Requirements for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Veal Calves, 46570-46577 [2016-16904]
Download as PDF
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
46570
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 137 / Monday, July 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
shall complete Form COC–3A or 3C,
weight and grade report, which shall
contain at least the following:
(A) Name of handler;
(B) Name of producer;
(C) County of production;
(D) Applicable lot number;
(E) Weight certificate number;
(F) Net weight;
(G) Number and type of containers;
(H) Date received;
(I) Time received; and
(J) Weight of sample.
(ii) The completed Form COC–3A or
3C shall be furnished to the committee,
which shall certify thereon that the lot
was weighed as required by § 932.51 if
in accordance with the facts.
(e) Disposition of noncanning olives—
(1)(i) Notification and inspection of
noncanning olives. Prior to disposition
of noncanning olives the handler shall
complete Form COC–5, report of limited
and undersize and cull olives inspection
and disposition, which shall contain the
following:
(A) Type and number of containers;
(B) Type of olives (undersize or culls);
(C) Net weight;
(D) Variety;
(E) Outlet (green olives, olive oil, etc.);
and
(F) Consignee.
(ii) Before disposition of such olives,
the completed Form COC–5 shall be
furnished to the committee.
(2) Control and surveillance.
Noncanning olives that have been
reported on Form COC–5 shall, unless
such olives are disposed of immediately
after receipt, be identified by fixing to
each bin or pallet of boxes a COC
control card which may be obtained
from the committee. Such olives shall
be kept separate and apart from other
olives in the handler’s possession and
shall be disposed of only in the outlet
shown on Form COC–5.
*
*
*
*
*
(4) Olives not subject to incoming
regulation requirements. Except as
otherwise prescribed in § 932.51(b), any
lot of olives to be used solely in the
production of green olives or canned
ripe olives of the ‘‘tree ripened’’ type
shall not be subject to incoming
regulation: Provided, That the
applicable requirements of § 932.51(b)
are met and the handler notifies the
committee, in writing, that such lot is to
be so used. Notice may be given by
writing on the weight certificate ‘‘Lot to
be used solely for use in the production
of green olives or tree ripened olives’’
and a copy of such weight certificate
given to the committee.
(f) Partially exempted lots. (1)
Pursuant to § 932.55, any handler may
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:15 Jul 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
process any lot of natural condition
olives for use in the production of
packaged olives which has not first been
weighed as an individual lot as required
by § 932.51(a)(1)(i) but was combined
with any other lot or lots of natural
condition olives, only if:
(i) All the olives in the combined lot
are delivered to the handler in the same
day;
(ii) The total net weight of the olives
delivered to the handler by any person
in such day does not exceed 500
pounds;
(iii) Each such person had authorized
combination of his lot with other lots;
and
(iv) The combined lot of the natural
condition olives is weighed as required
by § 932.51(a)(1)(i) prior to processing
the olives.
*
*
*
*
*
will improve compliance with the
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of
1978 (HMSA) and the humane slaughter
implementing regulations. The
amendments will also improve the
Agency’s inspection efficiency by
eliminating the time that FSIS
inspectors spend re-inspecting nonambulatory disabled veal calves.
DATES: Effective Date: September 16,
2016.
Dated: July 11, 2016.
Elanor Starmer,
Administrator, Agricultural Marketing
Service.
Background
[FR Doc. 2016–16704 Filed 7–15–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–02–P
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: Final rule.
AGENCY:
The Food Safety and
Inspection Service (FSIS) is amending
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.
FSIS is also amending its regulations to
require all non-ambulatory disabled
cattle to be promptly disposed of after
they have been condemned. In addition,
after review and consideration of
comments to the proposed rule, FSIS is
amending the regulations by removing a
provision that requires ante-mortem
inspection to be conducted in pens.
This final rule makes clear that FSIS
inspectors have the authority to conduct
ante-mortem inspection and condemn
non-ambulatory disabled veal calves the
moment they arrive on the premises of
the establishment. These amendments
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Daniel L. Engeljohn, Ph. D., Assistant
Administrator, Office of Policy and
Program Development, Food Safety and
Inspection Service, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, 1400 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20250–3700;
Telephone (202) 205–0495; Fax (202)
720–2025.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
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 consumption
under appropriate FSIS supervision.
On May 13, 2015, FSIS published the
proposed rule ‘‘Requirements for the
Disposition of Non-Ambulatory
Disabled Veal Calves’’ (80 FR 27269).
FSIS proposed to amend 9 CFR
309.13(b) to remove the set-aside
provision. FSIS also proposed to amend
9 CFR 309.3(e) to require all condemned
cattle to be promptly disposed of in
accordance with 9 CFR 309.13. Under
the proposed rule, all non-ambulatory
disabled cattle would be condemned
and promptly euthanized.
As FSIS explained in the proposed
rule, in November 2009, the Humane
Society of the United States (HSUS)
filed a petition requesting that FSIS
amend 9 CFR 309.13(b) to remove the
provision that allows veal calves that
are non-ambulatory disabled because
they are tired or cold to be set aside for
treatment and re-inspected at a later
time (the set-aside provision).1 The
petition stated that the set-aside
provision is inconsistent with the
1 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.
E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM
18JYR1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 137 / Monday, July 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
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). The
petition asserted that the set-aside
provision creates an incentive for
establishments to use inhumane
methods to get non-ambulatory disabled
veal calves to rise for re-inspection.
Furthermore, the petition stated that
removing the set-aside provision would
eliminate the uncertainty of determining
whether veal calves are non-ambulatory
disabled because they are tired or cold
or because they are injured or sick,
thereby ensuring the appropriate
disposition of these calves. Finally, the
petition stated that eliminating the time
that FSIS inspectors spend re-inspecting
calves would improve inspection
efficiency (80 FR 27269).
The petition referred to video footage
from an HSUS undercover investigation
at an official veal slaughter
establishment conducted in August and
September 2009. The video footage
documented incidents in which
establishment personnel attempted to
force non-ambulatory disabled veal
calves to rise by kicking, prodding, and
dragging the calves to their feet. After
release of this video footage, FSIS
conducted its own investigation that
found the establishment repeatedly
failed to handle non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves in a humane
manner. FSIS immediately shut down
the establishment, and it was only
allowed to re-open 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. In
addition, Secretary of Agriculture
Thomas Vilsack requested that the
USDA’s Office of Inspector General
conduct a criminal investigation. While
no Federal charges were filed, two
establishment officials were criminally
prosecuted by the State of Vermont.
After reviewing the findings of the
FSIS investigation and the issues raised
in the petition, the Agency tentatively
granted the HSUS petition but
determined it would be useful to solicit
public input on the issues raised in the
petition before making a final decision.
On February 7, 2011, FSIS published a
document in the Federal Register
requesting public comments on the
HSUS petition (76 FR 6572). FSIS
received approximately 74,200
comments in response to the Federal
Register document (see 80 FR 27269 for
a more detailed discussion of the
comments and FSIS’s responses). On
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Jul 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
March 13, 2013, FSIS granted the HSUS
petition and announced that the Agency
would begin rulemaking when resources
allowed.
In January 2014, FSIS conducted
another investigation based on video
footage captured by an HSUS
undercover investigation at a second
veal slaughter establishment. This video
footage showed two humane handling
violations committed by the
establishment, including an employee
dragging and rolling a non-ambulatory
disabled veal calf into a holding pen.
The subsequent FSIS investigation
found that, while the establishment had
a comprehensive systematic approach to
its humane handling program, the
establishment failed to implement
effective humane handling methods,
resulting in egregious violations (see 80
FR 27270 for more details on the
investigation).
As explained in the proposed rule,
published May 13, 2015, prohibiting the
slaughter of all non-ambulatory veal
calves will improve compliance with
the HMSA and the humane slaughter
implementing regulations (80 FR
27269). FSIS’s 2009 and 2014
investigations of incidents of inhumane
handling at official veal slaughter
establishments demonstrate that the setaside provision may create an incentive
for establishments to inhumanely force
non-ambulatory disabled veal calves to
rise. The set-aside provision may also
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 in time to pass antemortem inspection. Sending such
weakened veal calves to slaughter
increases the chances that they will go
down and be subjected to conditions
that are inhumane (80 FR 27271). In
addition, FSIS inspectors may not
always be able to distinguish between a
veal calf that is non-ambulatory
disabled because it is tired or cold from
a veal calf that is injured or sick. Thus,
allowing re-inspection may encourage
establishments to hold ill or injured veal
calves in an attempt to allow them to
recover and pass re-inspection before
collapsing.
FSIS is also concerned about the
treatment of veal calves during extended
hold times. For example, noncompliance records (NRs) from 2012 to
2015 included 33 instances of failing to
provide veal calves with access to water.
Finally, removing the set-aside
provision will also improve the
Agency’s inspection efficiency by
eliminating the time that FSIS
inspectors spend re-inspecting nonambulatory disabled veal calves.
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
46571
Final Rule
After consideration of all of the
comments, FSIS is finalizing the
provisions of the May 13, 2015
proposed rule with one change. The
final rule removes a provision in the
Federal meat inspection regulations that
requires all ante-mortem inspections to
be conducted in pens (9 CFR 309.1(b)).
