Horse Protection Amendments; Postponement of Regulations, 8253-8254 [2025-01836]
Download as PDF
8253
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
Vol. 90, No. 17
Tuesday, January 28, 2025
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains regulatory documents having general
applicability and legal effect, most of which
are keyed to and codified in the Code of
Federal Regulations, which is published under
50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by
the Superintendent of Documents.
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service
9 CFR Part 11
[Docket No. APHIS–2022–0004]
RIN 0579–AE70
Horse Protection Amendments;
Postponement of Regulations
Animal and Plant Health
Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule; postponement of
regulations.
AGENCY:
On May 8, 2024, we
published a final rule amending the
horse protection regulations to provide,
among other provisions, that the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service will
screen, train, and authorize qualified
persons for appointment by the
management of any horse show, horse
exhibition, or horse sale or auction to
detect and diagnose soring at such
events for the purposes of enforcing the
Horse Protection Act. With the
exception of § 11.19, which went into
effect on June 7, 2024, the remainder of
the rule was scheduled to go into effect
on February 1, 2025. In this document,
we are issuing a temporary
postponement of the effective date of
those regulations for 60 days, from
February 1, 2025 to April 2, 2025.
DATES: The effective date of 9 CFR 11.1
through 11.18, published at 89 FR
39194–39251, May 8, 2024, is delayed
until April 2, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms.
Sarah Helming, Deputy Administrator,
Animal Care, 4700 River Road,
Riverdale, MD 20737–1234; (970) 494–
7478; sarah.j.helming@usda.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 8,
2024, we published a final rule (89 FR
39194–39251) (‘‘the rule’’) amending the
horse protection regulations to provide,
among other provisions, that the Animal
and Plant Health Inspection Service
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Jan 27, 2025
Jkt 265001
(‘‘APHIS’’) will screen, train, and
authorize qualified persons for
appointment by the management of any
horse show, horse exhibition, or horse
sale or auction to detect and diagnose
soring at such events for the purposes of
enforcing the Horse Protection Act.
With the exception of § 11.19 of the rule
(‘‘Authorization and training of Horse
Protection Inspectors’’) which went into
effect on June 7, 2024, the remainder of
the rule was scheduled to go into effect
on February 1, 2025.
On July 1, 2024, a complaint was filed
in the U.S. District Court for the
Northern District of Texas and amended
on September 23, 2024.1 The amended
complaint alleges, in part, that the rule
exceeds APHIS’s statutory authority,
would have a significant economic
impact on the Tennessee Walking Horse
industry altogether, and requests
vacatur of the rule. The parties
completed briefing on their crossmotions for summary judgment on
December 20, 2024. The parties have
notified the court of the rule’s February
1, 2025 effective date, and are currently
awaiting a decision on the merits from
the court.
Under Section 705 of the
Administrative Procedure Act, ‘‘[w]hen
an agency finds that justice so requires,
it may postpone the effective date of
action taken by it, pending judicial
review.’’ 5 U.S.C. 705. In light of the
pending litigation, and for the following
reasons, APHIS has determined that
justice requires postponement of the
effective date of the remainder of the
rule—i.e., all provisions except for
§ 11.19—for 60 days, to April 2, 2025.2
The postponement will temporarily
preserve the regulatory status quo while
the litigation is pending. The plaintiffs
have raised serious questions
concerning the validity of certain
provisions of the rule, including the
prohibitions of action devices and
substances, and the provision on
dermatological conditions indicative of
soring. Specifically, plaintiffs allege
1 The Tennessee Walking Horse National
Celebration Association, et al. v. United States
Department of Agriculture, et al., 2:24–cv–00143
(N.D. Tex.).
2 We do not, through this action, postpone the
effective date of § 11.19 because, as courts have
held, ‘‘[5 U.S.C. ] 705 permits an agency to
‘postpone the effective date’ of a rule that has not
yet taken effect, but does not permit an agency to
suspend, without notice and comment, a rule that
is already in effect.’’ Ctr. for Biological Diversity v.
