This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER

contains notices to the public of the proposed

issuance of rules and regulations. The

purpose of these notices is to give interested

persons an opportunity to participate in the

rule making prior to the adoption of the final

rules.

Proposed Rules Federal Register

10398 

Vol. 80, No. 38 

Thursday, February 26, 2015 

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Part 91 

[Docket No. APHIS–2012–0049] 

RIN 0579–AE00 

Exportation of Live Animals, Hatching 

Eggs, and Animal Germplasm From 

the United States 

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA. 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: We are proposing to revise the 

regulations pertaining to the exportation 

of livestock from the United States. 

Among other things, we propose to 

remove most of the requirements for 

export health certifications, tests, and 

treatments from the regulations, and 

instead would direct exporters to follow 

the requirements of the importing 

country regarding such processes and 

procedures. We propose to retain only 

those export health certification, testing, 

and treatment requirements that we 

consider necessary to have assurances 

regarding the health and welfare of 

livestock exported from the United 

States. We also propose to allow preexport inspection of livestock to occur 

at facilities other than an export 

inspection facility associated with the 

port of embarkation, under certain 

circumstances, and propose to replace 

specific standards for export inspection 

facilities and ocean vessels with 

performance standards. These changes 

would provide exporters and the 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service with more flexibility in 

arranging for the export of livestock 

from the United States while continuing 

to ensure the health and welfare of the 

livestock. Additionally, if a country is 

known to require an export health 

certificate for any animal other than 

livestock, including pets, or for any 

hatching eggs or animal germplasm, we 

propose to require that the animal, 

hatching eggs, or animal germplasm 

have an export health certificate to be 

eligible for export from the United 

States. This change would help ensure 

that all animals, hatching eggs, and 

animal germplasm exported from the 

United States meet the health 

requirements of the countries to which 

they are destined. Finally, we are 

proposing editorial amendments to the 

regulations to make them easier to 

understand and comply with. 

DATES: We will consider all comments 

that we receive on or before April 27, 

2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by either of the following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0049. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery: 

Send your comment to Docket No. 

APHIS–2012–0049, 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 http://

www.regulations.gov/

#!docketDetail;D=APHIS-2012-0049 or 

in our reading room, which is located in 

Room 1141 of the USDA South 

Building, 14th Street and Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC. Normal 

reading room hours are 8 a.m. to 4:30 

p.m., Monday through Friday, except 

holidays. To be sure someone is there to 

help you, please call (202) 799–7039 

before coming. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. 

Jack Taniewski, Director for Animal 

Export, National Import Export Services, 

VS, APHIS, 4700 River Road Unit 39, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 851– 

3300. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

Under the Animal Health Protection 

Act (AHPA, 7 U.S.C. 8301 et seq.), the 

Secretary of Agriculture may prohibit or 

restrict the exportation of any animal, 

article, or means of conveyance if the 

Secretary determines that the 

prohibition or restriction is necessary to 

prevent the dissemination of any pest or 

disease of livestock from or within the 

United States. The AHPA also 

authorizes the Secretary to prohibit: (1) 

The exportation of any livestock if the 

Secretary determines that the livestock 

is unfit to be moved; (2) the use of any 

means of conveyance or facility in 

connection with the exportation of any 

animal or article if the Secretary 

determines that the prohibition or 

restriction is necessary to prevent the 

dissemination of any pest or disease of 

livestock from or within the United 

States; and (3) the use of any means of 

conveyance in connection with the 

exportation of livestock if the Secretary 

determines that the prohibition or 

restriction is necessary because the 

means of conveyance has not been 

maintained in a clean and sanitary 

condition or does not have 

accommodations for the safe and proper 

movement and humane treatment of 

livestock. 

The Secretary has delegated this 

authority to the Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service (APHIS) of 

the United States Department of 

Agriculture (USDA). Pursuant to this 

authority, APHIS has issued the 

regulations in 9 CFR part 91, 

‘‘Inspection and Handling of Livestock 

for Exportation’’ (‘‘the regulations’’). 

The regulations contain requirements 

for the inspection and handling of cattle 

(including American bison), horses, 

captive cervids, sheep, goats, and swine 

(referred to below collectively as 

livestock) intended for export from the 

United States. Among other things: 

• The livestock must be accompanied 

to a port of embarkation or land border 

port by an export health certificate. 

• The export health certificate must 

contain test results and certifications 

required by the country to which the 

animals are destined, as well as certain 

test results and certifications required 

by APHIS, regardless of the destination 

country. 

• If tests for brucellosis are required, 

the tests must be conducted in a 

cooperating State-Federal laboratory in 

accordance with the Brucellosis 

Uniform Methods and Rules. 

• Except for livestock exported 

through land border ports, the livestock 

must be inspected within 24 hours of 

embarkation by an APHIS veterinarian 

at an export inspection facility 

associated with the port of embarkation. 

• Except for livestock exported 

through land border ports, the livestock 

must be allowed to rest at least 5 hours 

at an export inspection facility at the 

port of embarkation prior to 

embarkation. The livestock must be 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10399 

given food and water during this time 

unless they had food and water in the 

carrier that transported them to the 

export inspection facility and they will 

reach the destination country within 36 

hours after they were last fed and 

watered in the United States, or, if they 

are under 30 days of age, within 24 

hours after they were last fed and 

watered in the United States. 

• Ports of embarkation for animals to 

be exported by air or sea must meet 

standards set out in the regulations for 

construction, space, equipment, access, 

feed, and water. 

• Ocean vessels used to export 

livestock must meet standards specified 

in the regulations for construction, 

ventilation, space, fittings, equipment, 

attendants, cleaning, and disinfection. 

We have not substantively amended 

these regulations for many years. Some 

provisions, such as those that require 

pre-export inspection of livestock at an 

export inspection facility associated 

with the port of embarkation and those 

that set forth specific construction and 

maintenance standards for export 

inspection facilities and ocean vessels, 

sometimes interfere with exports. Other 

requirements, particularly those that 

require certain tests and certifications 

for all livestock intended for export 

from the United States, are not always 

required by importing countries or 

necessary for us to have assurances 

regarding the health and welfare of the 

livestock at the time of export. 

For these reasons, we are proposing to 

remove requirements that we have 

determined to be unnecessary or overly 

prescriptive from the regulations in 

order to provide exporters and APHIS 

with more options for inspecting and 

handling livestock intended for export. 

The proposed changes would continue 

to ensure that livestock intended for 

export are humanely transported and 

that all livestock exported from the 

United States meet the import health 

requirements of the countries to which 

they are destined. 

Additionally, although our authority 

under the AHPA allows us to issue 

export health certificates for animals 

other than livestock, as well as for 

hatching eggs and germplasm, the 

regulations currently do not contain 

provisions for such issuance. 

However, as a signatory on the World 

Trade Organization’s Agreement on 

Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures 

(SPS Agreement), the United States has 

agreed to respect the measures that 

other countries impose on the 

importation of animals other than 

livestock, hatching eggs, or animal 

germplasm from the United States, 

when these countries demonstrate the 

need to impose the measures in order to 

protect animal health. Several countries 

have entered into export protocols with 

the United States in which they 

demonstrate such a need and require 

export health certificates to be issued in 

order for animals other than livestock, 

hatching eggs, or animal germplasm to 

be exported to their country. 

Accordingly, we would revise part 91 

so that, when an importing country is 

known to require an export health 

certificate for any animal other than 

livestock or for any animal semen, 

animal embryos, hatching eggs, other 

embryonated eggs, or gametes intended 

for export to that country, the animal or 

other commodity must have an export 

health certificate in order to be eligible 

for export from the United States. 

Finally, in order to make the 

regulations easier to follow, we are 

proposing to group certain provisions 

that are currently located in disparate 

sections of the regulations, and to make 

certain other editorial changes to make 

the regulations easier to read. 

We discuss our proposed revision to 

the regulations, by section, below. 

Definitions (§ 91.1) 

The regulations in current § 91.1 

contain definitions of the following 

terms: Accredited veterinarian, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, animals, APHIS 

representative, Department, horses, 

inspector, miniature swine, official 

brucellosis vaccinate, origin health 

certificate, premises of origin, roofing 

paper, State of origin, and Veterinary 

Services. 

In proposed § 91.1, we would omit the 

definitions of Department, miniature 

swine, official brucellosis vaccinate, and 

Veterinary Services, as the terms would 

not be used in the revised regulations. 

We would also remove the definitions of 

origin health certificate and premises of 

origin and replace these terms with two 

other terms, export health certificate 

and premises of export, respectively. 

We would replace origin health 

certificate with export health certificate 

because the latter term is more 

commonly used. We would define the 

term export health certificate as ‘‘an 

official document issued in the United 

States that certifies that animals or other 

commodities listed on the certificate 

meet the export requirements of this 

part and the importing country.’’ 

Whereas the definition of origin health 

certificate contains provisions regarding 

the content and issuance of origin 

health certificates, the definition of 

export health certificate would not. This 

is because we have determined that 

these provisions are more accurately 

characterized as regulatory 

requirements, and would thus place 

them in proposed § 91.3. That section 

would contain requirements regarding 

the information that must be contained 

on an export health certificate and the 

manner in which the certificate must be 

issued in order for us to consider it 

valid. 

We would replace premises of origin 

with premises of export for a different 

reason. The term premises of origin is 

often used in common speech to mean 

the premises where animals were born 

and/or raised. We mean, instead, the 

premises where the animals are 

assembled for pre-export isolation (if 

such isolation is required by the 

importing country) or, if the importing 

country does not require pre-export 

isolation, the premises where the 

animals are assembled for pre-export 

inspection and/or testing, or the 

germplasm is collected and stored, 

before being moved to a port of 

embarkation or land border port. This 

could be the premises where the 

animals were born and/or raised, but 

could also be another location where the 

animals were assembled for isolation, 

testing, and/or inspection prior to 

movement. This nuance is currently 

reflected in the definition of premises of 

origin, which is defined in a manner 

that includes the premises where 

animals are assembled immediately 

before movement for export. However, 

the term premises of origin itself does 

not necessarily capture the nuance. We 

think the term premises of export better 

expresses our intent. 

By replacing the term premises of 

origin with the term premises of export, 

we would also revise the definition of 

State of origin, which currently uses the 

term premises of origin. 

We would also revise the definitions 

of Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, animal, APHIS representative, 

and inspector. 

We currently define Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service as ‘‘The 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service of the United States Department 

of Agriculture (APHIS or Service).’’ The 

revised regulations would no longer use 

the term ‘‘Service’’ as a synonym for 

APHIS; thus, we would remove a 

reference to ‘‘Service’’ from this 

definition. 

As we mentioned above, the 

regulations currently apply only to 

horses, cattle (including American 

bison), captive cervids, sheep, swine, 

and goats. As a result, the definition of 

animal in current § 91.1 only includes 

those species. However, because this 

proposed rule would contain provisions 

for export certification of animals other 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10400 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

than those six species, when we use the 

term animal in this preamble and 

proposed rule, it has the common 

meaning of any member of the animal 

kingdom, except a human. (This revised 

definition would be identical to the 

definition of animal within the AHPA 

itself.) 

Certain provisions of the revised 

regulations would only pertain to 

horses, cattle (including American 

bison), captive cervids, sheep, swine, 

and goats, however. To differentiate 

between those provisions that would be 

generally applicable to all animals, and 

those that would pertain only to those 

species, we would refer to horses, cattle 

(including American bison), captive 

cervids, sheep, swine, and goats 

collectively as livestock within the 

revised regulations, and would include 

such a definition of livestock within 

proposed § 91.1. 

Currently, we define APHIS 

representative as ‘‘an individual 

employed by APHIS who is authorized 

to perform the function involved’’ and 

inspector as ‘‘an inspector of the Animal 

and Plant Health Inspection Service.’’ 

However, as we have expanded our 

export certification services to animals 

other than livestock, we have 

occasionally authorized individuals 

who are not employed by APHIS to 

serve as APHIS representatives and 

inspectors. This usually occurs when 

we do not have the specialized expertise 

necessary to assess the disease status of 

a particular animal intended for export. 

For example, APHIS sometimes 

authorizes employees of the United 

States Fish and Wildlife Service of the 

Department of the Interior to provide 

inspection and/or certification of certain 

species of aquaculture intended for 

export. To reflect these operational 

practices, we would revise the 

definition of APHIS representative to 

‘‘an individual who is authorized by 

APHIS to perform the function 

involved’’ and the definition of 

inspector to ‘‘an individual authorized 

by APHIS to inspect animals and/or 

animal products intended for export 

from the United States.’’ 

Finally, we would add definitions of 

the following terms to the regulations: 

Date of export, export inspection 

facility, export isolation facility, 

program diseases, and Program 

Handbook. 

We would define date of export as 

‘‘the date animals intended for export 

are loaded onto an ocean vessel or 

aircraft or, if moved by land to Canada 

or Mexico, the date the animals cross 

the border.’’ We would include such a 

definition within the revised regulations 

because, as in the current regulations, 

we would require animals to be 

inspected in order for their export to be 

authorized, and this inspection would 

have to occur within a set period of time 

prior to the date of export. 

We would define export isolation 

facility as ‘‘a facility where animals 

intended for export are isolated from 

other animals for a period of time 

immediately before being moved for 

export,’’ and would define export 

inspection facility as ‘‘a facility that is 

affiliated with a port of embarkation and 

that has been approved by the 

Administrator as the location where 

APHIS will conduct health inspections 

of livestock before they are loaded onto 

ocean vessels or aircraft for export from 

the United States.’’ We would include a 

definition of export isolation facility 

because we would authorize pre-export 

inspection of livestock at export 

isolation facilities, under certain 

conditions. We would include a 

definition of export inspection facility 

in order to clarify how such facilities 

differ from export isolation facilities. 

We would define program diseases to 

mean diseases for which there are 

cooperative State-Federal programs and 

domestic regulations in subchapter C of 

the APHIS’ regulations in 9 CFR. As we 

mentioned earlier in this document, we 

are proposing to remove most testing 

requirements from the regulations, and 

instead would direct exporters to follow 

the testing requirements of the 

importing country. However, many 

countries require tests for diseases for 

which we have established domestic 

State-Federal quarantine programs, such 

as tuberculosis, brucellosis, and 

pseudorabies. Such diseases are 

commonly referred to as program 

diseases. We would require testing for 

such program diseases to occur 

according to the standards and protocols 

established domestically for these 

diseases. 

We would define Program Handbook 

to mean a document that contains 

guidance and other information related 

to the regulations. The definition would 

provide that the Program Handbook is 

available on APHIS’ import-export Web 

site, and would provide the address for 

that Web site. We discuss the role that 

the Program Handbook would play in 

relation to the proposed regulations at 

greater length in the discussion of 

subsequent sections of the proposed 

regulations. 

Applicability (§ 91.2) 

Current § 91.2 requires livestock to be 

exported from the United States in 

accordance with the regulations. We 

would retain this requirement. 

However, since the revised regulations 

would also pertain to the export of 

animals other than livestock and to 

animal germplasm, proposed § 91.2 

would specify that such animals and 

animal germplasm must also be 

exported in accordance with the 

regulations. 