Comments discussed below submitted
in response to the proposed rule showed
confusion about exactly when animals
are ‘‘offered for slaughter,’’ and when
inspectors may conduct ante-mortem
inspection. Some commenters stated
that establishments could exploit a
loophole in the regulations by setting
aside non-ambulatory disabled veal
calves to rest and recover, and offer the
calves for ante-mortem inspection at a
later time.
Currently, FSIS inspectors are
instructed to conduct ante-mortem
inspection on transportation vehicles if
the animals cannot be unloaded for any
reason (see FSIS Directive 6,900.2,
Humane Handling and Slaughter of
Livestock). To harmonize the
regulations with this established policy,
FSIS is amending the regulations by
removing a provision in 9 CFR 309.1(b)
that requires ante-mortem inspection to
be performed ‘‘in pens’’.
FSIS is amending these regulations
under 21 U.S.C. 621, which gives FSIS
the authority to adopt regulations for the
efficient administration of the Federal
Meat Inspection Act (FMIA). The
amendments in this rule are 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).
Comments and Responses
FSIS received approximately 42,054
comments from animal welfare write-in
campaigns that supported the proposed
rule. FSIS also received 35 comments
from animal welfare organizations,
members of Congress, and private
citizens that also supported the
proposed rule. FSIS received
approximately 20 comments from
organizations representing meat
processors, cattle producers, dairy
producers, farm bureaus, and private
citizens that opposed the proposed rule.
Comment: Several farm bureaus stated
that the current regulations adequately
protect non-ambulatory disabled veal
calves from inhumane treatment. These
commenters noted that FSIS has trained
personnel in establishments at all times
to ensure that calves are humanely
handled, and veal producers have too
big of a financial incentive to violate the
HMSA.
E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM
18JYR1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
46572
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 137 / Monday, July 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Response: FSIS is amending the
regulations to improve compliance with
the HMSA and improve the Agency’s
inspection efficiency by eliminating the
time that FSIS inspectors spend reinspecting non-ambulatory disabled
veal calves.
As explained in the Background
section, FSIS conducted investigations
in 2009 and 2014 in response to
undercover videos taken by HSUS that
showed establishments using force to
get non-ambulatory disabled veal calves
to rise for inspection. Based on the
findings of these investigations, FSIS
concluded that the set-aside provision
may create an incentive for
establishments to inhumanely force
non-ambulatory disabled veal calves to
rise.
Furthermore, the 2014 HSUS video
showed that humane handling
violations can occur outside the view of
FSIS inspectors. FSIS inspectors are
unable to continuously monitor nonambulatory veal calves that have been
set apart to warm and rest because they
must perform other food safety
inspection-related activities between the
time that the calves are set apart and the
time of inspection after the resting
period.
Comment: An industry trade
association and veal processor stated
that condemnation and prompt disposal
of non-ambulatory disabled veal calves
would waste potentially healthy
animals that can go into the food
supply.
Response: 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 pursuant to 21
U.S.C. 601(m)(3). However, the
carcasses of condemned veal calves may
have other, inedible-product, uses (e.g.,
through rendering).
In addition, the estimated cost of the
final rule will have a minimal financial
impact on the veal industry. Market
value estimates for slaughtered veal
calves based on CY2015 data reported
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS),
were between $264.0 million and $435.8
million. The expected first-year total
cost estimate to the U.S. veal industry
that would be associated with this rule
ranges between $0.374 million and
$1.206 million. Thus, the value lost to
the U.S. veal industry ranges between
0.14% and 0.28% of the total veal value
in a year.
The minimal financial impact to the
U.S. veal industry is outweighed by the
benefits cited in this rule, including
increased compliance with the HMSA
and improved inspection efficiency.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Jul 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
FSIS predicts that this rule will save the
Agency between 180 inspection hours
(minimum) and 297 inspection hours
(maximum) in total each year. The
saved inspection time will allow FSIS
personnel to conduct other inspection
activities.
Comment: One veal processor stated
that the formula fed veal industry has
voluntarily undertaken measures in the
past eight years to improve conditions
for the production and care of veal
calves, rendering moot some of the
reasons cited for the rule.
Response: FSIS’s investigations in
2009 and 2014 and non-compliance
records from 2012 to 2015 demonstrate
that voluntary measures undertaken by
the industry have not adequately
prevented the inhumane treatment of
non-ambulatory disabled veal calves.
Specifically, FSIS has determined that
establishments may have an incentive to
force non-ambulatory disabled veal
calves that have been set aside pursuant
to 9 CFR 309.13(b) to rise. Therefore, the
Agency has determined that a change in
the regulations is needed to remove the
set-aside provision and ensure
compliance with humane handling
requirements at official establishments.
Comment: Several industry trade
associations stated that FSIS’s 2009 and
2014 investigations in response to
HSUS’ undercover video footage did not
present evidence of a systemic problem
of inhumane handling of nonambulatory disabled veal calves. These
commenters stated that FSIS has
identified only two incidents of
inhumane handling of non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves in the 37 years it
has enforced the HMSA. In addition, the
commenters stated that only two out of
364 suspension actions taken by the
Agency in the six-year window involve
establishment employees forcing nonambulatory disabled veal calves to rise.
The same commenters also stated that
the lack of non-compliance records
(NRs) citing non-ambulatory disabled
veal calves suggests the calves are
treated with care. These commenters
noted that the NRs cited in the proposed
rule do not record establishment
personnel forcing non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves to rise.
A beef producer advocacy group
questioned whether FSIS has sufficient
scientific evidence or expert testimony
to support the Agency’s claim that
setting aside downed veal calves results
in inhumane treatment. The comment
also stated that FSIS failed to perform a
comprehensive review of the peerreviewed scientific literature or research
regarding factors that lead to downed
veal calves.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Response: FSIS disagrees that the
number of suspension actions and NRs
indicates that a change in the
regulations is unnecessary. FSIS
proceeded with this rulemaking after
conducting a thorough review of the
2009 and 2014 investigations, NRs,
peer-reviewed scientific literature, and
public comments, as well as consulting
with Agency subject-matter experts and
staff in the field. FSIS concluded that
the totality of evidence showed that,
under current regulations,
establishments may have a financial
incentive to force non-ambulatory
disabled calves to rise from a recumbent
position and send weakened veal calves
to slaughter. Thus, a change in the
regulations is necessary to comply with
the HMSA and its implementing
regulations.
FSIS convened an intra-agency
workgroup composed of subject-matter
experts to assist with this rulemaking. In
addition, the Agency consulted with the
FSIS Office of Field Operations to
collect data for establishments that
slaughter veal calves in order to
accurately determine the number of
non-ambulatory disabled veal calves
that were inspected after the recovery
time and then sent for slaughter.
In the proposed rule, FSIS cited 33
NRs between 2012 and 2014 to support
these conclusions. In addition, the
Agency has conducted a review of NRs
issued in 2015. In 2015, the Agency
found one instance of excessive use of
an electric prod in an attempt to force
a non-ambulatory disabled veal calf to
rise, one instance of ambulatory veal
calves walking over a non-ambulatory
veal calf, three instances of veal calves
in holding pens without water, and one
instance of veal calves in a holding pen
for longer than 24 hours without feed.
These findings reinforce the Agency’s
conclusions that establishments may
have an incentive to force veal calves to
rise and send weakened calves to
slaughter. In addition, as was
demonstrated in the 2014 HSUS video,
FSIS believes that many of these
occurrences happen outside the view of
inspection personnel.
FSIS also conducted a thorough
review of relevant peer-reviewed
scientific literature, including peerreviewed literature cited in the petition
submitted by HSUS, regarding factors
that can lead to non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves. Based on its
findings, the Agency concluded that
there is a direct correlation between the
growing and transport conditions of veal
calves, and whether these calves arrive
at an establishment non-ambulatory
E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM
18JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 137 / Monday, July 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
disabled.2 Thus, the Agency estimates
that by incentivizing growers and
transporters to improve animal welfare
conditions, this final rule will lead to
stronger, healthier calves being offered
for slaughter.3
Comment: Several farm bureaus stated
that complete elimination of nonambulatory disabled veal calves from
animals intended for slaughter for
human food is an unrealistic goal. These
commenters, along with industry trade
groups and a veal processor, noted that
otherwise healthy calves could be nonambulatory disabled for a myriad of
reasons, including the age and size of
calves, adverse weather conditions,
transportation time, calf hydration
status, and length of time between
unloading and stunning process.
Response: The Agency acknowledges
that many circumstances may contribute
to calves arriving at establishments in a
non-ambulatory disabled condition.
However, FSIS’s current regulations
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 be subjected
to conditions that are inhumane. In
addition, a study conducted by
researchers from the University of
Manitoba Department of Animal
Science, and Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada’s Lethbridge Research Centre
indicated that there is a direct
correlation between calves that arrive at
an establishment non-ambulatory
disabled and poor animal welfare
conditions before and during transport.4
The study indicated that animal
condition upon loading is an important
risk factor in the outcome of the
journey.
This final rule will not lead to a
complete elimination of non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves that arrive at
slaughter establishments; however, it
will likely create an incentive for
2 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.
3 Trunkfield, H.R., and Broom, D.M. (1990). ‘‘The
Welfare of Calves During Handling and Transport’’.
Applied Animal Behaviour Science, v. 28, p. 135–
152.
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
16:07 Jul 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
growers and transporters to improve
animal welfare conditions and send
healthier and stronger animals that can
handle the stress and other risk factors
associated with transportation to
slaughter establishments. This will, in
turn, reduce the number of nonambulatory disabled veal calves that
arrive at establishments.
Comment: One veal processor stated
that the proposed rule should apply
only to bob veal calves and should
exclude formula fed and non-formula
fed veal calves. The same commenter
stated that the growing conditions of
formula fed veal calves, including
vaccinations, iron rich diets, and group
loose-housing pens, make formula fed
veal calves less susceptible to diseases
than bob veal calves.
Response: The final rule will apply to
all non-ambulatory disabled veal calves
and does not distinguish bob veal calves
from formula and non-formula fed veal
calves. Although the Agency
acknowledges that formula fed veal
calves are typically stronger and less
susceptible to disease than bob veal
calves, and the Agency’s regulatory
impact analysis reveals that a higher
percentage of bob veal calves will most
likely be affected by this final rule,
FSIS’s 2014 investigation showed that
humane handling violations do occur at
formula fed veal calf slaughter
establishments.
Comment: A private citizen
recommended that the rule distinguish
between fatigued versus diseased
animals to prevent the waste of
otherwise healthy animals. An industry
trade association, a veal processor, and
a doctor of veterinary medicine
questioned FSIS’s assertion that
prohibiting the slaughter of all nonambulatory disabled veal calves will
eliminate uncertainty in determining
the disposition of these calves. These
commenters stated that inspectors are
capable of determining whether a calf is
diseased or injured rather than tired or
cold.
Response: 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 in order to
reduce the uncertainty in determining
the proper disposition of these cattle
and increase FSIS inspector efficiency
(74 FR 11463). FSIS has used the same
rationale here.
This final rule eliminates the time
that FSIS inspectors spend determining
whether veal calves are non-ambulatory
disabled because they are tired or cold
or because they have diseases, such as
enteritis (80 FR 27270). This final rule
also eliminates the time that FSIS
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
46573
inspectors spend inspecting the veal
calves that were set apart.
Comment: Two animal welfare groups
and an individual noted that FSIS
requires non-ambulatory disabled adult
cattle to be condemned and disposed of,
and requested that FSIS extend the same
requirement to non-ambulatory disabled
veal calves. In contrast, two farm bureau
organizations stated that nonambulatory disabled veal calves should
not be treated the same as adult cattle,
noting that veal calves are not a risk for
bovine spongiform encephalopathy
(BSE), and do not pose the same food
safety concerns as adult cattle.
Response: FSIS issued a final rule in
2007 that prohibited the slaughter of
non-ambulatory disabled cattle because
of the threat of BSE, but created an
exception for non-ambulatory disabled
veal calves to be set apart and reinspected. As explained in the proposed
rule, while cattle younger than 30
months do not present a serious risk of
BSE, they are susceptible to other
systemic and metabolic diseases,5 and
injury because of inadequate
immunoglobulin transfer, nutritional
inadequacies of an all-liquid iron
deficient diet, activity restriction, and
stress (80 FR 27270). As is discussed
above, the Agency has also concluded
that the set-aside provision
implemented in 2007 should
nonetheless be removed because it may
have created an incentive for
establishments to inhumanely force
non-ambulatory disabled veal calves to
rise from a recumbent position. In
addition, this final rule will increase
inspection efficiency by eliminating the
time that FSIS inspectors spend reinspecting non-ambulatory disabled
veal calves if they are again offered for
slaughter.
Comment: Several animal welfare
groups requested that FSIS clarify when
livestock are ‘‘offered’’ for slaughter.
These commenters stated that
establishments could exploit a loophole
by setting aside non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves to rest and recover,
and ‘‘offer’’ the calves for ante-mortem
inspection at a later time. One animal
welfare group stated that animals
should be considered ‘‘offered’’ for
slaughter upon delivery at the slaughter
establishment, following the same
interpretation as when humane
regulations apply per FSIS Directive
6900.2, Ch. II(I) (rev. August 15, 2011).
Response: FSIS has already explained
to inspectors when animals destined for
5 McDonough, Sean P., Stull, Carolyn L., and
Osburn, Bennie I. (1994). ‘‘Enteric Pathogens in
Intensively Reared Veal Calves’’. American Journal
of Veterinary Research, v. 55, no. 11, p. 1516–1519.
E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM
18JYR1
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
46574
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 137 / Monday, July 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
slaughter are subject to humane
handling regulations and FSIS
inspections in FSIS Directive 6,900.2,
Humane Handling and Slaughter of
Livestock. The Directive states that once
a vehicle carrying livestock enters, or is
in line to enter, an official
establishment’s premises, the vehicle is
considered to be a part of the
establishment’s premises, and the
animals within the vehicle are to be
handled in accordance with humane
handling regulations. The Directive
states that FSIS inspectors can conduct
ante-mortem inspections at the vehicle.
This Directive is in accord with the final
rule that implements the HMSA (44 FR
68809; November 30, 1979), which
states in the preamble that ‘‘the
Department intends to enforce the Act
with regard to any inhumane activity
occurring on the premises of an official
establishment.’’
In addition, in the final rule FSIS is
removing a provision in 9 CFR 309.1(b)
that requires ante-mortem inspection to
be made ‘‘in pens.’’ This amendment
harmonizes the regulations with current
practice, and closes the potential
loophole that may have allowed
establishments to set aside nonambulatory disabled veal calves to rest
and recover, and ‘‘offer’’ them for
slaughter at a later time. It also prevents
establishments and transporters from
diverting non-ambulatory disabled
animals to other establishments. FSIS
will update FSIS Directive 6,100.1,
Ante-Mortem Livestock Inspection, to
reflect this change. Inspectors have the
option to perform the humane handling
portion of ante-mortem inspection
directly on the truck, and wait to
complete ante-mortem inspection once
the animals are in holding pens.
FSIS inspectors may not be present in
the early morning hours when animals
typically arrive and are offloaded. FSIS
may assign additional personnel to the
establishment during off-hours to
monitor the arrival of the animals if
FSIS identifies the need to do so.
Comment: Two animal welfare
organizations and a food safety
organization stated that the definition
given for ‘‘promptly’’ in the preamble to
the proposed rule is too vague and gives
too much discretion to establishments.
One animal welfare organization asked
FSIS to explain the ‘‘facts and
circumstances’’ to be taken into account
by inspectors and establishment
employees when an animal is found to
be non-ambulatory disabled.
Response: The Agency disagrees that
it gave too much discretion to
establishments. As FSIS explained in
the proposed rule, all condemned nonambulatory disabled cattle must be
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Jul 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
euthanized within a reasonable time in
view of all of the facts and
circumstances (80 FR 27271). The facts
and circumstances that FSIS inspectors
will take into account when assessing
compliance with the ‘‘promptly’’
requirement include whether the animal
is suffering (e.g., injured, dehydrated, or
vulnerable to being stepped on by
ambulatory cattle), and extenuating
circumstances such as weather
conditions and emergencies.
Comment: One food safety
organization requested that FSIS
consider prohibiting the slaughter of
other farm animals that can be
susceptible to ‘‘downer’’ illnesses,
including swine, sheep, and goats.
Response: The proposed rule and
request for comments addressed the
disposition of non-ambulatory disabled
veal calves only. In 2013, FSIS denied
a petition submitted on behalf of Farm
Sanctuary that requested the Agency to
amend its ante-mortem inspection
regulations to require non-ambulatory
disabled pigs, sheep, goats, and other
amenable livestock species to be
condemned. In 2014, FSIS received
another petition on behalf of Farm
Sanctuary and various other animal
advocacy organizations that requested
the Agency to amend its ante-mortem
inspection regulations to prohibit the
slaughter of non-ambulatory disabled
pigs. FSIS will conduct a full
independent review and analysis of this
petition to determine the validity of the
requested rulemaking.
Comment: Several industry members
stated that the annual economic impact
of the proposed regulatory changes will
be significantly higher on the veal
industry than portrayed in the proposed
rule. These commenters stated that the
veal industry had much higher
production costs in 2015 than in
previous years.
An industry trade association and
veal processor also questioned FSIS’s
use of deleted records in the Agency’s
Public Health Information System
(PHIS) to determine the number of nonambulatory disabled veal calves that are
currently re-inspected and released for
slaughter. These commenters stated that
the use of deleted records in PHIS is not
a close approximation of the actual
number of non-ambulatory disabled veal
calves released for slaughter in veal
establishments.
Response: FSIS updated its cost
estimate to reflect 2015 prices. The
estimated market value of bob veal
increased to $20.00-$560.00 per head in
2015, while the market value of formula
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
and non-formula fed veal increased to
$1,000.00–$1,300.00 per head in 2015.6
FSIS also changed its methodology for
determining the number of nonambulatory disabled veal calves that
were inspected after the recovery time
and then sent for slaughter. FSIS
collected additional data via the FSIS
Office of Field Operations for the
establishments that slaughter veal
calves, and estimated the number of
non-ambulatory disabled veal calves
based on this data. As a result, FSIS
adjusted its estimated number of nonambulatory disabled veal calves for all
three veal categories.
On the basis of these updated
numbers, FSIS adjusted its estimated
annual cost for the final rule. The new
estimated annual cost to the U.S. veal
industry ranges between $0.374 million
and $1.206 million compared to $0.002
million and $0.161 million in the
proposed rule.
Comment: Several farm bureaus asked
if the proposed rule will improve the
efficiency of the inspection process.
These commenters stated that calves are
often rested in the same unloading area
where the inspectors work, and
inspection of recovered calves only
amounts to a minor inconvenience and
takes up little of the inspectors’ time.
Response: FSIS has conducted an
analysis of PHIS data, and has
determined that it takes an inspector
approximately 15 minutes to inspect a
calf after recovery. Because FSIS will no
longer have to inspect non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves to determine their
disposition, the Agency will save
between 180 hours (minimum) and 297
hours (maximum) in total. This time
will allow inspectors the ability to
engage in other inspection activities.
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 final rule has been
designated a ‘‘non-significant’’
regulatory action under section 3(f) of
Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
6 Data derived from USDA/AMS Weekly Veal
Market Summary, Vol 18, Numbers 1–41. At: https://
www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/lswveal.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM
18JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 137 / Monday, July 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Accordingly, the rule has not been
reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget under E.O. 12866.
Baseline
FSIS has updated the baseline for the
final regulatory impact analysis (FRIA)
to reflect the most recent available data.
46575
Table 1 compares the total veal calves
slaughtered in calendar year (CY) 2015
(FRIA), CY2014, and CY2013
(preliminary regulatory impact analysis
(PRIA)).
TABLE 1—TOTAL VEAL CALVES INSPECTED AND SLAUGHTERED CY2013 (PROPOSED RULE) VS. CY2014 VS. CY2015
(FINAL RULE)
Sum of the head count
Veal calf type
CY2013
(1,000)
CY2014
(1,000)
CY2015
(1,000)
Bob Veal ......................................................................................................................................
Formula Fed Veal ........................................................................................................................
Non-Formula Fed Veal ................................................................................................................
405.6
310.8
8.6
248.3
282.8
7.4
173.6
253.8
6.7
Total ......................................................................................................................................
725.5
538.5
434.1
Source: FSIS, Public Health Information System (PHIS)
In CY2015, federally-inspected veal
calf establishments slaughtered a total of
434,051 veal calves (Table 2). Market
value estimates for slaughtered veal
calves based on CY2015 data reported
by the U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS),
were between $264.0 million and $435.9
million.7 FSIS used the minimum and
maximum veal calf prices reported by
USDA/AMS. These prices were $20.00–
$560.00 for bob veal and $1,000.00–
$1,300.00 for formula fed and nonformula fed veal calves.
TABLE 2—TOTAL VEAL CALVES INSPECTED AND SLAUGHTERED AND MARKET VALUE, CY 2015
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 ................................................................................................................
173.6
253.8
6.7
$3.5
253.8
6.7
$97.2
329.9
8.7
Grand Total * .........................................................................................................................
434.1
264.0
435.9
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.8
In CY 2015, there were 118 federally
inspected and nine state inspected
establishments that slaughtered veal
calves. Of the 118 federally inspected
establishments, 90 (76%) were very
small, and 28 (24%) were small HACCP
size establishments.
Expected Cost of the Final Rule
The expected costs of the final rule for
the veal establishments are a result of
the lost market value of the nonambulatory 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) does not have any
expected costs, nor does the removal of
the requirement that ante-mortem
inspection be conducted ‘‘in pens’’ (9
CFR 309.1(b)).
FSIS collected additional data via the
FSIS Office of Field Operations for the
establishments that slaughter veal
calves. As a result, FSIS adjusted its
estimated annual cost for the FRIA
based on new calculated nonambulatory disabled veal ratios and the
2015 prices.
In CY 2015, there were eight
establishments that accounted for
99.96% of the formula fed veal calves
slaughtered in the U.S. Taking into
account that extreme weather
conditions and transit fatigue during the
winter and summer months can affect
the number of non-ambulatory disabled
veal calves, FSIS recalculated its cost
estimates, using the 2015 prices.
TABLE 3—TOTAL VEAL CALVES SLAUGHTERED AND MARKET VALUE *
Sum of the
head count
(1,000)
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Veal calf type
Min number of
NAD veal
Bob Veal ........................................................
Formula Fed Veal .........................................
173.6
253.8
7 Bob Veal Market Value: $20.00–$560.00 per
head. Formula and non-formula fed veal market
value: $1,000.00–$1,300.00 per head. Data derived
from USDA/AMS Weekly Veal Market Summary,
Vol 18, Numbers 1–41. At: https://
www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/lswveal.pdf.
8 HACCP size: Very Small Establishment = Less
than 10 employees or less than $2.5 million in
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Jul 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00009
352
358
Minimum
market value
($million)
Max number
of NAD veal
Fmt 4700
455
713
Sfmt 4700
Maximum
market value
($million)
$3.5
253.8
$97.2
329.9
Minimum
market value
lost
($million)
$0.007
0.358
Maximum
market value
lost
($million)
$0.255
0.927
annual sales; Small Establishment = 10–499
employees; Large Establishment = 500 or more
employees.
E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM
18JYR1
46576
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 137 / Monday, July 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
TABLE 3—TOTAL VEAL CALVES SLAUGHTERED AND MARKET VALUE *—Continued
Sum of the
head count
(1,000)
Veal calf type
Min number of
NAD veal
Minimum
market value
($million)
Max number
of NAD veal
Minimum
market value
lost
($million)
Maximum
market value
($million)
Maximum
market value
lost
($million)
Non Formula Fed Veal ..................................
6.7
9
19
6.7
8.7
0.009
0.024
Grand Total ............................................
434.1
720
1,187
264.0
435.9
0.374
1.206
* The values are based on 2015 prices. The slaughter head counts are based on CY 2015 PHIS data.
Based on the new data, FSIS adjusted
the maximum number of formula fed
veal calves that might be condemned
due to this rule upward to 713 (253,837
* 0.00281), with an estimated maximum
cost of $0.927 million. The minimum
number of formula fed veal calves that
might be condemned due to this rule is
358 (253,837 * 0.00141), with an
estimated minimum cost of $0.358
million.
FSIS also adjusted the maximum
number of bob veal and non-formula fed
veal calves. For the bob veal, five
establishments accounted for 83% of the
total bob veal calves slaughtered in the
United States. The maximum number of
bob veal calves affected by the final rule
was adjusted to 455 (173,556 * 0.00262),
with an estimated maximum cost of
$0.255 million. The minimum number
of bob veal calves that might be
condemned due to this rule is 352
(173,556 * 0.00203), with an estimated
minimum cost of $0.358 million.
For non-formula fed veal calves, FSIS
assumed the same non-ambulatory
disabled rates as for the formula fed veal
calves. The maximum number of nonformula fed veal calves affected by the
final rule was adjusted to 19 (6,658 *
0.00281), with an estimated maximum
cost of $0.025 million. The minimum
number of non-formula fed veal calves
that might be condemned due to this
rule is 9 (6,658 * 0.00141), with an
estimated minimum cost of $0.009
million.
As illustrated in table 2, the expected
first year total costs to the U.S. veal
industry due to the final rule ranges
between $0.374 million and $1.026
million. The estimated costs have a
minimal impact on the veal industry.
The value lost to the U.S. veal industry
ranges between 0.14% and 0.28% of the
total veal value in a year.
Expected Benefits of the Final 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
approximately 15 minutes to re-inspect
a calf. Because FSIS will not have to reinspect the veal calves that are nonambulatory disabled, the Agency will
save anywhere from 180 hours
(minimum) to 297 hours (maximum) in
total (table 4). The saved inspection
time will allow the inspector the ability
to engage in other inspection activities.
TABLE 4—BENEFIT IN TERMS OF TIME SAVING
Time to do ante-mortem inspection
Bob veal
Minimum Number of Veal Calves Affected .....................................................
Maximum Number of Veal Calves Affected ....................................................
Minimum Time Saved ......................................................................................
Maximum Time Saved .....................................................................................
Formula fed
veal
352
455
88
114
358
713
89
178
Non-formula
fed veal
9
19
2
5
Total
719
1,187
180
297
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Source: PHIS.
The final rule will ensure the humane
disposition of the non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves. The rule will also
increase the efficiency and effective
implementation of inspection and
humane handling requirements at
official establishments. In addition, the
rule will incentivize growers and
transporters of cattle to improve animal
welfare, both 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,
shows that there is a correlation
between transport and transport
conditions such as temperature, length
of the trip, and space allowance (density
of animals to size), and cattle arriving at
the establishment dead, lame, or nonambulatory disabled. The study notes
that, out of all classes of cattle, calves
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Jul 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
and cull cattle are ‘‘more likely to be
dead and non-ambulatory during the
journey.’’ The authors indicate that
animal condition upon loading plays an
important risk factor in the outcome of
the journey. The study concludes that
cattle arriving at an establishment dead,
lame, or non-ambulatory disabled is an
indication of extremely poor welfare
conditions.9 The final rule will therefore
reduce the number of calves that arrive
at establishments non-ambulatory
disabled by incentivizing growers and
transporters to improve animal welfare
conditions and send healthier and
stronger animals to slaughter
establishments.
9 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.
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Regulatory Flexibility Act Assessment
The FSIS Administrator certifies that,
for the purpose of the Regulatory
Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601–602), the
final rule will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial
number of small entities in the United
States. The Agency estimates that this
rule would possibly affect 127 (118
federally inspected) small and very
small HACCP size veal slaughter
establishments. Although 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 is
between $2,945 (total minimum cost/
number of establishments = $374,000/
127) and $8,087 (total maximum cost/
number of establishments = $1,027,000/
127).
E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM
18JYR1
Federal Register / Vol. 81, No. 137 / Monday, July 18, 2016 / Rules and Regulations
Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no paperwork or
recordkeeping requirements associated
with this final 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 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.
asabaliauskas on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with RULES
Executive Order 12988
This final rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. Under this 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 rule has been reviewed in
accordance with the requirements of
Executive Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments.’’ E.O. 13175 requires
Federal agencies to consult and
coordinate with tribes on a governmentto-government basis on policies that
have tribal implications, including
regulations, legislative comments or
proposed legislation, and other policy
statements or actions that have
substantial direct effects on one or more
Indian tribes, on the relationship
between the Federal Government and
Indian tribes or on the distribution of
power and responsibilities between the
Federal Government and Indian tribes.
FSIS has assessed the impact of this
rule on Indian tribes and determined
that this rule does not, to our
knowledge, have tribal implications that
require tribal consultation under E.O.
13175. If a Tribe requests consultation,
the Food Safety and Inspection Service
will work with the Office of Tribal
Relations to ensure meaningful
consultation is provided where changes,
additions and modifications identified
herein are not expressly mandated by
Congress.
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/
VerDate Sep<11>2014
16:07 Jul 15, 2016
Jkt 238001
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.
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 9990
46577
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 amends 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. Amend § 309.1 by revising the
heading and the first sentence of
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
■
§ 309.1 Ante-mortem inspection on
premises of official establishments.
*
*
*
*
*
(b) Such ante-mortem inspection shall
be made on the premises of the
establishment at which the livestock are
offered for slaughter before the livestock
shall be allowed to enter into any
department of the establishment where
they are to be slaughtered or dressed or
in which edible products are handled.
* * *
3. Amend § 309.3 by revising
paragraph (e) to read as follows:
■
§ 309.3 Dead, dying, disabled, or diseased
and similar livestock.
*
*
*
*
*
(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]
4. Amend § 309.13(b) by removing the
sentence ‘‘Veal calves that are unable to
rise from a recumbent position and walk
because they are tired or cold may be set
apart and held as provided in this
paragraph.’’
■
Done in Washington, DC, on: July 11, 2016.
Alfred V. Almanza,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016–16904 Filed 7–15–16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–DM–P
E:\FR\FM\18JYR1.SGM
18JYR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 137 (Monday, July 18, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 46570-46577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-16904]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) is amending 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. FSIS is also amending its regulations to require all
non-ambulatory disabled cattle to be promptly disposed of after they
have been condemned. In addition, after review and consideration of
comments to the proposed rule, FSIS is amending the regulations by
removing a provision that requires ante-mortem inspection to be
conducted in pens. This final rule makes clear that FSIS inspectors
have the authority to conduct ante-mortem inspection and condemn non-
ambulatory disabled veal calves the moment they arrive on the premises
of the establishment. These amendments will improve compliance with the
Humane Methods of Slaughter Act of 1978 (HMSA) and the humane slaughter
implementing regulations. The amendments will also improve the Agency's
inspection efficiency by eliminating the time that FSIS inspectors
spend re-inspecting non-ambulatory disabled veal calves.
DATES: Effective Date: September 16, 2016.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Daniel L. Engeljohn, Ph. D., Assistant
Administrator, Office of Policy and Program Development, Food Safety
and Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1400
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250-3700; Telephone (202)
205-0495; Fax (202) 720-2025.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Background
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 consumption under appropriate FSIS supervision.
On May 13, 2015, FSIS published the proposed rule ``Requirements
for the Disposition of Non-Ambulatory Disabled Veal Calves'' (80 FR
27269). FSIS proposed to amend 9 CFR 309.13(b) to remove the set-aside
provision. FSIS also proposed to amend 9 CFR 309.3(e) to require all
condemned cattle to be promptly disposed of in accordance with 9 CFR
309.13. Under the proposed rule, all non-ambulatory disabled cattle
would be condemned and promptly euthanized.
As FSIS explained in the proposed rule, in November 2009, the
Humane Society of the United States (HSUS) filed a petition requesting
that FSIS amend 9 CFR 309.13(b) to remove the provision that allows
veal calves that are non-ambulatory disabled because they are tired or
cold to be set aside for treatment and re-inspected at a later time
(the set-aside provision).\1\ The petition stated that the set-aside
provision is inconsistent with the
[[Page 46571]]
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). The petition asserted that the
set-aside provision creates an incentive for establishments to use
inhumane methods to get non-ambulatory disabled veal calves to rise for
re-inspection. Furthermore, the petition stated that removing the set-
aside provision would eliminate the uncertainty of determining whether
veal calves are non-ambulatory disabled because they are tired or cold
or because they are injured or sick, thereby ensuring the appropriate
disposition of these calves. Finally, the petition stated that
eliminating the time that FSIS inspectors spend re-inspecting calves
would improve inspection efficiency (80 FR 27269).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The petition referred to video footage from an HSUS undercover
investigation at an official veal slaughter establishment conducted in
August and September 2009. The video footage documented incidents in
which establishment personnel attempted to force non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves to rise by kicking, prodding, and dragging the
calves to their feet. After release of this video footage, FSIS
conducted its own investigation that found the establishment repeatedly
failed to handle non-ambulatory disabled veal calves in a humane
manner. FSIS immediately shut down the establishment, and it was only
allowed to re-open 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. In addition, Secretary
of Agriculture Thomas Vilsack requested that the USDA's Office of
Inspector General conduct a criminal investigation. While no Federal
charges were filed, two establishment officials were criminally
prosecuted by the State of Vermont.
After reviewing the findings of the FSIS investigation and the
issues raised in the petition, the Agency tentatively granted the HSUS
petition but determined it would be useful to solicit public input on
the issues raised in the petition before making a final decision. On
February 7, 2011, FSIS published a document in the Federal Register
requesting public comments on the HSUS petition (76 FR 6572). FSIS
received approximately 74,200 comments in response to the Federal
Register document (see 80 FR 27269 for a more detailed discussion of
the comments and FSIS's responses). On March 13, 2013, FSIS granted the
HSUS petition and announced that the Agency would begin rulemaking when
resources allowed.
In January 2014, FSIS conducted another investigation based on
video footage captured by an HSUS undercover investigation at a second
veal slaughter establishment. This video footage showed two humane
handling violations committed by the establishment, including an
employee dragging and rolling a non-ambulatory disabled veal calf into
a holding pen. The subsequent FSIS investigation found that, while the
establishment had a comprehensive systematic approach to its humane
handling program, the establishment failed to implement effective
humane handling methods, resulting in egregious violations (see 80 FR
27270 for more details on the investigation).
As explained in the proposed rule, published May 13, 2015,
prohibiting the slaughter of all non-ambulatory veal calves will
improve compliance with the HMSA and the humane slaughter implementing
regulations (80 FR 27269). FSIS's 2009 and 2014 investigations of
incidents of inhumane handling at official veal slaughter
establishments demonstrate that the set-aside provision may create an
incentive for establishments to inhumanely force non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves to rise. The set-aside provision may also 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 in time to pass ante-mortem inspection.
Sending such weakened veal calves to slaughter increases the chances
that they will go down and be subjected to conditions that are inhumane
(80 FR 27271). In addition, FSIS inspectors may not always be able to
distinguish between a veal calf that is non-ambulatory disabled because
it is tired or cold from a veal calf that is injured or sick. Thus,
allowing re-inspection may encourage establishments to hold ill or
injured veal calves in an attempt to allow them to recover and pass re-
inspection before collapsing.
FSIS is also concerned about the treatment of veal calves during
extended hold times. For example, non-compliance records (NRs) from
2012 to 2015 included 33 instances of failing to provide veal calves
with access to water.
Finally, removing the set-aside provision will also improve the
Agency's inspection efficiency by eliminating the time that FSIS
inspectors spend re-inspecting non-ambulatory disabled veal calves.
Final Rule
After consideration of all of the comments, FSIS is finalizing the
provisions of the May 13, 2015 proposed rule with one change. The final
rule removes a provision in the Federal meat inspection regulations
that requires all ante-mortem inspections to be conducted in pens (9
CFR 309.1(b)).
Comments discussed below submitted in response to the proposed rule
showed confusion about exactly when animals are ``offered for
slaughter,'' and when inspectors may conduct ante-mortem inspection.
Some commenters stated that establishments could exploit a loophole in
the regulations by setting aside non-ambulatory disabled veal calves to
rest and recover, and offer the calves for ante-mortem inspection at a
later time.
Currently, FSIS inspectors are instructed to conduct ante-mortem
inspection on transportation vehicles if the animals cannot be unloaded
for any reason (see FSIS Directive 6,900.2, Humane Handling and
Slaughter of Livestock). To harmonize the regulations with this
established policy, FSIS is amending the regulations by removing a
provision in 9 CFR 309.1(b) that requires ante-mortem inspection to be
performed ``in pens''.
FSIS is amending these regulations under 21 U.S.C. 621, which gives
FSIS the authority to adopt regulations for the efficient
administration of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (FMIA). The
amendments in this rule are 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).
Comments and Responses
FSIS received approximately 42,054 comments from animal welfare
write-in campaigns that supported the proposed rule. FSIS also received
35 comments from animal welfare organizations, members of Congress, and
private citizens that also supported the proposed rule. FSIS received
approximately 20 comments from organizations representing meat
processors, cattle producers, dairy producers, farm bureaus, and
private citizens that opposed the proposed rule.
Comment: Several farm bureaus stated that the current regulations
adequately protect non-ambulatory disabled veal calves from inhumane
treatment. These commenters noted that FSIS has trained personnel in
establishments at all times to ensure that calves are humanely handled,
and veal producers have too big of a financial incentive to violate the
HMSA.
[[Page 46572]]
Response: FSIS is amending the regulations to improve compliance
with the HMSA and improve the Agency's inspection efficiency by
eliminating the time that FSIS inspectors spend re-inspecting non-
ambulatory disabled veal calves.
As explained in the Background section, FSIS conducted
investigations in 2009 and 2014 in response to undercover videos taken
by HSUS that showed establishments using force to get non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves to rise for inspection. Based on the findings of
these investigations, FSIS concluded that the set-aside provision may
create an incentive for establishments to inhumanely force non-
ambulatory disabled veal calves to rise.
Furthermore, the 2014 HSUS video showed that humane handling
violations can occur outside the view of FSIS inspectors. FSIS
inspectors are unable to continuously monitor non-ambulatory veal
calves that have been set apart to warm and rest because they must
perform other food safety inspection-related activities between the
time that the calves are set apart and the time of inspection after the
resting period.
Comment: An industry trade association and veal processor stated
that condemnation and prompt disposal of non-ambulatory disabled veal
calves would waste potentially healthy animals that can go into the
food supply.
Response: 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 pursuant to 21 U.S.C. 601(m)(3).
However, the carcasses of condemned veal calves may have other,
inedible-product, uses (e.g., through rendering).
In addition, the estimated cost of the final rule will have a
minimal financial impact on the veal industry. Market value estimates
for slaughtered veal calves based on CY2015 data reported by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), were
between $264.0 million and $435.8 million. The expected first-year
total cost estimate to the U.S. veal industry that would be associated
with this rule ranges between $0.374 million and $1.206 million. Thus,
the value lost to the U.S. veal industry ranges between 0.14% and 0.28%
of the total veal value in a year.
The minimal financial impact to the U.S. veal industry is
outweighed by the benefits cited in this rule, including increased
compliance with the HMSA and improved inspection efficiency. FSIS
predicts that this rule will save the Agency between 180 inspection
hours (minimum) and 297 inspection hours (maximum) in total each year.
The saved inspection time will allow FSIS personnel to conduct other
inspection activities.
Comment: One veal processor stated that the formula fed veal
industry has voluntarily undertaken measures in the past eight years to
improve conditions for the production and care of veal calves,
rendering moot some of the reasons cited for the rule.
Response: FSIS's investigations in 2009 and 2014 and non-compliance
records from 2012 to 2015 demonstrate that voluntary measures
undertaken by the industry have not adequately prevented the inhumane
treatment of non-ambulatory disabled veal calves. Specifically, FSIS
has determined that establishments may have an incentive to force non-
ambulatory disabled veal calves that have been set aside pursuant to 9
CFR 309.13(b) to rise. Therefore, the Agency has determined that a
change in the regulations is needed to remove the set-aside provision
and ensure compliance with humane handling requirements at official
establishments.
Comment: Several industry trade associations stated that FSIS's
2009 and 2014 investigations in response to HSUS' undercover video
footage did not present evidence of a systemic problem of inhumane
handling of non-ambulatory disabled veal calves. These commenters
stated that FSIS has identified only two incidents of inhumane handling
of non-ambulatory disabled veal calves in the 37 years it has enforced
the HMSA. In addition, the commenters stated that only two out of 364
suspension actions taken by the Agency in the six-year window involve
establishment employees forcing non-ambulatory disabled veal calves to
rise.
The same commenters also stated that the lack of non-compliance
records (NRs) citing non-ambulatory disabled veal calves suggests the
calves are treated with care. These commenters noted that the NRs cited
in the proposed rule do not record establishment personnel forcing non-
ambulatory disabled veal calves to rise.
A beef producer advocacy group questioned whether FSIS has
sufficient scientific evidence or expert testimony to support the
Agency's claim that setting aside downed veal calves results in
inhumane treatment. The comment also stated that FSIS failed to perform
a comprehensive review of the peer-reviewed scientific literature or
research regarding factors that lead to downed veal calves.
Response: FSIS disagrees that the number of suspension actions and
NRs indicates that a change in the regulations is unnecessary. FSIS
proceeded with this rulemaking after conducting a thorough review of
the 2009 and 2014 investigations, NRs, peer-reviewed scientific
literature, and public comments, as well as consulting with Agency
subject-matter experts and staff in the field. FSIS concluded that the
totality of evidence showed that, under current regulations,
establishments may have a financial incentive to force non-ambulatory
disabled calves to rise from a recumbent position and send weakened
veal calves to slaughter. Thus, a change in the regulations is
necessary to comply with the HMSA and its implementing regulations.
FSIS convened an intra-agency workgroup composed of subject-matter
experts to assist with this rulemaking. In addition, the Agency
consulted with the FSIS Office of Field Operations to collect data for
establishments that slaughter veal calves in order to accurately
determine the number of non-ambulatory disabled veal calves that were
inspected after the recovery time and then sent for slaughter.
In the proposed rule, FSIS cited 33 NRs between 2012 and 2014 to
support these conclusions. In addition, the Agency has conducted a
review of NRs issued in 2015. In 2015, the Agency found one instance of
excessive use of an electric prod in an attempt to force a non-
ambulatory disabled veal calf to rise, one instance of ambulatory veal
calves walking over a non-ambulatory veal calf, three instances of veal
calves in holding pens without water, and one instance of veal calves
in a holding pen for longer than 24 hours without feed. These findings
reinforce the Agency's conclusions that establishments may have an
incentive to force veal calves to rise and send weakened calves to
slaughter. In addition, as was demonstrated in the 2014 HSUS video,
FSIS believes that many of these occurrences happen outside the view of
inspection personnel.
FSIS also conducted a thorough review of relevant peer-reviewed
scientific literature, including peer-reviewed literature cited in the
petition submitted by HSUS, regarding factors that can lead to non-
ambulatory disabled veal calves. Based on its findings, the Agency
concluded that there is a direct correlation between the growing and
transport conditions of veal calves, and whether these calves arrive at
an establishment non-ambulatory
[[Page 46573]]
disabled.\2\ Thus, the Agency estimates that by incentivizing growers
and transporters to improve animal welfare conditions, this final rule
will lead to stronger, healthier calves being offered for slaughter.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ 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.
\3\ Trunkfield, H.R., and Broom, D.M. (1990). ``The Welfare of
Calves During Handling and Transport''. Applied Animal Behaviour
Science, v. 28, p. 135-152.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Several farm bureaus stated that complete elimination of
non-ambulatory disabled veal calves from animals intended for slaughter
for human food is an unrealistic goal. These commenters, along with
industry trade groups and a veal processor, noted that otherwise
healthy calves could be non-ambulatory disabled for a myriad of
reasons, including the age and size of calves, adverse weather
conditions, transportation time, calf hydration status, and length of
time between unloading and stunning process.
Response: The Agency acknowledges that many circumstances may
contribute to calves arriving at establishments in a non-ambulatory
disabled condition. However, FSIS's current regulations 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 be subjected to conditions that are inhumane. In addition,
a study conducted by researchers from the University of Manitoba
Department of Animal Science, and Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada's
Lethbridge Research Centre indicated that there is a direct correlation
between calves that arrive at an establishment non-ambulatory disabled
and poor animal welfare conditions before and during transport.\4\ The
study indicated that animal condition upon loading is an important risk
factor in the outcome of the journey.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This final rule will not lead to a complete elimination of non-
ambulatory disabled veal calves that arrive at slaughter
establishments; however, it will likely create an incentive for growers
and transporters to improve animal welfare conditions and send
healthier and stronger animals that can handle the stress and other
risk factors associated with transportation to slaughter
establishments. This will, in turn, reduce the number of non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves that arrive at establishments.
Comment: One veal processor stated that the proposed rule should
apply only to bob veal calves and should exclude formula fed and non-
formula fed veal calves. The same commenter stated that the growing
conditions of formula fed veal calves, including vaccinations, iron
rich diets, and group loose-housing pens, make formula fed veal calves
less susceptible to diseases than bob veal calves.
Response: The final rule will apply to all non-ambulatory disabled
veal calves and does not distinguish bob veal calves from formula and
non-formula fed veal calves. Although the Agency acknowledges that
formula fed veal calves are typically stronger and less susceptible to
disease than bob veal calves, and the Agency's regulatory impact
analysis reveals that a higher percentage of bob veal calves will most
likely be affected by this final rule, FSIS's 2014 investigation showed
that humane handling violations do occur at formula fed veal calf
slaughter establishments.
Comment: A private citizen recommended that the rule distinguish
between fatigued versus diseased animals to prevent the waste of
otherwise healthy animals. An industry trade association, a veal
processor, and a doctor of veterinary medicine questioned FSIS's
assertion that prohibiting the slaughter of all non-ambulatory disabled
veal calves will eliminate uncertainty in determining the disposition
of these calves. These commenters stated that inspectors are capable of
determining whether a calf is diseased or injured rather than tired or
cold.
Response: 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 in order to reduce the
uncertainty in determining the proper disposition of these cattle and
increase FSIS inspector efficiency (74 FR 11463). FSIS has used the
same rationale here.
This final rule eliminates the time that FSIS inspectors spend
determining whether veal calves are non-ambulatory disabled because
they are tired or cold or because they have diseases, such as enteritis
(80 FR 27270). This final rule also eliminates the time that FSIS
inspectors spend inspecting the veal calves that were set apart.
Comment: Two animal welfare groups and an individual noted that
FSIS requires non-ambulatory disabled adult cattle to be condemned and
disposed of, and requested that FSIS extend the same requirement to
non-ambulatory disabled veal calves. In contrast, two farm bureau
organizations stated that non-ambulatory disabled veal calves should
not be treated the same as adult cattle, noting that veal calves are
not a risk for bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), and do not pose
the same food safety concerns as adult cattle.
Response: FSIS issued a final rule in 2007 that prohibited the
slaughter of non-ambulatory disabled cattle because of the threat of
BSE, but created an exception for non-ambulatory disabled veal calves
to be set apart and re-inspected. As explained in the proposed rule,
while cattle younger than 30 months do not present a serious risk of
BSE, they are susceptible to other systemic and metabolic diseases,\5\
and injury because of inadequate immunoglobulin transfer, nutritional
inadequacies of an all-liquid iron deficient diet, activity
restriction, and stress (80 FR 27270). As is discussed above, the
Agency has also concluded that the set-aside provision implemented in
2007 should nonetheless be removed because it may have created an
incentive for establishments to inhumanely force non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves to rise from a recumbent position. In addition,
this final rule will increase inspection efficiency by eliminating the
time that FSIS inspectors spend re-inspecting non-ambulatory disabled
veal calves if they are again offered for slaughter.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ McDonough, Sean P., Stull, Carolyn L., and Osburn, Bennie I.
(1994). ``Enteric Pathogens in Intensively Reared Veal Calves''.
American Journal of Veterinary Research, v. 55, no. 11, p. 1516-
1519.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment: Several animal welfare groups requested that FSIS clarify
when livestock are ``offered'' for slaughter. These commenters stated
that establishments could exploit a loophole by setting aside non-
ambulatory disabled veal calves to rest and recover, and ``offer'' the
calves for ante-mortem inspection at a later time. One animal welfare
group stated that animals should be considered ``offered'' for
slaughter upon delivery at the slaughter establishment, following the
same interpretation as when humane regulations apply per FSIS Directive
6900.2, Ch. II(I) (rev. August 15, 2011).
Response: FSIS has already explained to inspectors when animals
destined for
[[Page 46574]]
slaughter are subject to humane handling regulations and FSIS
inspections in FSIS Directive 6,900.2, Humane Handling and Slaughter of
Livestock. The Directive states that once a vehicle carrying livestock
enters, or is in line to enter, an official establishment's premises,
the vehicle is considered to be a part of the establishment's premises,
and the animals within the vehicle are to be handled in accordance with
humane handling regulations. The Directive states that FSIS inspectors
can conduct ante-mortem inspections at the vehicle. This Directive is
in accord with the final rule that implements the HMSA (44 FR 68809;
November 30, 1979), which states in the preamble that ``the Department
intends to enforce the Act with regard to any inhumane activity
occurring on the premises of an official establishment.''
In addition, in the final rule FSIS is removing a provision in 9
CFR 309.1(b) that requires ante-mortem inspection to be made ``in
pens.'' This amendment harmonizes the regulations with current
practice, and closes the potential loophole that may have allowed
establishments to set aside non-ambulatory disabled veal calves to rest
and recover, and ``offer'' them for slaughter at a later time. It also
prevents establishments and transporters from diverting non-ambulatory
disabled animals to other establishments. FSIS will update FSIS
Directive 6,100.1, Ante-Mortem Livestock Inspection, to reflect this
change. Inspectors have the option to perform the humane handling
portion of ante-mortem inspection directly on the truck, and wait to
complete ante-mortem inspection once the animals are in holding pens.
FSIS inspectors may not be present in the early morning hours when
animals typically arrive and are offloaded. FSIS may assign additional
personnel to the establishment during off-hours to monitor the arrival
of the animals if FSIS identifies the need to do so.
Comment: Two animal welfare organizations and a food safety
organization stated that the definition given for ``promptly'' in the
preamble to the proposed rule is too vague and gives too much
discretion to establishments. One animal welfare organization asked
FSIS to explain the ``facts and circumstances'' to be taken into
account by inspectors and establishment employees when an animal is
found to be non-ambulatory disabled.
Response: The Agency disagrees that it gave too much discretion to
establishments. As FSIS explained in the proposed rule, all condemned
non-ambulatory disabled cattle must be euthanized within a reasonable
time in view of all of the facts and circumstances (80 FR 27271). The
facts and circumstances that FSIS inspectors will take into account
when assessing compliance with the ``promptly'' requirement include
whether the animal is suffering (e.g., injured, dehydrated, or
vulnerable to being stepped on by ambulatory cattle), and extenuating
circumstances such as weather conditions and emergencies.
Comment: One food safety organization requested that FSIS consider
prohibiting the slaughter of other farm animals that can be susceptible
to ``downer'' illnesses, including swine, sheep, and goats.
Response: The proposed rule and request for comments addressed the
disposition of non-ambulatory disabled veal calves only. In 2013, FSIS
denied a petition submitted on behalf of Farm Sanctuary that requested
the Agency to amend its ante-mortem inspection regulations to require
non-ambulatory disabled pigs, sheep, goats, and other amenable
livestock species to be condemned. In 2014, FSIS received another
petition on behalf of Farm Sanctuary and various other animal advocacy
organizations that requested the Agency to amend its ante-mortem
inspection regulations to prohibit the slaughter of non-ambulatory
disabled pigs. FSIS will conduct a full independent review and analysis
of this petition to determine the validity of the requested rulemaking.
Comment: Several industry members stated that the annual economic
impact of the proposed regulatory changes will be significantly higher
on the veal industry than portrayed in the proposed rule. These
commenters stated that the veal industry had much higher production
costs in 2015 than in previous years.
An industry trade association and veal processor also questioned
FSIS's use of deleted records in the Agency's Public Health Information
System (PHIS) to determine the number of non-ambulatory disabled veal
calves that are currently re-inspected and released for slaughter.
These commenters stated that the use of deleted records in PHIS is not
a close approximation of the actual number of non-ambulatory disabled
veal calves released for slaughter in veal establishments.
Response: FSIS updated its cost estimate to reflect 2015 prices.
The estimated market value of bob veal increased to $20.00-$560.00 per
head in 2015, while the market value of formula and non-formula fed
veal increased to $1,000.00-$1,300.00 per head in 2015.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Data derived from USDA/AMS Weekly Veal Market Summary, Vol
18, Numbers 1-41. At: https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/lswveal.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FSIS also changed its methodology for determining the number of
non-ambulatory disabled veal calves that were inspected after the
recovery time and then sent for slaughter. FSIS collected additional
data via the FSIS Office of Field Operations for the establishments
that slaughter veal calves, and estimated the number of non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves based on this data. As a result, FSIS adjusted its
estimated number of non-ambulatory disabled veal calves for all three
veal categories.
On the basis of these updated numbers, FSIS adjusted its estimated
annual cost for the final rule. The new estimated annual cost to the
U.S. veal industry ranges between $0.374 million and $1.206 million
compared to $0.002 million and $0.161 million in the proposed rule.
Comment: Several farm bureaus asked if the proposed rule will
improve the efficiency of the inspection process. These commenters
stated that calves are often rested in the same unloading area where
the inspectors work, and inspection of recovered calves only amounts to
a minor inconvenience and takes up little of the inspectors' time.
Response: FSIS has conducted an analysis of PHIS data, and has
determined that it takes an inspector approximately 15 minutes to
inspect a calf after recovery. Because FSIS will no longer have to
inspect non-ambulatory disabled veal calves to determine their
disposition, the Agency will save between 180 hours (minimum) and 297
hours (maximum) in total. This time will allow inspectors the ability
to engage in other inspection activities.
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 final rule has been designated a ``non-significant''
regulatory action under section 3(f) of Executive Order (E.O.) 12866.
[[Page 46575]]
Accordingly, the rule has not been reviewed by the Office of Management
and Budget under E.O. 12866.
Baseline
FSIS has updated the baseline for the final regulatory impact
analysis (FRIA) to reflect the most recent available data. Table 1
compares the total veal calves slaughtered in calendar year (CY) 2015
(FRIA), CY2014, and CY2013 (preliminary regulatory impact analysis
(PRIA)).
Table 1--Total Veal Calves Inspected and Slaughtered CY2013 (Proposed Rule) vs. CY2014 vs. CY2015 (Final Rule)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sum of the head count
-----------------------------------------------
Veal calf type CY2013 CY2014 CY2015
(1,000) (1,000) (1,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Veal........................................................ 405.6 248.3 173.6
Formula Fed Veal................................................ 310.8 282.8 253.8
Non-Formula Fed Veal............................................ 8.6 7.4 6.7
-----------------------------------------------
Total....................................................... 725.5 538.5 434.1
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: FSIS, Public Health Information System (PHIS)
In CY2015, federally-inspected veal calf establishments slaughtered
a total of 434,051 veal calves (Table 2). Market value estimates for
slaughtered veal calves based on CY2015 data reported by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS), were
between $264.0 million and $435.9 million.\7\ FSIS used the minimum and
maximum veal calf prices reported by USDA/AMS. These prices were
$20.00-$560.00 for bob veal and $1,000.00-$1,300.00 for formula fed and
non-formula fed veal calves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Bob Veal Market Value: $20.00-$560.00 per head. Formula and
non-formula fed veal market value: $1,000.00-$1,300.00 per head.
Data derived from USDA/AMS Weekly Veal Market Summary, Vol 18,
Numbers 1-41. At: https://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/lswveal.pdf.
Table 2--Total Veal Calves Inspected and Slaughtered and Market Value, CY 2015
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Min market Max market
Veal calf type Sum of head value * value *
count (1,000) ($1,000,000) ($1,000,000)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Veal........................................................ 173.6 $3.5 $97.2
Formula Fed Veal................................................ 253.8 253.8 329.9
Non Formula Fed Veal............................................ 6.7 6.7 8.7
-----------------------------------------------
Grand Total *............................................... 434.1 264.0 435.9
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.\8\ In CY 2015, there were 118 federally inspected and nine
state inspected establishments that slaughtered veal calves. Of the 118
federally inspected establishments, 90 (76%) were very small, and 28
(24%) were small HACCP size establishments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ HACCP size: Very Small Establishment = Less than 10
employees or less than $2.5 million in annual sales; Small
Establishment = 10-499 employees; Large Establishment = 500 or more
employees.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Expected Cost of the Final Rule
The expected costs of the final rule for the veal establishments
are a result of the lost market value of the non-ambulatory disabled
veal calves that the affected establishments will no longer be able to
slaughter for human food. The addition of the word ``promptly'' to 9
CFR 309.3(e) does not have any expected costs, nor does the removal of
the requirement that ante-mortem inspection be conducted ``in pens'' (9
CFR 309.1(b)).
FSIS collected additional data via the FSIS Office of Field
Operations for the establishments that slaughter veal calves. As a
result, FSIS adjusted its estimated annual cost for the FRIA based on
new calculated non-ambulatory disabled veal ratios and the 2015 prices.
In CY 2015, there were eight establishments that accounted for
99.96% of the formula fed veal calves slaughtered in the U.S. Taking
into account that extreme weather conditions and transit fatigue during
the winter and summer months can affect the number of non-ambulatory
disabled veal calves, FSIS recalculated its cost estimates, using the
2015 prices.
Table 3--Total Veal Calves Slaughtered and Market Value *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Maximum
Sum of the Min number of Max number of Minimum Maximum market value market value
Veal calf type head count NAD veal NAD veal market value market value lost lost
(1,000) ($million) ($million) ($million) ($million)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Veal................................ 173.6 352 455 $3.5 $97.2 $0.007 $0.255
Formula Fed Veal........................ 253.8 358 713 253.8 329.9 0.358 0.927
[[Page 46576]]
Non Formula Fed Veal.................... 6.7 9 19 6.7 8.7 0.009 0.024
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grand Total......................... 434.1 720 1,187 264.0 435.9 0.374 1.206
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The values are based on 2015 prices. The slaughter head counts are based on CY 2015 PHIS data.
Based on the new data, FSIS adjusted the maximum number of formula
fed veal calves that might be condemned due to this rule upward to 713
(253,837 * 0.00281), with an estimated maximum cost of $0.927 million.
The minimum number of formula fed veal calves that might be condemned
due to this rule is 358 (253,837 * 0.00141), with an estimated minimum
cost of $0.358 million.
FSIS also adjusted the maximum number of bob veal and non-formula
fed veal calves. For the bob veal, five establishments accounted for
83% of the total bob veal calves slaughtered in the United States. The
maximum number of bob veal calves affected by the final rule was
adjusted to 455 (173,556 * 0.00262), with an estimated maximum cost of
$0.255 million. The minimum number of bob veal calves that might be
condemned due to this rule is 352 (173,556 * 0.00203), with an
estimated minimum cost of $0.358 million.
For non-formula fed veal calves, FSIS assumed the same non-
ambulatory disabled rates as for the formula fed veal calves. The
maximum number of non-formula fed veal calves affected by the final
rule was adjusted to 19 (6,658 * 0.00281), with an estimated maximum
cost of $0.025 million. The minimum number of non-formula fed veal
calves that might be condemned due to this rule is 9 (6,658 * 0.00141),
with an estimated minimum cost of $0.009 million.
As illustrated in table 2, the expected first year total costs to
the U.S. veal industry due to the final rule ranges between $0.374
million and $1.026 million. The estimated costs have a minimal impact
on the veal industry. The value lost to the U.S. veal industry ranges
between 0.14% and 0.28% of the total veal value in a year.
Expected Benefits of the Final 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 approximately 15 minutes to re-inspect a calf. Because
FSIS will not have to re-inspect the veal calves that are non-
ambulatory disabled, the Agency will save anywhere from 180 hours
(minimum) to 297 hours (maximum) in total (table 4). The saved
inspection time will allow the inspector the ability to engage in other
inspection activities.
Table 4--Benefit In Terms of Time Saving
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Formula fed Non-formula
Time to do ante-mortem inspection Bob veal veal fed veal Total
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Minimum Number of Veal Calves Affected.......... 352 358 9 719
Maximum Number of Veal Calves Affected.......... 455 713 19 1,187
Minimum Time Saved.............................. 88 89 2 180
Maximum Time Saved.............................. 114 178 5 297
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: PHIS.
The final rule will ensure the humane disposition of the non-
ambulatory disabled veal calves. The rule will also increase the
efficiency and effective implementation of inspection and humane
handling requirements at official establishments. In addition, the rule
will incentivize growers and transporters of cattle to improve animal
welfare, both 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, shows that there is a correlation
between transport and transport conditions such as temperature, length
of the trip, and space allowance (density of animals to size), and
cattle arriving at the establishment dead, lame, or non-ambulatory
disabled. The study notes that, out of all classes of cattle, calves
and cull cattle are ``more likely to be dead and non-ambulatory during
the journey.'' The authors indicate that animal condition upon loading
plays an important risk factor in the outcome of the journey. The study
concludes that cattle arriving at an establishment dead, lame, or non-
ambulatory disabled is an indication of extremely poor welfare
conditions.\9\ The final rule will therefore reduce the number of
calves that arrive at establishments non-ambulatory disabled by
incentivizing growers and transporters to improve animal welfare
conditions and send healthier and stronger animals to slaughter
establishments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ 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
The FSIS Administrator certifies that, for the purpose of the
Regulatory Flexibility Act (5 U.S.C. 601-602), the final rule will not
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities in the United States. The Agency estimates that this rule
would possibly affect 127 (118 federally inspected) small and very
small HACCP size veal slaughter establishments. Although 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 is between $2,945 (total
minimum cost/number of establishments = $374,000/127) and $8,087 (total
maximum cost/number of establishments = $1,027,000/127).
[[Page 46577]]
Paperwork Reduction Act
There are no paperwork or recordkeeping requirements associated
with this final 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 final rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. Under this 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 rule has been reviewed in accordance with the requirements of
Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination with Indian
Tribal Governments.'' E.O. 13175 requires Federal agencies to consult
and coordinate with tribes on a government-to-government basis on
policies that have tribal implications, including regulations,
legislative comments or proposed legislation, and other policy
statements or actions that have substantial direct effects on one or
more Indian tribes, on the relationship between the Federal Government
and Indian tribes or on the distribution of power and responsibilities
between the Federal Government and Indian tribes.
FSIS has assessed the impact of this rule on Indian tribes and
determined that this rule does not, to our knowledge, have tribal
implications that require tribal consultation under E.O. 13175. If a
Tribe requests consultation, the Food Safety and Inspection Service
will work with the Office of Tribal Relations to ensure meaningful
consultation is provided where changes, additions and modifications
identified herein are not expressly mandated by Congress.
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 amends 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. Amend Sec. 309.1 by revising the heading and the first sentence of
paragraph (b) to read as follows:
Sec. 309.1 Ante-mortem inspection on premises of official
establishments.
* * * * *
(b) Such ante-mortem inspection shall be made on the premises of
the establishment at which the livestock are offered for slaughter
before the livestock shall be allowed to enter into any department of
the establishment where they are to be slaughtered or dressed or in
which edible products are handled. * * *
0
3. Amend Sec. 309.3 by revising paragraph (e) to read as follows:
Sec. 309.3 Dead, dying, disabled, or diseased and similar livestock.
* * * * *
(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
4. Amend Sec. 309.13(b) by removing the sentence ``Veal calves that
are unable to rise from a recumbent position and walk because they are
tired or cold may be set apart and held as provided in this
paragraph.''
Done in Washington, DC, on: July 11, 2016.
Alfred V. Almanza,
Acting Administrator.
[FR Doc. 2016-16904 Filed 7-15-16; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-DM-P