
part of the scrapie surveillance program 96 percent of the time, 
typically in a matter of minutes. Other diseases, in particular 
contagious ones, require that we trace to more than the birth premises, 
i.e., to other premises where the animal has been after leaving the 
birth premises but before going to slaughter, so the scrapie model is 
not a complete solution for such diseases.
    APHIS believes that we must improve our tracing capabilities now 
not only to alleviate current concerns, including the increasing number 
of cases of bovine tuberculosis, but also to ensure that we are well 
prepared to respond to new or foreign animal diseases in the future.
    The traceability framework we are proposing in this rule represents 
a departure from our initial attempt to address the problems described 
above through implementation of the National Animal Identification 
System (NAIS). NAIS was introduced in 2004 with the long-term goal of 
achieving 48-hour

[[Page 50083]]

traceability. NAIS was a voluntary system, with registration of all 
premises where livestock or poultry were housed or kept as the 
foundation of the system. Additional components of NAIS, which were 
expected to evolve over time, were animal identification and the 
recording of animal movements. In 2009, APHIS launched a series of 
efforts to assess the level of acceptance of NAIS, including public 
listening sessions in 14 cities and a review of written comments 
submitted by the public. Although there was some support for NAIS, the 
vast majority of listening session participants and commenters were 
highly critical of the program and of USDA's implementation efforts. 
Many commenters viewed the NAIS as a Government-imposed, ``one-size-
fits-all'' approach to animal traceability. Producers were concerned 
about various issues, including having their data maintained in a 
Federal database and the cost of the technology that would be necessary 
to achieve the 48-hour traceability goal. Overall, the feedback 
revealed that NAIS had become a barrier to achieving meaningful animal 
disease traceability in the United States in partnership with America's 
producers.
    On February 5, 2010, the Secretary announced that the Department 
planned to take a new approach to animal disease traceability. This new 
approach was developed through input from a State-Tribal-Federal 
working group, Tribal consultations, discussions with producers and 
industry, and feedback received in seven public meetings held during 
the spring and summer of 2010. Our overall goal is to have an adaptable 
approach that will help us find animals associated with a disease 
quickly, focus our efforts on those animals, and minimize harm to 
producers.

Overview of the Proposal

    We are proposing to establish minimum national official 
identification and documentation requirements for the traceability of 
livestock moving interstate. These requirements are intended to improve 
our ability to locate animals that may be infected with or exposed to a 
disease. Because USDA's regulatory authority applies to interstate 
commerce, the requirements would not apply to movements within a State. 
They would also not apply to movements onto or from Tribal lands unless 
the movement is also an interstate movement. Additionally, in 
recognition of Tribal sovereignty, if a Tribe has its own system for 
identifying and tracing livestock, separate from those of a State, our 
requirements would not apply to movements entirely within that Tribal 
jurisdiction even if the movements cross a State line that goes through 
the Tribal lands. We also propose to exempt from the regulations 
livestock moved to a custom slaughter facility in accordance with 
Federal and State regulations for preparation of meat for personal 
consumption.
    The proposed requirements would apply to cattle and bison, sheep 
and goats, swine, horses and other equines, captive cervids (e.g., deer 
and elk), and poultry. The greatest gaps in identification and movement 
documentation requirements for traceability purposes in our current 
program disease regulations are for cattle. As noted above, due to the 
near eradication of brucellosis in cattle, the number of vaccinated 
heifers, which are required under the brucellosis regulations to be 
officially identified, has decreased, and in turn, there has been a 
significant decrease in the number of officially identified cattle. 
Therefore, our proposed regulations would contain new requirements for 
cattle. Because we have very limited program regulations for horses and 
other equines, our proposed regulations would also contain new 
requirements for equines. On the other hand, the traceability-related 
requirements in our existing program regulations for swine, sheep and 
goats, captive cervids, and commercial poultry are more comprehensive 
and, we believe, largely sufficient at this time. While we are 
proposing to cover those animals in this proposal, we have chosen, in 
most cases, to refer the reader to the identification and documentation 
requirements in those existing program regulations. Our proposal, 
however, would establish traceability requirements for poultry moved 
interstate to live bird markets.
    Our proposed traceability requirements would have two main 
elements.
    First, animals moved interstate would have to be officially 
identified. The methods and devices for identifying animals would vary 
by species, and within a species there may be multiple choices. For 
certain species, for example cattle and bison and sheep and goats, this 
would typically involve attaching an eartag with a unique official 
identification number to the animal. In some cases, most commonly with 
poultry and swine, animals that move through the production chain are 
identified as a group rather than by means of an individual eartag or 
other identifier being attached to each animal.
    The methods, devices, and numbering systems that we propose to 
recognize as official identification are those that would provide for 
effective traceability and that can be used nationwide. All States and 
Tribal jurisdictions would be required to accept all official 
identification methods proposed for each species. An example for cattle 
would be an eartag with a national uniform eartagging system (NUES) 
number. We recognize, however, that different identification methods 
may exist or evolve in specific parts of the country and that there may 
be situations where other forms of identification may be effective and 
preferred by producers. Therefore, we are proposing to allow such 
identification to be used in lieu of official identification for 
livestock moved interstate when both the shipping and receiving States 
or Tribes agree to its use. Additionally, because we recognize that 
there will be logistical challenges associated with officially 
identifying a significantly higher number of cattle for interstate 
movement, we plan to phase in the requirements for identification of 
cattle and bison over time.
    Second, animals moved interstate must be accompanied by an 
interstate certificate of veterinary inspection, also referred to as an 
ICVI. The ICVI would be issued by an accredited veterinarian (one 
authorized to perform work on behalf of the APHIS) or a Federal, State, 
or Tribal veterinarian, who would be responsible for ensuring that the 
animal meets applicable health requirements. The ICVI would, for 
certain classes of animals, show the official identification number of 
the animal. It would also contain information about where the animal is 
moving from and its destination.
    We are proposing some exceptions to the requirements for an ICVI. 
For example, for cattle moving interstate directly to slaughter, we 
propose to allow use of an owner-shipper statement, rather than an 
ICVI. Additionally, we are proposing to allow alternatives to the ICVI 
for livestock moved interstate when both the shipping and receiving 
States or Tribes agree. We are also proposing some exceptions to the 
requirement for recording animal identification numbers on ICVIs (e.g., 
for steers and spayed heifers).
    These proposed identification and movement documentation 
requirements are the foundation for a successful traceability program.
    We are also proposing some associated recordkeeping requirements. 
All of the specific requirements and exceptions we are proposing are 
explained in detail below in a section-by-section discussion of the 
proposed rule.

