Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 64641

Done in Washington, DC, this 2nd day of 

November 2004. 

Elizabeth E. Gaston, 

Acting Administrator, Animal and Plant 

Health Inspection Service.

[FR Doc. 04–24827 Filed 11–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–34–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Agricultural Marketing Service 

7 CFR Part 905

[Docket No. FV04–905–2 FIR] 

Oranges, Grapefruit, Tangerines, and 

Tangelos Grown in Florida; Exemption 

for Shipments of Tree Run Citrus

AGENCY: Agricultural Marketing Service, 

USDA.

ACTION: Final rule.

SUMMARY: The Department of 

Agriculture is adopting, as a final rule, 

without change, an interim final rule 

that established an exemption for 

shipments of small quantities of tree run 

citrus from the rules and regulations 

under the Florida citrus marketing 

order(order). The order regulates the 

handling of oranges, grapefruit, 

tangerines, and tangelos grown in 

Florida and is administered locally by 

the Citrus Administrative Committee 

(Committee). Under rule, shipments of 

tree run citrus continue to be exempt 

from grade, size, and assessment 

requirements under the order. Producers 

can ship 150 13⁄5 bushel boxes, per 

variety, per shipment of their own citrus 

free from order regulations, not to 

exceed 3,000 boxes per variety season. 

The Committee believes this action may 

be a way to increase fresh market 

shipments, develop new markets, and 

improve grower returns.

EFFECTIVE DATE: December 8, 2004.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Cathy Harding, SoutheastMarketing 

Field Office, Marketing Order 

Administration Branch, Fruit and 

Vegetable Programs, AMS, USDA, 799 

Overlook Drive, Suite A, Winter 

Haven,Florida 33884–1671; telephone: 

(863) 324–3375. Fax:(863) 325–8793; or 

George Kelhart, Technical Advisor, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs, 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW., STOP 0237 Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; telephone: (202) 720–

2491, Fax: (202) 720–8938. 

Small businesses may request 

information on complying with this 

regulation by contacting Jay Guerber, 

Marketing Order Administration 

Branch, Fruit and Vegetable Programs 

AMS, USDA, 1400 Independence 

Avenue SW., STOP 0237,Washington, 

DC 20250–0237; telephone: (202) 720–

2491, Fax:(202) 720–8938, or E-mail: 

Jay.Guerber@usda.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This rule 

is issued underMarketing Agreement 

No. 84 and Marketing Order No. 905, 

both as amended (7 CFR part 905), 

regulating the handling of oranges, 

grapefruit, tangerines, and tangelos 

grown in Florida, hereinafter referred to 

as the ‘‘order.’’The order is effective 

under the Agricultural Marketing 

Agreement Act of 1937, as amended (7 

U.S.C. 601–674), hereinafter referred to 

as the ‘‘Act.’’

USDA is issuing this rule in 

conformance with Executive Order 

12866. 

This rule has been reviewed under 

Executive Order 12988, Civil Justice 

Reform. This rule is not intended to 

retroactive effect. This rule will not 

preempt any State or local laws, 

regulations, or policies, unless they 

present an irreconcilable conflict with 

this rule. 

The Act provides that administrative 

proceedings must be exhausted before 

parties may file suit in court. Under 

Section 608c(15)(A) of the Act, any 

handler subject to an order may file 

with USDA a petition stating that the 

order, provision of the order, or any 

obligation imposed in connection with 

the order is not in accordance with law 

and request a modification of the order 

or to be exempted therefrom. A handler 

is afforded the opportunity for a hearing 

on the petition. After the hearing USDA 

would rule on the petition. The Act 

provides that the district court of the 

United States in any district in which 

the handler is an inhabitant, or has his 

or her principal place of business, has 

jurisdiction to review USDA’s ruling on 

the petition, provided an action is filed 

not later than 20 days after the date of 

the entry of the ruling.

This rule continues in effect an 

exemption for shipments of small 

quantities of tree run citrus from the 

grade, size, and assessment 

requirements under the order. Tree run 

fruit is quality citrus picked and boxed 

in the field and taken directly to market 

without being graded or sized. By 

providing this exemption, producers 

can ship 150 13⁄5 bushel boxes per 

variety, per shipment, of their own 

citrus free from order regulations. Total 

shipments cannot exceed 3,000 boxes 

per variety, per season. The Committee 

believes this action may be a way to 

increase fresh market shipments, 

develop new markets, and improve 

grower returns. This action was 

recommended unanimously by the 

Committee at its meeting on June 15, 

2004. 

