Livestock Marketing Facilities, 6-13 [2014-30752]
Download as PDF
6
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 80, No. 1
Friday, January 2, 2015
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 Parts 51, 71, 75, 78, 85, and 86
[Docket No. APHIS–2014–0018]
RIN 0579–AE02
Livestock Marketing Facilities
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
We are proposing to amend
the regulations governing approval of
facilities that receive livestock moved in
interstate commerce. We are also
proposing several amendments to the
conditions under which livestock may
move to such facilities without official
identification or prior issuance of an
interstate certificate of veterinary
inspection or alternative
documentation. These changes are
necessary to update the regulations
governing livestock marketing facilities,
while also helping ensure animal
disease traceability of livestock that are
moved in interstate commerce to such
facilities.
SUMMARY:
We will consider all comments
that we receive on or before March 3,
2015.
DATES:
You may submit comments
by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0018.
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:
Send your comment to Docket No.
APHIS–2014–0018, 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-2014-0018 or
in our reading room, which is located in
room 1141 of the USDA South Building,
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
ADDRESSES:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Dec 31, 2014
Jkt 235001
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) 799–7039
before coming.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Neil Hammerschmidt, Program
Manager, Animal Disease Traceability,
VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 200,
Riverdale, MD 20737–1236; (301) 851–
3539.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in 9 CFR subchapter
B contain requirements governing
Cooperative State-Federal programs for
the control or eradication of diseases of
livestock. The regulations in 9 CFR
subchapter C contain requirements for
the interstate movement of livestock to
prevent the dissemination of diseases of
livestock within the United States. In
the remainder of this document, we
refer to these two subchapters
collectively as ‘‘the regulations.’’
The regulations in 9 CFR part 71,
‘‘General provisions,’’ contain general
requirements regarding the movement of
livestock in interstate commerce within
the United States. Section 71.20,
‘‘Approval of livestock facilities,’’
provides that the Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of
the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) may approve a
livestock facility to receive livestock
that are moved interstate under
conditions that are afforded only to such
approved facilities. As a general
condition for approval of a facility, the
person legally responsible for the dayto-day operations of the livestock
facility must execute an agreement with
APHIS regarding the manner in which
the facility will operate, if approved.
The provisions of the agreement are set
forth in the regulations.
However, the agreement set forth in
§ 71.20 is antiquated, and thus contains
provisions that were necessary when
diseases of livestock were more
prevalent in the United States, but that
currently rarely come into play during
the day-to-day operations of a particular
facility. We have therefore evaluated the
agreement in order to determine which
provisions are still necessary.
The regulations in 9 CFR part 86,
‘‘Animal Disease Traceability,’’ provide
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
minimum national official identification
and recordkeeping requirements for the
traceability of livestock moving
interstate.
Section 86.4 provides the official
identification devices and methods that
the Administrator of APHIS has
approved for various species of
livestock moving interstate, and
generally requires livestock to be
officially identified prior to moving
interstate.
The section also provides a number of
exemptions from this general
requirement. One of these exemptions,
found in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of the
section, allows cattle and bison to be
moved interstate without official
identification if they are moved directly
to no more than one approved livestock
marketing facility 1 and then directly to
a recognized slaughtering establishment
and additionally if they are moved
interstate with a USDA-approved
backtag or a USDA-approved backtag is
applied to them at the approved
livestock marketing facility or the
recognized slaughtering establishment.
Section 86.5 provides general
documentation requirements for
livestock moving interstate. The section
provides, as a general requirement, that
livestock leaving a premises for
interstate movement must be
accompanied by an interstate certificate
of veterinary inspection (ICVI).
The section also provides a number of
exemptions from this general
requirement. One of these exemptions,
found in paragraph (c)(1) of the section,
allows cattle and bison to be moved
without an ICVI if they are moved
directly to an approved livestock
marketing facility and then directly to a
recognized slaughtering facility and are
accompanied by an owner-shipper
statement. Another exemption, found in
paragraph (c)(2), allows cattle and bison
to be moved without an ICVI if they are
moved directly to an approved livestock
marketing facility under an ownershipper statement and are not
subsequently moved interstate from the
facility unless accompanied by an ICVI.
We have received several requests to
1 The section currently refers to such facilities as
‘‘approved livestock facilities.’’ However, for
reasons that we discuss later in this document, we
are proposing to revise this term to ‘‘approved
livestock marketing facilities.’’ For the sake of
consistency, we refer to the facilities as approved
livestock marketing facilities throughout this
document.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
02JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules
reconsider or clarify aspects of the
exemptions.
We are proposing to make a number
of changes to the regulations. Below, we
discuss the changes that we are
proposing to make, by topic.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Approved Livestock Marketing Facilities
Currently, the regulations refer, in
various instances, to ‘‘approved
livestock facilities,’’ ‘‘approved
stockyards,’’ and ‘‘specifically approved
stockyards’’ in order to describe
livestock facilities that have been
approved in accordance with § 71.20.
We are proposing to replace all such
references with the term ‘‘approved
livestock marketing facilities.’’
Similarly, we are proposing to replace
all references in the regulations to
‘‘livestock facilities’’ with ‘‘livestock
marketing facilities.’’ We believe the
term ‘‘livestock marketing facility’’
appropriately describes a variety of
different facilities, such as stockyards,
auction barns, and buying stations, that
share the common distinction of being
locations where livestock moving in
interstate commerce are marketed. We
also believe the term helps differentiate
livestock marketing facilities from other
locations, such as slaughtering facilities
and quarantine lots, that receive
livestock moved in interstate commerce
but that do not market such animals.
Finally, it would also differentiate
livestock marketing facilities from
private production facilities, such as
feed lots, dairies, farms, and ranches.
Proposed Revisions to Part 71
We are proposing to revise § 71.20.
Paragraph (a) of § 71.20 would contain
requirements that apply to all livestock
marketing facilities regardless of
whether they have sought APHIS
approval. All livestock marketing
facilities would have to allow APHIS or
State representatives to collect blood
samples, conduct testing, and carry out
operations and measures at the facilities
in order to detect, control, and eradicate
diseases and pests of livestock. In order
to carry out these operations and
measures, APHIS or State
representatives could request records
and receipts retained by the facilities
that pertain to these disease and pest
detection, control, and eradication
efforts, and the facilities would have to
provide any records or receipts so
requested. Additionally, all livestock
marketing facilities would have to
maintain a record of the receipt,
distribution, and application of all
official identification devices and
USDA-approved backtags at the facility.
Under section 8308 of the Animal
Health Protection Act (AHPA, 7 U.S.C.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Dec 31, 2014
Jkt 235001
8301 et seq.), APHIS may carry out
operations and measures to detect,
control, or eradicate any pest or disease
of livestock, including the drawing of
blood and diagnostic testing of animals
at points of livestock concentration.
Paragraph (a) of § 71.20 would, in part,
restate this statutory authority.
When APHIS exercises this authority
at a livestock marketing facility in order
to respond to disease or pest outbreaks,
it is usually in order to trace known or
potentially infected or infested animals
forward or back through their chain of
production and determine what other
animals may have commingled with the
animals under investigation. In order to
do that, APHIS reviews records of
official identification devices and
USDA-approved backtags applied to
livestock at a marketing facility, as well
as other records retained by the facility
as part of common business practices.
To the extent that these records are
incomplete, or the facility delays in
sharing them with APHIS, the
possibility of an incomplete trace—and,
commensurately, the likelihood of
disease or pest spread—increases. Thus
it is necessary to require facilities to
maintain for a 5 year period a record of
the receipt, distribution, and application
of all official identification devices and
USDA-approved backtags at the facility,
and to provide these and any other
receipts or records that pertain to
disease or pest detection, control, or
eradication efforts to APHIS or State
officials working in cooperation with
APHIS, when requested.
Proposed paragraph (b) of § 71.20
would contain our approval process for
livestock marketing facilities. Similar to
the existing requirements for livestock
facilities, to qualify for approval by
APHIS as an approved livestock
marketing facility and to retain such
designation, the individual legally
responsible for the day-to-day
operations of the facility, or his or her
agent, would have to execute an
agreement with APHIS. At the
discretion of APHIS, a State animal
health official could also be a
cosignatory on the agreement.
We would allow the individual
legally responsible for the day-to-day
operations of the facility to authorize an
agent to execute the agreement in case
the individual would prefer that his or
her legal counsel review and execute the
agreement on his or her behalf. We
would allow a State animal health
official to be a cosignatory on the
agreement in order to codify a
longstanding operational practice that
we instituted out of recognition of the
degree of oversight that State animal
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7
health authorities exercise over such
facilities.
We are proposing to remove the terms
of the agreement from the regulations.
Instead, the terms would be contained
in a document titled the ‘‘Approved
Livestock Marketing Facility
Agreement.’’ The Approved Livestock
Marketing Facility Agreement, a draft of
which we are making available for
review as a supporting document for
this proposed rule, would be added to
the Animal Disease Traceability General
Standards, found at https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/
downloads/ADT_standards.pdf, as an
appendix if this proposed rule is
finalized. It could also be obtained by
writing to APHIS Veterinary Services
(VS) headquarters or calling a district
APHIS VS office.
We are proposing to add a definition
of Approved Livestock Marketing
Facility Agreement to § 71.1, which
contains definitions of the terms used in
the general provisions regulations. We
would define Approved Livestock
Marketing Facility Agreement as an
agreement between a livestock
marketing facility and APHIS that is
executed in accordance with § 71.20, in
which the facility agrees to adhere to the
structural and procedural standards
specified within the agreement.
The Approved Livestock Marketing
Facility Agreement would be similar in
structure and content to the existing
agreement in § 71.20, with a few
substantive revisions:
• We would remove a requirement
that an accredited veterinarian, State
representative, or APHIS representative
must be on the premises at all times on
sale days to perform duties in
accordance with State and Federal
regulations.
• In its place, we would add a
requirement specifying that the facility
must allow Federal and State
representatives to perform duties at the
facility in accordance with Federal and
State regulations, as requested, and
requirements specifying that accredited
veterinarians must be available (either
physically present or on-call) on sale
days in order to provide any inspection
of livestock that is required by the
regulations before the animals leave the
facility and to issue ICVIs, as necessary.