[[Page 50084]]

    The purpose of the requirements we are proposing is to improve our 
ability to trace livestock in the event that disease is found. It is 
important to point out, though, that we do not prescribe methods or 
systems that States and Tribes must use in order to trace animals that 
have moved interstate. We expect that States (and interested Tribes) 
will set up systems to allow effective tracing of animals that have 
moved into or from their jurisdictions.
    To enable us to evaluate the effectiveness of those systems, we 
anticipate that we will eventually establish traceability performance 
standards against which we could measure a State or Tribe's ability to 
trace covered livestock moved interstate. Later in this preamble, under 
the respective headings ``Performance Standards for Traceability'' and 
``Traceability Evaluations of States and Tribes,'' we discuss our 
current thinking regarding performance standards for measuring a 
State's or Tribe's ability to trace covered livestock moved interstate 
and the potential actions that could be taken when a State or Tribe 
fails to meet the standards for a particular species. We are not 
proposing any regulatory requirements pertaining to those issues at 
this time; any such requirements would be established through a future, 
separate rulemaking. At this time, however, we would welcome public 
comment on our current thinking regarding the traceability performance 
standards.
    To facilitate the implementation of our new animal traceability 
approach, APHIS intends to consult with an advisory group featuring 
representation from APHIS, States, Tribes, and industry before we make 
a decision. The advisory group could offer advice and recommendations 
on our phase-in of official identification requirements for cattle and 
bison (discussed in more detail below) before we make a decision, as 
well as provide feedback on the effectiveness of various elements of 
the traceability program.

Definitions (Sec.  90.1)

    Our proposed animal traceability requirements would be contained in 
a new 9 CFR part 90. The proposed regulations would include a number of 
new definitions pertaining to animal traceability. In addition, some 
definitions from the existing regulations would be incorporated into 
proposed part 90, in some cases as they are and in others, in modified 
form. Most of these proposed definitions are discussed below, by 
category (identification, documentation, movement, and miscellaneous). 
In a few cases, however, proposed definitions are discussed later in 
this preamble as the terms are used, in order to provide needed 
context.

Definitions Pertaining to Official Identification

    Official eartags are used for official identification of a number 
of species under the existing regulations and would continue to be 
under these proposed traceability regulations. The existing interstate 
movement and animal disease program regulations define official eartag 
in a number of places. We propose to define official eartag in part 90 
as an identification tag approved by APHIS that bears an official 
identification number for individual animals. The proposed definition 
further states that, beginning 1 year after the effective date of the 
final rule for this proposed rule, all official eartags applied to 
animals must bear the U.S. shield. The design, size, shape, color, and 
other characteristics of the official eartag would depend on the needs 
of the users, subject to the approval of the Administrator. The 
official eartag would have to be tamper-resistant and have a high 
retention rate in the animal. This proposed definition of official 
eartag is similar to the one used in Sec.  71.1 and elsewhere in the 
existing regulations. The current definition in Sec.  71.1, however, 
requires that the U.S. shield be used only on eartags bearing an animal 
identification number (AIN) with an 840 prefix. We are proposing to 
broaden the U.S. shield requirement to all official eartags to achieve 
greater standardization of this type of official identification device. 
The delay in the effective date of the U.S. shield requirement is 
intended to ease the transition and allow producers time to run through 
existing stocks of eartags.
    We propose to define officially identified as identified by means 
of an official identification device or method approved by the 
Administrator. The proposed definition is similar to the definition of 
officially identified in 9 CFR 77.2 but is intended to provide a more 
uniform definition that could eventually be applied throughout the 
existing regulations as well.
    Further, we propose to define official identification device or 
method as a means approved by the Administrator of applying an official 
identification number to an animal of a specific species or associating 
an official identification number with an animal or group of animals of 
a specific species. This proposed definition is adapted from the 
existing one in Sec.  71.1, where official identification device or 
method is defined as a means of officially identifying an animal or 
group of animals using devices or methods approved by the 
Administrator, including, but not limited to, official tags, tattoos, 
and registered brands when accompanied by a certificate of inspection 
from a recognized brand inspection authority. Our proposed definition 
of official identification device or method is intended to establish 
minimum, uniform national requirements and does not include a list of 
examples, since not all the devices or methods listed under the 
existing definition in Sec.  71.1 would be accepted as official for all 
species under these proposed regulations. (Official identification 
devices and methods would be listed by species under proposed Sec.  
90.4 of these regulations.) For cattle and bison, for example, for 
reasons discussed in greater detail below, the only identification 
device we would recognize as official would be official eartags. 
However, these proposed regulations would allow brands and other 
methods that are not included in the proposed definition of official 
identification device or method to be used in lieu of official 
identification when agreed to by the shipping and receiving States and 
Tribes. The use of brands and other identification methods in lieu of 
official identification is discussed in more detail later in this 
document. Finally, for the sake of consistency, i.e., to eliminate any 
possible conflict between our proposed traceability regulations and the 
existing ones, we would also amend the definition of official 
identification device or method in Sec.  71.1 and in the tuberculosis 
and brucellosis regulations, as discussed below, to match the one we 
are proposing here.
    As stated above, the intended use of an official identification 
device or method is to apply an official identification number to an 
individual animal or to associate such a number with a group of 
animals. We propose to define official identification number as a 
nationally unique number permanently associated with an animal or group 
of animals. The official identification number would have to adhere to 
one of the following systems, most of which are already in use:
     National Uniform Eartagging System (NUES).
     Animal identification number (AIN).
     Location-based number system.
     Flock-based number system.
     Any other numbering system approved by the Administrator 
for the official identification of animals.
    We further propose in these regulations to provide definitions of