Section 905.80 of the order provides 

authority for the Committee to exempt 

certain types of shipments from 

regulation. Exemptions can be 

implemented for types of shipments of 

any variety in such minimum 

quantities, or for such purposes as the 

Committee, with the approval of USDA, 

may specify. No assessment is levied on 

fruit so shipped. The Committee shall, 

with the approval of USDA, prescribe 

such rules, regulations, or safeguards as 

it deems necessary to prevent varieties 

handled under the provisions of this 

section from entering channels of trade 

for other than the purposes authorized 

by this section. 

Section 905.149 of the order’s rules 

and regulations defines grower tree run 

citrus and outlines the procedures to be 

used for growers to apply to the 

Committee to ship their own tree run 

citrus exempt from grade, size, and 

assessment requirements. The 

provisions were originally established 

just for the 2002–03 season, then 

extended for the 2003–04 season. 

During the 2003–04 season, growers 

were allowed to ship a maximum of 150 

13⁄5 bushel boxes per variety, per 

shipment, up to a seasonal total of 3,000 

boxes per variety of their tree run fruit 

free from order requirements. 

For the past two seasons, the 

Committee has utilized the provisions of 

§ 905.149 on an annual basis. Rather 

than making this recommendation each 

year, the Committee recommended that 

the provisions of § 905.149 be 

established on a continuous basis. 

However, growers must receive 

approval from the Committee before 

they can utilize this exemption. 

According to Florida Department of 

Citrus (FDOC) regulation 20–35.006, 

‘‘Tree run grade is that grade of 

naturally occurring sound and 

wholesome citrus fruit which has not 

been separated either as to grade or size 

after severance from the tree.’’ Also, 

(FDOC) regulation 20–62.002 defines 

wholesomeness as fruit free from rot, 

decay sponginess, unsoundness, 

leakage, staleness, or other conditions 

showing physical defects of the fruit. By 

definition, this fruit is handled by the 

grower and bypasses normal handler 

operations. Prior to implementation of 

the exemption, all tree run citrus had to 

meet all requirements of the marketing 

order, as well as State of Florida 

Statutes and Florida Department of 

Citrus regulations. Even with this rule, 

tree run citrus must continue to meet 

applicable State of Florida Statutes and 

Florida Department of Citrus 

64642 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

regulations, including inspection and 

any container marking requirements. 

However, growers will be able to pick, 

box, ship directly to buyers, and avoid 

the costs incurred when citrus is 

handled by packinghouses. 

During the season prior to the 

utilization of§ 905.149, small producers 

of Florida citrus expressed concerns 

about problems incurred when trying to 

sell their citrus. costs, These concerns 

included increasing production costs, 

limited returns, and the availability of 

markets. For some growers, there is 

limited demand for the variety of citrus 

they produce or they do not produce 

much volume. Consequently, they have 

difficulty getting packinghouses to pack 

their fruit. These problems, along with 

market conditions, have driven a fair 

number of small citrus growers out of 

the citrus industry.

According to the Florida Agricultural 

Statistics Service, from 1998–99 to 

2002–03, fresh grapefruit sales have 

dropped 22 percent and fresh orange 

shipments are down 11 percent. This 

means fewer cartons are being packed. 

This can cause problems for varieties 

that may be out of favor with handlers 

and consumers, or for a particular 

variety of fruit where there may be a 

glut on the market. As a result, 

packinghouses do not wish to become 

over stocked with fruit which is difficult 

to market and therefore, will not pack 

less popular minor varieties of fruit or 

fruit that is in oversupply. 

Packinghouses do not want to pack 

what they cannot sell. These factors 

have caused wholesome fruit to be 

shipped to processing plants or left on 

the tree. 

When citrus cannot be sold into the 

fresh market, it can be sold to the 

processing plants. However, the prices 

received are considerably lower. During 

the last seven seasons, only the 1999–

2000 season produced on-tree returns 

for processed grapefruit that exceeded 

one dollar per box. Over the period from 

1998–99 through 2002–03, the 

differential between fresh prices and 

processed prices has averaged $4.43 per 

box for grapefruit and $2.20 per box for 

oranges. Hence, many growers would 

prefer to ship to the fresh market. 

