Horse Protection, 56924-56962 [2023-17814]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
56924
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
9 CFR Part 11
[Docket No. APHIS–2022–0004]
RIN 0579–AE70
Horse Protection
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
We propose to amend the
horse protection regulations to provide
that the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service (APHIS) will screen,
train, and authorize qualified persons to
conduct inspections at horse shows,
horse exhibitions, horse sales, and horse
auctions to ensure compliance with the
Horse Protection Act (the Act). The
proposed actions are intended to
strengthen regulatory requirements to
protect horses from the practice of
soring and eliminate unfair competition
as the Act requires.
DATES: We will consider all comments
that we receive on or before October 20,
2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments
by either of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
www.regulations.gov. Enter APHIS–
2022–0004 in the Search field. Select
the Documents tab, then select the
Comment button in the list of
documents.
• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:
Send your comment to Docket No.
APHIS–2022–0004, Regulatory Analysis
and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station
3A–03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118,
Riverdale, MD 20737–1238.
Supporting documents and any
comments we receive on this docket
may be viewed at www.regulations.gov
or in our reading room, which is located
in Room 1620 of the USDA South
Building, 14th Street and Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC. Normal
reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30
p.m., Monday through Friday, except
holidays. To be sure someone is there to
help you, please call (202) 799–7039
before coming.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Aaron Rhyner, DVM, Assistant Director,
USDA–APHIS-Animal Care, 2150
Centre Ave., Building B, Mailstop
3W11, Fort Collins, CO 80526–8117;
horseprotection@usda.gov; (970) 494–
7484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Under the Horse Protection Act (HPA,
or the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1821 et seq.), the
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to
promulgate regulations to prohibit the
movement, showing, exhibition, or sale
of sore horses.
The Secretary has delegated
responsibility for administering the Act
to the Administrator of the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s (USDA)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS). Within APHIS, the
responsibility for administering the Act
has been delegated to the Deputy
Administrator for Animal Care.
Regulations and standards established
under the Act are contained in 9 CFR
part 11 (referred to below as the
regulations), and 9 CFR part 12 lists the
rules of practice governing
administrative proceedings.
Section 2 of the Act, ‘‘Definitions’’ (15
U.S.C. 1821(3)), defines a ‘‘sore’’ horse
as follows:
‘‘The term ‘sore’ when used to
describe a horse means that:
(A) An irritating or blistering agent
has been applied, internally or
externally, by a person to any limb of a
horse,
(B) Any burn, cut, or laceration has
been inflicted by a person on any limb
of a horse,
(C) Any tack, nail, screw, or chemical
agent has been injected by a person into
or used by a person on any limb of a
horse, or
(D) Any other substance or device has
been used by a person on any limb of
a horse or a person has engaged in a
practice involving a horse, and, as a
result of such application, infliction,
injection, use, or practice, such horse
suffers, or can reasonably be expected to
suffer, physical pain or distress,
inflammation, or lameness when
walking, trotting, or otherwise
moving. . . .’’
Soring has been used primarily in the
training of Tennessee Walking Horses
and racking horses 1 to produce an
exaggerated gait in competition.
However, the HPA’s prohibition against
sored horses participating in shows,
exhibitions, sales, and auctions applies
to all horse breeds.2 In addition to
declaring that the soring of horses is
cruel and inhumane, Congress further
found that the movement, showing,
exhibition, or sale of sore horses in
intrastate commerce adversely affects
and burdens interstate and foreign
1 The racking horse is a breed derived from the
Tennessee Walking Horse. It has a smooth, natural
gait known as the ‘‘rack,’’ a four-beat gait with only
one foot striking the ground at a time.
2 APHIS monitors the activities of other breeds
and investigates credible evidence of soring as
warranted.
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
commerce and creates unfair
competition.
Background of HPA Regulations
Under the HPA, it is unlawful for any
person to show, exhibit, sell, or
transport sore horses, or to use any
prohibited equipment, device,
paraphernalia, or substance in horse
shows, exhibitions, sales, or auctions.
The HPA holds horse owners
responsible should they allow any such
unlawful activities to occur, and
requires management of horse shows,
exhibitions, sales, and auctions (referred
to as ‘‘management’’ or ‘‘event
management,’’ below) to ensure that
sore horses do not compete or otherwise
participate in these events.
After Congress passed the HPA in
1970, APHIS established regulations to
enforce the Act, including restrictions
on the use of certain equipment,
devices, and substances. In accordance
with the Act, the regulations also
include inspection provisions for
detecting soring in horses at shows,
exhibitions, sales, and auctions. In 1976,
Congress amended the Act 3 to allow
(but not require) the management of any
horse show, exhibition, or sale or
auction to appoint persons qualified to
inspect horses for soreness. Section 4 of
the Act (15 U.S.C 1823(c)) requires the
Secretary of Agriculture to prescribe by
regulation requirements for any
appointment by the management of a
horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction
of persons qualified to detect and
diagnose a horse which is sore or to
otherwise inspect horses for the purpose
of enforcing the Act. Although the Act
does not require that management
appoint a qualified person to inspect
horses, if management chooses not to do
so it can be held liable for violating the
Act if it fails to disqualify a sore horse
from participating in an event. If,
alternatively, event management
appoints a qualified person to conduct
inspections, management may be held
liable only for failing to disqualify a sore
horse after being notified by the
qualified person or by the Secretary of
Agriculture, or his or her designee, that
a horse is sore.
Responding to Congress’ 1976
amendment to the Act, APHIS revised
the regulations (44 FR 1558–1566,
January 5, 1979) to include
qualifications for ‘‘Designated Qualified
Persons,’’ or DQPs, to serve as thirdparty inspectors employed and
compensated by the industry, as well as
provisions for certifying industry-run
3 Public Law 94–360, 3, July 13, 1976, 90 Stat.
915; https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/
STATUTE-90/pdf/STATUTE-90-Pg915.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
programs to train and license them.
These programs are currently
administered by Horse Industry
Organizations, or HIOs.
HIOs currently fill several roles, both
unregulated and regulated, for horse
shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions.
For example, event management may
retain an HIO to assist with activities
not regulated under the Act, such as
registering participants and
coordinating event logistics, supplying
show judges, and promoting events.
Regulated HIO activities, in addition to
training and licensing DQPs, include
assessing and enforcing minimum
penalties for certain violations of the
regulations, conducting hearings for
appeals of violations, and reporting
disciplinary actions against exhibitors,
event management, and DQPs to APHIS.
Under the current regulatory regime, an
HIO seeking certification to train and
license DQPs is required to submit to
APHIS a formal request in writing for
certification of its DQP program and a
detailed outline of the program, in
accordance with paragraph (b) of § 11.7
of the regulations.4
Under the current Horse Protection
program, DQPs are the primary party
responsible for inspecting and
diagnosing soreness in horses. A DQP is
a qualified person who, under the
provisions of 15 U.S.C. 1823(c) cited
above, may be appointed by
management of a horse show or sale to
detect horses that are sored, and to
otherwise conduct inspections for the
purpose of enforcing the Act. DQPs may
be reimbursed for services directly by
event management or by an HIO which
has contracted with them to provide
inspections for events. DQPs must have
equine experience and meet
professional qualifications as set forth in
§ 11.7(a).
DQP candidates must successfully
complete a formal training program
developed and delivered by the HIO
before they can be licensed, except that
veterinarians already accredited by
USDA may be licensed as DQPs without
having to participate in formal training.
Such veterinarians must also be a
member of the American Association of
Equine Practitioners, or large animal
practitioners with substantial equine
experience, or knowledgeable of equine
lameness as related to soring and soring
practices. Section 11.7(a)(1)(iii) states
that veterinarians having such
knowledge might include those with a
small animal practice who own, train,
4 Details of the current HIO certification process
are available in an APHIS-Animal Care Tech Note
located at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_
welfare/hp/downloads/tech-note-certificationrequirements-dqp-programs-web-layout.pdf.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
judge, or show horses, or be Doctors of
Veterinary Medicine who teach equine
related subjects in an accredited college
or school of veterinary medicine.
Alternatively, DQPs may be farriers,
horse trainers, and other knowledgeable
individuals whose past experience and
training would qualify them for
positions as HIO stewards or judges (or
their equivalent), provided that they are
trained and licensed by an HIO or
association whose DQP program has
been certified by APHIS. Of the 59
persons licensed as DQPs in fiscal year
2022, only one is a veterinarian.
APHIS Veterinary Medical Officers
(VMOs) may attend HPA-covered events
unannounced to oversee and conduct
inspections and to otherwise determine
compliance with the Act. To ensure that
horses are disqualified when soreness is
detected or when other violations are
found, APHIS also reviews reports by
event management, HIOs, and DQPs,
and conducts audits of records
maintained by certified DQP programs.
APHIS has several options for
resolving a case in which the evidence
substantiates that an alleged violation
has occurred. These include issuing
official warnings to those involved in
the alleged violation, offering to resolve
the case through a stipulated penalty,
and referring the case to the USDA
Office of the General Counsel for formal
administrative action before the USDA
Office of Administrative Law Judges or
referral to the U.S. Department of
Justice.
Summary of Current Regulations
The current structure of the Horse
Protection regulations in 9 CFR parts 11
and 12 is summarized below.
Section 11.1, ‘‘Definitions,’’ lists the
definitions for terms used throughout
part 11.
Section 11.2, ‘‘Prohibitions
concerning exhibitors,’’ lists general and
specific prohibitions for any device,
method, practice, or substance used on
any horse at any horse show, exhibition,
or horse sale or auction if such use
causes or can reasonably be expected to
cause such horse to be sore.
In § 11.2(a), the general prohibitions
state that ‘‘no chain, boot, roller, collar,
action device, nor any other device,
method, practice, or substance shall be
used with respect to any horse at any
horse show, horse exhibition, or horse
sale or auction if such use causes or can
reasonably be expected to cause such
horse to be sore.’’ Prohibitions regarding
devices, equipment, or practices on any
horse at any horse show, exhibition, or
horse sale or auction are listed in
paragraph (b) of § 11.2. (We discuss the
specific prohibitions under
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
56925
‘‘Prohibitions Concerning Exhibitors’’
below.)
Paragraph (c) prohibits all substances
on the extremities above the hoof of any
Tennessee Walking Horse or racking
horse while being shown, exhibited, or
offered for sale at any horse show,
exhibition, or horse sale or auction,
except lubricants such as glycerin,
petrolatum, and mineral oil, or
mixtures. Lubricants can only be
applied after the horse has been
inspected by management or by a DQP,
and lubricants that will be applied must
be made available to APHIS personnel
for inspection and sampling as deemed
necessary.
Paragraph (d) provides specific
requirements for rest periods during
horse show and horse exhibition
workouts or performances for 2-year-old
Tennessee Walking Horses and racking
horses, and working exhibitions for 2year-old Tennessee Walking Horses and
racking horses at sales or auctions.
In paragraph (e) of § 11.2, failure to
provide information or providing any
false or misleading information required
by the Act or regulations or requested by
Department representatives, by any
person that owns, trains, shows,
exhibits, or sells or has custody of, or
direction or control over any horse
shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned or
entered for the purpose of being shown,
exhibited, sold, or auctioned at any
horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or
auction, is prohibited.
Under § 11.3, ‘‘Scar rule,’’ 5 horses
that do not meet the scar rule criteria are
considered to be sore and are subject to
all prohibitions of the Act. Paragraph (a)
of § 11.3 states the ‘‘anterior and
anterior-lateral surfaces of the fore
pasterns (extensor surface)’’ are required
to ‘‘be free of bilateral granulomas,6
other bilateral pathological evidence of
inflammation, and, other bilateral
evidence of abuse indicative of soring
including, but not limited to, excessive
loss of hair.’’
Paragraph (b) of § 11.3 states the
‘‘posterior surfaces of the pasterns
(flexor surface), including the sulcus or
‘‘pocket’’ may show bilateral areas of
5 The term ‘‘scar rule’’ refers generally to the
presence of visible lesions or other abnormalities on
the horse’s pasterns suggesting that a horse has been
subjected to soring. We discuss the scar rule in
detail in a later section titled ‘‘Dermatologic
Changes and the Scar Rule.’’
6 ‘‘Granuloma’’ is defined in the regulation as any
one of a rather large group of fairly distinctive focal
lesions that are formed as a result of inflammatory
reactions caused by biological, chemical, or
physical agents. This regulatory definition covers a
considerably wider range of lesions than does the
medical definition of granuloma. We elaborate on
this distinction in ‘‘Dermatologic Changes and the
Scar Rule.’’
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
56926
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
uniformly thickened epithelial tissue if
such areas are free of proliferating
granuloma tissue, irritation, moisture,
edema, or other evidence of
inflammation.’’
Section 11.4, ‘‘Inspection and
detention of horses,’’ includes
requirements regarding inspection of
horses by APHIS representatives, as
well as detention of horses for
inspection if an APHIS representative
has probable cause to believe that a
horse is sore. This section also includes
provisions for maintaining the wellbeing of a horse in detention and for
informing the owner, trainer, exhibitor,
or other person having immediate
custody of or responsibility for any
horse allegedly found to be in violation
of the Act or the regulations of such
alleged violation before the horse is
released from detention. Provisions for
requesting reexamination and testing of
detained horses are also included in this
section.
Under § 11.5, ‘‘Access to premises and
records,’’ paragraph (a) provides that the
management of any horse show,
exhibition, or horse sale or auction
‘‘shall, without fee, charge, assessment,
or other compensation, provide APHIS
representatives with unlimited access to
the grandstands, sale ring, barns,
stables, grounds, offices, and all other
areas of any horse show, horse
exhibition, or horse sale or auction,
including any adjacent areas under their
direction, control, or supervision for the
purpose of inspecting any horses, or any
records required to be kept by regulation
or otherwise maintained.’’ Management
must also provide an adequate, safe, and
accessible area for the visual inspection
and observation of horses while such
horses are competitively or otherwise
performing at any horse show or horse
exhibition, or while such horses are
being sold or auctioned or offered for
sale or auction at any horse sale or horse
auction.
Paragraph (b) of § 11.5 requires that
‘‘[e]ach horse owner, exhibitor, or other
person having custody of or
responsibility for any horse at any horse
show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or
auction shall, without fee, charge,
assessment, or other compensation,
admit any APHIS representative or
Designated Qualified Person appointed
by management, to all areas of barns,
compounds, horse vans, horse trailers,
stables, stalls, paddocks, or other show,
exhibition, or sale or auction grounds or
related areas at any horse show, horse
exhibition, or horse sale or auction, for
the purpose of inspecting any such
horse at any and all reasonable times.’’
Such persons must also promptly
present his or her horse for inspection
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
upon notification by any APHIS
representative or DQP appointed by
management for the purpose of
determining whether such horse is in
compliance with the Act and
regulations.
Section 11.6, ‘‘Inspection space and
facility requirements,’’ requires the
management of every horse show,
exhibition, or horse sale or auction
containing Tennessee Walking Horses or
racking horses to provide, without fee,
sufficient space and facilities for APHIS
representatives to carry out their duties
under the Act and regulations, whether
or not management has received prior
notification by APHIS. The management
of every horse show, exhibition, horse
sale or auction which does not contain
Tennessee Walking Horses or racking
horses must provide, without fee,
sufficient space and facilities when
requested to do so by APHIS
representatives. Space and facility
requirements include sufficient space
for inspecting horses, protection from
the elements, a means to control crowds
and onlookers, an accessible, reliable,
and convenient 110-volt electrical
power source, if electrical service is
available at the site and is requested by
the APHIS representative, and
appropriate inspection waiting and
detention areas.
Paragraph (a) of § 11.7, ‘‘Certification
and licensing of designated qualified
persons (DQP’s)’’ currently lists basic
professional qualifications required of
DQP applicants and paragraph (b) lists
certification requirements for DQP
programs certified by APHIS and
initiated and maintained by HIOs or
associations.7 As part of maintaining a
DQP program that APHIS has certified,
HIOs are responsible for delivering the
training curriculum as well as ensuring
that criteria for selecting and licensing
DQPs are met. HIOs must also submit
records to APHIS containing details of
horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and
auctions at which DQPs appointed by
them inspect horses.
Paragraph (c) contains DQP licensing
requirements in HIOs or associations
receiving Department certification for
the training and licensing of DQPs, and
paragraph (d) of § 11.7 lists
recordkeeping and other requirements
to be met by HIOs or associations and
DQPs.
Paragraph (e) of § 11.7 prohibits the
management of any horse show,
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction
from appointing any person to detect
and diagnose horses which are sore or
to otherwise inspect horses for the
7 ‘‘Association’’ refers to HIOs using that term to
describe themselves.
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
purpose of enforcing the Act if such
person does not hold a valid DQP
license, if the license is canceled, or if
the person has been disqualified by the
Secretary from performing diagnosis,
detection, and inspection under the Act,
after notice and opportunity for a
hearing.
Paragraph (f) contains provisions for
canceling a DQP license. Concluding
this section, paragraph (g) provides the
process for revoking the DQP program
certification of an HIO or association.
Section 11.20 of the current
regulations lists the responsibilities and
liabilities of the management of any
horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or
auction which does not appoint a DQP
to inspect horses, noting that in such
cases event management is responsible
and legally liable for identifying all
horses that are sore or otherwise in
violation of the Act or regulations and
must disqualify or disallow any such
horses from participating or competing
in any horse show, exhibition, horse
sale, or horse auction. If management
does appoint a DQP to inspect horses,
the section provides that management
must not take any action which would
interfere with or influence a DQP in
carrying out his or her duties or making
decisions concerning whether or not
any horse is sore or otherwise in
violation of the Act or regulations.
Section 11.20 also includes
responsibilities for the management of
any horse show, exhibition, horse sale
or auction which designates and
appoints one or more DQPs to inspect
horses. Management in such cases must
accord the DQP access to all records and
areas of the grounds of such show,
exhibition, sale, or auction and the same
right to inspect horses and records as is
accorded to any APHIS representative.
Section 11.21 lists inspection
procedures that DQPs must follow,
including requirements for walking and
turning the horse in a manner that
allows the DQP to determine whether
the horse exhibits signs of soreness.
This section also includes the procedure
for proper palpation to detect soreness,
as well as procedures for conducting
horses through other elements of the
inspection process.
Under § 11.22, ‘‘Records required and
disposition thereof,’’ the management of
any horse show, exhibition, or horse
sale or auction, that contains Tennessee
Walking Horses or racking horses is
required to maintain for at least 90 days
following the closing date of the show,
exhibition, or sale or auction, all
pertinent records. If specifically
required by APHIS, management may be
required to hold the records specified
longer than 90 days.
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Under paragraph (a) of § 11.23,
‘‘Inspection of records,’’ the
management of any horse show,
exhibition, or horse sale or auction must
allow any APHIS representative, upon
request, to examine and make copies of
any and all records pertaining to any
horse. Similarly, paragraph (b) requires
that HIOs or associations that train,
maintain, and license inspectors under
a certified DQP program must permit
any APHIS representative, upon request,
to examine and copy any and all records
relating to the DQP program which are
required by any part of the regulations.
In § 11.24, ‘‘Reporting by
management,’’ paragraph (a) states that
within 5 days following the conclusion
of any horse show, exhibition, or horse
sale or auction, containing Tennessee
Walking Horses or racking horses,
management must submit to the
Regional Director for the State in which
the show, exhibition, sale or auction
was held, information required in
paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of
§ 11.22 for each horse excused or
disqualified by management or its
representatives from being shown,
exhibited, sold or auctioned, and the
reasons for such action.
In paragraph (b) of § 11.24, within 5
days following the conclusion of any
horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or
auction which does not contain
Tennessee Walking Horses or racking
horses, the management must inform
the Regional Director for the State in
which the show, exhibition, sale or
auction was held, of any case where a
horse was excused or disqualified by
management or its representatives from
being shown, exhibited, sold or
auctioned because it was found to be
sore.
Section 11.25, ‘‘Minimum penalties to
be assessed and enforced by HIOs that
license DQPs’’ lists suspensions and
minimum penalties for violations of the
Act and regulations. HIOs are required
to include penalties in their rulebooks 8
for violations that equal or exceed the
penalties listed in paragraph (c) of the
section; minimum penalties are
specified in that paragraph. HIOs are
also required in this section to assess
and enforce the penalty, as well as and
any suspension included with the
penalty. The HIO must provide a
process, subject to APHIS approval, for
alleged violators to appeal penalties.
Section 11.40 lists prohibitions and
requirements concerning persons
involved in transportation of certain
horses, including providing APHIS with
transportation information in order to
determine compliance with the Act and
regulations.
Section § 11.41 currently requires
each HIO or association which sponsors
or sanctions any horse show, exhibition,
or sale or auction, to furnish the
Department by March 1st of each year
with all such HIO or association
rulebooks, and disciplinary procedures
for the previous year pertaining to
violations of the Act or regulations,
applicable to such horse show,
exhibition, or sale or auction. Each HIO
or association must also furnish the
Department with a quarterly report of all
disciplinary actions taken against the
management of 9 any horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction, any
exhibitor, or any licensed DQP, for
violation of the Act or regulations, and
the results. The Department retains the
authority to initiate enforcement
proceedings with respect to any
violation of the Act.
Part 12 of the Horse Protection
regulations reference the rules of
practice for USDA as promulgated in 7
CFR part 1.
Section 12.1 addresses the scope and
applicability of rules of practice. These
rules of practice are applicable to
adjudicatory, administrative
proceedings under section 6(a) of the
Act (15 U.S.C. 1825(a)) and sections 6(b)
and (c) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1825(b) and
(c)).
Lastly, § 12.10, ‘‘Stipulations,’’
provides that the Administrator may
enter into a stipulation with any person
notified of an apparent violation of the
Act or regulations if that person waives
a hearing and agrees to pay a specified
civil penalty within a designated time.
8 Rulebooks issued by HIOs or associations also
include rules and regulations for showing horses
and descriptions of the several classes and divisions
in which horses show.
9 Due to a typographical error, the regulations in
this section currently say, ‘‘management or’’ rather
than ‘‘management of.’’ However, contextually, the
latter is implied.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
Evaluation of the Horse Protection
Program
Consistent with the aims of the HPA,
the goal of the USDA–APHIS Horse
Protection program and regulations is to
eliminate the inhumane practice of
soring and by so doing promote fair
competition in horse shows and
exhibitions. Since 1979, when APHIS
promulgated the regulations to allow
management to appoint qualified
persons to conduct inspections, the
Agency has regularly evaluated the
effectiveness of the Horse Protection
program and sought ways to improve its
approaches to ending soring.
Unfortunately, soring persists despite
the Agency’s efforts to regulate and
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
56927
work with the Tennessee Walking Horse
and racking horse industries to
eliminate the practice. In September
2010, USDA’s Office of the Inspector
General (OIG) formally evaluated
APHIS’ oversight of the Horse
Protection program 10 in accordance
with generally accepted government
auditing standards.11 USDA–OIG
concluded that the inspection program,
in which the horse industry trains and
licenses DQPs to inspect horses under
APHIS’ oversight, is ineffective in
ensuring that horses are not sore upon
inspection as required under the Act.
As part of the audit, OIG auditors
performed fieldwork in 2008 and 2009
at APHIS offices in Washington, DC and
Riverdale, Maryland. In addition,
auditors completed field visits to horse
shows in Florida, Kentucky, Missouri,
South Carolina, and Tennessee, and
reviewed laws, regulations, procedures,
and inspection protocols relating to
oversight of DQPs. They also
interviewed APHIS program officials to
understand how they ensure oversight
of their respective programs and
reviewed available laws, regulations,
procedures, and program documents to
evaluate program implementation.
Audit staff also interviewed personnel
from USDA–APHIS Investigative and
Enforcement Services to understand
their role in collecting evidence for
Federal cases, as well as USDA Office of
General Counsel officials to learn their
processes for evaluating potential cases
for enforcement, prosecution, and
closing of Federal cases related to
violations of the Act. APHIS Review and
Analysis Branch personnel were
interviewed regarding HIO record
reviews performed and their study of
the violation rate disparity that exists
when APHIS veterinarians are present at
shows, sales, and exhibitions.
OIG auditors also reviewed show and
sale reports for 34 shows that they
attended in 2008, in order to identify
problems noted by APHIS veterinarians
relating to DQP performance and the
issuance of violation tickets. Audit staff
interviewed HIO officials to discuss
their perspective on APHIS’ oversight of
the DQP program and interviewed DQPs
to discuss the program and possible
improvements. Finally, auditors
attended a training seminar hosted by
10 USDA–OIG, Administration of the Horse
Protection Program and the Slaughter Horse
Transport Program Audit Report, 33601–2–KC,
September 2010. The document is available on the
Regulations.gov website (see under ADDRESSES in
this document for a link to Regulations.gov).
11 Generally Accepted Government Auditing
Standards (the ‘‘Yellow Book’’) is a publication of
the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO):
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-568g.pdf.
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
56928
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
APHIS for Tennessee Walking horse
trainers to learn about new inspection
procedures and to observe APHIS
personnel interacting with industry
trainers.
During these evaluations, OIG
auditors identified multiple conflicts of
interest among DQPs, the HIOs that
train, license, and employ them, horse
exhibitors, and management of shows
and exhibitions that affiliate with HIOs
for inspection services. OIG concluded
that these conflicts of interest
contributed to horses being allowed to
compete while sore. They noted that
some DQPs are reluctant to dismiss
sored horses discovered during
inspections, as doing so inconveniences
event management and makes it less
likely that such DQPs will be hired to
inspect at future shows. Moreover, some
DQPs own and exhibit their own horses,
so a DQP inspecting an exhibitor’s horse
at one show may be facing that exhibitor
conducting inspections at another show.
As a consequence, auditors found that
some DQPs frequently failed to inspect
horses visually and physically in
accordance with the regulations and
allowed sored horses to show.
OIG auditors also discovered that
some DQPs avoid documenting
instances of soring in several ways.
DQPs may provide only a warning to
exhibitors when they detect soring in a
horse, when under the regulations they
are required to recommend to event
management that the horse be
prohibited from performing. The
auditors also concluded that DQPs fail
to sufficiently inspect and weigh chains,
boots, and other action devices as
required under the regulations. The
report noted that when DQPs document
a noncompliance with the Act, they
sometimes identify a stable hand or a
relative of the exhibitor as the alleged
violator, so that the person actually at
fault for the alleged violation can avoid
responsibility. Further, the OIG report
found that no reliable controls are in
place to prevent an exhibitor who is
serving an industry-issued suspension
for a violation from competing in
another show.
USDA–OIG’s findings regarding the
persistence of soring are consistent with
those of the USDA’s Office of the
Judicial Officer (OJO), which issues
final decisions on behalf of the
Secretary of Agriculture for purposes of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
judicial review.12 The Secretary of
Agriculture, through the OJO, has found
that DQP inspections of horses are less
probative than inspections conducted
by APHIS VMOs. Decisions issued by
the OJO include accounts of exhibitors
showing sored horses that had been
inspected and cleared by DQPs, cursory
inspections or use of incorrect methods
by DQPs, and exhibitors attempting to
avoid violations by having another
person acknowledge responsibility.
As the USDA–OIG audit showed,
DQPs are less likely to issue violations
and more likely to allow sored horses to
perform when APHIS officials are not
present to observe and confirm the
outcome of inspections. In a review of
program data from 2005 to 2008, the
OIG audit report 13 noted that out of
1,607 events in which DQPs provided
inspection services, 49 percent of the
violations they issued occurred at the
108 events at which APHIS officials
were also present, suggesting that DQPs
were considerably more inclined to
issue violations when under APHIS
observation than when they were not.
Furthermore, inspection data
compiled by APHIS from fiscal year
(FY) 2017 to 2022 (Tables 1 and 2,
below) shows that inconsistencies
persist in the number of violations
detected by APHIS officials and those
issued by DQPs inspecting horses.
During this period, APHIS attended
12 Decisions for showing sored horses include:
Decision and Order, Tracy Essary (HPA Docket No.
15–0041, June 15, 2016): https://
nalcpro.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/
uploads//assets/decisions/061516-Essary-HPA150041-DO.pdf; Decision and Order, Rocky Roy
McCoy (HPA Docket No.16–0026, June 2, 2016):
https://nalcpro.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/
uploads//assets/decisions/060216-McCoy-HPA160026-DO.pdf, and Decision and Order, Justin Jenne
(HPA Docket No. 13–0080, July 29, 2014: https://
www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/
140729_13-0080%20Justin%20Jenne_%20DO.pdf.
Decisions also include those issued for horses sored
under the scar rule, as in Decision and Order,
Randall Jones (HPA Docket No. 13–0053, June 29,
2015): https://nalcpro.wpenginepowered.com/wpcontent/uploads//assets/decisions/062915-JonesHPA13-0053-DO.pdf. Decisions of the Office of the
Judicial Officer are located at https://
www.usda.gov/oha/services/decisions. Decisions
entered prior to January 1, 2017, are available on
the University of Arkansas National Agricultural
Law Center website: https://
nationalaglawcenter.org/decisions/. In addition, a
digest published by USDA from 2013 to 2020,
Agricultural Decisions, contains indexed summaries
of decisions and orders issued in adjudicatory
proceedings conducted for the Department: https://
www.usda.gov/oha/services/agriculture-decisionspublications.
13 See footnote 10. USDA–OIG’s data review and
table is found on page 11 of the audit report.
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
about 16 percent of all HPA-covered
events featuring Tennessee Walking
Horses, racking horses, and other breeds
at which horse industry DQPs
conducted inspections, performance as
well as flat-shod classes. While APHIS
attended only a fraction of the events at
which DQPs were appointed to inspect
horses, APHIS consistently reported
higher rates of noncompliance at these
events based on its VMO inspection
findings. Most horses inspected by
APHIS officials at these events were
chosen at random, although APHIS
chose to inspect some horses for which
a suspicion of soring was warranted.14
Moreover, DQPs consistently reported
higher rates of noncompliance when
APHIS officials were in attendance than
when they were not. In FY 2021, for
example, if only horses wearing
‘‘performance packages’’ (i.e., a padded
horse) are considered, APHIS officials
detected 158 instances of
noncompliance with the HPA out of the
398 horses APHIS inspected at the 17
events attended, resulting in close to a
40 percent rate of noncompliance for
performance horses. In contrast, of the
207 events attended and inspected by
DQPs during the same period, DQPs
detected just 321 instances of
noncompliance with the HPA out of the
11,825 performance horses they
inspected, recording only a 1.9 percent
rate of noncompliance when APHIS
officials were not present and 7.1
percent when they were.
Also notable is that the rate of
noncompliance detected for horses
wearing performance packages was
significantly and consistently higher
than that detected for flat-shod horses
(Table 2). The marked difference
between the rates of noncompliance
found in padded performance classes
and those found in flat-shod classes
indicates that soring is concentrated in
horses made to perform the exaggerated
and unnatural chest-high gait popularly
known as the ‘‘big lick.’’ Table 3 shows
a similar discrepancy between
performance and flat-shod horses
regarding positive tests for prohibited
substances.
14 The rates of noncompliance reported by APHIS
VMOs represent the sampling of horses that they
inspected, not every horse at each event. Moreover,
APHIS records of inspections conducted by VMOs
do not differentiate between horses chosen at
random and those chosen on suspicion of soring.
Horses in the latter group are more likely to be
diagnosed, as that sample presented indications of
soring prior to inspection.
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
56929
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
TABLE 1—PERFORMANCE HORSE INSPECTION DATA FOR HPA-COVERED EVENTS FROM FY 2017–2022
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
1 Horse
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
Entries
inspected
by DQPs
(APHIS
not
present)
HPA noncompliances
detected
by DQPs
(APHIS not
present)
Noncompliance
rate
detected
by DQPs
(APHIS not
present)
(%)
Entries
inspected
by DQPs
(APHIS
present)
HPA Noncompliances
detected by
DQPs
(APHIS
present)
Noncompliance
rate
detected
by DQPs
(APHIS
present)
(%)
Entries
inspected
by
APHIS 1
HPA Noncompliances
detected by
APHIS
Noncompliance
rate
detected
by APHIS
(%)
9,746
11,825
8,522
9,698
9,290
9,992
174
224
251
417
277
154
1.8
1.9
2.9
4.3
3.0
1.5
3,220
1,373
1,107
2,978
4,427
4,112
219
97
88
297
230
163
6.8
7.1
7.9
10.0
5.2
4.0
930
398
276
901
1,081
1,005
317
158
79
233
100
126
34.1
39.7
28.6
25.9
9.3
12.5
industry DQPs conducted inspections at these events. Not included are the few events APHIS attended where DQPs were not present.
TABLE 2—FLAT-SHOD HORSE INSPECTION DATA FOR HPA-COVERED EVENTS FROM FY 2017–2022
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
1 Horse
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
Entries
inspected
by DQPs
(APHIS
not
present)
HPA noncompliances
detected
by DQPs
(APHIS not
present)
Noncompliance
rate
detected
by DQPs
(APHIS not
present)
(%)
Entries
inspected
by DQPs
(APHIS
present)
HPA noncompliances
detected by
DQPs
(APHIS
present)
Noncompliance
rate
detected
by DQPs
(APHIS
present)
(%)
Entries
inspected
by
APHIS 1
HPA noncompliances
detected by
APHIS
Noncompliance
rate
detected
by APHIS
(%)
29,822
33,949
27,252
35,302
32,624
31,871
16
31
16
32
14
9
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.1
0.04
0.03
4,956
1,624
758
4,045
5,168
3,818
16
3
5
24
8
17
0.3
0.2
0.7
0.6
0.2
0.4
357
143
50
297
475
483
6
1
1
16
5
3
1.7
0.7
2.0
5.4
1.1
0.6
industry DQPs conducted inspections at these events. Not included are the few events APHIS attended where DQPs were not present.
TABLE 3—PROHIBITED SUBSTANCE TESTING DATA FOR HPA-COVERED EVENTS FROM FY 2017–2022
Performance
horses tested
for prohibited
substances
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018
2017
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
2 These
...................................................................................
...................................................................................
...................................................................................
...................................................................................
...................................................................................
...................................................................................
Performance
horses positive
for prohibited
substances 1
1,196
1,104
51
111
194
123
Flat-shod
horses tested
for prohibited
substances
55
71
8
84
144
83
382
292
11
23
66
35
Flat-shod
horses positive
for prohibited
substances 2
4
2
1
3
28
10
numbers reflect substances the laboratory reported to APHIS as significant findings.
While the data in tables 1 and 2
contain statistical anomalies and
represent only a sampling of rates of
noncompliance, the discrepancy
between soring detected when APHIS
officials are present at shows and when
they are not is broadly consistent over
time. We have considered several
possible explanations for this
discrepancy. In the absence of APHIS
representatives, some DQPs may feel
complacent and less focused on
inspecting horses accurately, not due to
any intention to allow a sore horse to
show, but simply through inattention. It
also may be that some DQPs are not
receiving proper training in conducting
inspections, although the evidence
above suggests that, on the whole, DQPs
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
are capable of diagnosing sored horses
when under observation by APHIS
representatives. We find none of these
explanations credible in accounting for
the discrepancy in soring diagnoses
with and without APHIS representatives
present, nor do we believe that a
significantly different outcome would
emerge if APHIS inspected every horse
at every event. Our conclusion, as was
also the conclusion of the OIG audit, is
that a key obstacle to eliminating soring
under the Horse Protection program is
the unwillingness of some DQPs to
correctly palpate and observe other
actions necessary to making a proper
diagnosis.
The data and findings presented in
the OIG report and our evaluation of
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
inspection records show that soring is
still underdiagnosed in part because of
the above noted conflicts of interest
within the Tennessee Walking Horse
and racking horse industries. The report
also confirmed that APHIS lacked a
sufficient number of veterinary officers
to attend and oversee inspections at all
shows. The report recommended that
APHIS abolish the DQP program and
establish by regulation that only
independent, accredited veterinarians
perform inspections at sanctioned
shows. It also recommended that better
controls be instituted to prevent persons
disqualified for HPA infractions at
sanctioned events from participating in
subsequent events. The report added
that APHIS should hire and train these
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
56930
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
inspectors and pass the costs for
inspections along to event management.
In return, shows would benefit from
improved compliance and exhibitors
would see fairer competition.
As indicated in its 2010 response to
the report, APHIS agreed with the intent
of the USDA–OIG recommendations.
APHIS responded that it would propose
a regulatory change to abolish the
current DQP licensing system and have
the Agency be the only entity
authorized to train and license DQPs but
stated that it could not predict the
timing for doing so. APHIS also stated
that it would establish strict
qualifications to prohibit conflicts of
interest so that DQPs having close ties
with the horse show industry would be
excluded from licensing. APHIS
additionally declared at the time that it
would continue to allow HIOs to hire
and compensate DQPs to inspect horse
shows but they would have to use only
DQPs trained and licensed by APHIS.15
This would replace the practice, still in
place today, of DQPs being trained and
licensed under an HIO-run program
under APHIS oversight, a practice that,
as discussed immediately below, APHIS
has determined to present an insoluble
conflict of interests.
APHIS’ response to the USDA–OIG
audit report formed the basis for our
proposed 2016 revision of the HPA
regulations, discussed below.16 After
issuance of the report in 2010, APHIS
also undertook several nonregulatory
approaches to help the industry
improve compliance with the Act,
among them increased engagement with
industry groups, inspection workshops
for DQPs, and stepped-up APHIS
presence at certain shows to oversee
inspections and check whether
disqualified persons are participating.
From 2018 to the present, APHIS has
also hosted joint training sessions with
the HIOs to ensure all DQPs are
receiving the same training. Despite
being directly trained by APHIS, DQPs
continued to perform unsatisfactory
inspections, with no substantial
reduction in the number of sored horses
performing in certain show classes. We
ultimately determined that the problem
was not inadequate training, but rather
a regulatory structure in which DQPs
lacked sufficient latitude to inspect
15 USDA–OIG
Audit Report, page 18.
a separate rulemaking, APHIS also published
a proposal (76 FR 30864–30868, Docket No. APHIS–
2011–0030) on May 27, 2011, to require HIOs or
associations that license DQPs to assess and enforce
minimum penalties for violations of the Act and
regulations. A final rule (77 FR 33607–33619) was
published June 7, 2012, and became effective 30
days later. These requirements are located in
§ 11.25 of the current regulations.
16 In
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
horses properly without fear of reprisal
from management and often had strong
incentives not to do so.
Two provisions, both in § 11.7(d)(7) of
the current regulations, specifically
address conflicts of interest—one that
prohibits a DQP from exhibiting or
selling a horse at an event in which he
or she has been appointed to inspect
horses, and another in which the DQP
cannot inspect at a show or sale in
which horses owned by a member of his
or her immediate family or employer are
competing or are being offered for sale.
While these provisions focus on two
clearly apparent conflicts of interest,
many others are not addressed in the
regulations and are not enforceable
through nonregulatory actions. A DQP
may, for example, have business or
other transactional interests with show
judges, HIO officials, or others who have
horses competing in events inspected by
that DQP. We believe that a regulatory
change that brings inspectors directly
under APHIS oversight is necessary so
that they can be sufficiently screened for
conflicts of interest as a condition of
Agency authorization to conduct
inspections.
2011 HPA Rulemaking
In 2011, APHIS initiated work on a
rulemaking to reduce industry conflicts
of interest and participation of
suspended persons in HPA-covered
events, as well as further restrict the
physical means by which horses are
sored. On July 26, 2016, we published
in the Federal Register (81 FR 49112–
49137, Docket No. APHIS–2011–0009) a
proposal to amend the regulations to
provide that APHIS, rather than HIOs,
would train and license inspectors to
diagnose sored horses and determine
compliance with the Act at horse shows,
exhibitions, sales, and auctions.
We invited the public to address our
proposal to have APHIS train and
license inspectors to address the conflict
of interests between DQPs and the
industry that results in underreporting
violations of the Act. Following the
recommendation from the USDA–OIG
audit, we further proposed that only
veterinarians and veterinary
technicians,17 screened by APHIS for
conflicts of interest and having equine
experience, may be licensed to inspect
horses for soring at horse shows,
exhibitions, sales, and auctions. This
would help ensure that inspectors
possess the medical expertise and
17 Veterinary technicians are not mentioned in the
USDA–OIG audit report, but we determined in the
2016 rulemaking that persons holding this
credential from an accredited program and having
adequate equine experience are qualified and may
be considered for licensure to inspect horses.
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
adherence to professional veterinary
ethics codes to detect and diagnose sore
horses capably and reliably.
We also proposed in 2016 to amend
the prohibitions on devices, equipment,
substances, and practices that can cause
or mask soring or can reasonably be
expected to do so, particularly with
respect to Tennessee Walking Horses
and racking horses.
We solicited public comments on the
proposal and received 130,975
submissions, as well as comments
provided at 5 listening sessions.
Comments came from State and Federal
elected officials, including current and
former U.S. Senators and
Representatives; State agricultural
agencies; farm bureaus; gaited horse
organizations; trotting horse federations
and organizations; other domestic and
foreign horse industry organizations;
veterinarians and veterinary
associations; horse rescue and animal
welfare advocacy organizations; horse
owners, trainers, and farriers; small
business owners; and the general public.
After responding to public requests to
extend the proposal comment period,18
we reviewed the comments and, on
January 11, 2017, we submitted a final
rule to the Office of the Federal Register
(OFR) for publication. That rule was
filed for public inspection, in advance
of publication, on January 19, 2017.
However, on January 20, 2017, the Chief
of Staff of the President issued a
memorandum instructing Federal
agencies to immediately withdraw all
regulations awaiting publication at the
OFR.19 In response to the memorandum,
APHIS withdrew the rule from the OFR
and it did not publish. The proposed
rule on which the final rule was based
was also subsequently withdrawn 20
from publication.
On August 13, 2019, the Humane
Society of the United States and other
non-governmental organizations filed a
lawsuit. HSUS argued that the 2017
HPA final rule had been duly
promulgated and could not be
withdrawn without first providing
public notice in the Federal Register
and an opportunity for public comment.
On July 27, 2020, the U.S. District Court
for the District of Columbia dismissed
the suit, holding that a rule becomes
final upon publication in the Federal
Register.
On July 22, 2022, the U.S. Court of
Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed
and remanded, ruling that APHIS had to
18 81 FR 65307 (Docket No. APHIS–2011–0009),
September 22, 2016.
19 82 FR 8346, January 20, 2017.
20 December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70755, Docket No.
APHIS–2011–0009).
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
provide notice and an opportunity for
comment before withdrawing a rule that
was available for public inspection, but
not yet published in the Federal
Register. Humane Soc’y of the U.S. v.
U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 41 F.4th 564, 565
(D.C. Cir. 2022). The mandate was
issued December 13, 2022.
On May 12, 2023, the U.S. District
Court issued its decision on remand
without vacatur, but ordered that the
2017 rule would take automatic effect if
the agency failed to take appropriate
remedial action: Either promulgate an
updated version of the rule, or
otherwise remedy the deficiency in the
withdrawal of the 2017 rule by
conducting notice and comment on the
withdrawal. Humane Soc’y of the U.S.
v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., No. 19–cv–2458
BAH, 2023 WL 3433970 (D.D.C. May 12,
2023). APHIS signaled to the Court its
intent to remedy the deficiency by
proposing to withdraw the 2017 final
rule through notice and comment
processes, and a notice of proposed
rulemaking to withdraw the 2017 rule
was published in the Federal Register
on July 21, 2023 (88 FR 47068–47071,
Docket No. APHIS–2011–0009).
This current proposal incorporates
steps taken in the 2017 HPA final rule
to eliminate soring. In addition, it
provides recent support and data
emphasizing that the causes of soring
are long-standing and endemic, and not
simply aberrations that occurred in the
past. To this end, we introduce into this
proposal the Horse Protection program’s
latest inspection statistics and a recent
study 21 by the National Academy of
Sciences (NAS), discussed below, that
analyzes the causes of soring and its
diagnosis in light of the current
regulations.
National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
Study
The NAS study, published in 2021,
concurs with the USDA–OIG audit
report’s recommendation that a
regulatory change to the inspection
component of the Horse Protection
program is necessary to eliminate the
conflicts of interest that encourage
soring. The study was initiated in July
2017, when APHIS, the Tennessee
Department of Agriculture, and the
Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders
Foundation jointly requested that NAS
evaluate methods to detect soreness to
help ensure that Horse Protection
inspection protocols are based on sound
scientific principles that can be applied
consistently.
21 A
Review of Methods for Detecting Soreness in
Horses. Washington, DC: The National Academies
Press, 2021: https://doi.org/10.17226/25949.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
In the study, NAS examined the
methods currently employed by DQPs
and APHIS VMOs for detecting soreness
in Tennessee Walking Horses and
evaluated current inspector
qualifications. NAS also highlighted
emerging approaches for detecting
soreness in horses and evaluated the
role of the scar rule, a set of visual
criteria in current § 11.3 used to
determine if a horse has been sored. The
committee that drafted the NAS study
consisted of equine veterinarians and
other professionals qualified to review
the veterinary medical literature on hoof
and pastern pain and skin changes and
evaluate methods used to identify
soreness in horses as defined in the Act
and regulations for scientific validity.
As part of their research, the committee
reviewed USDA training materials and
61 DQP inspection videos provided by
an HIO, and observed problems
consistent with those cited in the OIG
audit report 11 years earlier. The NAS
committee confirmed, in brief, that due
to both inadequate HIO training and
industry conflicts of interest, DQPs were
not consistently or correctly diagnosing
sore horses. The committee noted that
USDA’s ‘‘current horse inspection
process for detecting soreness involves
observation of the horse’s movement
and posture and palpation of the limbs,
which is the gold standard for detecting
local pain and inflammation,’’ 22 and
that performing these actions
knowledgeably and without conflicts of
interest is essential to determining
whether a horse is sore.
Consistent with the findings of the
USDA–OIG audit, the NAS committee
concluded that some sored horses were
not being identified during inspections.
The committee’s observation from
evaluating the inspection videos was
that DQPs are inconsistent in applying
diagnostic techniques. During palpation,
DQPs ‘‘showed large variations in the
technique used to palpate the forelimbs
from the carpus to the fetlock—from an
absent to a very cursory palpation of
limited areas at the palmar surface of
the distal limb, with minimal attention
given to the dorsal surface of the
limb.’’ 23 DQPs were also at times
observed in the videos gripping the leg
too tightly, which may inhibit responses
to limb palpation. By comparison,
APHIS VMOs are required to practice a
standard procedure that involves
palpating the limb in a consistent
22 NAS, A Review of Methods for Detecting
Soreness in Horses, page 3.
23 NAS, A Review of Methods for Detecting
Soreness in Horses, page 31.
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
56931
pattern and pressure, resulting in more
accurate soring diagnoses.
The NAS committee further observed
that, in many instances, DQPs did not
adequately observe the horse’s
movement and posture. For example,
from its review of inspection videos, the
committee noted that DQPs often did
not require the horse to take enough
steps to determine whether soring or
lameness was present.
At most shows, inspections are
performed by a DQP employed by an
HIO; less often, by an APHIS VMO, or
in some instances, by both. The NAS
committee reviewed the training
requirements for DQPs in the
regulations and noted that not only are
DQPs not required to be veterinarians,
but that they receive instruction from
trainers who are not required to be
veterinarians. APHIS VMOs, by
contrast, have veterinary degrees and
receive extensive medical training in
identifying dermatologic, physiological,
and behavioral indications of soring in
horses.
The NAS committee strongly
recommended that the use of DQPs for
inspections under the current
regulations be discontinued and that
only veterinarians, preferably with
equine experience, be allowed to
examine horses, as is done in other
equine competitions.24 The committee
added that if APHIS continues to use
third-party inspectors, they should be
veterinarians or other equine industry
professionals who are screened for
potential conflicts of interest and
trained by APHIS to properly inspect
horses for soring. The committee also
stated that consequences for performing
substandard examinations should be
strictly enforced, and that reports of
substandard performance and
enforcement warning letters should
come from APHIS, not HIOs. We agree
with these recommendations and
propose in this rulemaking that
qualified inspectors be screened and
trained by APHIS, and that inspectors
be veterinarians as availability allows.
We discuss further below how we
propose to amend the regulations
consistent with these recommendations.
As we noted, the NAS committee also
evaluated the scar rule criteria in § 11.3
as a means of diagnosing soring in
horses. Since its 1979 inclusion in the
regulations, interpretations of what the
scar rule means and how to apply it
have long led to disagreements among
APHIS, veterinary organizations, and
the gaited horse industry. As we noted,
the NAS study resulted from a shared
24 NAS, A Review of Methods for Detecting
Soreness in Horses, page 4.
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
56932
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
desire by both the industry and APHIS
that inspection protocols be based on
sound scientific principles that can be
applied consistently. The NAS
committee analyzed the scar rule with
this in mind, and based on their work
made recommendations for revising the
scar rule language that we believe will
make it much easier to understand and
apply and more accurate as a tool to
diagnose soring. We discuss NAS
analysis of the scar rule and explain
how its findings have helped to shape
our proposed changes to it under
‘‘Dermatologic Changes and the Scar
Rule.’’
The NAS study is the latest major
effort to evaluate from a scientific
perspective the causes of soring, the
current and emerging methods available
to diagnose it, and the effectiveness of
the current Horse Protection regulations
to eliminate the practice. The evidence
in the NAS and OIG reports and the
Horse Protection program inspection
data indicate that many DQPs lack
either the correct training or the
willingness, or both, to diagnose sored
horses, with one outcome—soring
persists as an incentive to gain
competitive advantage and sored horses
Proposed Changes to the Regulations
The changes we propose to make to 9
CFR part 11 include a comprehensive
reorganization of the part. We have
provided a derivation table below to
show where we propose to move
content currently in the regulations.
Current sections are to the left. Sections
where content will be moved and
revised are listed on the right side of the
table, along with new and removed
sections:
Existing regulations
Where addressed in proposed rule
§ 11.1 Definitions ......................................................................................
§ 11.2 Prohibitions concerning exhibitors .................................................
§ 11.3 Scar rule ........................................................................................
§ 11.4 Inspection and detention of horses ...............................................
§ 11.5 Access to premises and records ...................................................
§ 11.6 Inspection space and facility requirements ...................................
§ 11.6(c) (Non-interference with APHIS personnel) .................................
§ 11.7 Certification and licensing of designated qualified persons
(DQPs).
§ 11.1 Definitions (revised).
§ 11.6 Prohibitions concerning exhibitors (revised).
§ 11.6(a)(22) Prohibitions concerning exhibitors (revised).
§ 11.8 Inspection and detention of horses (revised).
§ 11.9 Access to premises and records (revised).
§ 11.10 Inspection space and facility requirements (revised).
§ 11.3 Non-interference with APHIS representatives and HPIs (revised).
§ 11.19 Authorization and training of Horse Protection Inspectors (new
section added). (§ 11.7 would be reserved for future use but its content would be removed.)
§ 11.11 (new section added and reserved).
§ 11.12 (new section added and reserved).
§ 11.13(a) Horse shows, horse exhibitions, horse sales, and horse auctions at which the management does not utilize an APHIS representative or Horse Protection Inspector. (new section added and revised).
§ 11.13(b) Horse shows, horse exhibitions, horse sales, and horse auctions at which the management utilizes an APHIS representative or
Horse Protection Inspector. (new section added and revised).
Section removed, as HIOs would no longer train DQPs in inspection
procedures.
§ 11.14 Records required and disposition thereof (new section added
and revised).
§ 11.14(a) Records required and disposition thereof (new section
added and revised).
§ 11.20(a) Responsibilities and liabilities of management .......................
§ 11.20(b) Responsibilities and liabilities of management .......................
§ 11.21 Inspection procedures for designated qualified persons (DQPs).
§ 11.22 Records required and disposition thereof. ..................................
§ 11.22, § 11.24(a) Records required and disposition thereof; Reporting
by management.
(§ 11.24(b) is an obsolete requirement and not retained in proposed
regulations).
§ 11.23(a) Inspection of records (§ 11.23(b) pertains to training DQPs
and would not be retained in proposed regulations).
§ 11.25 Minimum penalties to be assessed and enforced by HIOs that
license DQPs.
§ 11.40 Prohibitions and requirements concerning persons involved in
transportation of certain horses.
§ 11.41 Reporting required of horse industry organizations or associations (pertains to HIOs and not retained in proposed regulations).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
continue to appear at shows,
exhibitions, sales, and auctions.
Substantive changes we propose to
make in part 11 include:
• Removing the requirement that
DQPs be trained and licensed by HIOs
and removing the term DQPs from the
regulations. Instead, APHIS would
screen and train qualified persons to be
Horse Protection Inspectors, or HPIs.
APHIS would authorize these
applicants, preferably veterinarians, as
HPIs after screening them for potential
conflicts of interest and conducting
training.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
§ 11.15 Inspection of records (new section added and revised).
§ 11.16 Reporting by management (new section added).
Section removed.
§ 11.17 Requirements concerning persons involved in transportation of
certain horses (new section added and revised).
§ 11.18 Utilization of inspectors (new section added).
Section removed.
• Removing all regulatory
requirements pertaining to HIOs, as
HIOs would no longer have any
regulatory responsibilities specific to
them. APHIS would assume program
administration and development, HPI
training, and HPI disciplinary actions as
necessary to enforce the Act and
regulations. Services contracted
between HIOs and event management,
such as supplying judges and handling
show logistics, would not be affected.
• Prohibiting any device, method,
practice, or substance applied to any
PO 00000
Frm 00010
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
horse that can hide or mask evidence of
soring. (Current prohibitions on other
items and practices that can reasonably
be expected to cause or contribute to
soring would be retained in the
regulations.)
• Prohibiting all action devices, pads,
wedges, and substances on the limbs or
feet of Tennessee Walking Horses and
racking horses (with exceptions for
approved therapeutic uses of pads,
wedges, and substances). An action
device is any boot, collar, chain, roller,
beads, bangles, or other device which
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
encircles or is placed upon the lower
extremity of the leg of a horse in such
a manner that it can either rotate around
the leg, or slide up and down the leg so
as to cause friction, or which can strike
the hoof, coronet band or fetlock joint.
• Replacing the scar rule with
language that more accurately describes
visible dermatologic changes indicative
of soring, and removing the requirement
that such changes be bilateral.
• Requiring the management of any
horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction
that elects to utilize an APHIS
representative or HPI to choose and
appoint an additional HPI if more than
100 horses are entered in the event.
• Requiring the management of any
horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction
that elects to utilize an APHIS
representative or HPI to inspect horses
to have at least one farrier physically
present if more than 100 horses are
entered in the event, or if there are 100
or fewer horses to have a farrier on call
within the local area to be present if
requested by an APHIS representative or
HPI. Farriers would not be required for
shows that do not utilize an inspector.
• Adding new reporting and
recordkeeping requirements for
management of all horse shows,
exhibitions, sales, and auctions covered
under the Act. These include retaining
records for 90 days of any horse allowed
to show under therapeutic treatment,
informing APHIS and reporting event
information at least 30 days in advance
of the event, and notifying APHIS of
changes to event information at least 15
days in advance of the event. These
requirements are intended to prevent
disqualified persons and horses from
participating in HPA-covered events
and to give APHIS sufficient time to
schedule an APHIS representative to
inspect at the event, if requested.
To restructure part 11, we propose to
reserve current §§ 11.2 and 11.7 and
remove §§ 11.20, 11.21, 11.22, 11.23,
11.24, 11.25, 11.40, and 11.41 from the
regulations. Requirements for event
management recordkeeping, records
inspection, and reporting included in
§§ 11.20, 11.22, 11.23, and 11.24, as
well as requirements for transportation
of horses in § 11.40, would be included
in new sections we propose.