[[Page 50085]]

these numbering systems. Those definitions are discussed below.

NUES

    The existing interstate movement regulations in 9 CFR part 71 and 
the animal disease regulations in parts 77, 78, 79, and 80 allow for 
the use of the NUES as a means of identifying individual animals in 
commerce. The system has been in use for many years, but the existing 
regulations do not define the term or specify a particular format. To 
allow for the use of this numbering system under these proposed animal 
traceability regulations and to ensure greater standardization and 
uniformity of the NUES, we are proposing to add a definition of the 
term to the new animal traceability part. We would define National 
Uniform Eartagging System (NUES) as a numbering system for the official 
identification of individual animals in the United States that provides 
a nationally unique identification number for each animal. Formatting 
requirements for the NUES (and other numbering systems) would be set 
out in our Animal Disease Traceability General Standards Document, 
which we would make available on the Internet at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability.

AIN

    We propose to include in part 90 a definition of animal 
identification number (AIN), which we would adapt from the existing 
definition of the term in 9 CFR 71.1. We propose to define the AIN, as 
we do in Sec.  71.1, as a numbering system for the official 
identification of individual animals in the United States that provides 
a nationally unique identification number for each animal. Under the 
proposed definition, the AIN would consist of 15 digits, with the first 
3 being the country code (840 for the United States), except that the 
alpha characters USA or the numeric code assigned to the manufacturer 
of the identification device by the International Committee on Animal 
Recording could be used as alternatives to the 840 prefix until 1 year 
after the effective date of the final rule for this proposal. The 
existing definition lists the same formatting requirements but does not 
specify a sunset date for the use of AINs beginning with the characters 
USA or the manufacturer's code. We are proposing to phase out those two 
AIN formats in order to achieve greater standardization of this 
numbering system, while providing producers with adequate notice of the 
change and so they can work through existing inventories of eartags. 
This proposed requirement would apply only to animals tagged 1 year or 
more after the effective date of the final rule for this proposal; 
producers would not have to retag animals that had been officially 
identified using the USA or manufacturer's code AIN prior to that date. 
As is now the case, the AIN beginning with the 840 prefix would be 
recognized for use only on animals born in the United States. Also, 
like the existing definition of the AIN, the proposed definition does 
not require producers to use the AIN; we would continue to recognize 
other numbering systems as official for the identification of 
individual animals.

Location Identifiers

    The existing regulations, e.g., in parts 77 and 78, allow for the 
use of premises-based numbering systems on official eartags. Such 
numbering systems combine an official premises identification number 
(PIN), discussed below, with a producer's livestock production 
numbering system to provide a unique identification number. Numbering 
systems using a PIN and a producer's production numbering system would 
continue to be allowed under this proposed rule, but we would expand 
the range of allowable location identifiers. In keeping with our goal 
of letting States and Tribes develop traceability systems that work 
best for them, we would allow them to determine, according to their 
needs, the location to which animals moving from their jurisdictions 
would have to be associated. The proposed traceability regulations, 
therefore, do not refer to premises-based numbering systems but instead 
include a definition of location-based numbering system. Under this 
proposed definition, a location-based numbering system could combine 
either a State- or Tribal-issued location identification number (LID 
number) or a PIN with a producer's unique livestock production 
numbering system to provide a nationally and herd-unique identification 
number for an animal.
    We propose to define location identification (LID) number as a 
nationally unique number issued by a State, Tribal, and/or Federal 
animal health authority to a location, as determined by the State or 
Tribe in which it is issued. As proposed, the LID number could be used 
in conjunction with a producer's own livestock production numbering 
system to provide a nationally unique and herd-unique identification 
number for an animal. It could also be used as a component of a group/
lot identification number (GIN), which is described below. Formatting 
requirements for the LID would be contained in our Animal Disease 
Traceability General Standards Document.
    Since the PIN could be used as a component of a location-based 
numbering system, we are including a definition of premises 
identification number (PIN) in this proposed rule. We propose to define 
the PIN as a nationally unique number assigned by a State, Tribal, and/
or Federal animal health authority to a premises that is, in the 
judgment of the State, Tribal, and/or Federal animal health authority a 
geographically distinct location from other premises. The PIN could be 
used in conjunction with a producer's own livestock production 
numbering system to provide a nationally and herd-unique identification 
number for an animal. It could be used as a component of a group/lot 
identification number (GIN), which is discussed below. The proposed 
definition of the PIN is similar to that used elsewhere in the existing 
regulations but would not include number and letter formatting 
requirements (e.g., the State's two-letter postal abbreviation followed 
by the premises' assigned number, as is currently the case). The 
formatting requirements for the PIN would be contained in the Animal 
Disease Traceability General Standards Document.