In addition, the costs associated with 

growing for the fresh market are greater 

than the costs for growing for processed 

market. While the costs of growing for 

the fresh market have been increasing, 

in many cases the returns to the grower 

have been decreasing. The cost of 

picking, packing, hauling, and 

associated handling costs for fresh fruit 

is sometimes greater than the grower’s 

return on the fruit. In some cases, where 

the cost of harvesting exceeds the 

returns to the grower or the grower 

cannot find a buyer for the fruit, 

economic abandonment can occur. 

According to information from the 

National Agricultural Statistics Service, 

the seasons of 1995–96, 1996–97, 1997–

98, and 2000–01 had an average 

economic abandonment of two million 

boxes or more of red seedless grapefruit 

alone. 

As a result, growers are looking for 

other outlets for their fruit in an effort 

to increase returns. Some growers 

believe secondary markets exist which 

are not currently being supplied that 

would provide additional outlets for 

their citrus. They think niche markets 

exist that could be profitable and want 

the opportunity to continue servicing 

them. They believe they can ship 

quality fruit directly to out-of-state 

markets and that it would be well 

received. 

These growers contend tree run citrus 

does not need a minimum grade and 

size to be marketable, and that they can 

supply quality fruit to secondary 

markets not served by packed fruit. 

However, they believe they need to 

bypass normal handler operations and 

the associated costs for it to be 

profitable. 

To address these concerns, the 

Committee recommended for the past 

two seasons that producers be allowed 

to ship small quantities of their own 

production directly to the market 

exempt from order requirements. The 

exemption was established on an annual 

basis for the 2002–03 season [68 FR 

4361, January 29, 2003] and for the 

2003–04 season [68 FR 68717, December 

10, 2003]. The exemption for the 2003–

04 season expired July 31, 2004. 

The Committee recommended this 

exemption on a yearly basis for the past 

two seasons to determine its affect and 

how fruit shipped under the exemption 

was received on market. The Committee 

was interested in whether markets 

existed that packed fruit was not 

supplying. They also wanted an 

indication of the number of growers 

interested in utilizing the exemption 

and the volume of citrus shipped under 

the exemption. In addition, the 

Committee wanted information 

regarding any compliance issues or any 

impact on competitive outlets.

During the 2003–04 season, 101 

growers were approved to ship under 

the exemption. Approximately 40 

growers actually used the exemption, 

shipping a total of nearly 16,000 13⁄5

bushel boxes of oranges, grapefruit, 

tangerines, and tangelos. This is an 

increase from 23 growers shipping 

approximately 4,500 boxes during the 

2002–03 season. Those producers who 

took advantage of the exemption believe 

that the program was successful. They 

were able to sell their fruit and supply 

markets not already supplied by 

traditional packers. Growers also believe 

more markets exist. They think with 

time, they can identify additional 

markets. Thus, growers want to 

continue to have the opportunity to 

supply these markets. 

The Committee had agreed that 

following the 2003–04 season, it would 

review the information provided by 

growers who applied for and used the 

tree run exemption to determine if the 

exemption should be continued. In the 

June 15, 2004, meeting, the Committee 

discussed this issue, and considered the 

impact and benefits of the exemption. 

The Committee also reviewed a letter 

in support of the exemption from 

Florida Citrus Mutual, a large grower 

organization. The Committee believes 

that markets have been developed and 

that tree run fruit will continue to be 

sold primarily to non-competitive, niche 

markets, such as farmers’ markets, flea 

markets, roadside stands, and similar 

outlets and will not compete with nonexempt fruit shipped under the order. 

Fruit is sold in similar markets within 

the State, and such markets have been 

successful. Continuing this exemption 

allows growers to sell directly to similar 

markets outside of the State, supplying 

markets that might not otherwise be 

supplied. The Committee believes this 

action will allow the industry to service 

more non-traditional markets and may 

be a way to increase fresh market 

shipments and to develop new markets. 

Consequently, the Committee voted 

unanimously to extend the tree run 

exemption on a continuous basis. 

Growers will continue to be required 

to apply to the Committee, on the 

‘‘Grower Tree Run Certificate 

Application’’ form provided by the 

Committee, for an exemption to ship 

tree run citrus fruit to interstate markets. 