General Requirements (§ 91.3) 

Proposed § 91.3 would provide 

general requirements for the export of 

livestock, animals other than livestock, 

and animal germplasm. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(1) of § 91.3 

would provide that livestock must have 

an export health certificate in order to 

be eligible for export from the United 

States. We recognize that a country 

could elect to allow livestock to be 

imported into that country without an 

export health certificate. However, even 

in such instances, pursuant to our 

authority under the AHPA, we would 

need assurances that the livestock were 

fit to be moved for export from their 

premises of export at the time that 

movement occurred. The export health 

certificate would provide such 

assurances. 

The current regulations do not 

contain export health certification or 

other export-health requirements for 

animals other than livestock or for 

animal semen, animal embryos, 

hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, 

or gametes. However, as we mentioned 

above, some foreign countries have 

entered into export protocols with the 

United States for species of animals 

other than livestock, including dogs, 

cats, and aquatic animals in which these 

countries require export health 

certificates to be issued in order for the 

animal to be exported from the United 

States to their country. Likewise, some 

foreign countries require export health 

certificates for animal germplasm, 

hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, 

and gametes exported from the United 

States. Consistent with the SPS 

Agreement and our authority under the 

AHPA, it is APHIS policy to require 

export health certificates for the export 

of such animals and germplasm from 

the United States to such countries. 

Accordingly, proposed paragraph 

(a)(2) of § 91.3 would provide that, if an 

importing country is known to require 

an export health certificate for any 

animal other than livestock or for any 

animal semen, animal embryos, 

hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, 

or gametes intended for export to that 

country, the animal or other commodity 

must have an export health certificate in 

order to be eligible for export from the 

United States. 

Proposed paragraph (b) of § 91.3 

would contain minimum requirements 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10401 

regarding the information that must be 

contained on an export health 

certificate. Proposed paragraph (b)(1) of 

§ 91.3 would specify that regardless of 

the requirements of the importing 

country, an export health certificate for 

livestock must contain: 

• The species of each animal. 

• The breed of each animal. 

• The sex of each animal. 

• The age of each animal. 

• The individual identification used 

to identify the animals. (Identification 

requirements would be contained in 

proposed § 91.5.) 

• The importing country. 

• The consignor. 

• The consignee. 

• A certification that an accredited 

veterinarian inspected the livestock and 

found them to be fit for export. 

• A signature and date by an 

accredited veterinarian. 

• An endorsement by the APHIS 

veterinarian responsible for the State of 

origin. 

These information requirements, 

many of which are included in the 

current definition of origin health 

certificate, represent the minimal 

categories of information that we require 

in order for us to consider an export 

health certificate to have been validly 

issued. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(2) of § 91.3 

would also require export certificates for 

livestock to meet any other information 

or issuance requirements specified by 

the importing country. This provision 

would be substantively similar to an 

existing provision in current § 91.3 that 

requires origin health certificates for 

livestock to include all test results, 

certifications, or other statements 

required by the country of destination. 

Proposed paragraph (b)(3) of § 91.3 

would set forth requirements for export 

health certificates for animals other than 

livestock, animal semen, animal 

embryos, hatching eggs, other 

embryonated eggs, and gametes. For 

such animals and commodities, we 

propose to require that their export 

health certificates meet any information 

requirements specified by the importing 

country. 

As we mentioned above, we issue 

export health certificates for animals 

other than livestock and animal 

germplasm when such certificates are 

required by the importing country. For 

these reasons, we consider it reasonable 

to require that such certificates meet the 

information requirements specified by 

the importing country. 

Current paragraph (a) of § 91.3 

requires the origin health certificate to 

certify that the livestock were inspected 

within 30 days prior to the date of 

export, with certain exceptions. The 

Administrator may allow inspection to 

be done more than 30 days prior to the 

date of export if required or allowed by 

the importing country. Proposed 

paragraph (c) of § 91.3 would require 

that livestock be inspected within the 

timeframe required by the importing 

country. If the importing country does 

not specify a timeframe, we propose to 

require that the livestock be inspected 

within 30 days prior to the date of 

export. These requirements would be 

similar to the current requirements, but 

would place a greater emphasis on 

meeting the requirements of the 

importing country. 

Current paragraph (c) of § 91.3 sets 

forth general requirements for sampling 

and testing for livestock intended for 

export. It requires species-specific 

samples and tests, which are currently 

listed in § 91.5 through § 91.9, to be 

taken by an inspector or accredited 

veterinarian in the State of origin. It 

further requires the samples to be taken 

and tests made within 30 days prior to 

the date of export, except when the 

importing country requires or allows 

such sampling and testing to be 

conducted more than 30 days prior to 

the date of export and the Administrator 

agrees to this different timeframe. It 

further allows tuberculin tests to be 

conducted 90 days prior to export. 

Finally, it requires tests for brucellosis 

to be conducted in a cooperative StateFederal laboratory in accordance with 

the Brucellosis Uniform Methods and 

Rules. 

We consider substantial revisions to 

these testing requirements to be 

necessary. First, although most testing is 

conducted by accredited veterinarians 

or APHIS inspectors, on certain 

occasions the samples and tests are 

administered by APHIS employees, 

such as animal health technicians, who 

are neither inspectors nor accredited 

veterinarians, but who have been 

trained by APHIS to conduct such 

sampling and testing. Such individuals 

function as APHIS representatives, as 

we are proposing to define that term. 

Second, while the intent of §§ 91.3 

through 91.9 is to require that, if an 

importing country requires livestock 

intended for export to be tested for a 

program disease, the livestock are tested 

for the disease, and are tested in the 

same manner and under the same 

conditions as domestic livestock are 

tested for that disease prior to interstate 

movement, this intent is not readily 

apparent. Similarly, current § 91.3 could 

be construed to suggest that brucellosis 

is the only program disease for which 

approved laboratories exist; this is not 

the case. 

Finally, consistent with other changes 

that we are proposing to the regulations, 

we believe that greater emphasis must 

be put on meeting the requirements of 

the importing country. 

Accordingly, proposed paragraph (d) 

of § 91.3 would set forth revised testing 

requirements for livestock intended for 

export. All samples for tests of livestock 

that are required by the importing 

country would have to be taken by an 

APHIS representative or accredited 

veterinarian. The samples would have 

to be taken and tests made within the 

timeframe allowed by the importing 

country, and, if specified, at the location 

required by the importing country. 

Consistent with the current regulations, 

if the importing country does not 

specify a timeframe, the samples would 

have to be taken and tests made within 

30 days prior to the date of export, 

except that tuberculin tests could be 

conducted within 90 days prior to the 

date of export. All tests for program 

diseases would have to be made in 

laboratories and using methods 

approved by the Administrator for those 

diseases. The Program Handbook would 

provide access to a list of approved 

laboratories; approved methods would 

be those specified or otherwise 

incorporated within the domestic 

regulations in subchapter C of 9 CFR 

chapter I. 

These proposed requirements, in 

conjunction with our proposed general 

requirement that all certification 

requirements of the importing country 

be met, would eliminate the need to 

specify species-specific testing 

requirements in part 91. Thus we would 

not retain the provisions contained in 

current §§ 91.5 through 91.9. 

Proposed paragraph (e) of § 91.3 

would set forth conditions for 

movement from the premises of export 

for livestock, animals other than 

livestock, and animal germplasm with 

an export health certificate. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(1) of § 91.3 

would set forth movement requirements 

for livestock moving from the premises 

of export under an export health 

certificate. It would require that an 

export health certificate be issued and 

endorsed before the livestock move from 

the premises of export. Additionally, 

except when the certificate has been 

issued and endorsed electronically, the 

original signed export health certificate 

would have to accompany the livestock 

for the entire duration of movement 

from the premises of export to the port 

of embarkation or land border port. 

Proposed paragraph (e)(2) of § 91.3 

would set forth movement requirements 

for animals other than livestock and 

animal germplasm moving from a 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10402 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

premises of export under an export 

health certificate. (It would pertain to 

animals other than livestock and animal 

germplasm only when export health 

certificates are required for such 

animals or commodities.) It would 

require that, when an export health 

certificate is required by the importing 

country for any animal other than 

livestock or for animal semen, animal 

embryos, hatching eggs, other 

embryonated eggs, or gametes, it must 

be issued and, if required by the 

importing country, endorsed by an 

APHIS representative prior to the arrival 

of the animal or other commodity at the 

port of embarkation or land border port. 

When presented for endorsement, the 

health certificate would have to be 

accompanied by reports for all 

laboratory tests specifically identified 

on the certificate. To preclude 

tampering, we would require either the 

original reports prepared by the 

laboratory that performed the tests to 

accompany the certificate or a copy of 

the reports that is annotated by the 

laboratory to indicate how the originals 

may be obtained. 

Finally, except when an export health 

certificate has been issued and endorsed 

electronically, the original signed export 

health certificate would have to 

accompany the animals or animal 

germplasm to the port of embarkation or 

land border port. 

Proposed paragraph (f)(1) of § 91.3 

would provide that, unless specified by 

the importing country, an export health 

certificate for livestock is valid for 30 

days from the date of issuance, provided 

that the inspection and tests results 

under paragraphs (c) and (d) of § 91.3 

are still valid. Similarly, proposed 

paragraph (f)(2) of § 91.3 would provide 

that, unless specified by the importing 

country, an export health certificate for 

animals other than livestock, animal 

semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, 

other embryonated eggs, or gametes is 

valid for 30 days from the date of 

issuance. 

Prohibited Exports (§ 91.4) 

We are proposing to prohibit the 

export of any animal, animal semen, 

animal embryos, hatching eggs, other 

embryonated eggs, or gametes under 

Federal, State, or local government 

quarantine or movement restrictions for 

animal health reasons unless the 

importing country issues an import 

permit or other written instruction 

allowing that animal or other 

commodity to enter its country and 

APHIS concurs with the export of the 

animal, animal semen, animal embryos, 

hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, 

or gametes. This restriction, together 

with any export health certifications 

required by an importing country, 

would ensure that animals, hatching 

eggs, and animal germplasm exported 

from the United States meet the health 

requirements of importing countries and 

are free from serious diseases. 

Identification of Livestock Intended for 

Export (§ 91.5) 

Proposed § 91.5 would contain 

identification requirements for livestock 

intended for export. With one 

exception, we would require such 

livestock to be identified in accordance 

with 9 CFR part 86. That part contains 

national identification standards for 

livestock moving in interstate 

commerce. We consider this 

requirement to be necessary in order to 

align our export requirements with our 

domestic regulations, and to facilitate 

the interstate movement of animals 

intended for export from their premises 

of export to an export inspection 

facility, port of embarkation, or land 

border port. 

We would also require the livestock to 

bear any additional form of 

identification required by the importing 

country. 

Finally, while part 86 requires that, if 

a horse is identified by an individual 

animal tattoo, the horse must be 

accompanied by a written description of 

the horse, we would allow horses 

intended for export to be identified by 

individual animal tattoos alone, if 

allowed by the importing country. The 

United States has long-standing export 

protocols with several countries that 

allow horses to be identified solely by 

an animal tattoo, and we have not 

encountered problems with the orderly 

export of horses to those countries that 

would suggest the need to modify the 

protocols to specify an alternate means 

of identification. 

Cleaning and Disinfection of Means of 

Conveyance, Containers, and Facilities 

Used During Movement; Approved 

Disinfectants (§ 91.6) 

Current paragraph (d) of § 91.3 

requires export health certificates to 

certify that the means of conveyance or 

container used to move livestock from 

their premises of export has been 

cleaned and disinfected since last used 

for animals with a disinfectant approved 

under § 71.10 of 9 CFR prior to loading, 

or to certify that the carrier or container 

has not previously been used in 

transporting animals. Similarly, current 

paragraph (e) of § 91.3 requires that 

facilities where animals are unloaded 

during movement to ports of 

embarkation or border ports be cleaned 

and disinfected with a disinfectant 

approved under § 71.10 before the 

animals are unloaded into that facility. 

Section 71.10 lists disinfectants 

permitted for use on means of 

conveyance, containers, and facilities 

associated with the movement of 

livestock in commerce. However, the 

list of permitted disinfectants in § 71.10 

has not been updated in many years. 

Additionally, § 71.10 does not provide 

for a mechanism to add or remove 

disinfectants from the list, as warranted. 

Therefore, while proposed § 91.6 

would substantively retain the 

regulatory provisions currently located 

in paragraphs (d) and (e) of § 91.3, it 

would no longer require use of a 

disinfectant listed in § 71.10. Instead, 

disinfectants approved by the 

Administrator for the purposes of 

fulfilling these regulatory requirements 

would be listed online, at a Web address 

provided in the Program Handbook. 

We would also provide a mechanism 

for additional disinfectants to be added 

to the list of approved disinfectants. The 

Administrator would approve a 

disinfectant upon determining that the 

disinfectant is effective against 

pathogens that may be spread by the 

animals intended for export. 

Additionally, if the disinfectant is a 

chemical disinfectant, it would have to 

be registered or exempted for the 

specified use by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency (EPA). 

Under the authority of the Federal 

Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide 

Act (7 U.S.C. 135 et seq., FIFRA), EPA 

requires chemical disinfectants used for 

animal pathogens to be registered with 

their Agency, unless they have granted 

an exemption from such registration for 

the specified use. Criteria for 

exemptions are specified in sections 18, 

24, and 25 of FIFRA. 

There would also be a mechanism for 

removing disinfectants from the list of 

approved disinfectants. The 

Administrator would remove a 

disinfectant from the list if it no longer 

meets the conditions for approval 

specified above. 

Pre-Export Inspection (§ 91.7) 

Currently, paragraph (a) of § 91.15 

requires animals offered for exportation 

to any country other than Mexico or 

Canada to be inspected by an APHIS 

veterinarian within 24 hours of 

embarkation of the animals at an export 

inspection facility associated with a port 

designated as a port of embarkation by 

the Administrator. Current paragraph (b) 

of § 91.17 requires that owners, masters, 

or operators of ocean vessels must 

refuse for transportation any livestock 

that are unfit to withstand the rigors of 

such transportation. This paragraph also 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10403 

provides that an APHIS veterinarian 

must make this determination. 

The paragraphs are intended to work 

in tandem to describe APHIS’ usual 

processes regarding pre-export 

inspection of livestock destined for 

export aboard an ocean vessel: The 

animals are moved to an export 

inspection facility and an APHIS 

veterinarian examines the livestock to 

determine whether they are fit to travel. 

If any of the livestock are deemed unfit 

to travel, the veterinarian requires them 

to be segregated from the rest of the 

livestock intended for export, and 

prohibits them from being loaded onto 

the ocean vessel at the point of 

embarkation. 

This intent, however, is not readily 

apparent. Nor do the current regulations 

in part 91 specify that APHIS has in 

place parallel processes for livestock 

intended for export via aircraft. Finally, 

exporters have from time to time 

requested the criteria that lead a 

veterinarian to determine an animal is 

unfit for travel. 

To clarify both the nature and intent 

of the pre-export inspection, proposed 

paragraph (a) of § 91.7 would require all 

livestock intended for export by air or 

sea to receive a visual health inspection 

from an APHIS veterinarian within 48 

hours prior to embarkation. (We discuss 

why we are proposing to increase the 

allowed duration between this 

inspection and the embarkation of the 

animals from 24 to 48 hours later in this 

document). Paragraph (a) would also 

provide that the purpose of the 

inspection is to determine whether the 

livestock are sound, healthy, and fit to 

travel. The paragraph would further 

state that an APHIS veterinarian will 

reject for export any livestock that he or 

she finds to be unfit to travel. 