Our proposed changes to the
regulations are detailed below.
Definitions
We would make changes to several
terms and definitions in § 11.1 that
reflect our proposed changes to the
Horse Protection program.
We would amend the definition of
action device by including ‘‘beads’’ and
‘‘bangles’’ to the illustrative list of
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
devices included under the definition.
We are including these devices because
they can encircle the leg and move with
the horse, striking the skin or creating
friction.
We would revise the definition for
Administrator by adding U.S. mail and
email addresses for sending mail to the
Administrator of APHIS.
We would remove the definition for
APHIS Show Veterinarian and revise
the definition of APHIS representative
to mean any employee or official of
APHIS. The definition of APHIS Show
Veterinarian currently means the APHIS
veterinarian responsible for the
immediate supervision and conduct of
the Department’s activities under the
Act at any horse show, horse exhibition,
horse sale or horse auction.
The current definition of APHIS
representative is any employee of
APHIS, or any officer or employee of
any State agency who is authorized by
the Administrator to perform
inspections or any other functions
authorized by the Act, including the
inspection of the records of any horse
show, horse exhibition, horse sale or
horse auction. We propose to revise this
term to mean ‘‘any employee or official
of APHIS.’’ APHIS representatives
would include qualified full-time and
intermittent VMOs employed and
trained by APHIS to inspect horses for
soring. HPIs would not be considered to
be APHIS representatives under this
proposed definition because they are
not employees of APHIS and not
compensated by the Agency, but rather
by the show management that contracts
their services.
We would add a definition for the
term custodian, which would mean any
person who presents a horse for
inspection at any horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction. We note that
a person acting as custodian may
typically perform additional roles, such
as owner, exhibitor, seller, or
transporter. Also, the custodian would
have to be able to provide required
information about the horse as required
in part 11. We are proposing adding this
term in order to define the term
custodian more clearly.
We propose to add the term day(s) to
§ 1.1 and define it to mean business
days, i.e., days other than weekends and
Federal holidays. In several instances,
the regulations require the submission
of reports or records with a period of
days, and we wish to clarify that
weekends and Federal holidays are not
included within that day count.
The current definition of Designated
Qualified Person is ‘‘a person meeting
the requirements specified in § 11.7 of
this part who has been licensed as a
PO 00000
Frm 00011
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
56933
DQP by a horse industry organization or
association having a DQP program
certified by the Department and who
may be appointed and delegated
authority by the management of any
horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale
or horse auction under section 4 of the
Act to detect or diagnose horses which
are sore or to otherwise inspect horses
and any records pertaining to such
horses for the purposes of enforcing the
Act.’’
We are proposing to remove the term
Designated Qualified Person or DQP
and its definition, as well as all
regulatory requirements in the
regulations pertaining to them. We
propose instead that APHIS will screen,
train, and authorize persons qualified to
conduct inspections of horses, devices,
and records for the purposes of
determining compliance with the Act at
horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and
auctions. We propose to refer to these
qualified persons as Horse Protection
Inspectors (HPIs), which would be
authorized by APHIS pursuant to
proposed § 11.19 and appointed by
management of the event. Accordingly,
we propose to include a definition for
Horse Protection Inspector in the
regulations, included below.
We would add the term event
manager and define it to mean the
person who has been delegated primary
authority by a sponsoring organization
for managing a horse show, exhibition,
sale, or auction. An individual event
manager would need to be designated
even if the event is managed by a team
of persons. We are proposing this
definition in order to clarify
management responsibility.
The term horse industry organization
or association is currently defined as
‘‘an organized group of people, having
a formal structure, who are engaged in
the promotion of horses through the
showing, exhibiting, sale, auction,
registry, or any activity which
contributes to the advancement of the
horse.’’ We would remove the term
horse industry organization or
association and its definition, as we
propose to remove all regulatory
requirements under the Act pertaining
to these groups, including requirements
for certification of DQP programs,
recordkeeping, and other requirements
assigned to them. As we note above,
HIOs supply other services to shows
and events not subject to regulation,
including registering participants and
coordinating event logistics, supplying
show judges, and promoting events.
Under this proposal they could continue
contracting with events to perform these
services.
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
56934
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
We would add the term Horse
Protection Inspector (HPI) to mean a
person meeting the qualifications in
proposed § 11.19 whom the
Administrator has authorized as an HPI
and who may be appointed and
delegated authority by the management
of any horse show, horse exhibition,
horse sale or horse auction under
section 4 of the Act to detect or diagnose
horses which are sore or to otherwise
inspect horses and any records
pertaining to such horses for the
purposes of detecting or diagnosing
soring. Under proposed § 11.16(a)(6),
event management wishing to have an
APHIS representative conduct
inspections at their event are required to
notify APHIS at least 30 days in advance
of the event.
The current regulations define
inspection to mean ‘‘the examination of
any horse and any records pertaining to
any horse by use of whatever means are
deemed appropriate and necessary for
the purpose of determining compliance
with the Act and regulations. Such
inspection may include, but is not
limited to, visual examination of a horse
and records, actual physical
examination of a horse including
touching, rubbing, palpating and
observation of vital signs, and the use of
any diagnostic device or instrument,
and may require the removal of any
shoe, pad, action device, or any other
equipment, substance or paraphernalia
from the horse when deemed necessary
by the person conducting such
inspection.’’ To emphasize that any
means of determining compliance with
the Act and regulations must be
approved by APHIS, we would revise
the definition of inspection to include
the words ‘‘any visual, physical, and
diagnostic means approved by APHIS to
determine compliance with the Act and
regulations.’’ The proposed definition
would follow the current definition in
that such inspection ‘‘may include, but
is not limited to, visual inspection of a
horse and review of records, physical
examination of a horse, including
touching, rubbing, palpating, and
observation of vital signs, and the use of
any diagnostic device or instrument,
and may require the removal of any
shoe or any other equipment, substance,
or paraphernalia from the horse when
deemed necessary by the professional
conducting such inspection.’’
We propose to add a definition for
local area, which we would define as
the area within a 10-mile radius of the
horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.
We would add this term in conjunction
with proposed § 11.13(b)(2), which
would require event management to
have a farrier on call within the local
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
area if requested by an APHIS
representative or HPI appointed by
management and 100 or fewer horses
are entered in the horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction. When over
100 horses are entered in an event,
management would be required to have
a farrier onsite unless they elected to
enforce the HPA without recourse to an
inspector. We invite comments on this
definition as to whether it is reasonable
with respect to the geographical
distribution of farriers, as well as
comments on the costs associated with
having a farrier at the shows and on call.
The term lubricant in the current
definitions means ‘‘mineral oil,
glycerine or petrolatum, or mixtures
exclusively thereof, that is applied to
the limbs of a horse solely for protective
and lubricating purposes while the
horse is being shown or exhibited
. . . .’’ We would remove the definition
for lubricant and prohibit the use of any
substances on the limbs of all Tennessee
Walking Horses and racking horses.
Most substances applied to horses at
shows and exhibitions, such as skin and
hair conditioners, are not implicated in
soring, but they can be used to diminish
signs of soring. As we explain under the
proposed changes to prohibitions
concerning exhibitors, a strong
association exists between applications
of substances and soring in these
particular breeds.
We propose to retain and revise the
current definition of management,
which means ‘‘any person or persons
who organize, exercise control over, or
administer or are responsible for
organizing, directing, or administering
any horse show, horse exhibition, horse
sale or horse auction and specifically
includes, but is not limited to, the
sponsoring organization and show
manager.’’ We would remove ‘‘show
manager’’ from this definition, as we
propose removing that term elsewhere
in the regulations, and replace it with
‘‘event manager,’’ a term which, as we
note above, we propose adding to the
regulations.
A definition of participate would be
added to § 1.1 to mean engaging in any
activity, either directly or through an
agent, beyond that of a spectator in
connection with a horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction,
and includes, without limitation,
transporting, or arranging for the
transportation of, horses to or from
equine events, personally giving
instructions to exhibitors, being present
in the warm-up or inspection areas or in
any area where spectators are not
allowed, and financing the participation
of others in equine events.
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
Person in the regulations means ‘‘any
individual, corporation, company,
association, firm, partnership, society,
organization, joint stock company, or
other legal entity.’’ We propose to revise
the definition by adding ‘‘State or local
government agency’’ to the list of
illustrative examples. We are proposing
this change to highlight that State and
local government agencies also fall
under the definition of person in the
regulations.
As currently defined in the
regulations, Regional Director means
‘‘the APHIS veterinarian who is
assigned by the Administrator to
supervise and perform official duties of
APHIS under the Act in a specified
State or States.’’ We propose removing
the term from § 11.1 because APHIS
representatives performing Horse
Protection duties are no longer
organized and managed by region.
Sponsoring organization in the
current regulations means ‘‘any person
under whose immediate auspices and
responsibility a horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction
is conducted.’’ We propose to revise the
current definition to mean ‘‘any person
or entity whose direction supports and
who assumes responsibility for a horse
show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or
horse auction that has, is, or will be
conducted.’’ We are making this change
to clarify that an ‘‘entity’’ is also
included under the definition, and to
ensure that any person or entity
supporting and assuming responsibility
for such an event also falls under the
definition. Our proposed revision also
clarifies that the sponsoring
organization’s responsibility applies
whether the event in question has
already occurred or is yet to occur.
We also propose to add a definition
for the term therapeutic treatment to
mean the treatment of disease, injury, or
disorder by or under the supervision of
a person licensed to practice veterinary
medicine in the State in which such
treatment was prescribed. We are
proposing to define this term to ensure
that therapeutic practices applied to any
horse covered under the regulations are
administered or overseen by qualified
veterinarians only.
Prohibitions Concerning Exhibitors
Current § 11.2, ‘‘Prohibitions
concerning exhibitors,’’ lists general and
specific prohibitions for any device,
method, practice, or substance used on
any horse at any horse show, exhibition,
or horse sale or auction if such use
causes or can reasonably be expected to
cause such horse to be sore. We propose
to move those prohibitions from § 11.2
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
to a revised § 11.6 and reserve § 11.2 for
future use.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Non-Interference With APHIS
Representatives
Current § 11.3 contains the ‘‘scar
rule,’’ which refers to the presence of
certain types of lesions on the horse’s
pastern and fore pastern suggesting that
a horse has been sored. Horses that do
not meet the scar rule criteria are
considered to be sore and are subject to
all prohibitions of the Act.
We propose to remove the scar rule
from this section and include the
revised language in proposed
§ 11.6(a)(22). A full discussion of the
proposed changes to the scar rule is
included under ‘‘Dermatologic Changes
and the Scar Rule,’’ below.
The language we propose to add to
revised § 11.3 is based on current
§ 11.6(c) and amended to prohibit
persons from assaulting, resisting,
opposing, impeding, intimidating,
threatening, or interfering with APHIS
representatives or HPIs, or in any way
influencing attendees of a horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction to do the
same. Persons guilty of such violations
may be held criminally liable and
referred to the U.S. Department of
Justice for prosecution. These proposed
amendments strengthen regulatory
protections for the safety of both APHIS
representatives and HPIs appointed by
management and engaged in duties at
the events listed, as well as the safety of
horses and attendees.
Prohibitions for Disqualified Persons
Section 11.4 of the current regulations
includes requirements regarding
inspection of horses by APHIS
representatives, as well as detention of
horses for inspection if an APHIS
representative has probable cause to
believe that a horse is sore. We propose
to revise § 11.4 to include provisions
regarding the status of persons whom
USDA has disqualified from showing,
exhibiting, selling, or auctioning horses.
Provisions for inspection and detention
of horses, which currently comprise this
section, would be moved to a new
§ 11.8.
The proposed text for § 11.4 would
indicate that any person disqualified
from participating in any horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction shall not
show, exhibit, or enter any horse,
directly or indirectly through any agent,
employee, corporation, partnership, or
other device, and shall not judge,
manage, or otherwise participate in
events covered by the Act within the
period during which the
disqualification is in effect. We would
add this provision to the regulations to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
ensure that prohibitions are in place to
address attempts by disqualified
persons to continue participating in
events listed above either directly or
indirectly through the aid of other
identities or persons.
Appeal of Inspection Report
Section 11.5 currently includes
requirements for the management of any
horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or
auction to provide APHIS
representatives with unlimited access to
the grandstands and all other premises
of any horse show, exhibition, or horse
sale or auction, including any adjacent
areas under their direction, for the
purpose of inspecting horses or records.
Management must also provide an
adequate, safe, and accessible area for
the visual inspection and observation of
horses. This section also requires
persons having custody of any horse at
any horse show, exhibition, or horse
sale or auction to admit any APHIS
representative or DQP appointed by
management to all areas of barns,
compounds, horse vans, horse trailers,
stables, or other grounds or related areas
at any horse show, exhibition, or horse
sale or auction, for the purpose of
inspecting any such horse at reasonable
times.
We propose changing the heading of
§ 11.5 to read ‘‘Appeal of inspection
report’’ and moving provisions for
access to premises and records to a new
§ 11.9. Revised § 11.5 would provide
that any horse owner, trainer, exhibitor,
custodian or transporter may appeal
inspection report findings all or in part
to the Administrator. The appeal would
require a written statement contesting
the inspection finding(s) and include
any documentation or other information
in support of the appeal. The appeal
would have to be received by the
Administrator, preferably by electronic
mail, or by U.S. mail,25 within 21
business days of receipt of the
inspection report. The Administrator
would send a final decision, either via
electronic mail or U.S. mail, to the
person requesting the appeal.
We note that in current § 11.25, each
HIO is required to provide a process in
its rulebook, subject to APHIS approval,
for alleged violators of the regulations to
appeal penalties resulting from
inspections. However, as HIOs would
no longer play a role in inspections,
proposed § 11.5 includes a process for
alleged violators to appeal penalties
resulting from inspections conducted by
25 Email address: horseprotection@usda.gov.
Appeals may also be sent via U.S. mail to APHIS,
2150 Centre Ave., Bldg. B, MS 3W–11, Fort Collins,
CO 80547.
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
56935
APHIS representatives or HPIs
appointed by management.
Pre-Show Review of a Finding of Soring
In response to the 2016 proposed HPA
rule, APHIS received some comments
raising due process concerns. The
comments included a request that
APHIS develop and implement a preshow process whereby owners and
trainers may contest and seek
immediate review of a finding that a
horse is sore from a decision-maker, and
the suggestion that when USDA finds
that a horse is sore after being passed by
a DQP, the horse should be allowed to
be shown until there is a final decision
in the matter.
The HPA vests in management the
responsibility to disqualify or prohibit a
horse from being shown, exhibited,
sold, or auctioned following a
determination by an inspector that the
horse is sore. See 15 U.S.C. 1823(a).
Specifically, the statute and regulations
require management to (among other
acts) disqualify a horse in instances
where (1) the horse is sore or (2)
management is notified by a DQP or
APHIS representative that the horse is
sore. Id.; see § 11.20(b)(1) of the
regulations (management ‘‘shall
immediately disqualify’’ a horse
identified by the DQP to be sore or
otherwise known by management to be
sore). Given this nexus between
management’s decision and an
inspector’s findings, and in light of the
due process concerns raised in
comments on the 2016 proposed rule,
we seek additional public comment on
potential ways to resolve disputes
arising from a determination of soring
following inspection, including possible
options for resolving such disputes
before a show takes place.
We are concerned that the suggestions
by commenters on the 2016 proposed
rule are not consistent with the intent or
language of the Act itself. For instance,
if a horse determined by an inspector to
be sore is allowed to be shown until a
final decision is made, this could
undermine Congress’s two primary
goals in enacting the Act: To eliminate
the cruel and inhumane practice of
horse soring and to ensure fair
competition at horse shows and
exhibitions by not permitting sored
horses to unfairly compete with horses
that are not sore. See 15 U.S.C. 1822.
Moreover, it would directly contradict
paragraph (a) of section 1823 of the Act,
which requires that ‘‘[t]he management
of any horse show or horse exhibition
shall disqualify any horse from being
shown or exhibited (1) which is sore or
(2) if the management has been notified
by [an inspector] that the horse is sore.’’
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
56936
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Section 1824 of the Act underscores that
management must disqualify such
horses by listing the failure to do so as
an ‘‘unlawful act’’ under the Act.
Section 1825 of the Act authorizes fines,
imprisonment and civil penalties for
violations of section 1824. Finally,
Congress found that ‘‘horses shown or
exhibited which are sore, where such
soreness improves the performance of
such horse, compete unfairly with
horses which are not sore.’’ 15 U.S.C.
1822(2).
In addition to these statutory
concerns, the process envisioned by
past commenters, or other lengthy
processes that could not be completed
before a scheduled show or exhibition,
as they are currently operated, could
strongly incentivize owners to contest
findings of soring in order to delay as
long as possible any possible
disqualification. This could undermine
the intent and requirements of the Act
for the reasons discussed above.
One possible solution could be to
conduct the inspections far enough in
advance of the exhibition or show to
allow for an opportunity to be heard
before the event. However, given the
current structure of horse shows and
exhibitions, as well as the need to
ensure that horses are not sored
following an inspection and before a
show, this proposal would require
significant internal changes and
cooperation from the horse industry.
Most horse shows and exhibitions are 1day events that are set up during the day
and take place in the early evening.
Inspections take place approximately 30
minutes before the horse enters the
arena, and immediately following the
inspection, the horse enters a
supervised warm-up area and does not
leave that area until the horse enters the
arena to perform. This is to ensure that
the horse’s conditions do not change
following its inspection and before the
horse enters the show ring. Under the
current structure, there is insufficient
time to conduct a review process
between the inspection and the horse
being exhibited or shown, and it would
require a significant change in show and
exhibition practices, and possible
restructuring of the industry itself, to
allow such a process to take place. It
would also entail a significant
reallocation of existing APHIS
resources. We may need to deploy more
inspectors to shows, have them arrive
earlier, develop monitoring protocols to
ensure horses are not sored following
inspection but before the event, and
provide both personnel and direct and
indirect support costs to the review
process.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
To that end, in order to assess the
feasibility of conducting inspections in
advance of a show or exhibition in a
manner that would afford a pre-show
review process while still ensuring that
the horse is not subsequently sored after
inspection, we request specific public
comment on the following:
• Could pre-show inspections still
take place in the same physical area as
the show or exhibition? If not, where
should they take place?
• How early should pre-show
inspections take place, in order to
ensure time for a review process?
• How should the health and safety of
the horse be monitored after the
inspection takes place in order to ensure
that the horse is not subsequently sored?
Who would be responsible for
monitoring to ensure that the horse is
not subsequently sored?
• What type of review process would
be afforded to contest a finding that a
horse is sore? Who would decide these
matters? What parties should be
involved? Do the parties need to be
physically present at the site of the
show or exhibition?
• What timing mechanisms would
need to be in place to ensure the review
process can be completed in time for the
horse to show, if the initial inspection
is overturned? What actions should
occur in the event that the review
process is not completed before the
show or exhibition?
• How would any pre-show review
process implicate or interact with the
existing reinspection process currently
located in section 11.4(h), as proposed
for amendment and relocation at section
11.8(h)?
In addition to the alternative that we
have identified to address the issue, we
acknowledge that there may be other
means of addressing the issue that we
are not aware of. To that end, we request
public comment regarding other
possible alternatives, including
consideration of regulatory bodies,
statutory authorities, or incentives or
disincentives, including the
withholding or forfeiture of prize
money, that could be applied to address
the issue.
Prohibited Items and Practices
Current § 11.2 contains prohibitions
on the use of certain action devices,
equipment, pads, substances, and
practices on horses at any horse show,
exhibition, sale or auction covered
under the Act.
The prohibitions are intended to
pertain to the devices, practices, and
substances that are used either to sore
horses directly or contribute to the act
of soring (an example of the latter being
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
a hoof pad that hides a sharp object).
Reaction to the pain caused by soring
results in the exaggerated chest-high gait
prized in certain classes at Tennessee
Walking horse and racking horse shows.
Chains and other devices, especially
those that are heavy or have sharp or
rough edges, can inflict pain and
exacerbate soring through repeated
strikes to the leg while the horse
performs, particularly if irritating
substances have also been applied to the
skin. Pads that cause a horse’s foot to
strike the ground at an unnatural angle
can also induce pain and soring over
time, as can heavy pads and horseshoes.
Substances can be used to mask the pain
a sore horse feels long enough to pass
inspection, while dyes and other
substances can hide lesions and other
signs of soring on the skin. As reflected
in the inspection statistics presented
above, soring is diagnosed almost
exclusively at events featuring
Tennessee Walking horses and racking
horses that perform in pads and action
devices. By comparison, APHIS and
DQP inspections at flat-shod events in
which horses do not wear pads and
action devices rarely find soring
violations.
We note that the current regulations
do not prohibit all devices—for
example, in § 11.2(b), certain rollers,
chains, and bell boots weighing 6
ounces or less are permitted, as are
certain types of pads. In proposed
§ 11.6(b), we allow for the restricted use
of some items so that events featuring
breeds other than Tennessee Walking
Horses and racking horses may continue
using them. APHIS recognizes that
action devices and pads are sometimes
used for purposes that do not cause
soring during training of Morgans,
American Saddlebreds, and many other
gaited breeds. Applying light chains or
other devices on the pastern, for
example, creates a sensory, or
proprioceptive, reaction that can
stimulate front and rear hoof height
without pain, and that on rear hooves
can increase the range of motion.26
While all horse breeds are subject to
provisions of the Act, soring imparts
little to no advantage to competitors at
these shows, as the gaits on which most
breeds are evaluated are noticeably
distinct from the exaggerated ‘‘big lick’’
step featured at many Tennessee
Walking horses and racking horse
events.27
26 Clayton, Hilary, ‘‘Rehabilitation for Horses.’’
Paper presented at American Association of Equine
Practitioners, July 2014.
27 We acknowledge that many owners of
Tennessee Walking horses and racking horses show
their horses in ‘‘flat shod’’ classes, meaning they do
not use the action devices and thick pads associated
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
The restrictions on pads, devices, and
activities listed in current § 11.2(b)
make no distinction between breeds that
are often diagnosed as sore—Tennessee
Walking Horses and racking horses—
and other gaited breeds that are not
known to be sored. As currently
permitted under § 11.2(b), many breeds
perform in light chains under six ounces
and low pads that elevate the heel by
less than an inch. We considered
prohibiting all non-therapeutic pads,
action devices, substances, and other
practices for all breeds at all covered
events, but in doing so we would
unfairly conflate those breeds that do
not sore for competitive advantage with
those that do.
Accordingly, we propose to revise
§ 11.6(b) by including a more restrictive
list of prohibitions specific to Tennessee
Walking Horses and racking horses. We
base our reasons for establishing
prohibitions specific to these breeds on
several points. As we have noted above,
our records show that the clear majority
of horses diagnosed by APHIS
representatives and DQPs as being sore
are Tennessee Walking Horses and
racking horses, specifically those that
participate in pads and action devices in
certain competitions favoring a highstepping, accentuated gait. Insofar as
APHIS directs most of its compliance
inspections toward Tennessee Walking
Horse and racking horse events, it
follows that our records would show
that almost all noncompliances we
report are among these two breeds.
However, based on our informed
knowledge about the practices of all
breeds performing or exhibiting in the
United States, we know that soring in
breeds other than Tennessee Walking
Horses and racking horses confers no
significant performance advantage and
is therefore rarely if ever practiced.
APHIS-Animal Care officials remain
updated on the activities of all breed
organizations and investigate any
allegations or reports suggesting that
violations of the Act are occurring
within any breed. We invite public
comment on any observations persons
may have regarding soring in other
breeds.
Further, APHIS has observed from its
experience in administering and
enforcing the Act and regulations
(including through compliance
inspections, investigations, enforcement
of alleged violations, oversight of
industry-based inspection programs,
and outreach to the horse industry) that
a relationship continues to exist
between the use of certain permitted
devices and instances of soring, notably
among Tennessee Walking Horses and
racking horses, when used alone or in
conjunction with prohibited substances.
We acknowledge that at many, if not
most, shows featuring Tennessee
Walking Horses and racking horses, the
majority of entrants are exhibiting or
performing with so called ‘‘flat-shod’’
horses (those that do not normally use
the pads and action devices this
proposed rule would seek to prohibit).
Some shows featuring Tennessee
Walking Horses and racking horses are
entirely flat-shod in nature and already
prohibit pads and action devices. We
note that in 2022, almost 35,000 flat
shod entries were inspected by DQPs
and APHIS representatives combined,
with a compliance rate above 99
percent. We do not consider such shows
to be high risk with respect to
noncompliance with the Act and
regulations.
with soring and required as a condition of entry in
performance classes.
28 A Review of Methods for Detecting Soreness in
Horses, page 81 (see footnote 21).
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
Action Devices, Boots, Collars
Under § 11.2(b), the regulations
currently allow the use of a chain or
other action device on each limb of a
horse if the device weighs 6 ounces or
less. Action device is currently defined
as ‘‘a boot, collar, chain, roller, or other
device which encircles or is placed
upon the lower extremity of the leg of
a horse in such a manner that it can
either rotate around the leg, or slide up
and down the leg so as to cause friction,
or which can strike the hoof, coronet
band or fetlock joint.’’ In the Definitions
section, we proposed adding beads and
bangles to the illustrative list of action
devices, as these devices encircle the
leg, and strike the leg or create friction
during movement.
Equine veterinarians on the NAS
study committee noted that abnormal
skin changes seen on the pasterns of
Tennessee Walking Horses are not
observed on other breeds of horses such
as Arabians, American Saddlebreds, and
Morgans, which sometimes train with
action devices but do not usually wear
them when competing. Moreover, action
devices used on other breeds typically
are of lower weight than those used on
Tennessee Walking Horses and racking
horses. The committee also noted that
Tennessee Walking Horses are often
trained with action devices weighing in
excess of the 6-ounce action devices
currently allowed for competition and
concluded that the use of heavier or
more cumbersome devices in training
may be more likely to contribute to the
formation of skin lesions.28
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
56937
NAS’ observations regarding action
devices and their role in soring are
consistent with those of an older but
still relevant study 29 conducted at the
Auburn University School of Veterinary
Medicine from 1978 to 1982, which
evaluated the effects of acute and
chronic inflammatory responses on the
front and hind limbs of horses. The
findings of that study suggest a strong
relationship between soring and the
combined use of action devices and
substances. Horses were exercised for 2–
3 weeks wearing 2-, 4-, and 6-ounce
chains, after which it was determined
that the use of such chains for a
duration of 2 to 3 weeks ‘‘did not
produce any harmful effects to the
horses’ legs, with exception to some loss
of hair from 6-ounce chains in the
pastern areas.’’ However, in another
phase 30 of the study, it was determined
that the combined use of prohibited
substances and chains on the pasterns of
horses caused lesions, tissue damage,
and visible alterations of behavior
consistent with soring. Although this
phase of the study used 10-ounce
chains, 4 ounces heavier than what is
currently allowed, if a horse may be
trained sore using 10-ounce chains (or
other weight and/or substance
combinations) and then shown in 6ounce chains, the use of a 6-ounce chain
may reasonably be expected to cause the
horse to experience pain while walking,
trotting, or otherwise moving.31
Historically, prohibited substances
such as caustic irritants have been
applied to the pasterns of some gaited
breeds, most commonly Tennessee
Walking Horses and racking horses,
until the skin is sensitive and painful to
the touch. This process typically takes
several days and completed before the
horse enters the event grounds. When
the horse wears a chain or other action
device while performing, it strikes the
treated skin, causing pain and a high
stepping reaction. Our observations
from administering and enforcing the
Act have indicated that soring can and
does occur in Tennessee Walking
Horses and racking horses with the use
29 Thermography in Diagnosis of Inflammatory
Processes in Horses in Response to Various
Chemical and Physical Factors: Summary of the
Research from September 1978 to December 1982.
Submitted to the U.S. Department of Agriculture by
Dr. Ram C. Purohit, Associate Professor, School of
Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University. The study
is available at the regulations.gov address included
under ADDRESSES or by contacting the individual
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
above.
30 Phase 7, ‘‘Simultaneous Use of Chemical and
Chains for Soring Horses’’.
31 The NAS study (page 81) also indicated that
heavier chains and other action devices are
typically used when training Tennessee Walking
Horses.
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
56938
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
of prohibited substances and/or action
devices such as chains and rollers of
nearly any weight, including the 6ounce weight limit currently in the
regulations.
Under proposed § 11.6(a), ‘‘General
Prohibitions for All Horses,’’ we would
continue to prohibit any action device,
method, practice, or substance to be
used on any horse at any horse event
covered under the Act if such use
causes or can reasonably be expected to
cause such horse to be sore or is
otherwise used to mask previous and/or
ongoing soring.
Proposed § 11.6(b) lists prohibitions
that apply to all horses at covered
events but which allow for some devices
used by some breeds for purposes
unrelated to soring, as discussed above.
Under § 11.6(c)(1), we would prohibit
all action devices on Tennessee Walking
Horses and racking horses, and in
paragraph (c)(2) prohibit all artificial
extension of the toe length unless the
horse has been prescribed and is
receiving therapeutic treatment using
artificial extension of the toe length. In
proposed paragraph (c)(3) we would
prohibit all pads and wedges on any
Tennessee Walking Horse or racking
horse at any horse show, exhibition,
sale, or auction, unless the horse has
been prescribed and is receiving
therapeutic treatment using pads or
wedges as approved in writing by a
licensed veterinarian. Finally, in
proposed paragraph (c)(4), we would
prohibit all substances on the
extremities above the hoof of any
Tennessee Walking Horse or racking
horse entered for the purpose of being
shown or exhibited, sold, auctioned, or
offered for sale in or on the grounds of
any horse show, horse exhibition, or
horse sale or auction. Explanations for
each of these prohibitions is provided
below.
In prior rulemakings, APHIS has
received a range of comments from
members of the gaited horse industry,
veterinary professional organizations,
animal advocates, and the general
public regarding the purposes and
effects of such devices, and whether
there are minimum weights below
which such devices will not cause
lesions that constitute soring. Our
experience with enforcing the Act
indicates that soring can be induced
when action devices are used alone or
in combination with prohibited
substances. We welcome public
comment, supported with scientific data
or other rigorous evidence, on the
effects of action devices used alone or
in combination with other training
methods.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
Pads, Toe Extensions
Section 11.2(b)(8) of the current
regulations prohibits pads or other
devices on yearling horses (horses up to
2 years old) that elevate or change the
angle of such horses’ hooves in excess
of 1 inch at the heel. Altering the
angulation of a horse’s feet and legs can
cause painful lameness, soreness, and
inflammation by transferring concussive
impact and weight-bearing pressures to
joints and other parts of the horse not
normally subjected to these forces.
Elevating the foot using stacked hoof
pads, or ‘‘performance packages,’’ can
also cause an increase in tension in the
tendons leading to inflammation, as can
extra weight on the horse’s foot.
Additionally, elevating only the front
feet, as is typically done in Tennessee
Walking Horse and racking horse
performance-class competitions using
pads, ‘‘causes an unnatural angulation
of the back and body of the horse, and
changes the alignment of the shoulder
muscles, the vertebrae, and the pelvis,
all of which are then subject to stress,
irritation, and inflammation.’’ (See 53
FR 14780 (April 26, 1988)).
Research undertaken in the abovecited Auburn study indicated that
raising a horse’s heels through the use
of pads alone resulted in swollen flexor
tendons and signs of inflammation. The
same study also found the ability to
detect pressure soring (i.e., the illegal
application or use of bolts, screws,
blocks, hoof packing material, and other
methods of pressure) through visual and
physical inspection of the soles of
horses’ hooves is limited because pads
obscure the solar surface of the foot.
Under proposed § 11.6(c)(3), we
would prohibit all pads and wedges on
any Tennessee Walking Horse or racking
horse at any horse show, exhibition,
sale, or auction, unless the horse has
been prescribed and is receiving
therapeutic treatment involving the use
of pads or wedges as approved in
writing by a licensed veterinarian.
APHIS’ experience at Tennessee
Walking Horse and racking horse events
indicates that soring continues to occur
through the use of performance
packages that can introduce unnatural
angulations of the foot or hide signs of
pressure shoeing. However, we would
not have this specific provision become
effective until 270 days after
promulgation of a final rule, as it takes
approximately 6 to 8 months for a
padded horse to become acclimated to
being flat-shod (i.e., walking and
performing without pads).
We invite comments on whether this
is an appropriate timeframe for
transitioning to a prohibition on pads,
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
but underscore that this prohibition is
necessary in order for APHIS to enforce
the provisions of the Act. APHIS
inspection data shows that of the
alleged HPA violations documented at
events from FY 2017 through 2021, 94
percent involved horses wearing pads.32
This is not to imply that pads were
directly responsible for soring these
horses. Rather, the performance classes
in which soring confers the greatest
benefit (an unnatural high-stepping gait)
require that the horse wear pads.
In proposed § 11.6(b)(9) and (13), we
would continue to allow the restricted
use of pads at shows without Tennessee
Walking Horses and racking horses,
provided that the pads or other devices
on horses up to 2 years old that elevate
or change the angle of such horses’
hooves are not in excess of 1 inch at the
heel, and would also continue to allow
the use of pads made of leather, plastic,
or a similar pliant material.
In proposed § 11.6(c)(2), we would
also prohibit all artificial extensions of
toe length on Tennessee Walking horses
and racking horses, unless the horse has
been prescribed and is receiving
therapeutic treatment. Toe extensions
can be used to sore horses by increasing
stress on certain tendons and ligaments.
However, similar to what we indicated
regarding pads, prohibition of artificial
extensions would not become effective
until 270 days after promulgation of a
final rule, as it takes approximately 6 to
8 months to take the steps needed to reacclimate a Tennessee Walking horse or
racking horse accustomed to going in
such extensions to walking and
performing without them. As the
practice has non-soring uses in other
breeds, such as to make safe
adjustments to a horse’s gait, we will
retain the provision in § 11.2(b)(11) to
allow artificial extension of the toe
length on horses other than Tennessee
Walking horses or racking horses,
whether accomplished with pads,
acrylics or any other material or
combinations thereof, provided that it
not exceed 50 percent of the natural
hoof length as measured from the
coronet band, at the center of the front
pastern along the front of the hoof wall,
to the distal portion of the hoof wall at
the tip of the toe.
Substances
Under the general prohibitions in
current § 11.2(a), a substance must not
be used on any horse at any covered
event, regardless of breed, if such use
causes or can reasonably be expected to
cause such horse to be sore.
32 Inspection data compiled by APHIS Horse
Protection program from FY 2017 through 2021.
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Numerous substances are used on
horses at shows, exhibitions, and sales
events for legitimate purposes, among
them shampoos, polishes, conditioners,
oils, and insect repellents, as well as
lubricants that allow action devices to
slide on the leg with less friction. For
this reason, the specific prohibitions in
current § 11.2(b) do not include
substances. However, as we mentioned
above, at Tennessee Walking horse and
racking horse events, we have observed
from our experience enforcing the
regulations (including through
compliance inspections, investigations,
enforcement actions, and industry
oversight and outreach) that chains,
rollers, and similar devices are
sometimes used with caustic substances
to induce painful lesions and
inflammation. Other prohibited
substances sometimes detected on
horses include masking and numbing
agents that temporarily block the pain of
soring so inspectors cannot detect pain
upon inspection. Specifically, local
anesthetic agents such as benzocaine
and lidocaine are used to deter
detection of soring upon evaluation, as
well as dyes and paints to cover
evidence of soring.
Even lotions such as skin softeners
and conditioners are implicated in
soring at Tennessee Walking horse and
racking horse events. While these
substances do not directly cause soring,
their intended use is to diminish the
effects of soring. Such substances are
used so that when soring is induced, the
skin is softer and does not react as
badly, thus decreasing the chance of
inflammation and a subsequent scar rule
violation.
Current § 11.2(c) prohibits all
substances on the extremities above the
hoof of any Tennessee Walking Horse or
racking horse while being shown,
exhibited, or offered for sale at any
covered event, except lubricants such as
glycerin, petrolatum, and mineral oil, or
mixtures of these. Moreover, these
lubricants must be furnished by event
management and can only be applied
after inspection.
However, data collected by APHIS
from 2017 through 2022 33 indicates
that, in each of those years, substantial
numbers of horses tested by APHIS were
positive for prohibited substances, with
nearly all of them being Tennessee
Walking horses and racking horses. In
FY 2018, among horses that wore
performance packages (action devices
and pads), 144 horses were positive out
of 194 tested, and over the 6-year period
the average rate of positives was more
than 40 percent.34 Furthermore, during
this 6-year period, masking and
numbing agents constituted about 36
percent of the prohibited substances
detected on all horses tested. Of the
horses testing positive for prohibited
substances, about 90 percent wore
performance packages while being
shown or exhibited in performance
classes. The data from this period shows
that the Tennessee Walking Horse and
racking horse communities continue to
use prohibited substances to induce,
hide, or mask soring despite the current
ban.
Therefore, in proposed § 11.6(c)(4),
we would prohibit all substances on the
extremities above the hoof of any
Tennessee Walking Horse or racking
horse entered for the purpose of being
shown or exhibited, sold, auctioned, or
offered for sale in or on the grounds of
any horse show, exhibition, sale, or
auction, regardless of the substance’s
composition. Lubricants would no
longer be allowed to be used with action
devices as we also propose to prohibit
such devices on these breeds. Given the
wide range of substances that can
induce or numb pain, or otherwise hide
evidence of soring, we consider a
prohibition of all substances at shows
with Tennessee Walking Horses and
racking horses to be the best means to
reduce incidences of soring in
accordance with the HPA.
33 HIO collected samples are included in FY 2020
through FY 2022 data and were funded by APHIS.
34 See Table 3 presented above in the section
‘‘Evaluation of the Horse Protection Program.’’
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
Stewarding
In proposed new paragraph (b)(21),
we would prohibit stewarding of any
breed of horse during inspection for
soreness. Stewarding involves the use of
whips, cigarette smoke, or other
threatening actions or paraphernalia to
distract a horse from feeling leg pain
when palpated during inspection or to
otherwise impede the inspection
process.
We would also prohibit holding of
reins less than approximately 18 inches
from the bit shank. The earlier-cited
NAS study committee’s observation of
61 inspection videos revealed numerous
incidents of stewarding during the
standing inspection that were not dealt
with by the inspector, including holding
the reins closer than 18 inches from the
bit, often just below or on the shank. In
some cases, the committee observed that
the horse was restrained with constant
tension, often with the reins held in an
upward direction, or the reins were
pulled sharply. The committee noted
that these restraint tactics can create a
distraction during the palpation
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
56939
procedure by inducing pain in the oral
cavity.35
Dermatologic Changes and the Scar
Rule
Under current § 11.3 of the
regulations, all horses 36 subject to the
‘‘scar rule’’ that do not meet certain
criteria are considered sore and are
subject to all prohibitions of section 5 of
the Act. Paragraph (a) states that ‘‘the
anterior and anterior-lateral surfaces of
the fore pasterns (extensor surface) must
be free of bilateral granulomas, other
bilateral pathological evidence of
inflammation, and, other bilateral
evidence of abuse indicative of soring
including, but not limited to, excessive
loss of hair.’’ A footnote is also
appended to paragraph (a). It defines
‘‘granuloma’’ as ‘‘any one of a rather
large group of fairly distinctive focal
lesions that are formed as a result of
inflammatory reactions caused by
biological, chemical, or physical
agents.’’
Paragraph (b) of the scar rule states
that ‘‘the posterior surfaces of the
pasterns (flexor surface), including the
sulcus or ‘pocket’ may show bilateral
areas of uniformly thickened epithelial
tissue if such areas are free of
proliferating granuloma tissue,
irritation, moisture, edema, or other
evidence of inflammation.’’
In paragraph (a)(2) of § 11.21, the
requirements for inspection of horses by
DQPs include an examination to
determine whether the horse meets the
scar rule criteria. Paragraph (a)(2) states
that ‘‘[w]hile carrying out the
procedures set forth in this paragraph,
the DQP shall also inspect the horse to
determine whether the provisions of
§ 11.3 of this part are being complied
with, and particularly whether there is
any evidence of inflammation, edema,
or proliferating granuloma tissue.’’
The scar rule is not a part of the Horse
Protection Act. In its current form, the
scar rule was proposed in 1978 and
added to the regulations in 1979.37
According to the 1978 proposal, the scar
rule was initially developed in 1974 by
representatives of the horse industry
and the Department as part of the
industry’s self-policing program against
35 A Review of Methods for Detecting Soreness in
Horses, page 7 (see footnote 21).
36 The regulation states that it applies to all horses
born on or after October 1, 1975, but as this now
includes every living horse it no longer needs to be
part of the regulations.
37 The proposal was published in the Federal
Register on April 28, 1978 (43 FR 18514–18531)
and the final rule was published on April 27, 1979
(44 FR 25172–25184) .
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
56940
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
soring.38 The proposal notes that as a
result of that program, a distinction
between the types of scars found on
younger and older horses gradually
emerged; younger horses ‘‘do not bear
the scars, granulomas, and callouses
indicative of soring that are often found
on older horses.’’ 39 The Department
therefore stated in the proposal that it
‘‘believes it will benefit all concerned
parties by adopting and enforcing a
national uniform criteria for applying
the ‘scar rule’.’’ 40
The Department added that the scar
rule it was proposing would allow for
normal changes in the skin due to
friction and permit thickening of the
epithelial layer of the skin in the pastern
area, comparing it to ‘‘a callous on a
workman’s hands,’’ and would also
allow for moderate loss of hair on the
pastern caused by the friction caused by
an action device.41 Notably, the
proposal emphasized that the scar rule
must be applied bilaterally and that the
scarring must be identical on both legs,
so that horses bearing scars from
accidental injury to one leg are not
unfairly penalized as being sore, being
that ‘‘[t]he chances are extremely remote
that any horse would ever injure both
forelegs in an identical manner with
resulting identical scars in the anterior
or posterior pastern area of each
foreleg.’’ 42
In 2001, APHIS issued a guide 43
regarding how to apply the scar rule
during inspections. The scar rule as
currently written requires that for a
horse to be in compliance with the scar
rule, there must be no proliferating
granuloma tissue, irritation, moisture,
edema, or other evidence of
inflammation indicative of soring
visible in highly specific locations on or
near the anterior pasterns. The guide
emphasized that ‘‘[b]ecause of the
difference between what is allowed on
the front and back of the pastern, it is
important to know where the
boundaries of the anterior and posterior
surfaces are located,’’ and provided
specific instructions for determining the
boundaries for purposes of determining
38 See also In Re: F. Dale Rowland & Denise
Rowland., 52 Agric. Dec. 1103, 1126 (U.S.D.A. Aug.
25, 1993) (citing Horse Protection Enforcement,
1979: Annual Report of the Secretary of Agriculture
to the President of the United States Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives (July 1980)
at 4).
39 43 FR 18514–18531, page 18519.
40 Idem.
41 Idem.
42 Idem.
43 USDA–APHIS, Understanding the Scar Rule,
February 2001. This guide was removed from
Agency circulation (and its website) when the
Agency updated its training materials on the scar
rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
regulatory compliance. Once the
boundaries are determined, the anterior
and posterior surfaces of the horse’s
pasterns must be determined to be
entirely free of scars indicative of soring
but the posterior surface of the pastern
is allowed to show uniformly thickened
skin that is free of inflammation, with
no redness, swelling, pain, or oozing.
The guide also emphasized that for
there to be a scar rule violation, skin
abnormalities must be found on both
front pasterns, although they do not
have to be identical in appearance or
location to be a violation.
The 2001 guide indicates that APHIS’
understanding of scarring had evolved
since 1978, such that the Agency now
understood that a horse need not bear
identical scars on both pasterns in order
to be bilaterally scarred. Its issuance
also indicates that APHIS believed
guidance was warranted at the time to
ensure that inspections for violations of
the scar rule were correctly and
uniformly conducted.
Despite the issuance of the 2001
guide, and the development of
subsequent training that supplanted the
guide, the scar rule itself remains
unchanged in practice from its inclusion
in the regulations 44 years ago. Since
that time, however, advances in
veterinary science as well as technical
innovations in imaging and diagnostics
have improved our understanding of
how soring occurs and our ability to
detect it. (As the NAS study notes, even
the term ‘‘scar rule’’ has become
something of a misnomer, with the
obvious bilateral soring lesions and
scars seen prior to passage of the Act in
1970 only rarely observed today.)
However, as technical advancements
during the intervening period have
improved our ability to detect soring, so
too have technical advancements
improved violators’ ability to evade
detection of scarring during inspections.
APHIS, veterinary organizations, and
the horse industry continue to see
violators developing new ways to
obscure the gross dermatologic indicia
of soring, leaving little or no visible
lesions on the leg and making it difficult
to disqualify a horse under the scar rule
as currently written. Violators, for
example, have used lasers to smooth out
irregularly thickened skin or evidence of
chronic inflammation on one pastern of
a horse that has been sored bilaterally,
leaving only one leg with obvious signs
of soring (unilateral), thus allowing the
horse to avoid being disqualified under
the current bilateral requirement of the
scar rule. Requiring that lesions be
bilateral in order for a horse to be
considered sore under the scar rule has
made it less effective against the
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
innovations devised to evade it. In
short, it is now clear to the Agency that
a horse need not gross dermatologic
indicia of soring bilaterally in order for
the horse to be sore.
Further, although the existing scar
rule specifies regions on the limb
(extensor and flexor surfaces, sulcus) on
which the scarring must occur for a
violation of the scar rule to occur, as the
issuance of the 2001 guide illustrates,
the boundaries of the regions may not
always be clearly and uniformly
understood in the absence of guidance.
Moreover, an abnormality indicative of
soring is not enforceable as a scar rule
violation if it appears outside these
regions.
The NAS study also found the term
‘‘granuloma’’ to be imprecise in its
regulatory use as one of the visible signs
of soring during a gross inspection. The
study notes that medically, the term is
defined as ‘‘an inflammatory lesion
composed of specific types of
leukocytes arranged in a particular
way,’’ and indicates that only a
microscopic evaluation of the tissue in
question will establish the presence of
granulomatous inflammation.44 This
stands in contrast to the regulatory
definition within the scar rule itself,
which defines ‘‘granuloma’’ much more
broadly as ‘‘any one of a rather large
group of fairly distinctive focal lesions
that are formed as a result of
inflammatory reactions caused by
biological, chemical, or physical
agents.’’ The regulatory definition of the
term includes lesions and other effects
of inflammation caused by soring that
are visible to the naked eye upon
inspection of the limb. The medical
definition of ‘‘granuloma’’ describes
pathology that can only be viewed
microscopically. The study suggested
that the scar rule be revised to limit
evidence to dermatologic conditions
that are observable during gross
examination (an examination by an
inspector that involves palpating the
horse, observing its movements, and
looking for visible (not microscopic)
abnormalities on the skin indicative of
soring).
Given the foregoing considerations,
we propose updating the scar rule.
Accordingly, what had been known as
the scar rule would be moved to
proposed paragraph (b)(22) ofproposed
§ 11.6, and would be updated to the
following: ‘‘The forelimbs and
hindlimbs of the horse must be free of
dermatologic conditions that are
indicative of soring. Examples of such
dermatologic conditions include, but are
44 A Review of Methods for Detecting Soreness in
Horses, page 83.
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
not limited to, irritation, moisture,
edema, swelling, redness, epidermal
thickening, loss of hair (patchy or
diffuse) or other evidence of
inflammation. Any horse found to have
one or more of the dermatologic
conditions set forth herein shall be
presumed to be ‘sore’ and be subject to
all prohibitions of section 6 (15 U.S.C.
1825) of the Act.’’
As to the likelihood of accidental
abrasions and other skin irregularities
being confused for soring, changes in
the skin due to soring are fairly
distinctive when compared to
accidental injuries. When horses are
repeatedly sored, the skin on their
pasterns will develop thickening that
usually is in a ridge pattern and diffuse
around the posterior and/or anterior
pasterns. An injury is usually a discrete,
well-demarcated cut or scar that can be
differentiated from the skin changes
seen with soring.
In our proposed change to the scar
rule, we removed all references to scars
and scarring, which is supported by the
NAS study’s conclusion that ‘‘scars have
not been documented microscopically
in Tennessee Walking Horses that have
been found to be sore. A scar is an area
of tissue where the normal components
and organization of the tissue have been
lost and replaced by fibrous connective
tissue.’’ 45
We also propose removing all
requirements that violations of the
proposed § 11.6(b)(22) be bilateral in
nature given the ability of violators to
obscure signs of soring on at least one
limb. We also note that it has long been
the Agency’s understanding, as
evidenced in the 2001 guide, that soring
may result in dermatologic indicia that
is not uniform. Notwithstanding the
current scar rule’s language, we
consider this proposed revision to be
consistent with the Act itself. In the
definition of ‘‘sore’’ in Section 2 of the
Act (15 U.S.C. 1821), a horse is
considered sore if the agents and other
devices listed in the definition and used
in the soring are applied, inflicted,
injected, or used to or on ‘‘any limb of
a horse.’’ This definition, which is
fundamental to understanding the Act’s
requirements regarding soring, clearly
allows for diagnoses of soring regardless
of the number of limbs involved.
Therefore, a horse may be sore if a
single limb has been subjected to the
use of one of the devices, substances, or
practices enumerated in the statutory
definition of the term ‘‘sore.’’
The Agency acknowledges that
section 6 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1825(d))
45 A Review of Methods for Detecting Soreness in
Horses, page 84.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
states that ‘‘[i]n any civil or criminal
action to enforce this chapter or any
regulation under this chapter a horse
shall be presumed to be a horse which
is sore if it manifests abnormal
sensitivity or inflammation in both of its
forelimbs or both of its hindlimbs.’’
However, APHIS considers this
provision to mean that a horse must be
considered presumptively sore during
enforcement actions if it manifests such
bilateral sensitivity or inflammation. It
does not preclude the Agency from
considering a horse sored based on
evidence of unilateral soring; again,
such an interpretation would cut against
the definition of sore within the Act and
render the clause ‘‘any limb of the
horse’’ to be without meaning.46
Regarding our proposal to remove
terms describing specific regions of the
limb in the revision, we note that the
definition of ‘‘sore’’ in the Act also
supports this change. The definition
accounts for soring being applied,
inflicted, injected, or used on any limb
of a horse without limiting it to any
specific regions of the limb. Moreover,
APHIS has found evidence of soring that
can be identified through gross
examination outside of these specific
regions, and, as the 2001 guide
illustrates, these regions may not be
readily identified in all cases without
guidance.
We also propose to remove references
to ‘‘granulomas’’ and ‘‘proliferating
granuloma tissue.’’ Although the current
footnoted definition of ‘‘granuloma’’ in
§ 11.3 describes visible lesions and
inflammation as scar rule violations, we
are removing the term to prevent
continued confusion with its medical
definition as elaborated on in the NAS
study.
Finally, we would remove the
reference to ‘‘uniformly thickened
epithelial tissue’’ on the flexor surface
of the pasterns and cite the NAS study
as support for this change. The NAS
committee reviewed an unpublished but
peer-reviewed evaluation (‘‘Stromberg
report’’) 47 of 136 microscopic biopsies
of skin samples taken from 68
Tennessee Walking Horses that had
46 See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 174 (2001)
(‘‘It is our duty ‘to give effect, if possible, to every
clause and word of a statute.’ ’’ (quoting United
States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528, 538–39 (1955)
(quoting Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U.S. 147, 152
(1883))).
47 Stromberg, P. 2017. Summary report about
soring in Tennessee walking horses. Unpublished
manuscript: https://www.nationalacademies.org/
documents/embed/link/LF2255DA3DD1C
41C0A42D3BEF0989ACAECE3053A6A9B/file/
D3016359C83283E8AABAF73D5E24301E7BA
78A03B4B3?noSaveAs=1. The manuscript was
provided to the NAS committee by a member of the
Tennessee Walking Horse industry.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
56941
been disqualified for violations of the
scar rule during the Tennessee Walking
Horse National Celebration events of
2015 and 2016. The evaluation,
conducted by two veterinary anatomic
pathologists,48 examined 136 pastern
biopsies (right and left pastern from
each horse). Their evaluation of the
biopsies indicated abnormal findings of
variable epidermal hyperplasia in the
form of acanthosis (thickening of the
stratum spinosum layer of the
epidermis) and variable degrees of
hyperkeratosis (thickening of the
stratum corneum layer of the
epidermis). However, they concluded
that beyond these abnormalities, there
was no evidence of scar tissue or
granulomatous inflammation in the
biopsies and therefore concluded there
was no basis or proof of a scar rule
violation.
The pathologists subsequently
provided 24 pairs of the pastern samples
from their study to Dr. Pamela E. Ginn,
a NAS study committee member and
board-certified veterinary pathologist,
for further review. While Dr. Ginn’s
initial observations on reviewing the
pastern biopsies are similar to those
documented by Drs. Stromberg and
Cassone in the Stromberg report, Dr.
Ginn interprets the significance of the
lesions differently. Drawing from her
evaluation, the NAS committee reports
that the changes of hyperkeratosis and
acanthosis, which were prominent in
the biopsy specimens, do not normally
occur without a previously inflicted
injury on the pasterns. While these
changes are recognized as secondary,
chronic lesions, and do not provide
clear evidence of the initial injury to the
skin leading to these changes, they
correlate with the grossly detectable
lesions of irregular epidermal
thickening known as lichenification, a
pathologic change most often caused by
rubbing, scratching, or other repeated
trauma to the skin.49 In other words,
while the Stromberg report found no
granuloma in the tissue microscopically
and therefore concluded that there was
no evidence of a violation, Dr. Ginn’s
evaluation on behalf of NAS found other
pathological changes indicative of
repeated trauma that correlate to an
unnatural thickening of the skin visible
on gross examination. Furthermore,
NAS’ evaluation found that the absence
of granulomatous and scar tissue does
not rule out a scar rule violation.
48 Dr. Paul Stromberg, of the Ohio State
University, and Dr. Lynne Cassone, of the
University of Kentucky.
49 A Review of Methods for Detecting Soreness in
Horses, page 82.
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
56942
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
The NAS study recommended that the
scar rule language should reflect what
inspectors see on sored horses during
gross examination. We agree with these
conclusions and have proposed a set of
diagnostic criteria that retains the visual
elements of the scar rule detectable by
gross examination.
Finally, we wish to note that APHIS
does not entirely agree with the NAS
study in its evaluation of the scar rule.
While the study has provided APHIS
with findings instrumental to our
proposed changes to the scar rule, we
disagree with NAS’ statement regarding
its enforceability, excerpted here:
The language of the scar rule is based on
the assumptions that certain lesions exist
microscopically, that those lesions can be
detected by gross clinical dermatologic exam,
and that the terms used in the scar rule were
used appropriately. In addition, it is assumed
that the rule can be interpreted and applied
in a consistent manner by APHIS veterinary
medical officers VMOs and DQPs tasked with
examining horses for scar rule violations.
None of these assumptions hold true today,
and therefore the rule as written is not
enforceable.50
We hold that the current scar rule is
in fact enforceable. One of the NAS
study’s primary bases for considering
the scar rule ‘‘unenforceable’’ is that it
relies on a definition of ‘‘granuloma’’
that differs from the commonly accepted
medical definition. The use of a
regulatory term of art with a defined
definition that is different from its
ordinary meaning is, however, a wellestablished and defensible regulatory
practice. Additionally, while we agree
with the study that, without training
and guidance, inspectors could differ in
identifying regions of a horse covered by
the scar rule, the study ignores the
remedial measures that can be used to
address this possible discrepancy, such
as the issuance of the 2001 guide
referenced above. Again, the use of
guidance to address issues of possible
inconsistent interpretation of the
regulations is a well-accepted and longstanding regulatory practice that does
not render the regulations themselves
‘‘unenforceable.’’ Finally, as we stated
above, NAS indicated that the
pathological changes found in the
biopsy specimens they examined
correlate with grossly detectable lesions
Prohibitions concerning exhibitors in current § 11.2
of irregular epidermal thickening known
as lichenification, most often caused by
repeated trauma. We note that the
grossly detectable (i.e., visible upon
gross examination) lichenification is
actually equivalent to the non-uniformly
thickened epithelial tissue APHIS
inspectors document during inspections
for soring.
In short, although the APHIS Horse
Protection program and the NAS study
use different terminology, both agree
that microscopic, pathological changes
to the skin indicative of soring correlate
with a visible thickening detectable on
gross examination. Such an examination
obviously does not reveal microscopic
changes in pathology indicative of
soring, but it does not need to do so
because of the visible changes that
correlate with this pathology.
Other Proposed Changes to Prohibitions
Concerning Exhibitors
Below is a table outlining other
prohibitions for any horse at any horse
show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or
auction that we would move from
current § 11.2 to proposed § 11.6.
Location in proposed § 11.6 and substantive changes
General prohibitions
Paragraph (a) ...........................................................................................
Paragraph (a), with proposed additional language specifically prohibiting substances or practices that ‘‘mask previous and/or ongoing
soring.’’ Certain substances can hide or cause skin lesions, and
practices such as stewarding or otherwise distracting a horse during
inspection can mask behavioral evidence of pain.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Specific prohibitions
Paragraph (b)(1) (Certain beads, bangles, rollers) ..................................
Paragraph (b)(2) (Chains weighing more than 6 ounces) .......................
Paragraph (b)(3) (Chains not of uniform size, or twisted or doubled
chains).
Paragraph (b)(4) (Chains with drop links) ................................................
Paragraph (b)(5) (More than one action device per limb of horse) .........
Paragraph (b)(6) (Chains, rollers with rough edges) ...............................
Paragraph (b)(7)(i) (Boots, collars with sharp edges) ..............................
Paragraph (b)(7(ii) (Boots, collars weighing more than 6 ounces) ..........
Paragraph (b)(8) (Pads changing the angle of hoof in excess of 1 inch
at the heel.).
Paragraph (b)(9) Any weight on yearling horses, except a keg or similar conventional horseshoe, and any horseshoe on yearling horses
that weighs more than 16 ounces.
Paragraph (b)(10) Artificial extension of the toe length, whether accomplished with pads, acrylics or any other material that exceeds 50 percent of the natural hoof length.
Paragraph (b)(11) (Toe length that does not exceed the height of the
heel by 1 inch or more.).
Paragraph (b)(12) Pads that are not made of leather, plastic, or other
pliant material.
Paragraph (b)(13) Any object or material inserted between the pad and
the hoof other than acceptable hoof packing.
Paragraph (b)(2).
Paragraph (b)(3).
Paragraph (b)(4).
Paragraph
Paragraph
Paragraph
Paragraph
Paragraph
Paragraph
(b)(5).
(b)(1).
(b)(6).
(b)(7).
(b)(8).
(b)(9).
Paragraph (b)(10).
Paragraph (b)(11).
Paragraph (b)(12).
Paragraph (b)(13).
Paragraph (b)(14).
Proposed additional prohibition on acrylic and hardening substances as
hoof packing. These substances, when hardened, can cause hoof
pain upon stepping.
50 A Review of Methods for Detecting Soreness in
Horses, page 82.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Prohibitions concerning exhibitors in current § 11.2
56943
Location in proposed § 11.6 and substantive changes
Paragraph (b)(14) Single or double rocker-bars on the bottom surface
of horseshoes which extend more than 11⁄2 inches back from the
point of the toe.
Paragraph (b)(15) (Metal hoof bands placed less than 11⁄2 inch below
the coronet band).
Paragraph (b)(16) (Metal hoof bands that can be easily and quickly
loosened or tightened by hand).
Paragraph (b)(17) (Action device or any other device that strikes the
coronet band of the foot of a horse, except soft bell boots).
Paragraph (b)(18) (Shoeing a horse, or trimming a horse’s hoof in a
manner that will cause such horse to suffer).
Paragraph (b)(19) (Lead or other weights attached to the outside of the
hoof wall, the outside surface of the horseshoe, or any portion of the
pad except the bottom surface within the horseshoe).
Paragraph (b)(15).
Paragraph (b)(16).
Paragraph (b)(17).
Paragraph (b)(18).
Paragraph (b)(19).
Proposed additional prohibition on paring of frog or bruising of hoof.
These actions can cause the hoof to be overly sensitive to pain.
Paragraph (b)(20).
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Paragraph (b)(21) Proposed new paragraph to prohibit stewarding (described above).
Paragraph (b)(22) Proposed new paragraph on dermatologic changes
(described above).
In proposed § 11.6(d), we include
time restrictions on workouts and
performances for 2-year-old Tennessee
Walking Horses and racking horses.
These restrictions are moved from
current § 11.2(d). We would prohibit
show or exhibition workouts or
performances of 2-year-old Tennessee
Walking Horses and racking horses, as
well as working exhibitions of 2-yearold Tennessee Walking Horses and
racking horses (horses eligible to be
shown or exhibited in 2-year-old
classes) at horse sales or auctions, that
exceed a total of 10 minutes continuous
workout or performance without a
minimum 5-minute rest period between
the first such 10-minute period and the
second such 10-minute period, and
more than two such 10-minute periods
per performance, class, or workout.
We would also include the horserelated information requirements under
§ 11.2(e) in proposed § 11.6(e). These
requirements currently prohibit failing
to provide information or providing any
false or misleading information required
by the Act or regulations or requested by
APHIS representatives, by any person
that enters, owns, trains, shows,
exhibits, transports or sells or has
custody of, or direction or control over
any horse shown, exhibited, sold, or
auctioned, or entered for the purpose of
being shown, exhibited, sold, or
auctioned at any horse show, exhibition,
sale, or auction.
We would require that this provision
apply to requests by HPIs appointed by
management as well as APHIS
representatives. This information
includes, but is not limited to,
information concerning the name, any
applicable registration name and
number, markings, sex, age, and legal
ownership of the horse; the name and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
address of the horse’s training and/or
stabling facilities; the name and address
of the owner, trainer, rider, custodian,
any other exhibitor, or other legal entity
bearing responsibility for the horse; the
class in which the horse is entered or
shown; the exhibitor identification
number; and any other information
reasonably related to the identification,
ownership, control, direction, or
supervision of any such horse. In
determining whether a horse is sore, it
is important for an inspector, whether
an APHIS representative or an HPI, to
have access to these records, especially
if a question of material fact arises
regarding whether an observable
condition on the horse is the result of
soring or some other condition, malady,
or infirmity known to the horse’s owner
and its custodians. We would add to
paragraph (e) that failure to provide the
information requested may result in
termination under § 11.13.
Inspection and Detention of Horses
Section 11.4(a) currently includes the
requirement that each horse owner,
exhibitor, trainer, or other person
having custody of, or responsibility for,
any horse at any horse show, exhibition,
or sale or auction allow any APHIS
representative to reasonably inspect
such horse at all reasonable times and
places the APHIS representative may
designate. We would move this
requirement to proposed § 11.8(a) and
include HPIs appointed by management
to make such a designation.
We would also retain the requirement
in current § 11.4(b), in which an APHIS
representative must notify the owner,
exhibitor, trainer, or other person
having custody of or responsibility for a
horse at any horse show, exhibition, or
sale or auction that APHIS desires to
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
inspect the horse, and that it must not
be moved from the horse show,
exhibition, or sale or auction until such
inspection has been completed and the
horse has been released by an APHIS
representative. We would include this
requirement in proposed § 11.8(b) and
add that HPIs may also make the
notification that APHIS desires to
inspect the horse. We would retain the
provision that only an APHIS
representative could officially release
the horse as this is decision is made on
behalf of the Department.
Paragraph (c) of proposed § 11.8
would state that for the purpose of
inspection, testing, or taking of
evidence, APHIS representatives may
detain for a period not to exceed 24
hours any horse, at any horse show,
exhibition, or sale or auction, which is
sore or which an APHIS representative
has probable cause to believe is sore.
Such detained horse may be marked for
identification and any such markings
must not be removed by any person
other than an APHIS representative.
This requirement is moved from current
§ 11.4(c). We do not propose to provide
HPIs with this authority as it is an
official decision to detain property, in
which the APHIS representative is
acting on behalf of the Department.
In proposed § 11.8(d), we would
include requirements for detained
horses, moved from current § 11.4(d),
which state that detained horses are
required to be kept under the
supervision of an APHIS representative
or secured under an official USDA seal
or seals in a horse stall, horse trailer, or
other facility with limited access. In
addition, APHIS must have at least one
representative present in the immediate
detention area when a horse is being
held in detention. The official USDA
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
56944
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
seal or seals may not be broken or
removed by any person other than an
APHIS representative, unless the life or
well-being of the horse is in danger by
fire, flood, windstorm, or other dire
circumstances that are beyond human
control, the horse needs immediate
veterinary care that its life may be in
peril before an APHIS representative
can be located, or the horse has been
detained for the maximum 24-hour
detention period, and an APHIS
representative is not available to release
the horse. As with the proposed
provision on detaining horses, we also
consider detaining a horse to be an
official decision requiring an APHIS
representative to act on behalf of the
Department.
In proposed § 11.8(e), we would
include from current § 11.4(e) the
requirement that the owner, exhibitor,
trainer, or other person having custody
of or responsibility for any horse
detained by APHIS for further
inspection, testing, or the taking of
evidence be allowed to feed, water, and
provide other normal custodial and
maintenance care, such as walking and
grooming, for the detained horse. This
would be allowed provided that such
care is rendered under the direct
supervision of an APHIS representative.
Additionally, the regulations would
allow any non-emergency veterinary
care of the detained horse provided that
the use, application, or injection of any
drugs or other medication for
therapeutic or other purposes is
rendered by a veterinarian in the
presence of an APHIS representative
and the identity and dosage of the drug
or other medication and its purpose is
furnished in writing to the APHIS
representative prior to its use,
application, or injection. The use,
application, or injection of such drug or
other medication must be approved by
the APHIS representative. This would
be an official oversight function limited
to officials acting on behalf of the
Department. Further, in retaining this
requirement from the current
regulations, we would replace the term
‘‘APHIS Show Veterinarian’’ in
§ 11.4(e)(2) with ‘‘APHIS
representative’’ for the reasons
explained above under ‘‘Definitions.’’
We would also move to § 11.8(f) the
requirement from current § 11.4(f) that
APHIS must inform the owner, trainer,
exhibitor, or other person having
immediate custody of or responsibility
for any horse allegedly found to be in
violation of the Act or the regulations of
such alleged violation or violations
before the horse is released by an APHIS
representative. An HPI would be able to
inform the person of this information,
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
although the decision to release the
horse from detention would have to be
made by an APHIS representative.
Current § 11.4(g) requires that the
owner, trainer, exhibitor, or other
person having immediate custody of or
responsibility for any horse that an
APHIS representative determines must
be detained for examination, testing, or
taking of evidence, be informed after
such determination is made and must
allow the horse to be immediately put
under the supervisory custody of APHIS
or secured under official USDA seal
until the completion of the examination,
testing, or gathering of evidence, or until
the 24-hour detention period expires.
We propose to retain this requirement
and include it in § 11.8(g), but to replace
‘‘examination’’ with ‘‘inspection’’
wherever it is used to make the
terminology more consistent with its
use in other parts of the regulations.
Current § 11.4(h) contains provisions
for requesting re-inspection and testing
by persons having custody of or
responsibility of horses allegedly found
to be in violation of the Act or
regulations. Proposed § 11.8(h), moved
from § 11.4(h), contains provisions for
re-inspection and testing and would
extend authority to HPIs for certain
actions not requiring an official decision
or determination. Paragraph (h) would
state that the owner, trainer, exhibitor,
or other person having custody of or
responsibility for any horse allegedly
found to be in violation of the Act or
regulations, and who has been notified
of such alleged violation by an APHIS
representative or HPI as stated in
proposed § 11.8(f), may request reinspection and testing of the horse
within a 24-hour period. A re-inspection
can only occur under the following
conditions: (1) A request is made to an
APHIS representative immediately after
the horse has been inspected by the
representative or an HPI appointed by
management and before the horse has
been removed from the inspection
facilities; (2) an APHIS representative
determines that sufficient cause for reinspection and testing exists; and (3) the
horse is maintained under APHIS
supervisory custody as prescribed in
paragraph (d) of the section until such
re-inspection and testing has been
completed. We would replace the term
‘‘APHIS Show Veterinarian’’ with
‘‘APHIS representative’’ throughout
§ 11.8(h) for the reasons explained
above under ‘‘Definitions.’’ We would
also use the terms ‘‘inspection’’ and ‘‘reinspection’’ rather than ‘‘examination’’
and ‘‘re-examination’’ for consistency
with the regulations. In addition,
proposed paragraph (i) would require
that the owner, exhibitor, trainer, or
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
other person having custody of, or
responsibility for, any horse being
inspected is required to render such
assistance, as the APHIS representative
or HPI may request, for purposes of the
inspection.
Access to Premises and Records
Inspector access to premises and
records is necessary to ensuring that
event management and participants are
in compliance with the Act and
regulations. In proposed § 11.9, we
would include requirements for
managers to provide access to premises
and records for inspection and for
exhibitors to provide access to barns,
vans, trailers, stalls, and other locations
of horses at any horse show, exhibition,
sale, or auction. We would also extend
all access to premises and records for
the purposes of inspection to HPIs
appointed by management. These
requirements would be moved from
current § 11.5.
Paragraph (a)(1), moved from
§ 11.5(a)(1), would state that the
management of any horse show,
exhibition, or sale or auction shall,
without fee, charge, assessment, or other
compensation, provide APHIS
representatives and HPIs appointed by
management with unlimited access to
the grandstands, sale ring, barns,
stables, grounds, offices, and all other
areas of any horse show, exhibition, or
sale or auction, including any adjacent
areas under their direction, control, or
supervision for the purpose of
inspecting any horses, or any records
required to be kept by regulation or
otherwise maintained.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would state
that the management of any horse show,
exhibition, sale or auction shall, without
fee, charge, assessment, or other
compensation, provide APHIS
representatives and HPIs appointed by
management with an adequate, safe, and
accessible area for the visual inspection
and observation of horses. This
requirement is moved from § 11.5(a)(2).
In proposed § 11.9(b)(1), we would
include the requirement from current
§ 11.5(b)(1) that each horse owner,
trainer, exhibitor, or other person
having custody of or responsibility for
any horse at any horse show, exhibition,
or sale or auction shall, without fee,
charge, assessment, or other
compensation, admit any APHIS
representative or HPI appointed by
management to all areas of barns,
compounds, horse vans, horse trailers,
stables, stalls, paddocks, or other show,
exhibition, or sale or auction grounds or
related areas at any horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction, for the
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
purpose of inspecting any such horse, at
any and all times.
Under proposed § 11.9(b)(2), moved
from current § 11.5(b)(2), each owner,
trainer, exhibitor, or other person
having custody of or responsibility for,
any horse at any horse show, exhibition,
or sale or auction shall promptly present
his or her horse for inspection upon
notification, orally or in writing, by any
APHIS representatives or HPIs
appointed by management, that the
horse has been selected for inspection
for the purpose of determining whether
such horse is in compliance with the
Act and regulations.
These proposed requirements in
§ 11.9 would not include references to
DQPs, a role which we propose to
remove from the regulations and replace
with HPIs.
Inspection Space and Facility
Requirements
Section 11.6 currently contains horse
inspection space and facility
requirements for management of a horse
show, exhibition, sale, or auction.
Under the requirements, management
must provide sufficient space and
facilities for APHIS representatives to
perform their duties as prescribed by the
Act and regulations. These requirements
include ensuring that APHIS
representatives and HPIs appointed by
management who inspect horses are
provided with a safe area (for example,
a well-defined inspection area where
inspectors are free from potential harm)
to conduct inspections and protection
from the elements, and that there are
separate waiting areas for horses
awaiting inspection and horses that the
inspector determines should be
detained. As noted in the NAS study,
designating an inspection area that has
as few distractions as possible will
reduce the effect of the environment on
the horse’s response to pain during
examination.51 We would retain these
requirements under proposed § 11.10.
In proposed § 11.10(a)(1), moved from
current § 11.6(a), we propose adding
that the management of every horse
show, exhibition, sale, or auction is
required to provide, when requested by
APHIS representatives or HPIs
appointed by management, without fee,
charge, assessment, or other
compensation, sufficient, well-lit space
and facilities in a convenient location to
the horse show, exhibition, sale, or
auction arena, so they may carry out
their duties under the Act and
regulations, whether or not management
has received prior notification or
51 A Review of Methods for Detecting Soreness in
Horses, page 69.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
otherwise knows that such show,
exhibition, sale, or auction may be
inspected by APHIS. We added to this
provision that the HPI can also make
such requests.
In proposed § 11.10(a)(2), event
management would need to provide
protection from the elements of nature,
such as rain, snow, sleet, hail, and
windstorms for the inspection area and
other areas in which APHIS
representatives and HPIs appointed by
management carry out their duties. In
current § 11.6(b), this requirement is
contingent on whether an APHIS
representative requests it, but the
proposed revision would require that
protection from the elements be
available to all inspectors at all times,
including HPIs. Protection from the
elements is needed in order to facilitate
accurate inspections.
Proposed § 11.10(a)(3), moved from
§ 11.6(c), would require that event
management provide a means to control
crowds or onlookers in order that
APHIS representatives and HPIs
appointed by management may carry
out their duties safely and without
interference. This requirement is
intended to protect inspectors (whether
APHIS representatives or HPIs
appointed by management), staff, and
spectators, as well as horses.
Inspection for soreness in horses
sometimes requires the use of
radiography and other technological
equipment that must be connected to an
electrical power source. Proposed
§ 11.10(a)(4), moved from § 11.6(d),
would require that an accessible,
reliable, and convenient 110-volt
electrical power source be available at
the horse show, exhibition, sale, or
auction site. This provision has been
amended so that a site without electrical
power is no longer an option needing to
be requested by APHIS. If fixed
electrical service is not available, event
management would be required to
provide other means for electrical power
such as a portable electric generator.
Finally, § 11.10(a)(5) would require
appropriate areas to be provided
adjacent to the inspection area for
designated horses to wait before and
after inspection, as well as an area to be
used for detention of horses. An
appropriate area would be one with
sufficient space for the horses and
separated from onlookers. This
requirement is moved from current
§ 11.6(e), amended to include separation
from onlookers.
We would add to proposed § 11.10(b)
a provision that, except for the other
persons listed below, only a
management representative, HPIs
appointed by management, and APHIS
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
56945
representatives be allowed in the warmup and inspection area. Each horse in
the designated warm-up area may be
accompanied by no more than three
individuals, including the person
having immediate custody of or
responsibility for the horse, the trainer,
and the rider. Each horse in the
inspection area may only be
accompanied by the person having
immediate custody of or responsibility
for the horse. No other persons would
be allowed in the warm-up or
inspection areas without prior approval
from an APHIS representative or HPI
appointed by management.
We are proposing this provision
because our experience has shown that
people congregating in designated
inspection and warm-up areas can
impede the ability of inspectors and
APHIS representatives to perform their
duties, and could be used to attempt to
intimidate inspectors or event officials.
Another safety concern is having large
groups of people massed in an area
where multiple horses are warming up.
Responsibilities and Liabilities of
Management
Under § 11.20 of the current
regulations, the management of a horse
show, exhibition, sale or auction that
does not appoint a DQP to conduct
inspections is responsible for
identifying all horses that are sore or
otherwise in violation of the Act or
regulations, and must disqualify or
disallow any horses which are sore or
otherwise in violation from
participating or competing in any horse
show, exhibition, sale, or auction. If
event management does not appoint
qualified inspectors, management can
be held liable for the failure to
disqualify a sore horse from
participating in a covered event.52 If
management appoints a DQP to conduct
inspections, management can only be
found liable for violations of the Act
and regulations if they fail to disqualify
a horse that the DQP identifies as a sore
horse and notifies management
accordingly.
Under this proposal, HPIs would
replace the current role played by DQPs.
Management could also request that an
APHIS representative conduct
inspections instead of an HPI. Under
proposed § 11.16(a)(6), management of a
covered horse show, exhibition, sale, or
auction would have to contact APHIS at
least 30 days in advance of the event
and announce their intention either to
request an APHIS representative or
appoint an HPI to conduct inspections,
or to have no inspector, or to request a
52 15
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
U.S.C. 1824(3).
21AUP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
56946
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
variance if no APHIS representative or
HPI is available.
In proposed § 11.13(a), we would
include requirements from current
§ 11.20(a), in that the management of
any horse show, exhibition, sale or
auction which does not utilize an
APHIS representative or HPI is
responsible for identifying all horses
that are sore or otherwise in violation of
the Act or regulations, and must
disqualify or prohibit any horses which
are sore or otherwise in violation of the
Act or regulations from participating or
competing in any horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction.
Under proposed § 11.13(a), horses
entered for sale or auction at a horse
sale or horse auction must be, as
appropriate, identified as sore or
otherwise in violation of the Act or
regulations prior to the sale or auction
and, as required by law, prohibited from
entering the sale or auction ring. Sore
horses or horses otherwise in violation
of the Act or regulations that have been
entered in a horse show or exhibition
for the purpose of show or exhibition
must be identified and disqualified
prior to the show or exhibition. Any
horses found to be sore or otherwise in
violation of the Act or regulations
during actual participation in the show
or exhibition must be removed from
further participation immediately (e.g.,
prior to the horse placing in the class or
the completion of the exhibition).
Finally, all horses that placed first in
each class or event would need to be
inspected after the event to determine if
such horses are sore or otherwise in
violation of the Act or regulations.
We acknowledge concerns that
management of some events may forego
appointing an APHIS representative or
HPI to inspect horses, but in doing so
they are legally liable for any sored
horses participating in the horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction. Shows
without inspectors are more likely to be
attended and inspected by APHIS
representatives, particularly if APHIS
determines the event poses a higher risk
of sored horses participating. We noted
above that shows featuring Tennessee
Walking Horses and racking horses
performing in pads and action devices
have historically posed a much higher
risk of soring, and accordingly we
would focus our resources on them.
Events featuring horses of other breeds,
particularly those shown or performing
without pads and action devices, pose a
very low risk of soring. We invite
comments on which horse events
covered under the Act APHIS should
focus on with respect to compliance
risks, particularly events that choose to
forego an inspector.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
If event management requests an
APHIS representative be appointed to
conduct inspections on a certain date
and no such representatives are
available, event management could
instead choose and appoint an HPI to
inspect horses. If management
determines that no HPIs are available on
the desired date, management could
request that APHIS consider granting a
variance to proceed with the show or
sale without an inspector, as proposed
in § 11.16(a)(6).
When management requests an APHIS
representative to inspect an event, the
Agency would choose the
representative. If management opts to
appoint an HPI, management would
choose the HPI from a list maintained
on the APHIS Horse Protection website.
Proposed § 11.13(b) includes
requirements moved from current
§ 11.20(b), and lists provisions for horse
shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions
at which management utilizes an APHIS
representative or HPI to conduct
inspections. Proposed paragraph (b)(1)
would state that the management of any
horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction
that utilizes an APHIS representative or
HPI must not take any action which may
interfere with or influence the APHIS
representative or HPI in carrying out
their duties.
In paragraph (b)(2), we would require
that the management of any horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction that utilizes
an HPI to inspect horses shall appoint
at least 2 HPIs when more than 100
horses are entered. We note that in
current § 11.20(c), 2 DQPs are required
for inspections when more than 150
horses are entered in an event. We
determined that limiting the number of
horses to 100 or fewer for one HPI in
this proposal would allow that
individual to inspect horses more
thoroughly and manageably.
Additionally, we considered the fact
that relatively few horse events covered
under the Act involve the participation
of 100 or more horses and the vast
majority would therefore only require
one inspector.
In paragraph (b)(3) of proposed
§ 11.13, we would require the
management of any horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction that utilizes
an APHIS representative or HPI to
inspect horses to have at least one
farrier physically present if more than
100 horses are entered in the event. If
100 or fewer horses are entered in the
horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction
the management would have to, at
minimum, have a farrier on call within
the local area to be present, if requested
by an APHIS representative or HPI
appointed by management. Because we
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
would continue to allow the use of pads
and wedges for therapeutic treatment of
Tennessee Walking Horses and racking
horses, it is necessary for management
to make a farrier available to assist with
inspections of horses at horse shows,
exhibitions, sales, and auctions in case
a pad or wedge needs to be removed as
part of an inspection.
Under proposed paragraph (b)(4) of
§ 11.13, management is required to
prevent tampering with any part of a
horse’s limbs or hooves in such a way
that could cause a horse to be sore after
an APHIS representative or HPI
appointed by management has
completed inspection and before
participating in a show, exhibition, sale,
or auction.
The current regulations in
§ 11.20(b)(1) provide a means for event
management to notify the Department
regarding a DQP when they consider the
performance of the DQP to be
inadequate or otherwise unsatisfactory.
Under proposed § 11.13(b)(5), we would
provide a similar opportunity for
management to address concerns
regarding the performance of an HPI
utilized to conduct inspections. If
management is dissatisfied with the
performance of a particular HPI,
management would need to notify, in
writing, the Administrator as to why
they believe the performance of the HPI
was inadequate or otherwise
unsatisfactory. It is in the best interests
of management to notify APHIS as soon
as possible so that the Agency can
gather relevant information and
interview witnesses before recollections
are lost to time. If the Agency
determines the HPI’s performance was
inadequate or otherwise unsatisfactory,
this could be addressed prior in a timely
manner.
Current § 11.20(b)(1) also requires that
‘‘[m]anagement which designates and
appoints a DQP shall immediately
disqualify or disallow from being
shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned
any horse identified by the DQP to be
sore or otherwise in violation of the Act
or regulations or any horse otherwise
known by management to be sore or in
violation of the Act or regulations.’’
Under proposed § 11.13(b)(6), we would
similarly require that management that
utilizes an APHIS representative or HPI
would have to immediately disqualify
or prohibit from showing, exhibition,
sale, offering for sale, or auction of any
horse identified by the APHIS
representative or HPI appointed by
management to be sore or otherwise in
violation of the Act or regulations and
any horse otherwise known by
management to be sore or otherwise in
violation of the Act or regulations.
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Under proposed § 11.13(c)(1),
management at horse shows,
exhibitions, sales, and auctions would
be required to ensure that no devices or
substances prohibited under proposed
§ 11.6 are present in the horse warm-up
area. This provision would ensure that
such devices are not being used for any
purposes contributing to soring in the
warm-up area. Paragraph (c)(2) would
require that management review the
orders of the Secretary disqualifying
persons from showing or exhibiting any
horse, or judging or managing any horse
show, exhibition, sale, or auction, and
disallow the participation of any such
person in any such event for the
duration of the period of termination.
Management would also be required
to verify the identity of all horses
entered in the show, exhibition, sale, or
auction under proposed § 11.13(c)(3),
with acceptable methods of
identification being: (1) A description
sufficient to identify the horse,
including, but not limited to, name, age,
breed, color, gender, distinctive
markings, and unique and permanent
forms of identification when present
(e.g., brands, tattoos, cowlicks, or
blemishes); or (2) electronic
identification that complies with ISO
standards; 53 or (3) an equine passport
issued by a State government and
accepted in the government of the State
in which the horse show, exhibition, or
sale or auction will occur. Verifying the
identity of horses is critical to ensuring
that a horse disqualified for an HPA
violation does not participate in the
event in question.
Records Required
Under proposed § 11.14(a), moved
from current § 11.22(a), management of
any horse show, exhibition, sale, or
auction that contains Tennessee
Walking Horses or racking horses would
be required to maintain all records for
a minimum of 90 days following the
closing date of the show, exhibition,
sale, or auction.54 Records also would
be required to contain the dates and
place of the event, as well as the name
and address of the sponsoring
organization, event management, and
each show judge, as applicable. In
addition, management would be
required to keep a copy of each class or
sale sheet containing the names of
horses, the registration number of the
horse (if applicable), names and
addresses of horse owner, the exhibition
number and class number or sale
53 An international standard for regulating the
radio frequency identification (RFID) of animals.
54 These information collection activities will be
scheduled for merger into 0579–0056 upon
publication of a final rule.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
number assigned to each horse, the
show class or sale lot number, and the
name and address of the person paying
the entry fee and entering the horse in
the show, exhibition, sale, or auction.
Copies of the official program would
also need to be kept, if such a program
has been prepared, as well as a copy of
the official scoring cards for each show
containing Tennessee Walking Horses
and racking horses, to include the place
each horse finished in the class.
Management would also be required to
maintain records showing the name and
any applicable registration name and
number of each horse, as well as the
names and addresses of the owner, the
trainer, the custodian, the exhibitor and
the location of the home barn or other
facility where the horse is stabled.
Records required to be kept by event
management in proposed § 11.14(a)
would also include those of horses
disqualified from participating, which
are currently required to be kept by
management and submitted to APHIS
under § 11.24(a). These records are
required to contain the name, exhibition
number and class number, or assigned
sale number, and the registration name
and number (if applicable) for each
horse disqualified or prohibited by
management from being shown,
exhibited, sold or auctioned, and the
reasons for such action, as well as the
name and address of the person
designated by the management to
maintain the records required. Finally,
if management has appointed an HPI to
conduct inspections at the event, the
name and address of each HPI
appointed to conduct the inspections
would be required.
In the current regulations, there are no
recordkeeping requirements for horses
under the care of a licensed veterinarian
and requiring therapeutic treatment
using pads or other restricted or
prohibited advices. Proposed § 11.14(b)
would require that the management of
any horse show, exhibition, or sale or
auction that allows any horse to be
shown, exhibited or sold with devices,
pads, substances, applications, or other
items restricted under proposed § 11.6
for therapeutic treatment must maintain
the following information for each horse
receiving the therapeutic treatment for a
period of at least 90 days following the
closing date of the horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction: (1) The
name, exhibition number and class
number, or assigned sale number, and
the registration name and number (if
applicable) for each horse receiving
therapeutic treatment; (2) the name,
address, and phone number of the
licensed veterinarian providing the
therapeutic treatment; (3) the State and
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
56947
license number of the licensed
veterinarian providing the therapeutic
treatment; and (4) the name and address
and phone number of the licensed
veterinarian’s business. Finally, the
records would also need to contain a
description of the disease, injury, or
disorder for which the treatment is
given, to include at minimum the
starting date of treatment, prescription
or design of the treatment plan, and
expected length of treatment, including
an estimate of when it is anticipated to
be discontinued. We are applying this
recordkeeping requirement to all horses
participating in events covered under
the Act to ensure that any such horses
under therapeutic care involving
restricted or prohibited items in
proposed§ 11.6 are receiving legitimate
veterinary treatment and are not being
sored.
Inspection of Records
Under proposed § 11.15, moved from
current § 11.23(a), the management of
any horse show, exhibition, sale, or
auction would be required to permit any
APHIS representative or HPI appointed
by management, upon request, to
examine and make copies of all records
pertaining to any horse that are required
in the regulations or otherwise
maintained during business hours or
agreed upon times. In addition, a room,
table, or other facilities necessary for
proper examination and copying of such
records would need to be made
available to the APHIS representative or
HPI appointed by management.
Reporting by Management
Proposed § 11.16(a) requires that the
management of any horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction
notify the Administrator of the event by
mail, fax, or email not less than 30 days
before it occurs and submit the
following information: (1) The name
and address (including street address
and ZIP Code) of the horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction; (2) the
name, address, phone number (and
email address, if available) of the event
manager; (3) the date(s) of the horse
show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or
horse auction; (4) a copy of the official
horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction
program, if any such program has been
prepared; and (5) anticipated or known
number of entries.
Also, paragraph (a)(6) would require
event management to provide
information on whether they are
requesting an APHIS representative to
perform inspections at the horse show,
horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse
auction; or, if not, whether they have
chosen and appointed an HPI to inspect
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
56948
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
horses or have no inspector. If neither
an APHIS representative nor an HPI is
available on the date of the event, event
management may request a variance.
Variances would have to be submitted
in writing by mail, fax, or electronic
means such as email to the Deputy
Administrator of Animal Care at least 15
days before the event and state the
reason for requesting the variance.
Finally, paragraph (a)(7) would require
management to provide information
regarding whether they will allow any
horse to be shown, exhibited or sold
with prohibitions under section § 11.6
for therapeutic treatment.
The 30-day notice requirement is not
currently in the regulations, and has
been proposed to give APHIS advance
notice of the event and sufficient time
to arrange for an APHIS representative
to be present to inspect horses, if
requested by event management. APHIS
would also reserve the right to attend
and conduct inspections at such events
unannounced.
Proposed § 11.16(b) requires that at
least 15 days before any horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction is scheduled
to begin, the management of the event
must notify APHIS of any changes to the
information required to be submitted to
APHIS under proposed § 11.16(a) by
mail, fax, or email. We included this
provision so that APHIS would have
knowledge of any changes to the event,
such as a change in the number of
horses participating or the addition of
show classes, that could potentially
affect inspections and compliance. We
assume that no changes have occurred
to the submitted information unless we
receive notification to the contrary.
Under paragraph (c) of proposed
§ 11.16, within 5 days following the
conclusion of any horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction that contains
Tennessee Walking Horses or racking
horses, the management of such an
event is required to submit to APHIS the
records required by § 11.14 by mail, fax,
or email. Event information already
submitted in accordance with § 11.16(a)
(information to be submitted at least 30
days before the event) would not need
to be submitted again.
Under paragraph (d) of proposed
§ 11.16, management of any horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction which does
not include Tennessee Walking Horses
and racking horses would be required to
submit the following information to
APHIS within 5 days following the
conclusion of the event: Any case where
a horse was prohibited by management
from being shown, exhibited, sold or
auctioned because it was found to be
sore or otherwise in violation of the Act
or regulations. Information would
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
include at a minimum the name,
exhibition number and class number, or
assigned sale number, and the
registration name and number (if
applicable) for each horse disqualified
or prohibited by management from
being shown, exhibited, sold or
auctioned, and the reason(s) for such
action. We invite comment on the
timing and nature of these
recordkeeping and records retention
requirements.
Transportation Requirements
Under proposed § 11.17, moved from
current § 11.40, we would require that
each person who ships, transports, or
otherwise moves, or delivers or receives
for movement, any horse with reason to
believe such horse may be shown,
exhibited, sold or auctioned at any
horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction,
must allow and assist in the inspection
of such horse at any such horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction to determine
compliance with the Act and
regulations. The person would also need
to furnish to any APHIS representative
or HPI appointed by management upon
their request the following information:
(1) Name and address of the horse
owner and of the shipper, if different
from the owner or trainer; (2) name and
address of the horse trainer; (3) name
and address of the carrier transporting
the horse and of the driver of the means
of conveyance used; (4) origin of the
shipment and date thereof; and (5)
destination of the shipment.
Utilization of Inspectors
We would include the provision in
proposed § 11.18(a) that the
management of any horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction
may utilize an APHIS representative or
an HPI to detect and diagnose a horse
which is sore or to otherwise inspect
horses for compliance with the Act or
regulations.
In proposed § 11.18, paragraph (b), we
would include the requirement that if
management elects to utilize an HPI to
detect and diagnose horses which are
sore or to otherwise inspect horses for
compliance with the Act or regulations,
the HPI must currently be authorized by
APHIS pursuant to § 11.19 of the
regulations to perform this function.
In proposed paragraph (c), we would
include the provision that the
management of any horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction must not
utilize any person to detect and
diagnose horses which are sore or to
otherwise inspect horses for the purpose
of determining compliance with the Act
and regulations, if that person has not
been authorized by APHIS or if that
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
person has been disqualified by the
Secretary, after notice and opportunity
for a hearing, in accordance with section
4 (15 U.S.C. 1823) of the Act, to make
such detection, diagnosis, or inspection.
We would include a provision in
proposed paragraph (d) providing that,
after the effective date of the final rule,
assuming this rulemaking is finalized,
only APHIS representatives and HPIs as
defined in § 11.1 must be utilized by
management to detect and diagnose
horses which are sore or otherwise
inspect horses for compliance with the
Act or regulations. Any DQPs seeking to
continue inspecting or other persons
wishing to become inspectors after the
effective date of this rule must apply to
APHIS and meet eligibility
qualifications for authorization included
in proposed § 11.19.
Authorization and Training of Horse
Protection Inspectors
Under the current regulations in
§ 11.7, HIOs operating APHIS-certified
DQP programs are responsible for
selecting, training, evaluating, licensing,
and disciplining DQPs. When an HIO
requests certification of its DQP
program, APHIS requires the HIO to
submit criteria it intends to use to select
DQP applicants, as well as training
plans, standards of conduct expected of
DQPs, and other materials listed in
§ 11.7(b).
We propose to have APHIS assume
the training and authorization of
inspectors, which involves removing
and reserving § 11.7 and proposing new
requirements for inspectors in a new
§ 11.19. Based on the conclusions of the
USDA–OIG audit and the NAS study
discussed above, as well as our own
observations made in the course of
administering the Horse Protection
program, we determined that the current
regulations delegating DQP training and
licensing responsibilities to HIOs were
not addressing the conflicts of interest
and inadequate training resulting in a
failure to diagnose sored horses, and
that APHIS having a direct regulatory
role in these functions would best
achieve the aim of eliminating soring.
Section 11.7(a) of the current
regulations lists the basic qualifications
required of DQPs. In brief, persons are
eligible to be licensed as DQPs if they
are: (1) licensed veterinarians with
equine experience, or (2) farriers, horse
trainers, or other knowledgeable
horsemen whose experience and
training qualify them for positions as
HIO stewards or judges and who have
been formally trained and licensed as
DQPs by an APHIS-certified HIO.
DQPs are not evaluated and licensed
by APHIS for their suitability as
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
inspectors. These tasks are performed by
HIOs that APHIS has certified based on
the criteria in § 11.7(b). Certified HIOs
must maintain and enforce DQP training
requirements and standards of conduct
and are responsible for ensuring that
DQPs follow all regulatory requirements
pertaining to them throughout § 11.7.
Proposed § 11.19 includes the
qualifications required of persons who
are applying to APHIS as HPI
candidates. Applicants would be
required to show that they meet all
qualifications in two tiers, designated as
Tier 1 and Tier 2. As we explain below,
an applicant must meet the Tier 1
requirement as a prerequisite to be
further evaluated under Tier 2
requirements. We invite comment on
the clarity of the proposed process, and/
or the utility of a tiered process for
evaluating HPI applicants as proposed,
including suggestions for simplifying it
or replacing it with an altogether
different process.
Prior to authorization, APHIS would
ensure that inspectors are sufficiently
trained and qualified to perform
inspections and, once authorized, that
they observe all standards of conduct
and perform their duties consistent with
enforcing the Act and regulations. All
applicants would be required to submit
an HPI application to APHIS using
guidance provided on the APHIS Horse
Protection Program website.55
Paragraph (a)(1) of proposed § 11.19
lists the qualifications of Tier 1, which
would require that the applicant be a
veterinarian, except that veterinary
technicians and persons employed by
State and local government agencies to
enforce laws or regulations pertaining to
animal welfare may also be authorized
if APHIS determines that there is an
insufficient pool of veterinarians among
HPIs and applicants to be HPIs.
Unlike the current DQP eligibility
qualifications in § 11.7(a), proposed Tier
1 includes no provision for HPI
eligibility for farriers, horsemen, and
other laypersons with industry
experience. As expressed by the USDA–
OIG audit report and NAS study and
supported by all major veterinary
organizations, licensed veterinarians
with equine experience are best
qualified to detect soring in horses.
Among other advantages, their medical
training in anatomy and physiology
affords them the ability to discern signs
of soring in a horse that may be missed
by experienced inspectors who lack
such intensive training. In addition,
licensed veterinarians in the United
States are bound by their profession to
55 https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/
animalwelfare/hpa.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
56949
ethical codes of conduct established by
the American Veterinary Medical
Association (AVMA) and supported by
other veterinary organizations. Under
the AVMA principles for veterinary
medical ethics, veterinarians are
required to avoid conflicts of interest
that put financial or other
considerations ahead of animal welfare
and the best interests of the animal
involved. For these reasons, we are
proposing the Tier 1 veterinary
requirement.
However, we acknowledge that given
the number and geographical
distribution of veterinarians in the
United States, there may be an
insufficient number of such
veterinarians with equine experience
applying to be authorized as HPIs, with
several commenters on the 2016
proposed rule raising the same concern.
Other public comments we received
rightly noted that veterinarians, when
available, could charge more for their
time than could veterinary technicians
or other qualified non-governmental
persons, resulting in higher costs that
may be prohibitive for smaller horse
shows and exhibitions. Under this
proposal, shows and sales opting to
appoint an APHIS representative would
incur no such costs.
The Act itself does not mandate that
‘‘persons qualified to detect and
diagnose a horse which is sore’’ have
formal veterinary training, and
accordingly some commenters on the
2016 rule contended that many
experienced veterinary technicians and
DQPs are as sufficiently able as
veterinarians to diagnose sored horses.
We partially agree, insofar as degreed
and accredited veterinary technicians
possess a level of medical training that,
when combined with APHIS training,
can qualify them to be authorized as
HPIs. We also believe that making
authorization available to qualified
veterinary technicians under proposed
Tier 1, if needed, would result in a
sufficient pool of candidates applying to
be HPIs, given that we are also
proposing to allow management to
request inspection directly by APHIS
representatives. As a result, we would
not seek applications from persons
lacking formal veterinary medical or
technical credentials regardless of their
experience as DQPs. By considering
veterinary technicians and qualified
State and local animal control
officials 56 as conditions dictate, we
would maintain a sufficient number of
trained HPIs to meet demand without
compromising the levels of inspection
accuracy and integrity we hope to
achieve.
If an applicant meets the
qualifications in Tier 1, APHIS would
then evaluate whether a candidate
meets the qualifications listed in Tier 2,
which we include in proposed
paragraph (a)(2). Guidance explaining
details of these qualifications would be
posted to the APHIS Horse Protection
website.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i) of
the Tier 2 qualifications, APHIS would
require the applicant to demonstrate
sufficient knowledge and experience of
equine husbandry and science and
applicable principles of equine science,
welfare, care, and health to determine
that the applicant can consistently
identify equine soring and soring
practices. The current regulations do not
specifically require that inspectors
demonstrate this knowledge during
evaluation of their application. While an
HIO could establish this application
requirement as part of its certified DQP
program, APHIS cannot confirm that the
HIO is actually enforcing the
requirement under the current
regulations.
In proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii), we
would require that an HPI applicant not
have been found to have violated any
provision of the Act or the regulations
in this part occurring after July 13,
1976,57 or has been assessed any fine or
civil penalty, or has been the subject of
a disqualification order in any
proceeding involving an alleged
violation of the Act or regulations
occurring after July 13, 1976. This
requirement is similar to one currently
under DQP licensing requirements for
HIOs in § 11.7(c)(4). As other
requirements in paragraph (c) pertain to
HIOs, they are no longer necessary.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iii),
we would require that the applicant, as
well as the applicant’s immediate family
and employer, not participate in the
showing, exhibition, sale, or auction of
horses or act as a judge or farrier, or be
an agent of management. The current
regulations in § 11.7(d)(7)(i) prohibit a
DQP from exhibiting, selling,
auctioning, or purchasing any horse
sold at any horse show, sale, or auction
at which he or she has been appointed
to inspect horses, and paragraph
(d)(7)(ii) prohibits a DQP from
inspecting horses at any horse show,
exhibition, sale or auction in which a
56 State and local animal control officials
authorized to perform inspections would not be
doing so as governmental officials, but as
individuals meeting the qualifications for
authorization.
57 On this date, the revision to the Horse
Protection Act establishing the Secretary to
prescribe requirements for the appointment of
persons qualified to detect and diagnose soring was
promulgated as Public Law 94–360.
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
56950
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
horse or horses owned by a member of
the DQP’s immediate family or the
DQP’s employer are competing or being
offered for sale. This proposal broadens
the scope of prohibited industry
relationships for inspectors and
evaluates such conflicts of interest at the
application stage, rather than apply
them after the inspector has already
been authorized to conduct inspections.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iv),
we would require that the applicant
must not have been disqualified by the
Secretary from performing diagnosis,
detection, and inspection under the Act,
which is similar to the current
requirement in paragraph (c)(6) in
which HIOs must not license such
persons.
In paragraph (a)(2)(v) of proposed
§ 11.19, we would require that the
applicant must not have acted in a
manner that calls into question the
applicant’s honesty, professional
integrity, reputation, practices, and
reliability relative to possible
authorization as an HPI. We believe that
such in-depth screening to determine an
applicant’s suitability is only possible if
APHIS directs the application process
and decides whether to authorize a
person to conduct inspections.
Applicants screened under Tier 2
would not be considered to be
authorized as HPIs if any of the
following sources of evidence in
proposed paragraph (a)(2)(V) raises
questions about their suitability.
Under proposed paragraph
(a)(2)(v)(A), we would review criminal
conviction records, if any, that may
indicate the applicant lacks the honesty,
integrity, and reliability to appropriately
and effectively perform HPI duties.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(v)(B) would
allow APHIS to review records of the
person’s actions while participating in
Federal, State, or local veterinary
programs when those actions reflect on
the honesty, reputation, integrity, and
reliability of the applicant.
Under proposed paragraph
(a)(2)(v)(C), APHIS would review
judicial determinations in any type of
litigation adversely reflecting on the
honesty, reputation, integrity, and
reliability of the applicant.
Finally, under proposed paragraph
(a)(2)(v)(D), APHIS would review any
other evidence reflecting on the
honesty, reputation, integrity, and
reliability of the applicant to perform
HPI duties.
Current § 11.7(b) contains several
specific training requirements that HIOs
are required to provide to DQPs. As
APHIS would train all HPIs to perform
inspection duties, we propose to
include in paragraph (b) of § 11.19 the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
requirement that all applicants selected
as candidates will complete a formal
training program administered by
APHIS prior to authorization. APHIS
would train HPIs using professionally
recognized, science-based approaches to
detecting soring, many of which are
discussed in the above-mentioned NAS
study. Continual training of HPIs as
APHIS determines to be necessary
would be a condition of maintaining
authorization to inspect horses.
Additional details of the training
program would be available on the
APHIS Horse Protection website.
In proposed § 11.19, paragraph (c), we
would state that APHIS will maintain a
list of all HPIs on the APHIS Horse
Protection website. The list would also
be available by writing to APHIS via
email or U.S. mail. Event management
would appoint an HPI of their choosing
from the list.
As current paragraphs (e), (f), and (g)
of § 11.7 pertain to requirements based
on HIO licensure of DQPs, these would
not be retained in the regulations.
However, paragraph (f) provides a
process for canceling a DQP license and
for appealing such a cancellation. We
consider it necessary in accordance with
the Act to provide similar means in this
proposal for HPIs to appeal
disqualification of their authorization.
As APHIS would have sole
responsibility for granting or denying
applications for HPI authorization, we
would extend the appeals process to
apply to denials of applications for
authorization.
In proposed § 11.19, we are including
an appeals process for any applicant
whose application for authorization has
been denied. We are also including a
process for authorized HPIs who are
being disqualified from inspecting
horses to receive notice and opportunity
for a hearing before a final decision for
disqualification is rendered. We propose
that APHIS may deny an applicant for
any of the reasons outlined in paragraph
(a). We also propose that APHIS may
permanently disqualify an HPI, after
notice and opportunity for a hearing,
who fails to inspect horses in
accordance with the procedures
prescribed by APHIS or otherwise fails
to perform duties necessary for APHIS
to enforce the Act and regulations.
We propose in paragraph (d)(1) that
APHIS may deny an application to be
authorized as an HPI for any of the
reasons outlined in paragraph (a) of
§ 11.19. In such instances, the applicant
would be provided written notification
of the grounds for the denial. The
applicant may appeal the decision, in
writing, within 30 days after receiving
the written denial notice. The appeal
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
would need to state all of the facts and
reasons that the person wants the
Administrator to consider in deciding
the appeal. As soon as practicable, the
Administrator would grant or deny the
appeal, in writing, stating the reasons
for the decision.
We propose in paragraph (d)(2) that
APHIS may permanently disqualify any
HPI who fails to inspect horses in
accordance with the procedures
prescribed by APHIS or otherwise fails
to perform duties necessary for APHIS
to enforce the Act and regulations, after
notice and opportunity for a hearing.
Requests for hearings and the hearings
themselves would be in accordance
with the Uniform Rules of Practice for
the Department of Agriculture in
subpart H of part 1, subtitle A, of 7 CFR.
Alternatives Considered
Consistent with Executive Orders
12866 and 13563, APHIS has considered
other alternatives to this proposed
action.
As we have noted, APHIS has
implemented numerous program-based
initiatives within the current regulatory
regime in its attempt to eliminate soring,
including ensuring that DQPs receive
the training needed to inspect horses
responsibly and accurately. From the
2010 issuance of the OIG audit report to
the present, APHIS’ efforts to curb
soring have included issuing
enforcement warning letters to HIOs and
DQPs, increasing oversight of DQP
inspections, and sending VMOs to
observe events having a higher
likelihood of sored horses being present.
APHIS has also worked to build trust
with the industry by funding joint
trainings with HIOs on proper
inspection procedures, arranging clinics
for the public to learn about inspections
and ask questions, and transitioning
primary enforcement to DQPs such that
VMOs would not re-inspect a horse that
a DQP finds noncompliant. In addition,
APHIS has funded prohibited substance
testing and limited the number of rule
updates to HIOs between show seasons
so that DQPs are not overly burdened
with new information.
However, given the rates of
noncompliance found in inspections
between 2017 and 2022, our
programmatic attempts to strengthen the
program under the current regulations
have not produced meaningful
reductions in the number of sored
horses appearing in shows and other
HPA-covered events, nor has increased
enforcement significantly deterred the
practice. Even when DQPs have the
skills needed to accurately diagnose
horses for soring, which many
demonstrate in the presence of APHIS
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
representatives, conflicts of interest
within the Tennessee Walking Horse
and racking horse communities
continue to encourage soring. These
conflicts undercut all programmatic
alternatives that we have attempted
within the current regulatory regime.
We acknowledge that some
regulations are in place to address these
conflicts. Under paragraph (d) of § 11.7,
HIOs operating an APHIS-certified DQP
program are required to promulgate
standards of conduct, including
prohibiting DQPs from inspecting at
events at which horses owned by them
are participating. This applies also to
members of their family or their
employers. However, even if the HIO
reliably enforces these standards,
conflicts of interest extend well beyond
those of family and employer, to
business and other relationships among
persons active in the industry who
consider soring their horses a means to
gain competitive advantage.
Through this proposed rule, we
would amend the regulations to transfer
from HIOs to APHIS the task of
screening, training, and authorizing
qualified persons to inspect horses for
soring. By so doing, APHIS would be
better positioned to ensure that
inspectors are screened for conflicts of
interest and could take immediate
disciplinary action if an inspector fails
to follow Agency and professional codes
of ethical conduct. Also, APHIS could
directly deliver to inspectors the proper
training needed to conduct sciencebased inspections for soreness as
supported in the NAS committee report.
While we believe the amendments in
the 2017 HPA final rule that we are
proposing to withdraw could serve as an
effective alternative for remedying the
problems with enforcement and
compliance, and ultimately help to
eliminate soring, we consider this latest
proposal to be the preferable alternative.
Among other changes, both rulemakings
move responsibility for training and
authorizing inspectors under direct
APHIS oversight, and both prohibit the
pads, devices, substances, and actions
that have long been used to sore
Tennessee Walking Horses and racking
horses.
However, unlike the previous
rulemaking, this one draws upon the
findings of the recent NAS study to
revise the scar rule so that its criteria
more accurately describe the
dermatological changes associated with
soring. Also, by affording event
management the option of appointing an
APHIS official instead of an HPI to
conduct inspections, this proposed
rulemaking relieves costs for smaller
events choosing to appoint an inspector.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
For events that use inspectors, this
proposal would require one inspector
for every 100 horses participating, while
the 2017 final rule only requires one
inspector for every 150 horses. This
proposal also requires that a farrier be
present if more than 100 horses are
participating and requires that a farrier
be on call if there are 100 or fewer
horses. The smaller numbers provide
inspectors and farriers with a more
manageable workload by which they
can thoroughly inspect and diagnose
sore horses.
This proposal also sets new
management requirements to maintain
information for 90 days on the
therapeutic use of pads, substances, and
other prohibited items on horses at
events covered under the Act, and
requires that management of any
covered event notify APHIS at least 30
days before it begins.
The 2017 final rule limits this
requirement to events featuring
Tennessee Walking horses and racking
horses. These requirements allow
APHIS to establish a broader record of
events covered under the Act, allowing
for adjustments to enforcement should
noncompliance with the Act become an
issue in current or emerging horse
breeds.
Finally, we note that a discussion of
the rationale for proposing to withdraw
the 2017 HPA final rule is contained in
the proposed withdrawal itself.
We believe the changes proposed in
this document represent the best
alternative option that would
satisfactorily accomplish the stated
objectives and minimize impacts on
small entities. However, we welcome
comments from the public on these and
other alternatives.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and
Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been
determined to be significant for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866 and,
therefore, has been reviewed by the
Office of Management and Budget.
We have prepared an economic
analysis for this rule. The economic
analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis,
as required by Executive Orders 12866
and 13563, which 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, and equity). Executive Order
13563 emphasizes the importance of
quantifying both costs and benefits, of
reducing costs, of harmonizing rules,
and of promoting flexibility. The
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
56951
economic analysis also examines the
potential economic effects of this rule
on small entities, as required by the
Regulatory Flexibility Act. A summary
of the economic analysis is included
below. Copies of the full analysis are
also available on the Regulations.gov
website (see under ADDRESSES in this
document for a link to Regulations.gov)
or by contacting the person listed under
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
The Horse Protection Act (HPA, or
Act, 15 U.S.C. 1821 et seq.) prohibits
sored horses from participating in horse
exhibitions, sales, shows, or auctions
covered under the Act. Soring is the
practice of intentionally injuring a
horse’s front feet and limbs to cause
pain so intense that the horse lifts its
legs quickly to relieve the pain when its
hooves strike the ground, thereby
producing a distinctive high-stepping
gait.
In September 2010, USDA’s Office of
Inspector General (OIG) released an
audit of the Animal Plant and Health
Inspection Service’s (APHIS)
enforcement of the HPA. In addition, a
2021 National Academy of Sciences
(NAS) study examined methods used to
inspect horses for soreness and made
recommendations. The proposed rule is
in response to several findings and
recommendations contained in that
audit and in the NAS study, as well as
in response to data independently
obtained by the Agency. The objective
of the proposed rule is more effective
enforcement of the HPA.
The principal proposed amendment
to the Horse Protection regulations is
that APHIS would screen, train and
authorize qualified persons to conduct
inspections at horse shows, horse
exhibitions, horse sales, and horse
auctions to ensure compliance with the
HPA. APHIS would authorize
applicants, preferably veterinarians, as
Horse Protection Inspectors (HPI) 58
after screening them for potential
conflicts of interest and conducting
training. APHIS would also develop a
process for denying an application or
disqualifying a person authorized to
inspect horses who does not meet our
qualifications or who otherwise fails in
duties or conduct under the Act or
regulations. We also propose that event
management may elect instead to have
an APHIS representative conduct
inspections. The proposed rule would
remove all regulatory responsibilities
and requirements for horse industry
organizations and associations (HIOs).
58 The term Designated Qualified Persons or
DQPs, would be replaced by HPIs, or horse
protection inspectors, under the proposed rule.
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
56952
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Currently, horse shows either assume
responsibility for conducting preshow
inspections for evidence of soring or
contract with an APHIS-certified HIO to
provide DQPs to conduct inspections.
However, the OIG audit discovered
conflicts of interest between DQPs, the
HIOs that license and hire them, and
organizers of the shows and exhibitions
that contract with HIOs to provide
DQPs. The OIG audit noted that at times
DQPs fail to inspect horses adequately
or to issue violations in accordance with
the regulations. Concurring with the
findings of the OIG audit, the NAS
study committee concluded that some
horses experiencing soreness are not
being identified during inspections and
strongly recommended that use of DQPs
for inspections under the current
program be discontinued.
Inspection data compiled by APHIS
from fiscal year (FY) 2017 to 2022 show
that inconsistencies persist in the
number of violations detected by APHIS
officials and those issued by DQPs
inspecting horses. During this period,
APHIS attended about 16 percent of all
HPA-covered events featuring
Tennessee Walking Horses, racking
horses, and other breeds at which horse
industry DQPs conducted inspections,
performance as well as flat-shod classes.
While APHIS attended only a fraction of
the events at which DQPs were
appointed to inspect horses, APHIS
consistently reported higher rates of
noncompliance at these events based on
its VMO inspection findings. Most
horses inspected by APHIS officials at
these events were chosen at random,
although APHIS chose to inspect some
horses for which a suspicion of soring
was warranted.
Designated Qualified Persons
consistently reported higher rates of
noncompliance when APHIS officials
were in attendance than when they were
not. In FY 2021, for example, if only
horses wearing ‘‘performance packages’’
(i.e., a padded horse) are considered,
APHIS officials detected 158 instances
of noncompliance with the HPA out of
the 398 horses APHIS inspected at the
17 events attended, resulting in close to
a 40 percent rate of noncompliance for
performance horses. In contrast, of the
207 events attended and inspected only
by DQPs during the same period, DQPs
detected just 321 instances of
noncompliance with the HPA out of the
11,825 performance horses they
inspected, recording only a 1.9 percent
rate of noncompliance when APHIS
officials were not present and 7.1
percent when they were. Also notable is
that the rate of noncompliance detected
for horses wearing performance
packages was significantly and
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
consistently higher than that detected
for flat-shod horses.
In addition, the proposed rule would
also prohibit non-therapeutic pads and
action devices at all events involving
Tennessee Walking Horses and racking
horses, as these items are used to induce
or hide soring. The proposed rule would
also update the scar rule by including
language that better describes visible
dermatologic changes and stating that
the changes do not have to be bilateral.
An additional amendment to the rule
would also require a farrier to be present
at shows with 100 or more horses and
on-call for shows with fewer than 100
horses if the management of the shows
utilize an AHPIS representative or HPI.
We welcome public comments on the
costs associated with having a farrier at
the shows and on-call. Also, for horse
shows that utilize an HPI or APHIS
representative, if there are more than
100 horses participating in the show,
there must be an additional HPI.
The prohibition of pads and action
devices does not impose costs on show
management or participants. Of these
proposed amendments to the Horse
Protection regulations, only the
amendments requiring a farrier to be
present at a show of more than 100
horses, or on call if fewer than 100
horses are participating, may result in
additional costs such as record keeping
for show management and participants.
Given that event managers may
choose to have an APHIS inspector at no
cost to them, the proposed rule would
impose no additional required costs to
horse show management in terms of
inspectors.
Currently, horse shows either assume
responsibility for conducting preshow
inspections for evidence of soring or
contract with an APHIS-approved Horse
Industry Organization (HIO) to provide
Designated Qualified Persons to conduct
inspections. HIOs may be able to pass
this cost on to the exhibitors and
participants in the show. Under the
proposed rule, if an APHIS inspector is
used, they would no longer have to bear
the costs associated with having
inspectors at the shows. This could
potentially result in cost savings to the
HIOs and the exhibitors. The cost of
having inspectors at the shows varies by
region and ranges from $350 to $23,000
with the average being $700 to $800 per
show.
Conversely, it is possible that HPIs
will charge more for their inspections
than DQPs currently do. The rate that
HPIs will charge for their services under
the proposed rule, as compared to the
current rate of compensation for DQPs
mentioned above, is unknown because
the rate is negotiated between the
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
inspectors and the management that
contracts for their services, and thus not
within APHIS’ purview. Management
may also be able to pass the costs of
having inspectors at the shows on to the
exhibitors. We welcome public
comments to the extent that there may
be additional costs or cost savings
associated with this proposed rule.
Based on the estimates of an expert
elicitation 59 commissioned by APHIS,
the cost of services provided per show
by veterinarians, farriers, and inspectors
ranges from a few hundred to several
thousand dollars. Because this analysis
was conducted several years ago, we use
the consumer price index (CPI) to
convert the costs to 2021 dollars. APHIS
believes these estimates to be reasonably
accurate. However, we acknowledge
that there is some level of uncertainty,
as the structure of the industry may
have changed. In addition, we do not
know the impact that the pandemic may
have had on the industry. We welcome
comments which would provide better
insight and detailed information on the
components of the costs, if applicable.
The incidence of the costs to the show
of the farrier would depend on their
ability to pass the costs along to
participants or other entities involved
with the shows. In addition, many of the
entities may already have farriers
present at shows, auctions, and sales.
Many, if not most, of the entities that
may be affected by this proposed rule
are small.
The proposed rule would result in
foregone revenue for most current DQPs,
who would not meet APHIS’
requirements for HPIs under the terms
of the proposed rule. As noted above,
the average cost of having inspectors at
shows is $700 to $800 per show. With
59 currently authorized DQPs and 300
shows on average per year, this suggests
that DQP income is supplemental,
rather than a primary source of revenue,
for most DQPs. Additionally, APHIS
anticipates 30 new initial applications
from parties interested in becoming
HPIs under the proposed requirements.
For new HPIs who were not previously
DQPs, this rule would result in new
income. We request public comment on
this matter.
While the proposed rule would result
in better enforcement of the HPA,
implementation of the proposed
changes would result in additional costs
to APHIS in terms of conducting
inspections, screening, and training
potential HPIs. We expect that APHIS
59 Expert Elicitation in Support of the Economic
Analysis of the Tennessee Walking and Racking
Horse Industry; RTI International, November 2012
3040 Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC
27709.
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
costs would increase by approximately
$6.4 million. This assumes that APHIS
inspectors would attend approximately
300 shows per year. Over the last 5
years, there have been an average of 226
shows per year. In addition, the
industry and APHIS may incur
additional recordkeeping costs of
$47,000 and $127,000, respectively.
Training costs would include renting a
training horse and employee travel. The
average 3-day horse rental is $450 and
the travel cost per employee is $1,900.
APHIS would not charge a fee for
training; however, the participants may
have to pay their travel expenses to and
from training and lodging. If funds are
available, APHIS would pay travel
expenses and other costs associated
with attending training.
The benefits of the proposed rule are
expected to justify the costs. The
proposed changes to the Horse
Protection regulations would promote
the humane treatment of Tennessee
Walking Horses and racking horses by
more effectively ensuring that those
horses that participate in exhibitions,
sales, shows, or auctions covered by the
HPA are not sored. This qualitative
benefit, enhancing animal welfare, is
likely to result in greater public
confidence that the animals are being
treated humanely.
The proposed rule is not expected to
adversely impact the communities in
which shows are held because
Tennessee Walking Horse and racking
horse shows are expected to continue.
Owners are motivated to show their
prized horses and are likely to continue
participating in shows. Better
enforcement of the HPA is expected to
also benefit shows and participants by
improving the reputation of the
Tennessee Walking Horse and racking
horse industry. Participation in events
may increase if the proposed rule were
to result in increased confidence by
owners that individuals who
intentionally sore horses to gain a
competitive advantage are likely to be
prevented from participating.
Management of horse shows,
exhibitions, sales, and auctions would
also benefit from no longer having to
bear the costs of compensating
inspectors if they use APHIS inspectors.
In an attempt to eliminate soring,
APHIS considered several alternatives
to the proposed rule. These include
programmatic changes such as increased
training, issuing enforcement warning
letters to HIOs and DQPs, increasing
oversight of DQP inspections, and
sending VMOs to observe events having
a higher likelihood of sored horses being
present. APHIS has also worked to build
trust with the industry by funding joint
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
trainings with HIOs on proper
inspection procedures, arranging clinics
for the public to learn about inspections
and ask questions, and transitioning
primary enforcement to DQPs such that
VMOs would not re-inspect a horse that
a DQP finds noncompliant. In addition,
APHIS has funded prohibited substance
testing and limited the number of rule
updates to HIOs between show seasons
so that DQPs are not overly burdened
with new information. These nonregulatory solutions have not
meaningfully decreased detections of
soring, however.
One alternative that we also
considered was to eliminate the use of
non-APHIS inspectors and to limit
inspectors to APHIS VMOs. While this
approach would address conflicts of
interest and allow APHIS to have a
direct role in managing inspections, we
determined that the availability of
inspectors could be subject to number of
VMOs available at any given time and
their geographic distribution. Further,
section 4 (15 U.S.C. 1823) of the Act
provides for ‘‘the appointment by the
management of any horse show, horse
exhibition, or horse sale or auction of
persons qualified to detect and diagnose
a horse which is sore . . .,’’ which
precludes assigning an inspector to an
event and eliminating any element of
choice for event management. Under
this proposal, management would be
able to choose to appoint an APHIS
representative or an APHIS-authorized
inspector.
Another alternative considered was
implementing our 2017 final rule to
revise the HPA regulations. However,
we consider this proposed rule
preferable to that rule for several
reasons. Among them, this rule provides
that management may request direct
APHIS inspection of a show at no cost
to management, an option not provided
for in the 2017 final rule despite
comments that HPIs could be costprohibitive for smaller shows.
We invite public comments on these
and other alternatives that may achieve
the desired policy objective of the
proposed rule.
The entities affected by this rule are
likely small by Small Business
Administration standards. We invite
public comments on the potential
impacts on the entities that may be
affected by this rule.
Executive Order 13175
This proposed rule has been reviewed
in accordance with the requirements of
Executive Order 13175, ‘‘Consultation
and Coordination with Indian Tribal
Governments.’’ Executive Order 13175
requires Federal agencies to consult and
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
56953
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.
APHIS has determined that this
proposed rule does not, to our
knowledge, have tribal implications that
require formal tribal consultation under
Executive Order 13175. To engage
Tribal nations on this rulemaking,
APHIS hosted a tribal webinar to
discuss the proposed rule, with four
attendees participating and no tribal
comment. If a Tribe requests
consultation, APHIS 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.
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is listed in the
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
under No. 10.025 and is subject to
Executive Order 12372, which requires
intergovernmental consultation with
State and local officials. (See 2 CFR
chapter IV.)
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed
under Executive Order 12988, Civil
Justice Reform. It is not intended to
have retroactive effect. The Act does not
provide administrative procedures
which must be exhausted prior to a
judicial challenge to the provisions of
this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Many of the activities described in
this proposed rule are currently
approved under OMB control number
0579–0056, including the requirement
that the management of any event that
contains Tennessee Walking Horses or
racking horses maintain for at least 90
days following the closing date of the
event all pertinent records in § 11.22(a),
and that within 5 days following the
conclusion of any event containing
Tennessee Walking Horses or racking
horses, event management must submit
to APHIS the information required by
§ 11.22(a) for each horse excused or
disqualified by management or its
representatives. In addition, there are
seven new information collection and
reporting activities. Therefore, in
accordance with section 3507(d) of the
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
56954
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44
U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the new activities
and their burden associated with this
proposed rule have been submitted to
OMB as a new information collection
for approval. After a final rule is
published, this information collection
request will be scheduled for merger
into 0579–0056 in the future.
Written comments and
recommendations for the proposed
information collection should be sent
within 60 days of publication of this
notice to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/
PRAMain. Find this particular
information collection by selecting
‘‘Currently under 60-day Review-Open
for Public Comments’’ or by using the
search function. Please send a copy of
your comments to: (1) Docket No.
APHIS–2022–0004, Regulatory Analysis
and Development, PPD, APHIS, Station
3A–03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118,
Riverdale, MD 20737–1238, and (2)
Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, Room
404–W, 14th Street and Independence
Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
Administering the Horse Protection
Act (HPA) requires the use of several
information collection activities that are
currently approved under 0579–0056.
The proposed changes to the regulations
result in the creation of new reportable
activities, as previously mentioned.
These activities and any additional ones
announced in the final rule resulting
from public comment will be scheduled
for merger into 0579–0056 after OMB
approval.
The seven new activities in this
proposed rule change are as follows:
• § 11.13(b)(5)—Event managers will
be permitted to submit unsatisfactory
performance notices against HPIs
performing inspections. APHIS
estimates there will be 5 responses per
year with 1 hour of burden per
response.
• § 11.14(b)—Managers of any horse
show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or
horse auction that allows any horse to
be shown, exhibited or sold with
prohibitions for therapeutic treatment
will be required to maintain certain
information for each horse receiving the
therapeutic treatment for a period of at
least 90 days following the closing date
of a show, exhibition, sale, or auction.
Based on the APHIS Horse Protection
program’s knowledge of the frequency
of therapeutic treatments used on horses
participating in prior covered events,
APHIS estimates there will be 50
responses per year with 1 hour of
burden per response. Managers will not
have to maintain such records if no
horses undergoing therapeutic
treatments are in the event.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
• § 11.16(a)—Managers of any such
show, exhibition, sale, or auction will
be required to provide the
Administrator information of the event
by mail, fax, or electronic means such
as email at least 30 days before any
horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale,
or horse auction is scheduled to begin.
Such notification would have to include
information about the show,
information about the anticipated or
known number of entries and whether
management will allow any horse to be
shown, exhibited, or sold with
prohibitions under proposed § 11.6 for
therapeutic treatment. Finally, the
notification will include a request to
appoint an APHIS representative if one
is needed. This requirement has been
added to give APHIS advance notice of
the event and sufficient time to arrange
for an APHIS representative to be
present to inspect horses, if requested
by management. APHIS estimates there
will be 450 shows per year with 30
minutes of burden per response.
• § 11.16(a)(6)—If neither an APHIS
representative nor an HPI is available on
the date of the horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction,
event management may request a
variance. It must be submitted by mail,
fax, or electronic means such as email
to the Deputy Administrator of Animal
Care. APHIS estimates there will be 20
requests per year with 1 hour of burden
per request.
• § 11.16(b)—Managers of any such
show, exhibition, sale, or auction will
be required to provide any changes to
the event information submitted to the
Administrator at least 15 days before the
event is to begin. APHIS estimates there
will be 300 shows per year with 30
minutes of burden per response.
• § 11.16(c)—Event managers of any
horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale,
or horse auction that contains
Tennessee Walking Horses or racking
horses must submit to APHIS within 5
days after the event’s conclusion the
information required to be maintained
by § 11.14. Event information already
submitted to APHIS under § 11.16(a)
does not need to be sent again. APHIS
estimates there will be 300 shows per
year with 30 minutes of burden per
response.
• § 11.19(a)—APHIS will authorize
and train Horse Protection Inspectors.
Prospective candidates must submit an
application to APHIS and will be
evaluated using a 2-tier system of
qualifications. APHIS estimates there
will be 30 applicants per year with an
estimated 1 hour of burden per
application.
The proposed changes to the
regulations in 9 CFR part 11 authorized
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
by the HPA also include removing
regulatory requirements for horse
industry organizations and associations
and eliminating the role of Designated
Qualified Persons as inspectors at horse
shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions.
The burden for these will be transferred
Horse Protection Inspectors authorized
and trained by APHIS. Activities related
to event schedules are event-driven so
the total number of estimated responses
and burden hours will remain
unchanged.
We are soliciting comments from the
public and others concerning our
proposed information collection and
recordkeeping requirements. These
comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed
information collection is necessary for
the proper performance of our agency’s
functions, including whether the
information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our
estimate of the burden of the proposed
information collection, including the
validity of the methodology and
assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and
clarity of the information to be
collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the
information collection on those who are
to respond (such as through the use of
appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological
collection techniques or other forms of
information technology; e.g., permitting
electronic submission of responses).
Estimate of burden: Public burden for
this collection of information is
estimated to average 0.55 hours per
response.
Respondents: Managers of horse
shows, exhibitions, sales, or auctions;
veterinarians.
Estimated annual number of
respondents: 530.
Estimated annual number of
responses per respondent: 3.
Estimated annual number of
responses: 1,155.
A copy of the information collection
may be viewed on the Regulations.gov
website or in our reading room. (A link
to Regulations.gov and information on
the location and hours of the reading
room are provided under the heading
ADDRESSES at the beginning of this
proposed rule.) Information about the
information collection process may be
obtained from Mr. Joseph Moxey,
APHIS’ Paperwork Reduction Act
Coordinator, at (301) 851–2483. APHIS
will respond to any information
collection-related comments in the final
rule. All comments will also become a
matter of public record.
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
E-Government Act Compliance
The Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service is committed to
compliance with the E-Government Act
to promote the use of the internet and
other information technologies, to
provide increased opportunities for
citizen access to Government
information and services, and for other
purposes. APHIS estimates that all of
the total responses can be processed
electronically by email or fax.
Respondents are free to maintain
required records as best suited for their
organization. Details about specific
forms for reportable activities can be
found in the information collection
request supporting statement.
For assistance with E-Government Act
compliance related to this proposed
rule, please contact Mr. Joseph Moxey,
APHIS’ Paperwork Reduction Act
Coordinator, at (301) 851–2483, or the
person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 11
Animal welfare, Horses, Reporting
and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we propose to revise 9
CFR part 11 to read as follows:
PART 11—HORSE PROTECTION
REGULATIONS
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Sec.
11.1
11.2
11.3
Definitions.
[Reserved]
Non-interference with APHIS
representatives and HPIs.
11.4 Owners, trainers, exhibitors,
custodians, transporters, and any other
person who has been disqualified.
11.5 Appeal of inspection report.
11.6 Prohibitions concerning exhibitors.
11.7 [Reserved]
11.8 Inspection and detention of horses.
11.9 Access to premises and records.
11.10 Inspection space and facility
requirements.
11.11–11.12 [Reserved]
11.13 Responsibilities and liabilities of
management.
11.14 Records required and disposition
thereof.
11.15 Inspection of records.
11.16 Reporting by management.
11.17 Requirements concerning persons
involved in transportation of certain
horses.
11.18 Utilization of inspectors.
11.19 Authorization and training of Horse
Protection Inspectors.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1823–1825 and 1828;
7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.
§ 11.1
Definitions.
For the purpose of this part, unless
the context otherwise requires, the
following terms shall have the meanings
assigned to them in this section. The
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
singular form shall also impart the
plural.
Act means the Horse Protection Act of
1970 (Pub. L. 91–540) as amended by
the Horse Protection Act Amendments
of 1976 (Pub. L. 94–360), 15 U.S.C. 1821
et seq., and any legislation amendatory
thereof.
Action device means any boot, collar,
chain, roller, beads, bangles, or other
device which encircles or is placed
upon the lower extremity of the leg of
a horse in such a manner that it can
either rotate around the leg, or slide up
and down the leg so as to cause friction,
or which can strike the hoof, coronet
band or fetlock joint.
Administrator means the
Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, or any person
authorized to act for the Administrator.
Mail for the Administrator should be
sent to the Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, Animal Care/Horse
Protection, 2150 Centre Avenue,
Building B, Mailstop 3W11, Fort
Collins, CO 80526–8117. Electronic mail
for the Administrator should be sent to
horseprotection@usda.gov.
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service (APHIS) means the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service of the
United States Department of
Agriculture.
APHIS representative means any
employee or official of APHIS.
Custodian means any person who has
initial control of and presents a horse
for inspection at any horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction. The
custodian must be able to provide
information about the horse that is
required by this part.
Day(s) means business days, i.e., days
other than weekends and Federal
holidays.
Department means the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Event manager means the person who
has been delegated primary authority by
a sponsoring organization for managing
a horse show, horse exhibition, horse
sale, or horse auction.
Exhibitor means:
(1) Any person who enters any horse,
any person who allows his or her horse
to be entered, or any person who directs
or allows any horse in his or her
custody or under his or her direction,
control or supervision to be entered in
any horse show or horse exhibition;
(2) Any person who shows or exhibits
any horse, any person who allows his or
her horse to be shown or exhibited, or
any person who directs or allows any
horse in his or her custody or under his
or her direction, control, or supervision
to be shown or exhibited in any horse
show or horse exhibition;
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
56955
(3) Any person who enters or presents
any horse for sale or auction, any person
who allows his or her horse to be
entered or presented for sale or auction,
or any person who allows any horse in
his or her custody or under his or her
direction, control, or supervision to be
entered or presented for sale or auction
in any horse sale or auction; or
(4) Any person who sells or auctions
any horse, any person who allows his or
her horse to be sold or auctioned, or any
person who directs or allows any horse
in his or her custody or under his or her
direction, control, or supervision to be
sold or auctioned.
Horse means any member of the
species Equus caballus.
Horse exhibition means a public
display of any horses, singly or in
groups, but not in competition. The
term does not include events where
speed is the prime factor, rodeo events,
parades, or trail rides.
Horse Protection Inspector (HPI)
means a person meeting the
qualifications in § 11.19 whom the
Administrator has authorized as an HPI
and who may be appointed by
management or a representative of
management of any horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale or horse auction
under section 4 of the Act (15 U.S.C.
1823) to detect or diagnose horses
which are sore or to otherwise inspect
horses and any records pertaining to
such horses for the purposes of
detecting or diagnosing soring.
Horse sale or horse auction means any
event, public or private, at which horses
are sold or auctioned, regardless of
whether or not said horses are exhibited
prior to or during the sale or auction.
Horse show means a public display of
any horses, in competition, except
events where speed is the prime factor,
rodeo events, parades, or trail rides.
Inspection means any visual,
physical, and diagnostic means
approved by APHIS to determine
compliance with the Act and
regulations. Such inspection may
include, but is not limited to, visual
examination of a horse and review of
records, physical examination of a
horse, including touching, rubbing,
palpating, and observation of vital signs,
and the use of any diagnostic device or
instrument, and may require the
removal of any shoe or any other
equipment, substance, or paraphernalia
from the horse when deemed necessary
by the professional conducting such
inspection.
Local area means an area within a 10mile radius of the horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction.
Management means any person or
persons who organize, exercise control
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
56956
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
over, or administer or are responsible
for organizing, directing, or
administering any horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale or horse auction
and specifically includes, but is not
limited to, the sponsoring organization
and event manager.
Participate means engaging in any
activity, either directly or through an
agent, beyond that of a spectator in
connection with a horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction,
and includes, without limitation,
transporting, or arranging for the
transportation of, horses to or from
equine events, personally giving
instructions to exhibitors, being present
in the warm-up or inspection areas or in
any area where spectators are not
allowed, and financing the participation
of others in equine events.
Person means any individual,
corporation, company, association, firm,
partnership, society, organization, joint
stock company, State or local
government agency, or other legal
entity.
Secretary means the Secretary of
Agriculture or anyone who has
heretofore or may hereafter be delegated
authority to act in his or her stead.
Sore when used to describe a horse
means:
(1) An irritating or blistering agent has
been applied, internally or externally,
by a person to any limb of a horse;
(2) Any burn, cut, or laceration has
been inflicted by a person on any limb
of a horse;
(3) Any tack, nail, screw, or chemical
agent has been injected by a person into
or used on any limb of a horse;
(4) Any other substance or device has
been used by a person on any limb of
a horse or a person has engaged in a
practice involving a horse, and, as a
result of such application, infliction,
injection, use, or practice, such horse
suffers, or can reasonably be expected to
suffer, physical pain or distress,
inflammation, or lameness when
walking, trotting, or otherwise moving,
except that such term does not include
such an application, infliction,
injection, use, or practice in connection
with the therapeutic treatment of a
horse by or under the supervision of a
person licensed to practice veterinary
medicine in the State in which such
treatment was given.
Sponsoring organization means any
person or entity whose direction
supports and who assumes
responsibility for a horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction
that has, is, or will be conducted.
State means any of the several States,
the District of Columbia, the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa,
Northern Mariana Islands or the Trust
Territory of the Pacific Islands.
Therapeutic treatment means relating
to the treatment of disease, injury, or
disorder by or under the supervision of
a person licensed to practice veterinary
medicine in the State in which such
treatment was prescribed.
§ 11.2
[Reserved]
§ 11.3 Non-interference with APHIS
representatives and HPIs.
No person shall assault, resist,
oppose, impede, intimidate, threaten, or
interfere with APHIS representatives or
HPIs appointed by management, or in
any way influence attendees of a horse
show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or
horse auction or other individuals to do
the same.
§ 11.4 Owners, trainers, exhibitors,
custodians, transporters, and any other
person who has been disqualified.
Any person who has been disqualified
by the Secretary from participating in
any horse show, horse exhibition, horse
sale, or horse auction shall not show,
exhibit, or enter any horse, directly or
indirectly through any agent, employee,
corporation, partnership, or other
device, and shall not judge, manage, or
otherwise participate in events covered
by the Act within the period during
which the disqualification is in effect.
§ 11.5
Appeal of inspection report.
Any horse owner, trainer, exhibitor,
custodian or transporter may appeal all
or part of the inspection findings in an
inspection report to the Administrator.
To appeal, the horse owner, trainer,
exhibitor, custodian or transporter must
send a written statement contesting the
inspection finding(s) and include any
documentation or other information in
support of the appeal. To receive
consideration, the appeal must be
received 1 by the Administrator,
preferably by electronic mail, to
horseprotection@usda.gov within 21
business days of the date the horse
owner, trainer, exhibitor, custodian or
transporter received the inspection
report that is the subject of the appeal.
The Administrator will send a final
decision, in writing via either electronic
mail or postal mail, to the person
requesting the appeal.
§ 11.6
Prohibitions concerning exhibitors.
(a) General prohibitions for all horses.
Notwithstanding the provisions of this
section, no action device, method,
practice, or substance shall be used with
1 Appeals may also be sent by U.S. mail to APHIS,
2150 Centre Ave, Bldg. B, MS 3W–11, Fort Collins,
CO 80547.
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
respect to any horse at any horse show,
horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse
auction if such use causes or can
reasonably be expected to cause such
horse to be sore or is otherwise used to
mask previous and/or ongoing soring.
(b) Prohibited devices, equipment,
and practices. The use of the following
action devices, equipment, or practices
on any horse, at any horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction is
prohibited:
(1) More than one action device
permitted under this section on any
limb of a horse.
(2) All beads, bangles, rollers, and
similar devices, with the exception of
rollers made of lignum vitae
(hardwood), aluminum, or stainless
steel, with individual rollers of uniform
size, weight and configuration, provided
each such device may not weigh more
than 6 ounces, including the weight of
the fastener.
(3) Chains weighing more than 6
ounces each, including the weight of the
fastener.
(4) Chains with links that are not of
uniform size, weight, and configuration;
and chains that have twisted links or
double links.
(5) Chains that have drop links on any
horse that is being ridden, worked on a
lead, or otherwise worked out or moved
about.
(6) Chains or lignum vitae, stainless
steel, or aluminum rollers which are not
smooth and free of protrusions,
projections, rust, corrosion, or rough or
sharp edges.
(7) Boots, collars, or any other
devices, with protrusions or swellings,
or rigid, rough, or sharp edges, seams or
any other abrasive or abusive surface
that may contact a horse’s leg.
(8) Boots, collars, or any other devices
that weigh more than 6 ounces, except
for soft rubber or soft leather bell boots
and/or quarter boots that are used as
protective devices.
(9) Pads or other devices on horses up
to 2 years old that elevate or change the
angle of such horses’ hooves in excess
of 1 inch at the heel.
(10) Any weight on horses up to 2
years old, except a keg or similar
conventional horseshoe, and any
horseshoe on horses up to 2 years old
that weighs more than 16 ounces.
(11) Artificial extension of the toe
length, whether accomplished with
pads, acrylics, or any other material or
combinations thereof, that exceeds 50
percent of the natural hoof length, as
measured from the coronet band, at the
center of the front pastern along the
front of the hoof wall, to the distal
portion of the hoof wall at the tip of the
toe. The artificial extension shall be
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
measured from the distal portion of the
hoof wall at the tip of the toe at a 90degree angle to the proximal (foot/hoof)
surface of the shoe.
(12) Toe length that does not exceed
the height of the heel by 1 inch or more.
The length of the toe shall be measured
from the coronet band, at the center of
the front pastern along the front of the
hoof wall to the ground. The heel shall
be measured from the coronet band, at
the most lateral portion of the pastern,
at a 90-degree angle to the ground, not
including normal caulks at the rear of a
horseshoe that do not exceed 3⁄4 inch in
length. That portion of caulk at the rear
of a horseshoe in excess of 3⁄4 of an inch
shall be added to the height of the heel
in determining the heel/toe ratio.
(13) Pads that are not made of leather,
plastic, or a similar pliant material.
(14) Any object or material inserted
between the pad and the hoof other than
acceptable hoof packing, which
includes pine tar, oakum, live rubber,
sponge rubber, silicone, commercial
hoof packing, or other substances used
to maintain adequate frog pressure or
sole consistency. Acrylic and other
hardening substances are prohibited as
hoof packing.
(15) Single or double rocker-bars on
the bottom surface of horseshoes which
extend more than 1⁄2 inches back from
the point of the toe, or which would
cause, or could reasonably be expected
to cause, an unsteadiness of stance in
the horse with resulting muscle and
tendon strain due to the horse’s weight
and balance being focused upon a small
fulcrum point.
(16) Metal hoof bands, such as used
to anchor or strengthen pads and shoes,
placed less than 1⁄2 inch below the
coronet band.
(17) Metal hoof bands that can be
easily and quickly loosened or tightened
by hand, by means such as, but not
limited to, a wing-nut or similar
fastener.
(18) Any action device or any other
device that strikes the coronet band of
the foot of the horse except for soft
rubber or soft leather bell boots that are
used as protective devices.
(19) Shoeing a horse, trimming a
horse’s hoof, or paring the frog or sole
in a manner that will cause such horse
to suffer, or can reasonably be expected
to cause such horse to suffer pain or
distress, inflammation, or lameness
when walking, trotting, or otherwise
moving. Bruising of the hoof or any
other method of pressure shoeing is also
prohibited.
(20) Lead or other weights attached to
the outside of the hoof wall, the outside
surface of the horseshoe, or any portion
of the pad except the bottom surface
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
within the horseshoe. Pads may not be
hollowed out for the purpose of
inserting or affixing weights, and
weights may not extend below the
bearing surface of the shoe. Hollow
shoes or artificial extensions filled with
mercury or similar substances are
prohibited.
(21) The use of whips, cigarette
smoke, or other stewarding actions or
paraphernalia to distract a horse or to
otherwise impede the inspection
process during an examination,
including but not limited to, holding the
reins less than 18 inches from the bit
shank is prohibited.
(22) The forelimbs and hindlimbs of
the horse must be free of dermatologic
conditions that are indicative of soring.
Examples of such dermatologic
conditions include, but are not limited
to, irritation, moisture, edema, swelling,
redness, epidermal thickening, loss of
hair (patchy or diffuse) or other
evidence of inflammation. Any horse
found to have one or more of the
dermatologic conditions set forth herein
shall be presumed to be ‘‘sore’’ and be
subject to all prohibitions of section 6
(15 U.S.C. 1825) of the Act.
(c) Specific prohibitions for Tennessee
Walking Horses and racking horses. (1)
All action devices are prohibited on any
Tennessee Walking Horse or racking
horse at any horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction.
(2) All artificial extension of the toe
length is prohibited on any Tennessee
Walking Horse or racking horse at any
horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale,
or horse auction, unless such horse has
been prescribed and is receiving
therapeutic treatment using artificial
extension of the toe length as approved
in writing by a licensed veterinarian.
(3) All pads and wedges are
prohibited on any Tennessee Walking
Horse or racking horse at any horse
show, exhibition, sale, or auction,
unless such horse has been prescribed
and is receiving therapeutic treatment
using pads or wedges as approved in
writing by a licensed veterinarian.
(4) All substances are prohibited on
the extremities above the hoof of any
Tennessee Walking Horse or racking
horse entered for the purpose of being
shown or exhibited, sold, auctioned, or
offered for sale in or on the grounds of
any horse show, horse exhibition, or
horse sale or auction.
(d) Competition restrictions—2-Yearold horses. Horse show or horse
exhibition workouts or performances of
2-year-old Tennessee Walking Horses
and racking horses and working
exhibitions of 2-year-old Tennessee
Walking Horses and racking horses
(horses eligible to be shown or exhibited
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
56957
in 2-year-old classes) at horse sales or
horse auctions that exceed a total of 10
minutes continuous workout or
performance without a minimum 5minute rest period between the first
such 10-minute period and the second
such 10-minute period, and, more than
two such 10-minute periods per
performance, class, or workout are
prohibited.
(e) Information requirements—horse
related. Failing to provide information
or providing any false or misleading
information required by the Act or
regulations or requested by APHIS
representatives or HPIs appointed by
management, by any person that enters,
owns, trains, shows, exhibits, transports
or sells or has custody of, or direction
or control over any horse shown,
exhibited, sold, or auctioned or entered
for the purpose of being shown,
exhibited, sold, or auctioned at any
horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale,
or horse auction is prohibited and may
result in disqualification under § 11.13.
Such information shall include, but is
not limited to: Information concerning
the name, any applicable registration
name and number, markings, sex, age,
and legal ownership of the horse; the
name and address of the horse’s training
and/or stabling facilities; the name and
address of the owner, trainer, rider,
custodian, any other exhibitor, or other
legal entity bearing responsibility for the
horse; the class in which the horse is
entered or shown; the exhibitor
identification number; and, any other
information reasonably related to the
identification, ownership, control,
direction, or supervision of any such
horse.
§ 11.7
[Reserved]
§ 11.8
Inspection and detention of horses.
(a) For the purpose of effective
enforcement of the Act: Each horse
owner, exhibitor, trainer, or other
person having custody of, or
responsibility for, any horse at any
horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale,
or horse auction, shall allow any APHIS
representative or HPI appointed by
management to inspect such horse at all
reasonable times and places the APHIS
representative or HPI may designate.
Such inspections may be required of
any horse which is stabled, loaded on a
trailer, being prepared for show,
exhibition, or sale or auction, being
exercised or otherwise on the grounds
of, or present at, any horse show, horse
exhibition, or horse sale or horse
auction, whether or not such horse has
or has not been shown, exhibited, or
sold or auctioned, or has or has not been
entered for the purpose of being shown
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
56958
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
or exhibited or offered for sale or
auction at any such horse show, horse
exhibition, or horse sale or horse
auction. APHIS representatives and
HPIs appointed by management will not
generally or routinely delay or interrupt
actual individual classes or
performances at horse shows, horse
exhibitions, or horse sales or auctions
for the purpose of examining horses, but
they may do so in extraordinary
situations, such as but not limited to,
lack of proper facilities for inspection,
refusal of management to cooperate with
inspection efforts, reason to believe that
failure to immediately perform
inspection may result in the loss,
removal, or masking of any evidence of
a violation of the Act or the regulations,
or a request by management that such
inspections be performed by an APHIS
representative.
(b) When any APHIS representative or
HPI appointed by management notifies
the owner, exhibitor, trainer, or other
person having custody of or
responsibility for a horse at any horse
show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or
horse auction that APHIS desires to
inspect such horse, it shall not be
moved from the horse show, horse
exhibition, or horse sale or horse
auction until such inspection has been
completed and the horse has been
released by an APHIS representative.
(c) For the purpose of inspection,
testing, or taking of evidence, APHIS
representatives may detain for a period
not to exceed 24 hours any horse, at any
horse show, horse exhibition, or horse
sale or horse auction, which is sore or
which an APHIS representative has
probable cause to believe is sore. Such
detained horse may be marked for
identification and any such identifying
markings shall not be removed by any
person other than an APHIS
representative.
(d) Detained horses shall be kept
under the supervision of an APHIS
representative or secured under an
official USDA seal or seals in a horse
stall, horse trailer, or other facility to
which access shall be limited. It shall be
the policy of APHIS to have at least one
representative present in the immediate
detention area when a horse is being
held in detention. The official USDA
seal or seals may not be broken or
removed by any person other than an
APHIS representative, unless:
(1) The life or well-being of the
detained horse is immediately
endangered by fire, flood, windstorm, or
other dire circumstances that are
beyond human control.
(2) The detained horse is in need of
such immediate veterinary attention
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
that its life may be in peril before an
APHIS representative can be located.
(3) The horse has been detained for a
maximum 24-hour detention period,
and an APHIS representative is not
available to release the horse.
(e) The owner, exhibitor, trainer, or
other person having custody of or
responsibility for any horse detained by
APHIS for further inspection, testing, or
the taking of evidence shall be allowed
to feed, water, and provide other normal
custodial and maintenance care, such as
walking, grooming, etc., for such
detained horse: Provided, That:
(1) Such feeding, watering, and other
normal custodial and maintenance care
of the detained horse is rendered under
the direct supervision of an APHIS
representative.
(2) Any non-emergency veterinary
care of the detained horse requiring the
use, application, or injection of any
drugs or other medication for
therapeutic or other purposes is
rendered by a Doctor of Veterinary
Medicine in the presence of an APHIS
representative and, the identity and
dosage of the drug or other medication
used, applied, or injected and its
purpose is furnished in writing to the
APHIS representative prior to such use,
application, or injection by the Doctor of
Veterinary Medicine attending a horse.
The use, application, or injection of
such drug or other medication must be
approved by the APHIS representative.
(f) It shall be the policy of an APHIS
representative or HPI appointed by
management to inform the owner,
trainer, exhibitor, or other person
having immediate custody of or
responsibility for any horse allegedly
found to be in violation of the Act or the
regulations of such alleged violation or
violations before the horse is released as
determined by an APHIS representative.
(g) The owner, trainer, exhibitor, or
other person having immediate custody
of or responsibility for any horse or
horses that an APHIS representative
determines shall be detained for
inspection, testing, or taking of evidence
pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section
shall be informed after such
determination is made and shall allow
said horse to be immediately put under
the supervisory custody of APHIS or
secured under official USDA seal as
provided in paragraph (d) of this section
until the completion of such inspection,
testing, or gathering of evidence, or until
the 24-hour detention period expires.
(h) The owner, trainer, exhibitor, or
other person having custody of or
responsibility for any horse allegedly
found to be in violation of the Act or
regulations, and who has been informed
of such alleged violation by an APHIS
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
representative or HPI appointed by
management as stated in paragraph (f) of
this section, may request re-inspection
and testing of said horse within a 24hour period: Provided, That:
(1) Such request is made to an APHIS
representative immediately after the
horse has been inspected by an APHIS
representative or HPI appointed by
management and before such horse has
been removed from the inspection
facilities;
(2) An APHIS representative
determines that sufficient cause for reinspection and testing exists; and
(3) The horse is maintained under
APHIS supervisory custody as
prescribed in paragraph (d) of this
section until such re-inspection and
testing has been completed.
(i) The owner, exhibitor, trainer, or
other person having custody of, or
responsibility for, any horse being
inspected shall render such assistance,
as the APHIS representative or HPI
appointed by management may request,
for the purposes of such inspection.
§ 11.9
Access to premises and records.
(a) Management. (1) The management
of any horse show, horse exhibition, or
horse sale or auction shall, without fee,
charge, assessment, or other
compensation, provide APHIS
representatives and HPIs appointed by
management with unlimited access to
the grandstands, sale ring, barns,
stables, grounds, offices, and all other
areas of any horse show, horse
exhibition, or horse sale or auction,
including any adjacent areas under their
direction, control, or supervision for the
purpose of inspecting any horses, or any
records required to be kept by regulation
or otherwise maintained.
(2) The management of any horse
show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or
auction shall, without fee, charge,
assessment, or other compensation,
provide APHIS representatives and HPIs
appointed by management with an
adequate, safe, and accessible area for
the visual inspection and observation of
horses.
(b) Exhibitors. (1) Each horse owner,
trainer, exhibitor, or other person
having custody of or responsibility for
any horse at any horse show, horse
exhibition, or horse sale or auction
shall, without fee, charge, assessment,
or other compensation, admit any
APHIS representatives and HPIs
appointed by management to all areas of
barns, compounds, horse vans, horse
trailers, stables, stalls, paddocks, or
other show, exhibition, or sale or
auction grounds or related areas at any
horse show, horse exhibition, or horse
sale or auction, for the purpose of
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
inspecting any such horse, at any and
all times.
(2) Each owner, trainer, exhibitor, or
other person having custody of or
responsibility for, any horse at any
horse show, horse exhibition, or horse
sale or auction shall promptly present
his or her horse for inspection upon
notification, orally or in writing, by any
APHIS representatives or HPIs
appointed by the management that said
horse has been selected for inspection
for the purpose of determining whether
such horse is in compliance with the
Act and regulations.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 11.10 Inspection space and facility
requirements.
§ 11.11–11.12
(a) The management of every horse
show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or
horse auction shall provide, without fee,
charge, assessment, or other
compensation, sufficient space and
facilities for APHIS representatives and
HPIs appointed by management to carry
out their duties under the Act and
regulations when requested to do so by
APHIS representatives or HPIs
appointed by management, whether or
not management has received prior
notification or otherwise knows that
such show, exhibition, sale, or auction
may be inspected by APHIS. With
respect to such space and facilities, it
shall be the responsibility of
management to provide at least the
following:
(1) Sufficient, well-lit space in a
convenient location to the horse show,
horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse
auction arena, acceptable to APHIS
representatives and HPIs appointed by
management, in which horses may be
inspected.
(2) Protection from the elements of
nature, such as rain, snow, sleet, hail,
windstorm, etc.
(3) A means to control crowds or
onlookers in order that APHIS
representatives and HPIs appointed by
management may carry out their duties
safely and without interference.
(4) An accessible, reliable, and
convenient 110-volt electrical power
source available at the show, exhibition,
sale, or auction site.
(5) Appropriate areas adjacent to the
inspection area for designated horses to
wait before and after inspection, and an
area to be used for detention of horses.
(b) Other than the persons noted
below, only a management
representative, HPIs appointed by
management, and APHIS
representatives are allowed in the
warm-up and inspection areas. Each
horse in the inspection area may only be
accompanied by the person having
immediate custody of or responsibility
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
for the horse. Inspected horses shall be
held in a designated area under the
observation by a management
representative and shall not be
permitted to leave the designated area
before showing. Each horse in the
designated warm-up area may be
accompanied by no more than three
individuals, including the person
having immediate custody of or
responsibility for the horse, the trainer,
and the rider. No other persons are
allowed in the warm-up or inspection
areas without prior approval from an
APHIS representative or HPI appointed
by management.
[Reserved]
§ 11.13 Responsibilities and liabilities of
management.
(a) Horse shows, horse exhibitions,
horse sales, and horse auctions at which
the management does not utilize an
APHIS representative or HPI. The
management of any horse show,
exhibition, sale or auction which does
not utilize an APHIS representative or
appoint an HPI shall be responsible for
identifying all horses that are sore or
otherwise in violation of the Act or
regulations, and shall disqualify or
prohibit any horses which are sore or
otherwise in violation of the Act or
regulations from participating or
competing in any horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction.
Horses entered for sale or auction at a
horse sale or horse auction must be
inspected and, as appropriate, identified
as sore or otherwise in violation of the
Act or regulations prior to the sale or
auction and, as required by the Act,
prohibited from entering the sale or
auction ring. Sore horses or horses
otherwise in violation of the Act or
regulations that have been entered in a
horse show or horse exhibition for the
purpose of show or exhibition must be
identified and disqualified prior to the
show or exhibition. Any horses found to
be sore or otherwise in violation of the
Act or regulations during actual
participation in the show or exhibition,
must be removed from further
participation immediately (e.g., prior to
the horse placing in the class or the
completion of the exhibition). All horses
that placed first in each class or event
at any horse show or horse exhibition
shall be inspected after being shown or
exhibited to determine if such horses
are sore or otherwise in violation of the
Act or regulations.
(b) Horse shows, horse exhibitions,
horse sales, and horse auctions at which
the management utilizes an APHIS
representative or HPI appointed by
management. (1) The management of
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
56959
any horse show, horse exhibition, horse
sale, or horse auction that utilizes an
APHIS representative or HPI appointed
by management shall not take any
action which will interfere with or
influence the APHIS representative or
HPI appointed by management in
carrying out their duties.
(2) The management of any horse
show, exhibition, sale, or auction that
utilizes an HPI to inspect horses shall
appoint at least 2 HPIs when more than
100 horses are entered.
(3) The management of any horse
show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or
horse auction that utilizes APHIS
representatives or HPIs to inspect horses
shall have at least one farrier physically
present if more than 100 horses are
entered in the event. If 100 or fewer
horses are entered in the horse show,
horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse
auction, the management shall, at
minimum, have a farrier on call within
the local area to be present, if requested
by an APHIS representative or HPI
appointed by management.
(4) After an APHIS representative or
HPI appointed by management has
completed inspection, management
must prevent tampering with any part of
a horse’s limbs or hooves in such a way
that could cause a horse to be sore.
(5) If management is dissatisfied with
the performance of a particular HPI,
management should promptly notify, in
writing, the Administrator as to why
management believes the performance
of the HPI was inadequate or otherwise
unsatisfactory.
(6) Management that utilizes an
APHIS representative or HPI shall
immediately disqualify or prohibit from
showing, exhibition, sale, offering for
sale, or auction of any horse identified
by the APHIS representative or HPI to
be sore or otherwise in violation of the
Act or regulations and any horse
otherwise known by management to be
sore or otherwise in violation of the Act
or regulations. Should management fail
to disqualify or prohibit from being
shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned any
such horse, the management is
responsible for any liabilities arising
from the showing, exhibition, sale, or
auction of said horses.
(c) Other responsibilities of
management at horse shows, horse
exhibitions, horse sales, and horse
auctions. (1) Ensure that no devices or
substances prohibited under § 11.6 are
present in the warm-up area.
(2) Review the orders of the Secretary
disqualifying persons from showing or
exhibiting any horse, or judging or
managing any horse show, exhibition,
sale, or auction and disallow the
participation of any such person in any
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
56960
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction,
for the duration of the period of
disqualification.
(3) Verify the identity of all horses
entered in the horse show, exhibition,
sale, or auction. Acceptable methods of
identification are as follows:
(i) A description sufficient to identify
the horse, including, but not limited to,
name, age, breed, color, gender,
distinctive markings, and unique and
permanent forms of identification when
present (e.g., brands, tattoos, cowlicks,
or blemishes); or
(ii) Electronic identification that
complies with ISO standards; or
(iii) An equine passport issued by a
State government and accepted in the
government of the State in which the
horse show, horse exhibition, or horse
sale or auction will occur.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 11.14 Records required and disposition
thereof.
(a) The management of any horse
show, exhibition, sale, or auction that
contains Tennessee Walking Horses or
racking horses shall maintain for a
minimum of 90 days following the
closing date of a horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction
all records containing:
(1) The dates and place of the horse
show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or
horse auction.
(2) The name and address (including
street address or post office box number,
and ZIP Code) of the sponsoring
organization.
(3) The name and address of the horse
show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or
horse auction management.
(4) The name and address (including
street address or post office box number,
and ZIP Code) of each show judge.
(5) A copy of each class or sale sheet
containing the names of horses, the
registration number of the horse (if
applicable), the names and addresses
(including street address or post office
box number, and ZIP Code) of the horse
owner, the exhibition number and class
number unique to each horse, or sale
number assigned to each horse, the
show class or sale lot number, and the
name and address (including street
address or post office box number, and
ZIP Code) of the person paying the entry
fee and entering the horse in a horse
show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or
horse auction.
(6) A copy of the official horse show,
horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse
auction program, if any such program
has been prepared.
(7) A copy of the official judge’s or
scoring card(s) for each horse show class
containing Tennessee Walking Horses
and racking horses to include the place
each horse finished in the class.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
(8) The name and any applicable
registration name and number of each
horse, as well as the names and
addresses (including street address or
post office box number, and ZIP Code)
of the owner, the trainer, the custodian,
the exhibitor and the location (including
street address and ZIP Code) of the
home barn or other facility where the
horse is stabled.
(9) The name, exhibition number and
class number, or assigned sale number,
and the registration name and number
(if applicable) for each horse
disqualified or prohibited by
management from being shown,
exhibited, sold or auctioned, and the
reasons for such action.
(10) Name and address (including
street address or post office box number,
and ZIP Code) of the person designated
by the management to maintain the
records required by this section.
(11) The name and address of each
HPI appointed by management to
conduct inspections at the event, if an
HPI was appointed.
(b) The management of any horse
show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or
horse auction that allows any horse to
be shown, exhibited or sold with
devices, pads, substances, applications,
or other items restricted under § 11.6 for
therapeutic treatment must maintain the
following information for each horse
receiving the therapeutic treatment for a
period of at least 90 days following the
closing date of a show, exhibition, sale,
or auction:
(1) The name, exhibition number and
class number, or assigned sale number,
and the registration name and number
(if applicable) for each horse receiving
therapeutic treatment.
(2) The name, address (including
street address and ZIP Code), and phone
number of the licensed veterinarian
providing the therapeutic treatment.
(3) The state and license number of
the licensed veterinarian providing the
therapeutic treatment.
(4) The name and address (including
street address and ZIP Code) and phone
number of the licensed veterinarian’s
business.
(5) A description of the disease,
injury, or disorder for which the
treatment is given, to include at
minimum:
(i) Start date of treatment.
(ii) Prescription or specific design and
prescription (for example, as to the
height, weight, and material of a
therapeutic pad) of the treatment plan.
(iii) Expected length of treatment
period and an estimation of when
treatment will be discontinued.
PO 00000
Frm 00038
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
§ 11.15
Inspection of records.
The management of any horse show,
horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse
auction shall permit any APHIS
representative or HPI appointed by
management, upon request, to examine
and make copies of any and all records
pertaining to any horse that are required
in the regulations or otherwise
maintained, during business hours, or
such other times as may be mutually
agreed upon. A room, table, or other
facilities necessary for proper
examination and copying of such
records shall be made available to the
APHIS representative or HPI appointed
by management.
§ 11.16
Reporting by management.
(a) At least 30 days before any horse
show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or
horse auction is scheduled to begin,
management must notify the
Administrator of such event by mail,
fax, or electronic means such as email.
Such notification must include:
(1) The name and address (including
street address and ZIP Code) of the
horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.
(2) The name, address, phone number
(and email address, if available) of the
event manager.
(3) The date(s) of the horse show,
horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse
auction.
(4) A copy of the official horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction program, if
any such program has been prepared.
(5) Anticipated or known number of
entries.
(6) Whether management requests an
APHIS representative to perform
inspections at the horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction;
or, if not, whether management has
chosen and appointed an HPI to inspect
horses, or will have no inspector. If
neither an APHIS representative nor an
HPI is available on the date of the event,
event management may request a
variance. Variances must be submitted
by mail, fax, or electronic means such
as email to the Deputy Administrator of
Animal Care at least 15 days before the
event and state the reason for requesting
the variance.
(7) Whether management will allow
any horse to be shown, exhibited or sold
with prohibitions under section § 11.6
for therapeutic treatment.
(b) At least 15 days before any horse
show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or
horse auction is scheduled to begin, the
management of any such horse show,
horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse
auction must notify the Administrator of
any changes to the information required
under § 11.16(a) by mail, fax, or
electronic means such as email.
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
(c) Within 5 days following the
conclusion of any horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction
that contains Tennessee Walking Horses
or racking horses, the management of
such show, exhibition, sale or auction
shall submit to the Administrator the
information required to be maintained
by § 11.14 by mail, fax, or electronic
means such as email. Event information
already submitted to APHIS under
paragraph (a) of this section does not
need to be sent again.
(d) Within 5 days following the
conclusion of any horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction
which does not include Tennessee
Walking Horses or racking horses, the
management of such show, exhibition,
sale or auction shall submit to the
Administrator the following
information: Any case where a horse
was prohibited by management from
being shown, exhibited, sold or
auctioned because it was found to be
sore or otherwise in violation of the Act
or regulations. Information will include
at a minimum the name, exhibition
number and class number, or assigned
sale number, and the registration name
and number (if applicable) for each
horse disqualified or prohibited by
management from being shown,
exhibited, sold or auctioned, and the
reason(s) for such action.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
§ 11.17 Requirements concerning persons
involved in transportation of certain horses.
Each person who ships, transports, or
otherwise moves, or delivers or receives
for movement, any horse with reason to
believe such horse may be shown,
exhibited, sold or auctioned at any
horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction,
shall allow and assist in the inspection
of such horse at any such horse show,
horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse
auction to determine compliance with
the Act and regulations and shall
furnish to any APHIS representative or
HPI appointed by management upon
their request the following information:
(a) Name and address (including
street address or post office box number,
and ZIP Code) of the horse owner and
of the shipper, if different from the
owner or trainer;
(b) Name and address (including
street address or post office box number,
and ZIP Code) of the horse trainer;
(c) Name and address (including
street address or post office box number,
and ZIP Code) of the carrier transporting
the horse, and of the driver of the means
of conveyance used;
(d) Origin of the shipment and date
thereof; and
(e) Destination of shipment.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
§ 11.18
Utilization of inspectors.
(a) The management of any horse
show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or
horse auction may elect to utilize an
APHIS representative or HPI to detect
and diagnose horses which are sore or
to otherwise inspect horses for
compliance with the Act or regulations.
(b) If management elects to utilize an
HPI to detect and diagnose horses which
are sore or to otherwise inspect horses
for compliance with the Act or
regulations, the HPI must currently be
authorized by APHIS pursuant to
§ 11.19 to perform this function.
(c) The management of any horse
show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or
horse auction shall not utilize any
person to detect and diagnose horses
which are sore or to otherwise inspect
horses for the purpose of determining
compliance with the Act and
regulations, if that person has not been
authorized by APHIS or if that person
has been disqualified by the Secretary,
after notice and opportunity for a
hearing, in accordance with section 4
(15 U.S.C. 1823) of the Act, to make
such detection, diagnosis, or inspection.
(d) After [effective date of the final
rule], only APHIS representatives and
HPIs as defined in § 11.1 shall be
utilized by management to detect and
diagnose horses which are sore or
otherwise inspect horses for compliance
with the Act or regulations. Any other
persons seeking to continue inspecting
or to become inspectors after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE]
must apply to APHIS and meet
eligibility qualifications for
authorization included in § 11.19.
§ 11.19 Authorization and training of Horse
Protection Inspectors.
APHIS will authorize HPIs after the
successful completion of training by
APHIS. The management of any horse
show, exhibition, sale, or auction may
appoint HPIs holding a current
authorization to detect and diagnose
horses that are sore or to otherwise
inspect horses and any records
pertaining to such horses for the
purposes of determining compliance
with the Act and regulations.
(a) Authorization process. All persons
wishing to become HPIs must submit an
application to APHIS. Guidance
regarding submitting applications is
found on the APHIS Horse Protection
website. Applicants will be required to
show that they meet the Tier 1
qualifications in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section in order for the application to be
evaluated. If the applicant meets the
qualifications in paragraph (a)(1) of the
section, the applicant will be further
evaluated based on the Tier 2
PO 00000
Frm 00039
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 4702
56961
qualifications in paragraph (a)(2) of this
section. In order for APHIS to consider
the applicant as a candidate to be an
HPI, all qualifications must be met.
(1) Tier 1 qualifications. The
applicant must be a licensed
veterinarian, except that veterinary
technicians and persons employed by
State and local government agencies to
enforce laws or regulations pertaining to
animal welfare may also be authorized
if APHIS determines that there is an
insufficient pool of veterinarians among
current HPIs and applicants to be HPIs.
(2) Tier 2 qualifications. (i) The
applicant must demonstrate sufficient
knowledge and experience of equine
husbandry and science and applicable
principles of equine science, welfare,
care, and health for APHIS to determine
that the applicant can consistently
identify equine soring and soring
practices.
(ii) The applicant must not have been
found to have violated any provision of
the Act or the regulations in this part
occurring after July 13, 1976, or have
been assessed any civil penalty, or have
been the subject of a disqualification
order in any proceeding involving an
alleged violation of the Act or
regulations occurring after July 13, 1976.
(iii) The applicant, as well as the
applicant’s immediate family and any
person from whom the applicant
receives a financial benefit, must not
participate in the showing, exhibition,
sale, or auction of horses or act as a
judge or farrier, or be an agent of
management.
(iv) The applicant must not have been
disqualified by the Secretary from
performing diagnosis, detection, and
inspection under the Act.
(v) The applicant must not have acted
in a manner that calls into question the
applicant’s honesty, professional
integrity, reputation, practices, and
reliability relative to possible
authorization as an HPI. APHIS will
base this on a review of:
(A) Criminal conviction records, if
any, indicating that the applicant may
lack the honesty, integrity, and
reliability to appropriately and
effectively perform HPI duties.
(B) Official records of the person’s
actions while participating in Federal,
State, or local veterinary programs when
those actions reflect on the honesty,
reputation, integrity, and reliability of
the applicant.
(C) Judicial determinations in any
type of litigation adversely reflecting on
the honesty, reputation, integrity, and
reliability of the applicant.
(D) Any other evidence reflecting on
the honesty, reputation, integrity, and
reliability of the applicant.
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
56962
Federal Register / Vol. 88, No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 / Proposed Rules
(b) Training. All applicants selected
as candidates will complete a formal
training program administered by
APHIS prior to authorization. Continual
training as APHIS determines to be
necessary is a condition of maintaining
authorization to inspect horses.
(c) Listing. APHIS will maintain a list
of all HPIs on the APHIS Horse
Protection website. The list is also
available by contacting APHIS by email
or U.S. mail.1
(d) Denial of an HPI application and
disqualification of HPIs—(1) Denial.
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with PROPOSALS2
1 Send email to horseprotection@usda.gov, or U.S.
mail to USDA/APHIS/AC, 2150 Centre Ave.
Building B, Mailstop 3W11, Fort Collins, CO
80526–8117.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
19:21 Aug 18, 2023
Jkt 259001
APHIS may deny an application for
authorization of an HPI for any of the
reasons outlined in paragraph (a) of this
section. In such instances, the applicant
shall be provided written notification of
the grounds for the denial. The
applicant may appeal the decision, in
writing, within 30 days after receiving
the written denial notice. The appeal
must state all of the facts and reasons
that the person wants the Administrator
to consider in deciding the appeal. As
soon as practicable, the Administrator
will grant or deny the appeal, in writing,
stating the reasons for the decision.
(2) Disqualification. APHIS may
permanently disqualify any HPI who
fails to inspect horses in accordance
PO 00000
Frm 00040
Fmt 4701
Sfmt 9990
with the procedures prescribed by
APHIS or otherwise fails to perform
duties necessary for APHIS to enforce
the Act and regulations, after notice and
opportunity for a hearing. Requests for
hearings and the hearings themselves
shall be in accordance with the Uniform
Rules of Practice for the Department of
Agriculture in subpart H of part 1,
subtitle A, of 7 CFR.
Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of
August 2023.
Jennifer Moffitt,
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory
Programs.
[FR Doc. 2023–17814 Filed 8–17–23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
E:\FR\FM\21AUP2.SGM
21AUP2
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 88, Number 160 (Monday, August 21, 2023)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 56924-56962]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2023-17814]
[[Page 56923]]
Vol. 88
Monday,
No. 160
August 21, 2023
Part II
Department of Agriculture
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
9 CFR Part 11
Horse Protection; Proposed Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 88 , No. 160 / Monday, August 21, 2023 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 56924]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 11
[Docket No. APHIS-2022-0004]
RIN 0579-AE70
Horse Protection
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Proposed rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We propose to amend the horse protection regulations to
provide that the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS)
will screen, train, and authorize qualified persons to conduct
inspections at horse shows, horse exhibitions, horse sales, and horse
auctions to ensure compliance with the Horse Protection Act (the Act).
The proposed actions are intended to strengthen regulatory requirements
to protect horses from the practice of soring and eliminate unfair
competition as the Act requires.
DATES: We will consider all comments that we receive on or before
October 20, 2023.
ADDRESSES: You may submit comments by either of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov.
Enter APHIS-2022-0004 in the Search field. Select the Documents tab,
then select the Comment button in the list of documents.
Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: Send your comment to
Docket No. APHIS-2022-0004, Regulatory Analysis and Development, PPD,
APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road, Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737-
1238.
Supporting documents and any comments we receive on this docket may
be viewed at www.regulations.gov or in our reading room, which is
located in Room 1620 of the USDA South Building, 14th Street and
Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC. Normal reading room hours are 8
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, except holidays. To be sure
someone is there to help you, please call (202) 799-7039 before coming.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Aaron Rhyner, DVM, Assistant
Director, USDA-APHIS-Animal Care, 2150 Centre Ave., Building B,
Mailstop 3W11, Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117; [email protected];
(970) 494-7484.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Under the Horse Protection Act (HPA, or the Act, 15 U.S.C. 1821 et
seq.), the Secretary of Agriculture is authorized to promulgate
regulations to prohibit the movement, showing, exhibition, or sale of
sore horses.
The Secretary has delegated responsibility for administering the
Act to the Administrator of the U.S. Department of Agriculture's (USDA)
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS). Within APHIS, the
responsibility for administering the Act has been delegated to the
Deputy Administrator for Animal Care. Regulations and standards
established under the Act are contained in 9 CFR part 11 (referred to
below as the regulations), and 9 CFR part 12 lists the rules of
practice governing administrative proceedings.
Section 2 of the Act, ``Definitions'' (15 U.S.C. 1821(3)), defines
a ``sore'' horse as follows:
``The term `sore' when used to describe a horse means that:
(A) An irritating or blistering agent has been applied, internally
or externally, by a person to any limb of a horse,
(B) Any burn, cut, or laceration has been inflicted by a person on
any limb of a horse,
(C) Any tack, nail, screw, or chemical agent has been injected by a
person into or used by a person on any limb of a horse, or
(D) Any other substance or device has been used by a person on any
limb of a horse or a person has engaged in a practice involving a
horse, and, as a result of such application, infliction, injection,
use, or practice, such horse suffers, or can reasonably be expected to
suffer, physical pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when
walking, trotting, or otherwise moving. . . .''
Soring has been used primarily in the training of Tennessee Walking
Horses and racking horses \1\ to produce an exaggerated gait in
competition. However, the HPA's prohibition against sored horses
participating in shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions applies to all
horse breeds.\2\ In addition to declaring that the soring of horses is
cruel and inhumane, Congress further found that the movement, showing,
exhibition, or sale of sore horses in intrastate commerce adversely
affects and burdens interstate and foreign commerce and creates unfair
competition.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The racking horse is a breed derived from the Tennessee
Walking Horse. It has a smooth, natural gait known as the ``rack,''
a four-beat gait with only one foot striking the ground at a time.
\2\ APHIS monitors the activities of other breeds and
investigates credible evidence of soring as warranted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Background of HPA Regulations
Under the HPA, it is unlawful for any person to show, exhibit,
sell, or transport sore horses, or to use any prohibited equipment,
device, paraphernalia, or substance in horse shows, exhibitions, sales,
or auctions. The HPA holds horse owners responsible should they allow
any such unlawful activities to occur, and requires management of horse
shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions (referred to as ``management''
or ``event management,'' below) to ensure that sore horses do not
compete or otherwise participate in these events.
After Congress passed the HPA in 1970, APHIS established
regulations to enforce the Act, including restrictions on the use of
certain equipment, devices, and substances. In accordance with the Act,
the regulations also include inspection provisions for detecting soring
in horses at shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions. In 1976, Congress
amended the Act \3\ to allow (but not require) the management of any
horse show, exhibition, or sale or auction to appoint persons qualified
to inspect horses for soreness. Section 4 of the Act (15 U.S.C 1823(c))
requires the Secretary of Agriculture to prescribe by regulation
requirements for any appointment by the management of a horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction of persons qualified to detect and
diagnose a horse which is sore or to otherwise inspect horses for the
purpose of enforcing the Act. Although the Act does not require that
management appoint a qualified person to inspect horses, if management
chooses not to do so it can be held liable for violating the Act if it
fails to disqualify a sore horse from participating in an event. If,
alternatively, event management appoints a qualified person to conduct
inspections, management may be held liable only for failing to
disqualify a sore horse after being notified by the qualified person or
by the Secretary of Agriculture, or his or her designee, that a horse
is sore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Public Law 94-360, 3, July 13, 1976, 90 Stat. 915; https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/STATUTE-90/pdf/STATUTE-90-Pg915.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responding to Congress' 1976 amendment to the Act, APHIS revised
the regulations (44 FR 1558-1566, January 5, 1979) to include
qualifications for ``Designated Qualified Persons,'' or DQPs, to serve
as third-party inspectors employed and compensated by the industry, as
well as provisions for certifying industry-run
[[Page 56925]]
programs to train and license them. These programs are currently
administered by Horse Industry Organizations, or HIOs.
HIOs currently fill several roles, both unregulated and regulated,
for horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions. For example, event
management may retain an HIO to assist with activities not regulated
under the Act, such as registering participants and coordinating event
logistics, supplying show judges, and promoting events. Regulated HIO
activities, in addition to training and licensing DQPs, include
assessing and enforcing minimum penalties for certain violations of the
regulations, conducting hearings for appeals of violations, and
reporting disciplinary actions against exhibitors, event management,
and DQPs to APHIS. Under the current regulatory regime, an HIO seeking
certification to train and license DQPs is required to submit to APHIS
a formal request in writing for certification of its DQP program and a
detailed outline of the program, in accordance with paragraph (b) of
Sec. 11.7 of the regulations.\4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Details of the current HIO certification process are
available in an APHIS-Animal Care Tech Note located at https://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_welfare/hp/downloads/tech-note-certification-requirements-dqp-programs-web-layout.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under the current Horse Protection program, DQPs are the primary
party responsible for inspecting and diagnosing soreness in horses. A
DQP is a qualified person who, under the provisions of 15 U.S.C.
1823(c) cited above, may be appointed by management of a horse show or
sale to detect horses that are sored, and to otherwise conduct
inspections for the purpose of enforcing the Act. DQPs may be
reimbursed for services directly by event management or by an HIO which
has contracted with them to provide inspections for events. DQPs must
have equine experience and meet professional qualifications as set
forth in Sec. 11.7(a).
DQP candidates must successfully complete a formal training program
developed and delivered by the HIO before they can be licensed, except
that veterinarians already accredited by USDA may be licensed as DQPs
without having to participate in formal training. Such veterinarians
must also be a member of the American Association of Equine
Practitioners, or large animal practitioners with substantial equine
experience, or knowledgeable of equine lameness as related to soring
and soring practices. Section 11.7(a)(1)(iii) states that veterinarians
having such knowledge might include those with a small animal practice
who own, train, judge, or show horses, or be Doctors of Veterinary
Medicine who teach equine related subjects in an accredited college or
school of veterinary medicine.
Alternatively, DQPs may be farriers, horse trainers, and other
knowledgeable individuals whose past experience and training would
qualify them for positions as HIO stewards or judges (or their
equivalent), provided that they are trained and licensed by an HIO or
association whose DQP program has been certified by APHIS. Of the 59
persons licensed as DQPs in fiscal year 2022, only one is a
veterinarian.
APHIS Veterinary Medical Officers (VMOs) may attend HPA-covered
events unannounced to oversee and conduct inspections and to otherwise
determine compliance with the Act. To ensure that horses are
disqualified when soreness is detected or when other violations are
found, APHIS also reviews reports by event management, HIOs, and DQPs,
and conducts audits of records maintained by certified DQP programs.
APHIS has several options for resolving a case in which the
evidence substantiates that an alleged violation has occurred. These
include issuing official warnings to those involved in the alleged
violation, offering to resolve the case through a stipulated penalty,
and referring the case to the USDA Office of the General Counsel for
formal administrative action before the USDA Office of Administrative
Law Judges or referral to the U.S. Department of Justice.
Summary of Current Regulations
The current structure of the Horse Protection regulations in 9 CFR
parts 11 and 12 is summarized below.
Section 11.1, ``Definitions,'' lists the definitions for terms used
throughout part 11.
Section 11.2, ``Prohibitions concerning exhibitors,'' lists general
and specific prohibitions for any device, method, practice, or
substance used on any horse at any horse show, exhibition, or horse
sale or auction if such use causes or can reasonably be expected to
cause such horse to be sore.
In Sec. 11.2(a), the general prohibitions state that ``no chain,
boot, roller, collar, action device, nor any other device, method,
practice, or substance shall be used with respect to any horse at any
horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction if such use
causes or can reasonably be expected to cause such horse to be sore.''
Prohibitions regarding devices, equipment, or practices on any horse at
any horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or auction are listed in
paragraph (b) of Sec. 11.2. (We discuss the specific prohibitions
under ``Prohibitions Concerning Exhibitors'' below.)
Paragraph (c) prohibits all substances on the extremities above the
hoof of any Tennessee Walking Horse or racking horse while being shown,
exhibited, or offered for sale at any horse show, exhibition, or horse
sale or auction, except lubricants such as glycerin, petrolatum, and
mineral oil, or mixtures. Lubricants can only be applied after the
horse has been inspected by management or by a DQP, and lubricants that
will be applied must be made available to APHIS personnel for
inspection and sampling as deemed necessary.
Paragraph (d) provides specific requirements for rest periods
during horse show and horse exhibition workouts or performances for 2-
year-old Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses, and working
exhibitions for 2-year-old Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses
at sales or auctions.
In paragraph (e) of Sec. 11.2, failure to provide information or
providing any false or misleading information required by the Act or
regulations or requested by Department representatives, by any person
that owns, trains, shows, exhibits, or sells or has custody of, or
direction or control over any horse shown, exhibited, sold, or
auctioned or entered for the purpose of being shown, exhibited, sold,
or auctioned at any horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or auction,
is prohibited.
Under Sec. 11.3, ``Scar rule,'' \5\ horses that do not meet the
scar rule criteria are considered to be sore and are subject to all
prohibitions of the Act. Paragraph (a) of Sec. 11.3 states the
``anterior and anterior-lateral surfaces of the fore pasterns (extensor
surface)'' are required to ``be free of bilateral granulomas,\6\ other
bilateral pathological evidence of inflammation, and, other bilateral
evidence of abuse indicative of soring including, but not limited to,
excessive loss of hair.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The term ``scar rule'' refers generally to the presence of
visible lesions or other abnormalities on the horse's pasterns
suggesting that a horse has been subjected to soring. We discuss the
scar rule in detail in a later section titled ``Dermatologic Changes
and the Scar Rule.''
\6\ ``Granuloma'' is defined in the regulation as any one of a
rather large group of fairly distinctive focal lesions that are
formed as a result of inflammatory reactions caused by biological,
chemical, or physical agents. This regulatory definition covers a
considerably wider range of lesions than does the medical definition
of granuloma. We elaborate on this distinction in ``Dermatologic
Changes and the Scar Rule.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (b) of Sec. 11.3 states the ``posterior surfaces of the
pasterns (flexor surface), including the sulcus or ``pocket'' may show
bilateral areas of
[[Page 56926]]
uniformly thickened epithelial tissue if such areas are free of
proliferating granuloma tissue, irritation, moisture, edema, or other
evidence of inflammation.''
Section 11.4, ``Inspection and detention of horses,'' includes
requirements regarding inspection of horses by APHIS representatives,
as well as detention of horses for inspection if an APHIS
representative has probable cause to believe that a horse is sore. This
section also includes provisions for maintaining the well-being of a
horse in detention and for informing the owner, trainer, exhibitor, or
other person having immediate custody of or responsibility for any
horse allegedly found to be in violation of the Act or the regulations
of such alleged violation before the horse is released from detention.
Provisions for requesting reexamination and testing of detained horses
are also included in this section.
Under Sec. 11.5, ``Access to premises and records,'' paragraph (a)
provides that the management of any horse show, exhibition, or horse
sale or auction ``shall, without fee, charge, assessment, or other
compensation, provide APHIS representatives with unlimited access to
the grandstands, sale ring, barns, stables, grounds, offices, and all
other areas of any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or
auction, including any adjacent areas under their direction, control,
or supervision for the purpose of inspecting any horses, or any records
required to be kept by regulation or otherwise maintained.'' Management
must also provide an adequate, safe, and accessible area for the visual
inspection and observation of horses while such horses are
competitively or otherwise performing at any horse show or horse
exhibition, or while such horses are being sold or auctioned or offered
for sale or auction at any horse sale or horse auction.
Paragraph (b) of Sec. 11.5 requires that ``[e]ach horse owner,
exhibitor, or other person having custody of or responsibility for any
horse at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction
shall, without fee, charge, assessment, or other compensation, admit
any APHIS representative or Designated Qualified Person appointed by
management, to all areas of barns, compounds, horse vans, horse
trailers, stables, stalls, paddocks, or other show, exhibition, or sale
or auction grounds or related areas at any horse show, horse
exhibition, or horse sale or auction, for the purpose of inspecting any
such horse at any and all reasonable times.'' Such persons must also
promptly present his or her horse for inspection upon notification by
any APHIS representative or DQP appointed by management for the purpose
of determining whether such horse is in compliance with the Act and
regulations.
Section 11.6, ``Inspection space and facility requirements,''
requires the management of every horse show, exhibition, or horse sale
or auction containing Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses to
provide, without fee, sufficient space and facilities for APHIS
representatives to carry out their duties under the Act and
regulations, whether or not management has received prior notification
by APHIS. The management of every horse show, exhibition, horse sale or
auction which does not contain Tennessee Walking Horses or racking
horses must provide, without fee, sufficient space and facilities when
requested to do so by APHIS representatives. Space and facility
requirements include sufficient space for inspecting horses, protection
from the elements, a means to control crowds and onlookers, an
accessible, reliable, and convenient 110-volt electrical power source,
if electrical service is available at the site and is requested by the
APHIS representative, and appropriate inspection waiting and detention
areas.
Paragraph (a) of Sec. 11.7, ``Certification and licensing of
designated qualified persons (DQP's)'' currently lists basic
professional qualifications required of DQP applicants and paragraph
(b) lists certification requirements for DQP programs certified by
APHIS and initiated and maintained by HIOs or associations.\7\ As part
of maintaining a DQP program that APHIS has certified, HIOs are
responsible for delivering the training curriculum as well as ensuring
that criteria for selecting and licensing DQPs are met. HIOs must also
submit records to APHIS containing details of horse shows, exhibitions,
sales, and auctions at which DQPs appointed by them inspect horses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ ``Association'' refers to HIOs using that term to describe
themselves.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (c) contains DQP licensing requirements in HIOs or
associations receiving Department certification for the training and
licensing of DQPs, and paragraph (d) of Sec. 11.7 lists recordkeeping
and other requirements to be met by HIOs or associations and DQPs.
Paragraph (e) of Sec. 11.7 prohibits the management of any horse
show, exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction from appointing any
person to detect and diagnose horses which are sore or to otherwise
inspect horses for the purpose of enforcing the Act if such person does
not hold a valid DQP license, if the license is canceled, or if the
person has been disqualified by the Secretary from performing
diagnosis, detection, and inspection under the Act, after notice and
opportunity for a hearing.
Paragraph (f) contains provisions for canceling a DQP license.
Concluding this section, paragraph (g) provides the process for
revoking the DQP program certification of an HIO or association.
Section 11.20 of the current regulations lists the responsibilities
and liabilities of the management of any horse show, exhibition, or
horse sale or auction which does not appoint a DQP to inspect horses,
noting that in such cases event management is responsible and legally
liable for identifying all horses that are sore or otherwise in
violation of the Act or regulations and must disqualify or disallow any
such horses from participating or competing in any horse show,
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction. If management does appoint a
DQP to inspect horses, the section provides that management must not
take any action which would interfere with or influence a DQP in
carrying out his or her duties or making decisions concerning whether
or not any horse is sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or
regulations.
Section 11.20 also includes responsibilities for the management of
any horse show, exhibition, horse sale or auction which designates and
appoints one or more DQPs to inspect horses. Management in such cases
must accord the DQP access to all records and areas of the grounds of
such show, exhibition, sale, or auction and the same right to inspect
horses and records as is accorded to any APHIS representative.
Section 11.21 lists inspection procedures that DQPs must follow,
including requirements for walking and turning the horse in a manner
that allows the DQP to determine whether the horse exhibits signs of
soreness. This section also includes the procedure for proper palpation
to detect soreness, as well as procedures for conducting horses through
other elements of the inspection process.
Under Sec. 11.22, ``Records required and disposition thereof,''
the management of any horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or auction,
that contains Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses is required to
maintain for at least 90 days following the closing date of the show,
exhibition, or sale or auction, all pertinent records. If specifically
required by APHIS, management may be required to hold the records
specified longer than 90 days.
[[Page 56927]]
Under paragraph (a) of Sec. 11.23, ``Inspection of records,'' the
management of any horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or auction must
allow any APHIS representative, upon request, to examine and make
copies of any and all records pertaining to any horse. Similarly,
paragraph (b) requires that HIOs or associations that train, maintain,
and license inspectors under a certified DQP program must permit any
APHIS representative, upon request, to examine and copy any and all
records relating to the DQP program which are required by any part of
the regulations.
In Sec. 11.24, ``Reporting by management,'' paragraph (a) states
that within 5 days following the conclusion of any horse show,
exhibition, or horse sale or auction, containing Tennessee Walking
Horses or racking horses, management must submit to the Regional
Director for the State in which the show, exhibition, sale or auction
was held, information required in paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(6) of
Sec. 11.22 for each horse excused or disqualified by management or its
representatives from being shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned, and the
reasons for such action.
In paragraph (b) of Sec. 11.24, within 5 days following the
conclusion of any horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or auction
which does not contain Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses, the
management must inform the Regional Director for the State in which the
show, exhibition, sale or auction was held, of any case where a horse
was excused or disqualified by management or its representatives from
being shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned because it was found to be
sore.
Section 11.25, ``Minimum penalties to be assessed and enforced by
HIOs that license DQPs'' lists suspensions and minimum penalties for
violations of the Act and regulations. HIOs are required to include
penalties in their rulebooks \8\ for violations that equal or exceed
the penalties listed in paragraph (c) of the section; minimum penalties
are specified in that paragraph. HIOs are also required in this section
to assess and enforce the penalty, as well as and any suspension
included with the penalty. The HIO must provide a process, subject to
APHIS approval, for alleged violators to appeal penalties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Rulebooks issued by HIOs or associations also include rules
and regulations for showing horses and descriptions of the several
classes and divisions in which horses show.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 11.40 lists prohibitions and requirements concerning
persons involved in transportation of certain horses, including
providing APHIS with transportation information in order to determine
compliance with the Act and regulations.
Section Sec. 11.41 currently requires each HIO or association
which sponsors or sanctions any horse show, exhibition, or sale or
auction, to furnish the Department by March 1st of each year with all
such HIO or association rulebooks, and disciplinary procedures for the
previous year pertaining to violations of the Act or regulations,
applicable to such horse show, exhibition, or sale or auction. Each HIO
or association must also furnish the Department with a quarterly report
of all disciplinary actions taken against the management of \9\ any
horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction, any exhibitor, or any
licensed DQP, for violation of the Act or regulations, and the results.
The Department retains the authority to initiate enforcement
proceedings with respect to any violation of the Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Due to a typographical error, the regulations in this
section currently say, ``management or'' rather than ``management
of.'' However, contextually, the latter is implied.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Part 12 of the Horse Protection regulations reference the rules of
practice for USDA as promulgated in 7 CFR part 1.
Section 12.1 addresses the scope and applicability of rules of
practice. These rules of practice are applicable to adjudicatory,
administrative proceedings under section 6(a) of the Act (15 U.S.C.
1825(a)) and sections 6(b) and (c) of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1825(b) and
(c)).
Lastly, Sec. 12.10, ``Stipulations,'' provides that the
Administrator may enter into a stipulation with any person notified of
an apparent violation of the Act or regulations if that person waives a
hearing and agrees to pay a specified civil penalty within a designated
time.
Evaluation of the Horse Protection Program
Consistent with the aims of the HPA, the goal of the USDA-APHIS
Horse Protection program and regulations is to eliminate the inhumane
practice of soring and by so doing promote fair competition in horse
shows and exhibitions. Since 1979, when APHIS promulgated the
regulations to allow management to appoint qualified persons to conduct
inspections, the Agency has regularly evaluated the effectiveness of
the Horse Protection program and sought ways to improve its approaches
to ending soring.
Unfortunately, soring persists despite the Agency's efforts to
regulate and work with the Tennessee Walking Horse and racking horse
industries to eliminate the practice. In September 2010, USDA's Office
of the Inspector General (OIG) formally evaluated APHIS' oversight of
the Horse Protection program \10\ in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.\11\ USDA-OIG concluded that the
inspection program, in which the horse industry trains and licenses
DQPs to inspect horses under APHIS' oversight, is ineffective in
ensuring that horses are not sore upon inspection as required under the
Act.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ USDA-OIG, Administration of the Horse Protection Program
and the Slaughter Horse Transport Program Audit Report, 33601-2-KC,
September 2010. The document is available on the Regulations.gov
website (see under ADDRESSES in this document for a link to
Regulations.gov).
\11\ Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (the
``Yellow Book'') is a publication of the U.S. Government
Accountability Office (GAO): https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-18-568g.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As part of the audit, OIG auditors performed fieldwork in 2008 and
2009 at APHIS offices in Washington, DC and Riverdale, Maryland. In
addition, auditors completed field visits to horse shows in Florida,
Kentucky, Missouri, South Carolina, and Tennessee, and reviewed laws,
regulations, procedures, and inspection protocols relating to oversight
of DQPs. They also interviewed APHIS program officials to understand
how they ensure oversight of their respective programs and reviewed
available laws, regulations, procedures, and program documents to
evaluate program implementation. Audit staff also interviewed personnel
from USDA-APHIS Investigative and Enforcement Services to understand
their role in collecting evidence for Federal cases, as well as USDA
Office of General Counsel officials to learn their processes for
evaluating potential cases for enforcement, prosecution, and closing of
Federal cases related to violations of the Act. APHIS Review and
Analysis Branch personnel were interviewed regarding HIO record reviews
performed and their study of the violation rate disparity that exists
when APHIS veterinarians are present at shows, sales, and exhibitions.
OIG auditors also reviewed show and sale reports for 34 shows that
they attended in 2008, in order to identify problems noted by APHIS
veterinarians relating to DQP performance and the issuance of violation
tickets. Audit staff interviewed HIO officials to discuss their
perspective on APHIS' oversight of the DQP program and interviewed DQPs
to discuss the program and possible improvements. Finally, auditors
attended a training seminar hosted by
[[Page 56928]]
APHIS for Tennessee Walking horse trainers to learn about new
inspection procedures and to observe APHIS personnel interacting with
industry trainers.
During these evaluations, OIG auditors identified multiple
conflicts of interest among DQPs, the HIOs that train, license, and
employ them, horse exhibitors, and management of shows and exhibitions
that affiliate with HIOs for inspection services. OIG concluded that
these conflicts of interest contributed to horses being allowed to
compete while sore. They noted that some DQPs are reluctant to dismiss
sored horses discovered during inspections, as doing so inconveniences
event management and makes it less likely that such DQPs will be hired
to inspect at future shows. Moreover, some DQPs own and exhibit their
own horses, so a DQP inspecting an exhibitor's horse at one show may be
facing that exhibitor conducting inspections at another show. As a
consequence, auditors found that some DQPs frequently failed to inspect
horses visually and physically in accordance with the regulations and
allowed sored horses to show.
OIG auditors also discovered that some DQPs avoid documenting
instances of soring in several ways. DQPs may provide only a warning to
exhibitors when they detect soring in a horse, when under the
regulations they are required to recommend to event management that the
horse be prohibited from performing. The auditors also concluded that
DQPs fail to sufficiently inspect and weigh chains, boots, and other
action devices as required under the regulations. The report noted that
when DQPs document a noncompliance with the Act, they sometimes
identify a stable hand or a relative of the exhibitor as the alleged
violator, so that the person actually at fault for the alleged
violation can avoid responsibility. Further, the OIG report found that
no reliable controls are in place to prevent an exhibitor who is
serving an industry-issued suspension for a violation from competing in
another show.
USDA-OIG's findings regarding the persistence of soring are
consistent with those of the USDA's Office of the Judicial Officer
(OJO), which issues final decisions on behalf of the Secretary of
Agriculture for purposes of judicial review.\12\ The Secretary of
Agriculture, through the OJO, has found that DQP inspections of horses
are less probative than inspections conducted by APHIS VMOs. Decisions
issued by the OJO include accounts of exhibitors showing sored horses
that had been inspected and cleared by DQPs, cursory inspections or use
of incorrect methods by DQPs, and exhibitors attempting to avoid
violations by having another person acknowledge responsibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Decisions for showing sored horses include: Decision and
Order, Tracy Essary (HPA Docket No. 15-0041, June 15, 2016): https://nalcpro.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads//assets/decisions/061516-Essary-HPA15-0041-DO.pdf; Decision and Order, Rocky Roy McCoy
(HPA Docket No.16-0026, June 2, 2016): https://nalcpro.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads//assets/decisions/060216-McCoy-HPA16-0026-DO.pdf, and Decision and Order, Justin Jenne
(HPA Docket No. 13-0080, July 29, 2014: https://www.usda.gov/sites/default/files/documents/140729_13-0080%20Justin%20Jenne_%20DO.pdf.
Decisions also include those issued for horses sored under the scar
rule, as in Decision and Order, Randall Jones (HPA Docket No. 13-
0053, June 29, 2015): https://nalcpro.wpenginepowered.com/wp-content/uploads//assets/decisions/062915-Jones-HPA13-0053-DO.pdf. Decisions
of the Office of the Judicial Officer are located at https://www.usda.gov/oha/services/decisions. Decisions entered prior to
January 1, 2017, are available on the University of Arkansas
National Agricultural Law Center website: https://nationalaglawcenter.org/decisions/. In addition, a digest published
by USDA from 2013 to 2020, Agricultural Decisions, contains indexed
summaries of decisions and orders issued in adjudicatory proceedings
conducted for the Department: https://www.usda.gov/oha/services/agriculture-decisions-publications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As the USDA-OIG audit showed, DQPs are less likely to issue
violations and more likely to allow sored horses to perform when APHIS
officials are not present to observe and confirm the outcome of
inspections. In a review of program data from 2005 to 2008, the OIG
audit report \13\ noted that out of 1,607 events in which DQPs provided
inspection services, 49 percent of the violations they issued occurred
at the 108 events at which APHIS officials were also present,
suggesting that DQPs were considerably more inclined to issue
violations when under APHIS observation than when they were not.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ See footnote 10. USDA-OIG's data review and table is found
on page 11 of the audit report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, inspection data compiled by APHIS from fiscal year
(FY) 2017 to 2022 (Tables 1 and 2, below) shows that inconsistencies
persist in the number of violations detected by APHIS officials and
those issued by DQPs inspecting horses. During this period, APHIS
attended about 16 percent of all HPA-covered events featuring Tennessee
Walking Horses, racking horses, and other breeds at which horse
industry DQPs conducted inspections, performance as well as flat-shod
classes. While APHIS attended only a fraction of the events at which
DQPs were appointed to inspect horses, APHIS consistently reported
higher rates of noncompliance at these events based on its VMO
inspection findings. Most horses inspected by APHIS officials at these
events were chosen at random, although APHIS chose to inspect some
horses for which a suspicion of soring was warranted.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ The rates of noncompliance reported by APHIS VMOs represent
the sampling of horses that they inspected, not every horse at each
event. Moreover, APHIS records of inspections conducted by VMOs do
not differentiate between horses chosen at random and those chosen
on suspicion of soring. Horses in the latter group are more likely
to be diagnosed, as that sample presented indications of soring
prior to inspection.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, DQPs consistently reported higher rates of noncompliance
when APHIS officials were in attendance than when they were not. In FY
2021, for example, if only horses wearing ``performance packages''
(i.e., a padded horse) are considered, APHIS officials detected 158
instances of noncompliance with the HPA out of the 398 horses APHIS
inspected at the 17 events attended, resulting in close to a 40 percent
rate of noncompliance for performance horses. In contrast, of the 207
events attended and inspected by DQPs during the same period, DQPs
detected just 321 instances of noncompliance with the HPA out of the
11,825 performance horses they inspected, recording only a 1.9 percent
rate of noncompliance when APHIS officials were not present and 7.1
percent when they were.
Also notable is that the rate of noncompliance detected for horses
wearing performance packages was significantly and consistently higher
than that detected for flat-shod horses (Table 2). The marked
difference between the rates of noncompliance found in padded
performance classes and those found in flat-shod classes indicates that
soring is concentrated in horses made to perform the exaggerated and
unnatural chest-high gait popularly known as the ``big lick.'' Table 3
shows a similar discrepancy between performance and flat-shod horses
regarding positive tests for prohibited substances.
[[Page 56929]]
Table 1--Performance Horse Inspection Data for HPA-Covered Events From FY 2017-2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-
Entries HPA non- compliance Non-
inspected compliances rate Entries HPA Non- compliance Entries HPA Non- Non-
by DQPs detected by detected by inspected compliances rate inspected compliances compliance
(APHIS DQPs (APHIS DQPs (APHIS by DQPs detected by detected by by APHIS detected by rate
not not not (APHIS DQPs (APHIS DQPs (APHIS \1\ APHIS detected by
present) present) present) present) present) present) APHIS (%)
(%) (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2022.................................. 9,746 174 1.8 3,220 219 6.8 930 317 34.1
FY 2021.................................. 11,825 224 1.9 1,373 97 7.1 398 158 39.7
FY 2020.................................. 8,522 251 2.9 1,107 88 7.9 276 79 28.6
FY 2019.................................. 9,698 417 4.3 2,978 297 10.0 901 233 25.9
FY 2018.................................. 9,290 277 3.0 4,427 230 5.2 1,081 100 9.3
FY 2017.................................. 9,992 154 1.5 4,112 163 4.0 1,005 126 12.5
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Horse industry DQPs conducted inspections at these events. Not included are the few events APHIS attended where DQPs were not present.
Table 2--Flat-Shod Horse Inspection Data for HPA-Covered Events From FY 2017-2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Non-
Entries HPA non- compliance Non-
inspected compliances rate Entries HPA non- compliance Entries HPA non- Non-
by DQPs detected by detected by inspected compliances rate inspected compliances compliance
(APHIS DQPs (APHIS DQPs (APHIS by DQPs detected by detected by by APHIS detected by rate
not not not (APHIS DQPs (APHIS DQPs (APHIS \1\ APHIS detected by
present) present) present) present) present) present) APHIS (%)
(%) (%)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2022.................................. 29,822 16 0.1 4,956 16 0.3 357 6 1.7
FY 2021.................................. 33,949 31 0.1 1,624 3 0.2 143 1 0.7
FY 2020.................................. 27,252 16 0.1 758 5 0.7 50 1 2.0
FY 2019.................................. 35,302 32 0.1 4,045 24 0.6 297 16 5.4
FY 2018.................................. 32,624 14 0.04 5,168 8 0.2 475 5 1.1
FY 2017.................................. 31,871 9 0.03 3,818 17 0.4 483 3 0.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Horse industry DQPs conducted inspections at these events. Not included are the few events APHIS attended where DQPs were not present.
Table 3--Prohibited Substance Testing Data for HPA-Covered Events From FY 2017-2022
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Performance Performance Flat-shod horses Flat-shod horses
horses tested for horses positive tested for positive for
prohibited for prohibited prohibited prohibited
substances substances \1\ substances substances \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY 2022............................. 1,196 55 382 4
FY 2021............................. 1,104 71 292 2
FY 2020............................. 51 8 11 1
FY 2019............................. 111 84 23 3
FY 2018............................. 194 144 66 28
FY 2017............................. 123 83 35 10
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ These numbers reflect substances the laboratory reported to APHIS as significant findings.
While the data in tables 1 and 2 contain statistical anomalies and
represent only a sampling of rates of noncompliance, the discrepancy
between soring detected when APHIS officials are present at shows and
when they are not is broadly consistent over time. We have considered
several possible explanations for this discrepancy. In the absence of
APHIS representatives, some DQPs may feel complacent and less focused
on inspecting horses accurately, not due to any intention to allow a
sore horse to show, but simply through inattention. It also may be that
some DQPs are not receiving proper training in conducting inspections,
although the evidence above suggests that, on the whole, DQPs are
capable of diagnosing sored horses when under observation by APHIS
representatives. We find none of these explanations credible in
accounting for the discrepancy in soring diagnoses with and without
APHIS representatives present, nor do we believe that a significantly
different outcome would emerge if APHIS inspected every horse at every
event. Our conclusion, as was also the conclusion of the OIG audit, is
that a key obstacle to eliminating soring under the Horse Protection
program is the unwillingness of some DQPs to correctly palpate and
observe other actions necessary to making a proper diagnosis.
The data and findings presented in the OIG report and our
evaluation of inspection records show that soring is still
underdiagnosed in part because of the above noted conflicts of interest
within the Tennessee Walking Horse and racking horse industries. The
report also confirmed that APHIS lacked a sufficient number of
veterinary officers to attend and oversee inspections at all shows. The
report recommended that APHIS abolish the DQP program and establish by
regulation that only independent, accredited veterinarians perform
inspections at sanctioned shows. It also recommended that better
controls be instituted to prevent persons disqualified for HPA
infractions at sanctioned events from participating in subsequent
events. The report added that APHIS should hire and train these
[[Page 56930]]
inspectors and pass the costs for inspections along to event
management. In return, shows would benefit from improved compliance and
exhibitors would see fairer competition.
As indicated in its 2010 response to the report, APHIS agreed with
the intent of the USDA-OIG recommendations. APHIS responded that it
would propose a regulatory change to abolish the current DQP licensing
system and have the Agency be the only entity authorized to train and
license DQPs but stated that it could not predict the timing for doing
so. APHIS also stated that it would establish strict qualifications to
prohibit conflicts of interest so that DQPs having close ties with the
horse show industry would be excluded from licensing. APHIS
additionally declared at the time that it would continue to allow HIOs
to hire and compensate DQPs to inspect horse shows but they would have
to use only DQPs trained and licensed by APHIS.\15\ This would replace
the practice, still in place today, of DQPs being trained and licensed
under an HIO-run program under APHIS oversight, a practice that, as
discussed immediately below, APHIS has determined to present an
insoluble conflict of interests.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ USDA-OIG Audit Report, page 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
APHIS' response to the USDA-OIG audit report formed the basis for
our proposed 2016 revision of the HPA regulations, discussed below.\16\
After issuance of the report in 2010, APHIS also undertook several
nonregulatory approaches to help the industry improve compliance with
the Act, among them increased engagement with industry groups,
inspection workshops for DQPs, and stepped-up APHIS presence at certain
shows to oversee inspections and check whether disqualified persons are
participating. From 2018 to the present, APHIS has also hosted joint
training sessions with the HIOs to ensure all DQPs are receiving the
same training. Despite being directly trained by APHIS, DQPs continued
to perform unsatisfactory inspections, with no substantial reduction in
the number of sored horses performing in certain show classes. We
ultimately determined that the problem was not inadequate training, but
rather a regulatory structure in which DQPs lacked sufficient latitude
to inspect horses properly without fear of reprisal from management and
often had strong incentives not to do so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ In a separate rulemaking, APHIS also published a proposal
(76 FR 30864-30868, Docket No. APHIS-2011-0030) on May 27, 2011, to
require HIOs or associations that license DQPs to assess and enforce
minimum penalties for violations of the Act and regulations. A final
rule (77 FR 33607-33619) was published June 7, 2012, and became
effective 30 days later. These requirements are located in Sec.
11.25 of the current regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two provisions, both in Sec. 11.7(d)(7) of the current
regulations, specifically address conflicts of interest--one that
prohibits a DQP from exhibiting or selling a horse at an event in which
he or she has been appointed to inspect horses, and another in which
the DQP cannot inspect at a show or sale in which horses owned by a
member of his or her immediate family or employer are competing or are
being offered for sale. While these provisions focus on two clearly
apparent conflicts of interest, many others are not addressed in the
regulations and are not enforceable through nonregulatory actions. A
DQP may, for example, have business or other transactional interests
with show judges, HIO officials, or others who have horses competing in
events inspected by that DQP. We believe that a regulatory change that
brings inspectors directly under APHIS oversight is necessary so that
they can be sufficiently screened for conflicts of interest as a
condition of Agency authorization to conduct inspections.
2011 HPA Rulemaking
In 2011, APHIS initiated work on a rulemaking to reduce industry
conflicts of interest and participation of suspended persons in HPA-
covered events, as well as further restrict the physical means by which
horses are sored. On July 26, 2016, we published in the Federal
Register (81 FR 49112-49137, Docket No. APHIS-2011-0009) a proposal to
amend the regulations to provide that APHIS, rather than HIOs, would
train and license inspectors to diagnose sored horses and determine
compliance with the Act at horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and
auctions.
We invited the public to address our proposal to have APHIS train
and license inspectors to address the conflict of interests between
DQPs and the industry that results in underreporting violations of the
Act. Following the recommendation from the USDA-OIG audit, we further
proposed that only veterinarians and veterinary technicians,\17\
screened by APHIS for conflicts of interest and having equine
experience, may be licensed to inspect horses for soring at horse
shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions. This would help ensure that
inspectors possess the medical expertise and adherence to professional
veterinary ethics codes to detect and diagnose sore horses capably and
reliably.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ Veterinary technicians are not mentioned in the USDA-OIG
audit report, but we determined in the 2016 rulemaking that persons
holding this credential from an accredited program and having
adequate equine experience are qualified and may be considered for
licensure to inspect horses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also proposed in 2016 to amend the prohibitions on devices,
equipment, substances, and practices that can cause or mask soring or
can reasonably be expected to do so, particularly with respect to
Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses.
We solicited public comments on the proposal and received 130,975
submissions, as well as comments provided at 5 listening sessions.
Comments came from State and Federal elected officials, including
current and former U.S. Senators and Representatives; State
agricultural agencies; farm bureaus; gaited horse organizations;
trotting horse federations and organizations; other domestic and
foreign horse industry organizations; veterinarians and veterinary
associations; horse rescue and animal welfare advocacy organizations;
horse owners, trainers, and farriers; small business owners; and the
general public.
After responding to public requests to extend the proposal comment
period,\18\ we reviewed the comments and, on January 11, 2017, we
submitted a final rule to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR) for
publication. That rule was filed for public inspection, in advance of
publication, on January 19, 2017. However, on January 20, 2017, the
Chief of Staff of the President issued a memorandum instructing Federal
agencies to immediately withdraw all regulations awaiting publication
at the OFR.\19\ In response to the memorandum, APHIS withdrew the rule
from the OFR and it did not publish. The proposed rule on which the
final rule was based was also subsequently withdrawn \20\ from
publication.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 81 FR 65307 (Docket No. APHIS-2011-0009), September 22,
2016.
\19\ 82 FR 8346, January 20, 2017.
\20\ December 13, 2021 (86 FR 70755, Docket No. APHIS-2011-
0009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
On August 13, 2019, the Humane Society of the United States and
other non-governmental organizations filed a lawsuit. HSUS argued that
the 2017 HPA final rule had been duly promulgated and could not be
withdrawn without first providing public notice in the Federal Register
and an opportunity for public comment. On July 27, 2020, the U.S.
District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed the suit, holding
that a rule becomes final upon publication in the Federal Register.
On July 22, 2022, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit
reversed and remanded, ruling that APHIS had to
[[Page 56931]]
provide notice and an opportunity for comment before withdrawing a rule
that was available for public inspection, but not yet published in the
Federal Register. Humane Soc'y of the U.S. v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 41
F.4th 564, 565 (D.C. Cir. 2022). The mandate was issued December 13,
2022.
On May 12, 2023, the U.S. District Court issued its decision on
remand without vacatur, but ordered that the 2017 rule would take
automatic effect if the agency failed to take appropriate remedial
action: Either promulgate an updated version of the rule, or otherwise
remedy the deficiency in the withdrawal of the 2017 rule by conducting
notice and comment on the withdrawal. Humane Soc'y of the U.S. v. U.S.
Dep't of Agric., No. 19-cv-2458 BAH, 2023 WL 3433970 (D.D.C. May 12,
2023). APHIS signaled to the Court its intent to remedy the deficiency
by proposing to withdraw the 2017 final rule through notice and comment
processes, and a notice of proposed rulemaking to withdraw the 2017
rule was published in the Federal Register on July 21, 2023 (88 FR
47068-47071, Docket No. APHIS-2011-0009).
This current proposal incorporates steps taken in the 2017 HPA
final rule to eliminate soring. In addition, it provides recent support
and data emphasizing that the causes of soring are long-standing and
endemic, and not simply aberrations that occurred in the past. To this
end, we introduce into this proposal the Horse Protection program's
latest inspection statistics and a recent study \21\ by the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS), discussed below, that analyzes the causes of
soring and its diagnosis in light of the current regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ A Review of Methods for Detecting Soreness in Horses.
Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2021: https://doi.org/10.17226/25949.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Study
The NAS study, published in 2021, concurs with the USDA-OIG audit
report's recommendation that a regulatory change to the inspection
component of the Horse Protection program is necessary to eliminate the
conflicts of interest that encourage soring. The study was initiated in
July 2017, when APHIS, the Tennessee Department of Agriculture, and the
Tennessee Walking Horse Breeders Foundation jointly requested that NAS
evaluate methods to detect soreness to help ensure that Horse
Protection inspection protocols are based on sound scientific
principles that can be applied consistently.
In the study, NAS examined the methods currently employed by DQPs
and APHIS VMOs for detecting soreness in Tennessee Walking Horses and
evaluated current inspector qualifications. NAS also highlighted
emerging approaches for detecting soreness in horses and evaluated the
role of the scar rule, a set of visual criteria in current Sec. 11.3
used to determine if a horse has been sored. The committee that drafted
the NAS study consisted of equine veterinarians and other professionals
qualified to review the veterinary medical literature on hoof and
pastern pain and skin changes and evaluate methods used to identify
soreness in horses as defined in the Act and regulations for scientific
validity. As part of their research, the committee reviewed USDA
training materials and 61 DQP inspection videos provided by an HIO, and
observed problems consistent with those cited in the OIG audit report
11 years earlier. The NAS committee confirmed, in brief, that due to
both inadequate HIO training and industry conflicts of interest, DQPs
were not consistently or correctly diagnosing sore horses. The
committee noted that USDA's ``current horse inspection process for
detecting soreness involves observation of the horse's movement and
posture and palpation of the limbs, which is the gold standard for
detecting local pain and inflammation,'' \22\ and that performing these
actions knowledgeably and without conflicts of interest is essential to
determining whether a horse is sore.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ NAS, A Review of Methods for Detecting Soreness in Horses,
page 3.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consistent with the findings of the USDA-OIG audit, the NAS
committee concluded that some sored horses were not being identified
during inspections. The committee's observation from evaluating the
inspection videos was that DQPs are inconsistent in applying diagnostic
techniques. During palpation, DQPs ``showed large variations in the
technique used to palpate the forelimbs from the carpus to the
fetlock--from an absent to a very cursory palpation of limited areas at
the palmar surface of the distal limb, with minimal attention given to
the dorsal surface of the limb.'' \23\ DQPs were also at times observed
in the videos gripping the leg too tightly, which may inhibit responses
to limb palpation. By comparison, APHIS VMOs are required to practice a
standard procedure that involves palpating the limb in a consistent
pattern and pressure, resulting in more accurate soring diagnoses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ NAS, A Review of Methods for Detecting Soreness in Horses,
page 31.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The NAS committee further observed that, in many instances, DQPs
did not adequately observe the horse's movement and posture. For
example, from its review of inspection videos, the committee noted that
DQPs often did not require the horse to take enough steps to determine
whether soring or lameness was present.
At most shows, inspections are performed by a DQP employed by an
HIO; less often, by an APHIS VMO, or in some instances, by both. The
NAS committee reviewed the training requirements for DQPs in the
regulations and noted that not only are DQPs not required to be
veterinarians, but that they receive instruction from trainers who are
not required to be veterinarians. APHIS VMOs, by contrast, have
veterinary degrees and receive extensive medical training in
identifying dermatologic, physiological, and behavioral indications of
soring in horses.
The NAS committee strongly recommended that the use of DQPs for
inspections under the current regulations be discontinued and that only
veterinarians, preferably with equine experience, be allowed to examine
horses, as is done in other equine competitions.\24\ The committee
added that if APHIS continues to use third-party inspectors, they
should be veterinarians or other equine industry professionals who are
screened for potential conflicts of interest and trained by APHIS to
properly inspect horses for soring. The committee also stated that
consequences for performing substandard examinations should be strictly
enforced, and that reports of substandard performance and enforcement
warning letters should come from APHIS, not HIOs. We agree with these
recommendations and propose in this rulemaking that qualified
inspectors be screened and trained by APHIS, and that inspectors be
veterinarians as availability allows. We discuss further below how we
propose to amend the regulations consistent with these recommendations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ NAS, A Review of Methods for Detecting Soreness in Horses,
page 4.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As we noted, the NAS committee also evaluated the scar rule
criteria in Sec. 11.3 as a means of diagnosing soring in horses. Since
its 1979 inclusion in the regulations, interpretations of what the scar
rule means and how to apply it have long led to disagreements among
APHIS, veterinary organizations, and the gaited horse industry. As we
noted, the NAS study resulted from a shared
[[Page 56932]]
desire by both the industry and APHIS that inspection protocols be
based on sound scientific principles that can be applied consistently.
The NAS committee analyzed the scar rule with this in mind, and based
on their work made recommendations for revising the scar rule language
that we believe will make it much easier to understand and apply and
more accurate as a tool to diagnose soring. We discuss NAS analysis of
the scar rule and explain how its findings have helped to shape our
proposed changes to it under ``Dermatologic Changes and the Scar
Rule.''
The NAS study is the latest major effort to evaluate from a
scientific perspective the causes of soring, the current and emerging
methods available to diagnose it, and the effectiveness of the current
Horse Protection regulations to eliminate the practice. The evidence in
the NAS and OIG reports and the Horse Protection program inspection
data indicate that many DQPs lack either the correct training or the
willingness, or both, to diagnose sored horses, with one outcome--
soring persists as an incentive to gain competitive advantage and sored
horses continue to appear at shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions.
Proposed Changes to the Regulations
The changes we propose to make to 9 CFR part 11 include a
comprehensive reorganization of the part. We have provided a derivation
table below to show where we propose to move content currently in the
regulations. Current sections are to the left. Sections where content
will be moved and revised are listed on the right side of the table,
along with new and removed sections:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Where addressed in proposed
Existing regulations rule
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 11.1 Definitions................ Sec. 11.1 Definitions
(revised).
Sec. 11.2 Prohibitions concerning Sec. 11.6 Prohibitions
exhibitors. concerning exhibitors
(revised).
Sec. 11.3 Scar rule.................. Sec. 11.6(a)(22) Prohibitions
concerning exhibitors
(revised).
Sec. 11.4 Inspection and detention of Sec. 11.8 Inspection and
horses. detention of horses (revised).
Sec. 11.5 Access to premises and Sec. 11.9 Access to premises
records. and records (revised).
Sec. 11.6 Inspection space and Sec. 11.10 Inspection space
facility requirements. and facility requirements
(revised).
Sec. 11.6(c) (Non-interference with Sec. 11.3 Non-interference
APHIS personnel). with APHIS representatives and
HPIs (revised).
Sec. 11.7 Certification and licensing Sec. 11.19 Authorization and
of designated qualified persons (DQPs). training of Horse Protection
Inspectors (new section
added). (Sec. 11.7 would be
reserved for future use but
its content would be removed.)
Sec. 11.11 (new section added
and reserved).
Sec. 11.12 (new section added
and reserved).
Sec. 11.20(a) Responsibilities and Sec. 11.13(a) Horse shows,
liabilities of management. horse exhibitions, horse
sales, and horse auctions at
which the management does not
utilize an APHIS
representative or Horse
Protection Inspector. (new
section added and revised).
Sec. 11.20(b) Responsibilities and Sec. 11.13(b) Horse shows,
liabilities of management. horse exhibitions, horse
sales, and horse auctions at
which the management utilizes
an APHIS representative or
Horse Protection Inspector.
(new section added and
revised).
Sec. 11.21 Inspection procedures for Section removed, as HIOs would
designated qualified persons (DQPs).. no longer train DQPs in
inspection procedures.
Sec. 11.22 Records required and Sec. 11.14 Records required
disposition thereof.. and disposition thereof (new
section added and revised).
Sec. 11.22, Sec. 11.24(a) Records Sec. 11.14(a) Records
required and disposition thereof; required and disposition
Reporting by management. thereof (new section added and
(Sec. 11.24(b) is an obsolete revised).
requirement and not retained in
proposed regulations).
Sec. 11.23(a) Inspection of records Sec. 11.15 Inspection of
(Sec. 11.23(b) pertains to training records (new section added and
DQPs and would not be retained in revised).
proposed regulations).
Sec. 11.16 Reporting by
management (new section
added).
Sec. 11.25 Minimum penalties to be Section removed.
assessed and enforced by HIOs that
license DQPs.
Sec. 11.40 Prohibitions and Sec. 11.17 Requirements
requirements concerning persons concerning persons involved in
involved in transportation of certain transportation of certain
horses. horses (new section added and
revised).
Sec. 11.18 Utilization of
inspectors (new section
added).
Sec. 11.41 Reporting required of Section removed.
horse industry organizations or
associations (pertains to HIOs and not
retained in proposed regulations).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Substantive changes we propose to make in part 11 include:
Removing the requirement that DQPs be trained and licensed
by HIOs and removing the term DQPs from the regulations. Instead, APHIS
would screen and train qualified persons to be Horse Protection
Inspectors, or HPIs. APHIS would authorize these applicants, preferably
veterinarians, as HPIs after screening them for potential conflicts of
interest and conducting training.
Removing all regulatory requirements pertaining to HIOs,
as HIOs would no longer have any regulatory responsibilities specific
to them. APHIS would assume program administration and development, HPI
training, and HPI disciplinary actions as necessary to enforce the Act
and regulations. Services contracted between HIOs and event management,
such as supplying judges and handling show logistics, would not be
affected.