On this form, the grower must provide 

their name; address; phone number; 

legal description of the grove; variety of 

citrus to be shipped; and the 

approximate number of boxes produced 

in the specified grove. The grower must 

also certify that fruit to be shipped 

comes from the grove owned by the 

grower applicant. The application form 

will be submitted to the Committee 

manager and reviewed for completeness 

and accuracy. The manager will also 

verify the information provided. After 

the application has been reviewed, the 

manager will notify the grower 

applicant in writing whether the 

application is approved or denied. 

Once the grower has received 

approval for their application for 

Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 64643

exemption and begins shipping fruit, a 

‘‘Report of Shipments Under Grower 

Tree Run Certificate’’ form, also 

provided by the Committee, must be 

completed for each shipment. On this 

form, the grower will provide location 

of the grove, the amount of fruit 

shipped, the shipping date, and the type 

of transportation used to ship the fruit, 

along with the vehicle license number. 

The grower must supply the Road Guard 

Station with a copy of the grower 

certificate report for each shipment, and 

provide a copy of the report to the 

Committee. This report will enable the 

Committee to maintain compliance. 

Failure to comply with these 

requirements may result in the 

cancellation of a grower’s certificate. 

This rule does not affect the provision 

that handlers may ship up to 15 

standard packed cartons (12 bushels) of 

fruit per day exempt from regulatory 

requirements. Fruit shipped in gift 

packages that are individually 

addressed and not for resale, and fruit 

shipped for animal feed are also exempt 

from handling requirements under 

specific conditions. Also, fruit shipped 

to commercial processors for conversion 

into canned or frozen products or into 

a beverage base are not subject to the 

handling requirements under the order.

Section 8e of the Act requires that 

whenever grade, quality, or maturity 

requirements are in effect for certain 

commodities under a domestic 

marketing order, including citrus, 

imports of that commodity must meet 

the same or comparable requirements. 

This rule does not change the minimum 

grade and size requirements under the 

order. Therefore, no change is necessary 

in the citrus import regulations as a 

result of this action. 

Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis 

Pursuant to requirements set forth in 

the Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), the 

Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) 

has considered the economic impact of 

this action on small entities. 

Accordingly, AMS has prepared this 

final regulatory flexibility analysis. 

The purpose of the RFA is to fit 

regulatory actions to the scale of 

business subject to such actions in order 

that small businesses will not be unduly 

or disproportionately burdened. 

Marketing orders issued pursuant to the 

Act, and rules issued thereunder, are 

unique in that they are brought about 

through group action of essentially 

small entities acting on their own 

behalf. Thus, both statutes have small 

entity orientation and compatibility. 

There are approximately 11,000 

producers of Florida citrus in the 

production area and approximately 75 

handlers subject to regulation under the 

marketing order. Small agricultural 

producers are defined by the Small 

Business Administration (SBA) as those 

having annual receipts of less than 

$750,000, and small agricultural service 

firms are defined as those whose annual 

receipts are less than $5,000,000 (13 

CFR 121.201). 

Based on industry and Committee 

data, the average annual f.o.b. price for 

fresh Florida oranges, grapefruit, 

tangerines, and tangelos during the 

2003–04 season was approximately 

$8.69 per 4/5 bushel carton, and total 

fresh shipments for the 2003–04 season 

were around 52 million cartons of 

oranges, grapefruit, tangerines, and 

tangelos. Twenty handlers handled 

approximately 66 percent of Florida’s 

citrus shipments in 2003–04. 

Considering the average f.o.b. price, at 

least 55 percent of the orange grapefruit, 

tangerine, and tangelo handlers could be 

considered small businesses under 

SBA’s definition. Therefore, the 

majority of Florida citrus handlers may 

be classified as small entities. The 

majority of Florida citrus producers may 

also be classified as small entities. 

This rule establishes the provisions of 

§ 905.149 of the rules and regulations on 

a continuous basis. This rule continues 

in effect an exemption for shipments of 

small quantities of tree run citrus from 

the grade, size, assessment requirements 

under the order. Growers must receive 

approval from the Committee before 

they can use this exemption. The 

Committee believes this action may be 

a way to increase fresh market 

shipments, develop new markets, and 

improve grower returns. Authority for 

this action is provided in § 905.80(e). 