The paragraph would specify that it is 

the responsibility of the owner of the 

animals or his or her agent to make 

arrangements for any livestock found 

unfit to travel. The purpose of this 

requirement, which is not found in the 

current regulations, would be to give 

notice to owners and their agents that it 

is their responsibility to take 

appropriate, effective, and humane care 

of animals that are judged unfit to 

travel. 

Finally, proposed paragraph (a) of 

§ 91.7 would provide a list of conditions 

that make an animal unfit to travel. The 

list is not intended to be exhaustive or 

all-inclusive, but would cover the most 

common situations that we encounter. 

The list would include: 

• Livestock that are sick, injured, 

weak, disabled, or fatigued. 

• Livestock that are unable to stand 

unaided or bear weight on each leg. 

• Livestock that are blind in both 

eyes. 

• Livestock that cannot be moved 

without causing additional suffering. 

• Newborn livestock with an 

unhealed navel. 

• Livestock that have given birth 

within the previous 48 hours and are 

traveling without their offspring. 

• Pregnant livestock that would be in 

the final 10 percent of their gestation 

period at the planned time of unloading 

in the importing country. 

• Livestock with unhealed wounds 

from recent surgical procedures, such as 

dehorning. 

As we mentioned earlier in this 

document, the regulations currently 

require pre-export inspection to occur at 

an export inspection facility associated 

with a port that has been designated as 

a port of embarkation by the 

Administrator. 

Currently, many countries require 

livestock intended for export to be kept 

isolated from other animals for a period 

of time immediately prior to movement 

for export. This isolation usually occurs 

at the premises of export, although, in 

certain instances, it occurs at another 

facility specifically designed for 

isolation of livestock. After the period of 

isolation ends, if the livestock will be 

exported by air or sea, they are shipped 

from the export isolation facility to an 

export inspection facility at a designated 

port of embarkation for pre-export 

inspection. 

In recent years, APHIS has received 

several requests from exporters to allow 

pre-export inspection of livestock at 

export isolation facilities. These 

requests have usually been made when 

the export isolation facility was closer to 

the nearest designated port of 

embarkation than it was to the export 

inspection facility, or when the exporter 

expressed concern that moving the 

livestock to the export inspection 

facility would cause undue hardship to 

the animals. 

Similarly, from time to time, we also 

have received requests from exporters to 

allow pre-export inspection of livestock 

at an export inspection facility other 

than the facility associated with the port 

of embarkation for the livestock. These 

usually have occurred when the export 

inspection facility requested by the 

exporter can more easily accommodate 

the lot of animals to be inspected, or has 

additional resources or personnel to 

conduct inspections. 

As a result, proposed paragraph (b) of 

§ 91.7 would provide that an APHIS 

veterinarian must conduct pre-export 

inspection at either an export inspection 

facility associated with the port of 

embarkation, or, when authorized by the 

Administrator, at an export isolation 

facility or another export inspection 

facility. The conditions under which the 

Administrator would authorize 

inspection of the livestock at an export 

isolation facility or an export inspection 

facility not associated with the port of 

embarkation would be described in 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of § 91.7. 

Proposed paragraph (b) of § 91.7 

would also provide that, unless APHIS 

has authorized otherwise, any sorting, 

grouping, identification, or other 

handling of the livestock by the exporter 

must be done before the inspection. It 

would further provide that the APHIS 

veterinarian may also conduct clinical 

examination of any of the livestock 

during or after this inspection if he or 

she deems it necessary in order to 

determine the animal’s health. Any 

testing or treatment related to this 

clinical examination would have to be 

performed by an APHIS veterinarian or 

an accredited veterinarian. (In this 

context, testing refers to discretionary 

tests performed on animals exhibiting 

signs or symptoms of illness, not to tests 

required by APHIS or the importing 

country.) Finally, the paragraph would 

specify that if the facility used to 

conduct the inspection is a facility other 

than the export inspection facility 

associated with the port of embarkation, 

it must be located within 28 hours 

driving distance under normal driving 

conditions from the port of embarkation. 

While we have determined that there 

are certain instances where it makes 

sense to authorize pre-export inspection 

of livestock at export isolation facilities 

or export inspection facilities other than 

the export inspection facility associated 

with the port of embarkation, none of 

these instances would suggest 

authorizing inspections at an export 

isolation facility or export inspection 

facility located more than 28 hours 

driving distance from the port of 

embarkation. We are proposing a 

maximum driving distance of 28 hours 

because, pursuant to the 28 hour law (49 

U.S.C. 80502), the maximum time that 

livestock may be transported in 

interstate commerce without rest, feed, 

and water is 28 hours. 

To help ensure that livestock moved 

from a facility located a significant 

distance from the port of embarkation 

are well-rested and fit for travel, we 

would require livestock to be afforded at 

least 48 hours rest, with sufficient feed 

and water during that time period, prior 

to movement from the facility. 

Inspection of the livestock would occur 

during this rest period, which could 

also be concurrent with any isolation 

period required by the exporting 

country. 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10404 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

As we mentioned above, proposed 

paragraph (c) of § 91.7 would contain 

conditions under which the 

Administrator would authorize preexport inspection of the livestock at an 

export isolation facility, rather than the 

export inspection facility associated 

with the port of embarkation. Proposed 

paragraph (c)(1) would state that the 

Administrator may allow pre-export 

inspection of livestock to be conducted 

at an export isolation facility, rather 

than at an export inspection facility, 

when the exporter can show to the 

satisfaction of the Administrator that the 

livestock would suffer undue hardship 

if they had to be inspected at the export 

inspection facility, when the distance 

from the export isolation facility to the 

port of embarkation is significantly less 

than the distance from the export 

isolation facility to the export 

inspection facility associated with the 

port of embarkation, when inspection at 

the export isolation facility would be a 

more efficient use of APHIS resources, 

or for other reasons acceptable to the 

Administrator. In other words, generally 

speaking, we would authorize preexport inspection of livestock at an 

export isolation facility when we 

determine that it would further our goal 

under the AHPA to ensure the health 

and humane treatment of animals 

exported from the United States, or 

when it would be more practical for the 

parties involved in the inspection to 

have it at the export isolation facility as 

long as the livestock would not suffer 

any undue hardship. 

Proposed paragraph (c)(2) of § 91.7 

would specify that the Administrator’s 

approval of an export isolation facility 

as the location where pre-export 

inspection takes place is contingent 

upon APHIS having personnel available 

to provide services at that location. It 

would further specify that approval is 

also contingent upon the Administrator 

determining that the facility has space, 

lighting, and humane means of handling 

livestock sufficient for the APHIS 

personnel to safely conduct required 

inspections. 

The Program Handbook would 

provide guidance for isolation facilities 

regarding ways to meet these 

performance standards. Isolation facility 

owners or operators who follow the 

guidance set forth in the Program 

Handbook would be assured of APHIS 

approval of their facilities as locations 

for pre-export inspection. Owners and 

operators could submit alternate plans 

for meeting the performance standards 

to APHIS for evaluation and approval. 

In order for us to approve these alternate 

plans, however, they would have to be 

at least as effective in meeting the 

performance standards as those 

described in the Program Handbook. We 

would have to approve these alternate 

plans before the facility could be used 

for purposes of proposed § 91.7. 

Proposed paragraph (d) of § 91.7 

would contain conditions under which 

the Administrator would authorize 

inspection of livestock at an export 

inspection facility other than the export 

inspection facility associated with the 

port of embarkation. It would state that 

the Administrator may allow pre-export 

inspection of livestock to be conducted 

at an export inspection facility other 

than the export inspection facility 

associated with the port of embarkation 

when the exporter can show to the 

satisfaction of the Administrator that the 

livestock would suffer undue hardship 

if they had to be inspected at the export 

inspection facility associated with the 

port of embarkation, when inspection at 

this different export inspection facility 

would be a more efficient use of APHIS 

resources, or for other reasons 

acceptable to the Administrator. 

These conditions would be very 

similar to the conditions under which 

we would allow pre-export inspection at 

an export isolation facility. However, 

while we can foresee instances when an 

export isolation facility may be closer to 

the port of embarkation from which the 

livestock will be shipped than the 

export inspection facility associated 

with the port of embarkation, we cannot 

foresee instances when the export 

inspection facility associated with a 

different port would be closer to the 

port of embarkation than the export 

inspection facility associated with that 

port. 

If this rule is finalized, we anticipate 

approving several export isolation 

facilities and authorizing pre-export 

inspection of livestock at those facilities 

pursuant to paragraphs (c)(1) and (c)(2) 

of § 91.7. We also anticipate authorizing 

pre-export inspection of livestock at 

export inspection facilities other than 

those associated with the port of 

embarkation pursuant to paragraph (d) 

of § 91.7 from time to time. 

If such authorization occurs, there 

could be certain instances when it 

would be difficult, if not impossible, for 

an animal to be inspected within 24 

hours prior to embarkation. Even when 

pre-export inspection of livestock is 

conducted at an export inspection 

facility located at the port of 

embarkation, it can take more than 24 

hours to load a large lot of animals 

safely into an ocean vessel. If pre-export 

inspection were to occur at an export 

isolation facility or an export inspection 

facility other than the facility associated 

with the port of embarkation, the time 

spent en route to the port of 

embarkation would count towards the 

24 hour period. This could result in 

hastened loading of the animals and 

increased likelihood of their injury or 

distress. For these reasons, as we 

mentioned above, we are proposing to 

allow pre-export inspections to occur up 

to 48 hours prior to embarkation. 

Allowing the inspection to occur up to 

48 hours in advance would provide 

additional time for thorough inspections 

and orderly loading of the livestock, 

while still keeping the final inspection 

close to the time of departure. 

That being said, we recognize that 

some countries have import 

requirements that specify that livestock 

must be inspected within a shorter 

period of time prior to export. In such 

instances, the inspection would have to 

take place within the timeframe 

specified by the importing country. 

Paragraph (e) of § 91.7 would provide 

that the APHIS veterinarian will 

maintain an inspection record that 

includes the date and place of the preexport inspection, species and number 

of animals inspected, the number of 

animals rejected, a description of those 

animals, and the reasons for rejection. In 

the event of a dispute regarding whether 

a particular animal was considered fit 

for travel during pre-export inspection, 

we would have recourse to these records 

to help resolve the dispute. 

For similar reasons, proposed 

paragraph (f) of § 91.7 would provide 

that, at the request of the importing 

country or an exporter, the APHIS 

veterinarian who inspects the livestock 

will issue a certificate of inspection for 

livestock he or she finds to be sound, 

healthy, and fit for travel. 

Rest, Feed, and Water Prior to Export 

(§ 91.8) 

Currently, paragraph (c) of § 91.15 

requires all livestock intended for 

export from the United States by sea or 

air to be allowed a period of at least 5 

hours for rest at the export inspection 

facility associated with the port of 

embarkation, with adequate feed and 

water available, before movement to an 

ocean vessel or aircraft for loading for 

export. The paragraph allows this rest 

period to occur during pre-export 

inspection, and provides that feed and 

water is not required if the animals were 

transported to the export inspection 

facility in a carrier in which adequate 

feed and water was provided and if 

sufficient evidence is presented to an 

APHIS veterinarian that the animals, if 

under 30 days of age, will arrive in the 

import country within 24 hours after 

they were last fed and watered in the 

United States, or in the case of other 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10405 

animals, within 36 hours after they were 

last fed and watered in the United 

States. 

Proposed § 91.8 would revise these 

requirements. We are proposing to 

eliminate any exemptions from the rest, 

feed, and water requirement for 

livestock intended for export by sea or 

air. We are proposing to do so because, 

once an animal leaves the territorial 

limits of the United States, it is no 

longer subject to our oversight, and 

because it is not uncommon for travel to 

a foreign region to take significantly 

longer than expected because of adverse 

climatic conditions and other reasons. 

We are, however, proposing to reduce 

the rest period that must be afforded to 

livestock intended for export from 5 

hours to 2 hours. In our experience, 

livestock moved for export are usually 

not taxed by such movement to the 

extent that would warrant a 5 hour rest 

period. 

However, they do tend to stiffen as a 

result of such movement. Based on our 

experience, it takes the animals 2 hours 

to become limber once again and 

prepared for the rigors of sea or air 

travel. 

Out of recognition that there could be 

circumstances where 2 hours would be 

an insufficient period of time for such 

rest, however, we would allow an 

inspector to extend the duration of the 

rest period up to 5 hours, at his or her 

discretion and based on a determination 

that more rest is necessary in order to 

have assurances that the animals are fit 

to travel prior to loading. 

Finally, we are proposing to remove 

the provision from the current 

regulations allowing this rest period to 

be concurrent with pre-export 

inspection. Based on our experience, it 

is difficult for an animal to rest during 

pre-export inspection. However, if preexport inspection has occurred at a 

facility other than the export inspection 

facility associated at the port of 

embarkation, we are proposing to 

require that the livestock be visually 

observed at the end of the rest period for 

fitness to travel. 

Ports (§ 91.9) 

In accordance with current paragraph 

(a) of § 91.14, all livestock intended for 

export from the United States by air or 

sea must be exported through 

designated ports of embarkation. As 

provided in § 91.14(a) and (b), the 

Administrator will not designate a port 

of embarkation for livestock—even 

temporarily—unless the port has an 

approved export inspection facility 

permanently associated with it. 

We are proposing to allow the 

Administrator to temporarily approve 

ports without export inspection 

facilities under certain circumstances. 

Specifically, proposed § 91.9 would 

provide that such ports could be 

approved on a temporary basis for a 

specific shipment of livestock when preexport inspection of that shipment has 

occurred at an export isolation facility 

or an export inspection facility not 

associated with the port of embarkation, 

as provided in proposed § 91.7. This 

change would allow temporary use of 

ports that do not have export inspection 

facilities permanently associated with 

them for specific shipments of livestock. 

Unlike ports of embarkation with export 

inspection facilities permanently 

associated with them, which would be 

listed in the Program Handbook, these 

ports would not be listed in the Program 

Handbook. Their use would be limited 

to the specific shipment(s) for which 

they were approved by the 

Administrator. 

Export Inspection Facilities (§ 91.10) 

Currently, § 91.14 sets out standards 

that facilities have to meet in order to 

be approved as export inspection 

facilities. The standards are often very 

prescriptive. For example, paragraph 

(c)(10), lighting, states that: ‘‘The facility 

shall be equipped with artificial lighting 

to provide not less than 70 foot candle 

power in the inspection area and not 

less than 40 foot candle power in the 

remainder of the facility.’’ 

Proposed § 91.10 would remove the 

prescriptive standards for export 

inspection facilities that are currently in 

§ 91.14 from the regulations. Instead, 

proposed § 91.10 would require the 

export inspection facilities to be 

constructed, equipped, and managed in 

a manner that: (1) Prevents transmission 

of disease to and from livestock in the 

facilities; (2) provides for the safe and 

humane handling and restraint of 

livestock; and (3) provides sufficient 

offices, space, and lighting for APHIS 

veterinarians to safely conduct required 

health inspections of livestock and 

related business. 

The Program Handbook that 

accompanies this proposed rule 

provides guidance on ways to comply 

with these requirements. This guidance 

is substantively similar to the 

requirements currently in the 

regulations in § 91.14. Owners and 

operators of facilities that follow the 

guidance provided in the Program 

Handbook are assured of meeting our 

proposed requirements. 

