Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Veal Calves, 27269-27275 [2015-11559]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
27269
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 80, No. 92
Wednesday, May 13, 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
Food Safety and Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 309
[Docket No. FSIS–2014–0020]
RIN 0583–AD54
Requirements for the Disposition of
Non-Ambulatory Disabled Veal Calves
Food Safety and Inspection
Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing
to amend its regulations on ante-mortem
inspection to remove a provision that
permits establishments to set apart and
hold for treatment veal calves that are
unable to rise from a recumbent position
and walk because they are tired or cold.
Under the proposed rule, nonambulatory disabled veal calves that are
offered for slaughter will be condemned
and promptly euthanized. Prohibiting
the slaughter of all non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves will improve
compliance with the Humane Methods
of Slaughter Act of 1978 (HMSA) and
the humane slaughter implementing
regulations. It will also improve the
Agency’s inspection efficiency by
eliminating the time that FSIS
inspection program personnel (IPP)
spend re-inspecting non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves. FSIS is also
proposing to clarify in the regulations
that all non-ambulatory disabled cattle
must be promptly disposed of after they
have been condemned.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before July 13, 2015.
ADDRESSES: FSIS invites interested
persons to submit comments on this
rule. Comments may be submitted by
one of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: This
Web site provides the ability to type
short comments directly into the
comment field on this Web page or
attach a file for lengthier comments. Go
to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 May 12, 2015
Jkt 235001
the on-line instructions at that site for
submitting comments.
• Mail, including CD–ROMs, etc.:
Send to Docket Clerk, U.S. Department
of Agriculture, Food Safety and
Inspection Service, Patriots Plaza 3,
1400 Independence Avenue SW.,
Mailstop 3782, Room 8–163A,
Washington, DC 20250–3700.
• Hand- or courier-delivered
submittals: Deliver to Patriots Plaza 3,
355 E. Street SW., Room 8–163A,
Washington, DC 20250–3700.
Instructions: All items submitted by
mail or electronic mail must include the
Agency name and docket number FSIS–
2014–0020. Comments received in
response to this docket will be made
available for public inspection and
posted without change, including any
personal information, to https://
www.regulations.gov.
Dr.
Daniel Engeljohn, Assistant
Administrator, Office of Policy and
Program Development; Telephone: (202)
205–0495.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Background
Regulatory Requirements for NonAmbulatory Disabled Veal
Under 9 CFR 309.3(e), nonambulatory disabled cattle that are
offered for slaughter, including those
that have become non-ambulatory
disabled after passing ante-mortem
inspection, must be condemned and
disposed of properly. However, under 9
CFR 309.13(b), non-ambulatory disabled
veal calves that are able to rise from a
recumbent position and walk after they
have been set aside and warmed or
rested, and that are found to be
otherwise free from disease, may be
slaughtered for human food under
appropriate FSIS supervision.
In 2009, FSIS amended 9 CFR 309.3(e)
to remove the case-by-case disposition
determination of cattle that became nonambulatory disabled after ante-mortem
inspection to ensure that animals that
may be unfit for human food do not
proceed to slaughter and to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of the
inspection system (74 FR 11463). FSIS
decided that establishments could
continue to set aside veal calves that
were tired or cold because these
conditions could be treated before
presenting the animals for slaughter.
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Petition From the Humane Society of
the United States
In November 2009, the Humane
Society of the United States (HSUS)
submitted a petition requesting that
FSIS amend its regulations to remove
the provision that allows veal calves
that are non-ambulatory disabled
because they are tired or cold to be set
aside to be warmed or rested (9 CFR
309.13(b)). The petition requested that
FSIS amend its regulations to require
that all non-ambulatory disabled veal
calves offered for slaughter be
condemned and promptly euthanized.
The petition is available on the FSIS
Web site at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/
wps/wcm/connect/9ddd8b7c-983f-4cb183e8-9e545e9345d0/Petition_HSUS_
Humane_Handling.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.
To support the requested action, the
petition referred to video footage from
an HSUS undercover investigation at an
official veal slaughter establishment in
August 2009. The video footage
documents incidents in which the
establishment owner and his employees
repeatedly used electric prods and
physical force to attempt to get nonambulatory disabled veal calves to rise.
After the release of the video footage,
FSIS conducted its own investigation
which found that the establishment
repeatedly failed to handle animals
humanely. FSIS immediately shut down
the establishment, and Secretary of
Agriculture Thomas Vilsack ordered the
USDA’s Office of Inspector General to
conduct a criminal investigation. The
establishment was only allowed to
reopen under a new name and different
ownership after reaching an agreement
with FSIS that its facilities would be
audited by an outside firm on a regular
basis, and that employees would receive
special training on humane handling of
animals.
HSUS’s petition asserted that the
provision in 9 CFR 309.13(b) is
inconsistent with the language and
intent of the HMSA because it fails to
ensure that the handling of livestock in
connection with slaughter be carried out
only by humane methods (see 7 U.S.C.
1902). Similarly, the petition asserted
that failing to require immediate
euthanasia creates a financial incentive
for establishments to engage in abusive
conduct because a non-ambulatory
disabled calf is worthless unless it is
slaughtered. The petition asserted that
removing the provision from 9 CFR
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
27270
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 92 / Wednesday, May 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
309.13(b) would eliminate uncertainty
as to what is to be done with veal calves
that are non-ambulatory disabled
because they are tired or cold, or
because they are injured or sick, thereby
ensuring the appropriate disposition of
these animals. The petition also
maintained that removing the provision
in 9 CFR 309.13(b) would improve
inspection efficiency by eliminating the
time that FSIS IPP spend assessing the
treatment of non-ambulatory disabled
veal calves.
On February 7, 2011, FSIS published
a document in the Federal Register
requesting public comments on the
HSUS petition (76 FR 6572). In the
document, the Agency explained that it
had tentatively decided to grant the
HSUS petition but determined that it
would be useful to solicit public input
on the issues raised in the petition
before making a final decision. FSIS
stated that the Agency believed that
prohibiting slaughter of all nonambulatory disabled veal calves may
remove potential uncertainty in
determining the disposition of calves
that have been set aside and would be
consistent with the requirements for the
other classes of non-ambulatory
disabled cattle. FSIS also stated that
prohibiting the slaughter of nonambulatory disabled veal calves would
better ensure effective implementation
of ante-mortem inspection pursuant to
21 U.S.C. 603(a) and of humane
handling requirements pursuant to 21
U.S.C. 603(b) of the Federal Meat
Inspection Act. FSIS received
approximately 75,000 comment letters
on the petition. Most of the comments
were form letters from a write-in
campaign HSUS had organized. A
summary of comments and the Agency’s
responses is below.
After carefully considering the issues
raised in the petition and comments
submitted in response to the Federal
Register document (76 FR 6572), FSIS
granted the HSUS petition on March 13,
2013, and announced that the Agency
would begin rulemaking when resources
allowed.
Recent Investigation
On January 23, 2014, FSIS initiated an
investigation into allegations of
inhumane slaughter and handling of
veal calves, covertly captured on video
by HSUS, at another official veal
slaughter establishment. Among other
things, the video footage documents
incidents in which veal slaughter
establishment employees use physical
force to attempt to get non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves to rise.
After reviewing the video footage and
other evidence, FSIS found that the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 May 12, 2015
Jkt 235001
establishment did have a
comprehensive systematic approach to
its humane handling program, but that
the approach was not consistently
applied. As a result, FSIS withdrew its
inspectors from the slaughter operations
at the establishment, thereby halting
slaughter operations, until the
establishment provided the Agency with
corrective actions and further planned
preventive measures that would ensure
that livestock at the establishment
would be slaughtered humanely. The
establishment provided the Agency with
corrective and preventive actions on
January 24, 2014. After a thorough
review and evaluation of these
materials, FSIS notified the
establishment that its suspension would
be held in abeyance on February 3,
2014. FSIS continues to verify that the
establishment’s corrective and furtherplanned actions are implemented and
effective.
Comments and Responses
Approximately 70,000 comment
letters that expressed support for the
HSUS petition were submitted as part of
the HSUS write-in campaign. FSIS also
received over 4,000 comment letters in
support of the petition from other writein campaigns, animal welfare
organizations, private citizens, and two
veterinary associations. FSIS received
approximately 200 comments from trade
associations representing meat
processors, cattle producers, dairy
producers, and farm bureaus, as well as
individual dairy farmers, veal
processors, cattle producers, and private
citizens that opposed granting the
petition.