According to a study by the 

University of Florida—Institute of Food 

and Agricultural Sciences, production 

costs for the 2001–02 season ranged 

from $1.71 per box for processed 

oranges to $2.41 per box for grapefruit 

grown for the fresh market. The average 

packing charge for oranges is 

approximately $6.50 per box, for 

grapefruit the charge is approximately 

$5.75 per box, and for tangerines the 

charge can be as high as $9 per box. 

Sending fruit to a packinghouse can be 

cost prohibitive, especially for the small 

grower. This rule may provide an 

additional outlet for fruit that might 

otherwise be forced into the processing 

market or left on the tree altogether. For 

the 2003–04 season, this exemption 

accounted for additional fresh 

shipments totaling over 32,000 cartons. 

This rule will not impose any 

additional costs on the grower. It will 

have the opposite effect of providing 

growers the opportunity to reduce the 

costs associated with having fruit 

handled by a packinghouse. This action 

will continue to allow growers to ship 

small quantities of their tree run citrus 

directly into interstate commerce 

exempt from the order’s grade, size, and 

assessment requirements and their 

related costs. With this action, growers 

will be able to reduce handling costs 

and use those savings toward 

developing additional markets not 

serviced by the traditional 

packinghouses. This regulation will 

help growers by providing another 

outlet for their fruit. This will benefit all 

growers regardless of size, but it is 

expected to have a particular benefit for 

small growers who need additional 

revenue to meet operating costs.

The Committee considered one 

alternative to this action. The possible 

alternative was to not continue the 

exemption. However, the Committee 

believes the exemption provides other 

possible outlets for fruit and may help 

increase returns to growers. Therefore, 

this alternative was rejected. 

In accordance with the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 44 U.S.C. 

Chapter 35), the information collection 

requirements contained in this rule have 

been previously approved by the Office 

of Management and Budget (OMB) and 

assigned OMB No. 0581–0189. USDA 

has not identified any relevant Federal 

rules that duplicate, overlap or conflict 

with this rule. As with all Federal 

marketing order programs, reports and 

forms are periodically reviewed to 

reduce information requirements and 

duplication by industry and public 

sector agencies. 

The Committee’s meeting was widely 

publicized throughout the citrus 

industry and all interested persons were 

invited to attend the meeting and 

participate in Committee deliberations. 

Like all Committee meetings, the June 

15, 2004, meeting was a public meeting 

and all entities, both large and small, 

were able to express their views on this 

issue. 

An interim final rule concerning this 

action was published in the Federal 

Register on August 16, 2004. Copies of 

the rule were mailed, e-mailed or faxed 

by the Committee staff to all Committee 

members and tree run citrus growers. In 

addition, the rule was made available 

through the Internet by the Office of the 

Federal Register and USDA. That rule 

provided for a 60-day comment period 

that ended October 15, 2004. No 

comments were received. 

A small business guide on complying 

with fruit, vegetable, and specialty crop 

marketing agreements and orders may 

be viewed at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/

fv/moab.html. Any questions about the 

64644 Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 215 / Monday, November 8, 2004 / Rules and Regulations 

compliance guide should be sent to Jay 

Guerber at the previously mentioned 

address in the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT section. 

After consideration of all relevant 

material presented, including the 

Committee’s recommendation, and 

other available information, it is hereby 

found that finalizing the interim final 

rule, without change, as published in 

the Federal Register (69 FR 50265, 

August 16, 2004) will tend to effectuate 

the declared policy of the Act.

List of Subjects in 7 CFR Part 905

Grapefruit, Marketing agreements, 

Oranges, Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Tangelos, Tangerines.

PART 905—ORANGES, GRAPEFRUIT, 

TANGERINES, AND TANGELOS 

GROWN IN FLORIDA

■ Accordingly, the interim final rule 

amending 7 CFR part 905 which was 

published at 69 FR 50265 on August 16, 

2004, is adopted as a final rule without 

change.

Dated: November 2, 2004. 

A.J. Yates, 

Administrator, Agricultural Marketing 

Service.

[FR Doc. 04–24825 Filed 11–5–04; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3410–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

Animal and Plant Health Inspection 

Service 

9 CFR Parts 71, 77, 78, 79, 80, 85, and 

93

[Docket No. 04–052–1] 

Livestock Identification; Use of 

Alternative Numbering Systems

AGENCY: Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service, USDA.

ACTION: Interim rule and request for 

comments. 