• We would add a provision
specifying that APHIS or the State will
inspect each approved facility at least
twice yearly.
We are proposing to remove the
requirement that an accredited
veterinarian, State representative, or
APHIS representative must be on the
premises at all times on sale days to
perform duties in accordance with State
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
02JAP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
8
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules
and Federal regulations because it has
presented logistical problems in recent
years at some facilities.
When this requirement was
established, diseases of livestock were
more prevalent in the United States. For
this reason, livestock marketing
facilities were more likely to receive
animals that posed a high risk of
spreading diseases of livestock. For
example, it was common enough for
such facilities to receive cattle that were
potentially infected with brucellosis
that APHIS’ cooperative Federal-State
brucellosis eradication program
required first-point testing of all
susceptible cattle that entered a
livestock marketing facility. Therefore,
at the time, it was necessary for a
Federal or State representative or
accredited veterinarian to be present at
the facility on all sale days in order to
conduct this required testing and to
ensure that any high-risk animals that
entered the facility were adequately
isolated from other livestock at the
facility.
The prevalence of Program diseases
has decreased significantly since that
time. The brucellosis eradication
program no longer requires first-point
testing of cattle that enter livestock
marketing facilities, and it is rare that
livestock marketing facilities receive
cattle or bison that are potentially
infected with brucellosis or other highrisk animals. Accordingly, the primary
function that Federal and State
representatives and accredited
veterinarians currently fulfill at
livestock marketing facilities is issuing
ICVIs for livestock that will be moved
interstate from the facility. Additionally,
while the current regulations provide
that Federal or State representatives
may issue such ICVIs, in recent years,
accredited veterinarians have issued the
vast preponderance of such ICVIs.
Depending on what classes of animals
are sold, how many are sold, and to
whom they are sold, only a few ICVIs
may need to be issued at a livestock
marketing facility on a sale day. Thus,
requiring an accredited veterinarian to
be present at the facility all day on every
sale day could represent an inefficient
use of that veterinarian’s services.
However, we recognize that, if certain
classes of livestock arrive at an
approved livestock marketing facility
without an accompanying ICVI and will
move interstate from the facility, an
ICVI may need to be issued before the
livestock leave the facility after sale.
Thus, we are proposing to require that
all approved livestock marketing
facilities must have an accredited
veterinarian available (either physically
present or on-call) on sale days in order
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Dec 31, 2014
Jkt 235001
to provide inspection of livestock before
the animals leave the facility and to
issue ICVIs, as necessary.
In the event that Federal or State
personnel require access to the facility
in order to perform duties at the facility
in accordance with Federal and State
regulations, the facility would have to
provide such access. Similarly, APHIS
or the State would inspect approved
facilities at least twice a year in order to
ensure that the facility continues to
operate in accordance with the
agreement. The results of such
inspections would factor into any
decision to withdraw approval of the
facility.
Currently, § 71.20 contains provisions
regarding the denial of approval of a
facility. Our proposed revision to
§ 71.20 would modify these provisions.
The provisions are currently written in
a manner which could be interpreted to
provide that APHIS will enter into an
agreement with a livestock marketing
facility prior to evaluating the facility’s
ability to operate in accordance with the
agreement. Practically speaking,
however, we do not enter into such an
agreement unless we have evaluated the
facility’s ability to adhere to the
agreement.
We would retain, with nonsubstantive editorial changes, the
provisions of § 71.20 that pertain to
withdrawal of approval for a livestock
facility. We would also retain the
provisions that pertain to a facility’s
ability to appeal denial or withdrawal of
approval.
We would, however, remove
provisions allowing a hearing to be held
in certain instances if approval is
denied or withdrawn. We would do so
in order to reflect current Agency
practices. This does not mean that
facilities would lose the ability to
appeal APHIS’ decisions, but rather that
the appeal would be made in writing to
the Agency itself rather than submitting
an appeal through a hearing process.
Proposed Revisions to Part 86
Meaning of ‘‘No More Than One’’
As we mentioned earlier in this
document, § 86.4 generally requires
livestock to be officially identified prior
to moving interstate. As we also
mentioned, paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of the
section allows cattle and bison to be
moved interstate without official
identification, if they are moved directly
to no more than one approved livestock
marketing facility and then directly to a
recognized slaughtering establishment
and additionally if they are moved
interstate with a USDA-approved
backtag or a USDA-approved backtag is
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
applied to them at the approved
livestock marketing facility or the
recognized slaughtering establishment.
Producers, market managers, and
State animal health officials have asked
us to clarify the meaning of the phrase
‘‘no more than one’’ approved livestock
marketing facility in this paragraph of
the regulations. In particular, they have
asked whether this exemption pertains
solely to interstate movement, and
whether cattle and bison may move
intrastate to a livestock marketing
facility and then interstate to another
livestock marketing facility under this
exemption.
In response to this request from
stakeholders to clarify the intent of the
phrase, we are proposing to revise
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of § 86.4 to provide
that the exemption pertains only to
cattle and bison moved interstate from
their farm of origin to an approved
livestock marketing facility. We are
proposing to define farm of origin in
§ 86.1 as ‘‘any farm where livestock are
produced, or any farm on which they
are maintained for at least 4 consecutive
months prior to interstate movement.’’
We are proposing this clarification
because the exemption in paragraph
(b)(1)(ii) is appropriate only for
movement directly from the farm of
origin. If cattle and bison have moved
from their farm of origin intrastate—
especially if they have been
commingled with animals from different
premises after leaving their farm—and
are subsequently discovered to be
affected with a disease or infested with
a pest of livestock after inspection or
testing at an approved livestock
marketing facility, it is very difficult to
conduct thorough and timely trace-back
procedures unless the cattle or bison are
officially identified.
Meaning of ‘‘Directly To An Approved
Livestock Marketing Facility’’
Section 86.5 generally requires that
livestock leaving a premises for
interstate movement must be
accompanied by an ICVI. However,
paragraph (c)(1) of the section allows
cattle and bison to be moved without an
ICVI if they are moved directly to an
approved livestock marketing facility
and then directly to a recognized
slaughtering facility, and are
accompanied by an owner-shipper
statement. Similarly, paragraph (c)(2) of
the section allows cattle and bison to be
moved without an ICVI if they are
moved directly to an approved livestock
marketing facility under an ownershipper statement and do not move
interstate from the facility unless
accompanied by an ICVI.
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
02JAP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules
To more clearly state the intent of the
regulation, we are proposing to amend
paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of § 86.5 to
provide that the exemption pertains
only to cattle and bison moved
interstate from their farm of origin to an
approved livestock marketing facility.
We are proposing the clarification
because the exemptions are appropriate
only for such movements. If cattle or
bison have been commingled with
animals from different premises, there is
a higher risk of disease introduction and
a correspondingly higher risk that the
interstate movement of the cattle or
bison may contribute to the spread of
diseases of livestock. Accordingly, we
believe that it is necessary that such
animals be accompanied by an ICVI in
order to have assurances about their
health status.
Regarding the exemption in paragraph
(c)(2) of § 86.5 that allows cattle and
bison to be moved without an ICVI if
they are moved directly to an approved
livestock marketing facility with an
owner-shipper statement and are not
moved interstate from the facility unless
accompanied by an ICVI, producers and
State animal health officials have stated
that, pursuant to § 71.20, approved
livestock marketing facilities are
required to record and maintain most of
the information that is contained on an
owner-shipper statement for all
livestock that enter the facility. They
have also stated that, operationally,
livestock markets often record
information equivalent to that contained
on an owner-shipper statement. In such
instances, producers and State animal
health officials have asked whether the
records could be used in lieu of an
owner-shipper statement.
After reviewing the relevant
provisions of the agreement in § 71.20
and how they have been implemented
operationally, we agree with producers
and State animal health officials that the
information maintained by approved
livestock marketing facilities for all
livestock that enter the facility often
includes all categories of information
that are required on an owner-shipper
statement. Thus, we are proposing to
allow cattle and bison to be moved
interstate to an approved livestock
marketing facility without an
accompanying owner-shipper statement,
provided a State animal health official
has waived the need for the ownershipper statement and all of the
information required for an ownershipper statement is recorded as soon as
the cattle or bison are offloaded at the
approved livestock marketing facility
and this record is maintained in
accordance with the record retention
requirements located in § 86.3.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Dec 31, 2014
Jkt 235001
Application of USDA-Approved
Backtags
Finally, we have received several
requests to amend the traceability
regulations to specify where USDAapproved backtags must be applied on
cattle and bison. (Section 71.18 had
contained such information; however,
the final rule that established the
traceability regulations removed these
provisions from the regulations.) Some
requests have suggested that we amend
the traceability regulations to require
that the backtags be applied behind the
shoulders of the cattle or bison. They
have stated that this facilitates removing
the backtags more efficiently at
slaughter, when the cattle or bison are
suspended from their hind legs. Others
have stated that it is easier to apply the
tags closer to the hip, and that retention
rates are generally higher in that
location, and have asked us to amend
the traceability regulations accordingly.
We can see a rationale for both
placements, and therefore request
public comment regarding whether we
should amend the regulations to specify
a location for placing the backtags, and,
if so, where it should be. We also
request public comment whether,
instead of a regulatory requirement,
preferred placement of the tags should
be a guideline or recommendation
within the Animal Disease Traceability
General Standards.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory
Flexibility Act
This proposed 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.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we
have performed an initial regulatory
flexibility analysis, which is
summarized below, regarding the
economic effects of this proposed rule
on small entities. Copies of the full
analysis are available by contacting the
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT or on the
Regulations.gov Web site (see
ADDRESSES above for instructions for
accessing Regulations.gov).
Based on the information we have,
there is no reason to conclude that
adoption of this proposed rule would
result in any significant economic effect
on a substantial number of small
entities. However, we do not currently
have all of the data necessary for a
comprehensive analysis of the effects of
this proposed rule on small entities.
Therefore, we are inviting comments on
potential effects. In particular, we are
interested in determining the number
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
9
and kind of small entities that may
incur benefits or costs from the
implementation of this proposed rule.
We are proposing to amend the
regulations governing approval of
facilities that receive livestock moved in
interstate commerce. We are also
proposing several amendments to the
conditions under which livestock may
move to such facilities without official
identification or prior issuance of an
interstate certificate of veterinary
inspection or alternative
documentation. These changes are
necessary to update the regulations
governing livestock marketing facilities,
while also helping ensure animal
disease traceability of livestock that are
moved in interstate commerce to such
facilities.
APHIS expects the cattle industry
would be the livestock sector
principally affected by this rule.
Livestock marketing facilities would be
directly affected and certain cattle
production enterprises that move cattle
interstate may also be affected.
Most livestock marketing facilities
qualify as small according to Small
Business Administration guidelines.
Most cattle enterprises are small family
farms. As is true for other cattle
operations, incremental costs of the rule
for these facilities will depend on
current routine management practices,
and whether the enterprise is already
receiving cattle interstate.
Livestock marketing facilities could
experience cost savings as a result of the
proposed rule. We are proposing to
remove the requirement that an
accredited veterinarian, State
representative, or APHIS representative
must be on the premises at all times on
sale days to perform duties in
accordance with State and Federal
regulations.
In recent years, this role has most
often been fulfilled by accredited
veterinarians. The Bureau of Labor
Statistics (BLS) reported that
veterinarians earned a median wage of
$40.61 per hour in 2012. This likely
overestimates the median wages of large
animal veterinarians, however BLS
statistics do not specify wages by type
of veterinary practice.
The proposed rule would relax the
requirement to have an accredited
veterinarian present. We are proposing
to require that the facility must allow
Federal and State representative to
perform their duties as requested and
that all approved livestock marketing
facilities must have an accredited
veterinarian available (either physically
present or on-call) on sale days in order
to provide inspection of livestock before
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
02JAP1
10
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules
the animals leave the facility and to
issue ICVIs, as necessary.
Livestock producers also may benefit
from the proposed rule. APHIS is
proposing to allow cattle and bison to be
moved interstate to an approved
livestock marketing facility without an
accompanying owner-shipper statement,
provided a State animal health official
has waived the need for the ownershipper statement and all of the
information required for an ownershipper statement is recorded as soon as
the cattle or bison are offloaded at the
approved livestock marketing facility
and this record is maintained in
accordance with the record retention
requirements of the regulations. As this
provision reduces documentation and
recordkeeping requirements, we
anticipate that any economic effect on
producers would be beneficial.
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 adopted, this rule: (1)
Would preempt State and local laws and
regulations that are in conflict with this
rule, as provided in § 86.8; (2) would
have no retroactive effect; and (3) would
not require administrative proceedings
before parties may file suit in court
challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains no
information collection or recordkeeping
requirements under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501
et seq.).
List of Subjects
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
9 CFR Part 85
Animal diseases, Livestock,
Quarantine, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
■
PART 51—ANIMALS DESTROYED
BECAUSE OF BRUCELLOSIS
1. The authority citation for part 51
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR
2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
2. Section 51.1 is amended by adding,
in alphabetical order, a definition of
Approved livestock marketing facility
and by removing the definition of
Specifically approved stockyard.
The addition reads as follows:
■
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Approved livestock marketing facility.
A stockyard, livestock market, buying
station, concentration point, or any
other premises under State or Federal
veterinary supervision where livestock
are assembled and that has been
approved under § 71.20 of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 51.3
Animal diseases, Livestock, Poultry
and poultry products, Quarantine,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
9 CFR Part 75
Animal diseases, Horses, Quarantine,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
[Amended]
3. In § 51.3, footnotes 3 and 4 are
redesignated as footnotes 2 and 3,
respectively.
■
§ 51.29
[Amended]
[Amended]
5. In § 51.29, in paragraph (a)(2), the
words ‘‘approved stockyard’’ are
■
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
7. Section 71.1 is amended as follows:
a. The definition of Approved
livestock facility is removed;
■ b. The definitions of Approved
livestock marketing facility and
Approved Livestock Marketing Facility
Agreement are added in alphabetical
order;
■ c. The definition of Livestock market
is removed;
■ d. The definition of Livestock
marketing facility is added in
alphabetical order; and
■ e. In the definition of Swine
production system, the word ‘‘markets’’
is removed and the words ‘‘marketing
facilities’’ are added in its place.
The additions read as follows:
■
■
4. Section 51.6 is amended as follows:
a. In paragraph (a), the words ‘‘a
specifically approved stockyard’’ are
removed and the words ‘‘an approved
livestock marketing facility’’ are added
in their place, and in paragraph (b), the
words ‘‘a stockyard approved by the
Administrator’’ are removed and the
words ‘‘an approved livestock marketing
facility’’ are added in their place.
■ b. Footnote 5 is redesignated as
footnote 4.
9 CFR Part 71
Jkt 235001
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR
2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
9 CFR Part 86
Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle,
Interstate movement, Livestock, Official
identification, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Traceability.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 9
CFR parts 51, 71, 75, 78, 85, and 86 as
follows:
§ 51.1
PART 71—GENERAL PROVISIONS
6. The authority citation for part 71
continues to read as follows:
■
■
Animal diseases, Cattle, Hogs,
Indemnity payments, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
17:48 Dec 31, 2014
removed and the words ‘‘approved
livestock marketing facility’’ are added
in their place.
§ 51.6
9 CFR Part 51
VerDate Sep<11>2014
9 CFR Part 78
Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Hogs,
Quarantine, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements,
Transportation.
§ 71.1
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Approved livestock marketing facility.
A stockyard, livestock market, buying
station, concentration point, or any
other premises under State or Federal
veterinary supervision where livestock
are assembled and that has been
approved under § 71.20.
Approved Livestock Marketing
Facility Agreement. An agreement
between a livestock marketing facility
and APHIS that is executed in
accordance with § 71.20, in which the
facility agrees to adhere to the structural
and procedural standards specified
within the agreement.
*
*
*
*
*
Livestock marketing facility. A
stockyard, buying station, concentration
point, or any other premises where
livestock are assembled for sale or sale
purposes.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 71.19
[Amended]
8. In § 71.19, in paragraph (a)(1)(ii)
and paragraph (g) introductory text, the
words ‘‘livestock market’’ are removed
and the words ‘‘livestock marketing
facility’’ are added in their place.
■ 9. Section 71.20 is revised to read as
follows:
■
§ 71.20
Livestock marketing facilities.
(a) Livestock marketing facilities;
general requirements. All livestock
marketing facilities (even those not
approved by APHIS) must allow APHIS
or State representatives to collect blood
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
02JAP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules
samples, conduct testing, and carry out
operations and measures at the facilities
in order to detect, control, and eradicate
diseases and pests of livestock. In order
to carry out these operations and
measures, APHIS or State
representatives may request records and
receipts retained by the facilities that
pertain to these disease or pest
detection, control, and eradication
efforts, and facilities must provide any
records or receipts so requested. All
livestock marketing facilities must
maintain for a 5 year period a record of
the receipt, distribution, and application
of all official identification devices and
USDA-approved backtags at the facility.
(b) Approved livestock marketing
facilities—(1) Approval. To qualify for
approval by APHIS as an approved
livestock marketing facility and to retain
such designation, the individual legally
responsible for the day-to-day
operations of the facility must operate in
accordance with the Approved
Livestock Marketing Facility Agreement.
The Approved Livestock Marketing
Facility Agreement is provided in the
Animal Disease Traceability General
Standards, found at https://
www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/
downloads/ADT_standards.pdf. It may
also be obtained by writing to APHIS
Veterinary Services, 4700 River Road
Unit 200, Riverdale, MD 20737–1231, or
by calling a district APHIS Veterinary
Services office, phone numbers for
which are provided in local telephone
directories. The Agreement must be
executed by the individual or his or her
agent and APHIS. At the discretion of
APHIS, a State animal health official
may also be a cosignatory on the
agreement. While a facility is an
approved livestock marketing facility,
the provisions in this chapter pertaining
to approved livestock marketing
facilities apply to the facility.
(2) Denial of approval. The
Administrator may deny approval of a
livestock marketing facility if he or she
determines that the facility is not
maintained or will not be maintained in
accordance with the Approved
Livestock Marketing Facility Agreement.
(3) Withdrawal of approval. The
Administrator may withdraw approval
of a livestock marketing facility if:
(i) The individual legally responsible
for the day-to-day operations of the
facility, or his or her agent, notifies the
Administrator, in writing, that the
facility no longer handles livestock
moved interstate under this chapter;
(ii) The individual who executed the
Approved Livestock Marketing Facility
Agreement pursuant to paragraph (b)(1)
of this section is no longer legally
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Dec 31, 2014
Jkt 235001
responsible for the day-to-day
operations of the facility; or
(iii) The Administrator determines
that the livestock facility is or has not
been maintained and operated in
accordance with the Approved
Livestock Marketing Facility Agreement
executed pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of
this section.
(4) Appeal. The individual legally
responsible for the day-to-day
operations of the facility or his or her
agent will be notified by APHIS of the
reasons for any denial or withdrawal,
and may appeal the denial or
withdrawal in writing to APHIS within
10 days of such notification. The appeal
must include all of the facts and reasons
on which the facility relies to show that
the reasons for the denial or withdrawal
are incorrect or do not support denial or
withdrawal of approval. APHIS will
grant or deny the appeal in writing as
promptly as circumstances permit,
stating the reason for the decision.
(Approved by the Office of
Management and Budget under control
numbers 0579–0258 and 0579–0342)
§ 71.21
[Amended]
10. In § 71.21, footnotes 8 and 9 are
redesignated as footnotes 1 and 2.
■
PART 75—COMMUNICABLE
DISEASES IN HORSES, ASSES,
PONIES, MULES, AND ZEBRAS
11. The authority citation for part 75
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR
2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
12. Section 75.4 is amended as
follows:
■ a. In paragraph (a), the definition of
Approved stockyard is removed and a
definition of Approved livestock
marketing facility is added in
alphabetical order;
■ b. In paragraph (a), in the definition of
Operator, the words ‘‘specifically
approved stockyard’’ are removed and
the words ‘‘approved livestock
marketing facility’’ are added in their
place; and
■ c. In paragraph (b)(4) introductory
text, the words ‘‘approved stockyard’’
are removed each time they appear and
the words ‘‘approved livestock
marketing facility’’ are added in their
place.
The addition reads as follows:
■
§ 75.4 Interstate movement of equine
infectious anemia reactors and approval of
laboratories, diagnostic facilities, and
research facilities.
(a) * * *
Approved livestock marketing facility.
A stockyard, livestock market, buying
station, concentration point, or any
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
11
other premises under State or Federal
veterinary supervision where livestock
are assembled and that has been
approved under § 71.20 of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
PART 78—BRUCELLOSIS
13. The authority citation for part 78
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR
2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
14. Section 78.1 is amended as
follows:
■ a. The term Approved livestock
marketing facility is added to the list of
defined terms and a definition of
Approved livestock marketing facility is
added to the section in alphabetical
order;
■ b. In the definition of Official test, the
words ‘‘specifically approved
stockyards’’ are removed each time they
appear and the words ‘‘approved
livestock marketing facilities’’ are added
in their place, once at paragraph
(a)(1)(i)(C) introductory text, twice at
paragraph (a)(1)(i)(C)(1), and once at
paragraph (a)(7);
■ c. In the definition of Originate, in
paragraph (c), the words ‘‘a specifically
approved stockyard’’ are removed and
the words ‘‘an approved livestock
marketing facility’’ are added in their
place;
■ d. In the definition of Quarantined
feedlot, in paragraph (a), the words ‘‘a
specifically approved stockyard’’ are
removed both times they appear and the
words ‘‘an approved livestock marketing
facility’’ are added in their place at
paragraphs (a)(4) and (5); and
■ e. The term Specifically approved
stockyard is removed from the list of
defined terms, the definition of
Specifically approved stockyard is
removed from the section.
The addition reads as follows:
■
§ 78.1
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Approved livestock marketing facility.
A stockyard, livestock market, buying
station, concentration point, or any
other premises under State or Federal
veterinary supervision where livestock
are assembled and that has been
approved under § 71.20 of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 78.7
[Amended]
15. In § 78.7, paragraph (a)(3), the
words ‘‘a specifically approved
stockyard’’ are removed and the words
‘‘an approved livestock marketing
facility’’ are added in their place.
■
§ 78.8
[Amended]
16. In § 78.8, the words ‘‘a specifically
approved stockyard’’ are removed each
■
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
02JAP1
12
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules
time they appear and the words ‘‘an
approved livestock marketing facility’’
are added in their place.
§ 78.9
[Amended]
17. In § 78.9, the words ‘‘a specifically
approved stockyard’’ are removed each
time they appear and the words ‘‘an
approved livestock marketing facility’’
are added in their place, and the words
‘‘the specifically approved stockyard’’
are removed each time they appear and
the words ‘‘the approved livestock
marketing facility’’ are added in their
place.
■
§ 78.10
[Amended]
18. Section 78.10 is amended as
follows:
■ a. The words ‘‘a specifically approved
stockyard’’ are removed each time they
appear and the words ‘‘an approved
livestock marketing facility’’ are added
in their place, and the words ‘‘the
specifically approved stockyard’’ are
removed each time they appear and the
words ‘‘the approved livestock
marketing facility’’ are added in their
place; and
■ b. Footnote 4 is redesignated as
footnote 2.
■
§ 78.11
[Amended]
19. Section 78.11 introductory text is
amended by removing the words ‘‘a
specifically approved stockyard’’ and
adding the words ‘‘an approved
livestock marketing facility’’ in their
place, and by removing the words ‘‘the
specifically approved stockyard’’ both
times they appear and adding the words
‘‘the approved livestock marketing
facility’’ in their place.
■
§ 78.12
[Amended]
20. Section 78.12 is amended as
follows:
■ a. In paragraphs (d)(1) and (2), the
words ‘‘a specifically approved
stockyard’’ are removed each time they
appear and the words ‘‘an approved
livestock marketing facility’’ are added
in their place;
■ b. In paragraph (d)(3) introductory
text, the words ‘‘specifically approved
stockyard’’ are removed and the words
‘‘approved livestock marketing facility’’
are added in their place; and
■ c. Footnote 5 is redesignated as
footnote 3.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
[Amended]
21. In § 78.22, in paragraph (a)(3)
introductory text, the words ‘‘a
specifically approved stockyard’’ are
removed and the words ‘‘an approved
livestock marketing facility’’ are added
in their place.
■
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Dec 31, 2014
[Amended]
22. In § 78.23, the words ‘‘a
specifically approved stockyard’’ are
removed each time they appear and the
words ‘‘an approved livestock marketing
facility’’ are added in their place.
which they are maintained for at least
4 consecutive months prior to interstate
movement.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 29. In § 86.4, paragraph (b)(1)(ii) is
revised to read as follows:
PART 85—PSEUDORABIES
§ 86.4
23. The authority citation for part 85
continues to read as follows:
*
■
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR
2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
24. Section 85.1 is amended as
follows:
■ a. The definition of Approved
livestock market is removed and a
definition of Approved livestock
marketing facility is added in alphabetic
order; and
■ b. Footnotes 4 through 10 are
redesignated as footnotes 2 through 8,
respectively.
The addition reads as follows:
■
§ 85.1
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Approved livestock marketing facility.
A stockyard, livestock market, buying
station, concentration point, or any
other premises under State or Federal
veterinary supervision where livestock
are assembled and that has been
approved under § 71.20 of this chapter.
*
*
*
*
*
§ 85.7
[Amended]
25. In § 85.7, the words ‘‘approved
livestock market’’ are removed each
time they appear and the words
‘‘approved livestock marketing facility’’
are added in their place.
■
§ 85.8
[Amended]
26. In § 85.8, the words ‘‘approved
livestock market’’ are removed each
time they appear and the words
‘‘approved livestock marketing facility’’
are added in their place.
■
■
§ 78.22
§ 78.23
Jkt 235001
PART 86—ANIMAL DISEASE
TRACEABILITY
27. The authority citation for part 86
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 7 CFR
2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
28. Section 86.1 is amended as
follows:
■ a. In the term Approved livestock
facility, the word ‘‘marketing’’ is added
before the word ‘‘facility’’; and
■ b. A definition of the term Farm of
origin is added in alphabetical order.
The addition reads as follows:
■
§ 86.1
Definitions.
*
*
*
*
*
Farm of origin. Any farm where
livestock are produced, or any farm on
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Official identification.
*
*
*
*
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Cattle and bison may also be
moved interstate without official
identification if they are moved directly
to a recognized slaughtering
establishment or are moved directly
from their farm of origin to an approved
livestock marketing facility and then
directly to a recognized slaughtering
establishment, where they are harvested
within 3 days of arrival; and
(A) They are moved interstate with a
USDA-approved backtag; or
(B) A USDA-approved backtag is
applied to the cattle or bison at the
recognized slaughtering establishment
or federally approved livestock
marketing facility.
(C) If a determination to hold the
cattle or bison for more than 3 days is
made after the animals arrive at the
slaughter establishment, the animals
must be identified in accordance with
paragraph (d)(4)(ii) of this section.
*
*
*
*
*
■ 30. In § 86.5, paragraph (c) is revised
to read as follows:
§ 86.5 Documentation requirements for
interstate movement of covered livestock.
*
*
*
*
*
(c) Cattle and bison. Cattle and bison
moved interstate must be accompanied
by an ICVI unless:
(1) They are moved directly from their
farm of origin to a recognized
slaughtering establishment, or directly
from their farm of origin to an approved
livestock marketing facility and then
directly to a recognized slaughtering
establishment, and they are
accompanied by an owner-shipper
statement.
(2) They are moved directly from their
farm of origin to an approved livestock
marketing facility with an ownershipper statement and do not move
interstate from the facility unless
accompanied by an ICVI. A State animal
health official may waive the
requirement for an owner-shipper
statement to accompany such cattle and
bison, provided that:
(i) All the information required for the
owner-shipper statement is recorded as
soon as the cattle or bison are offloaded
at the approved livestock marketing
facility; and
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
02JAP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(ii) This record is maintained in
accordance with § 86.3(b).
(3) They are moved from the farm of
origin for veterinary medical
examination or treatment and returned
to the farm of origin without change in
ownership.
(4) They are moved directly from one
State through another State and back to
the original State.
(5) They are moved as a commuter
herd with a copy of the commuter herd
agreement or other document as agreed
to by the States or Tribes involved in the
movement.
(6) Additionally, cattle and bison may
be moved between shipping and
receiving States or Tribes with
documentation other than an ICVI, e.g.,
a brand inspection certificate, as agreed
upon by animal health officials in the
shipping and receiving States or Tribes.
(7) The official identification number
of cattle or bison must be recorded on
the ICVI or alternate documentation
unless:
(i) The cattle or bison are moved from
an approved livestock marketing facility
directly to a recognized slaughtering
establishment; or
(ii) The cattle or bison are sexually
intact cattle or bison under 18 months
of age or steers or spayed heifers; Except
that: This exception does not apply to
sexually intact dairy cattle of any age or
to cattle or bison used for rodeo,
exhibition, or recreational purposes.
*
*
*
*
*
This proposed rule is an important part
of the Tiwahe initiative, which is
designed to promote the stability and
security of Indian families. The
proposed rule would align the program
with other Federal requirements, allow
leveraging of housing funds to increase
the number of families served and
projects funded, and expedite
processing of waiting lists for housing
assistance.
[K00103 12/13 A3A10; 134D0102DR–
DS5A300000–DR.5A311.IA000113; BIA–
2014–0004]
Comments must be received on
or before March 6, 2015. See the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document for dates of tribal
consultations. Comments on the
information collections contained in
this proposed regulation are separate
from those on the substance of the rule.
Comments on the information collection
burden should be received by February
2, 2015 to ensure consideration, but
must be received no later than March 6,
2015. The dates of tribal consultations
are listed in the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by any of the following methods:
—Federal rulemaking portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. The rule is
listed under the agency name ‘‘Bureau
of Indian Affairs.’’ The rule has been
assigned Docket ID: BIA–2014–0004.
—Mail or hand delivery: Elizabeth K.
Appel, Director, Office of Regulatory
Affairs & Collaborative Action, Indian
Affairs, U.S. Department of the
Interior, 1849 C St. NW., Mail Stop
3642–MIB, Washington, DC 20240.
Comments on the Paperwork
Reduction Act information collections
contained in this rule are separate from
comments on the substance of the rule.
Please submit comments on the
information collection requirements in
this rule to the Desk Officer for the
Department of the Interior by email at
OIRA_Submission@omb.eop.gov or by
facsimile at (202) 395–5806. Please also
send a copy of your comments to
consultation@bia.gov.
Please see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document
for information on tribal consultation
sessions.
RIN 1076–AF22
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of
December 2014.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2014–30752 Filed 12–31–14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
Bureau of Indian Affairs
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
25 CFR Part 256
Housing Improvement Program
ACTION:
Proposed rule.
The Bureau of Indian Affairs
is proposing to amend its regulations
governing its Housing Improvement
Program, which is a safety-net program
that provides grants for repairing,
renovating, or replacing existing
housing and for providing new housing.
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:48 Dec 31, 2014
Jkt 235001
DATES:
Mr.
Les Jensen, Division of Housing
Assistance, Bureau of Indian Affairs at
(907) 586–7397. Individuals who use a
telecommunications device for the deaf
(TDD) may call the Federal Information
Relay Service at 1 (800) 877–8339
between 8 a.m. and 4 p.m. Monday
through Friday, excluding Federal
holidays. You may also view the
information collection request as
submitted to OMB at www.reginfo.gov.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
13
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Background
The Housing Improvement Program
(HIP) is a safety-net program that
provides grants for the cost of services
to repair, renovate, or replace existing
housing and provide new housing for
eligible members of federally recognized
Indian tribes. The BIA administers the
HIP under the regulations at 25 CFR part
256. The BIA distributes HIP funding
based on a priority ranking derived from
a point system to identify those
individuals and families most in need of
housing assistance. Funding is restricted
to individuals and families that reside
in the tribe’s service area. In Fical Year
(FY) 2014, the HIP will serve
approximately 140 recipients. These
recipients are individuals and families
with extremely low incomes.
II. Changes Proposed Rule Would Make
This proposed rule would update
various provisions to align the HIP with
other Federal program requirements,
allow leveraging of housing funds to
increase the number of families served
and projects funded, and provide tribes
with flexibility to better address lengthy
waiting lists of tribal members awaiting
housing assistance.
Categories of Assistance and Funding
Limits
Currently, the HIP provides funding
for four categories of housing needs:
• Category A—for repair of existing
homes
• Category B—for renovation of
existing homes
• Category C–1—for construction of
replacement homes
• Category C–2—for new housing.
For each category, there is a monetary
limit on the amount of funding a
recipient may receive. The proposed
rule would increase the limit for
Category A funding from $2,500 to
$7,500 and increase the limit for
Category B funding from $35,000 to
$60,000. The original limits are
inadequate, given the average costs of
repair and renovation. These limit
increases will better reflect the actual
costs of repair and renovation. The
proposed rule would also add a new
category of housing need for down
payment assistance.
Ranking Factors
Currently, priority ranking is based on
total numeric value (points) received
under the ranking factors. The ranking
factors are based on the applicant’s
annual household income, whether
there is an aged person living in the
house, whether there is a disabled
E:\FR\FM\02JAP1.SGM
02JAP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 1 (Friday, January 2, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6-13]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2014-30752]
========================================================================
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. 80, No. 1 / Friday, January 2, 2015 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 6]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Parts 51, 71, 75, 78, 85, and 86
[Docket No. APHIS-2014-0018]
RIN 0579-AE02
Livestock Marketing Facilities
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We are proposing to amend the regulations governing approval
of facilities that receive livestock moved in interstate commerce. We
are also proposing several amendments to the conditions under which
livestock may move to such facilities without official identification
or prior issuance of an interstate certificate of veterinary inspection
or alternative documentation. These changes are necessary to update the
regulations governing livestock marketing facilities, while also
helping ensure animal disease traceability of livestock that are moved
in interstate commerce to such facilities.
DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before March
3, 2015.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2014-0018.
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to
Docket No. APHIS-2014-0018, 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-2014-
0018 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) 799-7039 before coming.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Neil Hammerschmidt, Program
Manager, Animal Disease Traceability, VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit
200, Riverdale, MD 20737-1236; (301) 851-3539.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
The regulations in 9 CFR subchapter B contain requirements
governing Cooperative State-Federal programs for the control or
eradication of diseases of livestock. The regulations in 9 CFR
subchapter C contain requirements for the interstate movement of
livestock to prevent the dissemination of diseases of livestock within
the United States. In the remainder of this document, we refer to these
two subchapters collectively as ``the regulations.''
The regulations in 9 CFR part 71, ``General provisions,'' contain
general requirements regarding the movement of livestock in interstate
commerce within the United States. Section 71.20, ``Approval of
livestock facilities,'' provides that the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) of the United States Department of
Agriculture (USDA) may approve a livestock facility to receive
livestock that are moved interstate under conditions that are afforded
only to such approved facilities. As a general condition for approval
of a facility, the person legally responsible for the day-to-day
operations of the livestock facility must execute an agreement with
APHIS regarding the manner in which the facility will operate, if
approved. The provisions of the agreement are set forth in the
regulations.
However, the agreement set forth in Sec. 71.20 is antiquated, and
thus contains provisions that were necessary when diseases of livestock
were more prevalent in the United States, but that currently rarely
come into play during the day-to-day operations of a particular
facility. We have therefore evaluated the agreement in order to
determine which provisions are still necessary.
The regulations in 9 CFR part 86, ``Animal Disease Traceability,''
provide minimum national official identification and recordkeeping
requirements for the traceability of livestock moving interstate.
Section 86.4 provides the official identification devices and
methods that the Administrator of APHIS has approved for various
species of livestock moving interstate, and generally requires
livestock to be officially identified prior to moving interstate.
The section also provides a number of exemptions from this general
requirement. One of these exemptions, found in paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of
the section, allows cattle and bison to be moved interstate without
official identification if they are moved directly to no more than one
approved livestock marketing facility \1\ and then directly to a
recognized slaughtering establishment and additionally if they are
moved interstate with a USDA-approved backtag or a USDA-approved
backtag is applied to them at the approved livestock marketing facility
or the recognized slaughtering establishment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The section currently refers to such facilities as
``approved livestock facilities.'' However, for reasons that we
discuss later in this document, we are proposing to revise this term
to ``approved livestock marketing facilities.'' For the sake of
consistency, we refer to the facilities as approved livestock
marketing facilities throughout this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 86.5 provides general documentation requirements for
livestock moving interstate. The section provides, as a general
requirement, that livestock leaving a premises for interstate movement
must be accompanied by an interstate certificate of veterinary
inspection (ICVI).
The section also provides a number of exemptions from this general
requirement. One of these exemptions, found in paragraph (c)(1) of the
section, allows cattle and bison to be moved without an ICVI if they
are moved directly to an approved livestock marketing facility and then
directly to a recognized slaughtering facility and are accompanied by
an owner-shipper statement. Another exemption, found in paragraph
(c)(2), allows cattle and bison to be moved without an ICVI if they are
moved directly to an approved livestock marketing facility under an
owner-shipper statement and are not subsequently moved interstate from
the facility unless accompanied by an ICVI. We have received several
requests to
[[Page 7]]
reconsider or clarify aspects of the exemptions.
We are proposing to make a number of changes to the regulations.
Below, we discuss the changes that we are proposing to make, by topic.
Approved Livestock Marketing Facilities
Currently, the regulations refer, in various instances, to
``approved livestock facilities,'' ``approved stockyards,'' and
``specifically approved stockyards'' in order to describe livestock
facilities that have been approved in accordance with Sec. 71.20. We
are proposing to replace all such references with the term ``approved
livestock marketing facilities.'' Similarly, we are proposing to
replace all references in the regulations to ``livestock facilities''
with ``livestock marketing facilities.'' We believe the term
``livestock marketing facility'' appropriately describes a variety of
different facilities, such as stockyards, auction barns, and buying
stations, that share the common distinction of being locations where
livestock moving in interstate commerce are marketed. We also believe
the term helps differentiate livestock marketing facilities from other
locations, such as slaughtering facilities and quarantine lots, that
receive livestock moved in interstate commerce but that do not market
such animals. Finally, it would also differentiate livestock marketing
facilities from private production facilities, such as feed lots,
dairies, farms, and ranches.
Proposed Revisions to Part 71
We are proposing to revise Sec. 71.20. Paragraph (a) of Sec.
71.20 would contain requirements that apply to all livestock marketing
facilities regardless of whether they have sought APHIS approval. All
livestock marketing facilities would have to allow APHIS or State
representatives to collect blood samples, conduct testing, and carry
out operations and measures at the facilities in order to detect,
control, and eradicate diseases and pests of livestock. In order to
carry out these operations and measures, APHIS or State representatives
could request records and receipts retained by the facilities that
pertain to these disease and pest detection, control, and eradication
efforts, and the facilities would have to provide any records or
receipts so requested. Additionally, all livestock marketing facilities
would have to maintain a record of the receipt, distribution, and
application of all official identification devices and USDA-approved
backtags at the facility.
Under section 8308 of the Animal Health Protection Act (AHPA, 7
U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), APHIS may carry out operations and measures to
detect, control, or eradicate any pest or disease of livestock,
including the drawing of blood and diagnostic testing of animals at
points of livestock concentration. Paragraph (a) of Sec. 71.20 would,
in part, restate this statutory authority.
When APHIS exercises this authority at a livestock marketing
facility in order to respond to disease or pest outbreaks, it is
usually in order to trace known or potentially infected or infested
animals forward or back through their chain of production and determine
what other animals may have commingled with the animals under
investigation. In order to do that, APHIS reviews records of official
identification devices and USDA-approved backtags applied to livestock
at a marketing facility, as well as other records retained by the
facility as part of common business practices. To the extent that these
records are incomplete, or the facility delays in sharing them with
APHIS, the possibility of an incomplete trace--and, commensurately, the
likelihood of disease or pest spread--increases. Thus it is necessary
to require facilities to maintain for a 5 year period a record of the
receipt, distribution, and application of all official identification
devices and USDA-approved backtags at the facility, and to provide
these and any other receipts or records that pertain to disease or pest
detection, control, or eradication efforts to APHIS or State officials
working in cooperation with APHIS, when requested.
Proposed paragraph (b) of Sec. 71.20 would contain our approval
process for livestock marketing facilities. Similar to the existing
requirements for livestock facilities, to qualify for approval by APHIS
as an approved livestock marketing facility and to retain such
designation, the individual legally responsible for the day-to-day
operations of the facility, or his or her agent, would have to execute
an agreement with APHIS. At the discretion of APHIS, a State animal
health official could also be a cosignatory on the agreement.
We would allow the individual legally responsible for the day-to-
day operations of the facility to authorize an agent to execute the
agreement in case the individual would prefer that his or her legal
counsel review and execute the agreement on his or her behalf. We would
allow a State animal health official to be a cosignatory on the
agreement in order to codify a longstanding operational practice that
we instituted out of recognition of the degree of oversight that State
animal health authorities exercise over such facilities.
We are proposing to remove the terms of the agreement from the
regulations. Instead, the terms would be contained in a document titled
the ``Approved Livestock Marketing Facility Agreement.'' The Approved
Livestock Marketing Facility Agreement, a draft of which we are making
available for review as a supporting document for this proposed rule,
would be added to the Animal Disease Traceability General Standards,
found at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/downloads/ADT_standards.pdf, as an appendix if this proposed rule is finalized.
It could also be obtained by writing to APHIS Veterinary Services (VS)
headquarters or calling a district APHIS VS office.
We are proposing to add a definition of Approved Livestock
Marketing Facility Agreement to Sec. 71.1, which contains definitions
of the terms used in the general provisions regulations. We would
define Approved Livestock Marketing Facility Agreement as an agreement
between a livestock marketing facility and APHIS that is executed in
accordance with Sec. 71.20, in which the facility agrees to adhere to
the structural and procedural standards specified within the agreement.
The Approved Livestock Marketing Facility Agreement would be
similar in structure and content to the existing agreement in Sec.
71.20, with a few substantive revisions:
We would remove a requirement that an accredited
veterinarian, State representative, or APHIS representative must be on
the premises at all times on sale days to perform duties in accordance
with State and Federal regulations.
In its place, we would add a requirement specifying that
the facility must allow Federal and State representatives to perform
duties at the facility in accordance with Federal and State
regulations, as requested, and requirements specifying that accredited
veterinarians must be available (either physically present or on-call)
on sale days in order to provide any inspection of livestock that is
required by the regulations before the animals leave the facility and
to issue ICVIs, as necessary.
We would add a provision specifying that APHIS or the
State will inspect each approved facility at least twice yearly.
We are proposing to remove the requirement that an accredited
veterinarian, State representative, or APHIS representative must be on
the premises at all times on sale days to perform duties in accordance
with State
[[Page 8]]
and Federal regulations because it has presented logistical problems in
recent years at some facilities.
When this requirement was established, diseases of livestock were
more prevalent in the United States. For this reason, livestock
marketing facilities were more likely to receive animals that posed a
high risk of spreading diseases of livestock. For example, it was
common enough for such facilities to receive cattle that were
potentially infected with brucellosis that APHIS' cooperative Federal-
State brucellosis eradication program required first-point testing of
all susceptible cattle that entered a livestock marketing facility.
Therefore, at the time, it was necessary for a Federal or State
representative or accredited veterinarian to be present at the facility
on all sale days in order to conduct this required testing and to
ensure that any high-risk animals that entered the facility were
adequately isolated from other livestock at the facility.
The prevalence of Program diseases has decreased significantly
since that time. The brucellosis eradication program no longer requires
first-point testing of cattle that enter livestock marketing
facilities, and it is rare that livestock marketing facilities receive
cattle or bison that are potentially infected with brucellosis or other
high-risk animals. Accordingly, the primary function that Federal and
State representatives and accredited veterinarians currently fulfill at
livestock marketing facilities is issuing ICVIs for livestock that will
be moved interstate from the facility. Additionally, while the current
regulations provide that Federal or State representatives may issue
such ICVIs, in recent years, accredited veterinarians have issued the
vast preponderance of such ICVIs.
Depending on what classes of animals are sold, how many are sold,
and to whom they are sold, only a few ICVIs may need to be issued at a
livestock marketing facility on a sale day. Thus, requiring an
accredited veterinarian to be present at the facility all day on every
sale day could represent an inefficient use of that veterinarian's
services.
However, we recognize that, if certain classes of livestock arrive
at an approved livestock marketing facility without an accompanying
ICVI and will move interstate from the facility, an ICVI may need to be
issued before the livestock leave the facility after sale. Thus, we are
proposing to require that all approved livestock marketing facilities
must have an accredited veterinarian available (either physically
present or on-call) on sale days in order to provide inspection of
livestock before the animals leave the facility and to issue ICVIs, as
necessary.
In the event that Federal or State personnel require access to the
facility in order to perform duties at the facility in accordance with
Federal and State regulations, the facility would have to provide such
access. Similarly, APHIS or the State would inspect approved facilities
at least twice a year in order to ensure that the facility continues to
operate in accordance with the agreement. The results of such
inspections would factor into any decision to withdraw approval of the
facility.
Currently, Sec. 71.20 contains provisions regarding the denial of
approval of a facility. Our proposed revision to Sec. 71.20 would
modify these provisions. The provisions are currently written in a
manner which could be interpreted to provide that APHIS will enter into
an agreement with a livestock marketing facility prior to evaluating
the facility's ability to operate in accordance with the agreement.
Practically speaking, however, we do not enter into such an agreement
unless we have evaluated the facility's ability to adhere to the
agreement.
We would retain, with non-substantive editorial changes, the
provisions of Sec. 71.20 that pertain to withdrawal of approval for a
livestock facility. We would also retain the provisions that pertain to
a facility's ability to appeal denial or withdrawal of approval.
We would, however, remove provisions allowing a hearing to be held
in certain instances if approval is denied or withdrawn. We would do so
in order to reflect current Agency practices. This does not mean that
facilities would lose the ability to appeal APHIS' decisions, but
rather that the appeal would be made in writing to the Agency itself
rather than submitting an appeal through a hearing process.
Proposed Revisions to Part 86
Meaning of ``No More Than One''
As we mentioned earlier in this document, Sec. 86.4 generally
requires livestock to be officially identified prior to moving
interstate. As we also mentioned, paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of the section
allows cattle and bison to be moved interstate without official
identification, if they are moved directly to no more than one approved
livestock marketing facility and then directly to a recognized
slaughtering establishment and additionally if they are moved
interstate with a USDA-approved backtag or a USDA-approved backtag is
applied to them at the approved livestock marketing facility or the
recognized slaughtering establishment.
Producers, market managers, and State animal health officials have
asked us to clarify the meaning of the phrase ``no more than one''
approved livestock marketing facility in this paragraph of the
regulations. In particular, they have asked whether this exemption
pertains solely to interstate movement, and whether cattle and bison
may move intrastate to a livestock marketing facility and then
interstate to another livestock marketing facility under this
exemption.
In response to this request from stakeholders to clarify the intent
of the phrase, we are proposing to revise paragraph (b)(1)(ii) of Sec.
86.4 to provide that the exemption pertains only to cattle and bison
moved interstate from their farm of origin to an approved livestock
marketing facility. We are proposing to define farm of origin in Sec.
86.1 as ``any farm where livestock are produced, or any farm on which
they are maintained for at least 4 consecutive months prior to
interstate movement.''
We are proposing this clarification because the exemption in
paragraph (b)(1)(ii) is appropriate only for movement directly from the
farm of origin. If cattle and bison have moved from their farm of
origin intrastate--especially if they have been commingled with animals
from different premises after leaving their farm--and are subsequently
discovered to be affected with a disease or infested with a pest of
livestock after inspection or testing at an approved livestock
marketing facility, it is very difficult to conduct thorough and timely
trace-back procedures unless the cattle or bison are officially
identified.
Meaning of ``Directly To An Approved Livestock Marketing Facility''
Section 86.5 generally requires that livestock leaving a premises
for interstate movement must be accompanied by an ICVI. However,
paragraph (c)(1) of the section allows cattle and bison to be moved
without an ICVI if they are moved directly to an approved livestock
marketing facility and then directly to a recognized slaughtering
facility, and are accompanied by an owner-shipper statement. Similarly,
paragraph (c)(2) of the section allows cattle and bison to be moved
without an ICVI if they are moved directly to an approved livestock
marketing facility under an owner-shipper statement and do not move
interstate from the facility unless accompanied by an ICVI.
[[Page 9]]
To more clearly state the intent of the regulation, we are
proposing to amend paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) of Sec. 86.5 to
provide that the exemption pertains only to cattle and bison moved
interstate from their farm of origin to an approved livestock marketing
facility.
We are proposing the clarification because the exemptions are
appropriate only for such movements. If cattle or bison have been
commingled with animals from different premises, there is a higher risk
of disease introduction and a correspondingly higher risk that the
interstate movement of the cattle or bison may contribute to the spread
of diseases of livestock. Accordingly, we believe that it is necessary
that such animals be accompanied by an ICVI in order to have assurances
about their health status.
Regarding the exemption in paragraph (c)(2) of Sec. 86.5 that
allows cattle and bison to be moved without an ICVI if they are moved
directly to an approved livestock marketing facility with an owner-
shipper statement and are not moved interstate from the facility unless
accompanied by an ICVI, producers and State animal health officials
have stated that, pursuant to Sec. 71.20, approved livestock marketing
facilities are required to record and maintain most of the information
that is contained on an owner-shipper statement for all livestock that
enter the facility. They have also stated that, operationally,
livestock markets often record information equivalent to that contained
on an owner-shipper statement. In such instances, producers and State
animal health officials have asked whether the records could be used in
lieu of an owner-shipper statement.
After reviewing the relevant provisions of the agreement in Sec.
71.20 and how they have been implemented operationally, we agree with
producers and State animal health officials that the information
maintained by approved livestock marketing facilities for all livestock
that enter the facility often includes all categories of information
that are required on an owner-shipper statement. Thus, we are proposing
to allow cattle and bison to be moved interstate to an approved
livestock marketing facility without an accompanying owner-shipper
statement, provided a State animal health official has waived the need
for the owner-shipper statement and all of the information required for
an owner-shipper statement is recorded as soon as the cattle or bison
are offloaded at the approved livestock marketing facility and this
record is maintained in accordance with the record retention
requirements located in Sec. 86.3.
Application of USDA-Approved Backtags
Finally, we have received several requests to amend the
traceability regulations to specify where USDA-approved backtags must
be applied on cattle and bison. (Section 71.18 had contained such
information; however, the final rule that established the traceability
regulations removed these provisions from the regulations.) Some
requests have suggested that we amend the traceability regulations to
require that the backtags be applied behind the shoulders of the cattle
or bison. They have stated that this facilitates removing the backtags
more efficiently at slaughter, when the cattle or bison are suspended
from their hind legs. Others have stated that it is easier to apply the
tags closer to the hip, and that retention rates are generally higher
in that location, and have asked us to amend the traceability
regulations accordingly.
We can see a rationale for both placements, and therefore request
public comment regarding whether we should amend the regulations to
specify a location for placing the backtags, and, if so, where it
should be. We also request public comment whether, instead of a
regulatory requirement, preferred placement of the tags should be a
guideline or recommendation within the Animal Disease Traceability
General Standards.
Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed 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.
In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we have performed an initial
regulatory flexibility analysis, which is summarized below, regarding
the economic effects of this proposed rule on small entities. Copies of
the full analysis are available by contacting the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT or on the Regulations.gov Web site (see
ADDRESSES above for instructions for accessing Regulations.gov).
Based on the information we have, there is no reason to conclude
that adoption of this proposed rule would result in any significant
economic effect on a substantial number of small entities. However, we
do not currently have all of the data necessary for a comprehensive
analysis of the effects of this proposed rule on small entities.
Therefore, we are inviting comments on potential effects. In
particular, we are interested in determining the number and kind of
small entities that may incur benefits or costs from the implementation
of this proposed rule.
We are proposing to amend the regulations governing approval of
facilities that receive livestock moved in interstate commerce. We are
also proposing several amendments to the conditions under which
livestock may move to such facilities without official identification
or prior issuance of an interstate certificate of veterinary inspection
or alternative documentation. These changes are necessary to update the
regulations governing livestock marketing facilities, while also
helping ensure animal disease traceability of livestock that are moved
in interstate commerce to such facilities.
APHIS expects the cattle industry would be the livestock sector
principally affected by this rule. Livestock marketing facilities would
be directly affected and certain cattle production enterprises that
move cattle interstate may also be affected.
Most livestock marketing facilities qualify as small according to
Small Business Administration guidelines. Most cattle enterprises are
small family farms. As is true for other cattle operations, incremental
costs of the rule for these facilities will depend on current routine
management practices, and whether the enterprise is already receiving
cattle interstate.
Livestock marketing facilities could experience cost savings as a
result of the proposed rule. We are proposing to remove the requirement
that an accredited veterinarian, State representative, or APHIS
representative must be on the premises at all times on sale days to
perform duties in accordance with State and Federal regulations.
In recent years, this role has most often been fulfilled by
accredited veterinarians. The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) reported
that veterinarians earned a median wage of $40.61 per hour in 2012.
This likely overestimates the median wages of large animal
veterinarians, however BLS statistics do not specify wages by type of
veterinary practice.
The proposed rule would relax the requirement to have an accredited
veterinarian present. We are proposing to require that the facility
must allow Federal and State representative to perform their duties as
requested and that all approved livestock marketing facilities must
have an accredited veterinarian available (either physically present or
on-call) on sale days in order to provide inspection of livestock
before
[[Page 10]]
the animals leave the facility and to issue ICVIs, as necessary.
Livestock producers also may benefit from the proposed rule. APHIS
is proposing to allow cattle and bison to be moved interstate to an
approved livestock marketing facility without an accompanying owner-
shipper statement, provided a State animal health official has waived
the need for the owner-shipper statement and all of the information
required for an owner-shipper statement is recorded as soon as the
cattle or bison are offloaded at the approved livestock marketing
facility and this record is maintained in accordance with the record
retention requirements of the regulations. As this provision reduces
documentation and recordkeeping requirements, we anticipate that any
economic effect on producers would be beneficial.
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 adopted, this rule: (1) Would preempt State
and local laws and regulations that are in conflict with this rule, as
provided in Sec. 86.8; (2) would have no retroactive effect; and (3)
would not require administrative proceedings before parties may file
suit in court challenging this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
This proposed rule contains no information collection or
recordkeeping requirements under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.).
List of Subjects
9 CFR Part 51
Animal diseases, Cattle, Hogs, Indemnity payments, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements.
9 CFR Part 71
Animal diseases, Livestock, Poultry and poultry products,
Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
9 CFR Part 75
Animal diseases, Horses, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
9 CFR Part 78
Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Hogs, Quarantine, Reporting and
recordkeeping requirements, Transportation.
9 CFR Part 85
Animal diseases, Livestock, Quarantine, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Transportation.
9 CFR Part 86
Animal diseases, Bison, Cattle, Interstate movement, Livestock,
Official identification, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements,
Traceability.
Accordingly, we propose to amend 9 CFR parts 51, 71, 75, 78, 85,
and 86 as follows:
PART 51--ANIMALS DESTROYED BECAUSE OF BRUCELLOSIS
0
1. The authority citation for part 51 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
0
2. Section 51.1 is amended by adding, in alphabetical order, a
definition of Approved livestock marketing facility and by removing the
definition of Specifically approved stockyard.
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 51.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
Approved livestock marketing facility. A stockyard, livestock
market, buying station, concentration point, or any other premises
under State or Federal veterinary supervision where livestock are
assembled and that has been approved under Sec. 71.20 of this chapter.
* * * * *
Sec. 51.3 [Amended]
0
3. In Sec. 51.3, footnotes 3 and 4 are redesignated as footnotes 2 and
3, respectively.
Sec. 51.6 [Amended]
0
4. Section 51.6 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), the words ``a specifically approved stockyard''
are removed and the words ``an approved livestock marketing facility''
are added in their place, and in paragraph (b), the words ``a stockyard
approved by the Administrator'' are removed and the words ``an approved
livestock marketing facility'' are added in their place.
0
b. Footnote 5 is redesignated as footnote 4.
Sec. 51.29 [Amended]
0
5. In Sec. 51.29, in paragraph (a)(2), the words ``approved
stockyard'' are removed and the words ``approved livestock marketing
facility'' are added in their place.
PART 71--GENERAL PROVISIONS
0
6. The authority citation for part 71 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
0
7. Section 71.1 is amended as follows:
0
a. The definition of Approved livestock facility is removed;
0
b. The definitions of Approved livestock marketing facility and
Approved Livestock Marketing Facility Agreement are added in
alphabetical order;
0
c. The definition of Livestock market is removed;
0
d. The definition of Livestock marketing facility is added in
alphabetical order; and
0
e. In the definition of Swine production system, the word ``markets''
is removed and the words ``marketing facilities'' are added in its
place.
The additions read as follows:
Sec. 71.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
Approved livestock marketing facility. A stockyard, livestock
market, buying station, concentration point, or any other premises
under State or Federal veterinary supervision where livestock are
assembled and that has been approved under Sec. 71.20.
Approved Livestock Marketing Facility Agreement. An agreement
between a livestock marketing facility and APHIS that is executed in
accordance with Sec. 71.20, in which the facility agrees to adhere to
the structural and procedural standards specified within the agreement.
* * * * *
Livestock marketing facility. A stockyard, buying station,
concentration point, or any other premises where livestock are
assembled for sale or sale purposes.
* * * * *
Sec. 71.19 [Amended]
0
8. In Sec. 71.19, in paragraph (a)(1)(ii) and paragraph (g)
introductory text, the words ``livestock market'' are removed and the
words ``livestock marketing facility'' are added in their place.
0
9. Section 71.20 is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 71.20 Livestock marketing facilities.
(a) Livestock marketing facilities; general requirements. All
livestock marketing facilities (even those not approved by APHIS) must
allow APHIS or State representatives to collect blood
[[Page 11]]
samples, conduct testing, and carry out operations and measures at the
facilities in order to detect, control, and eradicate diseases and
pests of livestock. In order to carry out these operations and
measures, APHIS or State representatives may request records and
receipts retained by the facilities that pertain to these disease or
pest detection, control, and eradication efforts, and facilities must
provide any records or receipts so requested. All livestock marketing
facilities must maintain for a 5 year period a record of the receipt,
distribution, and application of all official identification devices
and USDA-approved backtags at the facility.
(b) Approved livestock marketing facilities--(1) Approval. To
qualify for approval by APHIS as an approved livestock marketing
facility and to retain such designation, the individual legally
responsible for the day-to-day operations of the facility must operate
in accordance with the Approved Livestock Marketing Facility Agreement.
The Approved Livestock Marketing Facility Agreement is provided in the
Animal Disease Traceability General Standards, found at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/traceability/downloads/ADT_standards.pdf. It may
also be obtained by writing to APHIS Veterinary Services, 4700 River
Road Unit 200, Riverdale, MD 20737-1231, or by calling a district APHIS
Veterinary Services office, phone numbers for which are provided in
local telephone directories. The Agreement must be executed by the
individual or his or her agent and APHIS. At the discretion of APHIS, a
State animal health official may also be a cosignatory on the
agreement. While a facility is an approved livestock marketing
facility, the provisions in this chapter pertaining to approved
livestock marketing facilities apply to the facility.
(2) Denial of approval. The Administrator may deny approval of a
livestock marketing facility if he or she determines that the facility
is not maintained or will not be maintained in accordance with the
Approved Livestock Marketing Facility Agreement.
(3) Withdrawal of approval. The Administrator may withdraw approval
of a livestock marketing facility if:
(i) The individual legally responsible for the day-to-day
operations of the facility, or his or her agent, notifies the
Administrator, in writing, that the facility no longer handles
livestock moved interstate under this chapter;
(ii) The individual who executed the Approved Livestock Marketing
Facility Agreement pursuant to paragraph (b)(1) of this section is no
longer legally responsible for the day-to-day operations of the
facility; or
(iii) The Administrator determines that the livestock facility is
or has not been maintained and operated in accordance with the Approved
Livestock Marketing Facility Agreement executed pursuant to paragraph
(b)(1) of this section.
(4) Appeal. The individual legally responsible for the day-to-day
operations of the facility or his or her agent will be notified by
APHIS of the reasons for any denial or withdrawal, and may appeal the
denial or withdrawal in writing to APHIS within 10 days of such
notification. The appeal must include all of the facts and reasons on
which the facility relies to show that the reasons for the denial or
withdrawal are incorrect or do not support denial or withdrawal of
approval. APHIS will grant or deny the appeal in writing as promptly as
circumstances permit, stating the reason for the decision.
(Approved by the Office of Management and Budget under control
numbers 0579-0258 and 0579-0342)
Sec. 71.21 [Amended]
0
10. In Sec. 71.21, footnotes 8 and 9 are redesignated as footnotes 1
and 2.
PART 75--COMMUNICABLE DISEASES IN HORSES, ASSES, PONIES, MULES, AND
ZEBRAS
0
11. The authority citation for part 75 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
0
12. Section 75.4 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraph (a), the definition of Approved stockyard is removed
and a definition of Approved livestock marketing facility is added in
alphabetical order;
0
b. In paragraph (a), in the definition of Operator, the words
``specifically approved stockyard'' are removed and the words
``approved livestock marketing facility'' are added in their place; and
0
c. In paragraph (b)(4) introductory text, the words ``approved
stockyard'' are removed each time they appear and the words ``approved
livestock marketing facility'' are added in their place.
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 75.4 Interstate movement of equine infectious anemia reactors
and approval of laboratories, diagnostic facilities, and research
facilities.
(a) * * *
Approved livestock marketing facility. A stockyard, livestock
market, buying station, concentration point, or any other premises
under State or Federal veterinary supervision where livestock are
assembled and that has been approved under Sec. 71.20 of this chapter.
* * * * *
PART 78--BRUCELLOSIS
0
13. The authority citation for part 78 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
0
14. Section 78.1 is amended as follows:
0
a. The term Approved livestock marketing facility is added to the list
of defined terms and a definition of Approved livestock marketing
facility is added to the section in alphabetical order;
0
b. In the definition of Official test, the words ``specifically
approved stockyards'' are removed each time they appear and the words
``approved livestock marketing facilities'' are added in their place,
once at paragraph (a)(1)(i)(C) introductory text, twice at paragraph
(a)(1)(i)(C)(1), and once at paragraph (a)(7);
0
c. In the definition of Originate, in paragraph (c), the words ``a
specifically approved stockyard'' are removed and the words ``an
approved livestock marketing facility'' are added in their place;
0
d. In the definition of Quarantined feedlot, in paragraph (a), the
words ``a specifically approved stockyard'' are removed both times they
appear and the words ``an approved livestock marketing facility'' are
added in their place at paragraphs (a)(4) and (5); and
0
e. The term Specifically approved stockyard is removed from the list of
defined terms, the definition of Specifically approved stockyard is
removed from the section.
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 78.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
Approved livestock marketing facility. A stockyard, livestock
market, buying station, concentration point, or any other premises
under State or Federal veterinary supervision where livestock are
assembled and that has been approved under Sec. 71.20 of this chapter.
* * * * *
Sec. 78.7 [Amended]
0
15. In Sec. 78.7, paragraph (a)(3), the words ``a specifically
approved stockyard'' are removed and the words ``an approved livestock
marketing facility'' are added in their place.
Sec. 78.8 [Amended]
0
16. In Sec. 78.8, the words ``a specifically approved stockyard'' are
removed each
[[Page 12]]
time they appear and the words ``an approved livestock marketing
facility'' are added in their place.
Sec. 78.9 [Amended]
0
17. In Sec. 78.9, the words ``a specifically approved stockyard'' are
removed each time they appear and the words ``an approved livestock
marketing facility'' are added in their place, and the words ``the
specifically approved stockyard'' are removed each time they appear and
the words ``the approved livestock marketing facility'' are added in
their place.
Sec. 78.10 [Amended]
0
18. Section 78.10 is amended as follows:
0
a. The words ``a specifically approved stockyard'' are removed each
time they appear and the words ``an approved livestock marketing
facility'' are added in their place, and the words ``the specifically
approved stockyard'' are removed each time they appear and the words
``the approved livestock marketing facility'' are added in their place;
and
0
b. Footnote 4 is redesignated as footnote 2.
Sec. 78.11 [Amended]
0
19. Section 78.11 introductory text is amended by removing the words
``a specifically approved stockyard'' and adding the words ``an
approved livestock marketing facility'' in their place, and by removing
the words ``the specifically approved stockyard'' both times they
appear and adding the words ``the approved livestock marketing
facility'' in their place.
Sec. 78.12 [Amended]
0
20. Section 78.12 is amended as follows:
0
a. In paragraphs (d)(1) and (2), the words ``a specifically approved
stockyard'' are removed each time they appear and the words ``an
approved livestock marketing facility'' are added in their place;
0
b. In paragraph (d)(3) introductory text, the words ``specifically
approved stockyard'' are removed and the words ``approved livestock
marketing facility'' are added in their place; and
0
c. Footnote 5 is redesignated as footnote 3.
Sec. 78.22 [Amended]
0
21. In Sec. 78.22, in paragraph (a)(3) introductory text, the words
``a specifically approved stockyard'' are removed and the words ``an
approved livestock marketing facility'' are added in their place.
Sec. 78.23 [Amended]
0
22. In Sec. 78.23, the words ``a specifically approved stockyard'' are
removed each time they appear and the words ``an approved livestock
marketing facility'' are added in their place.
PART 85--PSEUDORABIES
0
23. The authority citation for part 85 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
0
24. Section 85.1 is amended as follows:
0
a. The definition of Approved livestock market is removed and a
definition of Approved livestock marketing facility is added in
alphabetic order; and
0
b. Footnotes 4 through 10 are redesignated as footnotes 2 through 8,
respectively.
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 85.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
Approved livestock marketing facility. A stockyard, livestock
market, buying station, concentration point, or any other premises
under State or Federal veterinary supervision where livestock are
assembled and that has been approved under Sec. 71.20 of this chapter.
* * * * *
Sec. 85.7 [Amended]
0
25. In Sec. 85.7, the words ``approved livestock market'' are removed
each time they appear and the words ``approved livestock marketing
facility'' are added in their place.
Sec. 85.8 [Amended]
0
26. In Sec. 85.8, the words ``approved livestock market'' are removed
each time they appear and the words ``approved livestock marketing
facility'' are added in their place.
PART 86--ANIMAL DISEASE TRACEABILITY
0
27. The authority citation for part 86 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301-8317; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.4.
0
28. Section 86.1 is amended as follows:
0
a. In the term Approved livestock facility, the word ``marketing'' is
added before the word ``facility''; and
0
b. A definition of the term Farm of origin is added in alphabetical
order.
The addition reads as follows:
Sec. 86.1 Definitions.
* * * * *
Farm of origin. Any farm where livestock are produced, or any farm
on which they are maintained for at least 4 consecutive months prior to
interstate movement.
* * * * *
0
29. In Sec. 86.4, paragraph (b)(1)(ii) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 86.4 Official identification.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(1) * * *
(ii) Cattle and bison may also be moved interstate without official
identification if they are moved directly to a recognized slaughtering
establishment or are moved directly from their farm of origin to an
approved livestock marketing facility and then directly to a recognized
slaughtering establishment, where they are harvested within 3 days of
arrival; and
(A) They are moved interstate with a USDA-approved backtag; or
(B) A USDA-approved backtag is applied to the cattle or bison at
the recognized slaughtering establishment or federally approved
livestock marketing facility.
(C) If a determination to hold the cattle or bison for more than 3
days is made after the animals arrive at the slaughter establishment,
the animals must be identified in accordance with paragraph (d)(4)(ii)
of this section.
* * * * *
0
30. In Sec. 86.5, paragraph (c) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 86.5 Documentation requirements for interstate movement of
covered livestock.
* * * * *
(c) Cattle and bison. Cattle and bison moved interstate must be
accompanied by an ICVI unless:
(1) They are moved directly from their farm of origin to a
recognized slaughtering establishment, or directly from their farm of
origin to an approved livestock marketing facility and then directly to
a recognized slaughtering establishment, and they are accompanied by an
owner-shipper statement.
(2) They are moved directly from their farm of origin to an
approved livestock marketing facility with an owner-shipper statement
and do not move interstate from the facility unless accompanied by an
ICVI. A State animal health official may waive the requirement for an
owner-shipper statement to accompany such cattle and bison, provided
that:
(i) All the information required for the owner-shipper statement is
recorded as soon as the cattle or bison are offloaded at the approved
livestock marketing facility; and
[[Page 13]]
(ii) This record is maintained in accordance with Sec. 86.3(b).
(3) They are moved from the farm of origin for veterinary medical
examination or treatment and returned to the farm of origin without
change in ownership.
(4) They are moved directly from one State through another State
and back to the original State.
(5) They are moved as a commuter herd with a copy of the commuter
herd agreement or other document as agreed to by the States or Tribes
involved in the movement.
(6) Additionally, cattle and bison may be moved between shipping
and receiving States or Tribes with documentation other than an ICVI,
e.g., a brand inspection certificate, as agreed upon by animal health
officials in the shipping and receiving States or Tribes.
(7) The official identification number of cattle or bison must be
recorded on the ICVI or alternate documentation unless:
(i) The cattle or bison are moved from an approved livestock
marketing facility directly to a recognized slaughtering establishment;
or
(ii) The cattle or bison are sexually intact cattle or bison under
18 months of age or steers or spayed heifers; Except that: This
exception does not apply to sexually intact dairy cattle of any age or
to cattle or bison used for rodeo, exhibition, or recreational
purposes.
* * * * *
Done in Washington, DC, this 29th day of December 2014.
Kevin Shea,
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service.
[FR Doc. 2014-30752 Filed 12-31-14; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P