Prohibiting any device, method, practice, or substance
applied to any horse that can hide or mask evidence of soring. (Current
prohibitions on other items and practices that can reasonably be
expected to cause or contribute to soring would be retained in the
regulations.)
Prohibiting all action devices, pads, wedges, and
substances on the limbs or feet of Tennessee Walking Horses and racking
horses (with exceptions for approved therapeutic uses of pads, wedges,
and substances). An action device is any boot, collar, chain, roller,
beads, bangles, or other device which
[[Page 56933]]
encircles or is placed upon the lower extremity of the leg of a horse
in such a manner that it can either rotate around the leg, or slide up
and down the leg so as to cause friction, or which can strike the hoof,
coronet band or fetlock joint.
Replacing the scar rule with language that more accurately
describes visible dermatologic changes indicative of soring, and
removing the requirement that such changes be bilateral.
Requiring the management of any horse show, exhibition,
sale, or auction that elects to utilize an APHIS representative or HPI
to choose and appoint an additional HPI if more than 100 horses are
entered in the event.
Requiring the management of any horse show, exhibition,
sale, or auction that elects to utilize an APHIS representative or HPI
to inspect horses to have at least one farrier physically present if
more than 100 horses are entered in the event, or if there are 100 or
fewer horses to have a farrier on call within the local area to be
present if requested by an APHIS representative or HPI. Farriers would
not be required for shows that do not utilize an inspector.
Adding new reporting and recordkeeping requirements for
management of all horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions covered
under the Act. These include retaining records for 90 days of any horse
allowed to show under therapeutic treatment, informing APHIS and
reporting event information at least 30 days in advance of the event,
and notifying APHIS of changes to event information at least 15 days in
advance of the event. These requirements are intended to prevent
disqualified persons and horses from participating in HPA-covered
events and to give APHIS sufficient time to schedule an APHIS
representative to inspect at the event, if requested.
To restructure part 11, we propose to reserve current Sec. Sec.
11.2 and 11.7 and remove Sec. Sec. 11.20, 11.21, 11.22, 11.23, 11.24,
11.25, 11.40, and 11.41 from the regulations. Requirements for event
management recordkeeping, records inspection, and reporting included in
Sec. Sec. 11.20, 11.22, 11.23, and 11.24, as well as requirements for
transportation of horses in Sec. 11.40, would be included in new
sections we propose.
Our proposed changes to the regulations are detailed below.
Definitions
We would make changes to several terms and definitions in Sec.
11.1 that reflect our proposed changes to the Horse Protection program.
We would amend the definition of action device by including
``beads'' and ``bangles'' to the illustrative list of devices included
under the definition. We are including these devices because they can
encircle the leg and move with the horse, striking the skin or creating
friction.
We would revise the definition for Administrator by adding U.S.
mail and email addresses for sending mail to the Administrator of
APHIS.
We would remove the definition for APHIS Show Veterinarian and
revise the definition of APHIS representative to mean any employee or
official of APHIS. The definition of APHIS Show Veterinarian currently
means the APHIS veterinarian responsible for the immediate supervision
and conduct of the Department's activities under the Act at any horse
show, horse exhibition, horse sale or horse auction.
The current definition of APHIS representative is any employee of
APHIS, or any officer or employee of any State agency who is authorized
by the Administrator to perform inspections or any other functions
authorized by the Act, including the inspection of the records of any
horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale or horse auction. We propose
to revise this term to mean ``any employee or official of APHIS.''
APHIS representatives would include qualified full-time and
intermittent VMOs employed and trained by APHIS to inspect horses for
soring. HPIs would not be considered to be APHIS representatives under
this proposed definition because they are not employees of APHIS and
not compensated by the Agency, but rather by the show management that
contracts their services.
We would add a definition for the term custodian, which would mean
any person who presents a horse for inspection at any horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction. We note that a person acting as custodian
may typically perform additional roles, such as owner, exhibitor,
seller, or transporter. Also, the custodian would have to be able to
provide required information about the horse as required in part 11. We
are proposing adding this term in order to define the term custodian
more clearly.
We propose to add the term day(s) to Sec. 1.1 and define it to
mean business days, i.e., days other than weekends and Federal
holidays. In several instances, the regulations require the submission
of reports or records with a period of days, and we wish to clarify
that weekends and Federal holidays are not included within that day
count.
The current definition of Designated Qualified Person is ``a person
meeting the requirements specified in Sec. 11.7 of this part who has
been licensed as a DQP by a horse industry organization or association
having a DQP program certified by the Department and who may be
appointed and delegated authority by the management of any horse show,
horse exhibition, horse sale or horse auction under section 4 of the
Act to detect or diagnose horses which are sore or to otherwise inspect
horses and any records pertaining to such horses for the purposes of
enforcing the Act.''
We are proposing to remove the term Designated Qualified Person or
DQP and its definition, as well as all regulatory requirements in the
regulations pertaining to them. We propose instead that APHIS will
screen, train, and authorize persons qualified to conduct inspections
of horses, devices, and records for the purposes of determining
compliance with the Act at horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and
auctions. We propose to refer to these qualified persons as Horse
Protection Inspectors (HPIs), which would be authorized by APHIS
pursuant to proposed Sec. 11.19 and appointed by management of the
event. Accordingly, we propose to include a definition for Horse
Protection Inspector in the regulations, included below.
We would add the term event manager and define it to mean the
person who has been delegated primary authority by a sponsoring
organization for managing a horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.
An individual event manager would need to be designated even if the
event is managed by a team of persons. We are proposing this definition
in order to clarify management responsibility.
The term horse industry organization or association is currently
defined as ``an organized group of people, having a formal structure,
who are engaged in the promotion of horses through the showing,
exhibiting, sale, auction, registry, or any activity which contributes
to the advancement of the horse.'' We would remove the term horse
industry organization or association and its definition, as we propose
to remove all regulatory requirements under the Act pertaining to these
groups, including requirements for certification of DQP programs,
recordkeeping, and other requirements assigned to them. As we note
above, HIOs supply other services to shows and events not subject to
regulation, including registering participants and coordinating event
logistics, supplying show judges, and promoting events. Under this
proposal they could continue contracting with events to perform these
services.
[[Page 56934]]
We would add the term Horse Protection Inspector (HPI) to mean a
person meeting the qualifications in proposed Sec. 11.19 whom the
Administrator has authorized as an HPI and who may be appointed and
delegated authority by the management of any horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale or horse auction under section 4 of the Act to
detect or diagnose horses which are sore or to otherwise inspect horses
and any records pertaining to such horses for the purposes of detecting
or diagnosing soring. Under proposed Sec. 11.16(a)(6), event
management wishing to have an APHIS representative conduct inspections
at their event are required to notify APHIS at least 30 days in advance
of the event.
The current regulations define inspection to mean ``the examination
of any horse and any records pertaining to any horse by use of whatever
means are deemed appropriate and necessary for the purpose of
determining compliance with the Act and regulations. Such inspection
may include, but is not limited to, visual examination of a horse and
records, actual physical examination of a horse including touching,
rubbing, palpating and observation of vital signs, and the use of any
diagnostic device or instrument, and may require the removal of any
shoe, pad, action device, or any other equipment, substance or
paraphernalia from the horse when deemed necessary by the person
conducting such inspection.'' To emphasize that any means of
determining compliance with the Act and regulations must be approved by
APHIS, we would revise the definition of inspection to include the
words ``any visual, physical, and diagnostic means approved by APHIS to
determine compliance with the Act and regulations.'' The proposed
definition would follow the current definition in that such inspection
``may include, but is not limited to, visual inspection of a horse and
review of records, physical examination of a horse, including touching,
rubbing, palpating, and observation of vital signs, and the use of any
diagnostic device or instrument, and may require the removal of any
shoe or any other equipment, substance, or paraphernalia from the horse
when deemed necessary by the professional conducting such inspection.''
We propose to add a definition for local area, which we would
define as the area within a 10-mile radius of the horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction. We would add this term in conjunction
with proposed Sec. 11.13(b)(2), which would require event management
to have a farrier on call within the local area if requested by an
APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management and 100 or fewer
horses are entered in the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.
When over 100 horses are entered in an event, management would be
required to have a farrier onsite unless they elected to enforce the
HPA without recourse to an inspector. We invite comments on this
definition as to whether it is reasonable with respect to the
geographical distribution of farriers, as well as comments on the costs
associated with having a farrier at the shows and on call.
The term lubricant in the current definitions means ``mineral oil,
glycerine or petrolatum, or mixtures exclusively thereof, that is
applied to the limbs of a horse solely for protective and lubricating
purposes while the horse is being shown or exhibited . . . .'' We would
remove the definition for lubricant and prohibit the use of any
substances on the limbs of all Tennessee Walking Horses and racking
horses. Most substances applied to horses at shows and exhibitions,
such as skin and hair conditioners, are not implicated in soring, but
they can be used to diminish signs of soring. As we explain under the
proposed changes to prohibitions concerning exhibitors, a strong
association exists between applications of substances and soring in
these particular breeds.
We propose to retain and revise the current definition of
management, which means ``any person or persons who organize, exercise
control over, or administer or are responsible for organizing,
directing, or administering any horse show, horse exhibition, horse
sale or horse auction and specifically includes, but is not limited to,
the sponsoring organization and show manager.'' We would remove ``show
manager'' from this definition, as we propose removing that term
elsewhere in the regulations, and replace it with ``event manager,'' a
term which, as we note above, we propose adding to the regulations.
A definition of participate would be added to Sec. 1.1 to mean
engaging in any activity, either directly or through an agent, beyond
that of a spectator in connection with a horse show, horse exhibition,
horse sale, or horse auction, and includes, without limitation,
transporting, or arranging for the transportation of, horses to or from
equine events, personally giving instructions to exhibitors, being
present in the warm-up or inspection areas or in any area where
spectators are not allowed, and financing the participation of others
in equine events.
Person in the regulations means ``any individual, corporation,
company, association, firm, partnership, society, organization, joint
stock company, or other legal entity.'' We propose to revise the
definition by adding ``State or local government agency'' to the list
of illustrative examples. We are proposing this change to highlight
that State and local government agencies also fall under the definition
of person in the regulations.
As currently defined in the regulations, Regional Director means
``the APHIS veterinarian who is assigned by the Administrator to
supervise and perform official duties of APHIS under the Act in a
specified State or States.'' We propose removing the term from Sec.
11.1 because APHIS representatives performing Horse Protection duties
are no longer organized and managed by region.
Sponsoring organization in the current regulations means ``any
person under whose immediate auspices and responsibility a horse show,
horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction is conducted.'' We
propose to revise the current definition to mean ``any person or entity
whose direction supports and who assumes responsibility for a horse
show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction that has, is, or
will be conducted.'' We are making this change to clarify that an
``entity'' is also included under the definition, and to ensure that
any person or entity supporting and assuming responsibility for such an
event also falls under the definition. Our proposed revision also
clarifies that the sponsoring organization's responsibility applies
whether the event in question has already occurred or is yet to occur.
We also propose to add a definition for the term therapeutic
treatment to mean the treatment of disease, injury, or disorder by or
under the supervision of a person licensed to practice veterinary
medicine in the State in which such treatment was prescribed. We are
proposing to define this term to ensure that therapeutic practices
applied to any horse covered under the regulations are administered or
overseen by qualified veterinarians only.
Prohibitions Concerning Exhibitors
Current Sec. 11.2, ``Prohibitions concerning exhibitors,'' lists
general and specific prohibitions for any device, method, practice, or
substance used on any horse at any horse show, exhibition, or horse
sale or auction if such use causes or can reasonably be expected to
cause such horse to be sore. We propose to move those prohibitions from
Sec. 11.2
[[Page 56935]]
to a revised Sec. 11.6 and reserve Sec. 11.2 for future use.
Non-Interference With APHIS Representatives
Current Sec. 11.3 contains the ``scar rule,'' which refers to the
presence of certain types of lesions on the horse's pastern and fore
pastern suggesting that a horse has been sored. Horses that do not meet
the scar rule criteria are considered to be sore and are subject to all
prohibitions of the Act.
We propose to remove the scar rule from this section and include
the revised language in proposed Sec. 11.6(a)(22). A full discussion
of the proposed changes to the scar rule is included under
``Dermatologic Changes and the Scar Rule,'' below.
The language we propose to add to revised Sec. 11.3 is based on
current Sec. 11.6(c) and amended to prohibit persons from assaulting,
resisting, opposing, impeding, intimidating, threatening, or
interfering with APHIS representatives or HPIs, or in any way
influencing attendees of a horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction to
do the same. Persons guilty of such violations may be held criminally
liable and referred to the U.S. Department of Justice for prosecution.
These proposed amendments strengthen regulatory protections for the
safety of both APHIS representatives and HPIs appointed by management
and engaged in duties at the events listed, as well as the safety of
horses and attendees.
Prohibitions for Disqualified Persons
Section 11.4 of the current regulations includes requirements
regarding inspection of horses by APHIS representatives, as well as
detention of horses for inspection if an APHIS representative has
probable cause to believe that a horse is sore. We propose to revise
Sec. 11.4 to include provisions regarding the status of persons whom
USDA has disqualified from showing, exhibiting, selling, or auctioning
horses. Provisions for inspection and detention of horses, which
currently comprise this section, would be moved to a new Sec. 11.8.
The proposed text for Sec. 11.4 would indicate that any person
disqualified from participating in any horse show, exhibition, sale, or
auction shall not show, exhibit, or enter any horse, directly or
indirectly through any agent, employee, corporation, partnership, or
other device, and shall not judge, manage, or otherwise participate in
events covered by the Act within the period during which the
disqualification is in effect. We would add this provision to the
regulations to ensure that prohibitions are in place to address
attempts by disqualified persons to continue participating in events
listed above either directly or indirectly through the aid of other
identities or persons.
Appeal of Inspection Report
Section 11.5 currently includes requirements for the management of
any horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or auction to provide APHIS
representatives with unlimited access to the grandstands and all other
premises of any horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or auction,
including any adjacent areas under their direction, for the purpose of
inspecting horses or records. Management must also provide an adequate,
safe, and accessible area for the visual inspection and observation of
horses. This section also requires persons having custody of any horse
at any horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or auction to admit any
APHIS representative or DQP appointed by management to all areas of
barns, compounds, horse vans, horse trailers, stables, or other grounds
or related areas at any horse show, exhibition, or horse sale or
auction, for the purpose of inspecting any such horse at reasonable
times.
We propose changing the heading of Sec. 11.5 to read ``Appeal of
inspection report'' and moving provisions for access to premises and
records to a new Sec. 11.9. Revised Sec. 11.5 would provide that any
horse owner, trainer, exhibitor, custodian or transporter may appeal
inspection report findings all or in part to the Administrator. The
appeal would require a written statement contesting the inspection
finding(s) and include any documentation or other information in
support of the appeal. The appeal would have to be received by the
Administrator, preferably by electronic mail, or by U.S. mail,\25\
within 21 business days of receipt of the inspection report. The
Administrator would send a final decision, either via electronic mail
or U.S. mail, to the person requesting the appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Email address: [email protected]. Appeals may also
be sent via U.S. mail to APHIS, 2150 Centre Ave., Bldg. B, MS 3W-11,
Fort Collins, CO 80547.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We note that in current Sec. 11.25, each HIO is required to
provide a process in its rulebook, subject to APHIS approval, for
alleged violators of the regulations to appeal penalties resulting from
inspections. However, as HIOs would no longer play a role in
inspections, proposed Sec. 11.5 includes a process for alleged
violators to appeal penalties resulting from inspections conducted by
APHIS representatives or HPIs appointed by management.
Pre-Show Review of a Finding of Soring
In response to the 2016 proposed HPA rule, APHIS received some
comments raising due process concerns. The comments included a request
that APHIS develop and implement a pre-show process whereby owners and
trainers may contest and seek immediate review of a finding that a
horse is sore from a decision-maker, and the suggestion that when USDA
finds that a horse is sore after being passed by a DQP, the horse
should be allowed to be shown until there is a final decision in the
matter.
The HPA vests in management the responsibility to disqualify or
prohibit a horse from being shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned
following a determination by an inspector that the horse is sore. See
15 U.S.C. 1823(a). Specifically, the statute and regulations require
management to (among other acts) disqualify a horse in instances where
(1) the horse is sore or (2) management is notified by a DQP or APHIS
representative that the horse is sore. Id.; see Sec. 11.20(b)(1) of
the regulations (management ``shall immediately disqualify'' a horse
identified by the DQP to be sore or otherwise known by management to be
sore). Given this nexus between management's decision and an
inspector's findings, and in light of the due process concerns raised
in comments on the 2016 proposed rule, we seek additional public
comment on potential ways to resolve disputes arising from a
determination of soring following inspection, including possible
options for resolving such disputes before a show takes place.
We are concerned that the suggestions by commenters on the 2016
proposed rule are not consistent with the intent or language of the Act
itself. For instance, if a horse determined by an inspector to be sore
is allowed to be shown until a final decision is made, this could
undermine Congress's two primary goals in enacting the Act: To
eliminate the cruel and inhumane practice of horse soring and to ensure
fair competition at horse shows and exhibitions by not permitting sored
horses to unfairly compete with horses that are not sore. See 15 U.S.C.
1822. Moreover, it would directly contradict paragraph (a) of section
1823 of the Act, which requires that ``[t]he management of any horse
show or horse exhibition shall disqualify any horse from being shown or
exhibited (1) which is sore or (2) if the management has been notified
by [an inspector] that the horse is sore.''
[[Page 56936]]
Section 1824 of the Act underscores that management must disqualify
such horses by listing the failure to do so as an ``unlawful act''
under the Act. Section 1825 of the Act authorizes fines, imprisonment
and civil penalties for violations of section 1824. Finally, Congress
found that ``horses shown or exhibited which are sore, where such
soreness improves the performance of such horse, compete unfairly with
horses which are not sore.'' 15 U.S.C. 1822(2).
In addition to these statutory concerns, the process envisioned by
past commenters, or other lengthy processes that could not be completed
before a scheduled show or exhibition, as they are currently operated,
could strongly incentivize owners to contest findings of soring in
order to delay as long as possible any possible disqualification. This
could undermine the intent and requirements of the Act for the reasons
discussed above.
One possible solution could be to conduct the inspections far
enough in advance of the exhibition or show to allow for an opportunity
to be heard before the event. However, given the current structure of
horse shows and exhibitions, as well as the need to ensure that horses
are not sored following an inspection and before a show, this proposal
would require significant internal changes and cooperation from the
horse industry. Most horse shows and exhibitions are 1-day events that
are set up during the day and take place in the early evening.
Inspections take place approximately 30 minutes before the horse enters
the arena, and immediately following the inspection, the horse enters a
supervised warm-up area and does not leave that area until the horse
enters the arena to perform. This is to ensure that the horse's
conditions do not change following its inspection and before the horse
enters the show ring. Under the current structure, there is
insufficient time to conduct a review process between the inspection
and the horse being exhibited or shown, and it would require a
significant change in show and exhibition practices, and possible
restructuring of the industry itself, to allow such a process to take
place. It would also entail a significant reallocation of existing
APHIS resources. We may need to deploy more inspectors to shows, have
them arrive earlier, develop monitoring protocols to ensure horses are
not sored following inspection but before the event, and provide both
personnel and direct and indirect support costs to the review process.
To that end, in order to assess the feasibility of conducting
inspections in advance of a show or exhibition in a manner that would
afford a pre-show review process while still ensuring that the horse is
not subsequently sored after inspection, we request specific public
comment on the following:
Could pre-show inspections still take place in the same
physical area as the show or exhibition? If not, where should they take
place?
How early should pre-show inspections take place, in order
to ensure time for a review process?
How should the health and safety of the horse be monitored
after the inspection takes place in order to ensure that the horse is
not subsequently sored? Who would be responsible for monitoring to
ensure that the horse is not subsequently sored?
What type of review process would be afforded to contest a
finding that a horse is sore? Who would decide these matters? What
parties should be involved? Do the parties need to be physically
present at the site of the show or exhibition?
What timing mechanisms would need to be in place to ensure
the review process can be completed in time for the horse to show, if
the initial inspection is overturned? What actions should occur in the
event that the review process is not completed before the show or
exhibition?
How would any pre-show review process implicate or
interact with the existing reinspection process currently located in
section 11.4(h), as proposed for amendment and relocation at section
11.8(h)?
In addition to the alternative that we have identified to address
the issue, we acknowledge that there may be other means of addressing
the issue that we are not aware of. To that end, we request public
comment regarding other possible alternatives, including consideration
of regulatory bodies, statutory authorities, or incentives or
disincentives, including the withholding or forfeiture of prize money,
that could be applied to address the issue.
Prohibited Items and Practices
Current Sec. 11.2 contains prohibitions on the use of certain
action devices, equipment, pads, substances, and practices on horses at
any horse show, exhibition, sale or auction covered under the Act.
The prohibitions are intended to pertain to the devices, practices,
and substances that are used either to sore horses directly or
contribute to the act of soring (an example of the latter being a hoof
pad that hides a sharp object). Reaction to the pain caused by soring
results in the exaggerated chest-high gait prized in certain classes at
Tennessee Walking horse and racking horse shows. Chains and other
devices, especially those that are heavy or have sharp or rough edges,
can inflict pain and exacerbate soring through repeated strikes to the
leg while the horse performs, particularly if irritating substances
have also been applied to the skin. Pads that cause a horse's foot to
strike the ground at an unnatural angle can also induce pain and soring
over time, as can heavy pads and horseshoes. Substances can be used to
mask the pain a sore horse feels long enough to pass inspection, while
dyes and other substances can hide lesions and other signs of soring on
the skin. As reflected in the inspection statistics presented above,
soring is diagnosed almost exclusively at events featuring Tennessee
Walking horses and racking horses that perform in pads and action
devices. By comparison, APHIS and DQP inspections at flat-shod events
in which horses do not wear pads and action devices rarely find soring
violations.
We note that the current regulations do not prohibit all devices--
for example, in Sec. 11.2(b), certain rollers, chains, and bell boots
weighing 6 ounces or less are permitted, as are certain types of pads.
In proposed Sec. 11.6(b), we allow for the restricted use of some
items so that events featuring breeds other than Tennessee Walking
Horses and racking horses may continue using them. APHIS recognizes
that action devices and pads are sometimes used for purposes that do
not cause soring during training of Morgans, American Saddlebreds, and
many other gaited breeds. Applying light chains or other devices on the
pastern, for example, creates a sensory, or proprioceptive, reaction
that can stimulate front and rear hoof height without pain, and that on
rear hooves can increase the range of motion.\26\ While all horse
breeds are subject to provisions of the Act, soring imparts little to
no advantage to competitors at these shows, as the gaits on which most
breeds are evaluated are noticeably distinct from the exaggerated ``big
lick'' step featured at many Tennessee Walking horses and racking horse
events.\27\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ Clayton, Hilary, ``Rehabilitation for Horses.'' Paper
presented at American Association of Equine Practitioners, July
2014.
\27\ We acknowledge that many owners of Tennessee Walking horses
and racking horses show their horses in ``flat shod'' classes,
meaning they do not use the action devices and thick pads associated
with soring and required as a condition of entry in performance
classes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56937]]
The restrictions on pads, devices, and activities listed in current
Sec. 11.2(b) make no distinction between breeds that are often
diagnosed as sore--Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses--and
other gaited breeds that are not known to be sored. As currently
permitted under Sec. 11.2(b), many breeds perform in light chains
under six ounces and low pads that elevate the heel by less than an
inch. We considered prohibiting all non-therapeutic pads, action
devices, substances, and other practices for all breeds at all covered
events, but in doing so we would unfairly conflate those breeds that do
not sore for competitive advantage with those that do.
Accordingly, we propose to revise Sec. 11.6(b) by including a more
restrictive list of prohibitions specific to Tennessee Walking Horses
and racking horses. We base our reasons for establishing prohibitions
specific to these breeds on several points. As we have noted above, our
records show that the clear majority of horses diagnosed by APHIS
representatives and DQPs as being sore are Tennessee Walking Horses and
racking horses, specifically those that participate in pads and action
devices in certain competitions favoring a high-stepping, accentuated
gait. Insofar as APHIS directs most of its compliance inspections
toward Tennessee Walking Horse and racking horse events, it follows
that our records would show that almost all noncompliances we report
are among these two breeds. However, based on our informed knowledge
about the practices of all breeds performing or exhibiting in the
United States, we know that soring in breeds other than Tennessee
Walking Horses and racking horses confers no significant performance
advantage and is therefore rarely if ever practiced. APHIS-Animal Care
officials remain updated on the activities of all breed organizations
and investigate any allegations or reports suggesting that violations
of the Act are occurring within any breed. We invite public comment on
any observations persons may have regarding soring in other breeds.
Further, APHIS has observed from its experience in administering
and enforcing the Act and regulations (including through compliance
inspections, investigations, enforcement of alleged violations,
oversight of industry-based inspection programs, and outreach to the
horse industry) that a relationship continues to exist between the use
of certain permitted devices and instances of soring, notably among
Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses, when used alone or in
conjunction with prohibited substances.
We acknowledge that at many, if not most, shows featuring Tennessee
Walking Horses and racking horses, the majority of entrants are
exhibiting or performing with so called ``flat-shod'' horses (those
that do not normally use the pads and action devices this proposed rule
would seek to prohibit). Some shows featuring Tennessee Walking Horses
and racking horses are entirely flat-shod in nature and already
prohibit pads and action devices. We note that in 2022, almost 35,000
flat shod entries were inspected by DQPs and APHIS representatives
combined, with a compliance rate above 99 percent. We do not consider
such shows to be high risk with respect to noncompliance with the Act
and regulations.
Action Devices, Boots, Collars
Under Sec. 11.2(b), the regulations currently allow the use of a
chain or other action device on each limb of a horse if the device
weighs 6 ounces or less. Action device is currently defined as ``a
boot, collar, chain, roller, or other device which encircles or is
placed upon the lower extremity of the leg of a horse in such a manner
that it can either rotate around the leg, or slide up and down the leg
so as to cause friction, or which can strike the hoof, coronet band or
fetlock joint.'' In the Definitions section, we proposed adding beads
and bangles to the illustrative list of action devices, as these
devices encircle the leg, and strike the leg or create friction during
movement.
Equine veterinarians on the NAS study committee noted that abnormal
skin changes seen on the pasterns of Tennessee Walking Horses are not
observed on other breeds of horses such as Arabians, American
Saddlebreds, and Morgans, which sometimes train with action devices but
do not usually wear them when competing. Moreover, action devices used
on other breeds typically are of lower weight than those used on
Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses. The committee also noted
that Tennessee Walking Horses are often trained with action devices
weighing in excess of the 6-ounce action devices currently allowed for
competition and concluded that the use of heavier or more cumbersome
devices in training may be more likely to contribute to the formation
of skin lesions.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ A Review of Methods for Detecting Soreness in Horses, page
81 (see footnote 21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NAS' observations regarding action devices and their role in soring
are consistent with those of an older but still relevant study \29\
conducted at the Auburn University School of Veterinary Medicine from
1978 to 1982, which evaluated the effects of acute and chronic
inflammatory responses on the front and hind limbs of horses. The
findings of that study suggest a strong relationship between soring and
the combined use of action devices and substances. Horses were
exercised for 2-3 weeks wearing 2-, 4-, and 6-ounce chains, after which
it was determined that the use of such chains for a duration of 2 to 3
weeks ``did not produce any harmful effects to the horses' legs, with
exception to some loss of hair from 6-ounce chains in the pastern
areas.'' However, in another phase \30\ of the study, it was determined
that the combined use of prohibited substances and chains on the
pasterns of horses caused lesions, tissue damage, and visible
alterations of behavior consistent with soring. Although this phase of
the study used 10-ounce chains, 4 ounces heavier than what is currently
allowed, if a horse may be trained sore using 10-ounce chains (or other
weight and/or substance combinations) and then shown in 6-ounce chains,
the use of a 6-ounce chain may reasonably be expected to cause the
horse to experience pain while walking, trotting, or otherwise
moving.\31\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ Thermography in Diagnosis of Inflammatory Processes in
Horses in Response to Various Chemical and Physical Factors: Summary
of the Research from September 1978 to December 1982. Submitted to
the U.S. Department of Agriculture by Dr. Ram C. Purohit, Associate
Professor, School of Veterinary Medicine, Auburn University. The
study is available at the regulations.gov address included under
ADDRESSES or by contacting the individual listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT above.
\30\ Phase 7, ``Simultaneous Use of Chemical and Chains for
Soring Horses''.
\31\ The NAS study (page 81) also indicated that heavier chains
and other action devices are typically used when training Tennessee
Walking Horses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Historically, prohibited substances such as caustic irritants have
been applied to the pasterns of some gaited breeds, most commonly
Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses, until the skin is
sensitive and painful to the touch. This process typically takes
several days and completed before the horse enters the event grounds.
When the horse wears a chain or other action device while performing,
it strikes the treated skin, causing pain and a high stepping reaction.
Our observations from administering and enforcing the Act have
indicated that soring can and does occur in Tennessee Walking Horses
and racking horses with the use
[[Page 56938]]
of prohibited substances and/or action devices such as chains and
rollers of nearly any weight, including the 6-ounce weight limit
currently in the regulations.
Under proposed Sec. 11.6(a), ``General Prohibitions for All
Horses,'' we would continue to prohibit any action device, method,
practice, or substance to be used on any horse at any horse event
covered under the Act if such use causes or can reasonably be expected
to cause such horse to be sore or is otherwise used to mask previous
and/or ongoing soring.
Proposed Sec. 11.6(b) lists prohibitions that apply to all horses
at covered events but which allow for some devices used by some breeds
for purposes unrelated to soring, as discussed above.
Under Sec. 11.6(c)(1), we would prohibit all action devices on
Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses, and in paragraph (c)(2)
prohibit all artificial extension of the toe length unless the horse
has been prescribed and is receiving therapeutic treatment using
artificial extension of the toe length. In proposed paragraph (c)(3) we
would prohibit all pads and wedges on any Tennessee Walking Horse or
racking horse at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction, unless
the horse has been prescribed and is receiving therapeutic treatment
using pads or wedges as approved in writing by a licensed veterinarian.
Finally, in proposed paragraph (c)(4), we would prohibit all substances
on the extremities above the hoof of any Tennessee Walking Horse or
racking horse entered for the purpose of being shown or exhibited,
sold, auctioned, or offered for sale in or on the grounds of any horse
show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction. Explanations for each
of these prohibitions is provided below.
In prior rulemakings, APHIS has received a range of comments from
members of the gaited horse industry, veterinary professional
organizations, animal advocates, and the general public regarding the
purposes and effects of such devices, and whether there are minimum
weights below which such devices will not cause lesions that constitute
soring. Our experience with enforcing the Act indicates that soring can
be induced when action devices are used alone or in combination with
prohibited substances. We welcome public comment, supported with
scientific data or other rigorous evidence, on the effects of action
devices used alone or in combination with other training methods.
Pads, Toe Extensions
Section 11.2(b)(8) of the current regulations prohibits pads or
other devices on yearling horses (horses up to 2 years old) that
elevate or change the angle of such horses' hooves in excess of 1 inch
at the heel. Altering the angulation of a horse's feet and legs can
cause painful lameness, soreness, and inflammation by transferring
concussive impact and weight-bearing pressures to joints and other
parts of the horse not normally subjected to these forces. Elevating
the foot using stacked hoof pads, or ``performance packages,'' can also
cause an increase in tension in the tendons leading to inflammation, as
can extra weight on the horse's foot. Additionally, elevating only the
front feet, as is typically done in Tennessee Walking Horse and racking
horse performance-class competitions using pads, ``causes an unnatural
angulation of the back and body of the horse, and changes the alignment
of the shoulder muscles, the vertebrae, and the pelvis, all of which
are then subject to stress, irritation, and inflammation.'' (See 53 FR
14780 (April 26, 1988)).
Research undertaken in the above-cited Auburn study indicated that
raising a horse's heels through the use of pads alone resulted in
swollen flexor tendons and signs of inflammation. The same study also
found the ability to detect pressure soring (i.e., the illegal
application or use of bolts, screws, blocks, hoof packing material, and
other methods of pressure) through visual and physical inspection of
the soles of horses' hooves is limited because pads obscure the solar
surface of the foot.
Under proposed Sec. 11.6(c)(3), we would prohibit all pads and
wedges on any Tennessee Walking Horse or racking horse at any horse
show, exhibition, sale, or auction, unless the horse has been
prescribed and is receiving therapeutic treatment involving the use of
pads or wedges as approved in writing by a licensed veterinarian.
APHIS' experience at Tennessee Walking Horse and racking horse events
indicates that soring continues to occur through the use of performance
packages that can introduce unnatural angulations of the foot or hide
signs of pressure shoeing. However, we would not have this specific
provision become effective until 270 days after promulgation of a final
rule, as it takes approximately 6 to 8 months for a padded horse to
become acclimated to being flat-shod (i.e., walking and performing
without pads).
We invite comments on whether this is an appropriate timeframe for
transitioning to a prohibition on pads, but underscore that this
prohibition is necessary in order for APHIS to enforce the provisions
of the Act. APHIS inspection data shows that of the alleged HPA
violations documented at events from FY 2017 through 2021, 94 percent
involved horses wearing pads.\32\ This is not to imply that pads were
directly responsible for soring these horses. Rather, the performance
classes in which soring confers the greatest benefit (an unnatural
high-stepping gait) require that the horse wear pads.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\32\ Inspection data compiled by APHIS Horse Protection program
from FY 2017 through 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In proposed Sec. 11.6(b)(9) and (13), we would continue to allow
the restricted use of pads at shows without Tennessee Walking Horses
and racking horses, provided that the pads or other devices on horses
up to 2 years old that elevate or change the angle of such horses'
hooves are not in excess of 1 inch at the heel, and would also continue
to allow the use of pads made of leather, plastic, or a similar pliant
material.
In proposed Sec. 11.6(c)(2), we would also prohibit all artificial
extensions of toe length on Tennessee Walking horses and racking
horses, unless the horse has been prescribed and is receiving
therapeutic treatment. Toe extensions can be used to sore horses by
increasing stress on certain tendons and ligaments. However, similar to
what we indicated regarding pads, prohibition of artificial extensions
would not become effective until 270 days after promulgation of a final
rule, as it takes approximately 6 to 8 months to take the steps needed
to re-acclimate a Tennessee Walking horse or racking horse accustomed
to going in such extensions to walking and performing without them. As
the practice has non-soring uses in other breeds, such as to make safe
adjustments to a horse's gait, we will retain the provision in Sec.
11.2(b)(11) to allow artificial extension of the toe length on horses
other than Tennessee Walking horses or racking horses, whether
accomplished with pads, acrylics or any other material or combinations
thereof, provided that it not exceed 50 percent of the natural hoof
length as measured from the coronet band, at the center of the front
pastern along the front of the hoof wall, to the distal portion of the
hoof wall at the tip of the toe.
Substances
Under the general prohibitions in current Sec. 11.2(a), a
substance must not be used on any horse at any covered event,
regardless of breed, if such use causes or can reasonably be expected
to cause such horse to be sore.
[[Page 56939]]
Numerous substances are used on horses at shows, exhibitions, and
sales events for legitimate purposes, among them shampoos, polishes,
conditioners, oils, and insect repellents, as well as lubricants that
allow action devices to slide on the leg with less friction. For this
reason, the specific prohibitions in current Sec. 11.2(b) do not
include substances. However, as we mentioned above, at Tennessee
Walking horse and racking horse events, we have observed from our
experience enforcing the regulations (including through compliance
inspections, investigations, enforcement actions, and industry
oversight and outreach) that chains, rollers, and similar devices are
sometimes used with caustic substances to induce painful lesions and
inflammation. Other prohibited substances sometimes detected on horses
include masking and numbing agents that temporarily block the pain of
soring so inspectors cannot detect pain upon inspection. Specifically,
local anesthetic agents such as benzocaine and lidocaine are used to
deter detection of soring upon evaluation, as well as dyes and paints
to cover evidence of soring.
Even lotions such as skin softeners and conditioners are implicated
in soring at Tennessee Walking horse and racking horse events. While
these substances do not directly cause soring, their intended use is to
diminish the effects of soring. Such substances are used so that when
soring is induced, the skin is softer and does not react as badly, thus
decreasing the chance of inflammation and a subsequent scar rule
violation.
Current Sec. 11.2(c) prohibits all substances on the extremities
above the hoof of any Tennessee Walking Horse or racking horse while
being shown, exhibited, or offered for sale at any covered event,
except lubricants such as glycerin, petrolatum, and mineral oil, or
mixtures of these. Moreover, these lubricants must be furnished by
event management and can only be applied after inspection.
However, data collected by APHIS from 2017 through 2022 \33\
indicates that, in each of those years, substantial numbers of horses
tested by APHIS were positive for prohibited substances, with nearly
all of them being Tennessee Walking horses and racking horses. In FY
2018, among horses that wore performance packages (action devices and
pads), 144 horses were positive out of 194 tested, and over the 6-year
period the average rate of positives was more than 40 percent.\34\
Furthermore, during this 6-year period, masking and numbing agents
constituted about 36 percent of the prohibited substances detected on
all horses tested. Of the horses testing positive for prohibited
substances, about 90 percent wore performance packages while being
shown or exhibited in performance classes. The data from this period
shows that the Tennessee Walking Horse and racking horse communities
continue to use prohibited substances to induce, hide, or mask soring
despite the current ban.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\33\ HIO collected samples are included in FY 2020 through FY
2022 data and were funded by APHIS.
\34\ See Table 3 presented above in the section ``Evaluation of
the Horse Protection Program.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore, in proposed Sec. 11.6(c)(4), we would prohibit all
substances on the extremities above the hoof of any Tennessee Walking
Horse or racking horse entered for the purpose of being shown or
exhibited, sold, auctioned, or offered for sale in or on the grounds of
any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction, regardless of the
substance's composition. Lubricants would no longer be allowed to be
used with action devices as we also propose to prohibit such devices on
these breeds. Given the wide range of substances that can induce or
numb pain, or otherwise hide evidence of soring, we consider a
prohibition of all substances at shows with Tennessee Walking Horses
and racking horses to be the best means to reduce incidences of soring
in accordance with the HPA.
Stewarding
In proposed new paragraph (b)(21), we would prohibit stewarding of
any breed of horse during inspection for soreness. Stewarding involves
the use of whips, cigarette smoke, or other threatening actions or
paraphernalia to distract a horse from feeling leg pain when palpated
during inspection or to otherwise impede the inspection process.
We would also prohibit holding of reins less than approximately 18
inches from the bit shank. The earlier-cited NAS study committee's
observation of 61 inspection videos revealed numerous incidents of
stewarding during the standing inspection that were not dealt with by
the inspector, including holding the reins closer than 18 inches from
the bit, often just below or on the shank. In some cases, the committee
observed that the horse was restrained with constant tension, often
with the reins held in an upward direction, or the reins were pulled
sharply. The committee noted that these restraint tactics can create a
distraction during the palpation procedure by inducing pain in the oral
cavity.\35\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ A Review of Methods for Detecting Soreness in Horses, page
7 (see footnote 21).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dermatologic Changes and the Scar Rule
Under current Sec. 11.3 of the regulations, all horses \36\
subject to the ``scar rule'' that do not meet certain criteria are
considered sore and are subject to all prohibitions of section 5 of the
Act. Paragraph (a) states that ``the anterior and anterior-lateral
surfaces of the fore pasterns (extensor surface) must be free of
bilateral granulomas, other bilateral pathological evidence of
inflammation, and, other bilateral evidence of abuse indicative of
soring including, but not limited to, excessive loss of hair.'' A
footnote is also appended to paragraph (a). It defines ``granuloma'' as
``any one of a rather large group of fairly distinctive focal lesions
that are formed as a result of inflammatory reactions caused by
biological, chemical, or physical agents.''
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\36\ The regulation states that it applies to all horses born on
or after October 1, 1975, but as this now includes every living
horse it no longer needs to be part of the regulations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (b) of the scar rule states that ``the posterior surfaces
of the pasterns (flexor surface), including the sulcus or `pocket' may
show bilateral areas of uniformly thickened epithelial tissue if such
areas are free of proliferating granuloma tissue, irritation, moisture,
edema, or other evidence of inflammation.''
In paragraph (a)(2) of Sec. 11.21, the requirements for inspection
of horses by DQPs include an examination to determine whether the horse
meets the scar rule criteria. Paragraph (a)(2) states that ``[w]hile
carrying out the procedures set forth in this paragraph, the DQP shall
also inspect the horse to determine whether the provisions of Sec.
11.3 of this part are being complied with, and particularly whether
there is any evidence of inflammation, edema, or proliferating
granuloma tissue.''
The scar rule is not a part of the Horse Protection Act. In its
current form, the scar rule was proposed in 1978 and added to the
regulations in 1979.\37\ According to the 1978 proposal, the scar rule
was initially developed in 1974 by representatives of the horse
industry and the Department as part of the industry's self-policing
program against
[[Page 56940]]
soring.\38\ The proposal notes that as a result of that program, a
distinction between the types of scars found on younger and older
horses gradually emerged; younger horses ``do not bear the scars,
granulomas, and callouses indicative of soring that are often found on
older horses.'' \39\ The Department therefore stated in the proposal
that it ``believes it will benefit all concerned parties by adopting
and enforcing a national uniform criteria for applying the `scar
rule'.'' \40\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\37\ The proposal was published in the Federal Register on April
28, 1978 (43 FR 18514-18531) and the final rule was published on
April 27, 1979 (44 FR 25172-25184) .
\38\ See also In Re: F. Dale Rowland & Denise Rowland., 52
Agric. Dec. 1103, 1126 (U.S.D.A. Aug. 25, 1993) (citing Horse
Protection Enforcement, 1979: Annual Report of the Secretary of
Agriculture to the President of the United States Senate and the
Speaker of the House of Representatives (July 1980) at 4).
\39\ 43 FR 18514-18531, page 18519.
\40\ Idem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department added that the scar rule it was proposing would
allow for normal changes in the skin due to friction and permit
thickening of the epithelial layer of the skin in the pastern area,
comparing it to ``a callous on a workman's hands,'' and would also
allow for moderate loss of hair on the pastern caused by the friction
caused by an action device.\41\ Notably, the proposal emphasized that
the scar rule must be applied bilaterally and that the scarring must be
identical on both legs, so that horses bearing scars from accidental
injury to one leg are not unfairly penalized as being sore, being that
``[t]he chances are extremely remote that any horse would ever injure
both forelegs in an identical manner with resulting identical scars in
the anterior or posterior pastern area of each foreleg.'' \42\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\41\ Idem.
\42\ Idem.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 2001, APHIS issued a guide \43\ regarding how to apply the scar
rule during inspections. The scar rule as currently written requires
that for a horse to be in compliance with the scar rule, there must be
no proliferating granuloma tissue, irritation, moisture, edema, or
other evidence of inflammation indicative of soring visible in highly
specific locations on or near the anterior pasterns. The guide
emphasized that ``[b]ecause of the difference between what is allowed
on the front and back of the pastern, it is important to know where the
boundaries of the anterior and posterior surfaces are located,'' and
provided specific instructions for determining the boundaries for
purposes of determining regulatory compliance. Once the boundaries are
determined, the anterior and posterior surfaces of the horse's pasterns
must be determined to be entirely free of scars indicative of soring
but the posterior surface of the pastern is allowed to show uniformly
thickened skin that is free of inflammation, with no redness, swelling,
pain, or oozing. The guide also emphasized that for there to be a scar
rule violation, skin abnormalities must be found on both front
pasterns, although they do not have to be identical in appearance or
location to be a violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\43\ USDA-APHIS, Understanding the Scar Rule, February 2001.
This guide was removed from Agency circulation (and its website)
when the Agency updated its training materials on the scar rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 2001 guide indicates that APHIS' understanding of scarring had
evolved since 1978, such that the Agency now understood that a horse
need not bear identical scars on both pasterns in order to be
bilaterally scarred. Its issuance also indicates that APHIS believed
guidance was warranted at the time to ensure that inspections for
violations of the scar rule were correctly and uniformly conducted.
Despite the issuance of the 2001 guide, and the development of
subsequent training that supplanted the guide, the scar rule itself
remains unchanged in practice from its inclusion in the regulations 44
years ago. Since that time, however, advances in veterinary science as
well as technical innovations in imaging and diagnostics have improved
our understanding of how soring occurs and our ability to detect it.
(As the NAS study notes, even the term ``scar rule'' has become
something of a misnomer, with the obvious bilateral soring lesions and
scars seen prior to passage of the Act in 1970 only rarely observed
today.)
However, as technical advancements during the intervening period
have improved our ability to detect soring, so too have technical
advancements improved violators' ability to evade detection of scarring
during inspections. APHIS, veterinary organizations, and the horse
industry continue to see violators developing new ways to obscure the
gross dermatologic indicia of soring, leaving little or no visible
lesions on the leg and making it difficult to disqualify a horse under
the scar rule as currently written. Violators, for example, have used
lasers to smooth out irregularly thickened skin or evidence of chronic
inflammation on one pastern of a horse that has been sored bilaterally,
leaving only one leg with obvious signs of soring (unilateral), thus
allowing the horse to avoid being disqualified under the current
bilateral requirement of the scar rule. Requiring that lesions be
bilateral in order for a horse to be considered sore under the scar
rule has made it less effective against the innovations devised to
evade it. In short, it is now clear to the Agency that a horse need not
gross dermatologic indicia of soring bilaterally in order for the horse
to be sore.
Further, although the existing scar rule specifies regions on the
limb (extensor and flexor surfaces, sulcus) on which the scarring must
occur for a violation of the scar rule to occur, as the issuance of the
2001 guide illustrates, the boundaries of the regions may not always be
clearly and uniformly understood in the absence of guidance. Moreover,
an abnormality indicative of soring is not enforceable as a scar rule
violation if it appears outside these regions.
The NAS study also found the term ``granuloma'' to be imprecise in
its regulatory use as one of the visible signs of soring during a gross
inspection. The study notes that medically, the term is defined as ``an
inflammatory lesion composed of specific types of leukocytes arranged
in a particular way,'' and indicates that only a microscopic evaluation
of the tissue in question will establish the presence of granulomatous
inflammation.\44\ This stands in contrast to the regulatory definition
within the scar rule itself, which defines ``granuloma'' much more
broadly as ``any one of a rather large group of fairly distinctive
focal lesions that are formed as a result of inflammatory reactions
caused by biological, chemical, or physical agents.'' The regulatory
definition of the term includes lesions and other effects of
inflammation caused by soring that are visible to the naked eye upon
inspection of the limb. The medical definition of ``granuloma''
describes pathology that can only be viewed microscopically. The study
suggested that the scar rule be revised to limit evidence to
dermatologic conditions that are observable during gross examination
(an examination by an inspector that involves palpating the horse,
observing its movements, and looking for visible (not microscopic)
abnormalities on the skin indicative of soring).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\44\ A Review of Methods for Detecting Soreness in Horses, page
83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given the foregoing considerations, we propose updating the scar
rule. Accordingly, what had been known as the scar rule would be moved
to proposed paragraph (b)(22) ofproposed Sec. 11.6, and would be
updated to the following: ``The forelimbs and hindlimbs of the horse
must be free of dermatologic conditions that are indicative of soring.
Examples of such dermatologic conditions include, but are
[[Page 56941]]
not limited to, irritation, moisture, edema, swelling, redness,
epidermal thickening, loss of hair (patchy or diffuse) or other
evidence of inflammation. Any horse found to have one or more of the
dermatologic conditions set forth herein shall be presumed to be `sore'
and be subject to all prohibitions of section 6 (15 U.S.C. 1825) of the
Act.''
As to the likelihood of accidental abrasions and other skin
irregularities being confused for soring, changes in the skin due to
soring are fairly distinctive when compared to accidental injuries.
When horses are repeatedly sored, the skin on their pasterns will
develop thickening that usually is in a ridge pattern and diffuse
around the posterior and/or anterior pasterns. An injury is usually a
discrete, well-demarcated cut or scar that can be differentiated from
the skin changes seen with soring.
In our proposed change to the scar rule, we removed all references
to scars and scarring, which is supported by the NAS study's conclusion
that ``scars have not been documented microscopically in Tennessee
Walking Horses that have been found to be sore. A scar is an area of
tissue where the normal components and organization of the tissue have
been lost and replaced by fibrous connective tissue.'' \45\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\45\ A Review of Methods for Detecting Soreness in Horses, page
84.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We also propose removing all requirements that violations of the
proposed Sec. 11.6(b)(22) be bilateral in nature given the ability of
violators to obscure signs of soring on at least one limb. We also note
that it has long been the Agency's understanding, as evidenced in the
2001 guide, that soring may result in dermatologic indicia that is not
uniform. Notwithstanding the current scar rule's language, we consider
this proposed revision to be consistent with the Act itself. In the
definition of ``sore'' in Section 2 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1821), a
horse is considered sore if the agents and other devices listed in the
definition and used in the soring are applied, inflicted, injected, or
used to or on ``any limb of a horse.'' This definition, which is
fundamental to understanding the Act's requirements regarding soring,
clearly allows for diagnoses of soring regardless of the number of
limbs involved. Therefore, a horse may be sore if a single limb has
been subjected to the use of one of the devices, substances, or
practices enumerated in the statutory definition of the term ``sore.''
The Agency acknowledges that section 6 of the Act (15 U.S.C.
1825(d)) states that ``[i]n any civil or criminal action to enforce
this chapter or any regulation under this chapter a horse shall be
presumed to be a horse which is sore if it manifests abnormal
sensitivity or inflammation in both of its forelimbs or both of its
hindlimbs.'' However, APHIS considers this provision to mean that a
horse must be considered presumptively sore during enforcement actions
if it manifests such bilateral sensitivity or inflammation. It does not
preclude the Agency from considering a horse sored based on evidence of
unilateral soring; again, such an interpretation would cut against the
definition of sore within the Act and render the clause ``any limb of
the horse'' to be without meaning.\46\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\46\ See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 174 (2001) (``It is our
duty `to give effect, if possible, to every clause and word of a
statute.' '' (quoting United States v. Menasche, 348 U.S. 528, 538-
39 (1955) (quoting Montclair v. Ramsdell, 107 U.S. 147, 152
(1883))).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding our proposal to remove terms describing specific regions
of the limb in the revision, we note that the definition of ``sore'' in
the Act also supports this change. The definition accounts for soring
being applied, inflicted, injected, or used on any limb of a horse
without limiting it to any specific regions of the limb. Moreover,
APHIS has found evidence of soring that can be identified through gross
examination outside of these specific regions, and, as the 2001 guide
illustrates, these regions may not be readily identified in all cases
without guidance.
We also propose to remove references to ``granulomas'' and
``proliferating granuloma tissue.'' Although the current footnoted
definition of ``granuloma'' in Sec. 11.3 describes visible lesions and
inflammation as scar rule violations, we are removing the term to
prevent continued confusion with its medical definition as elaborated
on in the NAS study.
Finally, we would remove the reference to ``uniformly thickened
epithelial tissue'' on the flexor surface of the pasterns and cite the
NAS study as support for this change. The NAS committee reviewed an
unpublished but peer-reviewed evaluation (``Stromberg report'') \47\ of
136 microscopic biopsies of skin samples taken from 68 Tennessee
Walking Horses that had been disqualified for violations of the scar
rule during the Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration events of
2015 and 2016. The evaluation, conducted by two veterinary anatomic
pathologists,\48\ examined 136 pastern biopsies (right and left pastern
from each horse). Their evaluation of the biopsies indicated abnormal
findings of variable epidermal hyperplasia in the form of acanthosis
(thickening of the stratum spinosum layer of the epidermis) and
variable degrees of hyperkeratosis (thickening of the stratum corneum
layer of the epidermis). However, they concluded that beyond these
abnormalities, there was no evidence of scar tissue or granulomatous
inflammation in the biopsies and therefore concluded there was no basis
or proof of a scar rule violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\47\ Stromberg, P. 2017. Summary report about soring in
Tennessee walking horses. Unpublished manuscript: https://www.nationalacademies.org/documents/embed/link/LF2255DA3DD1C41C0A42D3BEF0989ACAECE3053A6A9B/file/D3016359C83283E8AABAF73D5E24301E7BA78A03B4B3?noSaveAs=1. The
manuscript was provided to the NAS committee by a member of the
Tennessee Walking Horse industry.
\48\ Dr. Paul Stromberg, of the Ohio State University, and Dr.
Lynne Cassone, of the University of Kentucky.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The pathologists subsequently provided 24 pairs of the pastern
samples from their study to Dr. Pamela E. Ginn, a NAS study committee
member and board-certified veterinary pathologist, for further review.
While Dr. Ginn's initial observations on reviewing the pastern biopsies
are similar to those documented by Drs. Stromberg and Cassone in the
Stromberg report, Dr. Ginn interprets the significance of the lesions
differently. Drawing from her evaluation, the NAS committee reports
that the changes of hyperkeratosis and acanthosis, which were prominent
in the biopsy specimens, do not normally occur without a previously
inflicted injury on the pasterns. While these changes are recognized as
secondary, chronic lesions, and do not provide clear evidence of the
initial injury to the skin leading to these changes, they correlate
with the grossly detectable lesions of irregular epidermal thickening
known as lichenification, a pathologic change most often caused by
rubbing, scratching, or other repeated trauma to the skin.\49\ In other
words, while the Stromberg report found no granuloma in the tissue
microscopically and therefore concluded that there was no evidence of a
violation, Dr. Ginn's evaluation on behalf of NAS found other
pathological changes indicative of repeated trauma that correlate to an
unnatural thickening of the skin visible on gross examination.
Furthermore, NAS' evaluation found that the absence of granulomatous
and scar tissue does not rule out a scar rule violation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\49\ A Review of Methods for Detecting Soreness in Horses, page
82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56942]]
The NAS study recommended that the scar rule language should
reflect what inspectors see on sored horses during gross examination.
We agree with these conclusions and have proposed a set of diagnostic
criteria that retains the visual elements of the scar rule detectable
by gross examination.
Finally, we wish to note that APHIS does not entirely agree with
the NAS study in its evaluation of the scar rule. While the study has
provided APHIS with findings instrumental to our proposed changes to
the scar rule, we disagree with NAS' statement regarding its
enforceability, excerpted here:
The language of the scar rule is based on the assumptions that
certain lesions exist microscopically, that those lesions can be
detected by gross clinical dermatologic exam, and that the terms
used in the scar rule were used appropriately. In addition, it is
assumed that the rule can be interpreted and applied in a consistent
manner by APHIS veterinary medical officers VMOs and DQPs tasked
with examining horses for scar rule violations. None of these
assumptions hold true today, and therefore the rule as written is
not enforceable.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\50\ A Review of Methods for Detecting Soreness in Horses, page
82.
We hold that the current scar rule is in fact enforceable. One of
the NAS study's primary bases for considering the scar rule
``unenforceable'' is that it relies on a definition of ``granuloma''
that differs from the commonly accepted medical definition. The use of
a regulatory term of art with a defined definition that is different
from its ordinary meaning is, however, a well-established and
defensible regulatory practice. Additionally, while we agree with the
study that, without training and guidance, inspectors could differ in
identifying regions of a horse covered by the scar rule, the study
ignores the remedial measures that can be used to address this possible
discrepancy, such as the issuance of the 2001 guide referenced above.