That said, while the Program 

Handbook provides one way of meeting 

the requirements in proposed § 91.10, 

we recognize that there could also be 

other ways of meeting the requirements. 

To that end, owners and operators could 

submit alternative plans for meeting the 

requirements to APHIS for our 

evaluation and approval. Any 

alternatives submitted would have to be 

at least as effective in meeting the 

requirements as the methods described 

in the Program Handbook in order to be 

approved. APHIS approval would be 

required before alternatives could be 

used for the purpose described in the 

regulations. 

We would retain in proposed 

§ 91.10(b) the requirements currently in 

the regulations in § 91.14(c)(6) and (c)(9) 

that facilities allow APHIS 

representatives access to all parts of the 

facility, and that applications for 

approval of an export inspection facility 

be accompanied by a certification that 

the facility meets all applicable 

environmental laws and regulations. 

However, we would limit the current 

scope of § 91.14(c)(6) somewhat in 

proposed § 91.10(b)(2). While we 

currently require facilities to provide 

access to all parts of the facility at all 

times for the purpose of assessing 

compliance with the regulations, we 

only exercise this authority during the 

facility’s business hours, that is, while 

the facility is in operation. To reflect 

this, we would require access to the 

facility during the facility’s business 

hours. Additionally, while the current 

requirement does not specify why 

APHIS needs such broad access to the 

facility, our proposed requirement 

would clarify that the access is needed 

in order for us to evaluate whether the 

facility is in compliance with the 

requirements of the regulations for the 

purposes of approval or a subsequent 

audit. 

We also propose to substantively 

retain in proposed paragraph (c) of 

§ 91.10 the provisions currently in the 

regulations in § 91.14(d) regarding 

approval and denial or revocation of 

approval of export inspection facilities. 

We do, however, propose to add two 

conditions that would trigger the need 

for reapproval of an export inspection 

facility that we have previously 

approved: Change of ownership of the 

facility or significant damage or 

structural changes to the facility. In 

these instances, we would need 

assurances that the facility continues to 

meet the standards under which it was 

approved in light of these changes. 

Export Isolation Facilities (§ 91.11) 

As we mentioned earlier in this 

document, many countries currently 

require livestock intended for export to 

be kept isolated from other animals for 

a period of time immediately prior to 

movement for export. Often, the 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10406 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

importing countries require this period 

of isolation to be ‘‘officially approved’’ 

or ‘‘APHIS-approved.’’ Proposed § 91.11 

would contain standards for APHIS 

approval of such facilities. In those 

instances, APHIS inspects the facility 

prior to any isolation in order to ensure 

that the facility has measures in place 

that will protect the animals there from 

exposure to diseased livestock during 

the isolation period. 

We are proposing to add to the 

regulations requirements pertaining to 

APHIS approval of export isolation 

facilities. Specifically, proposed § 91.11 

requires that, if an importing country 

requires livestock to undergo USDAapproved export isolation, APHIS must 

approve the export isolation facility 

used for the livestock prior to each 

isolation. APHIS would approve the 

facility only if the Administrator 

determines, upon APHIS inspection of 

the facility, that the facility meets the 

standards identified by the importing 

country. If the importing country does 

not identify specific standards, APHIS 

would approve the facility only if the 

Administrator determines, upon 

inspection of the facility, that the 

facility has adequate measures in place 

to protect the livestock in the facility 

from exposure to animals of different 

health status and fomites in order to 

prevent transmission of disease of 

livestock during the isolation period. 

Additionally, export isolation 

conducted at the facility would have to 

be supervised by an accredited 

veterinarian or, if requested by the 

importing country, by an APHIS 

veterinarian. 

The Program Handbook that 

accompanies this proposed rule 

provides guidance on measures that a 

facility can implement in order to 

comply with the proposed requirement 

that the facility have adequate measures 

in place to protect livestock at the 

facility from exposure to animals of 

different disease status during the 

isolation period. Owners and operators 

that follow the guidance provided in the 

Program Handbook are assured of 

meeting this proposed requirement. 

That said, while the Program 

Handbook provides one way of 

adequately meeting the requirement, we 

recognize that there could also be other 

ways of adequately meeting the 

requirement. To that end, owners and 

operators could submit alternate 

measures to APHIS for evaluation and 

approval. Alternatives would have to be 

at least as effective in meeting the 

requirement as those described in the 

Program Handbook in order to be 

approved. Alternatives would have to be 

approved by APHIS before being used 

for purposes of meeting the regulations. 

Ocean Vessels (§ 91.12) 

Current subpart D of part 91 

(§§ 91.17–91.30) applies to the ocean 

vessels on which livestock are exported 

from the United States, and sets forth 

requirements that the vessels must meet 

with regard to construction, ventilation, 

space, fittings, equipment, and 

attendants. In a similar manner to the 

standards for export inspection facilities 

that are currently in the regulations, 

these standards are often very detailed 

and prescriptive. For example, current 

§ 91.23 requires ramps connecting one 

deck of an ocean vessel to another to 

‘‘have a clear width of 3 feet and a clear 

height of not less than 6 feet 6 inches. 

The incline of the ramps shall not 

exceed 1:2 (261⁄2°) between the ramps 

and the horizontal plane. The ramps 

shall be fitted with footlocks of 

approximately 2′′X2′′ lumber and spaced 

no more than one foot apart. The ramps 

shall have side fencing not less than 5 

feet in height. Side doors in ship’s shell 

plating through which livestock are to 

be loaded shall have a height of not less 

than 6 feet for cattle and 6 feet 6 inches 

for horses.’’ 

These requirements are based on 

performance standards that are 

sometimes articulated, but more often 

implied, in the current regulations. At 

the time the regulations were issued, we 

considered the requirements to be the 

only means of meeting those 

performance standards. However, since 

that time, alternate means of meeting 

certain of the standards have arisen. 

Accordingly, proposed § 91.12 would 

require ocean vessels used to transport 

livestock intended for export to be 

designed, constructed, and managed to 

reasonably assure the livestock are 

protected from injury and remain 

healthy during loading and transport to 

the importing country. 

To meet this overall performance 

standard for ocean vessels, we propose 

the following requirements for ocean 

vessels: 

• Pens. All pens, including gates and 

portable rails used to close access ways, 

would have to be designed and 

constructed of a material of sufficient 

strength to securely contain the 

livestock. They would have to be 

properly formed, closely fitted, and 

rigidly secured in place. They would 

also have to have smooth finished 

surfaces free from sharp protrusions, 

and not have worn, decayed, unsound, 

or otherwise defective parts. Flooring 

would have to be strong enough to 

support the livestock to be transported 

and provide a satisfactory non-slip 

foothold. Pens on exposed upper decks 

would have to protect the livestock from 

the weather. Boiler rooms or similar 

sources of heat next to pens would have 

to be fitted to protect the livestock from 

injury due to transfer of heat. Any 

fittings or protrusions from the vessel’s 

sides that abut pens would have to be 

covered in order to protect the livestock 

from injury. Finally, pens would have to 

be of appropriate size for the species, 

size, weight, and condition of the 

livestock being transported and take 

into consideration the vessel’s route. 

We recognize that a number of these 

requirements are themselves 

performance-based, and potentially 

allow for a variety of means or methods 

in order to meet them. To that end, we 

provide guidance in the Program 

Handbook regarding means that may be 

used to meet the requirements. Owners 

and operators of ocean vessels who 

follow the guidance provided in the 

Program Handbook would be assured of 

meeting these and other performancebased requirements regarding ocean 

vessels. Owners and operators could 

submit alternate means and methods for 

meeting the requirements to APHIS for 

evaluation and approval. All alternate 

means and methods would have to be 

approved by APHIS before being used 

for purposes of complying with the 

regulations. 

• Positioning. Livestock would have 

to be positioned during transport so that 

an animal handler or other responsible 

person can observe each animal 

regularly and clearly to ensure the 

livestock’s safety and welfare. 

• Resources for sick or injured 

animals. The vessel would have to have 

an adequate number of appropriately 

sized and located pens set aside to 

segregate livestock that become sick or 

injured from other animals. It would 

also have to have adequate veterinary 

medical supplies, including medicines, 

for the species, condition, and number 

of livestock transported. 

• Ramps, doors, and passageways. 

Ramps, doors, and passageways used for 

livestock would have to be of sufficient 

width and height for their use and allow 

the safe passage of the species 

transported. They would have to have 

secure, smooth fittings free from sharp 

protrusions and non-slip flooring, and 

could not have worn, decayed, 

unsound, or otherwise defective parts. 

Ramps could not have an incline that is 

excessive for the species of livestock 

transported and would have to be fitted 

with foot battens to prevent slippage at 

intervals suitable for the species. The 

sides of ramps would have to be of 

sufficient height and strength to prevent 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10407 

escape of the species of livestock that is 

transported. 

• Feed and water. The feeding and 

watering system would have to be 

designed to permit all livestock in each 

pen adequate access to feed and water. 

The system would also have to be 

designed to minimize soiling of pens 

and to prevent animal waste from 

contaminating feed and water. 

Similarly, feed would have to be loaded 

and stored aboard the vessel in a 

manner that protects it from weather 

and sea water and, if kept under animal 

transport spaces, protects it from 

spillage from animal watering and 

feeding and from animal waste. If the 

normal means of tending, feeding, and 

watering of livestock on board the ocean 

vessel is wholly or partially by 

automatic means, the vessel would have 

to have alternate arrangements for the 

satisfactory tending, feeding, and 

watering of the animals in the event of 

a malfunction of the automatic means. 

• Ventilation. Ventilation during 

loading, unloading, and transport must 

provide fresh air and remove excessive 

heat, humidity, and noxious fumes 

(such as ammonia and carbon dioxide). 

Ventilation would have to be adequate 

for variations in climate and weather 

and to meet the needs of the livestock 

being transported. Ventilation would 

have to be effective both when the 

vessel is stationary and when it is 

moving and would have to be turned on 

when the first animal is loaded. The 

vessel would be required to have on 

board a back-up ventilation system 

(including emergency power supply) in 

good working order or replacement 

parts and the means, including qualified 

personnel, to make the repairs or 

replacements. 

• Waste management. The vessel 

would have to have a system or 

arrangements, including a backup 

system in working order or alternate 

arrangements, for managing waste to 

prevent excessive buildup in livestock 

transport spaces during the voyage. 

• Lighting. The vessel would have to 

have adequate illumination to allow 

clear observation of livestock during 

loading, unloading, and transport. 

• Bedding. Bedding would have to be 

loaded and stored aboard the vessel in 

a manner that protects it from weather 

and sea water and, if kept under animal 

transport spaces, protects it from 

spillage from animal watering and 

feeding and from animal waste. 

• Cleaning. The vessel would have to 

be designed and constructed to allow 

thorough cleaning and disinfection and 

to prevent feces and urine from 

livestock on upper levels from soiling 

livestock or their feed or water on lower 

levels. 

• Halters and ropes. Halters, ropes, or 

other equipment provided for the 

handling and tying of horses or other 

livestock would have to be satisfactory 

to ensure the humane treatment of the 

livestock. 

• Personnel. The owner or operator of 

the ocean vessel would be required to 

have on board during loading, transport, 

and unloading at least 3 persons (or at 

least 1 person if fewer than 800 head of 

livestock will be transported) with 

previous experience with ocean vessels 

that have handled the kind(s) of 

livestock to be carried, as well as a 

sufficient number of attendants with the 

appropriate experience to be able to 

ensure proper care of the livestock. 

• Vessel stability. The vessel would 

be required to have adequate stability, 

taking into consideration the weight and 

distribution of livestock and fodder, as 

well as effects of high winds and seas. 

If requested by APHIS, the owner or 

operator of the vessel would have to 

present stability calculations for the 

voyage that have been independently 

verified for accuracy. 

• Additional conditions. The vessel 

would have to meet any other condition 

the Administrator determines is 

necessary for approval, as dictated by 

specific circumstances and 

communicated to the owner and 

operator of the vessel, to protect the 

livestock and keep them healthy during 

loading, unloading, and transport to the 

importing country. 

These performance standards have the 

same goal of ensuring the humane 

transport of livestock as stated in 

current § 91.17 and, with the exception 

of a few proposed new standards, 

discussed immediately below, cover the 

same aspects of ocean vessels as 

addressed by current § 91.17 and 

§§ 91.20 through 91.30. 

The proposed requirement that 

livestock must be positioned during 

transport so that an animal handler or 

other responsible person can observe 

each animal regularly and clearly to 

ensure the livestock’s safety and welfare 

is new. This is needed, since, if animals 

are positioned in a manner that 

consistently obscures them from view, 

their handler or responsible person may 

not be able to detect signs or symptoms 

of distress or illness in a timely manner. 

For a similar reason, we are requiring 

ocean vessels to have sufficient 

illumination to allow clear observation 

of the animals during loading, 

unloading, and transport. 

The proposed requirement for animal 

waste systems is also new. This is 

necessary, along with adequate 

ventilation, to ensure livestock are not 

harmed by build-up of waste in 

transport spaces. There is a similar 

rationale for the proposed new 

requirement that the vessel be designed 

and constructed to allow thorough 

cleaning and disinfection and to prevent 

feces and urine from livestock on upper 

levels from soiling livestock on lower 

levels or their feed or water, as well as 

for the requirement that water and 

feeding systems be designed to 

minimize the soiling of pens. 

The proposed requirements that 

ventilation be effective when the vessel 

is stationary as well as when it is 

moving, and that it be turned on when 

the first animal is loaded, are also new. 

As we mentioned earlier in this 

document, it can take a day or longer to 

load and unload a large shipment of 

livestock destined for export, and these 

requirements would ensure that the 

livestock have adequate fresh air during 

loading and unloading. 

Additionally, we are proposing that 

the vessel have adequate stability, 

taking into consideration the weight and 

distribution of the livestock and fodder, 

and effects of high winds and seas. One 

of the factors that APHIS needs to 

consider in approving a vessel for the 

transport of livestock is stability, 

particularly as the vessel’s stability may 

be affected by the way feed and 

livestock will be arranged on the vessel. 

A vessel arranged to carry large animals 

on upper decks and small animals on 

lower decks, for instance, would be top 

heavy and more prone to capsize, 

resulting in likely loss of life. If APHIS 

has questions about a vessel’s stability 

for a particular voyage, independently 

verified stability calculations would 

help resolve them, so APHIS would 

request such calculations as needed. 

Lastly, we are proposing that the 

vessel meet any other condition the 

Administrator determines is necessary 

for approval, as dictated by specific 

circumstances and communicated to the 

owner or operator of the vessel, to 

protect the livestock and keep them 

healthy during loading, unloading, and 

transport to the importing country. We 

propose to include this provision in the 

event that unforeseen circumstances 

make it necessary to require additional 

safeguards to protect the health of the 

livestock. 

In many instances, ocean vessels that 

transport livestock for export from the 

United States are constructed 

specifically for that purpose. On 

occasion, however, livestock are 

transported in shipping containers on 

ocean vessels that are not constructed 

specifically to transport livestock. In 

those instances, while some of the above 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10408 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

requirements would almost always be 

applicable—for example, we would still 

want to know whether the vessel has 

adequate stability to transport the 

livestock without risk of capsizing— 

others, such as those pertaining to pen 

size, construction, and placement on the 

vessel, as well as positioning of 

livestock within a pen, would almost 

always not be applicable. Additionally, 

other standards, such as those 

pertaining to cleaning, could be 

applicable in certain instances, but not 

in others, depending on the 

construction and location of the 

container. 