GIN

    The GIN, referred to above, provides a means of identifying groups 
of animals when individual animal identification is not required. 
Existing regulations allow for the identification of groups of animals 
of some species under certain conditions. The regulations in 9 CFR 
71.19, which contain identification requirements for swine moving in 
interstate commerce, offer one such example. Adapting an existing 
definition of the GIN in Sec.  71.1, we propose to define group/lot 
identification number (GIN) in this proposed rule as the identification 
number used to uniquely identify a ``unit of animals'' of the same 
species that is managed together as one group throughout the preharvest 
production chain. The proposed definition also specifies that when a 
GIN is used, it must be recorded on documents accompanying the animals; 
it would not, however, be necessary to have the GIN attached to each 
animal. This last provision is a new one, not present in the current 
definition in Sec.  71.1, and is in keeping with the purpose of 
allowing animals of certain species to be identified by group or lot 
rather than individually. Additionally, while the definition of the GIN 
in Sec.  71.1 includes detailed formatting requirements, we

[[Page 50086]]

propose to remove them from the regulations and place them in the 
Animal Disease Traceability General Standards Document, as we are 
proposing to do with the requirements for the PIN.

FIN

    At this time, the NSEP furnishes eartags to sheep and goat 
producers that bear a number that combines a unique flock 
identification number (FIN) with the producer's unique livestock 
production number. This flock-based number represents an animal group 
that is associated with one or more locations. This flock-based number 
system serves the sheep and goat industries well in their disease 
control and eradication efforts. The existing regulations in part 79, 
however, while allowing for the use of the system on eartags for sheep 
and goats in the NSEP, do not define flock-based number system or FIN 
and do not specify a particular format to be used. Therefore, to codify 
current practices and help ensure uniformity and consistency in the use 
of flock identification numbering, we are proposing to define both 
these terms. We propose to define flock identification number (FIN) as 
a nationally unique number assigned by a State, Tribal, or Federal 
animal health authority to a group of animals that are managed as a 
unit on one or more premises and are under the same ownership. 
Formatting requirements would be listed in the Animal Disease 
Traceability General Standards Document. We propose to define flock-
based number system as a numbering system combining a FIN with a 
producer's livestock production numbering system to provide a 
nationally unique identification number for an animal.

Definitions Pertaining to Documentation

    Under our existing interstate movement (9 CFR part 71) and animal 
disease program regulations (e.g., 9 CFR parts 77, 78, and 79), animals 
that are neither disease reactors nor exposed are generally required to 
be accompanied by certificates when moving interstate. The term 
certificate is defined in a number of places in those regulations. 
Among those definitions, however, there exists some variation according 
to species regarding information requirements and the use of the 
document. In addition, there is not a uniform requirement that 
certificates be issued by veterinarians. The proposed addition of the 
ICVI to the regulations, therefore, is intended to provide a 
standardized document, issued by a veterinarian, for the interstate 
movement of animals. We would add definitions of the ICVI to these 
proposed traceability regulations, as well as to part 71 and to the 
tuberculosis (9 CFR part 77) and brucellosis (9 CFR part 78) 
regulations. Further, we would amend the tuberculosis and brucellosis 
regulations, as discussed in detail below, so that the use of ICVIs 
would replace the use of certificates in parts 77 and 78. The ICVI 
would have to be issued by a veterinarian because, among other things, 
it would certify that a veterinary inspection has in fact taken place. 
Our requirements for veterinary accreditation are contained in 9 CFR 
parts 160 and 161.
    We are proposing, then, to define interstate certificate of 
veterinary inspection (ICVI) as an official document issued by a 
Federal, State, Tribal, or accredited veterinarian at the location from 
which animals are shipped interstate. The proposed definition further 
lists the information requirements for the ICVI. The ICVI must show the 
species of animals covered by the ICVI; the number of animals covered; 
the purpose for which the animals are to be moved; the address at which 
the animals were loaded for interstate movement; the address to which 
the animals are destined; and the names of the consignor and the 
consignee and their addresses if different from the address at which 
the animals were loaded or the address to which the animals are 
destined. Additionally, unless the species-specific requirements for 
ICVIs provide an exception, the ICVI must list the official 
identification number of each animal or group of animals moved that is 
required to be officially identified, or, if an alternative form of 
identification has been agreed upon by the sending and receiving States 
or Tribes, the ICVI must include a record of that identification. If 
animals moving under a GIN also have individual official 
identification, only the GIN must be listed on the ICVI. If the animals 
are not required by the regulations to be officially identified, the 
ICVI must state the exemption that applies (e.g., the cattle and bison 
are of a class of cattle and bison exempted during the initial stage of 
the phase-in). For those categories of animals required to be 
officially identified but whose identification number does not have to 
be recorded on the ICVI, the ICVI must state that all animals to be 
moved under the ICVI are officially identified. An ICVI may not be 
issued for any animal that is not officially identified if official 
identification is required.
    As an alternative to typing or writing individual animal 
identification on an ICVI, another document may be used to provide this 
information, but only under the following conditions:
     The document must be a State form or APHIS form that 
requires individual identification of animals;
     A legible copy of the document must be stapled to the 
original and each copy of the ICVI;
     Each copy of the document must identify each animal to be 
moved with the ICVI, but any information pertaining to other animals, 
and any unused space on the document for recording animal 
identification, must be crossed out in ink; and
     The following information must be written in ink in the 
identification column on the original and each copy of the ICVI and 
must be circled or boxed, also in ink, so that no additional 
information can be added:
    [cir] The name of the document; and
    [cir] Either the unique serial number on the document or, if the 
document is not imprinted with a serial number, both the name of the 
person who prepared the document and the date the document was signed.
    The information requirements for the ICVI are closely modeled upon 
requirements for certificates in Sec.  78.1 of the brucellosis 
regulations. These proposed requirements are necessary to provide 
States, Tribes, and APHIS with adequate information to conduct 
successful traceback investigations.
    In certain cases, we would allow for the use of an owner-shipper 
statement in lieu of an ICVI. We propose to define owner-shipper 
statement as a statement signed by the owner or shipper of the 
livestock being moved stating the location from which the animals are 
moved interstate; the destination of the animals; the number of animals 
covered by the statement; the species of animal covered; the name and 
address of the owner at the time of the movement; the name and address 
of the shipper; and the identification of each animal, as required by 
the regulations, unless the regulations specifically provide that the 
identification does not have to be recorded. The proposed information 
requirements enumerated under this definition are incorporated from 
existing regulations pertaining to identification of cattle for 
interstate movement in Sec.  71.18.