Again, the use of guidance to address issues of possible inconsistent
interpretation of the regulations is a well-accepted and long-standing
regulatory practice that does not render the regulations themselves
``unenforceable.'' Finally, as we stated above, NAS indicated that the
pathological changes found in the biopsy specimens they examined
correlate with grossly detectable lesions of irregular epidermal
thickening known as lichenification, most often caused by repeated
trauma. We note that the grossly detectable (i.e., visible upon gross
examination) lichenification is actually equivalent to the non-
uniformly thickened epithelial tissue APHIS inspectors document during
inspections for soring.
In short, although the APHIS Horse Protection program and the NAS
study use different terminology, both agree that microscopic,
pathological changes to the skin indicative of soring correlate with a
visible thickening detectable on gross examination. Such an examination
obviously does not reveal microscopic changes in pathology indicative
of soring, but it does not need to do so because of the visible changes
that correlate with this pathology.
Other Proposed Changes to Prohibitions Concerning Exhibitors
Below is a table outlining other prohibitions for any horse at any
horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction that we would
move from current Sec. 11.2 to proposed Sec. 11.6.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prohibitions concerning exhibitors in Location in proposed Sec.
current Sec. 11.2 11.6 and substantive changes
------------------------------------------------------------------------
General prohibitions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (a).......................... Paragraph (a), with proposed
additional language
specifically prohibiting
substances or practices that
``mask previous and/or ongoing
soring.'' Certain substances
can hide or cause skin
lesions, and practices such as
stewarding or otherwise
distracting a horse during
inspection can mask behavioral
evidence of pain.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Specific prohibitions
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (b)(1) (Certain beads, Paragraph (b)(2).
bangles, rollers).
Paragraph (b)(2) (Chains weighing more Paragraph (b)(3).
than 6 ounces).
Paragraph (b)(3) (Chains not of uniform Paragraph (b)(4).
size, or twisted or doubled chains).
Paragraph (b)(4) (Chains with drop Paragraph (b)(5).
links).
Paragraph (b)(5) (More than one action Paragraph (b)(1).
device per limb of horse).
Paragraph (b)(6) (Chains, rollers with Paragraph (b)(6).
rough edges).
Paragraph (b)(7)(i) (Boots, collars Paragraph (b)(7).
with sharp edges).
Paragraph (b)(7(ii) (Boots, collars Paragraph (b)(8).
weighing more than 6 ounces).
Paragraph (b)(8) (Pads changing the Paragraph (b)(9).
angle of hoof in excess of 1 inch at
the heel.).
Paragraph (b)(9) Any weight on yearling Paragraph (b)(10).
horses, except a keg or similar
conventional horseshoe, and any
horseshoe on yearling horses that
weighs more than 16 ounces.
Paragraph (b)(10) Artificial extension Paragraph (b)(11).
of the toe length, whether
accomplished with pads, acrylics or
any other material that exceeds 50
percent of the natural hoof length.
Paragraph (b)(11) (Toe length that does Paragraph (b)(12).
not exceed the height of the heel by 1
inch or more.).
Paragraph (b)(12) Pads that are not Paragraph (b)(13).
made of leather, plastic, or other
pliant material.
Paragraph (b)(13) Any object or Paragraph (b)(14).
material inserted between the pad and
the hoof other than acceptable hoof
packing.
Proposed additional prohibition
on acrylic and hardening
substances as hoof packing.
These substances, when
hardened, can cause hoof pain
upon stepping.
[[Page 56943]]
Paragraph (b)(14) Single or double Paragraph (b)(15).
rocker-bars on the bottom surface of
horseshoes which extend more than 1\1/
2\ inches back from the point of the
toe.
Paragraph (b)(15) (Metal hoof bands Paragraph (b)(16).
placed less than 1\1/2\ inch below the
coronet band).
Paragraph (b)(16) (Metal hoof bands Paragraph (b)(17).
that can be easily and quickly
loosened or tightened by hand).
Paragraph (b)(17) (Action device or any Paragraph (b)(18).
other device that strikes the coronet
band of the foot of a horse, except
soft bell boots).
Paragraph (b)(18) (Shoeing a horse, or Paragraph (b)(19).
trimming a horse's hoof in a manner
that will cause such horse to suffer).
Proposed additional prohibition
on paring of frog or bruising
of hoof. These actions can
cause the hoof to be overly
sensitive to pain.
Paragraph (b)(19) (Lead or other Paragraph (b)(20).
weights attached to the outside of the
hoof wall, the outside surface of the
horseshoe, or any portion of the pad
except the bottom surface within the
horseshoe).
Paragraph (b)(21) Proposed new
paragraph to prohibit
stewarding (described above).
Paragraph (b)(22) Proposed new
paragraph on dermatologic
changes (described above).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
In proposed Sec. 11.6(d), we include time restrictions on workouts
and performances for 2-year-old Tennessee Walking Horses and racking
horses. These restrictions are moved from current Sec. 11.2(d). We
would prohibit show or exhibition workouts or performances of 2-year-
old Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses, as well as working
exhibitions of 2-year-old Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses
(horses eligible to be shown or exhibited in 2-year-old classes) at
horse sales or auctions, that exceed a total of 10 minutes continuous
workout or performance without a minimum 5-minute rest period between
the first such 10-minute period and the second such 10-minute period,
and more than two such 10-minute periods per performance, class, or
workout.
We would also include the horse-related information requirements
under Sec. 11.2(e) in proposed Sec. 11.6(e). These requirements
currently prohibit failing to provide information or providing any
false or misleading information required by the Act or regulations or
requested by APHIS representatives, by any person that enters, owns,
trains, shows, exhibits, transports or sells or has custody of, or
direction or control over any horse shown, exhibited, sold, or
auctioned, or entered for the purpose of being shown, exhibited, sold,
or auctioned at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.
We would require that this provision apply to requests by HPIs
appointed by management as well as APHIS representatives. This
information includes, but is not limited to, information concerning the
name, any applicable registration name and number, markings, sex, age,
and legal ownership of the horse; the name and address of the horse's
training and/or stabling facilities; the name and address of the owner,
trainer, rider, custodian, any other exhibitor, or other legal entity
bearing responsibility for the horse; the class in which the horse is
entered or shown; the exhibitor identification number; and any other
information reasonably related to the identification, ownership,
control, direction, or supervision of any such horse. In determining
whether a horse is sore, it is important for an inspector, whether an
APHIS representative or an HPI, to have access to these records,
especially if a question of material fact arises regarding whether an
observable condition on the horse is the result of soring or some other
condition, malady, or infirmity known to the horse's owner and its
custodians. We would add to paragraph (e) that failure to provide the
information requested may result in termination under Sec. 11.13.
Inspection and Detention of Horses
Section 11.4(a) currently includes the requirement that each horse
owner, exhibitor, trainer, or other person having custody of, or
responsibility for, any horse at any horse show, exhibition, or sale or
auction allow any APHIS representative to reasonably inspect such horse
at all reasonable times and places the APHIS representative may
designate. We would move this requirement to proposed Sec. 11.8(a) and
include HPIs appointed by management to make such a designation.
We would also retain the requirement in current Sec. 11.4(b), in
which an APHIS representative must notify the owner, exhibitor,
trainer, or other person having custody of or responsibility for a
horse at any horse show, exhibition, or sale or auction that APHIS
desires to inspect the horse, and that it must not be moved from the
horse show, exhibition, or sale or auction until such inspection has
been completed and the horse has been released by an APHIS
representative. We would include this requirement in proposed Sec.
11.8(b) and add that HPIs may also make the notification that APHIS
desires to inspect the horse. We would retain the provision that only
an APHIS representative could officially release the horse as this is
decision is made on behalf of the Department.
Paragraph (c) of proposed Sec. 11.8 would state that for the
purpose of inspection, testing, or taking of evidence, APHIS
representatives may detain for a period not to exceed 24 hours any
horse, at any horse show, exhibition, or sale or auction, which is sore
or which an APHIS representative has probable cause to believe is sore.
Such detained horse may be marked for identification and any such
markings must not be removed by any person other than an APHIS
representative. This requirement is moved from current Sec. 11.4(c).
We do not propose to provide HPIs with this authority as it is an
official decision to detain property, in which the APHIS representative
is acting on behalf of the Department.
In proposed Sec. 11.8(d), we would include requirements for
detained horses, moved from current Sec. 11.4(d), which state that
detained horses are required to be kept under the supervision of an
APHIS representative or secured under an official USDA seal or seals in
a horse stall, horse trailer, or other facility with limited access. In
addition, APHIS must have at least one representative present in the
immediate detention area when a horse is being held in detention. The
official USDA
[[Page 56944]]
seal or seals may not be broken or removed by any person other than an
APHIS representative, unless the life or well-being of the horse is in
danger by fire, flood, windstorm, or other dire circumstances that are
beyond human control, the horse needs immediate veterinary care that
its life may be in peril before an APHIS representative can be located,
or the horse has been detained for the maximum 24-hour detention
period, and an APHIS representative is not available to release the
horse. As with the proposed provision on detaining horses, we also
consider detaining a horse to be an official decision requiring an
APHIS representative to act on behalf of the Department.
In proposed Sec. 11.8(e), we would include from current Sec.
11.4(e) the requirement that the owner, exhibitor, trainer, or other
person having custody of or responsibility for any horse detained by
APHIS for further inspection, testing, or the taking of evidence be
allowed to feed, water, and provide other normal custodial and
maintenance care, such as walking and grooming, for the detained horse.
This would be allowed provided that such care is rendered under the
direct supervision of an APHIS representative. Additionally, the
regulations would allow any non-emergency veterinary care of the
detained horse provided that the use, application, or injection of any
drugs or other medication for therapeutic or other purposes is rendered
by a veterinarian in the presence of an APHIS representative and the
identity and dosage of the drug or other medication and its purpose is
furnished in writing to the APHIS representative prior to its use,
application, or injection. The use, application, or injection of such
drug or other medication must be approved by the APHIS representative.
This would be an official oversight function limited to officials
acting on behalf of the Department. Further, in retaining this
requirement from the current regulations, we would replace the term
``APHIS Show Veterinarian'' in Sec. 11.4(e)(2) with ``APHIS
representative'' for the reasons explained above under ``Definitions.''
We would also move to Sec. 11.8(f) the requirement from current
Sec. 11.4(f) that APHIS must inform the owner, trainer, exhibitor, or
other person having immediate custody of or responsibility for any
horse allegedly found to be in violation of the Act or the regulations
of such alleged violation or violations before the horse is released by
an APHIS representative. An HPI would be able to inform the person of
this information, although the decision to release the horse from
detention would have to be made by an APHIS representative.
Current Sec. 11.4(g) requires that the owner, trainer, exhibitor,
or other person having immediate custody of or responsibility for any
horse that an APHIS representative determines must be detained for
examination, testing, or taking of evidence, be informed after such
determination is made and must allow the horse to be immediately put
under the supervisory custody of APHIS or secured under official USDA
seal until the completion of the examination, testing, or gathering of
evidence, or until the 24-hour detention period expires. We propose to
retain this requirement and include it in Sec. 11.8(g), but to replace
``examination'' with ``inspection'' wherever it is used to make the
terminology more consistent with its use in other parts of the
regulations.
Current Sec. 11.4(h) contains provisions for requesting re-
inspection and testing by persons having custody of or responsibility
of horses allegedly found to be in violation of the Act or regulations.
Proposed Sec. 11.8(h), moved from Sec. 11.4(h), contains provisions
for re-inspection and testing and would extend authority to HPIs for
certain actions not requiring an official decision or determination.
Paragraph (h) would state that the owner, trainer, exhibitor, or other
person having custody of or responsibility for any horse allegedly
found to be in violation of the Act or regulations, and who has been
notified of such alleged violation by an APHIS representative or HPI as
stated in proposed Sec. 11.8(f), may request re-inspection and testing
of the horse within a 24-hour period. A re-inspection can only occur
under the following conditions: (1) A request is made to an APHIS
representative immediately after the horse has been inspected by the
representative or an HPI appointed by management and before the horse
has been removed from the inspection facilities; (2) an APHIS
representative determines that sufficient cause for re-inspection and
testing exists; and (3) the horse is maintained under APHIS supervisory
custody as prescribed in paragraph (d) of the section until such re-
inspection and testing has been completed. We would replace the term
``APHIS Show Veterinarian'' with ``APHIS representative'' throughout
Sec. 11.8(h) for the reasons explained above under ``Definitions.'' We
would also use the terms ``inspection'' and ``re-inspection'' rather
than ``examination'' and ``re-examination'' for consistency with the
regulations. In addition, proposed paragraph (i) would require that the
owner, exhibitor, trainer, or other person having custody of, or
responsibility for, any horse being inspected is required to render
such assistance, as the APHIS representative or HPI may request, for
purposes of the inspection.
Access to Premises and Records
Inspector access to premises and records is necessary to ensuring
that event management and participants are in compliance with the Act
and regulations. In proposed Sec. 11.9, we would include requirements
for managers to provide access to premises and records for inspection
and for exhibitors to provide access to barns, vans, trailers, stalls,
and other locations of horses at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or
auction. We would also extend all access to premises and records for
the purposes of inspection to HPIs appointed by management. These
requirements would be moved from current Sec. 11.5.
Paragraph (a)(1), moved from Sec. 11.5(a)(1), would state that the
management of any horse show, exhibition, or sale or auction shall,
without fee, charge, assessment, or other compensation, provide APHIS
representatives and HPIs appointed by management with unlimited access
to the grandstands, sale ring, barns, stables, grounds, offices, and
all other areas of any horse show, exhibition, or sale or auction,
including any adjacent areas under their direction, control, or
supervision for the purpose of inspecting any horses, or any records
required to be kept by regulation or otherwise maintained.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2) would state that the management of any
horse show, exhibition, sale or auction shall, without fee, charge,
assessment, or other compensation, provide APHIS representatives and
HPIs appointed by management with an adequate, safe, and accessible
area for the visual inspection and observation of horses. This
requirement is moved from Sec. 11.5(a)(2).
In proposed Sec. 11.9(b)(1), we would include the requirement from
current Sec. 11.5(b)(1) that each horse owner, trainer, exhibitor, or
other person having custody of or responsibility for any horse at any
horse show, exhibition, or sale or auction shall, without fee, charge,
assessment, or other compensation, admit any APHIS representative or
HPI appointed by management to all areas of barns, compounds, horse
vans, horse trailers, stables, stalls, paddocks, or other show,
exhibition, or sale or auction grounds or related areas at any horse
show, exhibition, sale, or auction, for the
[[Page 56945]]
purpose of inspecting any such horse, at any and all times.
Under proposed Sec. 11.9(b)(2), moved from current Sec.
11.5(b)(2), each owner, trainer, exhibitor, or other person having
custody of or responsibility for, any horse at any horse show,
exhibition, or sale or auction shall promptly present his or her horse
for inspection upon notification, orally or in writing, by any APHIS
representatives or HPIs appointed by management, that the horse has
been selected for inspection for the purpose of determining whether
such horse is in compliance with the Act and regulations.
These proposed requirements in Sec. 11.9 would not include
references to DQPs, a role which we propose to remove from the
regulations and replace with HPIs.
Inspection Space and Facility Requirements
Section 11.6 currently contains horse inspection space and facility
requirements for management of a horse show, exhibition, sale, or
auction. Under the requirements, management must provide sufficient
space and facilities for APHIS representatives to perform their duties
as prescribed by the Act and regulations. These requirements include
ensuring that APHIS representatives and HPIs appointed by management
who inspect horses are provided with a safe area (for example, a well-
defined inspection area where inspectors are free from potential harm)
to conduct inspections and protection from the elements, and that there
are separate waiting areas for horses awaiting inspection and horses
that the inspector determines should be detained. As noted in the NAS
study, designating an inspection area that has as few distractions as
possible will reduce the effect of the environment on the horse's
response to pain during examination.\51\ We would retain these
requirements under proposed Sec. 11.10.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\51\ A Review of Methods for Detecting Soreness in Horses, page
69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In proposed Sec. 11.10(a)(1), moved from current Sec. 11.6(a), we
propose adding that the management of every horse show, exhibition,
sale, or auction is required to provide, when requested by APHIS
representatives or HPIs appointed by management, without fee, charge,
assessment, or other compensation, sufficient, well-lit space and
facilities in a convenient location to the horse show, exhibition,
sale, or auction arena, so they may carry out their duties under the
Act and regulations, whether or not management has received prior
notification or otherwise knows that such show, exhibition, sale, or
auction may be inspected by APHIS. We added to this provision that the
HPI can also make such requests.
In proposed Sec. 11.10(a)(2), event management would need to
provide protection from the elements of nature, such as rain, snow,
sleet, hail, and windstorms for the inspection area and other areas in
which APHIS representatives and HPIs appointed by management carry out
their duties. In current Sec. 11.6(b), this requirement is contingent
on whether an APHIS representative requests it, but the proposed
revision would require that protection from the elements be available
to all inspectors at all times, including HPIs. Protection from the
elements is needed in order to facilitate accurate inspections.
Proposed Sec. 11.10(a)(3), moved from Sec. 11.6(c), would require
that event management provide a means to control crowds or onlookers in
order that APHIS representatives and HPIs appointed by management may
carry out their duties safely and without interference. This
requirement is intended to protect inspectors (whether APHIS
representatives or HPIs appointed by management), staff, and
spectators, as well as horses.
Inspection for soreness in horses sometimes requires the use of
radiography and other technological equipment that must be connected to
an electrical power source. Proposed Sec. 11.10(a)(4), moved from
Sec. 11.6(d), would require that an accessible, reliable, and
convenient 110-volt electrical power source be available at the horse
show, exhibition, sale, or auction site. This provision has been
amended so that a site without electrical power is no longer an option
needing to be requested by APHIS. If fixed electrical service is not
available, event management would be required to provide other means
for electrical power such as a portable electric generator.
Finally, Sec. 11.10(a)(5) would require appropriate areas to be
provided adjacent to the inspection area for designated horses to wait
before and after inspection, as well as an area to be used for
detention of horses. An appropriate area would be one with sufficient
space for the horses and separated from onlookers. This requirement is
moved from current Sec. 11.6(e), amended to include separation from
onlookers.
We would add to proposed Sec. 11.10(b) a provision that, except
for the other persons listed below, only a management representative,
HPIs appointed by management, and APHIS representatives be allowed in
the warm-up and inspection area. Each horse in the designated warm-up
area may be accompanied by no more than three individuals, including
the person having immediate custody of or responsibility for the horse,
the trainer, and the rider. Each horse in the inspection area may only
be accompanied by the person having immediate custody of or
responsibility for the horse. No other persons would be allowed in the
warm-up or inspection areas without prior approval from an APHIS
representative or HPI appointed by management.
We are proposing this provision because our experience has shown
that people congregating in designated inspection and warm-up areas can
impede the ability of inspectors and APHIS representatives to perform
their duties, and could be used to attempt to intimidate inspectors or
event officials. Another safety concern is having large groups of
people massed in an area where multiple horses are warming up.
Responsibilities and Liabilities of Management
Under Sec. 11.20 of the current regulations, the management of a
horse show, exhibition, sale or auction that does not appoint a DQP to
conduct inspections is responsible for identifying all horses that are
sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations, and must
disqualify or disallow any horses which are sore or otherwise in
violation from participating or competing in any horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction. If event management does not appoint
qualified inspectors, management can be held liable for the failure to
disqualify a sore horse from participating in a covered event.\52\ If
management appoints a DQP to conduct inspections, management can only
be found liable for violations of the Act and regulations if they fail
to disqualify a horse that the DQP identifies as a sore horse and
notifies management accordingly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\52\ 15 U.S.C. 1824(3).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under this proposal, HPIs would replace the current role played by
DQPs. Management could also request that an APHIS representative
conduct inspections instead of an HPI. Under proposed Sec.
11.16(a)(6), management of a covered horse show, exhibition, sale, or
auction would have to contact APHIS at least 30 days in advance of the
event and announce their intention either to request an APHIS
representative or appoint an HPI to conduct inspections, or to have no
inspector, or to request a
[[Page 56946]]
variance if no APHIS representative or HPI is available.
In proposed Sec. 11.13(a), we would include requirements from
current Sec. 11.20(a), in that the management of any horse show,
exhibition, sale or auction which does not utilize an APHIS
representative or HPI is responsible for identifying all horses that
are sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations, and must
disqualify or prohibit any horses which are sore or otherwise in
violation of the Act or regulations from participating or competing in
any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.
Under proposed Sec. 11.13(a), horses entered for sale or auction
at a horse sale or horse auction must be, as appropriate, identified as
sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations prior to the
sale or auction and, as required by law, prohibited from entering the
sale or auction ring. Sore horses or horses otherwise in violation of
the Act or regulations that have been entered in a horse show or
exhibition for the purpose of show or exhibition must be identified and
disqualified prior to the show or exhibition. Any horses found to be
sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations during actual
participation in the show or exhibition must be removed from further
participation immediately (e.g., prior to the horse placing in the
class or the completion of the exhibition). Finally, all horses that
placed first in each class or event would need to be inspected after
the event to determine if such horses are sore or otherwise in
violation of the Act or regulations.
We acknowledge concerns that management of some events may forego
appointing an APHIS representative or HPI to inspect horses, but in
doing so they are legally liable for any sored horses participating in
the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction. Shows without inspectors
are more likely to be attended and inspected by APHIS representatives,
particularly if APHIS determines the event poses a higher risk of sored
horses participating. We noted above that shows featuring Tennessee
Walking Horses and racking horses performing in pads and action devices
have historically posed a much higher risk of soring, and accordingly
we would focus our resources on them. Events featuring horses of other
breeds, particularly those shown or performing without pads and action
devices, pose a very low risk of soring. We invite comments on which
horse events covered under the Act APHIS should focus on with respect
to compliance risks, particularly events that choose to forego an
inspector.
If event management requests an APHIS representative be appointed
to conduct inspections on a certain date and no such representatives
are available, event management could instead choose and appoint an HPI
to inspect horses. If management determines that no HPIs are available
on the desired date, management could request that APHIS consider
granting a variance to proceed with the show or sale without an
inspector, as proposed in Sec. 11.16(a)(6).
When management requests an APHIS representative to inspect an
event, the Agency would choose the representative. If management opts
to appoint an HPI, management would choose the HPI from a list
maintained on the APHIS Horse Protection website.
Proposed Sec. 11.13(b) includes requirements moved from current
Sec. 11.20(b), and lists provisions for horse shows, exhibitions,
sales, and auctions at which management utilizes an APHIS
representative or HPI to conduct inspections. Proposed paragraph (b)(1)
would state that the management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or
auction that utilizes an APHIS representative or HPI must not take any
action which may interfere with or influence the APHIS representative
or HPI in carrying out their duties.
In paragraph (b)(2), we would require that the management of any
horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction that utilizes an HPI to
inspect horses shall appoint at least 2 HPIs when more than 100 horses
are entered. We note that in current Sec. 11.20(c), 2 DQPs are
required for inspections when more than 150 horses are entered in an
event. We determined that limiting the number of horses to 100 or fewer
for one HPI in this proposal would allow that individual to inspect
horses more thoroughly and manageably. Additionally, we considered the
fact that relatively few horse events covered under the Act involve the
participation of 100 or more horses and the vast majority would
therefore only require one inspector.
In paragraph (b)(3) of proposed Sec. 11.13, we would require the
management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction that
utilizes an APHIS representative or HPI to inspect horses to have at
least one farrier physically present if more than 100 horses are
entered in the event. If 100 or fewer horses are entered in the horse
show, exhibition, sale, or auction the management would have to, at
minimum, have a farrier on call within the local area to be present, if
requested by an APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management.
Because we would continue to allow the use of pads and wedges for
therapeutic treatment of Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses,
it is necessary for management to make a farrier available to assist
with inspections of horses at horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and
auctions in case a pad or wedge needs to be removed as part of an
inspection.
Under proposed paragraph (b)(4) of Sec. 11.13, management is
required to prevent tampering with any part of a horse's limbs or
hooves in such a way that could cause a horse to be sore after an APHIS
representative or HPI appointed by management has completed inspection
and before participating in a show, exhibition, sale, or auction.
The current regulations in Sec. 11.20(b)(1) provide a means for
event management to notify the Department regarding a DQP when they
consider the performance of the DQP to be inadequate or otherwise
unsatisfactory. Under proposed Sec. 11.13(b)(5), we would provide a
similar opportunity for management to address concerns regarding the
performance of an HPI utilized to conduct inspections. If management is
dissatisfied with the performance of a particular HPI, management would
need to notify, in writing, the Administrator as to why they believe
the performance of the HPI was inadequate or otherwise unsatisfactory.
It is in the best interests of management to notify APHIS as soon as
possible so that the Agency can gather relevant information and
interview witnesses before recollections are lost to time. If the
Agency determines the HPI's performance was inadequate or otherwise
unsatisfactory, this could be addressed prior in a timely manner.
Current Sec. 11.20(b)(1) also requires that ``[m]anagement which
designates and appoints a DQP shall immediately disqualify or disallow
from being shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned any horse identified by
the DQP to be sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations
or any horse otherwise known by management to be sore or in violation
of the Act or regulations.'' Under proposed Sec. 11.13(b)(6), we would
similarly require that management that utilizes an APHIS representative
or HPI would have to immediately disqualify or prohibit from showing,
exhibition, sale, offering for sale, or auction of any horse identified
by the APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management to be sore
or otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations and any horse
otherwise known by management to be sore or otherwise in violation of
the Act or regulations.
[[Page 56947]]
Under proposed Sec. 11.13(c)(1), management at horse shows,
exhibitions, sales, and auctions would be required to ensure that no
devices or substances prohibited under proposed Sec. 11.6 are present
in the horse warm-up area. This provision would ensure that such
devices are not being used for any purposes contributing to soring in
the warm-up area. Paragraph (c)(2) would require that management review
the orders of the Secretary disqualifying persons from showing or
exhibiting any horse, or judging or managing any horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction, and disallow the participation of any
such person in any such event for the duration of the period of
termination.
Management would also be required to verify the identity of all
horses entered in the show, exhibition, sale, or auction under proposed
Sec. 11.13(c)(3), with acceptable methods of identification being: (1)
A description sufficient to identify the horse, including, but not
limited to, name, age, breed, color, gender, distinctive markings, and
unique and permanent forms of identification when present (e.g.,
brands, tattoos, cowlicks, or blemishes); or (2) electronic
identification that complies with ISO standards; \53\ or (3) an equine
passport issued by a State government and accepted in the government of
the State in which the horse show, exhibition, or sale or auction will
occur. Verifying the identity of horses is critical to ensuring that a
horse disqualified for an HPA violation does not participate in the
event in question.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\53\ An international standard for regulating the radio
frequency identification (RFID) of animals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Records Required
Under proposed Sec. 11.14(a), moved from current Sec. 11.22(a),
management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction that
contains Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses would be required
to maintain all records for a minimum of 90 days following the closing
date of the show, exhibition, sale, or auction.\54\ Records also would
be required to contain the dates and place of the event, as well as the
name and address of the sponsoring organization, event management, and
each show judge, as applicable. In addition, management would be
required to keep a copy of each class or sale sheet containing the
names of horses, the registration number of the horse (if applicable),
names and addresses of horse owner, the exhibition number and class
number or sale number assigned to each horse, the show class or sale
lot number, and the name and address of the person paying the entry fee
and entering the horse in the show, exhibition, sale, or auction.
Copies of the official program would also need to be kept, if such a
program has been prepared, as well as a copy of the official scoring
cards for each show containing Tennessee Walking Horses and racking
horses, to include the place each horse finished in the class.
Management would also be required to maintain records showing the name
and any applicable registration name and number of each horse, as well
as the names and addresses of the owner, the trainer, the custodian,
the exhibitor and the location of the home barn or other facility where
the horse is stabled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\54\ These information collection activities will be scheduled
for merger into 0579-0056 upon publication of a final rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Records required to be kept by event management in proposed Sec.
11.14(a) would also include those of horses disqualified from
participating, which are currently required to be kept by management
and submitted to APHIS under Sec. 11.24(a). These records are required
to contain the name, exhibition number and class number, or assigned
sale number, and the registration name and number (if applicable) for
each horse disqualified or prohibited by management from being shown,
exhibited, sold or auctioned, and the reasons for such action, as well
as the name and address of the person designated by the management to
maintain the records required. Finally, if management has appointed an
HPI to conduct inspections at the event, the name and address of each
HPI appointed to conduct the inspections would be required.
In the current regulations, there are no recordkeeping requirements
for horses under the care of a licensed veterinarian and requiring
therapeutic treatment using pads or other restricted or prohibited
advices. Proposed Sec. 11.14(b) would require that the management of
any horse show, exhibition, or sale or auction that allows any horse to
be shown, exhibited or sold with devices, pads, substances,
applications, or other items restricted under proposed Sec. 11.6 for
therapeutic treatment must maintain the following information for each
horse receiving the therapeutic treatment for a period of at least 90
days following the closing date of the horse show, exhibition, sale, or
auction: (1) The name, exhibition number and class number, or assigned
sale number, and the registration name and number (if applicable) for
each horse receiving therapeutic treatment; (2) the name, address, and
phone number of the licensed veterinarian providing the therapeutic
treatment; (3) the State and license number of the licensed
veterinarian providing the therapeutic treatment; and (4) the name and
address and phone number of the licensed veterinarian's business.
Finally, the records would also need to contain a description of the
disease, injury, or disorder for which the treatment is given, to
include at minimum the starting date of treatment, prescription or
design of the treatment plan, and expected length of treatment,
including an estimate of when it is anticipated to be discontinued. We
are applying this recordkeeping requirement to all horses participating
in events covered under the Act to ensure that any such horses under
therapeutic care involving restricted or prohibited items in
proposedSec. 11.6 are receiving legitimate veterinary treatment and
are not being sored.
Inspection of Records
Under proposed Sec. 11.15, moved from current Sec. 11.23(a), the
management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction would be
required to permit any APHIS representative or HPI appointed by
management, upon request, to examine and make copies of all records
pertaining to any horse that are required in the regulations or
otherwise maintained during business hours or agreed upon times. In
addition, a room, table, or other facilities necessary for proper
examination and copying of such records would need to be made available
to the APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management.
Reporting by Management
Proposed Sec. 11.16(a) requires that the management of any horse
show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction notify the
Administrator of the event by mail, fax, or email not less than 30 days
before it occurs and submit the following information: (1) The name and
address (including street address and ZIP Code) of the horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction; (2) the name, address, phone number (and
email address, if available) of the event manager; (3) the date(s) of
the horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction; (4) a
copy of the official horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction program,
if any such program has been prepared; and (5) anticipated or known
number of entries.
Also, paragraph (a)(6) would require event management to provide
information on whether they are requesting an APHIS representative to
perform inspections at the horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or
horse auction; or, if not, whether they have chosen and appointed an
HPI to inspect
[[Page 56948]]
horses or have no inspector. If neither an APHIS representative nor an
HPI is available on the date of the event, event management may request
a variance. Variances would have to be submitted in writing by mail,
fax, or electronic means such as email to the Deputy Administrator of
Animal Care at least 15 days before the event and state the reason for
requesting the variance. Finally, paragraph (a)(7) would require
management to provide information regarding whether they will allow any
horse to be shown, exhibited or sold with prohibitions under section
Sec. 11.6 for therapeutic treatment.
The 30-day notice requirement is not currently in the regulations,
and has been proposed to give APHIS advance notice of the event and
sufficient time to arrange for an APHIS representative to be present to
inspect horses, if requested by event management. APHIS would also
reserve the right to attend and conduct inspections at such events
unannounced.
Proposed Sec. 11.16(b) requires that at least 15 days before any
horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction is scheduled to begin, the
management of the event must notify APHIS of any changes to the
information required to be submitted to APHIS under proposed Sec.
11.16(a) by mail, fax, or email. We included this provision so that
APHIS would have knowledge of any changes to the event, such as a
change in the number of horses participating or the addition of show
classes, that could potentially affect inspections and compliance. We
assume that no changes have occurred to the submitted information
unless we receive notification to the contrary.
Under paragraph (c) of proposed Sec. 11.16, within 5 days
following the conclusion of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or
auction that contains Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses, the
management of such an event is required to submit to APHIS the records
required by Sec. 11.14 by mail, fax, or email. Event information
already submitted in accordance with Sec. 11.16(a) (information to be
submitted at least 30 days before the event) would not need to be
submitted again.
Under paragraph (d) of proposed Sec. 11.16, management of any
horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction which does not include
Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses would be required to submit
the following information to APHIS within 5 days following the
conclusion of the event: Any case where a horse was prohibited by
management from being shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned because it
was found to be sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or
regulations. Information would include at a minimum the name,
exhibition number and class number, or assigned sale number, and the
registration name and number (if applicable) for each horse
disqualified or prohibited by management from being shown, exhibited,
sold or auctioned, and the reason(s) for such action. We invite comment
on the timing and nature of these recordkeeping and records retention
requirements.
Transportation Requirements
Under proposed Sec. 11.17, moved from current Sec. 11.40, we
would require that each person who ships, transports, or otherwise
moves, or delivers or receives for movement, any horse with reason to
believe such horse may be shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned at any
horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction, must allow and assist in the
inspection of such horse at any such horse show, exhibition, sale, or
auction to determine compliance with the Act and regulations. The
person would also need to furnish to any APHIS representative or HPI
appointed by management upon their request the following information:
(1) Name and address of the horse owner and of the shipper, if
different from the owner or trainer; (2) name and address of the horse
trainer; (3) name and address of the carrier transporting the horse and
of the driver of the means of conveyance used; (4) origin of the
shipment and date thereof; and (5) destination of the shipment.
Utilization of Inspectors
We would include the provision in proposed Sec. 11.18(a) that the
management of any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse
auction may utilize an APHIS representative or an HPI to detect and
diagnose a horse which is sore or to otherwise inspect horses for
compliance with the Act or regulations.
In proposed Sec. 11.18, paragraph (b), we would include the
requirement that if management elects to utilize an HPI to detect and
diagnose horses which are sore or to otherwise inspect horses for
compliance with the Act or regulations, the HPI must currently be
authorized by APHIS pursuant to Sec. 11.19 of the regulations to
perform this function.
In proposed paragraph (c), we would include the provision that the
management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction must not
utilize any person to detect and diagnose horses which are sore or to
otherwise inspect horses for the purpose of determining compliance with
the Act and regulations, if that person has not been authorized by
APHIS or if that person has been disqualified by the Secretary, after
notice and opportunity for a hearing, in accordance with section 4 (15
U.S.C. 1823) of the Act, to make such detection, diagnosis, or
inspection.
We would include a provision in proposed paragraph (d) providing
that, after the effective date of the final rule, assuming this
rulemaking is finalized, only APHIS representatives and HPIs as defined
in Sec. 11.1 must be utilized by management to detect and diagnose
horses which are sore or otherwise inspect horses for compliance with
the Act or regulations. Any DQPs seeking to continue inspecting or
other persons wishing to become inspectors after the effective date of
this rule must apply to APHIS and meet eligibility qualifications for
authorization included in proposed Sec. 11.19.
Authorization and Training of Horse Protection Inspectors
Under the current regulations in Sec. 11.7, HIOs operating APHIS-
certified DQP programs are responsible for selecting, training,
evaluating, licensing, and disciplining DQPs. When an HIO requests
certification of its DQP program, APHIS requires the HIO to submit
criteria it intends to use to select DQP applicants, as well as
training plans, standards of conduct expected of DQPs, and other
materials listed in Sec. 11.7(b).
We propose to have APHIS assume the training and authorization of
inspectors, which involves removing and reserving Sec. 11.7 and
proposing new requirements for inspectors in a new Sec. 11.19. Based
on the conclusions of the USDA-OIG audit and the NAS study discussed
above, as well as our own observations made in the course of
administering the Horse Protection program, we determined that the
current regulations delegating DQP training and licensing
responsibilities to HIOs were not addressing the conflicts of interest
and inadequate training resulting in a failure to diagnose sored
horses, and that APHIS having a direct regulatory role in these
functions would best achieve the aim of eliminating soring.
Section 11.7(a) of the current regulations lists the basic
qualifications required of DQPs. In brief, persons are eligible to be
licensed as DQPs if they are: (1) licensed veterinarians with equine
experience, or (2) farriers, horse trainers, or other knowledgeable
horsemen whose experience and training qualify them for positions as
HIO stewards or judges and who have been formally trained and licensed
as DQPs by an APHIS-certified HIO.
DQPs are not evaluated and licensed by APHIS for their suitability
as
[[Page 56949]]
inspectors. These tasks are performed by HIOs that APHIS has certified
based on the criteria in Sec. 11.7(b). Certified HIOs must maintain
and enforce DQP training requirements and standards of conduct and are
responsible for ensuring that DQPs follow all regulatory requirements
pertaining to them throughout Sec. 11.7.
Proposed Sec. 11.19 includes the qualifications required of
persons who are applying to APHIS as HPI candidates. Applicants would
be required to show that they meet all qualifications in two tiers,
designated as Tier 1 and Tier 2. As we explain below, an applicant must
meet the Tier 1 requirement as a prerequisite to be further evaluated
under Tier 2 requirements. We invite comment on the clarity of the
proposed process, and/or the utility of a tiered process for evaluating
HPI applicants as proposed, including suggestions for simplifying it or
replacing it with an altogether different process.
Prior to authorization, APHIS would ensure that inspectors are
sufficiently trained and qualified to perform inspections and, once
authorized, that they observe all standards of conduct and perform
their duties consistent with enforcing the Act and regulations. All
applicants would be required to submit an HPI application to APHIS
using guidance provided on the APHIS Horse Protection Program
website.\55\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\55\ https://www.aphis.usda.gov/aphis/ourfocus/animalwelfare/hpa.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paragraph (a)(1) of proposed Sec. 11.19 lists the qualifications
of Tier 1, which would require that the applicant be a veterinarian,
except that veterinary technicians and persons employed by State and
local government agencies to enforce laws or regulations pertaining to
animal welfare may also be authorized if APHIS determines that there is
an insufficient pool of veterinarians among HPIs and applicants to be
HPIs.
Unlike the current DQP eligibility qualifications in Sec. 11.7(a),
proposed Tier 1 includes no provision for HPI eligibility for farriers,
horsemen, and other laypersons with industry experience. As expressed
by the USDA-OIG audit report and NAS study and supported by all major
veterinary organizations, licensed veterinarians with equine experience
are best qualified to detect soring in horses. Among other advantages,
their medical training in anatomy and physiology affords them the
ability to discern signs of soring in a horse that may be missed by
experienced inspectors who lack such intensive training. In addition,
licensed veterinarians in the United States are bound by their
profession to ethical codes of conduct established by the American
Veterinary Medical Association (AVMA) and supported by other veterinary
organizations. Under the AVMA principles for veterinary medical ethics,
veterinarians are required to avoid conflicts of interest that put
financial or other considerations ahead of animal welfare and the best
interests of the animal involved. For these reasons, we are proposing
the Tier 1 veterinary requirement.
However, we acknowledge that given the number and geographical
distribution of veterinarians in the United States, there may be an
insufficient number of such veterinarians with equine experience
applying to be authorized as HPIs, with several commenters on the 2016
proposed rule raising the same concern. Other public comments we
received rightly noted that veterinarians, when available, could charge
more for their time than could veterinary technicians or other
qualified non-governmental persons, resulting in higher costs that may
be prohibitive for smaller horse shows and exhibitions. Under this
proposal, shows and sales opting to appoint an APHIS representative
would incur no such costs.
The Act itself does not mandate that ``persons qualified to detect
and diagnose a horse which is sore'' have formal veterinary training,
and accordingly some commenters on the 2016 rule contended that many
experienced veterinary technicians and DQPs are as sufficiently able as
veterinarians to diagnose sored horses. We partially agree, insofar as
degreed and accredited veterinary technicians possess a level of
medical training that, when combined with APHIS training, can qualify
them to be authorized as HPIs. We also believe that making
authorization available to qualified veterinary technicians under
proposed Tier 1, if needed, would result in a sufficient pool of
candidates applying to be HPIs, given that we are also proposing to
allow management to request inspection directly by APHIS
representatives. As a result, we would not seek applications from
persons lacking formal veterinary medical or technical credentials
regardless of their experience as DQPs. By considering veterinary
technicians and qualified State and local animal control officials \56\
as conditions dictate, we would maintain a sufficient number of trained
HPIs to meet demand without compromising the levels of inspection
accuracy and integrity we hope to achieve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\56\ State and local animal control officials authorized to
perform inspections would not be doing so as governmental officials,
but as individuals meeting the qualifications for authorization.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
If an applicant meets the qualifications in Tier 1, APHIS would
then evaluate whether a candidate meets the qualifications listed in
Tier 2, which we include in proposed paragraph (a)(2). Guidance
explaining details of these qualifications would be posted to the APHIS
Horse Protection website.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the Tier 2 qualifications,
APHIS would require the applicant to demonstrate sufficient knowledge
and experience of equine husbandry and science and applicable
principles of equine science, welfare, care, and health to determine
that the applicant can consistently identify equine soring and soring
practices. The current regulations do not specifically require that
inspectors demonstrate this knowledge during evaluation of their
application. While an HIO could establish this application requirement
as part of its certified DQP program, APHIS cannot confirm that the HIO
is actually enforcing the requirement under the current regulations.
In proposed paragraph (a)(2)(ii), we would require that an HPI
applicant not have been found to have violated any provision of the Act
or the regulations in this part occurring after July 13, 1976,\57\ or
has been assessed any fine or civil penalty, or has been the subject of
a disqualification order in any proceeding involving an alleged
violation of the Act or regulations occurring after July 13, 1976. This
requirement is similar to one currently under DQP licensing
requirements for HIOs in Sec. 11.7(c)(4). As other requirements in
paragraph (c) pertain to HIOs, they are no longer necessary.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\57\ On this date, the revision to the Horse Protection Act
establishing the Secretary to prescribe requirements for the
appointment of persons qualified to detect and diagnose soring was
promulgated as Public Law 94-360.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iii), we would require that the
applicant, as well as the applicant's immediate family and employer,
not participate in the showing, exhibition, sale, or auction of horses
or act as a judge or farrier, or be an agent of management. The current
regulations in Sec. 11.7(d)(7)(i) prohibit a DQP from exhibiting,
selling, auctioning, or purchasing any horse sold at any horse show,
sale, or auction at which he or she has been appointed to inspect
horses, and paragraph (d)(7)(ii) prohibits a DQP from inspecting horses
at any horse show, exhibition, sale or auction in which a
[[Page 56950]]
horse or horses owned by a member of the DQP's immediate family or the
DQP's employer are competing or being offered for sale. This proposal
broadens the scope of prohibited industry relationships for inspectors
and evaluates such conflicts of interest at the application stage,
rather than apply them after the inspector has already been authorized
to conduct inspections.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(2)(iv), we would require that the
applicant must not have been disqualified by the Secretary from
performing diagnosis, detection, and inspection under the Act, which is
similar to the current requirement in paragraph (c)(6) in which HIOs
must not license such persons.
In paragraph (a)(2)(v) of proposed Sec. 11.19, we would require
that the applicant must not have acted in a manner that calls into
question the applicant's honesty, professional integrity, reputation,
practices, and reliability relative to possible authorization as an
HPI. We believe that such in-depth screening to determine an
applicant's suitability is only possible if APHIS directs the
application process and decides whether to authorize a person to
conduct inspections.
Applicants screened under Tier 2 would not be considered to be
authorized as HPIs if any of the following sources of evidence in
proposed paragraph (a)(2)(V) raises questions about their suitability.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(2)(v)(A), we would review criminal
conviction records, if any, that may indicate the applicant lacks the
honesty, integrity, and reliability to appropriately and effectively
perform HPI duties.
Proposed paragraph (a)(2)(v)(B) would allow APHIS to review records
of the person's actions while participating in Federal, State, or local
veterinary programs when those actions reflect on the honesty,
reputation, integrity, and reliability of the applicant.
Under proposed paragraph (a)(2)(v)(C), APHIS would review judicial
determinations in any type of litigation adversely reflecting on the
honesty, reputation, integrity, and reliability of the applicant.
Finally, under proposed paragraph (a)(2)(v)(D), APHIS would review
any other evidence reflecting on the honesty, reputation, integrity,
and reliability of the applicant to perform HPI duties.
Current Sec. 11.7(b) contains several specific training
requirements that HIOs are required to provide to DQPs. As APHIS would
train all HPIs to perform inspection duties, we propose to include in
paragraph (b) of Sec. 11.19 the requirement that all applicants
selected as candidates will complete a formal training program
administered by APHIS prior to authorization. APHIS would train HPIs
using professionally recognized, science-based approaches to detecting
soring, many of which are discussed in the above-mentioned NAS study.
Continual training of HPIs as APHIS determines to be necessary would be
a condition of maintaining authorization to inspect horses. Additional
details of the training program would be available on the APHIS Horse
Protection website.
In proposed Sec. 11.19, paragraph (c), we would state that APHIS
will maintain a list of all HPIs on the APHIS Horse Protection website.
The list would also be available by writing to APHIS via email or U.S.
mail. Event management would appoint an HPI of their choosing from the
list.
As current paragraphs (e), (f), and (g) of Sec. 11.7 pertain to
requirements based on HIO licensure of DQPs, these would not be
retained in the regulations. However, paragraph (f) provides a process
for canceling a DQP license and for appealing such a cancellation. We
consider it necessary in accordance with the Act to provide similar
means in this proposal for HPIs to appeal disqualification of their
authorization. As APHIS would have sole responsibility for granting or
denying applications for HPI authorization, we would extend the appeals
process to apply to denials of applications for authorization.
In proposed Sec. 11.19, we are including an appeals process for
any applicant whose application for authorization has been denied. We
are also including a process for authorized HPIs who are being
disqualified from inspecting horses to receive notice and opportunity
for a hearing before a final decision for disqualification is rendered.
We propose that APHIS may deny an applicant for any of the reasons
outlined in paragraph (a). We also propose that APHIS may permanently
disqualify an HPI, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, who
fails to inspect horses in accordance with the procedures prescribed by
APHIS or otherwise fails to perform duties necessary for APHIS to
enforce the Act and regulations.
We propose in paragraph (d)(1) that APHIS may deny an application
to be authorized as an HPI for any of the reasons outlined in paragraph
(a) of Sec. 11.19. In such instances, the applicant would be provided
written notification of the grounds for the denial. The applicant may
appeal the decision, in writing, within 30 days after receiving the
written denial notice. The appeal would need to state all of the facts
and reasons that the person wants the Administrator to consider in
deciding the appeal. As soon as practicable, the Administrator would
grant or deny the appeal, in writing, stating the reasons for the
decision.
We propose in paragraph (d)(2) that APHIS may permanently
disqualify any HPI who fails to inspect horses in accordance with the
procedures prescribed by APHIS or otherwise fails to perform duties
necessary for APHIS to enforce the Act and regulations, after notice
and opportunity for a hearing. Requests for hearings and the hearings
themselves would be in accordance with the Uniform Rules of Practice
for the Department of Agriculture in subpart H of part 1, subtitle A,
of 7 CFR.
Alternatives Considered
Consistent with Executive Orders 12866 and 13563, APHIS has
considered other alternatives to this proposed action.
As we have noted, APHIS has implemented numerous program-based
initiatives within the current regulatory regime in its attempt to
eliminate soring, including ensuring that DQPs receive the training
needed to inspect horses responsibly and accurately. From the 2010
issuance of the OIG audit report to the present, APHIS' efforts to curb
soring have included issuing enforcement warning letters to HIOs and
DQPs, increasing oversight of DQP inspections, and sending VMOs to
observe events having a higher likelihood of sored horses being
present. APHIS has also worked to build trust with the industry by
funding joint trainings with HIOs on proper inspection procedures,
arranging clinics for the public to learn about inspections and ask
questions, and transitioning primary enforcement to DQPs such that VMOs
would not re-inspect a horse that a DQP finds noncompliant. In
addition, APHIS has funded prohibited substance testing and limited the
number of rule updates to HIOs between show seasons so that DQPs are
not overly burdened with new information.
However, given the rates of noncompliance found in inspections
between 2017 and 2022, our programmatic attempts to strengthen the
program under the current regulations have not produced meaningful
reductions in the number of sored horses appearing in shows and other
HPA-covered events, nor has increased enforcement significantly
deterred the practice. Even when DQPs have the skills needed to
accurately diagnose horses for soring, which many demonstrate in the
presence of APHIS
[[Page 56951]]
representatives, conflicts of interest within the Tennessee Walking
Horse and racking horse communities continue to encourage soring. These
conflicts undercut all programmatic alternatives that we have attempted
within the current regulatory regime.
We acknowledge that some regulations are in place to address these
conflicts. Under paragraph (d) of Sec. 11.7, HIOs operating an APHIS-
certified DQP program are required to promulgate standards of conduct,
including prohibiting DQPs from inspecting at events at which horses
owned by them are participating. This applies also to members of their
family or their employers. However, even if the HIO reliably enforces
these standards, conflicts of interest extend well beyond those of
family and employer, to business and other relationships among persons
active in the industry who consider soring their horses a means to gain
competitive advantage.
Through this proposed rule, we would amend the regulations to
transfer from HIOs to APHIS the task of screening, training, and
authorizing qualified persons to inspect horses for soring. By so
doing, APHIS would be better positioned to ensure that inspectors are
screened for conflicts of interest and could take immediate
disciplinary action if an inspector fails to follow Agency and
professional codes of ethical conduct. Also, APHIS could directly
deliver to inspectors the proper training needed to conduct science-
based inspections for soreness as supported in the NAS committee
report.
While we believe the amendments in the 2017 HPA final rule that we
are proposing to withdraw could serve as an effective alternative for
remedying the problems with enforcement and compliance, and ultimately
help to eliminate soring, we consider this latest proposal to be the
preferable alternative. Among other changes, both rulemakings move
responsibility for training and authorizing inspectors under direct
APHIS oversight, and both prohibit the pads, devices, substances, and
actions that have long been used to sore Tennessee Walking Horses and
racking horses.
However, unlike the previous rulemaking, this one draws upon the
findings of the recent NAS study to revise the scar rule so that its
criteria more accurately describe the dermatological changes associated
with soring. Also, by affording event management the option of
appointing an APHIS official instead of an HPI to conduct inspections,
this proposed rulemaking relieves costs for smaller events choosing to
appoint an inspector.
For events that use inspectors, this proposal would require one
inspector for every 100 horses participating, while the 2017 final rule
only requires one inspector for every 150 horses. This proposal also
requires that a farrier be present if more than 100 horses are
participating and requires that a farrier be on call if there are 100
or fewer horses. The smaller numbers provide inspectors and farriers
with a more manageable workload by which they can thoroughly inspect
and diagnose sore horses.
This proposal also sets new management requirements to maintain
information for 90 days on the therapeutic use of pads, substances, and
other prohibited items on horses at events covered under the Act, and
requires that management of any covered event notify APHIS at least 30
days before it begins.
The 2017 final rule limits this requirement to events featuring
Tennessee Walking horses and racking horses. These requirements allow
APHIS to establish a broader record of events covered under the Act,
allowing for adjustments to enforcement should noncompliance with the
Act become an issue in current or emerging horse breeds.
Finally, we note that a discussion of the rationale for proposing
to withdraw the 2017 HPA final rule is contained in the proposed
withdrawal itself.
We believe the changes proposed in this document represent the best
alternative option that would satisfactorily accomplish the stated
objectives and minimize impacts on small entities. However, we welcome
comments from the public on these and other alternatives.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and Regulatory Flexibility Act
This proposed rule has been determined to be significant for the
purposes of Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, has been reviewed by
the Office of Management and Budget.
We have prepared an economic analysis for this rule. The economic
analysis provides a cost-benefit analysis, as required by Executive
Orders 12866 and 13563, which 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, and equity). Executive Order 13563 emphasizes the importance
of quantifying both costs and benefits, of reducing costs, of
harmonizing rules, and of promoting flexibility. The economic analysis
also examines the potential economic effects of this rule on small
entities, as required by the Regulatory Flexibility Act. A summary of
the economic analysis is included below. Copies of the full analysis
are also available on the Regulations.gov website (see under ADDRESSES
in this document for a link to Regulations.gov) or by contacting the
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
The Horse Protection Act (HPA, or Act, 15 U.S.C. 1821 et seq.)
prohibits sored horses from participating in horse exhibitions, sales,
shows, or auctions covered under the Act. Soring is the practice of
intentionally injuring a horse's front feet and limbs to cause pain so
intense that the horse lifts its legs quickly to relieve the pain when
its hooves strike the ground, thereby producing a distinctive high-
stepping gait.
In September 2010, USDA's Office of Inspector General (OIG)
released an audit of the Animal Plant and Health Inspection Service's
(APHIS) enforcement of the HPA. In addition, a 2021 National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) study examined methods used to inspect horses for
soreness and made recommendations. The proposed rule is in response to
several findings and recommendations contained in that audit and in the
NAS study, as well as in response to data independently obtained by the
Agency. The objective of the proposed rule is more effective
enforcement of the HPA.
The principal proposed amendment to the Horse Protection
regulations is that APHIS would screen, train and authorize qualified
persons to conduct inspections at horse shows, horse exhibitions, horse
sales, and horse auctions to ensure compliance with the HPA. APHIS
would authorize applicants, preferably veterinarians, as Horse
Protection Inspectors (HPI) \58\ after screening them for potential
conflicts of interest and conducting training. APHIS would also develop
a process for denying an application or disqualifying a person
authorized to inspect horses who does not meet our qualifications or
who otherwise fails in duties or conduct under the Act or regulations.
We also propose that event management may elect instead to have an
APHIS representative conduct inspections. The proposed rule would
remove all regulatory responsibilities and requirements for horse
industry organizations and associations (HIOs).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\58\ The term Designated Qualified Persons or DQPs, would be
replaced by HPIs, or horse protection inspectors, under the proposed
rule.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 56952]]
Currently, horse shows either assume responsibility for conducting
preshow inspections for evidence of soring or contract with an APHIS-
certified HIO to provide DQPs to conduct inspections. However, the OIG
audit discovered conflicts of interest between DQPs, the HIOs that
license and hire them, and organizers of the shows and exhibitions that
contract with HIOs to provide DQPs. The OIG audit noted that at times
DQPs fail to inspect horses adequately or to issue violations in
accordance with the regulations. Concurring with the findings of the
OIG audit, the NAS study committee concluded that some horses
experiencing soreness are not being identified during inspections and
strongly recommended that use of DQPs for inspections under the current
program be discontinued.
Inspection data compiled by APHIS from fiscal year (FY) 2017 to
2022 show that inconsistencies persist in the number of violations
detected by APHIS officials and those issued by DQPs inspecting horses.
During this period, APHIS attended about 16 percent of all HPA-covered
events featuring Tennessee Walking Horses, racking horses, and other
breeds at which horse industry DQPs conducted inspections, performance
as well as flat-shod classes. While APHIS attended only a fraction of
the events at which DQPs were appointed to inspect horses, APHIS
consistently reported higher rates of noncompliance at these events
based on its VMO inspection findings. Most horses inspected by APHIS
officials at these events were chosen at random, although APHIS chose
to inspect some horses for which a suspicion of soring was warranted.
Designated Qualified Persons consistently reported higher rates of
noncompliance when APHIS officials were in attendance than when they
were not. In FY 2021, for example, if only horses wearing ``performance
packages'' (i.e., a padded horse) are considered, APHIS officials
detected 158 instances of noncompliance with the HPA out of the 398
horses APHIS inspected at the 17 events attended, resulting in close to
a 40 percent rate of noncompliance for performance horses. In contrast,
of the 207 events attended and inspected only by DQPs during the same
period, DQPs detected just 321 instances of noncompliance with the HPA
out of the 11,825 performance horses they inspected, recording only a
1.9 percent rate of noncompliance when APHIS officials were not present
and 7.1 percent when they were. Also notable is that the rate of
noncompliance detected for horses wearing performance packages was
significantly and consistently higher than that detected for flat-shod
horses.
In addition, the proposed rule would also prohibit non-therapeutic
pads and action devices at all events involving Tennessee Walking
Horses and racking horses, as these items are used to induce or hide
soring. The proposed rule would also update the scar rule by including
language that better describes visible dermatologic changes and stating
that the changes do not have to be bilateral.
An additional amendment to the rule would also require a farrier to
be present at shows with 100 or more horses and on-call for shows with
fewer than 100 horses if the management of the shows utilize an AHPIS
representative or HPI. We welcome public comments on the costs
associated with having a farrier at the shows and on-call. Also, for
horse shows that utilize an HPI or APHIS representative, if there are
more than 100 horses participating in the show, there must be an
additional HPI.
The prohibition of pads and action devices does not impose costs on
show management or participants. Of these proposed amendments to the
Horse Protection regulations, only the amendments requiring a farrier
to be present at a show of more than 100 horses, or on call if fewer
than 100 horses are participating, may result in additional costs such
as record keeping for show management and participants.
Given that event managers may choose to have an APHIS inspector at
no cost to them, the proposed rule would impose no additional required
costs to horse show management in terms of inspectors.
Currently, horse shows either assume responsibility for conducting
preshow inspections for evidence of soring or contract with an APHIS-
approved Horse Industry Organization (HIO) to provide Designated
Qualified Persons to conduct inspections. HIOs may be able to pass this
cost on to the exhibitors and participants in the show. Under the
proposed rule, if an APHIS inspector is used, they would no longer have
to bear the costs associated with having inspectors at the shows. This
could potentially result in cost savings to the HIOs and the
exhibitors. The cost of having inspectors at the shows varies by region
and ranges from $350 to $23,000 with the average being $700 to $800 per
show.
Conversely, it is possible that HPIs will charge more for their
inspections than DQPs currently do. The rate that HPIs will charge for
their services under the proposed rule, as compared to the current rate
of compensation for DQPs mentioned above, is unknown because the rate
is negotiated between the inspectors and the management that contracts
for their services, and thus not within APHIS' purview. Management may
also be able to pass the costs of having inspectors at the shows on to
the exhibitors. We welcome public comments to the extent that there may
be additional costs or cost savings associated with this proposed rule.
Based on the estimates of an expert elicitation \59\ commissioned
by APHIS, the cost of services provided per show by veterinarians,
farriers, and inspectors ranges from a few hundred to several thousand
dollars. Because this analysis was conducted several years ago, we use
the consumer price index (CPI) to convert the costs to 2021 dollars.
APHIS believes these estimates to be reasonably accurate. However, we
acknowledge that there is some level of uncertainty, as the structure
of the industry may have changed. In addition, we do not know the
impact that the pandemic may have had on the industry. We welcome
comments which would provide better insight and detailed information on
the components of the costs, if applicable. The incidence of the costs
to the show of the farrier would depend on their ability to pass the
costs along to participants or other entities involved with the shows.
In addition, many of the entities may already have farriers present at
shows, auctions, and sales. Many, if not most, of the entities that may
be affected by this proposed rule are small.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\59\ Expert Elicitation in Support of the Economic Analysis of
the Tennessee Walking and Racking Horse Industry; RTI International,
November 2012 3040 Cornwallis Road, Research Triangle Park, NC
27709.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed rule would result in foregone revenue for most current
DQPs, who would not meet APHIS' requirements for HPIs under the terms
of the proposed rule. As noted above, the average cost of having
inspectors at shows is $700 to $800 per show. With 59 currently
authorized DQPs and 300 shows on average per year, this suggests that
DQP income is supplemental, rather than a primary source of revenue,
for most DQPs. Additionally, APHIS anticipates 30 new initial
applications from parties interested in becoming HPIs under the
proposed requirements. For new HPIs who were not previously DQPs, this
rule would result in new income. We request public comment on this
matter.
While the proposed rule would result in better enforcement of the
HPA, implementation of the proposed changes would result in additional
costs to APHIS in terms of conducting inspections, screening, and
training potential HPIs. We expect that APHIS
[[Page 56953]]
costs would increase by approximately $6.4 million. This assumes that
APHIS inspectors would attend approximately 300 shows per year. Over
the last 5 years, there have been an average of 226 shows per year. In
addition, the industry and APHIS may incur additional recordkeeping
costs of $47,000 and $127,000, respectively. Training costs would
include renting a training horse and employee travel. The average 3-day
horse rental is $450 and the travel cost per employee is $1,900. APHIS
would not charge a fee for training; however, the participants may have
to pay their travel expenses to and from training and lodging. If funds
are available, APHIS would pay travel expenses and other costs
associated with attending training.
The benefits of the proposed rule are expected to justify the
costs. The proposed changes to the Horse Protection regulations would
promote the humane treatment of Tennessee Walking Horses and racking
horses by more effectively ensuring that those horses that participate
in exhibitions, sales, shows, or auctions covered by the HPA are not
sored. This qualitative benefit, enhancing animal welfare, is likely to
result in greater public confidence that the animals are being treated
humanely.
The proposed rule is not expected to adversely impact the
communities in which shows are held because Tennessee Walking Horse and
racking horse shows are expected to continue. Owners are motivated to
show their prized horses and are likely to continue participating in
shows. Better enforcement of the HPA is expected to also benefit shows
and participants by improving the reputation of the Tennessee Walking
Horse and racking horse industry. Participation in events may increase
if the proposed rule were to result in increased confidence by owners
that individuals who intentionally sore horses to gain a competitive
advantage are likely to be prevented from participating. Management of
horse shows, exhibitions, sales, and auctions would also benefit from
no longer having to bear the costs of compensating inspectors if they
use APHIS inspectors.
In an attempt to eliminate soring, APHIS considered several
alternatives to the proposed rule. These include programmatic changes
such as increased training, issuing enforcement warning letters to HIOs
and DQPs, increasing oversight of DQP inspections, and sending VMOs to
observe events having a higher likelihood of sored horses being
present. APHIS has also worked to build trust with the industry by
funding joint trainings with HIOs on proper inspection procedures,
arranging clinics for the public to learn about inspections and ask
questions, and transitioning primary enforcement to DQPs such that VMOs
would not re-inspect a horse that a DQP finds noncompliant. In
addition, APHIS has funded prohibited substance testing and limited the
number of rule updates to HIOs between show seasons so that DQPs are
not overly burdened with new information. These non-regulatory
solutions have not meaningfully decreased detections of soring,
however.
One alternative that we also considered was to eliminate the use of
non-APHIS inspectors and to limit inspectors to APHIS VMOs. While this
approach would address conflicts of interest and allow APHIS to have a
direct role in managing inspections, we determined that the
availability of inspectors could be subject to number of VMOs available
at any given time and their geographic distribution. Further, section 4
(15 U.S.C. 1823) of the Act provides for ``the appointment by the
management of any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or
auction of persons qualified to detect and diagnose a horse which is
sore . . .,'' which precludes assigning an inspector to an event and
eliminating any element of choice for event management. Under this
proposal, management would be able to choose to appoint an APHIS
representative or an APHIS-authorized inspector.
Another alternative considered was implementing our 2017 final rule
to revise the HPA regulations. However, we consider this proposed rule
preferable to that rule for several reasons. Among them, this rule
provides that management may request direct APHIS inspection of a show
at no cost to management, an option not provided for in the 2017 final
rule despite comments that HPIs could be cost-prohibitive for smaller
shows.
We invite public comments on these and other alternatives that may
achieve the desired policy objective of the proposed rule.
The entities affected by this rule are likely small by Small
Business Administration standards. We invite public comments on the
potential impacts on the entities that may be affected by this rule.
Executive Order 13175
This proposed rule has been reviewed in accordance with the
requirements of Executive Order 13175, ``Consultation and Coordination
with Indian Tribal Governments.'' Executive Order 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.
APHIS has determined that this proposed rule does not, to our
knowledge, have tribal implications that require formal tribal
consultation under Executive Order 13175. To engage Tribal nations on
this rulemaking, APHIS hosted a tribal webinar to discuss the proposed
rule, with four attendees participating and no tribal comment. If a
Tribe requests consultation, APHIS 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.
Executive Order 12372
This program/activity is listed in the Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance under No. 10.025 and is subject to Executive Order 12372,
which requires intergovernmental consultation with State and local
officials. (See 2 CFR chapter IV.)
Executive Order 12988
This proposed rule has been reviewed under Executive Order 12988,
Civil Justice Reform. It is not intended to have retroactive effect.
The Act does not provide administrative procedures which must be
exhausted prior to a judicial challenge to the provisions of this rule.
Paperwork Reduction Act
Many of the activities described in this proposed rule are
currently approved under OMB control number 0579-0056, including the
requirement that the management of any event that contains Tennessee
Walking Horses or racking horses maintain for at least 90 days
following the closing date of the event all pertinent records in Sec.
11.22(a), and that within 5 days following the conclusion of any event
containing Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses, event management
must submit to APHIS the information required by Sec. 11.22(a) for
each horse excused or disqualified by management or its
representatives. In addition, there are seven new information
collection and reporting activities. Therefore, in accordance with
section 3507(d) of the
[[Page 56954]]
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the new
activities and their burden associated with this proposed rule have
been submitted to OMB as a new information collection for approval.
After a final rule is published, this information collection request
will be scheduled for merger into 0579-0056 in the future.
Written comments and recommendations for the proposed information
collection should be sent within 60 days of publication of this notice
to www.reginfo.gov/public/do/PRAMain. Find this particular information
collection by selecting ``Currently under 60-day Review-Open for Public
Comments'' or by using the search function. Please send a copy of your
comments to: (1) Docket No. APHIS-2022-0004, Regulatory Analysis and
Development, PPD, APHIS, Station 3A-03.8, 4700 River Road Unit 118,
Riverdale, MD 20737-1238, and (2) Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, Room
404-W, 14th Street and Independence Avenue SW, Washington, DC 20250.
Administering the Horse Protection Act (HPA) requires the use of
several information collection activities that are currently approved
under 0579-0056. The proposed changes to the regulations result in the
creation of new reportable activities, as previously mentioned. These
activities and any additional ones announced in the final rule
resulting from public comment will be scheduled for merger into 0579-
0056 after OMB approval.
The seven new activities in this proposed rule change are as
follows:
Sec. 11.13(b)(5)--Event managers will be permitted to
submit unsatisfactory performance notices against HPIs performing
inspections. APHIS estimates there will be 5 responses per year with 1
hour of burden per response.
Sec. 11.14(b)--Managers of any horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction that allows any horse to be
shown, exhibited or sold with prohibitions for therapeutic treatment
will be required to maintain certain information for each horse
receiving the therapeutic treatment for a period of at least 90 days
following the closing date of a show, exhibition, sale, or auction.
Based on the APHIS Horse Protection program's knowledge of the
frequency of therapeutic treatments used on horses participating in
prior covered events, APHIS estimates there will be 50 responses per
year with 1 hour of burden per response. Managers will not have to
maintain such records if no horses undergoing therapeutic treatments
are in the event.
Sec. 11.16(a)--Managers of any such show, exhibition,
sale, or auction will be required to provide the Administrator
information of the event by mail, fax, or electronic means such as
email at least 30 days before any horse show, horse exhibition, horse
sale, or horse auction is scheduled to begin. Such notification would
have to include information about the show, information about the
anticipated or known number of entries and whether management will
allow any horse to be shown, exhibited, or sold with prohibitions under
proposed Sec. 11.6 for therapeutic treatment. Finally, the
notification will include a request to appoint an APHIS representative
if one is needed. This requirement has been added to give APHIS advance
notice of the event and sufficient time to arrange for an APHIS
representative to be present to inspect horses, if requested by
management. APHIS estimates there will be 450 shows per year with 30
minutes of burden per response.
Sec. 11.16(a)(6)--If neither an APHIS representative nor
an HPI is available on the date of the horse show, horse exhibition,
horse sale, or horse auction, event management may request a variance.
It must be submitted by mail, fax, or electronic means such as email to
the Deputy Administrator of Animal Care. APHIS estimates there will be
20 requests per year with 1 hour of burden per request.
Sec. 11.16(b)--Managers of any such show, exhibition,
sale, or auction will be required to provide any changes to the event
information submitted to the Administrator at least 15 days before the
event is to begin. APHIS estimates there will be 300 shows per year
with 30 minutes of burden per response.
Sec. 11.16(c)--Event managers of any horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction that contains Tennessee
Walking Horses or racking horses must submit to APHIS within 5 days
after the event's conclusion the information required to be maintained
by Sec. 11.14. Event information already submitted to APHIS under
Sec. 11.16(a) does not need to be sent again. APHIS estimates there
will be 300 shows per year with 30 minutes of burden per response.
Sec. 11.19(a)--APHIS will authorize and train Horse
Protection Inspectors. Prospective candidates must submit an
application to APHIS and will be evaluated using a 2-tier system of
qualifications. APHIS estimates there will be 30 applicants per year
with an estimated 1 hour of burden per application.
The proposed changes to the regulations in 9 CFR part 11 authorized
by the HPA also include removing regulatory requirements for horse
industry organizations and associations and eliminating the role of
Designated Qualified Persons as inspectors at horse shows, exhibitions,
sales, and auctions. The burden for these will be transferred Horse
Protection Inspectors authorized and trained by APHIS. Activities
related to event schedules are event-driven so the total number of
estimated responses and burden hours will remain unchanged.
We are soliciting comments from the public and others concerning
our proposed information collection and recordkeeping requirements.
These comments will help us:
(1) Evaluate whether the proposed information collection is
necessary for the proper performance of our agency's functions,
including whether the information will have practical utility;
(2) Evaluate the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of the
proposed information collection, including the validity of the
methodology and assumptions used;
(3) Enhance the quality, utility, and clarity of the information to
be collected; and
(4) Minimize the burden of the information collection on those who
are to respond (such as through the use of appropriate automated,
electronic, mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or
other forms of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic
submission of responses).
Estimate of burden: Public burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 0.55 hours per response.
Respondents: Managers of horse shows, exhibitions, sales, or
auctions; veterinarians.
Estimated annual number of respondents: 530.
Estimated annual number of responses per respondent: 3.
Estimated annual number of responses: 1,155.
A copy of the information collection may be viewed on the
Regulations.gov website or in our reading room. (A link to
Regulations.gov and information on the location and hours of the
reading room are provided under the heading ADDRESSES at the beginning
of this proposed rule.) Information about the information collection
process may be obtained from Mr. Joseph Moxey, APHIS' Paperwork
Reduction Act Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483. APHIS will respond to any
information collection-related comments in the final rule. All comments
will also become a matter of public record.
[[Page 56955]]
E-Government Act Compliance
The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service is committed to
compliance with the E-Government Act to promote the use of the internet
and other information technologies, to provide increased opportunities
for citizen access to Government information and services, and for
other purposes. APHIS estimates that all of the total responses can be
processed electronically by email or fax. Respondents are free to
maintain required records as best suited for their organization.
Details about specific forms for reportable activities can be found in
the information collection request supporting statement.
For assistance with E-Government Act compliance related to this
proposed rule, please contact Mr. Joseph Moxey, APHIS' Paperwork
Reduction Act Coordinator, at (301) 851-2483, or the person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 11
Animal welfare, Horses, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.
Accordingly, we propose to revise 9 CFR part 11 to read as follows:
PART 11--HORSE PROTECTION REGULATIONS
Sec.
11.1 Definitions.
11.2 [Reserved]
11.3 Non-interference with APHIS representatives and HPIs.
11.4 Owners, trainers, exhibitors, custodians, transporters, and any
other person who has been disqualified.
11.5 Appeal of inspection report.
11.6 Prohibitions concerning exhibitors.
11.7 [Reserved]
11.8 Inspection and detention of horses.
11.9 Access to premises and records.
11.10 Inspection space and facility requirements.
11.11-11.12 [Reserved]
11.13 Responsibilities and liabilities of management.
11.14 Records required and disposition thereof.
11.15 Inspection of records.
11.16 Reporting by management.
11.17 Requirements concerning persons involved in transportation of
certain horses.
11.18 Utilization of inspectors.
11.19 Authorization and training of Horse Protection Inspectors.
Authority: 15 U.S.C. 1823-1825 and 1828; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and
371.7.
Sec. 11.1 Definitions.
For the purpose of this part, unless the context otherwise
requires, the following terms shall have the meanings assigned to them
in this section. The singular form shall also impart the plural.
Act means the Horse Protection Act of 1970 (Pub. L. 91-540) as
amended by the Horse Protection Act Amendments of 1976 (Pub. L. 94-
360), 15 U.S.C. 1821 et seq., and any legislation amendatory thereof.
Action device means any boot, collar, chain, roller, beads,
bangles, or other device which encircles or is placed upon the lower
extremity of the leg of a horse in such a manner that it can either
rotate around the leg, or slide up and down the leg so as to cause
friction, or which can strike the hoof, coronet band or fetlock joint.
Administrator means the Administrator, Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, or any person authorized to act for the
Administrator. Mail for the Administrator should be sent to the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service, Animal Care/Horse Protection, 2150
Centre Avenue, Building B, Mailstop 3W11, Fort Collins, CO 80526-8117.
Electronic mail for the Administrator should be sent to
[email protected].
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) means the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service of the United States Department of
Agriculture.
APHIS representative means any employee or official of APHIS.
Custodian means any person who has initial control of and presents
a horse for inspection at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.
The custodian must be able to provide information about the horse that
is required by this part.
Day(s) means business days, i.e., days other than weekends and
Federal holidays.
Department means the United States Department of Agriculture
(USDA).
Event manager means the person who has been delegated primary
authority by a sponsoring organization for managing a horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction.
Exhibitor means:
(1) Any person who enters any horse, any person who allows his or
her horse to be entered, or any person who directs or allows any horse
in his or her custody or under his or her direction, control or
supervision to be entered in any horse show or horse exhibition;
(2) Any person who shows or exhibits any horse, any person who
allows his or her horse to be shown or exhibited, or any person who
directs or allows any horse in his or her custody or under his or her
direction, control, or supervision to be shown or exhibited in any
horse show or horse exhibition;
(3) Any person who enters or presents any horse for sale or
auction, any person who allows his or her horse to be entered or
presented for sale or auction, or any person who allows any horse in
his or her custody or under his or her direction, control, or
supervision to be entered or presented for sale or auction in any horse
sale or auction; or
(4) Any person who sells or auctions any horse, any person who
allows his or her horse to be sold or auctioned, or any person who
directs or allows any horse in his or her custody or under his or her
direction, control, or supervision to be sold or auctioned.
Horse means any member of the species Equus caballus.
Horse exhibition means a public display of any horses, singly or in
groups, but not in competition. The term does not include events where
speed is the prime factor, rodeo events, parades, or trail rides.
Horse Protection Inspector (HPI) means a person meeting the
qualifications in Sec. 11.19 whom the Administrator has authorized as
an HPI and who may be appointed by management or a representative of
management of any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale or horse
auction under section 4 of the Act (15 U.S.C. 1823) to detect or
diagnose horses which are sore or to otherwise inspect horses and any
records pertaining to such horses for the purposes of detecting or
diagnosing soring.
Horse sale or horse auction means any event, public or private, at
which horses are sold or auctioned, regardless of whether or not said
horses are exhibited prior to or during the sale or auction.
Horse show means a public display of any horses, in competition,
except events where speed is the prime factor, rodeo events, parades,
or trail rides.
Inspection means any visual, physical, and diagnostic means
approved by APHIS to determine compliance with the Act and regulations.
Such inspection may include, but is not limited to, visual examination
of a horse and review of records, physical examination of a horse,
including touching, rubbing, palpating, and observation of vital signs,
and the use of any diagnostic device or instrument, and may require the
removal of any shoe or any other equipment, substance, or paraphernalia
from the horse when deemed necessary by the professional conducting
such inspection.
Local area means an area within a 10-mile radius of the horse show,
horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction.
Management means any person or persons who organize, exercise
control
[[Page 56956]]
over, or administer or are responsible for organizing, directing, or
administering any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale or horse
auction and specifically includes, but is not limited to, the
sponsoring organization and event manager.
Participate means engaging in any activity, either directly or
through an agent, beyond that of a spectator in connection with a horse
show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction, and includes,
without limitation, transporting, or arranging for the transportation
of, horses to or from equine events, personally giving instructions to
exhibitors, being present in the warm-up or inspection areas or in any
area where spectators are not allowed, and financing the participation
of others in equine events.
Person means any individual, corporation, company, association,
firm, partnership, society, organization, joint stock company, State or
local government agency, or other legal entity.
Secretary means the Secretary of Agriculture or anyone who has
heretofore or may hereafter be delegated authority to act in his or her
stead.
Sore when used to describe a horse means:
(1) An irritating or blistering agent has been applied, internally
or externally, by a person to any limb of a horse;
(2) Any burn, cut, or laceration has been inflicted by a person on
any limb of a horse;
(3) Any tack, nail, screw, or chemical agent has been injected by a
person into or used on any limb of a horse;
(4) Any other substance or device has been used by a person on any
limb of a horse or a person has engaged in a practice involving a
horse, and, as a result of such application, infliction, injection,
use, or practice, such horse suffers, or can reasonably be expected to
suffer, physical pain or distress, inflammation, or lameness when
walking, trotting, or otherwise moving, except that such term does not
include such an application, infliction, injection, use, or practice in
connection with the therapeutic treatment of a horse by or under the
supervision of a person licensed to practice veterinary medicine in the
State in which such treatment was given.
Sponsoring organization means any person or entity whose direction
supports and who assumes responsibility for a horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction that has, is, or will be
conducted.
State means any of the several States, the District of Columbia,
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, Northern Mariana Islands or the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands.
Therapeutic treatment means relating to the treatment of disease,
injury, or disorder by or under the supervision of a person licensed to
practice veterinary medicine in the State in which such treatment was
prescribed.
Sec. 11.2 [Reserved]
Sec. 11.3 Non-interference with APHIS representatives and HPIs.
No person shall assault, resist, oppose, impede, intimidate,
threaten, or interfere with APHIS representatives or HPIs appointed by
management, or in any way influence attendees of a horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction or other individuals to do the
same.
Sec. 11.4 Owners, trainers, exhibitors, custodians, transporters, and
any other person who has been disqualified.
Any person who has been disqualified by the Secretary from
participating in any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse
auction shall not show, exhibit, or enter any horse, directly or
indirectly through any agent, employee, corporation, partnership, or
other device, and shall not judge, manage, or otherwise participate in
events covered by the Act within the period during which the
disqualification is in effect.
Sec. 11.5 Appeal of inspection report.
Any horse owner, trainer, exhibitor, custodian or transporter may
appeal all or part of the inspection findings in an inspection report
to the Administrator. To appeal, the horse owner, trainer, exhibitor,
custodian or transporter must send a written statement contesting the
inspection finding(s) and include any documentation or other
information in support of the appeal. To receive consideration, the
appeal must be received \1\ by the Administrator, preferably by
electronic mail, to [email protected] within 21 business days of
the date the horse owner, trainer, exhibitor, custodian or transporter
received the inspection report that is the subject of the appeal. The
Administrator will send a final decision, in writing via either
electronic mail or postal mail, to the person requesting the appeal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Appeals may also be sent by U.S. mail to APHIS, 2150 Centre
Ave, Bldg. B, MS 3W-11, Fort Collins, CO 80547.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 11.6 Prohibitions concerning exhibitors.
(a) General prohibitions for all horses. Notwithstanding the
provisions of this section, no action device, method, practice, or
substance shall be used with respect to any horse at any horse show,
horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction if such use causes or
can reasonably be expected to cause such horse to be sore or is
otherwise used to mask previous and/or ongoing soring.
(b) Prohibited devices, equipment, and practices. The use of the
following action devices, equipment, or practices on any horse, at any
horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction is prohibited:
(1) More than one action device permitted under this section on any
limb of a horse.
(2) All beads, bangles, rollers, and similar devices, with the
exception of rollers made of lignum vitae (hardwood), aluminum, or
stainless steel, with individual rollers of uniform size, weight and
configuration, provided each such device may not weigh more than 6
ounces, including the weight of the fastener.
(3) Chains weighing more than 6 ounces each, including the weight
of the fastener.
(4) Chains with links that are not of uniform size, weight, and
configuration; and chains that have twisted links or double links.
(5) Chains that have drop links on any horse that is being ridden,
worked on a lead, or otherwise worked out or moved about.
(6) Chains or lignum vitae, stainless steel, or aluminum rollers
which are not smooth and free of protrusions, projections, rust,
corrosion, or rough or sharp edges.
(7) Boots, collars, or any other devices, with protrusions or
swellings, or rigid, rough, or sharp edges, seams or any other abrasive
or abusive surface that may contact a horse's leg.
(8) Boots, collars, or any other devices that weigh more than 6
ounces, except for soft rubber or soft leather bell boots and/or
quarter boots that are used as protective devices.
(9) Pads or other devices on horses up to 2 years old that elevate
or change the angle of such horses' hooves in excess of 1 inch at the
heel.
(10) Any weight on horses up to 2 years old, except a keg or
similar conventional horseshoe, and any horseshoe on horses up to 2
years old that weighs more than 16 ounces.
(11) Artificial extension of the toe length, whether accomplished
with pads, acrylics, or any other material or combinations thereof,
that exceeds 50 percent of the natural hoof length, as measured from
the coronet band, at the center of the front pastern along the front of
the hoof wall, to the distal portion of the hoof wall at the tip of the
toe. The artificial extension shall be
[[Page 56957]]
measured from the distal portion of the hoof wall at the tip of the toe
at a 90-degree angle to the proximal (foot/hoof) surface of the shoe.
(12) Toe length that does not exceed the height of the heel by 1
inch or more. The length of the toe shall be measured from the coronet
band, at the center of the front pastern along the front of the hoof
wall to the ground. The heel shall be measured from the coronet band,
at the most lateral portion of the pastern, at a 90-degree angle to the
ground, not including normal caulks at the rear of a horseshoe that do
not exceed \3/4\ inch in length. That portion of caulk at the rear of a
horseshoe in excess of \3/4\ of an inch shall be added to the height of
the heel in determining the heel/toe ratio.
(13) Pads that are not made of leather, plastic, or a similar
pliant material.
(14) Any object or material inserted between the pad and the hoof
other than acceptable hoof packing, which includes pine tar, oakum,
live rubber, sponge rubber, silicone, commercial hoof packing, or other
substances used to maintain adequate frog pressure or sole consistency.
Acrylic and other hardening substances are prohibited as hoof packing.
(15) Single or double rocker-bars on the bottom surface of
horseshoes which extend more than \1/2\ inches back from the point of
the toe, or which would cause, or could reasonably be expected to
cause, an unsteadiness of stance in the horse with resulting muscle and
tendon strain due to the horse's weight and balance being focused upon
a small fulcrum point.
(16) Metal hoof bands, such as used to anchor or strengthen pads
and shoes, placed less than \1/2\ inch below the coronet band.
(17) Metal hoof bands that can be easily and quickly loosened or
tightened by hand, by means such as, but not limited to, a wing-nut or
similar fastener.
(18) Any action device or any other device that strikes the coronet
band of the foot of the horse except for soft rubber or soft leather
bell boots that are used as protective devices.
(19) Shoeing a horse, trimming a horse's hoof, or paring the frog
or sole in a manner that will cause such horse to suffer, or can
reasonably be expected to cause such horse to suffer pain or distress,
inflammation, or lameness when walking, trotting, or otherwise moving.
Bruising of the hoof or any other method of pressure shoeing is also
prohibited.
(20) Lead or other weights attached to the outside of the hoof
wall, the outside surface of the horseshoe, or any portion of the pad
except the bottom surface within the horseshoe. Pads may not be
hollowed out for the purpose of inserting or affixing weights, and
weights may not extend below the bearing surface of the shoe. Hollow
shoes or artificial extensions filled with mercury or similar
substances are prohibited.
(21) The use of whips, cigarette smoke, or other stewarding actions
or paraphernalia to distract a horse or to otherwise impede the
inspection process during an examination, including but not limited to,
holding the reins less than 18 inches from the bit shank is prohibited.
(22) The forelimbs and hindlimbs of the horse must be free of
dermatologic conditions that are indicative of soring. Examples of such
dermatologic conditions include, but are not limited to, irritation,
moisture, edema, swelling, redness, epidermal thickening, loss of hair
(patchy or diffuse) or other evidence of inflammation. Any horse found
to have one or more of the dermatologic conditions set forth herein
shall be presumed to be ``sore'' and be subject to all prohibitions of
section 6 (15 U.S.C. 1825) of the Act.
(c) Specific prohibitions for Tennessee Walking Horses and racking
horses. (1) All action devices are prohibited on any Tennessee Walking
Horse or racking horse at any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale,
or horse auction.
(2) All artificial extension of the toe length is prohibited on any
Tennessee Walking Horse or racking horse at any horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction, unless such horse has been
prescribed and is receiving therapeutic treatment using artificial
extension of the toe length as approved in writing by a licensed
veterinarian.
(3) All pads and wedges are prohibited on any Tennessee Walking
Horse or racking horse at any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction,
unless such horse has been prescribed and is receiving therapeutic
treatment using pads or wedges as approved in writing by a licensed
veterinarian.
(4) All substances are prohibited on the extremities above the hoof
of any Tennessee Walking Horse or racking horse entered for the purpose
of being shown or exhibited, sold, auctioned, or offered for sale in or
on the grounds of any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or
auction.
(d) Competition restrictions--2-Year-old horses. Horse show or
horse exhibition workouts or performances of 2-year-old Tennessee
Walking Horses and racking horses and working exhibitions of 2-year-old
Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses (horses eligible to be
shown or exhibited in 2-year-old classes) at horse sales or horse
auctions that exceed a total of 10 minutes continuous workout or
performance without a minimum 5-minute rest period between the first
such 10-minute period and the second such 10-minute period, and, more
than two such 10-minute periods per performance, class, or workout are
prohibited.
(e) Information requirements--horse related. Failing to provide
information or providing any false or misleading information required
by the Act or regulations or requested by APHIS representatives or HPIs
appointed by management, by any person that enters, owns, trains,
shows, exhibits, transports or sells or has custody of, or direction or
control over any horse shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned or entered
for the purpose of being shown, exhibited, sold, or auctioned at any
horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction is
prohibited and may result in disqualification under Sec. 11.13. Such
information shall include, but is not limited to: Information
concerning the name, any applicable registration name and number,
markings, sex, age, and legal ownership of the horse; the name and
address of the horse's training and/or stabling facilities; the name
and address of the owner, trainer, rider, custodian, any other
exhibitor, or other legal entity bearing responsibility for the horse;
the class in which the horse is entered or shown; the exhibitor
identification number; and, any other information reasonably related to
the identification, ownership, control, direction, or supervision of
any such horse.
Sec. 11.7 [Reserved]
Sec. 11.8 Inspection and detention of horses.
(a) For the purpose of effective enforcement of the Act: Each horse
owner, exhibitor, trainer, or other person having custody of, or
responsibility for, any horse at any horse show, horse exhibition,
horse sale, or horse auction, shall allow any APHIS representative or
HPI appointed by management to inspect such horse at all reasonable
times and places the APHIS representative or HPI may designate. Such
inspections may be required of any horse which is stabled, loaded on a
trailer, being prepared for show, exhibition, or sale or auction, being
exercised or otherwise on the grounds of, or present at, any horse
show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or horse auction, whether or not
such horse has or has not been shown, exhibited, or sold or auctioned,
or has or has not been entered for the purpose of being shown
[[Page 56958]]
or exhibited or offered for sale or auction at any such horse show,
horse exhibition, or horse sale or horse auction. APHIS representatives
and HPIs appointed by management will not generally or routinely delay
or interrupt actual individual classes or performances at horse shows,
horse exhibitions, or horse sales or auctions for the purpose of
examining horses, but they may do so in extraordinary situations, such
as but not limited to, lack of proper facilities for inspection,
refusal of management to cooperate with inspection efforts, reason to
believe that failure to immediately perform inspection may result in
the loss, removal, or masking of any evidence of a violation of the Act
or the regulations, or a request by management that such inspections be
performed by an APHIS representative.
(b) When any APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management
notifies the owner, exhibitor, trainer, or other person having custody
of or responsibility for a horse at any horse show, horse exhibition,
or horse sale or horse auction that APHIS desires to inspect such
horse, it shall not be moved from the horse show, horse exhibition, or
horse sale or horse auction until such inspection has been completed
and the horse has been released by an APHIS representative.
(c) For the purpose of inspection, testing, or taking of evidence,
APHIS representatives may detain for a period not to exceed 24 hours
any horse, at any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or horse
auction, which is sore or which an APHIS representative has probable
cause to believe is sore. Such detained horse may be marked for
identification and any such identifying markings shall not be removed
by any person other than an APHIS representative.
(d) Detained horses shall be kept under the supervision of an APHIS
representative or secured under an official USDA seal or seals in a
horse stall, horse trailer, or other facility to which access shall be
limited. It shall be the policy of APHIS to have at least one
representative present in the immediate detention area when a horse is
being held in detention. The official USDA seal or seals may not be
broken or removed by any person other than an APHIS representative,
unless:
(1) The life or well-being of the detained horse is immediately
endangered by fire, flood, windstorm, or other dire circumstances that
are beyond human control.
(2) The detained horse is in need of such immediate veterinary
attention that its life may be in peril before an APHIS representative
can be located.
(3) The horse has been detained for a maximum 24-hour detention
period, and an APHIS representative is not available to release the
horse.
(e) The owner, exhibitor, trainer, or other person having custody
of or responsibility for any horse detained by APHIS for further
inspection, testing, or the taking of evidence shall be allowed to
feed, water, and provide other normal custodial and maintenance care,
such as walking, grooming, etc., for such detained horse: Provided,
That:
(1) Such feeding, watering, and other normal custodial and
maintenance care of the detained horse is rendered under the direct
supervision of an APHIS representative.
(2) Any non-emergency veterinary care of the detained horse
requiring the use, application, or injection of any drugs or other
medication for therapeutic or other purposes is rendered by a Doctor of
Veterinary Medicine in the presence of an APHIS representative and, the
identity and dosage of the drug or other medication used, applied, or
injected and its purpose is furnished in writing to the APHIS
representative prior to such use, application, or injection by the
Doctor of Veterinary Medicine attending a horse. The use, application,
or injection of such drug or other medication must be approved by the
APHIS representative.
(f) It shall be the policy of an APHIS representative or HPI
appointed by management to inform the owner, trainer, exhibitor, or
other person having immediate custody of or responsibility for any
horse allegedly found to be in violation of the Act or the regulations
of such alleged violation or violations before the horse is released as
determined by an APHIS representative.
(g) The owner, trainer, exhibitor, or other person having immediate
custody of or responsibility for any horse or horses that an APHIS
representative determines shall be detained for inspection, testing, or
taking of evidence pursuant to paragraph (c) of this section shall be
informed after such determination is made and shall allow said horse to
be immediately put under the supervisory custody of APHIS or secured
under official USDA seal as provided in paragraph (d) of this section
until the completion of such inspection, testing, or gathering of
evidence, or until the 24-hour detention period expires.
(h) The owner, trainer, exhibitor, or other person having custody
of or responsibility for any horse allegedly found to be in violation
of the Act or regulations, and who has been informed of such alleged
violation by an APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management as
stated in paragraph (f) of this section, may request re-inspection and
testing of said horse within a 24-hour period: Provided, That:
(1) Such request is made to an APHIS representative immediately
after the horse has been inspected by an APHIS representative or HPI
appointed by management and before such horse has been removed from the
inspection facilities;
(2) An APHIS representative determines that sufficient cause for
re-inspection and testing exists; and
(3) The horse is maintained under APHIS supervisory custody as
prescribed in paragraph (d) of this section until such re-inspection
and testing has been completed.
(i) The owner, exhibitor, trainer, or other person having custody
of, or responsibility for, any horse being inspected shall render such
assistance, as the APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management
may request, for the purposes of such inspection.
Sec. 11.9 Access to premises and records.
(a) Management. (1) The management of any horse show, horse
exhibition, or horse sale or auction shall, without fee, charge,
assessment, or other compensation, provide APHIS representatives and
HPIs appointed by management with unlimited access to the grandstands,
sale ring, barns, stables, grounds, offices, and all other areas of any
horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction, including any
adjacent areas under their direction, control, or supervision for the
purpose of inspecting any horses, or any records required to be kept by
regulation or otherwise maintained.
(2) The management of any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse
sale or auction shall, without fee, charge, assessment, or other
compensation, provide APHIS representatives and HPIs appointed by
management with an adequate, safe, and accessible area for the visual
inspection and observation of horses.
(b) Exhibitors. (1) Each horse owner, trainer, exhibitor, or other
person having custody of or responsibility for any horse at any horse
show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction shall, without fee,
charge, assessment, or other compensation, admit any APHIS
representatives and HPIs appointed by management to all areas of barns,
compounds, horse vans, horse trailers, stables, stalls, paddocks, or
other show, exhibition, or sale or auction grounds or related areas at
any horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction, for the
purpose of
[[Page 56959]]
inspecting any such horse, at any and all times.
(2) Each owner, trainer, exhibitor, or other person having custody
of or responsibility for, any horse at any horse show, horse
exhibition, or horse sale or auction shall promptly present his or her
horse for inspection upon notification, orally or in writing, by any
APHIS representatives or HPIs appointed by the management that said
horse has been selected for inspection for the purpose of determining
whether such horse is in compliance with the Act and regulations.
Sec. 11.10 Inspection space and facility requirements.
(a) The management of every horse show, horse exhibition, horse
sale, or horse auction shall provide, without fee, charge, assessment,
or other compensation, sufficient space and facilities for APHIS
representatives and HPIs appointed by management to carry out their
duties under the Act and regulations when requested to do so by APHIS
representatives or HPIs appointed by management, whether or not
management has received prior notification or otherwise knows that such
show, exhibition, sale, or auction may be inspected by APHIS. With
respect to such space and facilities, it shall be the responsibility of
management to provide at least the following:
(1) Sufficient, well-lit space in a convenient location to the
horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction arena,
acceptable to APHIS representatives and HPIs appointed by management,
in which horses may be inspected.
(2) Protection from the elements of nature, such as rain, snow,
sleet, hail, windstorm, etc.
(3) A means to control crowds or onlookers in order that APHIS
representatives and HPIs appointed by management may carry out their
duties safely and without interference.
(4) An accessible, reliable, and convenient 110-volt electrical
power source available at the show, exhibition, sale, or auction site.
(5) Appropriate areas adjacent to the inspection area for
designated horses to wait before and after inspection, and an area to
be used for detention of horses.
(b) Other than the persons noted below, only a management
representative, HPIs appointed by management, and APHIS representatives
are allowed in the warm-up and inspection areas. Each horse in the
inspection area may only be accompanied by the person having immediate
custody of or responsibility for the horse. Inspected horses shall be
held in a designated area under the observation by a management
representative and shall not be permitted to leave the designated area
before showing. Each horse in the designated warm-up area may be
accompanied by no more than three individuals, including the person
having immediate custody of or responsibility for the horse, the
trainer, and the rider. No other persons are allowed in the warm-up or
inspection areas without prior approval from an APHIS representative or
HPI appointed by management.
Sec. 11.11-11.12 [Reserved]
Sec. 11.13 Responsibilities and liabilities of management.
(a) Horse shows, horse exhibitions, horse sales, and horse auctions
at which the management does not utilize an APHIS representative or
HPI. The management of any horse show, exhibition, sale or auction
which does not utilize an APHIS representative or appoint an HPI shall
be responsible for identifying all horses that are sore or otherwise in
violation of the Act or regulations, and shall disqualify or prohibit
any horses which are sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or
regulations from participating or competing in any horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction. Horses entered for sale or
auction at a horse sale or horse auction must be inspected and, as
appropriate, identified as sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or
regulations prior to the sale or auction and, as required by the Act,
prohibited from entering the sale or auction ring. Sore horses or
horses otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations that have been
entered in a horse show or horse exhibition for the purpose of show or
exhibition must be identified and disqualified prior to the show or
exhibition. Any horses found to be sore or otherwise in violation of
the Act or regulations during actual participation in the show or
exhibition, must be removed from further participation immediately
(e.g., prior to the horse placing in the class or the completion of the
exhibition). All horses that placed first in each class or event at any
horse show or horse exhibition shall be inspected after being shown or
exhibited to determine if such horses are sore or otherwise in
violation of the Act or regulations.
(b) Horse shows, horse exhibitions, horse sales, and horse auctions
at which the management utilizes an APHIS representative or HPI
appointed by management. (1) The management of any horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction that utilizes an APHIS
representative or HPI appointed by management shall not take any action
which will interfere with or influence the APHIS representative or HPI
appointed by management in carrying out their duties.
(2) The management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction
that utilizes an HPI to inspect horses shall appoint at least 2 HPIs
when more than 100 horses are entered.
(3) The management of any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale,
or horse auction that utilizes APHIS representatives or HPIs to inspect
horses shall have at least one farrier physically present if more than
100 horses are entered in the event. If 100 or fewer horses are entered
in the horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction, the
management shall, at minimum, have a farrier on call within the local
area to be present, if requested by an APHIS representative or HPI
appointed by management.
(4) After an APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management
has completed inspection, management must prevent tampering with any
part of a horse's limbs or hooves in such a way that could cause a
horse to be sore.
(5) If management is dissatisfied with the performance of a
particular HPI, management should promptly notify, in writing, the
Administrator as to why management believes the performance of the HPI
was inadequate or otherwise unsatisfactory.
(6) Management that utilizes an APHIS representative or HPI shall
immediately disqualify or prohibit from showing, exhibition, sale,
offering for sale, or auction of any horse identified by the APHIS
representative or HPI to be sore or otherwise in violation of the Act
or regulations and any horse otherwise known by management to be sore
or otherwise in violation of the Act or regulations. Should management
fail to disqualify or prohibit from being shown, exhibited, sold or
auctioned any such horse, the management is responsible for any
liabilities arising from the showing, exhibition, sale, or auction of
said horses.
(c) Other responsibilities of management at horse shows, horse
exhibitions, horse sales, and horse auctions. (1) Ensure that no
devices or substances prohibited under Sec. 11.6 are present in the
warm-up area.
(2) Review the orders of the Secretary disqualifying persons from
showing or exhibiting any horse, or judging or managing any horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction and disallow the participation of any such
person in any
[[Page 56960]]
horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction, for the duration of the
period of disqualification.
(3) Verify the identity of all horses entered in the horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction. Acceptable methods of identification are
as follows:
(i) A description sufficient to identify the horse, including, but
not limited to, name, age, breed, color, gender, distinctive markings,
and unique and permanent forms of identification when present (e.g.,
brands, tattoos, cowlicks, or blemishes); or
(ii) Electronic identification that complies with ISO standards; or
(iii) An equine passport issued by a State government and accepted
in the government of the State in which the horse show, horse
exhibition, or horse sale or auction will occur.
Sec. 11.14 Records required and disposition thereof.
(a) The management of any horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction
that contains Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses shall maintain
for a minimum of 90 days following the closing date of a horse show,
horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction all records containing:
(1) The dates and place of the horse show, horse exhibition, horse
sale, or horse auction.
(2) The name and address (including street address or post office
box number, and ZIP Code) of the sponsoring organization.
(3) The name and address of the horse show, horse exhibition, horse
sale, or horse auction management.
(4) The name and address (including street address or post office
box number, and ZIP Code) of each show judge.
(5) A copy of each class or sale sheet containing the names of
horses, the registration number of the horse (if applicable), the names
and addresses (including street address or post office box number, and
ZIP Code) of the horse owner, the exhibition number and class number
unique to each horse, or sale number assigned to each horse, the show
class or sale lot number, and the name and address (including street
address or post office box number, and ZIP Code) of the person paying
the entry fee and entering the horse in a horse show, horse exhibition,
horse sale, or horse auction.
(6) A copy of the official horse show, horse exhibition, horse
sale, or horse auction program, if any such program has been prepared.
(7) A copy of the official judge's or scoring card(s) for each
horse show class containing Tennessee Walking Horses and racking horses
to include the place each horse finished in the class.
(8) The name and any applicable registration name and number of
each horse, as well as the names and addresses (including street
address or post office box number, and ZIP Code) of the owner, the
trainer, the custodian, the exhibitor and the location (including
street address and ZIP Code) of the home barn or other facility where
the horse is stabled.
(9) The name, exhibition number and class number, or assigned sale
number, and the registration name and number (if applicable) for each
horse disqualified or prohibited by management from being shown,
exhibited, sold or auctioned, and the reasons for such action.
(10) Name and address (including street address or post office box
number, and ZIP Code) of the person designated by the management to
maintain the records required by this section.
(11) The name and address of each HPI appointed by management to
conduct inspections at the event, if an HPI was appointed.
(b) The management of any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale,
or horse auction that allows any horse to be shown, exhibited or sold
with devices, pads, substances, applications, or other items restricted
under Sec. 11.6 for therapeutic treatment must maintain the following
information for each horse receiving the therapeutic treatment for a
period of at least 90 days following the closing date of a show,
exhibition, sale, or auction:
(1) The name, exhibition number and class number, or assigned sale
number, and the registration name and number (if applicable) for each
horse receiving therapeutic treatment.
(2) The name, address (including street address and ZIP Code), and
phone number of the licensed veterinarian providing the therapeutic
treatment.
(3) The state and license number of the licensed veterinarian
providing the therapeutic treatment.
(4) The name and address (including street address and ZIP Code)
and phone number of the licensed veterinarian's business.
(5) A description of the disease, injury, or disorder for which the
treatment is given, to include at minimum:
(i) Start date of treatment.
(ii) Prescription or specific design and prescription (for example,
as to the height, weight, and material of a therapeutic pad) of the
treatment plan.
(iii) Expected length of treatment period and an estimation of when
treatment will be discontinued.
Sec. 11.15 Inspection of records.
The management of any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or
horse auction shall permit any APHIS representative or HPI appointed by
management, upon request, to examine and make copies of any and all
records pertaining to any horse that are required in the regulations or
otherwise maintained, during business hours, or such other times as may
be mutually agreed upon. A room, table, or other facilities necessary
for proper examination and copying of such records shall be made
available to the APHIS representative or HPI appointed by management.
Sec. 11.16 Reporting by management.
(a) At least 30 days before any horse show, horse exhibition, horse
sale, or horse auction is scheduled to begin, management must notify
the Administrator of such event by mail, fax, or electronic means such
as email. Such notification must include:
(1) The name and address (including street address and ZIP Code) of
the horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction.
(2) The name, address, phone number (and email address, if
available) of the event manager.
(3) The date(s) of the horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or
horse auction.
(4) A copy of the official horse show, exhibition, sale, or auction
program, if any such program has been prepared.
(5) Anticipated or known number of entries.
(6) Whether management requests an APHIS representative to perform
inspections at the horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse
auction; or, if not, whether management has chosen and appointed an HPI
to inspect horses, or will have no inspector. If neither an APHIS
representative nor an HPI is available on the date of the event, event
management may request a variance. Variances must be submitted by mail,
fax, or electronic means such as email to the Deputy Administrator of
Animal Care at least 15 days before the event and state the reason for
requesting the variance.
(7) Whether management will allow any horse to be shown, exhibited
or sold with prohibitions under section Sec. 11.6 for therapeutic
treatment.
(b) At least 15 days before any horse show, horse exhibition, horse
sale, or horse auction is scheduled to begin, the management of any
such horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction must
notify the Administrator of any changes to the information required
under Sec. 11.16(a) by mail, fax, or electronic means such as email.
[[Page 56961]]
(c) Within 5 days following the conclusion of any horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction that contains Tennessee
Walking Horses or racking horses, the management of such show,
exhibition, sale or auction shall submit to the Administrator the
information required to be maintained by Sec. 11.14 by mail, fax, or
electronic means such as email. Event information already submitted to
APHIS under paragraph (a) of this section does not need to be sent
again.
(d) Within 5 days following the conclusion of any horse show, horse
exhibition, horse sale, or horse auction which does not include
Tennessee Walking Horses or racking horses, the management of such
show, exhibition, sale or auction shall submit to the Administrator the
following information: Any case where a horse was prohibited by
management from being shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned because it
was found to be sore or otherwise in violation of the Act or
regulations. Information will include at a minimum the name, exhibition
number and class number, or assigned sale number, and the registration
name and number (if applicable) for each horse disqualified or
prohibited by management from being shown, exhibited, sold or
auctioned, and the reason(s) for such action.
Sec. 11.17 Requirements concerning persons involved in transportation
of certain horses.
Each person who ships, transports, or otherwise moves, or delivers
or receives for movement, any horse with reason to believe such horse
may be shown, exhibited, sold or auctioned at any horse show,
exhibition, sale, or auction, shall allow and assist in the inspection
of such horse at any such horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale, or
horse auction to determine compliance with the Act and regulations and
shall furnish to any APHIS representative or HPI appointed by
management upon their request the following information:
(a) Name and address (including street address or post office box
number, and ZIP Code) of the horse owner and of the shipper, if
different from the owner or trainer;
(b) Name and address (including street address or post office box
number, and ZIP Code) of the horse trainer;
(c) Name and address (including street address or post office box
number, and ZIP Code) of the carrier transporting the horse, and of the
driver of the means of conveyance used;
(d) Origin of the shipment and date thereof; and
(e) Destination of shipment.
Sec. 11.18 Utilization of inspectors.
(a) The management of any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale,
or horse auction may elect to utilize an APHIS representative or HPI to
detect and diagnose horses which are sore or to otherwise inspect
horses for compliance with the Act or regulations.
(b) If management elects to utilize an HPI to detect and diagnose
horses which are sore or to otherwise inspect horses for compliance
with the Act or regulations, the HPI must currently be authorized by
APHIS pursuant to Sec. 11.19 to perform this function.
(c) The management of any horse show, horse exhibition, horse sale,
or horse auction shall not utilize any person to detect and diagnose
horses which are sore or to otherwise inspect horses for the purpose of
determining compliance with the Act and regulations, if that person has
not been authorized by APHIS or if that person has been disqualified by
the Secretary, after notice and opportunity for a hearing, in
accordance with section 4 (15 U.S.C. 1823) of the Act, to make such
detection, diagnosis, or inspection.
(d) After [effective date of the final rule], only APHIS
representatives and HPIs as defined in Sec. 11.1 shall be utilized by
management to detect and diagnose horses which are sore or otherwise
inspect horses for compliance with the Act or regulations. Any other
persons seeking to continue inspecting or to become inspectors after
[EFFECTIVE DATE OF FINAL RULE] must apply to APHIS and meet eligibility
qualifications for authorization included in Sec. 11.19.
Sec. 11.19 Authorization and training of Horse Protection Inspectors.
APHIS will authorize HPIs after the successful completion of
training by APHIS. The management of any horse show, exhibition, sale,
or auction may appoint HPIs holding a current authorization to detect
and diagnose horses that are sore or to otherwise inspect horses and
any records pertaining to such horses for the purposes of determining
compliance with the Act and regulations.
(a) Authorization process. All persons wishing to become HPIs must
submit an application to APHIS. Guidance regarding submitting
applications is found on the APHIS Horse Protection website. Applicants
will be required to show that they meet the Tier 1 qualifications in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section in order for the application to be
evaluated. If the applicant meets the qualifications in paragraph
(a)(1) of the section, the applicant will be further evaluated based on
the Tier 2 qualifications in paragraph (a)(2) of this section. In order
for APHIS to consider the applicant as a candidate to be an HPI, all
qualifications must be met.
(1) Tier 1 qualifications. The applicant must be a licensed
veterinarian, except that veterinary technicians and persons employed
by State and local government agencies to enforce laws or regulations
pertaining to animal welfare may also be authorized if APHIS determines
that there is an insufficient pool of veterinarians among current HPIs
and applicants to be HPIs.
(2) Tier 2 qualifications. (i) The applicant must demonstrate
sufficient knowledge and experience of equine husbandry and science and
applicable principles of equine science, welfare, care, and health for
APHIS to determine that the applicant can consistently identify equine
soring and soring practices.
(ii) The applicant must not have been found to have violated any
provision of the Act or the regulations in this part occurring after
July 13, 1976, or have been assessed any civil penalty, or have been
the subject of a disqualification order in any proceeding involving an
alleged violation of the Act or regulations occurring after July 13,
1976.
(iii) The applicant, as well as the applicant's immediate family
and any person from whom the applicant receives a financial benefit,
must not participate in the showing, exhibition, sale, or auction of
horses or act as a judge or farrier, or be an agent of management.
(iv) The applicant must not have been disqualified by the Secretary
from performing diagnosis, detection, and inspection under the Act.
(v) The applicant must not have acted in a manner that calls into
question the applicant's honesty, professional integrity, reputation,
practices, and reliability relative to possible authorization as an
HPI. APHIS will base this on a review of:
(A) Criminal conviction records, if any, indicating that the
applicant may lack the honesty, integrity, and reliability to
appropriately and effectively perform HPI duties.
(B) Official records of the person's actions while participating in
Federal, State, or local veterinary programs when those actions reflect
on the honesty, reputation, integrity, and reliability of the
applicant.
(C) Judicial determinations in any type of litigation adversely
reflecting on the honesty, reputation, integrity, and reliability of
the applicant.
(D) Any other evidence reflecting on the honesty, reputation,
integrity, and reliability of the applicant.
[[Page 56962]]
(b) Training. All applicants selected as candidates will complete a
formal training program administered by APHIS prior to authorization.
Continual training as APHIS determines to be necessary is a condition
of maintaining authorization to inspect horses.
(c) Listing. APHIS will maintain a list of all HPIs on the APHIS
Horse Protection website. The list is also available by contacting
APHIS by email or U.S. mail.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Send email to [email protected], or U.S. mail to
USDA/APHIS/AC, 2150 Centre Ave. Building B, Mailstop 3W11, Fort
Collins, CO 80526-8117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(d) Denial of an HPI application and disqualification of HPIs--(1)
Denial. APHIS may deny an application for authorization of an HPI for
any of the reasons outlined in paragraph (a) of this section. In such
instances, the applicant shall be provided written notification of the
grounds for the denial. The applicant may appeal the decision, in
writing, within 30 days after receiving the written denial notice. The
appeal must state all of the facts and reasons that the person wants
the Administrator to consider in deciding the appeal. As soon as
practicable, the Administrator will grant or deny the appeal, in
writing, stating the reasons for the decision.
(2) Disqualification. APHIS may permanently disqualify any HPI who
fails to inspect horses in accordance with the procedures prescribed by
APHIS or otherwise fails to perform duties necessary for APHIS to
enforce the Act and regulations, after notice and opportunity for a
hearing. Requests for hearings and the hearings themselves shall be in
accordance with the Uniform Rules of Practice for the Department of
Agriculture in subpart H of part 1, subtitle A, of 7 CFR.
Done in Washington, DC, this 15th day of August 2023.
Jennifer Moffitt,
Under Secretary for Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 2023-17814 Filed 8-17-23; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P