Regan, 691 F. Supp. 3d 1, 8 (D.D.C. 2023)
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
that: APHIS’s data supporting the rule is
unreliable because it overstates the rate
of soring violations in Tennessee
Walking Horses; APHIS’s ban on action
devices, pads and substances exceeds its
statutory authority because those items,
by themselves, do not cause soring;
APHIS’s ‘‘dermatologic conditions
indicative of soring’’ provision is
unconstitutionally vague and will
permit arbitrary disqualifications;
APHIS’s inspection process does not
provide owners and trainers due process
in that there is no mechanism for a predeprivation review of either a pre- or
post-show disqualification; APHIS’s
abolition of Designated Qualified
Persons is unsupported by the evidence
before the Agency, is contrary to the
statutory intent of having the industry
work with APHIS to police itself, and
arbitrarily limits the ability of
professional horse trainers or farriers to
participate; APHIS’s economic analysis
is deficient in that it relies on outdated
data and inadequately addresses the
rule’s impact on industry and the larger
U.S. economy; and APHIS failed to
comply with the Regulatory Flexibility
Act, in that it did not address the rule’s
significant impact on small entities.
The Tennessee Walking Horse
industry also contends that the rule’s
ban on action devices and pads will
eliminate the Performance division of
competition. A comment on the
proposed rule suggested that
Performance division Tennessee
Walking Horses have been specifically
bred and trained to compete with action
devices and pads and cannot simply be
retrained to compete as a flat-shod
horse; however, no comment included
specific evidence that Performance
division horses trained to perform with
the use of pads and action devices
cannot perform well without them. A
postponement at this time will
temporarily delay the potential loss in
value of horses that horse owners allege
will occur when the rule’s ban on action
devices and pads is implemented.
Although APHIS opposed plaintiffs’
legal arguments in summary judgment
briefing, and does not through this
action concede that its own arguments
lack merit or are unreasonable, plaintiffs
raise significant legal challenges, and
there is much uncertainty as to how the
Court will decide. In addition, the
competition season for regulated
Tennessee Walking Horses runs from
E:\FR\FM\28JAR1.SGM
28JAR1
ddrumheller on DSK120RN23PROD with RULES1
8254
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 28, 2025 / Rules and Regulations
February to November annually, and the
industry will benefit from extension of
the status quo, which will reduce the
risk of shifting legal regimes and lack of
clarity in the event the rule goes into
effect and is later modified or altered by
court order.
If the court were to vacate, enjoin or
modify the rule shortly before or after it
otherwise would become effective, there
would be costs associated with reverting
back to the previous regulatory regime
on short notice. It will be disruptive for
the industry to change the structure of
its shows and the list of prohibitions in
the event of a shifting regulatory change,
e.g., if the court decides in favor of
plaintiffs in any material respect. It may
also be disruptive to horse owners and
trainers who do not know whether to
sell, relinquish, or re-train their horses
to compete in the flat-shod division
while the litigation is pending. A
postponement will preserve the existing
status quo—a legal and regulatory
regime that has applied for years prior
to the effective date—and eliminate
uncertainty for the duration of the
postponement, providing predictability
to the regulated industry for at least the
beginning of the 2025 show season,
which starts on or about February 28,
2025.
Given this legal uncertainty and the
significant issues raised in the litigation,
maintaining the status quo will avoid
harm to the regulated industry,
including plaintiffs and similarly
situated stakeholders. Setting aside
plaintiffs’ legal challenges to the rule,
we also note that other stakeholders
have requested a postponement of the
effective date for related reasons arising
from the impending show season and a
lack of clarity as to how the rule will
operate: For example, one stakeholder
group has conveyed to the Agency that
proceeding forward with the original
implementation date will undermine
confidence in the Agency, the rule, and
the ability to enforce the rule in a fair
and transparent manner. Among other
concerns, the stakeholder cited
significant confusion within the
industry about the rule, and has
received numerous questions and
concerns on a daily basis. There are also
questions regarding Agency resources
and whether personnel and funding are
sufficient to implement the new rule. In
light of this lack of clarity, the
stakeholder requested that the Agency
consider a postponement of the effective
date of the rule, in order to afford it an
opportunity to work collaboratively
with APHIS to ensure that the rule
achieves its intended purpose.
Like the harm to the industry of not
issuing a postponement, as discussed
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:03 Jan 27, 2025
Jkt 265001
above, there are significant costs to the
Agency associated with a change in
regulatory regimes (i.e., if the rule is
enjoined), such as investments in
training of personnel, resources required
to conduct stakeholder outreach, and
potentially disruptions to administrative
enforcement actions. A sixty-day delay
will provide the Agency additional time
to assess the impact of any decision and
respond accordingly.
The Agency has considered the public
interest in furthering the humane
treatment of horses and the effect to the
regulated industry and APHIS, as
described above. Considering the harms
associated with regulatory uncertainty
against the limited duration of the
postponement of the rule, APHIS has
determined that the balance of harms
weighs in favor of a 60-day
postponement. In accordance with law,
this postponement is made without a
notice-and-comment period. Notice and
comment is not required when an
agency delays the effective date of a rule
under section 705 of the APA because
such a stay is not substantive
rulemaking; it merely maintains the
status quo to allow for judicial review.
See Bauer v. DeVos, 325 F. Supp. 3d 74,
106–07 (D.D.C. 2018); Sierra Club v.
Jackson, 833 F. Supp. 2d 11, 28 (D.D.C.
2012).
This postponement likewise is in
accordance with the Presidential
Memorandum titled ‘‘Regulatory Freeze
Pending Review’’ issued January 20,
2025, which orders all agencies to
consider postponing for 60 days the
effective date of any rule that has not
taken effect, for the purpose of
reviewing any question of fact, law or
policy that the rule raises.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 705; 15 U.S.C. 1823–
1825 and 1828; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.
Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of
January 2025.
Bruce Summers,
Acting Deputy Under Secretary, Marketing
and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 2025–01836 Filed 1–24–25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410–34–P
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 51, 52, 81, and 751
[FRL–12583–01–OA]
Delay of Effective Date for 4 Final
Regulations Published by the
Environmental Protection Agency
Between November 29, 2024, and
December 31, 2024
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule; delay of effective
dates.
AGENCY:
In accordance with the
memorandum of January 20, 2025, from
President Donald J. Trump, entitled
‘‘Regulatory Freeze Pending Review,’’
this action temporarily delays until
March 21, 2025, the effective date of the
regulations listed in the table below.
EPA has initially identified 4
regulations that meet the criteria in the
memo and may identify additional
regulations in subsequent notices.
DATES: As of January 28, 2025, the
effective date of the rules published at
89 FR 102568 (12/17/2024), 89 FR
95034 (11/29/2024), 89 FR 106357 (12/
30/2024), and 89 FR 107012 (12/31/
2024), are delayed to a new effective
date of March 21, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
William Nickerson, Director, Office of
Regulatory Policy and Management,
Office of Policy, Mail code 1804, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460; (202) 566–0326;
nickerson.william@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: EPA is
taking this action in response to the
memorandum of January 20, 2025, from
the President, entitled ‘‘Regulatory
Freeze Pending Review.’’ The
memorandum directed the heads of
Executive Departments and Agencies to
consider postponing for sixty days from
the date of the memorandum the
effective date for any rules that have
been published in the Federal Register
but had not yet taken effect for the
purpose of reviewing any questions of
fact, law, and policy that the rules may
raise. EPA is delaying the effective dates
for the 4 regulations listed in the table
below. The new effective date for these
regulations is March 21, 2025.
The EPA is taking this action, without
opportunity for public comment and
effective immediately, based on the
good cause exceptions in 5 U.S.C.
553(b)(B) and 553(d)(3), in that seeking
public comment is impracticable,
unnecessary and contrary to the public
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\28JAR1.SGM
28JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 90, Number 17 (Tuesday, January 28, 2025)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 8253-8254]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2025-01836]
========================================================================
Rules and Regulations
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains regulatory documents
having general applicability and legal effect, most of which are keyed
to and codified in the Code of Federal Regulations, which is published
under 50 titles pursuant to 44 U.S.C. 1510.
The Code of Federal Regulations is sold by the Superintendent of Documents.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 90, No. 17 / Tuesday, January 28, 2025 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 8253]]
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
9 CFR Part 11
[Docket No. APHIS-2022-0004]
RIN 0579-AE70
Horse Protection Amendments; Postponement of Regulations
AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, USDA.
ACTION: Final rule; postponement of regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On May 8, 2024, we published a final rule amending the horse
protection regulations to provide, among other provisions, that the
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service will screen, train, and
authorize qualified persons for appointment by the management of any
horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction to detect and
diagnose soring at such events for the purposes of enforcing the Horse
Protection Act. With the exception of Sec. 11.19, which went into
effect on June 7, 2024, the remainder of the rule was scheduled to go
into effect on February 1, 2025. In this document, we are issuing a
temporary postponement of the effective date of those regulations for
60 days, from February 1, 2025 to April 2, 2025.
DATES: The effective date of 9 CFR 11.1 through 11.18, published at 89
FR 39194-39251, May 8, 2024, is delayed until April 2, 2025.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Sarah Helming, Deputy
Administrator, Animal Care, 4700 River Road, Riverdale, MD 20737-1234;
(970) 494-7478; [email protected].
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On May 8, 2024, we published a final rule
(89 FR 39194-39251) (``the rule'') amending the horse protection
regulations to provide, among other provisions, that the Animal and
Plant Health Inspection Service (``APHIS'') will screen, train, and
authorize qualified persons for appointment by the management of any
horse show, horse exhibition, or horse sale or auction to detect and
diagnose soring at such events for the purposes of enforcing the Horse
Protection Act. With the exception of Sec. 11.19 of the rule
(``Authorization and training of Horse Protection Inspectors'') which
went into effect on June 7, 2024, the remainder of the rule was
scheduled to go into effect on February 1, 2025.
On July 1, 2024, a complaint was filed in the U.S. District Court
for the Northern District of Texas and amended on September 23,
2024.\1\ The amended complaint alleges, in part, that the rule exceeds
APHIS's statutory authority, would have a significant economic impact
on the Tennessee Walking Horse industry altogether, and requests
vacatur of the rule. The parties completed briefing on their cross-
motions for summary judgment on December 20, 2024. The parties have
notified the court of the rule's February 1, 2025 effective date, and
are currently awaiting a decision on the merits from the court.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Tennessee Walking Horse National Celebration
Association, et al. v. United States Department of Agriculture, et
al., 2:24-cv-00143 (N.D. Tex.).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under Section 705 of the Administrative Procedure Act, ``[w]hen an
agency finds that justice so requires, it may postpone the effective
date of action taken by it, pending judicial review.'' 5 U.S.C. 705. In
light of the pending litigation, and for the following reasons, APHIS
has determined that justice requires postponement of the effective date
of the remainder of the rule--i.e., all provisions except for Sec.
11.19--for 60 days, to April 2, 2025.\2\ The postponement will
temporarily preserve the regulatory status quo while the litigation is
pending. The plaintiffs have raised serious questions concerning the
validity of certain provisions of the rule, including the prohibitions
of action devices and substances, and the provision on dermatological
conditions indicative of soring. Specifically, plaintiffs allege that:
APHIS's data supporting the rule is unreliable because it overstates
the rate of soring violations in Tennessee Walking Horses; APHIS's ban
on action devices, pads and substances exceeds its statutory authority
because those items, by themselves, do not cause soring; APHIS's
``dermatologic conditions indicative of soring'' provision is
unconstitutionally vague and will permit arbitrary disqualifications;
APHIS's inspection process does not provide owners and trainers due
process in that there is no mechanism for a pre-deprivation review of
either a pre- or post-show disqualification; APHIS's abolition of
Designated Qualified Persons is unsupported by the evidence before the
Agency, is contrary to the statutory intent of having the industry work
with APHIS to police itself, and arbitrarily limits the ability of
professional horse trainers or farriers to participate; APHIS's
economic analysis is deficient in that it relies on outdated data and
inadequately addresses the rule's impact on industry and the larger
U.S. economy; and APHIS failed to comply with the Regulatory
Flexibility Act, in that it did not address the rule's significant
impact on small entities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We do not, through this action, postpone the effective date
of Sec. 11.19 because, as courts have held, ``[5 U.S.C. ] 705
permits an agency to `postpone the effective date' of a rule that
has not yet taken effect, but does not permit an agency to suspend,
without notice and comment, a rule that is already in effect.'' Ctr.
for Biological Diversity v. Regan, 691 F. Supp. 3d 1, 8 (D.D.C.
2023)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Tennessee Walking Horse industry also contends that the rule's
ban on action devices and pads will eliminate the Performance division
of competition. A comment on the proposed rule suggested that
Performance division Tennessee Walking Horses have been specifically
bred and trained to compete with action devices and pads and cannot
simply be retrained to compete as a flat-shod horse; however, no
comment included specific evidence that Performance division horses
trained to perform with the use of pads and action devices cannot
perform well without them. A postponement at this time will temporarily
delay the potential loss in value of horses that horse owners allege
will occur when the rule's ban on action devices and pads is
implemented.
Although APHIS opposed plaintiffs' legal arguments in summary
judgment briefing, and does not through this action concede that its
own arguments lack merit or are unreasonable, plaintiffs raise
significant legal challenges, and there is much uncertainty as to how
the Court will decide. In addition, the competition season for
regulated Tennessee Walking Horses runs from
[[Page 8254]]
February to November annually, and the industry will benefit from
extension of the status quo, which will reduce the risk of shifting
legal regimes and lack of clarity in the event the rule goes into
effect and is later modified or altered by court order.
If the court were to vacate, enjoin or modify the rule shortly
before or after it otherwise would become effective, there would be
costs associated with reverting back to the previous regulatory regime
on short notice. It will be disruptive for the industry to change the
structure of its shows and the list of prohibitions in the event of a
shifting regulatory change, e.g., if the court decides in favor of
plaintiffs in any material respect. It may also be disruptive to horse
owners and trainers who do not know whether to sell, relinquish, or re-
train their horses to compete in the flat-shod division while the
litigation is pending. A postponement will preserve the existing status
quo--a legal and regulatory regime that has applied for years prior to
the effective date--and eliminate uncertainty for the duration of the
postponement, providing predictability to the regulated industry for at
least the beginning of the 2025 show season, which starts on or about
February 28, 2025.
Given this legal uncertainty and the significant issues raised in
the litigation, maintaining the status quo will avoid harm to the
regulated industry, including plaintiffs and similarly situated
stakeholders. Setting aside plaintiffs' legal challenges to the rule,
we also note that other stakeholders have requested a postponement of
the effective date for related reasons arising from the impending show
season and a lack of clarity as to how the rule will operate: For
example, one stakeholder group has conveyed to the Agency that
proceeding forward with the original implementation date will undermine
confidence in the Agency, the rule, and the ability to enforce the rule
in a fair and transparent manner. Among other concerns, the stakeholder
cited significant confusion within the industry about the rule, and has
received numerous questions and concerns on a daily basis. There are
also questions regarding Agency resources and whether personnel and
funding are sufficient to implement the new rule. In light of this lack
of clarity, the stakeholder requested that the Agency consider a
postponement of the effective date of the rule, in order to afford it
an opportunity to work collaboratively with APHIS to ensure that the
rule achieves its intended purpose.
Like the harm to the industry of not issuing a postponement, as
discussed above, there are significant costs to the Agency associated
with a change in regulatory regimes (i.e., if the rule is enjoined),
such as investments in training of personnel, resources required to
conduct stakeholder outreach, and potentially disruptions to
administrative enforcement actions. A sixty-day delay will provide the
Agency additional time to assess the impact of any decision and respond
accordingly.
The Agency has considered the public interest in furthering the
humane treatment of horses and the effect to the regulated industry and
APHIS, as described above. Considering the harms associated with
regulatory uncertainty against the limited duration of the postponement
of the rule, APHIS has determined that the balance of harms weighs in
favor of a 60-day postponement. In accordance with law, this
postponement is made without a notice-and-comment period. Notice and
comment is not required when an agency delays the effective date of a
rule under section 705 of the APA because such a stay is not
substantive rulemaking; it merely maintains the status quo to allow for
judicial review. See Bauer v. DeVos, 325 F. Supp. 3d 74, 106-07 (D.D.C.
2018); Sierra Club v. Jackson, 833 F. Supp. 2d 11, 28 (D.D.C. 2012).
This postponement likewise is in accordance with the Presidential
Memorandum titled ``Regulatory Freeze Pending Review'' issued January
20, 2025, which orders all agencies to consider postponing for 60 days
the effective date of any rule that has not taken effect, for the
purpose of reviewing any question of fact, law or policy that the rule
raises.
Authority: 5 U.S.C. 705; 15 U.S.C. 1823-1825 and 1828; 7 CFR
2.22, 2.80, and 371.7.
Done in Washington, DC, this 23rd day of January 2025.
Bruce Summers,
Acting Deputy Under Secretary, Marketing and Regulatory Programs.
[FR Doc. 2025-01836 Filed 1-24-25; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 3410-34-P