Accordingly, proposed § 91.12 would 

provide that an inspector may exempt 

an ocean vessel that uses shipping 

containers to transport livestock to an 

importing country from any of the above 

requirements that he or she specifies, if 

the inspector determines that the 

containers themselves are designed, 

constructed, and managed in a manner 

to reasonably assure the livestock are 

protected from injury and remain 

healthy during loading, unloading, and 

transport to the importing country. The 

Program Handbook provides guidance 

regarding the considerations that may 

lead an inspector to exempt a vessel 

from a specific requirement. 

Inspection of vessels would occur in 

a manner very similar to the existing 

requirements. Currently, § 91.19, headed 

‘‘Inspection of ocean vessels prior to 

loading,’’ directs owners or masters of 

ocean vessels intended for use in 

exporting livestock to present the vessel 

to an inspector at a U.S. port of 

embarkation or, in some cases, at a 

foreign port, for an inspection to 

determine if the fittings aboard the 

vessel comply with the regulations. We 

propose to require inspection of an 

ocean vessel to determine whether it 

meets the above standards for ocean 

vessels only prior to initial use to 

transport any livestock from the United 

States. If we determine that the ocean 

vessel meets the standards, we would 

certify the vessel to transport livestock 

from the United States. (As an 

exception, if a vessel that would use 

shipping containers to transport 

livestock has been granted an exemption 

from certain requirements pursuant to 

proposed paragraph (e) of § 91.12, we 

would not require the vessel to meet 

those particular requirements in order to 

be certified or recertified.) This initial 

certification would specify the species 

of livestock for which the vessel is 

approved. 

Thereafter, in most instances, the 

vessel would only need to be recertified 

every 3 years. The only other occasions 

when the vessel would need to be 

recertified would be when 

circumstances dictate that a 

recertification occur before the vessel is 

again used to transport livestock. These 

circumstances would be when 

significant changes are made to the 

vessel, including to livestock transport 

spaces or life support systems; when 

there is a failure of any major life 

support system; when species of 

livestock not covered by the existing 

certification are to be transported; and 

when the owner or operator of the ocean 

vessel changes. 

To aid us in determining whether the 

vessel meets the above standards and 

can be certified to transport livestock 

from the United States, we would 

request the following information prior 

to the initial certification inspection of 

the vessel (as well as prior to 

subsequent inspections for 

recertification, upon our request): 

• General information about the 

vessel, including the year built, length 

and breadth, vessel name history, port 

of registry, call sign, maximum and 

average speed, fresh water tank capacity 

and fresh water generation rate, and 

feed silo capacity (if the vessel has a 

silo). 

• A notarized statement from an 

engineer concerning the rate of air 

exchange in each compartment of the 

vessel. 

• The species of livestock that the 

vessel would transport. 

• Scale drawings that provide details 

of the design, materials, and methods of 

construction and arrangement of fittings 

for the containment and movement of 

livestock; provisions for the storage and 

distribution of feed and water; drainage 

arrangements; primary and secondary 

sources of power; and lighting. 

• A photograph of the rails and gates 

of any pens. 

• A description of the flooring surface 

on livestock decks. 

• The following measurements: 

Width of the ramps; the clear height 

from the ramps to the lowest overhead 

structures; the incline between the 

ramps and the horizontal plane; the 

distance between footlocks on the 

ramps; the height of side fencing on the 

ramps; the height of the vessel’s side 

doors through which livestock are 

loaded; the width of alleyways running 

fore and aft between livestock pens; and 

the distance from the floor of the 

livestock pens to the beams of lowest 

structures overhead. 

We recognize that, if a vessel intends 

to use shipping containers to transport 

livestock to an importing country, some 

of this information may not be 

applicable. The Program Handbook 

provides guidance for owners and 

operators of ocean vessels regarding 

how to indicate this non-applicability 

on their submission in a manner that is 

clear to APHIS, and that triggers an 

evaluation of the shipping containers 

themselves pursuant to proposed 

paragraph (e) of § 91.12. 

We propose to modify the current 

requirement for providing feed and 

water to livestock aboard ocean vessels. 

The regulations currently require ocean 

vessels to provide livestock with feed 

and water immediately after the 

livestock are loaded onto the vessel 

unless an APHIS representative 

determines that all of the livestock are 

30 days of age or older and the vessel 

will arrive in the country of destination 

within 36 hours after the livestock were 

last fed and watered within the United 

States, or, if any of the livestock in the 

shipment are younger than 30 days, that 

the vessel will arrive in the country of 

destination within 24 hours after the 

livestock were last fed and watered 

within the United States. 

We issued these provisions on the 

presupposition that 36 hours is the 

maximum amount of time that livestock 

30 days of age or older can go without 

feed and water before suffering duress, 

and 24 hours is the maximum amount 

of time that livestock younger than 30 

days can go without feed and water 

before suffering duress. 

We have since determined that, in 

certain instances, with adequate food, 

water, and rest beforehand, livestock 

can go a longer period without food and 

water before suffering duress. On the 

other hand, we have also encountered 

several occasions since the regulations 

were issued where allowing livestock 

aboard an ocean vessel to go 36 hours 

without food and water adversely 

impacted the well-being of the animals. 

These situations usually arose when the 

ocean vessel carrying the livestock was 

subject to particularly adverse climatic 

conditions, such as high winds, heavy 

seas, or driving precipitation; the 

livestock were unaccustomed to eating 

and drinking while under duress; and 

the amount of feed and water aboard the 

vessel did not take into sufficient 

consideration the livestock’s species, 

body weight, and eating and watering 

tendencies. 

As a result, instead of providing a 

maximum time period at sea that 

livestock may go without feed and 

water, proposed paragraph (c) of § 91.12 

would require the ocean vessel to 

provide sufficient feed and water to the 

livestock aboard the vessel, taking into 

consideration the livestock’s species, 

body weight, the expected duration of 

the voyage, and the likelihood of 

adverse climatic conditions during 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10409 

export. Guidance regarding this 

proposed requirement is found in the 

Program Handbook. 

We propose to retain the current 

requirements in § 91.18 for cleaning and 

disinfection of ocean vessels, with some 

clarifications. Current § 91.18 requires 

that all fittings, utensils, and equipment, 

unless new, to be used in the loading, 

stowing, or handling of animals aboard 

ocean vessels be cleaned and 

disinfected under the supervision of an 

inspector before being used for, or in 

conjunction with, the transportation of 

any animals from any U.S. port. In 

proposed paragraph (b) of § 91.12, we 

propose to require cleaning and 

disinfection of any vessel intended for 

use in exporting livestock, and all 

fittings, utensils, containers, and 

equipment (unless new) used for 

loading, stowing, or other handling of 

livestock aboard the vessel, and provide 

guidance regarding which surfaces need 

to be cleaned in the Program Handbook. 

Our intent is to ensure that all surfaces 

where livestock are kept are cleaned and 

disinfected prior to loading, as well as 

any other surface where the crew walks 

in the same footwear that is worn in the 

livestock cargo areas. Likewise, all rails, 

gates, water troughs, and other 

equipment and utensils used for 

livestock would have to be cleaned and 

disinfected prior to the loading of the 

livestock. 

Additionally, we propose that this 

cleaning and disinfection be done to the 

satisfaction of an APHIS representative, 

rather than under the supervision of an 

APHIS inspector. We also propose to 

remove the list of approved 

disinfectants from the regulations and to 

instead use the Program Handbook to 

provide access to the list, which we 

would maintain online. Similar to other 

provisions regarding approval of 

disinfectants in this proposed rule, the 

Administrator would approve a 

disinfectant for use to disinfect ocean 

vessels upon determining that the 

disinfectant is effective against 

pathogens that may be spread by the 

animals and, if the disinfectant is a 

chemical disinfectant, that it is 

registered or exempted for the specified 

use by the EPA. Proposed paragraph (b) 

of § 91.12 would also contain provisions 

for approving additional disinfectants, 

as well as withdrawing approval. 

We would also add a new 

requirement that all ocean vessels, upon 

docking at a U.S. port to load livestock, 

have disinfectant foot baths at 

entryways where persons board and exit 

the ship, and require such baths before 

allowing any person to disembark. 

Many countries have diseases of 

livestock that are not known to exist in 

the United States or that are not widely 

prevalent, and that can be spread by soil 

and other ground contaminants. This 

requirement would mitigate against the 

introduction of such diseases through 

such fomites. 

We would continue to inspect ocean 

vessels prior to each voyage to ensure 

that the vessel has been properly 

cleaned and disinfected. The inspection 

would also be to ensure that there is 

sufficient food and water for the voyage, 

and continues to meet the standards for 

ocean vessels. 

To ensure that we have sufficient 

notice and information to conduct the 

inspection in a timely manner, we 

propose to require that the owner or 

operator provide us with the following 

information at least 72 hours before the 

vessel will be available for inspection: 

• The name of the ocean vessel. 

• The port, date, and time the ocean 

vessel will be available for inspection, 

and the estimated time that loading will 

begin. 

• A description of the livestock to be 

transported, including the type, number, 

and estimated average weight of the 

livestock. 

• Stability data for the ship with the 

livestock on board. 

• The port of discharge. 

• The route and expected length of 

the voyage. 

Finally, we are proposing to require 

that the owner or operator of an ocean 

vessel used to export livestock from the 

United States, including vessels that use 

shipping containers, submit a written 

report to APHIS within 5 business days 

after completing the voyage. This report 

would include the name of the ocean 

vessel, the name and address of all 

exporters of livestock transported on the 

vessel, the port of embarkation, the 

dates of the voyage, the port where the 

livestock were discharged, the number 

of each species of livestock loaded, and 

the number of each species that died 

and an explanation for those mortalities. 

Additionally, the report would have to 

document any failure of any major life 

support system for the livestock, 

including, but not limited to, systems 

for providing feed and water, ventilation 

systems, and livestock waste 

management systems. Any such failure 

would have to be documented, 

regardless of the duration or whether 

the failure resulted in any harm to the 

livestock. Additionally, if an ocean 

vessel used to export livestock 

experiences such a failure of a major life 

support system for livestock during the 

voyage, we propose to require that the 

owner or operator of the vessel would 

have to notify APHIS immediately by 

telephone, facsimile, or other electronic 

means. Contact numbers and addresses 

would be provided in the Program 

Handbook. 

The report itself would have to 

include the name and contact 

information of the person who prepared 

the report, and would have to be 

submitted to APHIS by facsimile or 

email. Contact numbers and addresses 

for the report itself, as well as an 

optional template for the report, would 

also be provided in the Program 

Handbook. 

There currently are no requirements 

for owners or operators of ocean vessels 

to report livestock deaths or serious 

system failures on ocean vessels that 

could affect the health of any livestock 

transported. Having this information 

would allow APHIS to better determine 

whether a particular vessel meets our 

performance standards or whether any 

of our guidance for meeting 

performance standards should be 

adjusted. Requiring that APHIS be 

notified immediately of any major 

system failures would alert APHIS to 

the potential need for additional food or 

other resources for the livestock, or a 

potential stop at another port. 

APHIS would also be able to notify 

animal health officials in the importing 

country about any expected delays or 

animal health issues they may have to 

deal with as a result of system failures, 

including mortalities. In the absence of 

these requirements, APHIS may not 

learn of problems affecting animals 

during a voyage until those problems 

are reported by animal health officials 

in the importing country, or may have 

to scramble to make last minute 

arrangements in the event of a problem. 

We propose that failure to provide 

timely reports as required could result 

in us disapproving future livestock 

shipments by the owner or operator or 

revoking the vessel’s certification to 

transport livestock for export. 

Aircraft (§ 91.13) 

We are proposing to substantially 

retain the requirements in current 

§ 91.41 for cleaning and disinfection of 

aircraft. We are, however, proposing to 

remove specific approved disinfectants 

from the regulations, and instead, to list 

approved disinfectants in the Program 

Handbook. The requirements for 

cleaning and disinfection of aircraft are 

in paragraphs (a) through (d) of 

proposed § 91.13. 

Proposed paragraph (a)(1) of § 91.13 

provides that the Administrator will 

approve a disinfectant for the purposes 

of that section upon determining that 

the disinfectant is effective against 

pathogens that may be spread by the 

animals and, if the disinfectant is a 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10410 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

chemical disinfectant, that it is 

registered or exempted for the specified 

use by the EPA. Proposed paragraph 

(a)(2) of § 91.13 states that the Program 

Handbook provides access to a list of 

approved disinfectants, and contains 

provisions for approving additional 

disinfectants. Proposed paragraph (a)(3) 

of § 91.13 contains provisions for 

withdrawing approval. 

Proposed paragraphs (b) through (d) 

would retain, with non-substantive 

editorial revisions, the other existing 

requirements in the regulations 

governing cleaning and disinfection of 

aircraft. 

Finally, we are also proposing two 

new requirements for livestock exported 

from the United States via aircraft, 

which would be contained in paragraph 

(e) of § 91.13. We are proposing that any 

cargo containers used to ship the 

livestock would have to be designed and 

constructed of a material of sufficient 

strength to securely contain the animals, 

as determined by APHIS. We are doing 

so because, in the absence of such 

requirements, exporters have sometimes 

constructed containers out of materials, 

such as plywood, that are not adequate 

to prevent the livestock from escaping 

during transit. We are also proposing 

that the containers must provide 

sufficient space for the species being 

transported given the duration of the 

trip, as determined by APHIS, in order 

to prevent overcrowding of animals. 

Other Movements and Conditions 

(§ 91.14) 

Finally, we propose to retain the 

provision in current § 91.4 by which the 

Administrator may, upon request in 

specific cases, permit the export of 

livestock not otherwise provided for in 

part 91 under such conditions as the 

Administrator may prescribe in each 

specific case to prevent the spread of 

livestock diseases and to ensure the 

humane treatment of the animals during 

transport to the importing country. This 

flexibility ensures that the 

Administrator can make appropriate 

exceptions in unforeseen or unusual 

situations. 

Executive Order 12866 and Regulatory 

Flexibility Act 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12866. The 

proposed rule has been determined to 

be not significant for the purposes of 

Executive Order 12866 and, therefore, 

has not been reviewed by the Office of 

Management and Budget. 

In accordance with 5 U.S.C. 603, we 

have performed an initial regulatory 

flexibility analysis, which is 

summarized below, regarding the 

economic effects of this proposed rule 

on small entities. Copies of the full 

analysis are available by contacting the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT or on the 

Regulations.gov Web site (see 

ADDRESSES above for instructions for 

accessing Regulations.gov). 

Based on the information we have, 

there is no reason to conclude that 

adoption of this proposed rule would 

result in any significant economic effect 

on a substantial number of small 

entities. However, we do not currently 

have all of the data necessary for a 

comprehensive analysis of the effects of 

this proposed rule on small entities. 

Therefore, we are inviting comments on 

potential effects. In particular, we are 

interested in determining the number 

and kind of small entities that may 

incur benefits or costs from the 

implementation of this proposed rule. 

This proposed rule would amend 9 

CFR part 91, which contains 

requirements for the inspection and 

handling of live animals (cattle, horses, 

captive cervids, sheep, goats, and swine) 

to be exported from the United States. 