Comments: Most of the commenters
that supported the petition stated that
the regulation that allows veal calves to
be set apart and held for treatment
violates the HMSA because it
encourages conduct such as dragging,
kicking, excessive shocking, and other
means of forced movement that are
clearly prohibited. The commenters
asserted that FSIS cannot reasonably
justify imposing a higher protective
standard for mature cattle than it does
for calves.
The comments in support of the
petition also asserted that granting the
petition would eliminate incentives for
veal calf producers to send extremely
weak calves to slaughter, thereby
improving on-farm conditions and
conditions during transportation for
these animals. According to the
comments, veal calves are often fed allliquid diets that are intended to be
deficient in iron, making these animals
more susceptible to gastrointestinal
disorders and diseases. The comments
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
also stated that veal calves are subjected
to cruel confinement practices that
contribute to their weakened condition.
The comments stated that veal calf
producers have the means to prevent
conditions that can predispose calves to
collapse at slaughter, and, therefore, the
regulations should encourage
improvements in on-farm and
transportation practices.
Many commenters in support of
granting the petition asserted that
rescinding the regulation that allows
veal calves to be set apart and held for
treatment would improve inspection
efficiency and ensure the appropriate
disposition of non-ambulatory disabled
veal calves on ante-mortem inspection.
The commenters argued that the
rescission would eliminate the
uncertainty inherent in determining
whether these animals are nonambulatory disabled because they are
tired or cold, or because they are injured
or sick.
Some commenters asserted that the
Agency had not articulated the nature of
the ‘‘uncertainty’’ in determining the
disposition of non-ambulatory disabled
veal calves that it seeks to avoid by
granting the HSUS petition. The
commenters stated that such
‘‘uncertainty’’ could not be attributed to
bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE) concerns because veal calves are
too young to present a BSE risk. The
commenters asserted that conditions
that are commonly observed in veal
calves can readily be treated before
these animals are presented for
slaughter.
Response: Although FSIS has
determined that cattle younger than 30
months do not present a serious risk of
BSE, veal calves are vulnerable to other
systemic and metabolic diseases and
injury because of inadequate
immunoglobulin transfer, nutritional
inadequacies of an all-liquid irondeficient diet, activity restriction, and
stress. For example, veal calves are
acutely susceptible to enteritis, which is
the inflammation of the small intestine
caused by infection that may lead to
diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever, and
dehydration. If adopted, this proposed
rule will eliminate the time that FSIS
IPP spend determining whether veal
calves are non-ambulatory disabled
because they are tired or cold or because
they have diseases like enteritis. This
proposed rule will also eliminate the
time that FSIS IPP spend re-inspecting
veal calves if they are again offered for
slaughter. Therefore, this proposed rule
will increase the time FSIS IPP can
focus on other inspection activities.
Comments: Several comments, most
from trade associations representing
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 92 / Wednesday, May 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules
meat processors, stated that instead of
encouraging inhumane handling,
allowing non-ambulatory disabled veal
calves to be set apart for treatment gives
these animals an opportunity to
naturally show that they can gain the
strength to rise and become ambulatory
through additional nourishment and
care. Therefore, the commenters
asserted, allowing veal calves time to
rest and gain warmth is, in fact,
inherently humane. According to the
commenters, granting the petition
would do little to improve humane
handling of veal calves because the
slaughter establishments that do
exercise their option to allow tired or
cold non-ambulatory disabled veal
calves to rest do handle these calves
humanely.
Response: The 2009 inhumane
handling incident referred to in the
HSUS petition and the 2014 inhumane
handling incident described above
demonstrate that these animals are not
always given an opportunity to
naturally show that they can gain the
strength to rise and become ambulatory
through additional nourishment and
care. FSIS also reviewed noncompliance records (NRs) from 2012 to
2014 and found three instances where
FSIS inspectors observed ambulatory
veal calves walk over non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves and one instance
where non-ambulatory disabled veal
calves were physically lifted and
dropped into holding pens. While these
instances of non-compliance were
corrected through corrected actions,
FSIS has found that allowing
reinspection of NAD veal may have
created an incentive for some
establishments to inhumanely attempt
to force these animals to rise. In
addition, allowing reinspection may
have encouraged establishments or
livestock producers to hold ill or injured
veal calves from slaughter longer in an
attempt to allow them to sufficiently
recover to pass the reinspection before
collapsing. FSIS is concerned that these
veal calves may not have adequate
access to water. From 2012 to 2014,
FSIS documented over 30 NRs for
failure to provide water in accordance
with § 313.2(e). Furthermore, veal calves
may not be able to drink the water that
establishments provide because they are
used to drinking from a bottle.
Therefore, FSIS has determined that a
change in the regulation is needed to
ensure more effective and efficient
implementation of inspection
procedures and compliance with
humane handling requirements at
official veal slaughter establishments.
Comments: Some commenters
suggested that FSIS should only amend
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 May 12, 2015
Jkt 235001
the provision in 9 CFR 309.13(b) to
prohibit the slaughter of nonambulatory disabled ‘‘bob veal,’’ which
are calves generally less than one week
old. The commenters argued that bob
veal should be treated differently than
formula-fed and non-formula-fed calves.
The comment recommended limiting
the prohibition to bob veal because they
are younger and weaker and thus more
likely to become non-ambulatory
disabled at slaughter than the older
calves.
A trade association representing
farmers and processors of formula-fed
veal noted that the inhumane handling
incident referred to in the HSUS
petition took place at a bob veal calf
slaughter establishment. The commenter
noted that bob veal calves are a small
segment of young dairy calves that have
not received the individualized care that
is typical at a formula-fed veal farm. The
commenter stated that farmers of
formula-fed veal select the highest
quality and healthiest bull calves
available in sale barns or directly from
dairy farmers. The commenter
explained that the formula-fed veal
calves raised in the U.S. receive
individualized and specialized care and
husbandry on veal farms until they are
20–22 weeks or approximately 450–500
pounds. The commenter noted that this
treatment is in contrast to how bob veal
calves, which are typically younger,
weaker, and lighter calves, are treated.
The commenter stated that a formulafed veal calf that has been raised to
market-weight carries a significant loss
of investment compared to a bob veal
calf that has not received the same
individual care. According to the
commenter, based on market value in
2013, a typical farmer of formula-fed
veal is likely to lose $800 for each
otherwise healthy non-ambulatory
disabled veal calf that cannot proceed to
slaughter compared with the $10–25
loss for each bob veal calf.
Response: While the 2009 inhumane
handling incident referred to in the
HSUS petition took place at a bob veal
calf slaughter establishment, the 2014
inhumane handling incident described
above took place at a formula-fed veal
calf slaughter establishment. Based on
the evidence found in these
investigations, FSIS believes that a
change in the regulation is needed to
ensure that there is better compliance
with humane handling requirements at
all official veal slaughter establishments
and more effective and efficient
implementation of inspection
procedures.
Also, as discussed below, the
Agency’s analysis of the estimated costs
of this rule to formula-fed and non-
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
27271
formula-fed veal slaughter
establishments would be about $0 to
$8,225.00 annually, which is
insignificant compared to their annual
market value of about $283 million to
$366 million.
Proposed Amendments to 9 CFR
309.13(b) and 309.3(e)
The above-mentioned incidents of
inhumane handling at official veal calf
slaughter establishments in 2009 and
2014 demonstrate that the provision in
9 CFR 309.13(b) may create an incentive
for establishments to inhumanely force
non-ambulatory disabled veal calves to
rise and may provide an incentive for
livestock producers and establishments
to send weakened veal calves to
slaughter in the hope that the veal
calves are able to sufficiently recover to
pass ante-mortem inspection. Sending
such weakened veal calves to slaughter
increases the chances that they will go
down and then be subjected to
conditions that are inhumane. This
proposed rule will remove the incentive
to send such weakened veal calves to
slaughter and decrease the chances of
inhumane conditions. In addition,
prohibiting the slaughter of all nonambulatory disabled veal calves will be
consistent with the requirements for the
other classes of non-ambulatory
disabled cattle.
Therefore, after evaluating the
comments, NRs, and information from
the 2009 and 2014 incidents discussed
above, FSIS is proposing to remove the
second sentence in 9 CFR 309.13(b) that
permits veal calves that are unable to
rise from a recumbent position and walk
because they are tired or cold to be set
apart and held for treatment.