Definitions Pertaining to Interstate Movement

    Because these proposed regulations concern the movement of animals 
interstate, it is necessary to include a definition of interstate 
movement. We would define interstate movement as a movement from one 
State into or through any other State. This proposed

[[Page 50087]]

definition is taken from the definition of interstate currently used in 
our tuberculosis and brucellosis regulations in 9 CFR parts 77 and 78, 
respectively.
    We propose to define the term move as to carry, enter, import, 
mail, ship, or transport; to aid, abet, cause, or induce carrying, 
entering, importing, mailing, shipping, or transporting; to offer to 
carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or transport; to receive in order to 
carry, enter, import, mail, ship, or transport; or to allow any of 
these activities. This proposed definition is incorporated from the 
Animal Health Protection Act, minus a provision concerning release into 
the environment that is not applicable to animal traceability.
    As will be discussed later in this document, movement and 
documentation requirements may differ in some cases, depending on 
whether or not an animal is moved directly to a particular destination. 
For that reason, it is necessary to include a definition of directly. 
We would define directly as without unloading en route if moved in a 
means of conveyance and without being commingled with other animals, or 
without stopping, except for stops of less than 24 hours that are 
needed for food, water, or rest en route if the animals are moved in 
any other manner. This proposed definition has been adapted from the 
existing one in Sec.  78.1 but modified to allow for stops needed to 
care for the animals in the shipment.
    Not only the nature of an animal's interstate movement (directly or 
otherwise) but also the destination to which it is moved may affect the 
requirements governing such movement. Specifically, as discussed in 
greater detail later in this document, we would provide exemptions from 
the requirement for official identification for cattle and bison moved 
interstate directly to an approved livestock facility or recognized 
slaughtering establishment. It is necessary, for the sake of clarity, 
to include in this proposed rule definitions of such facilities. We 
propose to define approved livestock facility as a stockyard, livestock 
market, buying station, concentration point, or any other premises 
under State or Federal veterinary inspection where livestock are 
assembled and that has been approved under Sec.  71.20. This proposed 
definition matches the existing one in Sec.  71.1. We propose to define 
recognized slaughtering establishment as any slaughtering facility 
operating under the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et 
seq.), the Poultry Products Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 451 et seq.), or 
State meat or poultry inspection acts. This proposed definition is 
based on the definitions of the term used elsewhere in the existing 
regulations.

Miscellaneous Definitions

    As noted above in our overview section, these proposed regulations 
would only apply to certain species of livestock: Cattle and bison, 
sheep and goats, swine, horses and other equines, captive cervids, and 
poultry. We propose, therefore, to include in this proposed rule a new 
definition of covered livestock that would simply list those species.
    Some of the proposed definitions discussed above, e.g., approved 
livestock facility, refer to livestock more generally. Species that 
could be present at such a facility would not necessarily be limited to 
those covered under this rulemaking. It is necessary, therefore, to 
include a definition of livestock in this proposed rule. We propose to 
define livestock as all farm-raised animals. This proposed definition 
comes from the Animal Health Protection Act (7 U.S.C. 8302).
    In the overview section of this preamble, we referred to our plans 
to phase in official identification requirements for cattle and bison. 
As discussed in greater detail below, cattle and bison associated with 
greater risk of contracting and spreading disease would be subject to 
the official identification requirements before those associated with 
lesser risk. The former category includes sexually intact cattle and 
bison 18 months of age or over, dairy cattle, and cattle and bison used 
for rodeos, recreational events, shows, or exhibitions. While most of 
these designations are self-explanatory, that of dairy cattle is not. 
We are therefore including in this proposed rule a definition of dairy 
cattle. Under this proposed definition, all cattle, regardless of age 
or sex or current use, that are of a breed(s) typically used to produce 
milk or other dairy products for human consumption would be considered 
dairy cattle. We propose to define dairy cattle in such an inclusive 
manner because both male and female calves are often moved from birth 
premises and managed at multiple locations. The movement and 
commingling of dairy calves and the associated risk of disease exposure 
and spread warrant the official identification of all dairy animals.

General Requirements for Traceability (Sec.  90.2)

    Under these proposed regulations, no person (a term we propose to 
define, using a standard definition employed elsewhere in the 
regulations, as any individual, corporation, company, association, 
firm, partnership, society, or joint stock company, or other legal 
entity) could move covered livestock interstate or receive such 
livestock moved interstate unless the livestock meet all applicable 
requirements of the traceability regulations. We consider these 
proposed requirements, which are discussed in detail later in this 
document, to be the minimum necessary for a successful animal 
traceability program.
    In addition to these proposed traceability requirements, all 
covered livestock moving interstate would continue to be subject to 
existing disease control and eradication program regulations, e.g., for 
tuberculosis, brucellosis, etc., in 9 CFR subchapter C. While this 
proposed rule would establish minimum traceability requirements, the 
disease program regulations may contain additional, or more specific, 
requirements necessary to control or eliminate livestock diseases. It 
is not our intention to loosen those disease program requirements; 
hence, they would be given precedence if they were to conflict in any 
way with the general traceability requirements being proposed here.
    There are two circumstances when the traceability requirements 
would not apply to interstate movement of covered livestock:
     The movement occurs entirely within Tribal land that 
straddles a State line, and the Tribe has a separate traceability 
system from the States in which its lands are located; or
     The movement is to a custom slaughter facility in 
accordance with Federal and State regulations for preparation of meat 
for personal consumption.
    Under this rulemaking, Tribal lands, whether entirely within a 
State or straddling State lines, would be covered by the same 
traceability system as the State or States within which they are 
contained, unless the Tribal representatives choose to have their own 
traceability system separate from the State(s). If a Tribal land 
straddling a State line does have a separate traceability system from 
the States in which it is contained, then, because of Tribal 
sovereignty, livestock movements taking place entirely within that 
Tribal land, even across State lines, would not be regarded as 
interstate movement under our regulations. Therefore, the proposed 
traceability requirements for interstate movement would not apply.
    We do not deem it necessary to apply our proposed traceability 
requirements to interstate movement of covered livestock to a custom 
slaughter facility under the conditions described above.

[[Page 50088]]

Such animals are accurately identified so the meat products are 
properly provided to the owner or person responsible. Therefore, those 
animals are already highly traceable to the farm or other location from 
which the animals were moved to the slaughter facility.

Recordkeeping Requirements (Sec.  90.3)

    As we have noted, we are proposing in these regulations to require 
that, with certain exceptions, covered livestock moving interstate be 
officially identified and accompanied by an ICVI or other movement 
document. This proposed rule would require that any State, Tribe, 
accredited veterinarian, or other person or entity who distributes 
official identification devices maintain for a minimum of 5 years a 
record of the names and addresses of anyone to whom the devices were 
distributed. We would also require that approved livestock facilities 
keep for a minimum of 5 years any ICVIs or alternate documentation used 
in lieu of an ICVI for covered livestock that enter the facilities. Our 
proposed 5-year requirement for maintaining records of official 
identification devices and ICVIs or other animal movement documents is 
necessary because certain animal diseases, such as tuberculosis and 
bovine spongiform encephalopathy, have very long latency or incubation 
periods, which can make traceback efforts quite challenging. Such 
diseases may not manifest themselves until an animal reaches adulthood, 
possibly several years after it was officially identified and/or moved 
interstate. The proposed recordkeeping requirements would enhance our 
ability to conduct traceback investigations of infected and exposed 
animals, even in cases where the disease that the animal has contracted 
or been exposed to has a very long latency period. We request comment 
on the burden and practical utility of this proposed requirement.

Official Identification (Sec.  90.4)

Official Identification Devices and Methods

    We will now discuss how persons moving covered livestock interstate 
may comply with the proposed requirement that such livestock bear 
official identification. Please note that, in order to provide 
flexibility, the Administrator could authorize the use of additional 
devices or methods of identification if they would provide for 
effective traceability.
    In this proposed rule, official identification devices or methods 
approved by the Administrator for use on covered livestock moving 
interstate are listed by species. (They would also be listed in our 
Animal Disease Traceability General Standards Document.) These 
requirements are described in detail below. Listing official 
identification methods by species provides clarity to livestock owners 
so they know what official identification options are accepted for the 
movement of their animals anywhere in the United States.
    It is our intention that any device or method authorized by the 
proposed regulations as official identification for a species be 
accepted by any destination State or Tribe. Therefore, only those 
identification devices or methods that are available throughout the 
United States for a given species would be listed as official under the 
proposed regulations, and some identification practices that may be 
used regionally would not be listed, though we may allow them to be 
used in lieu of official identification.
    Branding of cattle and bison is one prominent example of an 
identification method that would not be listed as official 
identification for cattle and bison under the proposed regulations but 
would be allowed to be employed in lieu of official identification. If 
we were to list brands as a means of official identification, all 
States would have to accept animals identified with brands into their 
jurisdictions. At this time, however, 36 States do not have brand 
inspection authorities, so brands would not be suitable for listing as 
a means of official identification. Yet, recognizing the value of 
brands and their prevalence in the western United States, the proposed 
rule does provide sufficient flexibility to allow for the use of brands 
on covered livestock moving interstate in lieu of official 
identification when brands are acceptable to both the shipping and 
receiving State or Tribe. This provision for use of alternative means 
of identification would apply to all other identification practices, 
including tattoos, breed registries, etc., that States and Tribes may 
elect to use instead of the official identification methods listed 
under these proposed regulations, provided that they are acceptable to 
both the shipping and receiving States or Tribes.
Official Identification Devices and Methods for Cattle and Bison
    While the existing regulations recognize a number of means of 
identification, such as eartags, backtags, tattoos, and brands, as 
official for use on cattle and bison moving interstate, we are 
proposing to recognize eartags as the only device that may be used for 
the official identification of individual cattle and bison. Official 
eartags provide a simple means of uniquely identifying the animal. 
Eartags are a more permanent means of identification than backtags, 
which may come off the animal, and provide greater readability and ease 
of recording than do tattoos. In addition to individual identification 
of cattle and bison by means of official eartags, we propose to provide 
for the use of GINs when cattle and bison are eligible for interstate 
movement using group/lot identification. The GIN provides 
identification for the entire group of animals. As we have already 
noted, the number itself does not need to be attached to each 
individual animal.
Official Identification Devices and Methods for Equines
    Equines would have to be identified by one of the following 
methods:
     A description sufficient to identify the individual 
equine, as determined by a State or Tribal animal health official in 
the State or Tribe of destination, or APHIS representative, including, 
but not limited to, name, age, breed, color, gender, distinctive 
markings, and unique and permanent forms of identification when present 
(e.g., brands, tattoos, scars, cowlicks, or blemishes); or
     Electronic identification that complies with ISO 11784/
11785 (ISO 11784 defines the code structure of the number which is 
embedded in the transponder's microchip. ISO 11785 defines the 
technical specifications of how the transceiver communicates with the 
transponder.); or
     Digital photographs of the equine sufficient to identify 
the individual equine, as determined by a State or Tribal animal health 
official in the State or Tribe of destination, or APHIS representative; 
or
     For equines being commercially transported for slaughter, 
a USDA backtag authorized by part 88 of this chapter.
    The identification devices and methods listed above are all 
currently used on horses and other equine species in the United States 
and can provide for adequate traceability when they are moved 
interstate.
Official Identification Devices and Methods for Poultry
    Poultry would have to be identified either by means of a GIN, or 
with sealed and numbered leg bands. These identification methods are 
consistent with those required for poultry flocks participating in the 
National Poultry Improvement Plan (NPIP) regulations (9

[[Page 50089]]

CFR parts 145 through 147), and thus would not represent a change for 
most poultry producers.
Official Identification Devices and Methods for Sheep and Goats
    Currently, official identification devices or methods approved by 
the Administrator for sheep and goats required to be officially 
identified for interstate movement are listed in the scrapie 
regulations in 9 CFR 79.2.(a). These include electronic implants, 
official eartags, USDA backtags, official registry tattoos, premises 
identification eartags, and any other device or method approved by the 
Administrator. The process for approving official identification tags 
and new identification types for sheep or goats is described in Sec.  
79.2(f) and (g), respectively. This proposed rule would not change any 
of those requirements. We would simply refer the reader to part 79.
Official Identification Devices and Methods for Swine
    Currently, official identification devices or methods approved by 
the Administrator for swine needing to be officially identified for 
interstate movement are listed in Sec.  71.19. These include official 
eartags, USDA backtags, official swine tattoos and other tattoos, ear 
notching, and any other device or method approved by the Administrator. 
As is the case for sheep and goats, this proposed rule would not change 
those requirements, since, in our view, they already provide for 
adequate traceability. We would refer the reader to Sec.  71.19.
Official Identification Devices and Methods for Captive Cervids
    Interstate movement requirements for captive cervids are currently 
included in the tuberculosis regulations in part 77. Except for captive 
cervids from accredited-free States or zones, all captive cervids 
moving interstate are required under part 77 to be officially 
identified. As discussed in detail below, we are proposing in this 
document to amend part 77 to align the requirements in that part with 
our proposed traceability requirements. To avoid redundancy, this 
proposed rule would simply state that captive cervids that are required 
to be officially identified under these proposed regulations for 
interstate movement must be identified by a device or method authorized 
by part 77. It should be noted that captive cervids moved interstate 
from an accredited-free State or zone would not be exempted from 
official identification requirements under the traceability 
regulations. As discussed further below, we would also amend part 77 to 
indicate that such captive cervids would be subject to the traceability 
requirements and thus not exempted from the requirement that they be 
officially identified in order to move interstate.
Official Identification Requirements for Interstate Movement
    In the paragraphs that follow, we discuss proposed requirements for 
each species of covered livestock pertaining to aspects of official 
identification other than the devices or methods themselves. Included 
in this section are requirements for when covered livestock must be 
officially identified for interstate movement and, in some cases, other 
administrative requirements pertaining to official identification.
When Cattle and Bison Must Be Officially Identified
    With certain exceptions, cattle and bison moved interstate would 
have to be officially identified prior to the interstate movement using 
one of the official identification devices or methods previously 
discussed. These exceptions, which include the use, in lieu of official 
identification, of devices or methods agreed to by the shipping and 
receiving States or Tribes, are discussed in detail in the paragraphs 
that follow.
    An exception would be made for cattle and bison moving interstate 
as part of a commuter herd with a copy of the commuter herd agreement. 
In this proposed rule, we define commuter herd as a herd of cattle or 
bison moved interstate during the course of normal livestock management 
operations and without change of ownership directly between two 
premises, as provided in a commuter herd agreement. We propose to 
define commuter herd agreement as a written agreement between the 
owner(s) of a herd of cattle or bison and the animal health officials 
for the States and/or Tribes of origin and destination specifying the 
conditions required for the interstate movement from one premises to 
another in the course of normal livestock management operations and 
specifying the time period, up to 1 year, that the agreement is 
effective. A commuter herd agreement would be subject to annual 
renewal. Meeting commuter-herd requirements in lieu of official 
identification requirements would still provide adequate traceability 
in our view.
    We would also provide an exception from the requirement for 
official identification prior to interstate movement for cattle and 
bison moved directly from one State through another State and back to 
the original State. This exception would allow for movement without 
official identification in cases where State borders are configured 
such that a truck containing cattle or bison would pass through a 
second State when moving the animals to a second location within the 
State of origin. An example of this type of movement would be a 
shipment of cattle originating at a location in Texas and passing 
through Oklahoma territory en route to a second location in Texas. 
Because the animals would not exit the truck en route and therefore 
would not be commingled with other animals, we do not view official 
identification of the individual animals in the shipment as necessary.
    Cattle and bison would also be allowed to move interstate without 
being officially identified prior to the movement if the interstate 
movement is directly to an approved tagging site, provided that the 
cattle and bison are officially identified there before they are 
commingled with cattle and bison from other premises. In this proposed 
rule, we define approved tagging site as a premises, authorized by 
APHIS or State or Tribal animal health officials, where livestock can 
be officially identified on behalf of their owner or the person in 
possession, care, or control of the animals when they are brought to 
the premises. Such sites would afford producers a safe and convenient 
alternative, not provided for in the existing regulations, to 
identifying their animals themselves. This proposed exception is 
intended to allow producers to take advantage of this alternative when 
they are unable to tag animals at their farm or ranch.
    As discussed earlier, we would also allow cattle and bison to move 
interstate without using one of the types of official identification 
specifically approved for that purpose under these proposed regulations 
by the Administrator if the cattle and bison are moved between shipping 
and receiving States or Tribes with another form of identification, 
including but not limited to brands, tattoos, and breed registry 
certificates, as agreed upon by animal health officials in the shipping 
and receiving States or Tribes. In such situations, the shipping and 
receiving States or Tribes would determine whether that other form of 
identification is sufficient to enable the States or Tribes to meet 
their own traceability needs. This exemption is in keeping with our 
goal of allowing sufficient flexibility for States and Tribes to employ 
the traceability options that work best for them. If Tribal land 
straddles a State line and the Tribe does not have a separate 
traceability system

[[Page 50090]]

from the States in which it is contained, animal movements within the 
Tribal land that cross the State border would be considered interstate 
movements under this proposed rule. In such cases, the cattle and bison 
could still be moved across the State border using a form of 
identification agreed upon by animal health officials in the States of 
origin and destination.
    As described in greater detail below, we plan to phase in our 
official identification requirements for cattle and bison, applying 
them immediately upon the effective date of the final rule for this 
proposed rule to certain classes of cattle and bison and over time to 
other classes of cattle and bison. Until the date on which the official 
identification requirements apply to all cattle and bison, cattle and 
bison would also be eligible for interstate movement without official 
identification if they are moved directly to a recognized slaughtering 
establishment or directly to no more than one approved livestock 
facility approved to handle ``for slaughter only'' animals (cattle or 
bison that, when marketed, are presented/sold for slaughter only) and 
then directly to a recognized slaughtering establishment; and
     They are moved interstate with a USDA-approved backtag; or
     A USDA-approved backtag is applied to the cattle or bison 
at the recognized slaughtering establishment or federally approved 
livestock facility approved to handle ``for slaughter only'' animals.
    Because backtags are not considered to be a permanent form of 
identification, we are proposing to discontinue allowing the use of 
USDA backtags as official identification for cattle and bison. We 
would, however, allow their use in lieu of official identification for 
animals going to slaughter. We therefore propose to define United 
States Department of Agriculture (USDA) approved backtag as a backtag 
issued by APHIS that provides a temporary unique identification for 
each animal. The inclusion of the word temporary is what distinguishes 
this proposed definition from the otherwise identical definition of 
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) backtag in Sec.  71.1.
    The phase-in of the proposed official identification requirements 
for cattle and bison would proceed as described in the paragraphs that 
follow. Beginning on the effective date of the final rule for this 
proposed rule, the official identification requirements would apply to 
all sexually intact cattle and bison 18 months of age or over, dairy 
cattle of any age, cattle and bison of any age used for rodeo or 
recreational events, and cattle and bison used for shows or 
exhibitions. Because cattle and bison belonging to these categories 
tend to have longer lifespans than feeder animals and move around more, 
they have more opportunities for commingling and thus present a greater 
risk of spreading disease via interstate movement. It is therefore 
necessary to prioritize traceability of these animals over feeder 
animals. APHIS requests comment on this determination and the decision 
to implement the requirements for this subgroup first.
    APHIS recognizes that the second stage of the phase-in process, the 
expansion of the official identification requirements to all remaining 
classes of cattle and bison, estimated to be approximately 20 million 
animals annually, could disrupt the management and marketing of cattle 
if not implemented properly. Critical to successful implementation is 
to ensure that our proposed official identification requirements are 
being implemented effectively throughout the production chain for all 
cattle required to be officially identified in the initial phase. 
Therefore, we are proposing to conduct an assessment of the workability 
of the requirements for cattle in the initial phase before expanding 
the official identification requirements to cover all remaining classes 
of cattle and bison. When we are ready to begin that assessment, we 
will publish a notice in the Federal Register. The notice will describe 
the procedures we will use in our assessment, as well as its 
objectives.
    The assessment will involve an advisory group with industry 
representation from sectors most affected by the official 
identification requirements.