SUMMARY: We are amending the 

regulations to recognize additional 

numbering systems for the identification 

of animals in interstate commerce and 

State/Federal/industry cooperative 

disease control and eradication 

programs. Additionally, we are 

amending the regulations to authorize 

the use of a numbering system to 

identify premises where animals are 

managed or held. These new numbering 

systems will be a key element in a 

national animal identification system 

that is being implemented by the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, at present on 

a voluntary basis. The changes we are 

making to the regulations are necessary 

to allow the use of these new numbering 

systems for official purposes. Use of the 

new numbering systems will not, 

however, be required as a result of this 

rulemaking. Finally, we are amending 

the regulations to prohibit the removal 

of official identification devices and to 

eliminate potential regulatory obstacles 

to the recognition of emerging 

technologies that could offer viable 

alternatives to existing animal 

identification devices and methods.

DATES: This interim rule is effective 

November 8, 2004. We will consider all 

comments that we receive on or before 

January 7, 2005.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments 

by any of the following methods: 

• EDOCKET (Preferred Method): Go to 

http://www.epa.gov/feddocket to submit 

or view public comments on this 

docket. Once you have entered 

EDOCKET, click on the ‘‘View Open 

APHIS Dockets’’ link to locate this 

document. 

• Postal Mail/Commercial Delivery:

Please send four copies of your 

comment (an original and three copies) 

to Docket No. 04–052–1, Regulatory 

Analysis and Development, PPD, 

APHIS, Station 3C71, 4700 River Road 

Unit 118, Riverdale, MD 20737–1238. 

Please state that your comment refers to 

Docket No. 04–052–1. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov and follow 

the instructions for locating this docket 

and submitting comments. 

Reading Room: You may read any 

comments that we receive on this 

docket in our reading room. The reading 

room 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) 690–2817 before 

coming. 

Other Information: You may view 

APHIS documents published in the 

Federal Register and related 

information, including the names of 

groups and individuals who have 

commented on APHIS dockets, on the 

Internet at http://www.aphis.usda.gov/

ppd/rad/webrepor.html.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mr. Neil Hammerschmidt, Animal 

Identification Coordinator, National 

Center for Animal Health Programs, VS, 

APHIS, 4700 River Road, Unit 39, 

Riverdale, MD 20737–1231; (301) 734–

5571.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background 

The Animal and Plant Health 

Inspection Service (APHIS) of the U.S. 

Department of Agriculture (USDA) 

regulates the interstate movement of 

certain animals to prevent the spread of 

livestock and poultry diseases within 

the United States. The interstate 

movement regulations are contained in 

9 CFR chapter I, subchapter C (parts 70 

through 89). APHIS also has regulations 

providing for the payment of indemnity 

for certain animals that are destroyed to 

prevent the spread of various diseases. 

The indemnity regulations are 

contained in 9 CFR chapter I, 

subchapter B (parts 49 through 55). 

Among other things, the interstate 

movement regulations, as well as some 

of the indemnity regulations, contain 

requirements for the official 

identification of animals. 

The official numbering systems 

recognized under the regulations prior 

to this interim rule, such as the National 

Uniform Eartagging System, have been 

vital to disease control and eradication 

programs, but may not be well suited for 

uses outside of those programs. For 

example, many producers use separate 

identification numbers or methods for 

on-farm production purposes, animal 

data recording, genetic evaluation, and 

breed registration. Assigning multiple 

identification numbers to an animal 

may necessitate attaching multiple 

identification tags or devices to the 

animal, and some identification devices 

are inevitably lost over time. The ability 

to access information about a particular 

animal may also be impaired when data 

about that animal are stored in various 

databases under various numbering 

systems. Furthermore, as diseases such 

as tuberculosis, brucellosis, and 

pseudorabies are eradicated from the 

United States, fewer animals are 

required to be officially identified under 

the regulations. As a result, our ability 

to trace diseased animals back to their 

herds of origin and to trace other 

potentially exposed animals forward is 

being compromised. 

To address these considerations, 

USDA has identified the need for a 

national animal identification system 

(NAIS) and defined several key 

objectives for such a system. These 

include: (1) Allowing producers, to the 

extent possible, the flexibility to use 

current systems or adopt new ones; (2) 

having a system that is technology 

neutral, so that all existing effective 

technologies and new technologies that 

may be developed in the future may be 

utilized; (3) having a system that builds 

upon national data standards to ensure 

that a uniform and compatible system