In addition, FSIS is proposing to
amend 9 CFR 309.3(e) to clarify in the
regulations that non-ambulatory
disabled cattle that are offered for
slaughter must be condemned and
promptly disposed of properly. FSIS is
proposing to make this change in
response to questions from
establishments on when nonambulatory disabled cattle must be
condemned and disposed of properly. In
the preamble to the 2009 final rule,
‘‘Requirements for the Disposition of
Cattle that Become Non-Ambulatory
Disabled Following Ante-Mortem
Inspection’’ (74 FR 11463; March 18,
2009), FSIS explained that the HMSA
and regulations require that nonambulatory disabled cattle be humanely
handled and that humane handling
requires that such cattle be promptly
euthanized (74 FR 11464). ‘‘Promptly’’
means within a reasonable time in view
of all of the facts and circumstances.
Under this proposed rule, non-
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
27272
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 92 / Wednesday, May 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules
ambulatory disabled cattle (including
veal calves) that are offered for slaughter
will have to be condemned and
promptly euthanized.
Also under this proposed rule, the
carcasses, parts thereof, meat, or meat
food products of non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves will be considered
unfit for human food and thus
adulterated. The reinspection of nonambulatory disabled veal calves by IPP
will be discontinued, increasing the
time IPP can focus on other inspection
activities.
FSIS is proposing this rule under 21
U.S.C. 621, which gives FSIS the
authority to adopt regulations for the
efficient administration of the FMIA.
The amendment in this proposal is
intended to facilitate more effective
implementation of ante-mortem
inspection pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 603(a)
and of the humane handling
requirements established pursuant to 21
U.S.C. 603(b).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and
the Regulatory Flexibility Act
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
direct agencies to assess all costs and
benefits of available regulatory
alternatives and, if regulation is
necessary, to select regulatory
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
effects, distributive impacts and equity).
Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the
importance of quantifying both costs
and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This proposed rule has been
designated a ‘‘significant’’ regulatory
action under section 3(f) of Executive
Order (E.O.) 12866. Accordingly, the
rule has been reviewed by the Office of
Management and Budget under E.O.
12866.
Baseline
In calendar year (CY) 2013, federallyinspected veal calf establishments
slaughtered a total of 725,020 veal
calves (Table 1). Market value estimates
for slaughtered veal calves based on
data reported by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS), were between $283
million and $366 million.1
TABLE 1—TOTAL VEAL CALVES SLAUGHTERED AND MARKET VALUE, CY 2013
Sum of head
count
(1,000)
Veal calf type
Min market
value
($1,000,000)
Max market
value
($1,000,000)
Bob Veal ......................................................................................................................................
Formula-fed Veal .........................................................................................................................
Non Formula-fed Veal .................................................................................................................
405.6
310.8
8.6
$3.4
271.3
7.9
$36.5
319.7
9.3
Grand Total * .........................................................................................................................
725.0
282.6
365.5
Notes: Head Slaughtered source—FSIS, Public Health Information System (PHIS).
* Sum may not add up due to rounding.
The U.S. veal industry is made up of
establishments in the small and very
small Hazard Analysis and Critical
Control Point (HACCP)-size categories.2
Table 2 outlines the number of
establishments and the total head
slaughtered.
TABLE 2—THE NUMBER OF VEAL CALVES SLAUGHTERED IN OFFICIAL ESTABLISHMENTS, BY HACCP PROCESSING SIZE, IN
CY 2013
Total number
of establishments
HACCP processing size
Bob veal SL
(1,000)
Formula-fed
veal SL
(1,000)
Non formulafed veal SL
(1,000)
Total SL
(1,000)
Small ....................................................................................
Very Small ............................................................................
46
146
275.3
130.3
310.7
.125
1.4
7.2
587.4
137.6
Total * ............................................................................
192
405.6
310.8
8.6
725.0
Source: FSIS, PHIS.
* Sum may not add up due to rounding.
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Expected Cost of the Proposed Rule
The expected costs of the proposed
rule for the veal establishments are a
result of the lost market value of the
non-ambulatory disabled veal calves
that the affected establishments will no
longer be able to slaughter for human
food. The addition of the word
‘‘promptly’’ to 9 CFR 309.3(e) would not
have any expected costs.
1 Bob Veal Market Value: $8.40-$90.00 per head,
Data derived from USDA/AMS Lancaster County
Weekly Cattle Summary (LS_LN145) Reports—03/
03/2013, 06/21/2013, 09/27/2013, 12/20/2013;
Formula and Non Formula-fed veal Market Value:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 May 12, 2015
Jkt 235001
To estimate the total first year cost to
the veal industry, FSIS used CY 2013
PHIS data to obtain the expected
minimum and maximum percent of
non-ambulatory disabled calves out of
the current veal calves slaughtered.
Since FSIS did not have an exact count
of the number of veal calves that were
non-ambulatory and were re-inspected
(after the calves rested and were able to
move) and then sent for slaughter, the
agency assumed that the number of
deleted records 3 in PHIS was a close
approximation that represented the
scenario. FSIS is seeking comments on
this assumption. FSIS applied those
multipliers to the number of calves
slaughtered in CY 2013 (see Table 3,
below). The lower and upper bounds
respectively, based on table 3, were
$872.35–$1,028.09 per head, Data derived from
USDA/AMS Weekly Veal Market Summary
Reports—calendar year 2013.
2 HACCP size: Very Small Establishment = Less
than 10 employees or less than $2.5 million in
annual sales; Small Establishment = 10–499
employees; Large Establishment = 500 or more
employees.
3 The records are not permanently deleted, but are
marked and saved in another field of PHIS.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 92 / Wednesday, May 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules
0.069% and 0.42% for non-ambulatory
disabled affected bob veal calves, and
0.000% and 0.002% for the combined
group of non-ambulatory disabled
27273
formula-fed and non-formula-fed veal
calves.
TABLE 3—THE DISTRIBUTION OF FSIS CONDEMNED VEAL CALVES BY CATEGORY, FOR CY 2013
Min percent
nonambulatory
disabled
veal
affected
Category
Bob Veal ..................................................................................................................................................................
Formula- and Non Formula-fed Veal .......................................................................................................................
0.069
0.000
Max percent
nonambulatory
disabled
veal
affected
affected
0.420
0.002
Source: FSIS, PHIS.
Using the minimum and maximum
values of non-ambulatory disabled
affected veal calves, FSIS estimated the
expected minimum and maximum total
first year cost to the veal establishments,
based on CY 2013 data.
TABLE 4—EXPECTED QUANTIFIED TOTAL COSTS TO THE U.S. VEAL INDUSTRY
Bob veal
Minimum Percent Affected ......................................................................................................................................
Maximum Percent Affected .....................................................................................................................................
Min # of Veal Affected .............................................................................................................................................
Max # of Veal Affected ............................................................................................................................................
Min Price per Head ..................................................................................................................................................
Max Price per Head .................................................................................................................................................
Minimum Cost ..........................................................................................................................................................
Maximum Cost .........................................................................................................................................................
Minimum U.S. Industry Cost ....................................................................................................................................
Maximum U.S. Industry Cost ...................................................................................................................................
If the proposed rule is adopted, nonambulatory disabled veal calves will not
be re-inspected during ante-mortem
inspection. The veal calves that are
condemned during ante-mortem
inspection will be euthanized. The cost
of disposing of the dead calves varies
across the region. We do not have
adequate data to cost out the disposal
fees for dead calves since we do not
know how many establishments engage
in this practice. Therefore, FSIS is
seeking comments and any available
data on this practice.
The estimated annual cost to the veal
industry would range between $2369
and $161405. The bob veal category
would be the most affected section of
the veal industry because, as shown in
table 4, both the minimum and
maximum numbers of bob veal calves
that are non-ambulatory disabled at
ante-mortem inspection exceed the
numbers of formula-fed and nonformula-fed veal calves that are nonambulatory disabled at ante-mortem
inspection. According to comments to
the petition and data provided by AMS,
bob veal are also the weakest and the
most vulnerable category of veal calves,
and have the lowest market value to the
industry.
0.069%
0.420%
282
1702
8.4
90
2368.8
153180
2368.8
161404.72
Formula- &
non formulafed veal
0.000%
0.002%
0
8
872.35
1028.09
0
8224.72
........................
........................
Expected Benefits of the Proposed Rule
FSIS predicts that this rule would
provide Agency personnel with savings
in terms of inspection time. According
to PHIS data, it takes an inspector
around 15 minutes to re-inspect a calf.