Among other things, the proposed rule 

would remove some prescriptive 

requirements applicable to livestock, 

either completely or by replacing them 

with performance standards, and would 

make other adjustments in inspection 

and handling requirements to assist 

exporters. These changes would provide 

APHIS and exporters more flexibility in 

arranging for the export of livestock 

from the United States while continuing 

to ensure the animals’ health and 

welfare. 

The proposed rule would also add 

requirements for individual 

identification of livestock intended for 

export, use of methods and laboratories 

approved by APHIS when livestock 

must be tested for certain diseases, and 

obtaining export health certificates for 

non-livestock animals, hatching eggs, 

and animal germplasm when such 

certificates are required by the 

importing country. These changes 

would help ensure that all live animals, 

hatching eggs, and animal germplasm 

exported from the United States meet 

the health requirements of the countries 

to which they are destined. 

Entities directly affected by this rule 

would include exporters of live animals, 

hatching eggs, and animal germplasm. 

While we do not know the size 

distribution of these exporters, we 

expect that the majority are small by 

Small Business Administration 

standards, given the prevalence of small 

entities among livestock producers. 

Operators of export inspection facilities, 

export isolation facilities, aircraft, and 

ocean vessels would also be directly 

affected. These industries are also 

largely composed of small businesses. 

The provisions of the proposed rule 

would facilitate the export process for 

affected parties. 

Executive Order 12372 

This program/activity is listed in the 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

under No. 10.025 and is subject to 

Executive Order 12372, which requires 

intergovernmental consultation with 

State and local officials. (See 7 CFR part 

3015, subpart V.) 

Executive Order 12988 

This proposed rule has been reviewed 

under Executive Order 12988, Civil 

Justice Reform. If this proposed rule is 

adopted: (1) All State and local laws and 

regulations that are inconsistent with 

this rule will be preempted; (2) no 

retroactive effect will be given to this 

rule; and (3) administrative proceedings 

will not be required before parties may 

file suit in court challenging this rule. 

Paperwork Reduction Act 

In accordance with section 3507(d) of 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.), the information 

collection or recordkeeping 

requirements included in this proposed 

rule have been submitted for approval to 

the Office of Management and Budget 

(OMB). Please send written comments 

to the Office of Information and 

Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: 

Desk Officer for APHIS, Washington, DC 

20503. Please state that your comments 

refer to Docket No. APHIS–2012–0049. 

Please send a copy of your comments to: 

(1) APHIS, using one of the methods 

described under ADDRESSES at the 

beginning of this document, and (2) 

Clearance Officer, OCIO, USDA, Room 

404–W, 14th Street and Independence 

Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20250. A 

comment to OMB is best assured of 

having its full effect if OMB receives it 

within 30 days of publication of this 

proposed rule. 

Revising our regulations governing 

the export of live animals from the 

United States will require information 

collection activities, including the 

issuance of export health certificates, 

official identification of exported 

animals, and reports filed by the owners 

or operators of ocean vessels that export 

livestock. 

We are soliciting comments from the 

public (as well as affected agencies) 

concerning our proposed information 

collection and recordkeeping 

requirements. These comments will 

help us: 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10411 

(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 reporting 

burden for this collection of information 

is estimated to average 0.54 hours per 

response. 

Respondents: Veterinarians, 

exporters, owners, owners/operators of 

ocean vessels. 

Estimated annual number of 

respondents: 10,183. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses per respondent: 2.91. 

Estimated annual number of 

responses: 29,614. 

Estimated total annual burden on 

respondents: 15,950 hours. (Due to 

averaging, the total annual burden hours 

may not equal the product of the annual 

number of responses multiplied by the 

reporting burden per response.) 

Copies of this information collection 

can be obtained from Ms. Kimberly 

Hardy, APHIS’ Information Collection 

Coordinator, at (301) 851–2727. 

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. For information pertinent to 

E-Government Act compliance related 

to this proposed rule, please contact Ms. 

Kimberly Hardy, APHIS’ Information 

Collection Coordinator, at (301) 851– 

2727. 

List of Subjects in 9 CFR Part 91 

Animal diseases, Animal welfare, 

Exports, Livestock, Reporting and 

recordkeeping requirements, 

Transportation. 

Accordingly, we propose to revise 9 

CFR part 91 to read as follows: 

PART 91—EXPORTATION OF LIVE 

ANIMALS, HATCHING EGGS OR 

OTHER EMBRYONATED EGGS, 

ANIMAL SEMEN, ANIMAL EMBRYOS, 

AND GAMETES FROM THE UNITED 

STATES 

Subpart A—General Provisions 

Sec. 

91.1 Definitions. 

91.2 Applicability. 

91.3 General requirements. 

91.4 Prohibited exports. 

Subpart B—Livestock 

91.5 Identification of livestock intended for 

export. 

91.6 Cleaning and disinfection of means of 

conveyance, containers, and facilities 

used during movement; approved 

disinfectants. 

91.7 Pre-export inspection. 

91.8 Rest, feed, and water prior to export. 

91.9 Ports. 

91.10 Export inspection facilities. 

91.11 Export isolation facilities. 

91.12 Ocean vessels. 

91.13 Aircraft. 

91.14 Other movements and conditions. 

Authority: 7 U.S.C. 8301–8317; 19 U.S.C. 

1644a(c); 21 U.S.C. 136, 136a, and 618; 46 

U.S.C. 3901 and 3902; 7 CFR 2.22, 2.80, and 

371.4. 

Subpart A—General Provisions 

§ 91.1 Definitions. 

As used in this part, the following 

terms will have the meanings set forth 

in this section: 

Accredited veterinarian. A 

veterinarian approved by the 

Administrator in accordance with part 

161 of this chapter to perform functions 

specified in parts 1, 2, 3, and 11 of 

subchapter A, and subchapters B, C, and 

D of this chapter, and to perform 

functions required by cooperative StateFederal disease control and eradication 

programs. 

Administrator. The Administrator, 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service, or any person authorized to act 

for the Administrator. 

Animal. Any member of the animal 

kingdom (except a human). 

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service (APHIS). The Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service of the United 

States Department of Agriculture. 

APHIS representative. An individual 

who is authorized by APHIS to perform 

the function involved. 

Date of export. The date animals 

intended for export are loaded onto an 

ocean vessel or aircraft or, if moved by 

land to Canada or Mexico, the date the 

animals cross the border. 

Export health certificate. An official 

document issued in the United States 

that certifies that animals or other 

commodities listed on the certificate 

meet the export requirements of this 

part and the importing country. 

Export inspection facility. A facility 

that is affiliated with a port of 

embarkation and that has been approved 

by the Administrator as the location 

where APHIS will conduct health 

inspections of livestock before they are 

loaded onto ocean vessels or aircraft for 

export from the United States. 

Export isolation facility. A facility 

where animals intended for export are 

isolated from other animals for a period 

of time immediately before being moved 

for export. 

Horses. Horses, mules, and asses. 

Inspector. An individual authorized 

by APHIS to inspect animals and/or 

animal products intended for export 

from the United States. 

Livestock. Horses, cattle (including 

American bison), captive cervids, sheep, 

swine, and goats, regardless of intended 

use. 

Premises of export. The premises 

where the animals intended for export 

are isolated as required by the importing 

country prior to export or, if the 

importing country does not require preexport isolation, the farm or other 

premises where the animals are 

assembled for pre-export inspection 

and/or testing, or the germplasm is 

collected or stored, before being moved 

to a port of embarkation or land border 

port. 

Program diseases. Diseases for which 

there are cooperative State-Federal 

programs and domestic regulations in 

subchapter C of this chapter. 

Program Handbook. A document that 

contains guidance and other 

information related to the regulations in 

this part. The Program Handbook is 

available on APHIS’ import-export Web 

site (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_

export/index.shtml). 

State of origin. The State in which the 

premises of export is located. 

§ 91.2 Applicability. 

You may not export any animal or 

animal germplasm from the United 

States except in compliance with this 

part. 

§ 91.3 General requirements. 

(a) Issuance of export health 

certificates. (1) Livestock must have an 

export health certificate in order to be 

eligible for export from the United 

States. 

(2) If an importing country is known 

to require an export health certificate for 

any animal other than livestock or for 

any animal semen, animal embryos, 

hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, 

or gametes intended for export to that 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10412 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

country, the animal or other commodity 

must have an export health certificate in 

order to be eligible for export from the 

United States. 

(b) Content of export health 

certificates. (1) Livestock; minimum 

requirements. Regardless of the 

requirements of the importing country, 

at a minimum, the following 

information must be contained on an 

export health certificate for livestock: 

(i) The species of each animal. 

(ii) The breed of each animal. 

(iii) The sex of each animal. 

(iv) The age of each animal. 

(v) The individual identification of 

the animals as required by § 91.5. 

(vi) The importing country. 

(vii) The consignor. 

(viii) The consignee. 

(ix) A certification that an accredited 

veterinarian inspected the livestock and 

found them to be fit for export. 

(x) A signature and date by an 

accredited veterinarian. 

(xi) An endorsement by the APHIS 

veterinarian responsible for the State of 

origin. 

(2) Livestock; additional 

requirements. In addition to the 

minimum requirements in paragraph 

(b)(1) of this section, the export health 

certificate must meet any other 

information or issuance requirements 

specified by the importing country. 

(3) Animals other than livestock, 

animal semen, animal embryos, 

hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, 

and gametes. Export health certificates 

for animals other than livestock, animal 

semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, 

other embryonated eggs, and gametes 

must meet any information 

requirements specified by the importing 

country. 

(c) Inspection requirements for 

livestock. In order to be eligible for 

export, livestock must be inspected 

within the timeframe required by the 

importing country. If the importing 

country does not specify a timeframe, 

the livestock must be inspected within 

30 days prior to the date of export. 

(d) Testing requirements for livestock. 

All samples for tests of livestock that are 

required by the importing country must 

be taken by an APHIS representative or 

accredited veterinarian. The samples 

must be taken and tests made within the 

timeframe allowed by the importing 

country and, if specified, at the location 

required by the importing country. If the 

importing country does not specify a 

timeframe, the samples must be taken 

and tests made within 30 days prior to 

the date of export, except that 

tuberculin tests may be conducted 

within 90 days prior to the date of 

export. All tests for program diseases 

must be made in laboratories and using 

methods approved by the Administrator 

for those diseases. The Program 

Handbook contains a link to an APHIS 

Web site that lists laboratories approved 

to conduct tests for specific diseases. 

Approved methods are those specified 

or otherwise incorporated within the 

domestic regulations in subchapter C of 

this chapter. 

(e) Movement of livestock, animals 

other than livestock, animal semen, 

animal embryos, hatching eggs, other 

embryonated eggs, or gametes with an 

export health certificate. (1) Livestock. 

An export health certificate for livestock 

must be issued and endorsed before the 

livestock move from the premises of 

export. The original signed export 

health certificate must accompany the 

livestock for the entire duration of 

movement from the premises of export 

to the port of embarkation or land 

border port, except when the export 

health certificate has been issued and 

endorsed electronically. 

(2) Animals other than livestock, 

animal semen, animal embryos, 

hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, 

and gametes. When an export health 

certificate is required by the importing 

country for any animal other than 

livestock or for animal semen, animal 

embryos, hatching eggs, other 

embryonated eggs, or gametes, it must 

be issued and, if required by the 

importing country, endorsed by an 

APHIS representative prior to the arrival 

of the animal or other commodity at the 

port of embarkation or land border port. 

When presented for endorsement, the 

health certificate must be accompanied 

by reports for all laboratory tests 

specifically identified on the certificate. 

The laboratory reports must either be 

the originals prepared by the laboratory 

that performed the tests or must be 

annotated by the laboratory that 

performed the test to indicate how the 

originals may be obtained. Except when 

an export health certificate has been 

issued and endorsed electronically, the 

original signed export health certificate 

must accompany the animals, animal 

semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, 

other embryonated eggs, or gametes to 

the port of embarkation or land border 

port. 

(f) Validity of export health certificate. 

(1) Livestock. Unless specified by the 

importing country, the export health 

certificate is valid for 30 days from the 

date of issuance, provided that the 

inspection and test results under 

paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section are 

still valid. 

(2) Animals other than livestock, 

animal semen, animal embryos, 

hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, 

and gametes. Unless specified by the 

importing country, the export health 

certificate is valid for 30 days from the 

date of issuance. 

§ 91.4 Prohibited exports. 

No animal, animal semen, animal 

embryos, hatching eggs, other 

embryonated eggs, or gametes under 

Federal, State, or local government 

quarantine or movement restrictions for 

animal health reasons may be exported 

from the United States unless the 

importing country issues an import 

permit or other written instruction 

allowing entry of the animal, animal 

semen, animal embryos, hatching eggs, 

other embryonated eggs, or gametes, and 

APHIS concurs with the export of the 

animal, animal semen, animal embryos, 

hatching eggs, other embryonated eggs, 

or gametes. 

Subpart B—Livestock 

§ 91.5 Identification of livestock intended 

for export. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, livestock that are 

intended for export must be identified 

in accordance with part 86 of this 

chapter. If the importing country 

requires an additional form of 

identification, the livestock must also 

bear that form of identification. 

(b) Horses may be identified by an 

individual animal tattoo alone, without 

an accompanying description of the 

horse, if allowed by the importing 

country. 

§ 91.6 Cleaning and disinfection of means 

of conveyance, containers, and facilities 

used during movement; approved 

disinfectants. 

(a) All export health certificates for 

livestock must be accompanied by a 

statement issued by an APHIS 

representative and/or accredited 

veterinarian that the means of 

conveyance or container in which the 

livestock will be transported from the 

premises of export has been cleaned and 

disinfected prior to loading the livestock 

with a disinfectant approved by the 

Administrator for purposes of this 

section or by a statement that the means 

of conveyance or container was not 

previously used to transport animals. 

(b) Livestock moved for export may be 

unloaded only into a facility which has 

been cleaned and disinfected in the 

presence of an APHIS representative or 

an accredited veterinarian prior to such 

unloading with a disinfectant approved 

by the Administrator for purposes of 

this section. A statement certifying to 

such action must be attached to the 

export health certificate by the APHIS 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10413 

representative or accredited 

veterinarian. 

(c) Approved disinfectants. The 

Administrator will approve a 

disinfectant for the purposes of this 

section upon determining that the 

disinfectant is effective against 

pathogens that may be spread by the 

animals intended for export and, if the 

disinfectant is a chemical disinfectant, 

that it is registered or exempted for the 

specified use by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. The Program 

Handbook provides access to a list of 

disinfectants approved by the 

Administrator for use as required by this 

section. Other disinfectants may also be 

approved by the Administrator in 

accordance with this paragraph. The 

Administrator will withdraw approval 

of a disinfectant, and remove it from the 

list of approved disinfectants, if the 

disinfectant no longer meets the 

conditions for approval in this section. 

§ 91.7 Pre-export inspection. 

(a) All livestock intended for export 

by air or sea must receive a visual health 

inspection from an APHIS veterinarian 

within 48 hours prior to embarkation, 

unless the importing country specifies 

otherwise. The purpose of the 

inspection is to determine whether the 

livestock are sound, healthy, and fit to 

travel. The APHIS veterinarian will 

reject for export any livestock that he or 

she finds unfit to travel. The owner of 

the animals or the owner’s agent must 

make arrangements for any livestock 

found unfit to travel. Livestock that are 

unfit to travel include, but are not 

limited to: 

(1) Livestock that are sick, injured, 

weak, disabled, or fatigued; 

(2) Livestock that are unable to stand 

unaided or bear weight on each leg; 

(3) Livestock that are blind in both 

eyes; 

(4) Livestock that cannot be moved 

without causing additional suffering; 

(5) Newborn livestock with an 

unhealed navel; 

(6) Livestock that have given birth 

within the previous 48 hours and are 

traveling without their offspring; 

(7) Pregnant livestock that would be 

in the final 10 percent of their gestation 

period at the planned time of unloading 

in the importing country; and 

(8) Livestock with unhealed wounds 

from recent surgical procedures, such as 

dehorning. 

(b) The APHIS veterinarian must 

conduct the inspection at the export 

inspection facility associated with the 

port of embarkation of the livestock; at 

an export isolation facility approved in 

accordance with § 91.11, when 

authorized by the Administrator in 

accordance with paragraph (c) of this 

section; or at an export inspection 

facility other than the facility associated 

with the port of embarkation, when 

authorized by the Administrator in 

accordance with paragraph (d) of this 

section. Unless APHIS has authorized 

otherwise, any sorting, grouping, 

identification, or other handling of the 

livestock by the exporter must be done 

before this inspection. The APHIS 

veterinarian may also conduct clinical 

examination of any livestock during or 

after this inspection if he or she deems 

it necessary in order to determine the 

animal’s health. Any testing or 

treatment related to this clinical 

examination must be performed by an 

APHIS veterinarian or an accredited 

veterinarian. Finally, if the facility used 

to conduct the inspection is a facility 

other than the export inspection facility 

associated with the port of embarkation, 

it must be located within 28 hours 

driving distance under normal driving 

conditions from the port of embarkation, 

and livestock must be afforded at least 

48 hours rest, with sufficient feed and 

water during that time period, prior to 

movement from the facility. 

(c) Conditions for approval of preexport inspection at an export isolation 

facility. 

(1) The Administrator may allow preexport inspection of livestock to be 

conducted at an export isolation facility, 

rather than at an export inspection 

facility, when the exporter can show to 

the satisfaction of the Administrator that 

the livestock would suffer undue 

hardship if they had to be inspected at 

the export inspection facility, when the 

distance from the export isolation 

facility to the port of embarkation is 

significantly less than the distance from 

the export isolation facility to the export 

inspection facility associated with the 

port of embarkation, when inspection at 

the export isolation facility would be a 

more efficient use of APHIS resources, 

or for other reasons acceptable to the 

Administrator. 

(2) The Administrator’s approval is 

contingent upon APHIS having 

personnel available to provide services 

at that location. Approval is also 

contingent upon the Administrator 

determining that the facility has space, 

lighting, and humane means of handling 

livestock sufficient for the APHIS 

personnel to safely conduct required 

inspections. The Program Handbook 

contains guidance on ways to meet 

these requirements. Owners and 

operators may submit alternative plans 

for meeting the requirements to APHIS 

for evaluation and approval. 

Alternatives must be at least as effective 

in meeting the requirements as those 

described in the Program Handbook in 

order to be approved. Alternate plans 

must be approved by APHIS before the 

facility may be used for purposes of this 

section. 

(d) The Administrator may allow preexport inspection of livestock to be 

conducted at an export inspection 

facility other than the export inspection 

facility associated with the port of 

embarkation when the exporter can 

show to the satisfaction of the 

Administrator that the livestock would 

suffer undue hardship if they had to be 

inspected at the export inspection 

facility associated with the port of 

embarkation, when inspection at this 

different export inspection facility 

would be a more efficient use of APHIS 

resources, or for other reasons 

acceptable to the Administrator. 

(e) The APHIS veterinarian will 

maintain an inspection record that 

includes the date and place of the preexport inspection, species and number 

of animals inspected, the number of 

animals rejected, a description of those 

animals, and the reasons for rejection. 

(f) If requested by the importing 

country or an exporter, the APHIS 

veterinarian who inspects the livestock 

will issue a certificate of inspection for 

livestock he or she finds to be sound, 

healthy, and fit to travel. 

§ 91.8 Rest, feed, and water prior to 

export. 

All livestock intended for export by 

air or sea must be allowed a period of 

at least 2 hours rest prior to being 

loaded onto an ocean vessel or aircraft 

for export. Adequate food and water 

must be available to the livestock during 

the rest period. An inspector may 

extend the required rest period up to 5 

hours, at his or her discretion and based 

on a determination that more rest is 

needed in order for the inspector to 

have assurances that the animals are fit 

to travel prior to loading. Finally, if 

livestock have been inspected for export 

at a facility other than the export 

inspection facility associated with the 

port of embarkation, they must be 

visually observed at the end of this rest 

period for fitness to travel. 

§ 91.9 Ports. 

(a) Except as provided in paragraph 

(b) of this section, livestock exported by 

air or sea may be exported only through 

ports designated as ports of embarkation 

by the Administrator. Any port that has 

an export inspection facility that meets 

the requirements of § 91.10 permanently 

associated with it is designated as a port 

of embarkation. The Program Handbook 

contains a list of designated ports of 

embarkation. A list may also be 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10414 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

obtained from a Veterinary Services area 

office. Information on area offices is 

available on APHIS’ import-export Web 

site (http://www.aphis.usda.gov/import_

export/index.shtml). 

(b) The Administrator may approve 

other ports for the exportation of 

livestock on a temporary basis with the 

concurrence of the port director. The 

Administrator will grant such temporary 

approvals only for a specific shipment 

of livestock, and only if pre-export 

inspection of that shipment has 

occurred at an export isolation facility 

or an export inspection facility not 

associated with the port of embarkation, 

as provided in § 91.7. 

(c) Temporarily approved ports of 

embarkation will not be added to the list 

of designated ports of embarkation and 

are only approved for the time period 

and shipment conditions specified by 

APHIS at the time of approval. 

§ 91.10 Export inspection facilities. 

(a) Export inspection facilities must 

be approved by the Administrator before 

they may be used for any livestock 

intended for export. The Administrator 

will approve an export inspection 

facility upon determining that it meets 

the requirements in paragraph (b) of this 

section. This approval remains in effect 

unless it is revoked in accordance with 

paragraph (c) of this section, or unless 

any of the following occur, in which 

case reapproval must be sought: 

(1) The owner of the facility changes. 

(2) Significant damage to the facility 

occurs or significant structural changes 

are made to the facility. 

(b)(1) Export inspection facilities must 

be constructed, equipped, and managed 

in a manner that prevents transmission 

of disease to and from livestock in the 

facilities, provides for the safe and 

humane handling and restraint of 

livestock, and provides sufficient 

offices, space, and lighting for APHIS 

veterinarians to safely conduct required 

health inspections of livestock and 

related business. The Program 

Handbook contains guidance on ways to 

meet these requirements. Owners and 

operators may submit alternative plans 

for meeting the requirements to APHIS 

for evaluation and approval; the address 

to which to submit such alternatives is 

contained in the Program Handbook. 

Alternatives must be at least as effective 

in meeting the requirements as the 

methods described in the Program 

Handbook in order to be approved. 

Alternatives must be approved by 

APHIS before being used for purposes of 

this section. 

(2) For the purposes of approval or a 

subsequent audit, APHIS 

representatives must have access to all 

areas of the facility during the facility’s 

business hours to evaluate compliance 

with the requirements of this section. 

(3) The application for approval of an 

export inspection facility must be 

accompanied by a certification from the 

authorities having jurisdiction over 

environmental affairs in the locality of 

the facility. The certification must state 

that the facility complies with any 

applicable requirements of the State and 

local governments, and the U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency 

regarding disposal of animal wastes. 

(c) The Administrator will deny or 

revoke approval of an export inspection 

facility for failure to meet the 

requirements in paragraph (b) of this 

section. 

(1) APHIS will conduct site 

inspections of approved export 

inspection facilities at least once a year 

for continued compliance with the 

standards. If a facility fails to pass the 

inspection, the Administrator may 

revoke its approval. If the Administrator 

revokes approval for a facility that 

serves a designated port of embarkation, 

the Administrator may also remove that 

port from the list of designated ports of 

embarkation. 

(2) APHIS will provide written notice 

of any proposed denial or revocation to 

the operator of the facility, who will be 

given an opportunity to present his or 

her views on the issues before a final 

decision is made. The notice will list 

any deficiencies in detail. APHIS will 

provide notice of pending revocations at 

least 60 days before the revocation is 

scheduled to take effect, but may 

suspend facility operations before that 

date and before any consideration of 

objections by the facility operator if the 

Administrator determines the 

suspension is necessary to protect 

animal health or public health, interest, 

or safety. The operator of any facility 

whose approval is denied or revoked 

may request another inspection after 

remedying the deficiencies. 

§ 91.11 Export isolation facilities. 

(a) If an importing country requires 

livestock to undergo pre-export isolation 

approved by the U.S. Department of 

Agriculture, APHIS must approve the 

export isolation facility to be used for 

the livestock prior to each isolation. 

APHIS will approve a facility only if the 

Administrator determines, upon APHIS 

inspection of the facility, that the 

facility meets standards identified by 

the importing country. If the importing 

country does not identify specific 

standards, APHIS will approve the 

export isolation facility only if the 

Administrator determines, upon APHIS 

inspection of the facility, that the 

facility has adequate measures in place 

to protect the livestock at the facility 

from exposure to animals of different 

health status and fomites in order to 

prevent transmission of diseases of 

livestock during the isolation period. 

The Program Handbook contains 

guidance on measures acceptable to 

APHIS. Owners and operators may 

submit alternative measures to APHIS 

for evaluation and approval; the address 

to which to submit such an alternative 

is contained in the Program Handbook. 

Alternatives must be at least as effective 

in meeting the requirement as those 

described in the Program Handbook in 

order to be approved. Alternatives must 

be approved by APHIS before being 

used for purposes of this section. 

(b) Isolation must be under the 

supervision of an accredited 

veterinarian or, if requested by the 

importing country, by an APHIS 

veterinarian. 

§ 91.12 Ocean vessels. 

(a) Inspection of the ocean vessel. (1) 

Certification to carry livestock. Ocean 

vessels must be certified by APHIS prior 

to initial use to transport any livestock 

from the United States. The owner or 

the operator of the ocean vessel must 

make arrangements prior to the vessel’s 

arrival at a designated port of 

embarkation in the United States for an 

APHIS representative to inspect the 

vessel while it is at that port of 

embarkation. Alternatively, at the 

discretion of the Administrator and 

upon request of the exporter, 

transporting company, or their agent, 

the inspection may be done at a foreign 

port. If APHIS determines that the ocean 

vessel meets the requirements of 

paragraph (d) of this section, APHIS will 

certify the vessel to transport livestock 

from the United States. APHIS may 

certify a vessel that does not meet all of 

the requirements in paragraph (d), 

provided that an exemption from the 

requirements the vessel does not meet 

has been granted to the vessel pursuant 

to paragraph (e) of this section. The 

certification will specify the species of 

livestock for which the vessel is 

approved. The certification will be valid 

for up to 3 years; however, the ocean 

vessel must be recertified prior to 

transporting livestock any time 

significant changes are made to the 

vessel, including to livestock transport 

spaces or life support systems; any time 

a major life support system fails; any 

time species of livestock not covered by 

the existing certification are to be 

transported; and any time the owner or 

operator of the ocean vessel changes. 

The owner or operator of the vessel 

must present the following 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10415 

documentation to APHIS prior to its 

initial inspection for certification and 

when requested by APHIS prior to 

subsequent inspections for 

recertification: 

(i) General information about the 

vessel, including year built, length and 

breadth, vessel name history, port of 

registry, call sign, maximum and 

average speed, fresh water tank capacity 

and fresh water generation rate, and 

feed silo capacity (if the vessel has a 

silo); 

(ii) A notarized statement from an 

engineer concerning the rate of air 

exchange in each compartment of the 

vessel; 

(iii) The species of livestock that the 

vessel would transport; 

(iv) Scale drawings that provide 

details of the design, materials, and 

methods of construction and 

arrangement of fittings for the 

containment and movement of 

livestock; provisions for the storage and 

distribution of feed and water; drainage 

arrangements; primary and secondary 

sources of power; and lighting; 

(v) A photograph of the rails and gates 

of any pens; 

(vi) A description of the flooring 

surface on the livestock decks; and 

(vii) The following measurements: 

Width of the ramps; the clear height 

from the ramps to the lowest overhead 

structures; the incline between the 

ramps and the horizontal plane; the 

distance between footlocks on the 

ramps; the height of side fencing on the 

ramps; the height of the vessel’s side 

doors through which livestock are 

loaded; the width of alleyways running 

fore and aft between livestock pens; and 

the distance from the floor of the 

livestock pens to the beams or lowest 

structures overhead. 

(2) Prior to each voyage. Prior to 

loading any livestock intended for 

export from the United States, an APHIS 

representative must inspect the vessel to 

confirm that the ocean vessel has been 

adequately cleaned and disinfected as 

required by paragraph (b) of this section, 

has sufficient food and water for the 

voyage as required by paragraph (c) of 

this section, and continues to meet the 

requirements of paragraph (d) of this 

section. APHIS will schedule the 

inspection after the owner or operator of 

the ocean vessel provides the following 

information: 

(i) The name of the ocean vessel; 

(ii) The port, date, and time the ocean 

vessel will be available for inspection, 

and estimated time that loading will 

begin; 

(iii) A description of the livestock to 

be transported, including the type, 

number, and estimated average weight 

of the livestock; 

(iv) Stability data for the ocean vessel 

with livestock on board; 

(v) The port of discharge; and 

(vi) The route and expected length of 

the voyage. 

(3) The information in paragraphs 

(a)(2)(i) through (a)(2)(vi) must be 

provided at least 72 hours before the 

vessel will be available for inspection. 

(b) Cleaning and disinfection. (1) Any 

ocean vessel intended for use in 

exporting livestock, and all fittings, 

utensils, containers, and equipment 

(unless new) used for loading, stowing, 

or other handling of livestock aboard the 

vessel must be thoroughly cleaned and 

disinfected to the satisfaction of an 

APHIS representative prior to any 

livestock being loaded. The disinfectant 

must be approved by the Administrator. 

Guidance on cleaning and disinfecting 

ocean vessels may be found in the 

Program Handbook. 

(2) The Administrator will approve a 

disinfectant for the purposes of this 

paragraph upon determining that the 

disinfectant is effective against 

pathogens that may be spread by the 

animals and, if the disinfectant is a 

chemical disinfectant, that it is 

registered or exempted for the specified 

use by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. The Program 

Handbook provides access to a list of 

disinfectants approved by the 

Administrator. Other disinfectants may 

also be approved by the Administrator 

in accordance with this paragraph. The 

Administrator will withdraw approval 

of a disinfectant, and remove it from the 

list of approved disinfectants in the 

Program Handbook, if the disinfectant 

no longer meets the conditions for 

approval in this section. 

(3) All ocean vessels, upon docking at 

a U.S. port to load livestock, must have 

disinfectant foot baths at entryways 

where persons board and exit the ocean 

vessel, and require such baths before 

allowing any person to disembark. 

(c) Feed and water. Sufficient feed 

and water must be provided to livestock 

aboard the ocean vessel, taking into 

consideration the livestock’s species, 

body weight, the expected duration of 

the voyage, and the likelihood of 

adverse climatic conditions during 

transport. Guidance on this requirement 

may be found in the Program Handbook. 