Since FSIS will not have to re-inspect
the veal calves that are non-ambulatory
disabled during ante-mortem inspection
to determine their disposition, the
Agency will save anywhere from 70.5
hours (minimum) to 428 hours
(maximum) in total. This time will
allow the inspector the ability to engage
in other inspection activities instead.
TABLE 5—BENEFITS IN TERMS OF TIME SAVING
Bob veal
(15 min)
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Time to do ante-mortem inspection
Min # of Veal Affected .............................................................................................................................................
Max # of Veal Affected ............................................................................................................................................
Min time saved ........................................................................................................................................................
Max time saved .......................................................................................................................................................
Total Minimum Time Saved .....................................................................................................................................
Total Maximum Time Saved ....................................................................................................................................
The proposed rule will ensure the
humane disposition of the nonambulatory disabled veal calves. It will
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 May 12, 2015
Jkt 235001
also increase the efficiency and effective
implementation of inspection and
humane handling requirements at
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
282
1702
70.5
425.5
70.5 hr
427.5 hr
F & NF fed
0
8
0
2
official establishments. This rule would
incentivize growers and transporters of
cattle to improve animal welfare, both,
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
27274
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 92 / Wednesday, May 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules
before and during transport. A recent
study conducted by researchers from the
University Of Manitoba Department Of
Animal Science’s Agriculture and AgriFood Canada, Lethbridge Research
Centre, has shown that transport and
transport conditions, such as
temperature, length of the trip, and
space allowance (density of animals to
size), are associated with cattle being
dead, lame, and non-ambulatory at the
unload. Of all the classes of cattle,
calves, and cull cattle were the ‘‘more
likely to be dead and non-ambulatory
during the journey’’, the study points.
The authors indicate that animal
condition upon loading plays an
important risk factor in the outcome of
the journey. The study concludes that,
even though dead, lame, and nonambulatory animals had very low
incidences, the fact of being one or
another indicated extremely poor
welfare conditions of cattle. Since veal
calves are a vulnerable population,
those implied in transporting cattle
should be encouraged to do so in a more
humane and careful way. In addition,
growers should be incentivized to grow
healthier and stronger animals that can
handle the stress and other issues
associated with transportation.4
Regulatory Flexibility Act Assessment
FSIS has made a preliminary
determination that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small
entities in the United States, as defined
by the Regulatory Flexibility Act (5
U.S.C. 601 et seq.). FSIS is seeking
comments on this determination.
The Agency estimates that this rule
would possibly affect 192 small and
very small HACCP size veal slaughter
establishments (as seen in table 2). Even
though so many small and very small
establishments are affected by this rule
the volume of veal that will not be
eligible for slaughter is very low.
Further, the estimated total annual cost
per establishment to the industry is
between $12 (total minimum cost/
number of establishments=2369/192)
and $841 (total maximum cost/number
of establishments=$161405/192).
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no paperwork or
recordkeeping requirements associated
with this proposed rule under the
4 Gonzalez, L.A., Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K.S.,
´
Bryan, M., Silasi, R., and Brown F. (2015).
‘‘Relationship between transport conditions and
welfare outcomes during commercial long haul
transport of cattle in North America’’. American
Society of Animal Science, 90(10):3640–51 doi:
10.2527/jas2011–4796.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 May 12, 2015
Jkt 235001
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501–3520).
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20250–9410.
E-Government Act
Fax
(202) 690–7442.
FSIS and USDA are committed to
achieving the purposes of the EGovernment Act (44 U.S.C. 3601, et
seq.) by, among other things, promoting
the use of the Internet and other
information technologies and providing
increased opportunities for citizen
access to Government information and
services, and for other purposes.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. Under this proposed
rule: (1) All State and local laws and
regulations that are inconsistent with
this rule will be preempted, (2) no
retroactive effect will be given to this
rule, and (3) no administrative
proceedings will be required before
parties may file suit in court challenging
this rule.
Executive Order 13175
This proposed rule has been reviewed
in accordance with the requirements of
Executive Order 13175, Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments. The review reveals that
this regulation will not have substantial
and direct effects on Tribal governments
and will not have significant Tribal
implications.
USDA Non-Discrimination Statement
No agency, officer, or employee of the
USDA shall, on the grounds of race,
color, national origin, religion, sex,
gender identity, sexual orientation,
disability, age, marital status, family/
parental status, income derived from a
public assistance program, or political
beliefs, exclude from participation in,
deny the benefits of, or subject to
discrimination any person in the United
States under any program or activity
conducted by the USDA.
How To File a Complaint of
Discrimination
To file a complaint of discrimination,
complete the USDA Program
Discrimination Complaint Form, which
may be accessed online at https://
www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/
docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_
12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you
or your authorized representative.
Send your completed complaint form
or letter to USDA by mail, fax, or email:
Mail
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Director, Office of Adjudication, 1400
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Email
program.intake@usda.gov.
Persons with disabilities who require
alternative means for communication
(Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.),
should contact USDA’s TARGET Center
at (202) 720–2600 (voice and TDD).
Additional Public Notification
Public awareness of all segments of
rulemaking and policy development is
important. Consequently, FSIS will
announce this Federal Register
publication on-line through the FSIS
Web page located at: https://www.fsis.
usda.gov/federal-register.
FSIS also will make copies of this
publication available through the FSIS
Constituent Update, which is used to
provide information regarding FSIS
policies, procedures, regulations,
Federal Register notices, FSIS public
meetings, and other types of information
that could affect or would be of interest
to our constituents and stakeholders.
The Update is available on the FSIS
Web page. Through the Web page, FSIS
is able to provide information to a much
broader, more diverse audience. In
addition, FSIS offers an email
subscription service which provides
automatic and customized access to
selected food safety news and
information. This service is available at:
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe.
Options range from recalls to export
information, regulations, directives, and
notices. Customers can add or delete
subscriptions themselves, and have the
option to password protect their
accounts.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 309
Animal diseases, Meat inspection,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the
preamble, FSIS proposes to amend 9
CFR part 309 as follows:
PART 309—ANTE–MORTEM
INSPECTION
1. The authority citation for part 309
continues to read as follows:
■
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601–695; 7 CFR 2.18,
2.53.
2. Section 309.3(e) is revised to read
as follows:
■
§ 309.3 Dead, dying, disabled, or diseased
and similar livestock.
*
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
*
*
13MYP1
*
*
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 92 / Wednesday, May 13, 2015 / Proposed Rules
(e) Establishment personnel must
notify FSIS inspection personnel when
cattle become non-ambulatory disabled
after passing ante-mortem inspection.
Non-ambulatory disabled cattle that are
offered for slaughter must be
condemned and promptly disposed of
in accordance with § 309.13.
§ 309.13
[AMENDED]
3. Section 309.13(b) is amended by
removing the second sentence.
■
Done in Washington, DC, on May 8, 2015.
Alfred V. Almanza,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015–11559 Filed 5–12–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P
ARCHITECTURAL AND
TRANSPORTATION BARRIERS
COMPLIANCE BOARD
36 CFR Part 1192
[Docket No. ATBCB–2013–0001]
RIN 3014–AA42
Rail Vehicles Access Advisory
Committee
Architectural and
Transportation Barriers Compliance
Board.
ACTION: Notice of advisory committee
meeting.
AGENCY:
On May 23, 2013, we, the
Architectural and Transportation
Barriers Compliance Board (Access
Board), established the Rail Vehicles
Access Advisory Committee
(Committee) to advise us on revising
and updating our accessibility
guidelines issued pursuant to the
Americans with Disabilities Act for
transportation vehicles that operate on
fixed guideway systems (e.g., rapid rail,
light rail, commuter rail, intercity rail,
and high speed rail). The Committee
will hold its seventh meeting on the
following dates and times.
DATES: The Committee will meet on
June 4, 2015, from 10:00 a.m. to 6:00
p.m. and on June 5, 2015, from 9:30 a.m.
to 3:30 p.m.
ADDRESSES: The meeting will be held at
the Access Board conference room, 1331
F Street NW., Suite 800, Washington,
DC 20004–1111. Call-in information and
a communication access real-time
translation (CART) web streaming link
will be posted on the Access Board’s
Rail Vehicles Access Advisory
Committee Web site page at
www.access-board.gov/rvaac.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Paul
Beatty, Office of Technical and
asabaliauskas on DSK5VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:35 May 12, 2015
Jkt 235001
Information Services, Access Board,
1331 F Street NW., Suite 1000,
Washington, DC 20004–1111.
Telephone number (202) 272–0012
(Voice); (202) 272–0072 (TTY).
Electronic mail address: rvaac@accessboard.gov.
On May
23, 2013, we published a notice
announcing that we were establishing a
Rail Vehicles Access Advisory
Committee (Committee) to make
recommendations to us on matters
associated with revising and updating
our accessibility guidelines issued
pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act for transportation
vehicles that operate on fixed guideway
systems (e.g., rapid rail, light rail,
commuter rail, intercity rail, and high
speed rail). See 78 FR 30828 (May 23,
2013).
The Committee will hold its seventh
meeting on June 4, 2015, from 10:00
a.m. to 6:00 p.m. and on June 5, 2015,
from 9:30 a.m. to 3:30 p.m. The
preliminary agenda for the June meeting
includes deliberation of committee
member concerns pertaining to its final
report on accessibility of rail vehicles
and consideration of process-related
matters. The preliminary meeting
agenda, along with information about
the Committee, is available on our Web
site at www.access-board.gov/rvaac.
The Committee meeting will be open
to the public and interested persons can
attend the meetings and communicate
their views. Members of the public will
have opportunities to address the
Committee on issues of interest to them
during a public comment period
scheduled each day. The meetings will
be accessible to persons with
disabilities. An assistive listening
system, communication access real-time
translation (CART), and sign language
interpreters will be provided. Persons
attending the meetings are requested to
refrain from using perfume, cologne,
and other fragrances for the comfort of
other participants (see www.accessboard.gov/the-board/policies/fragrancefree-environment for more information).
Persons wishing to provide handouts
or other written information to the
Committee are requested to provide
electronic formats to Paul Beatty via
email at least five business days prior to
the meeting so that alternate formats can
be distributed to Committee members.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
David M. Capozzi,
Executive Director.
[FR Doc. 2015–11574 Filed 5–12–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 8150–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
27275
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 52
[EPA–R06–OAR–2011–0079; FRL–9927–61–
Region 6]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans; Texas; Revision
to Control Volatile Organic Compound
Emissions From Storage Tanks and
Transport Vessels
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
The Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) is proposing to approve a
Texas State Implementation (SIP)
revision for control of volatile organic
compound (VOC) emissions from
degassing of storage tanks, transport
vessels and marine vessels. The revision
reformats the existing requirement to
comply with current rule writing
standards, adds additional control
options for owner/operators to use when
complying, clarifies the monitoring and
testing requirements of the rule, and
makes non-substantive changes to VOC
control provisions that apply in the
Beaumont-Port Arthur nonattainment
area (Hardin, Jefferson and Orange
Counties), four counties in the DallasFort Worth nonattainment area (Collin,
Dallas, Denton and Tarrant Counties), El
Paso County, and the HoustonGalveston-Brazoria nonattainment area
(Brazoria, Chambers, Fort Bend,
Galveston, Harris, Liberty, Montgomery
and Waller Counties).
DATES: Written comments should be
received on or before June 12, 2015.
ADDRESSES: Comments may be mailed to
Mr. Guy Donaldson, Chief, Air Planning
Section (6PD–L), Environmental
Protection Agency, 1445 Ross Avenue,
Suite 1200, Dallas, Texas 75202–2733.
Comments may also be submitted
electronically or through hand delivery/
courier by following the detailed
instructions in the ADDRESSES section of
the direct final rule located in the rules
section of this Federal Register.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Robert Todd, (214) 665–2156,
todd.robert@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: In the
final rules section of this Federal
Register, EPA is approving the State’s
SIP submittal as a direct final rule
without prior proposal because the
Agency views this as a noncontroversial
submittal and anticipates no adverse
comments. A detailed rationale for the
approval is set forth in the direct final
rule. If no relevant adverse comments
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\13MYP1.SGM
13MYP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 92 (Wednesday, May 13, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 27269-27275]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-11559]
========================================================================
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. 92 / Wednesday, May 13, 2015 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 27269]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Food Safety and Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 309
[Docket No. FSIS-2014-0020]
RIN 0583-AD54
Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Veal
Calves
AGENCY: Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is proposing to
amend its regulations on ante-mortem inspection to remove a provision
that permits establishments to set apart and hold for treatment veal
calves that are unable to rise from a recumbent position and walk
because they are tired or cold. Under the proposed rule, non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves that are offered for slaughter will be condemned
and promptly euthanized. Prohibiting the slaughter of all non-
ambulatory disabled veal calves will improve compliance with the Humane
Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978 (HMSA) and the humane slaughter
implementing regulations. It will also improve the Agency's inspection
efficiency by eliminating the time that FSIS inspection program
personnel (IPP) spend re-inspecting non-ambulatory disabled veal
calves. FSIS is also proposing to clarify in the regulations that all
non-ambulatory disabled cattle must be promptly disposed of after they
have been condemned.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before July 13, 2015.
ADDRESSES: FSIS invites interested persons to submit comments on this
rule. Comments may be submitted by one of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: This Web site provides the
ability to type short comments directly into the comment field on this
Web page or attach a file for lengthier comments. Go to https://www.regulations.gov. Follow the on-line instructions at that site for
submitting comments.
Mail, including CD-ROMs, etc.: Send to Docket Clerk, U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, Patriots
Plaza 3, 1400 Independence Avenue SW., Mailstop 3782, Room 8-163A,
Washington, DC 20250-3700.
Hand- or courier-delivered submittals: Deliver to Patriots
Plaza 3, 355 E. Street SW., Room 8-163A, Washington, DC 20250-3700.
Instructions: All items submitted by mail or electronic mail must
include the Agency name and docket number FSIS-2014-0020. Comments
received in response to this docket will be made available for public
inspection and posted without change, including any personal
information, to https://www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Daniel Engeljohn, Assistant
Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development; Telephone:
(202) 205-0495.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
Regulatory Requirements for Non-Ambulatory Disabled Veal
Under 9 CFR 309.3(e), non-ambulatory disabled cattle that are
offered for slaughter, including those that have become non-ambulatory
disabled after passing ante-mortem inspection, must be condemned and
disposed of properly. However, under 9 CFR 309.13(b), non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves that are able to rise from a recumbent position
and walk after they have been set aside and warmed or rested, and that
are found to be otherwise free from disease, may be slaughtered for
human food under appropriate FSIS supervision.
In 2009, FSIS amended 9 CFR 309.3(e) to remove the case-by-case
disposition determination of cattle that became non-ambulatory disabled
after ante-mortem inspection to ensure that animals that may be unfit
for human food do not proceed to slaughter and to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of the inspection system (74 FR 11463).
FSIS decided that establishments could continue to set aside veal
calves that were tired or cold because these conditions could be
treated before presenting the animals for slaughter.
Petition From the Humane Society of the United States
In November 2009, the Humane Society of the United States (HSUS)
submitted a petition requesting that FSIS amend its regulations to
remove the provision that allows veal calves that are non-ambulatory
disabled because they are tired or cold to be set aside to be warmed or
rested (9 CFR 309.13(b)). The petition requested that FSIS amend its
regulations to require that all non-ambulatory disabled veal calves
offered for slaughter be condemned and promptly euthanized. The
petition is available on the FSIS Web site at https://www.fsis.usda.gov/wps/wcm/connect/9ddd8b7c-983f-4cb1-83e8-9e545e9345d0/Petition_HSUS_Humane_Handling.pdf?MOD=AJPERES.
To support the requested action, the petition referred to video
footage from an HSUS undercover investigation at an official veal
slaughter establishment in August 2009. The video footage documents
incidents in which the establishment owner and his employees repeatedly
used electric prods and physical force to attempt to get non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves to rise.
After the release of the video footage, FSIS conducted its own
investigation which found that the establishment repeatedly failed to
handle animals humanely. FSIS immediately shut down the establishment,
and Secretary of Agriculture Thomas Vilsack ordered the USDA's Office
of Inspector General to conduct a criminal investigation. The
establishment was only allowed to reopen under a new name and different
ownership after reaching an agreement with FSIS that its facilities
would be audited by an outside firm on a regular basis, and that
employees would receive special training on humane handling of animals.
HSUS's petition asserted that the provision in 9 CFR 309.13(b) is
inconsistent with the language and intent of the HMSA because it fails
to ensure that the handling of livestock in connection with slaughter
be carried out only by humane methods (see 7 U.S.C. 1902). Similarly,
the petition asserted that failing to require immediate euthanasia
creates a financial incentive for establishments to engage in abusive
conduct because a non-ambulatory disabled calf is worthless unless it
is slaughtered. The petition asserted that removing the provision from
9 CFR
[[Page 27270]]
309.13(b) would eliminate uncertainty as to what is to be done with
veal calves that are non-ambulatory disabled because they are tired or
cold, or because they are injured or sick, thereby ensuring the
appropriate disposition of these animals. The petition also maintained
that removing the provision in 9 CFR 309.13(b) would improve inspection
efficiency by eliminating the time that FSIS IPP spend assessing the
treatment of non-ambulatory disabled veal calves.
On February 7, 2011, FSIS published a document in the Federal
Register requesting public comments on the HSUS petition (76 FR 6572).
In the document, the Agency explained that it had tentatively decided
to grant the HSUS petition but determined that it would be useful to
solicit public input on the issues raised in the petition before making
a final decision. FSIS stated that the Agency believed that prohibiting
slaughter of all non-ambulatory disabled veal calves may remove
potential uncertainty in determining the disposition of calves that
have been set aside and would be consistent with the requirements for
the other classes of non-ambulatory disabled cattle. FSIS also stated
that prohibiting the slaughter of non-ambulatory disabled veal calves
would better ensure effective implementation of ante-mortem inspection
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 603(a) and of humane handling requirements
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 603(b) of the Federal Meat Inspection Act. FSIS
received approximately 75,000 comment letters on the petition. Most of
the comments were form letters from a write-in campaign HSUS had
organized. A summary of comments and the Agency's responses is below.
After carefully considering the issues raised in the petition and
comments submitted in response to the Federal Register document (76 FR
6572), FSIS granted the HSUS petition on March 13, 2013, and announced
that the Agency would begin rulemaking when resources allowed.
Recent Investigation
On January 23, 2014, FSIS initiated an investigation into
allegations of inhumane slaughter and handling of veal calves, covertly
captured on video by HSUS, at another official veal slaughter
establishment. Among other things, the video footage documents
incidents in which veal slaughter establishment employees use physical
force to attempt to get non-ambulatory disabled veal calves to rise.
After reviewing the video footage and other evidence, FSIS found
that the establishment did have a comprehensive systematic approach to
its humane handling program, but that the approach was not consistently
applied. As a result, FSIS withdrew its inspectors from the slaughter
operations at the establishment, thereby halting slaughter operations,
until the establishment provided the Agency with corrective actions and
further planned preventive measures that would ensure that livestock at
the establishment would be slaughtered humanely. The establishment
provided the Agency with corrective and preventive actions on January
24, 2014. After a thorough review and evaluation of these materials,
FSIS notified the establishment that its suspension would be held in
abeyance on February 3, 2014. FSIS continues to verify that the
establishment's corrective and further-planned actions are implemented
and effective.
Comments and Responses
Approximately 70,000 comment letters that expressed support for the
HSUS petition were submitted as part of the HSUS write-in campaign.
FSIS also received over 4,000 comment letters in support of the
petition from other write-in campaigns, animal welfare organizations,
private citizens, and two veterinary associations. FSIS received
approximately 200 comments from trade associations representing meat
processors, cattle producers, dairy producers, and farm bureaus, as
well as individual dairy farmers, veal processors, cattle producers,
and private citizens that opposed granting the petition.
Comments: Most of the commenters that supported the petition stated
that the regulation that allows veal calves to be set apart and held
for treatment violates the HMSA because it encourages conduct such as
dragging, kicking, excessive shocking, and other means of forced
movement that are clearly prohibited. The commenters asserted that FSIS
cannot reasonably justify imposing a higher protective standard for
mature cattle than it does for calves.
The comments in support of the petition also asserted that granting
the petition would eliminate incentives for veal calf producers to send
extremely weak calves to slaughter, thereby improving on-farm
conditions and conditions during transportation for these animals.
According to the comments, veal calves are often fed all-liquid diets
that are intended to be deficient in iron, making these animals more
susceptible to gastrointestinal disorders and diseases. The comments
also stated that veal calves are subjected to cruel confinement
practices that contribute to their weakened condition. The comments
stated that veal calf producers have the means to prevent conditions
that can predispose calves to collapse at slaughter, and, therefore,
the regulations should encourage improvements in on-farm and
transportation practices.
Many commenters in support of granting the petition asserted that
rescinding the regulation that allows veal calves to be set apart and
held for treatment would improve inspection efficiency and ensure the
appropriate disposition of non-ambulatory disabled veal calves on ante-
mortem inspection. The commenters argued that the rescission would
eliminate the uncertainty inherent in determining whether these animals
are non-ambulatory disabled because they are tired or cold, or because
they are injured or sick.
Some commenters asserted that the Agency had not articulated the
nature of the ``uncertainty'' in determining the disposition of non-
ambulatory disabled veal calves that it seeks to avoid by granting the
HSUS petition. The commenters stated that such ``uncertainty'' could
not be attributed to bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) concerns
because veal calves are too young to present a BSE risk. The commenters
asserted that conditions that are commonly observed in veal calves can
readily be treated before these animals are presented for slaughter.
Response: Although FSIS has determined that cattle younger than 30
months do not present a serious risk of BSE, veal calves are vulnerable
to other systemic and metabolic diseases and injury because of
inadequate immunoglobulin transfer, nutritional inadequacies of an all-
liquid iron-deficient diet, activity restriction, and stress. For
example, veal calves are acutely susceptible to enteritis, which is the
inflammation of the small intestine caused by infection that may lead
to diarrhea, abdominal pain, fever, and dehydration. If adopted, this
proposed rule will eliminate the time that FSIS IPP spend determining
whether veal calves are non-ambulatory disabled because they are tired
or cold or because they have diseases like enteritis. This proposed
rule will also eliminate the time that FSIS IPP spend re-inspecting
veal calves if they are again offered for slaughter. Therefore, this
proposed rule will increase the time FSIS IPP can focus on other
inspection activities.
Comments: Several comments, most from trade associations
representing
[[Page 27271]]
meat processors, stated that instead of encouraging inhumane handling,
allowing non-ambulatory disabled veal calves to be set apart for
treatment gives these animals an opportunity to naturally show that
they can gain the strength to rise and become ambulatory through
additional nourishment and care. Therefore, the commenters asserted,
allowing veal calves time to rest and gain warmth is, in fact,
inherently humane. According to the commenters, granting the petition
would do little to improve humane handling of veal calves because the
slaughter establishments that do exercise their option to allow tired
or cold non-ambulatory disabled veal calves to rest do handle these
calves humanely.
Response: The 2009 inhumane handling incident referred to in the
HSUS petition and the 2014 inhumane handling incident described above
demonstrate that these animals are not always given an opportunity to
naturally show that they can gain the strength to rise and become
ambulatory through additional nourishment and care. FSIS also reviewed
non-compliance records (NRs) from 2012 to 2014 and found three
instances where FSIS inspectors observed ambulatory veal calves walk
over non-ambulatory disabled veal calves and one instance where non-
ambulatory disabled veal calves were physically lifted and dropped into
holding pens. While these instances of non-compliance were corrected
through corrected actions, FSIS has found that allowing reinspection of
NAD veal may have created an incentive for some establishments to
inhumanely attempt to force these animals to rise. In addition,
allowing reinspection may have encouraged establishments or livestock
producers to hold ill or injured veal calves from slaughter longer in
an attempt to allow them to sufficiently recover to pass the
reinspection before collapsing. FSIS is concerned that these veal
calves may not have adequate access to water. From 2012 to 2014, FSIS
documented over 30 NRs for failure to provide water in accordance with
Sec. 313.2(e). Furthermore, veal calves may not be able to drink the
water that establishments provide because they are used to drinking
from a bottle. Therefore, FSIS has determined that a change in the
regulation is needed to ensure more effective and efficient
implementation of inspection procedures and compliance with humane
handling requirements at official veal slaughter establishments.
Comments: Some commenters suggested that FSIS should only amend the
provision in 9 CFR 309.13(b) to prohibit the slaughter of non-
ambulatory disabled ``bob veal,'' which are calves generally less than
one week old. The commenters argued that bob veal should be treated
differently than formula-fed and non-formula-fed calves. The comment
recommended limiting the prohibition to bob veal because they are
younger and weaker and thus more likely to become non-ambulatory
disabled at slaughter than the older calves.
A trade association representing farmers and processors of formula-
fed veal noted that the inhumane handling incident referred to in the
HSUS petition took place at a bob veal calf slaughter establishment.
The commenter noted that bob veal calves are a small segment of young
dairy calves that have not received the individualized care that is
typical at a formula-fed veal farm. The commenter stated that farmers
of formula-fed veal select the highest quality and healthiest bull
calves available in sale barns or directly from dairy farmers. The
commenter explained that the formula-fed veal calves raised in the U.S.
receive individualized and specialized care and husbandry on veal farms
until they are 20-22 weeks or approximately 450-500 pounds. The
commenter noted that this treatment is in contrast to how bob veal
calves, which are typically younger, weaker, and lighter calves, are
treated. The commenter stated that a formula-fed veal calf that has
been raised to market-weight carries a significant loss of investment
compared to a bob veal calf that has not received the same individual
care. According to the commenter, based on market value in 2013, a
typical farmer of formula-fed veal is likely to lose $800 for each
otherwise healthy non-ambulatory disabled veal calf that cannot proceed
to slaughter compared with the $10-25 loss for each bob veal calf.
Response: While the 2009 inhumane handling incident referred to in
the HSUS petition took place at a bob veal calf slaughter
establishment, the 2014 inhumane handling incident described above took
place at a formula-fed veal calf slaughter establishment. Based on the
evidence found in these investigations, FSIS believes that a change in
the regulation is needed to ensure that there is better compliance with
humane handling requirements at all official veal slaughter
establishments and more effective and efficient implementation of
inspection procedures.
Also, as discussed below, the Agency's analysis of the estimated
costs of this rule to formula-fed and non-formula-fed veal slaughter
establishments would be about $0 to $8,225.00 annually, which is
insignificant compared to their annual market value of about $283
million to $366 million.
Proposed Amendments to 9 CFR 309.13(b) and 309.3(e)
The above-mentioned incidents of inhumane handling at official veal
calf slaughter establishments in 2009 and 2014 demonstrate that the
provision in 9 CFR 309.13(b) may create an incentive for establishments
to inhumanely force non-ambulatory disabled veal calves to rise and may
provide an incentive for livestock producers and establishments to send
weakened veal calves to slaughter in the hope that the veal calves are
able to sufficiently recover to pass ante-mortem inspection. Sending
such weakened veal calves to slaughter increases the chances that they
will go down and then be subjected to conditions that are inhumane.
This proposed rule will remove the incentive to send such weakened veal
calves to slaughter and decrease the chances of inhumane conditions. In
addition, prohibiting the slaughter of all non-ambulatory disabled veal
calves will be consistent with the requirements for the other classes
of non-ambulatory disabled cattle.
Therefore, after evaluating the comments, NRs, and information from
the 2009 and 2014 incidents discussed above, FSIS is proposing to
remove the second sentence in 9 CFR 309.13(b) that permits veal calves
that are unable to rise from a recumbent position and walk because they
are tired or cold to be set apart and held for treatment.
In addition, FSIS is proposing to amend 9 CFR 309.3(e) to clarify
in the regulations that non-ambulatory disabled cattle that are offered
for slaughter must be condemned and promptly disposed of properly. FSIS
is proposing to make this change in response to questions from
establishments on when non-ambulatory disabled cattle must be condemned
and disposed of properly. In the preamble to the 2009 final rule,
``Requirements for the Disposition of Cattle that Become Non-Ambulatory
Disabled Following Ante-Mortem Inspection'' (74 FR 11463; March 18,
2009), FSIS explained that the HMSA and regulations require that non-
ambulatory disabled cattle be humanely handled and that humane handling
requires that such cattle be promptly euthanized (74 FR 11464).
``Promptly'' means within a reasonable time in view of all of the facts
and circumstances. Under this proposed rule, non-
[[Page 27272]]
ambulatory disabled cattle (including veal calves) that are offered for
slaughter will have to be condemned and promptly euthanized.
Also under this proposed rule, the carcasses, parts thereof, meat,
or meat food products of non-ambulatory disabled veal calves will be
considered unfit for human food and thus adulterated. The reinspection
of non-ambulatory disabled veal calves by IPP will be discontinued,
increasing the time IPP can focus on other inspection activities.
FSIS is proposing this rule under 21 U.S.C. 621, which gives FSIS
the authority to adopt regulations for the efficient administration of
the FMIA. The amendment in this proposal is intended to facilitate more
effective implementation of ante-mortem inspection pursuant to 21
U.S.C. 603(a) and of the humane handling requirements established
pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 603(b).
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, and the Regulatory Flexibility Act
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 direct agencies to assess all
costs and benefits of available regulatory alternatives and, if
regulation is necessary, to select regulatory approaches that maximize
net benefits (including potential economic, environmental, public
health and safety effects, distributive impacts and equity). Executive
Order 13563 emphasizes the importance of quantifying both costs and
benefits, of reducing costs, of harmonizing rules, and of promoting
flexibility. This proposed rule has been designated a ``significant''
regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
Accordingly, the rule has been reviewed by the Office of Management and
Budget under E.O. 12866.
Baseline
In calendar year (CY) 2013, federally-inspected veal calf
establishments slaughtered a total of 725,020 veal calves (Table 1).
Market value estimates for slaughtered veal calves based on data
reported by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing
Service (AMS), were between $283 million and $366 million.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Bob Veal Market Value: $8.40-$90.00 per head, Data derived
from USDA/AMS Lancaster County Weekly Cattle Summary (LS_LN145)
Reports--03/03/2013, 06/21/2013, 09/27/2013, 12/20/2013; Formula and
Non Formula-fed veal Market Value: $872.35-$1,028.09 per head, Data
derived from USDA/AMS Weekly Veal Market Summary Reports--calendar
year 2013.
Table 1--Total Veal Calves Slaughtered and Market Value, CY 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Min market Max market
Veal calf type Sum of head value value
count (1,000) ($1,000,000) ($1,000,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Veal........................................................ 405.6 $3.4 $36.5
Formula-fed Veal................................................ 310.8 271.3 319.7
Non Formula-fed Veal............................................ 8.6 7.9 9.3
-----------------------------------------------
Grand Total *............................................... 725.0 282.6 365.5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes: Head Slaughtered source--FSIS, Public Health Information System (PHIS).
* Sum may not add up due to rounding.
The U.S. veal industry is made up of establishments in the small
and very small Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Point (HACCP)-size
categories.\2\ Table 2 outlines the number of establishments and the
total head slaughtered.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ HACCP size: Very Small Establishment = Less than 10
employees or less than $2.5 million in annual sales; Small
Establishment = 10-499 employees; Large Establishment = 500 or more
employees.
Table 2--The Number of Veal Calves Slaughtered in Official Establishments, by HACCP Processing Size, in CY 2013
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total number Formula-fed Non formula-
HACCP processing size of Bob veal SL veal SL fed veal SL Total SL
establishments (1,000) (1,000) (1,000) (1,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Small........................... 46 275.3 310.7 1.4 587.4
Very Small...................... 146 130.3 .125 7.2 137.6
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total *..................... 192 405.6 310.8 8.6 725.0
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FSIS, PHIS.
* Sum may not add up due to rounding.
Expected Cost of the Proposed Rule
The expected costs of the proposed rule for the veal establishments
are a result of the lost market value of the non-ambulatory disabled
veal calves that the affected establishments will no longer be able to
slaughter for human food. The addition of the word ``promptly'' to 9
CFR 309.3(e) would not have any expected costs.
To estimate the total first year cost to the veal industry, FSIS
used CY 2013 PHIS data to obtain the expected minimum and maximum
percent of non-ambulatory disabled calves out of the current veal
calves slaughtered. Since FSIS did not have an exact count of the
number of veal calves that were non-ambulatory and were re-inspected
(after the calves rested and were able to move) and then sent for
slaughter, the agency assumed that the number of deleted records \3\ in
PHIS was a close approximation that represented the scenario. FSIS is
seeking comments on this assumption. FSIS applied those multipliers to
the number of calves slaughtered in CY 2013 (see Table 3, below). The
lower and upper bounds respectively, based on table 3, were
[[Page 27273]]
0.069% and 0.42% for non-ambulatory disabled affected bob veal calves,
and 0.000% and 0.002% for the combined group of non-ambulatory disabled
formula-fed and non-formula-fed veal calves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ The records are not permanently deleted, but are marked and
saved in another field of PHIS.
Table 3--The Distribution of FSIS Condemned Veal Calves by Category, for
CY 2013
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Max percent
Min percent non-
non- ambulatory
Category ambulatory disabled veal
disabled veal affected
affected affected
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Veal................................ 0.069 0.420
Formula- and Non Formula-fed Veal....... 0.000 0.002
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FSIS, PHIS.
Using the minimum and maximum values of non-ambulatory disabled
affected veal calves, FSIS estimated the expected minimum and maximum
total first year cost to the veal establishments, based on CY 2013
data.
Table 4--Expected Quantified Total Costs to the U.S. Veal Industry
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formula- &
Bob veal non formula-
fed veal
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Percent Affected................ 0.069% 0.000%
Maximum Percent Affected................ 0.420% 0.002%
Min # of Veal Affected.................. 282 0
Max # of Veal Affected.................. 1702 8
Min Price per Head...................... 8.4 872.35
Max Price per Head...................... 90 1028.09
Minimum Cost............................ 2368.8 0
Maximum Cost............................ 153180 8224.72
Minimum U.S. Industry Cost.............. 2368.8 ..............
Maximum U.S. Industry Cost.............. 161404.72 ..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If the proposed rule is adopted, non-ambulatory disabled veal
calves will not be re-inspected during ante-mortem inspection. The veal
calves that are condemned during ante-mortem inspection will be
euthanized. The cost of disposing of the dead calves varies across the
region. We do not have adequate data to cost out the disposal fees for
dead calves since we do not know how many establishments engage in this
practice. Therefore, FSIS is seeking comments and any available data on
this practice.
The estimated annual cost to the veal industry would range between
$2369 and $161405. The bob veal category would be the most affected
section of the veal industry because, as shown in table 4, both the
minimum and maximum numbers of bob veal calves that are non-ambulatory
disabled at ante-mortem inspection exceed the numbers of formula-fed
and non-formula-fed veal calves that are non-ambulatory disabled at
ante-mortem inspection. According to comments to the petition and data
provided by AMS, bob veal are also the weakest and the most vulnerable
category of veal calves, and have the lowest market value to the
industry.
Expected Benefits of the Proposed Rule
FSIS predicts that this rule would provide Agency personnel with
savings in terms of inspection time. According to PHIS data, it takes
an inspector around 15 minutes to re-inspect a calf. Since FSIS will
not have to re-inspect the veal calves that are non-ambulatory disabled
during ante-mortem inspection to determine their disposition, the
Agency will save anywhere from 70.5 hours (minimum) to 428 hours
(maximum) in total. This time will allow the inspector the ability to
engage in other inspection activities instead.
Table 5--Benefits in Terms of Time Saving
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob veal (15
Time to do ante-mortem inspection min) F & NF fed
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Min # of Veal Affected.................. 282 0
Max # of Veal Affected.................. 1702 8
Min time saved.......................... 70.5 0
Max time saved.......................... 425.5 2
Total Minimum Time Saved................ 70.5 hr
Total Maximum Time Saved................ 427.5 hr
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule will ensure the humane disposition of the non-
ambulatory disabled veal calves. It will also increase the efficiency
and effective implementation of inspection and humane handling
requirements at official establishments. This rule would incentivize
growers and transporters of cattle to improve animal welfare, both,
[[Page 27274]]
before and during transport. A recent study conducted by researchers
from the University Of Manitoba Department Of Animal Science's
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Lethbridge Research Centre, has shown
that transport and transport conditions, such as temperature, length of
the trip, and space allowance (density of animals to size), are
associated with cattle being dead, lame, and non-ambulatory at the
unload. Of all the classes of cattle, calves, and cull cattle were the
``more likely to be dead and non-ambulatory during the journey'', the
study points. The authors indicate that animal condition upon loading
plays an important risk factor in the outcome of the journey. The study
concludes that, even though dead, lame, and non-ambulatory animals had
very low incidences, the fact of being one or another indicated
extremely poor welfare conditions of cattle. Since veal calves are a
vulnerable population, those implied in transporting cattle should be
encouraged to do so in a more humane and careful way. In addition,
growers should be incentivized to grow healthier and stronger animals
that can handle the stress and other issues associated with
transportation.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Gonz[aacute]lez, L.A., Schwartzkopf-Genswein, K.S., Bryan,
M., Silasi, R., and Brown F. (2015). ``Relationship between
transport conditions and welfare outcomes during commercial long
haul transport of cattle in North America''. American Society of
Animal Science, 90(10):3640-51 doi: 10.2527/jas2011-4796.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regulatory Flexibility Act Assessment
FSIS has made a preliminary determination that this proposed rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities in the United States, as defined by the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601 et seq.). FSIS is seeking comments on
this determination.
The Agency estimates that this rule would possibly affect 192 small
and very small HACCP size veal slaughter establishments (as seen in
table 2). Even though so many small and very small establishments are
affected by this rule the volume of veal that will not be eligible for
slaughter is very low. Further, the estimated total annual cost per
establishment to the industry is between $12 (total minimum cost/number
of establishments=2369/192) and $841 (total maximum cost/number of
establishments=$161405/192).
Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no paperwork or recordkeeping requirements associated
with this proposed rule under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501-3520).
E-Government Act
FSIS and USDA are committed to achieving the purposes of the E-
Government Act (44 U.S.C. 3601, et seq.) by, among other things,
promoting the use of the Internet and other information technologies
and providing increased opportunities for citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other purposes.
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. Under this proposed rule: (1) All State and local
laws and regulations that are inconsistent with this rule will be
preempted, (2) no retroactive effect will be given to this rule, and
(3) no administrative proceedings will be required before parties may
file suit in court challenging this rule.
Executive Order 13175
This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments. The review reveals that this regulation
will not have substantial and direct effects on Tribal governments and
will not have significant Tribal implications.
USDA Non-Discrimination Statement
No agency, officer, or employee of the USDA shall, on the grounds
of race, color, national origin, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual
orientation, disability, age, marital status, family/parental status,
income derived from a public assistance program, or political beliefs,
exclude from participation in, deny the benefits of, or subject to
discrimination any person in the United States under any program or
activity conducted by the USDA.
How To File a Complaint of Discrimination
To file a complaint of discrimination, complete the USDA Program
Discrimination Complaint Form, which may be accessed online at https://www.ocio.usda.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2012/Complain_combined_6_8_12.pdf, or write a letter signed by you or your
authorized representative.
Send your completed complaint form or letter to USDA by mail, fax,
or email:
Mail
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Director, Office of Adjudication,
1400 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-9410.
Fax
(202) 690-7442.
Email
program.intake@usda.gov.
Persons with disabilities who require alternative means for
communication (Braille, large print, audiotape, etc.), should contact
USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice and TDD).
Additional Public Notification
Public awareness of all segments of rulemaking and policy
development is important. Consequently, FSIS will announce this Federal
Register publication on-line through the FSIS Web page located at:
https://www.fsis.usda.gov/federal-register.
FSIS also will make copies of this publication available through
the FSIS Constituent Update, which is used to provide information
regarding FSIS policies, procedures, regulations, Federal Register
notices, FSIS public meetings, and other types of information that
could affect or would be of interest to our constituents and
stakeholders. The Update is available on the FSIS Web page. Through the
Web page, FSIS is able to provide information to a much broader, more
diverse audience. In addition, FSIS offers an email subscription
service which provides automatic and customized access to selected food
safety news and information. This service is available at: https://www.fsis.usda.gov/subscribe. Options range from recalls to export
information, regulations, directives, and notices. Customers can add or
delete subscriptions themselves, and have the option to password
protect their accounts.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 309
Animal diseases, Meat inspection, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
For the reasons set forth in the preamble, FSIS proposes to amend 9
CFR part 309 as follows:
PART 309--ANTE-MORTEM INSPECTION
0
1. The authority citation for part 309 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 21 U.S.C. 601-695; 7 CFR 2.18, 2.53.
0
2. Section 309.3(e) is revised to read as follows:
Sec. 309.3 Dead, dying, disabled, or diseased and similar livestock.
* * * * *
[[Page 27275]]
(e) Establishment personnel must notify FSIS inspection personnel
when cattle become non-ambulatory disabled after passing ante-mortem
inspection. Non-ambulatory disabled cattle that are offered for
slaughter must be condemned and promptly disposed of in accordance with
Sec. 309.13.
Sec. 309.13 [AMENDED]
0
3. Section 309.13(b) is amended by removing the second sentence.
Done in Washington, DC, on May 8, 2015.
Alfred V. Almanza,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2015-11559 Filed 5-12-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P