(d) Accommodations for the humane 

transport of livestock; general 

requirements. Ocean vessels used to 

transport livestock intended for export 

must be designed, constructed, and 

managed to reasonably assure the 

livestock are protected from injury and 

remain healthy during loading and 

transport to the importing country. 

Except as provided below in paragraph 

(e) of this section, no livestock may be 

loaded onto an ocean vessel unless, in 

the opinion of an APHIS representative, 

the ocean vessel meets the requirements 

of this section. The Program Handbook 

contains guidance on ways to meet the 

requirements. Owners and operators 

may submit alternative means and 

methods for meeting the requirements to 

APHIS for evaluation and approval. 

Alternatives must be at least as effective 

in meeting the requirements as those 

described in the Program Handbook in 

order to be approved. Alternatives must 

be approved by APHIS before being 

used for purposes of this section. 

(1) Pens. All pens, including gates and 

portable rails used to close access ways, 

must be designed and constructed of 

material of sufficient strength to 

securely contain the livestock. They 

must be properly formed, closely fitted, 

and rigidly secured in place. They must 

have smooth finished surfaces free from 

sharp protrusions. They must not have 

worn, decayed, unsound, or otherwise 

defective parts. Flooring must be strong 

enough to support the livestock to be 

transported and provide a satisfactory 

non-slip foothold. Pens on exposed 

upper decks must protect the livestock 

from the weather. Pens next to engine or 

boiler rooms or similar sources of heat 

must be fitted to protect the livestock 

from injury due to transfer of heat to the 

livestock or livestock transport spaces. 

Any fittings or protrusions from the 

vessel’s sides that abut pens must be 

covered to protect the livestock from 

injury. Pens must be of appropriate size 

for the species, size, weight, and 

condition of the livestock being 

transported and take into consideration 

the vessel’s route. 

(2) Positioning. Livestock must be 

positioned during transport so that an 

animal handler or other responsible 

person can observe each animal 

regularly and clearly to ensure the 

livestock’s safety and welfare. 

(3) Resources for sick or injured 

animals. The vessel must have an 

adequate number of appropriately sized 

and located pens set aside to segregate 

livestock that become sick or injured 

from other animals. It must also have 

adequate veterinary medical supplies, 

including medicines, for the species, 

condition, and number of livestock 

transported. 

(4) Ramps, doors, and passageways. 

Ramps, doors, and passageways used for 

livestock must be of sufficient width 

and height for their use and allow the 

safe passage of the species transported. 

They must have secure, smooth fittings 

free from sharp protrusions and non-slip 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
10416 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 

flooring, and must not have worn, 

decayed, unsound, or otherwise 

defective parts. Ramps must not have an 

incline that is excessive for the species 

of livestock transported and must be 

fitted with foot battens to prevent 

slippage at intervals suitable for the 

species. The sides of ramps must be of 

sufficient height and strength to prevent 

escape of the species of livestock 

transported. 

(5) Feed and water. The feeding and 

watering system must be designed to 

permit all livestock in each pen 

adequate access to feed and water. The 

system must also be designed to 

minimize soiling of pens and to prevent 

animal waste from contaminating feed 

and water. Similarly, feed must be 

loaded and stored aboard the vessel in 

a manner that protects it from weather 

and sea water and, if kept under animal 

transport spaces, protects it from 

spillage from animal watering and 

feeding and from animal waste. If the 

normal means of tending, feeding, and 

watering of livestock on board the ocean 

vessel is wholly or partially by 

automatic means, the vessel must have 

alternative arrangements for the 

satisfactory tending, feeding, and 

watering of the animals in the event of 

a malfunction of the automatic means. 

(6) Ventilation. Ventilation during 

loading, unloading, and transport must 

provide fresh air and remove excessive 

heat, humidity, and noxious fumes 

(such as ammonia and carbon dioxide). 

Ventilation must be adequate for 

variations in climate and weather and to 

meet the needs of the livestock being 

transported. Ventilation must be 

effective both when the vessel is 

stationary and when it is moving and 

must be turned on when the first animal 

is loaded. The vessel must have on 

board a back-up ventilation system 

(including emergency power supply) in 

good working order or replacement 

parts and the means, including qualified 

personnel, to make the repairs or 

replacements. 

(7) Waste management. The vessel 

must have a system or arrangements, 

including a backup system in working 

order or alternate arrangements, for 

managing waste to prevent excessive 

buildup in livestock transport spaces 

during the voyage. 

(8) Lighting. The vessel must have 

adequate illumination to allow clear 

observation of livestock during loading, 

unloading, and transport. 

(9) Bedding. Bedding must be loaded 

and stored aboard the vessel in a 

manner that protects it from weather 

and sea water and, if kept under animal 

transport spaces, protects it from 

spillage from animal watering and 

feeding and from animal waste. 

(10) Cleaning. The vessel must be 

designed and constructed to allow 

thorough cleaning and disinfection and 

to prevent feces and urine from 

livestock on upper levels from soiling 

livestock or their feed or water on lower 

levels. 

(11) Halters and ropes. Halters, ropes, 

or other equipment provided for the 

handling and tying of horses or other 

livestock must be satisfactory to ensure 

the humane treatment of the livestock. 

(12) Personnel. The owner or operator 

of the ocean vessel must have on board 

during loading, transport, and 

unloading at least 3 persons (or at least 

1 person if fewer than 800 head of 

livestock will be transported) with 

previous experience with ocean vessels 

that have handled the kind(s) of 

livestock to be carried, as well as a 

sufficient number of attendants with the 

appropriate experience to be able to 

ensure proper care of the livestock. 

(13) Vessel stability. The vessel must 

have adequate stability, taking into 

consideration the weight and 

distribution of livestock and fodder, as 

well as effects of high winds and seas. 

If requested by APHIS, the owner or 

operator of the vessel must present 

stability calculations for the voyage that 

have been independently verified for 

accuracy. 

(14) Additional conditions. The vessel 

must meet any other condition the 

Administrator determines is necessary 

for approval, as dictated by specific 

circumstances and communicated to the 

owner and operator of the vessel, to 

protect the livestock and keep them 

healthy during loading, unloading, and 

transport to the importing country. 

(e) Accommodations for the humane 

transport of livestock; vessels using 

shipping containers. An inspector may 

exempt an ocean vessel that uses 

shipping containers to transport 

livestock to an importing country from 

requirements in paragraph (d) of this 

section that he or she specifies, if the 

inspector determines that the containers 

themselves are designed, constructed, 

and managed in a manner to reasonably 

assure the livestock are protected from 

injury and remain healthy during 

loading, unloading, and transport to the 

importing country. The Program 

Handbook contains exemption 

guidance. 

(f) Operator’s report. (1) The owner or 

operator of any ocean vessel used to 

export livestock (including vessels that 

use shipping containers) from the 

United States must submit a written 

report to APHIS within 5 business days 

after completing a voyage. The report 

must include the name of the ocean 

vessel; the name and address of all 

exporters of livestock transported on the 

vessel; the port of embarkation; dates of 

the voyage; the port where the livestock 

were discharged; the number of each 

species of livestock loaded; and the 

number of each species that died and an 

explanation for those mortalities. The 

report must also document any failure 

of any major life support system for the 

livestock, including, but not limited to, 

systems for providing feed and water, 

ventilation systems, and livestock waste 

management systems. Any such failure 

must be documented, regardless of the 

duration or whether the failure resulted 

in any harm to the livestock. The report 

must include the name, telephone 

number, and email address of the 

person who prepared the report and the 

date of the report. The report must be 

submitted to APHIS by facsimile or 

email. Contact numbers and addresses, 

as well as an optional template for the 

report, are provided in the Program 

Handbook. 

(2) If an ocean vessel used to export 

livestock experiences any failure of a 

major life support system for livestock 

during the voyage, the owner or 

operator of the ocean vessel must notify 

APHIS immediately by telephone, 

facsimile, or other electronic means. 

Contact numbers and addresses are 

provided in the Program Handbook. 

(3) Failure to provide timely reports 

as required by this section may result in 

APHIS disapproving future livestock 

shipments by the responsible owner or 

operator or revoking the vessel’s 

certification under paragraph (a) of this 

section to carry livestock. 

§ 91.13 Aircraft. 

(a) Prior to loading livestock aboard 

aircraft, the stowage area of the aircraft 

and any loading ramps, fittings, and 

equipment to be used in loading the 

animals must be cleaned and then 

disinfected with a disinfectant approved 

by the Administrator, to the satisfaction 

of an APHIS representative, unless the 

representative determines that the 

aircraft has already been cleaned and 

disinfected to his or her satisfaction. 

(1) The Administrator will approve a 

disinfectant for the purposes of this 

section upon determining that the 

disinfectant is effective against 

pathogens that may be spread by the 

animals and, if the disinfectant is a 

chemical disinfectant, that it is 

registered or exempted for the specified 

use by the U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency. 

(2) The Program Handbook provides 

access to a list of disinfectants approved 

by the Administrator for use as required 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 38 / Thursday, February 26, 2015 / Proposed Rules 10417 

1Section 1026.58 uses the terms card issuer (or 

issuer) and credit card agreement (or agreement) in 

lieu of the terms creditor and open-end consumer 

credit card plan, respectively, that are used in 

section 122(d) of TILA. 

by this section. Other disinfectants may 

also be approved by the Administrator 

in accordance with paragraph (a)(1) of 

this section. 

(3) The Administrator will withdraw 

approval of a disinfectant, and remove 

it from the list of approved disinfectants 

in the Program Handbook, if the 

disinfectant no longer meets the 

conditions for approval in this section. 

(b) The time at which the cleaning 

and disinfection are to be performed 

must be approved by the APHIS 

representative, who will give approval 

only if he or she determines that the 

cleaning and disinfection will be 

effective up to the projected time the 

livestock will be loaded. If the livestock 

are not loaded by the projected time, the 

APHIS representative will determine 

whether further cleaning and 

disinfection are necessary. 

(c) The cleaning must remove all 

garbage, soil, manure, plant materials, 

insects, paper, and other debris from the 

stowage area. The disinfectant solution 

must be applied with a device that 

creates an aerosol or mist that covers 

100 percent of the surfaces in the 

stowage area, except for any loaded 

cargo and deck surface under it that, in 

the opinion of the APHIS representative, 

do not contain material, such as garbage, 

soil, manure, plant materials, insects, 

waste paper, or debris, that may harbor 

animal disease pathogens. 

(d) After cleaning and disinfection is 

performed, the APHIS representative 

will sign and deliver to the captain of 

the aircraft or other responsible official 

of the airline involved a document 

stating that the aircraft has been 

properly cleaned and disinfected, and 

stating further the date, the carrier, the 

flight number, and the name of the 

airport and the city and state in which 

it is located. If an aircraft is cleaned and 

disinfected at one airport, then flies to 

a subsequent airport, with or without 

stops en route, to load animals for 

export, an APHIS representative at the 

subsequent airport will determine, 

based on examination of the cleaning 

and disinfection documents, whether 

the previous cleaning and disinfection 

is adequate or whether to order a new 

cleaning and disinfection. If the aircraft 

has loaded any cargo in addition to 

animals, the APHIS representative at the 

subsequent airport will determine 

whether to order a new cleaning and 

disinfection, based on both examination 

of the cleaning and disinfection 

documents and on the inspection of the 

stowage area for materials, such as 

garbage, soil, manure, plant materials, 

insects, waste paper, or debris, that may 

harbor animal disease pathogens. 

(e) Cargo containers used to ship 

livestock must be designed and 

constructed of a material of sufficient 

strength to securely contain the animals 

and must provide sufficient space for 

the species being transported given the 

duration of the trip, as determined by 

APHIS. 

§ 91.14 Other movements and conditions. 

The Administrator may, upon request 

in specific cases, permit the exportation 

of livestock not otherwise provided for 

in this part under such conditions as he 

or she may prescribe in each specific 

case to prevent the spread of livestock 

diseases and to ensure the humane 

treatment of the animals during 

transport to the importing country. 

Done in Washington, DC, this 20th day of 

February 2015. 

Kevin Shea, 

Administrator, Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service. 

[FR Doc. 2015–04013 Filed 2–25–15; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P 

BUREAU OF CONSUMER FINANCIAL 

PROTECTION 

12 CFR Part 1026 

[Docket No. CFPB–2015–0006] 

RIN 3170–AA50 

Submission of Credit Card Agreements 

Under the Truth In Lending Act 

(Regulation Z) 

AGENCY: Bureau of Consumer Financial 

Protection. 

ACTION: Proposed rule; request for 

public comment. 

SUMMARY: The Bureau of Consumer 

Financial Protection (Bureau) is 

proposing to amend Regulation Z, 

which implements the Truth in Lending 

Act, and the official interpretation to 

that regulation. The proposal would 

temporarily suspend card issuers’ 

obligations to submit credit card 

agreements to the Bureau for a period of 

one year (i.e., four quarterly 

submissions), in order to reduce burden 

while the Bureau works to develop a 

more streamlined and automated 

electronic submission system. Other 

requirements, including card issuers’ 

obligations to post currently-offered 

agreements on their own Web sites, 

would remain unaffected. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 13, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, 

identified by Docket No. CFPB–2015– 

0006 or RIN 3170–AA50, by any of the 

following methods: 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. Follow the 

instructions for submitting comments. 

• Email: FederalRegisterComments@

cfpb.gov. Include Docket No. CFPB– 

2015–0006 and/or RIN 3170–AA50 in 

the subject line of the email. 

• Mail: Monica Jackson, Office of the 

Executive Secretary, Consumer 

Financial Protection Bureau, 1700 G 

Street NW., Washington, DC 20552. 

• Hand Delivery/Courier: Monica 

Jackson, Office of the Executive 

Secretary, Consumer Financial 

Protection Bureau, 1275 First Street NE., 

Washington, DC 20002. 

Instructions: All submissions should 

include the agency name and docket 

number or Regulatory Information 

Number (RIN) for this rulemaking. 

Because paper mail in the Washington, 

DC area and at the Bureau is subject to 

delay, commenters are encouraged to 

submit comments electronically. In 

general, all comments received will be 

posted without change to http://

www.regulations.gov. In addition, 

comments will be available for public 

inspection and copying at 1275 First 

Street NE., Washington, DC 20002, on 

official business days between the hours 

of 10 a.m. and 5 p.m. Eastern Time. You 

can make an appointment to inspect the 

documents by telephoning (202) 435– 

7275. 

All comments, including attachments 

and other supporting materials, will 

become part of the public record and 

subject to public disclosure. Sensitive 

personal information, such as account 

numbers or social security numbers, 

should not be included. Comments 

generally will not be edited to remove 

any identifying or contact information. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Thomas L. Devlin, Counsel, or Kristine 

M. Andreassen, Senior Counsel, Office 

of Regulations, at (202) 435–7700. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

I. Summary of the Proposed Rule 

The Truth in Lending Act (TILA), in 

section 122(d), requires creditors to post 

agreements for open-end consumer 

credit card plans on the creditors’ Web 

sites and to submit those agreements to 

the Bureau. 15 U.S.C. 1632(d). These 

provisions are implemented in 

§ 1026.58 of Regulation Z.1 12 CFR 

1026.58. The Bureau is proposing to 

temporarily suspend the requirement in 

§ 1026.58(c) that card issuers submit 

credit card agreements to the Bureau for 


rmajette on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS